Breakthroughs Blog: SDGs

As is tradition, the World Health Organization (WHO) Executive Board (EB) kicked off what promises to be another packed multilateral calendar. While much has remained the same, this year’s forum also ushered in noteworthy shifts in deliberations, dynamics, and dialogue that advocates should be aware of. Here are GHTC’s top takeaways from the week: 1. EB shrinks space for civil society engagement. As civil society delegates entered the halls of WHO for the EB for the first time since 2020, they were confronted with a harsh reality: The ability for non-state actors to meaningfully participate in these meetings is at an all-time low. New protocols had been introduced limiting delegation size and physical and structural changes put in place that left civil society literally on the outside looking in. Gone are the days when civil society could be physically present in the assembly room to follow the proceedings. Instead, advocates were relegated to a small, hot, and stuffy overflow room, more akin to a small press room, located far away from the official proceedings, hampering their ability to connect with officials and country delegates, which is often the most valuable part of the week. As EB participation and the number of agenda items have ballooned, WHO has also imposed new constraints on civil society statements, which have hit non-state actors particularly hard. WHO has tried to force civil society organizations to come together and develop single constituency statements for certain agenda items, a challenge that often further dilutes specific technical feedback from a diverse set of voices as various WHO-accredited institutions try to reconcile diverging views into a single, cohesive communication. Individual interventions are now reduced to just one minute, and they must be uploaded to a WHO database prior to the start of that agenda item. Apart from the challenge of distilling feedback and technical input down to around 100 words, the requirement to upload in advance prohibits advocates from rebutting issues that arise during debate or meaningfully influencing the decision making in real time. Other United Nations (UN) agencies, such as the World Trade Organization and the World Intellectual Property Organization have far more robust and meaningful civil society engagement processes that could serve as better models for WHO to emulate. 2. Debate on WHO’s work in health emergencies goes into the next round. Global politics tend to spill over into the parliamentary debates at EB, and this year was no different with the war in Ukraine creating serious tension between western allies and Russia. Much of the debate surrounding WHO’s role in health emergencies was derailed by several testy back-and-forths between delegations, leading to disruptions and little progress on key agenda items. A new ten-point proposal from WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus to improve preparedness and response to health emergencies also received mixed reviews from WHO member states, with many warning the WHO secretariat not to move ahead of member states and the already ongoing processes to amend the International Health Regulations and negotiate a pandemic accord.  The latter did make waves at this EB, as the WHO Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) published a “zero-draft,” that included a few surprises. The draft features some strong, equity-focused language, as well as calls for building and strengthening country regulatory, manufacturing, and innovative research and development (R&D) capacities for pandemic-related products. Surprisingly, it also features numerous callouts and provisions focused on intellectual property, including incentivizing relevant transfers of technology and know-how, forcing manufacturers that receive public funding to disclose prices for pandemic-related products, and time-bound waivers on medical countermeasures that can accelerate or scale up manufacturing, signaling the key battlegrounds for upcoming negotiations.  The biggest stunner, though, is a brand-new section focused on creating a new WHO Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System (the “PABS System”) that would collect and equitably distribute a portion of all globally produced vaccines and other medical products during pandemics. According to the draft, 10 percent of total global production of pandemic products would be allocated to WHO, with half donated and half bought at an “accessible” price. Now, deliberations on the specific provisions will begin in earnest ahead of the World Health Assembly (WHA) in May, with the INB hosting two meetings in the next few months to debate individual chapters of the draft.  3. Implementation of the clinical trials resolution enters its next phase as member states argue about scope. Member states also debated the implementation of last year’s clinical trials resolution during the session on global health emergencies. Delegates noted the progress WHO had made over the past year in leading consultations and mapping the current clinical trial networks landscape. A few countries underscored the importance of inclusiveness and equity and called for greater technical support from WHO. On the contrary, in response to a WHO proposal to develop a complementary self-assessment tool to measure the maturity of the clinical trial ecosystem at national and international levels, the United States and United Kingdom instead urged the WHO secretariat to keep its focus limited to the scope of the actual resolution until more progress is achieved. The WHO is now set to move forward with a process to develop draft guidelines for clinical trials, with the help of experts and member states, that is expected to be in place by WHA. 4. Universal health coverage (UHC) reemerges as a priority from COVID-19 slumber. In 2019, UHC was the “it” topic of global health. It featured prominently on the agenda of WHO meetings and the UN held a high-level meeting on the subject to advance a new framework to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Then came the pandemic, and focus and attention on the topic slipped. This year, UHC is back on the map, having featured heavily at this year's EB.  During the broader discussion on UHC, WHO member states highlighted the importance of primary health care and health system strengthening, as well as considered and ultimately passed a resolution on strengthening diagnostics capacity. The resolution urges member states to address a range of diagnostic issues, including increasing local production, streamlining regulatory approaches, and addressing access barriers. It also calls for greater investment in diagnostic R&D and more systemic funding of capacity-building infrastructure for diagnostics, as well as urges WHO to enact specific technical changes to facilitate and catalyze diagnostic development.  The next couple of months will continue to deliver multilateral developments at a breakneck pace, and given the interlinkages between the many multilateral processes underway, it will be vital for advocates to understand the full landscape of possible changes to the global health architecture. While the dynamics may be shifting, it is encouraging to see that the research agenda is present throughout these different dialogues, both in Geneva and beyond. 

A “who’s who” of politicians, philanthropists, CEOs, and civil society leaders descended upon New York City this week for the annual United Nations General Assembly (UNGA)—a gathering renowned for its policymaking, pledging, and perennial traffic problems. GHTC was on the scene all week—attending side events, tuning into the official debates, and navigating police barriers—to be your eyes and ears on the ground. Here is what we heard and our top four takeaways on global health research and development (R&D): 1. We can’t end TB without new tools, so it’s vital for world leaders to marshal the political will and resources to close the TB R&D funding gap. Tuberculosis (TB) was a top topic at this year’s assembly with the convening of the first high-level meeting (HLM) on TB. Repeatedly, we heard—from advocates and policymakers, at side events and in in the official proceedings—how poor treatment options are a cornerstone of our failure to eradicate TB and of growing drug resistance, and that new vaccines and improved treatments and diagnostics will be key to turning the tide. While much attention focused on this lack of necessary tools, equal attention focused on the lack of political will and resources to end the epidemic. Many speakers lamented how shamefully slow progress has been since the World Health Organization (WHO) declared TB a global emergency 25 years ago and highlighted the urgent need to close the funding gap for TB, including the US $1.3 billion gap for TB R&D.   As the curtain closed on the HLM, world leaders, as expected, endorsed a carefully negotiated political declaration. GHTC was pleased to see it include a commitment to increasing investment in TB R&D by $2 billion and strong recognition of the importance of cross-border, cross-sector collaboration in driving product development. However, we also share concerns raised by other advocates on accountability. For this meeting to catalyze true change, rhetoric must now translate to action, and commitments must be matched with mechanisms that track investments and hold nations accountable. 2. There are many roads on the path to universal health coverage, but innovation can be an accelerator. Universal health coverage (UHC) was another topic that took the spotlight at UNGA 73, championed by the issue’s top “cheerleader in chief” WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanon Ghebreyus, who has made achieving UHC a centerpiece of his directorship. Given the focus of the world’s doctor on UHC, many advocates at UNGA framed their specific issues through the lens of UHC, highlighting the myriad of steps needed to achieve this ambitious goal‒from building a stronger health workforce, to expanding access to medicines, to tackling leading killers like malaria, HIV and AIDS, and TB. Yet, a common theme heard across these conversations is that along each of these roads, innovation can be an accelerator.   Throughout the week, speakers highlighted how innovations and new technologies can help deliver care more efficiently and effectively, improve access and drive down costs, and accelerate countries along the path to achieving UHC. TB advocates highlighted how shorter treatment regimens can improve care, decrease costs, and free up resources, while digital health advocates argued that better use of data can empower health workers to track and treat patients and allocate precious health resources most effectively. Others highlighted how innovative new tools like point-of-care diagnostics can bring improved care to the community level and to people in the most remote corners of the globe. 3. We need additional resources for R&D, and that requires countries to step up in an equitable way. Domestic resource mobilization and equitable financing were words repeated throughout the week, particularly in conversations around the TB HLM and closing the TB R&D funding gap. Advocates, think tanks, and even government officials, argued that high-burden TB countries need to increase domestic investment in TB R&D and treatment. Some advocates have called for a “fair share” or equitable financing approach to TB R&D financing, with each country committing to spend .1 percent of their GDP on R&D. Others spoke to the potential of the BRICS nations—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—to play a greater role in financing R&D.   While much of the TB financing dialogue focused on increasing public sector contributions, conversations also highlighted the impact and further potential of financing models like the airline-tax-funded work of UNITAID or public-private partnership approaches—like product development partnerships and the work of the Global Health Innovative Technology Fund—which have married multisector contributions to bring novel, affordable, accessible tools to market. Other speakers highlighted the opportunity for industry to increase its TB R&D investment, though many lamented that although industry has brought new TB drugs and diagnostics to market in recent years, uptake has been slow due to high product costs. 4. There is reason for optimism and reason for concern. The mood seemed mercurial in midtown Manhattan, as UNGA orators vacillated between optimism and concern about the future of global health and development. In the drumbeat to UNGA, the always-impatient optimists Bill and Melinda Gates unveiled their foundation’s Goalkeepers report. The report’s stylish line graphs, which show a downward trajectory on health issues like child mortality, are uplifting and inspiring—a great reminder of the staggering progress we’ve achieved in global health and what’s possible for the future.   The basis of our optimism about the world has always been our belief in the power of innovation to redefine what’s possible – Bill and Melinda Gates   Yet, three years in, it has also become clear the world is not on track to meet the Global Goals. And even the optimistic Gates are reminding us that though we hold the blueprint for a healthier world, continued progress is not inevitable. The choices our policymakers implement today will determine whether progress continues or stalls. Throughout the week, many speakers gave voice to fears, highlighting concerns that foreign aid spending is under increased attack in leading donors countries like the United States—a notion echoed in President Trump’s speech to the Assembly—and that political changes like Brexit and an “America First” doctrine signal a movement toward isolationism over collective action. Given significant global health R&D funding comes through foreign aid budgets and the necessity of collaborative global action to deliver the cures of tomorrow, these developments are worrisome. Will these trends threaten progress, or will momentum continue? That’s a question we’ll surely continue to reflect on for many UNGAs to come.

In this regular feature on Breakthroughs, we highlight some of the most interesting reads in global health research from the past week. In response to a 2004 meningitis B epidemic in New Zealand, health clinics across the country offered free vaccinations over the course of two years for any individual under the age of 20. The vaccine, MeNZB, is used primarily to protect against meningitis B, but according to ecological data in Cuba, New Zealand, and Norway, the vaccine also appears to be associated with reduced rates of gonorrhea. To study this further, researchers took retrospective data from 11 health clinics across New Zealand, and compared rates of gonorrhea and chlamydia, analyzing the relationship between vaccination and infection rates. The researchers found that vaccinated individuals were significantly less likely to contract gonorrhea than their unvaccinated counterparts—but vaccine effectiveness rates fell for those co-infected with chlamydia. While this vaccine was only on the market from 2004–2006, these results suggest further study of the vaccine’s potential is warranted, especially as gonorrhea becomes increasingly resistant to first-line drugs. The path toward the elimination of measles, mumps, and rubella has been stymied by low vaccination rates in certain areas of the world, including in developed countries like Italy, Romania, Germany, and the United States. The surge in incidence and deaths from these diseases in developed areas of the world suggests there are pockets of low-immunized communities that are leaving thousands of neighboring children in danger of contracting these diseases. The debunked belief that vaccines cause autism has also contributed to this decline in immunization rates. The recent Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) helped the global health community understand the many complex, moving parts to contain an outbreak. While the DRC beat this particular outbreak in a short period of time, the global health community is still worried that this was merely an exception and the international community is still not equipped with the systems needed to deal with a complex, intercontinental pandemic. The outbreak happened in an incredibly remote area of the DRC, which limited the spread of the virus. While the response by the government and the World Health Organization was quick and effective, it is important to consider that outbreaks that occur in or closer to larger towns could pose a much greater threat and complicate the response. Another important factor in managing an outbreak like Ebola is the political health of a nation. Countries like Sierra Leone and Liberia, both heavily impacted by the 2014 outbreak, have been institutionally weakened by recent civil wars, leaving them more susceptible to large-scale and more deadly outbreaks.  

This coming week the “who’s who” of the global health community (as well as some much more modest global health advocates such as your humble author) will make the annual trek to Geneva, Switzerland, for the 69th World Health Assembly (WHA), where World Health Organization (WHO) member states will collectively decide WHO’s plans for the coming year. This year’s agenda is packed and includes many topics that could impact global health research and development (R&D). Below are the agenda items GHTC will be tracking in Geneva and topics we’ll dig into in more detail at a May 23 side event and webinar we are cohosting with the Geneva Centre for Security Policy, Global Health R&D: What’s at stake during the 69th WHA? Framework of engagement with non-State actors WHO routinely engages with a variety of non-State actors (NSAs)—any organization other than a member state. These collaborations support core components of WHO’s global health strategy. Some have argued, however, that WHO’s current ad-hoc approach to managing such engagements undermines its independence and impartiality. As I have written previously, the current draft framework runs the very real risk of excluding key WHO partners and actors in the global health R&D community. Given the significant member state pushback against the proposal, it will be fascinating to see how the tension is resolved.   Health in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development With the approval of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in September 2015, the global development community has been trying to sort out how to implement and measure programming to achieve what are, by all admissions, extremely ambitious targets. WHO is no different, and has been hard at work laying out strategies to achieve the various components of goal 3, the “health SDG.” It is particularly heartening that target 3.b specifically commits member states to supporting health R&D. What shape this will take, and how WHO will engage are definitely hot topics to watch at this WHA.   Global Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance Following the 68th WHA’s adoption of the Global Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR), WHO has been working to develop strategic options to achieve the plan’s goals and will be presenting a progress update and an options paper to WHA this year for input. GHTC is closely monitoring plans for the R&D objective, which states: “… develop the economic case for sustainable investment that takes account of the needs of all countries, and increase investment in new medicines, diagnostic tools, vaccines and other interventions.” While the options paper is quite broad, in the R&D space the WHO Secretariat is specifically asking for input on methods to de-link R&D costs from sale price, how best to support access to innovative antimicrobials, and how to develop a prioritization mechanism to support appropriate R&D on AMR specifically. Given the danger that the global rise of AMR represents, the discussion is likely to be extensive and intense.   Follow-up to the report of the Consultative Expert Working Group (CEWG) on Research and Development: Financing and Coordination (Report of the open-ended meeting of Member States) GHTC has been following the CEWG process for some time as it winds its way forward after what has already been a decade-long process. The prototype R&D observatory is now online, and the demonstration projects are returning their progress reports. The WHO Special Program for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR) has prepared an analysis that outlines how a pooled fund and R&D observatory could work to identify unmet needs and channel funds to those R&D projects. While almost everyone agrees that additional funds and greater coordination are sorely needed, as we heard at GHTC’s webinar on CEWG, the jury is still split on the CEWG’s specific proposals. While it is unlikely that the CEWG process will come to an end at this WHA, the number of concerns that can be ironed out with all the decision-makers in the room will be telling in regards to future prospects.   For more analysis on these subjects, read GHTC’s fact sheet on Research and development at the 69th World Health Assembly.