Four years after COVID, we are still lacking an international prevention plan 

It’s been four years since the coronavirus pandemic struck, causing death and suffering for millions of people and extraordinary economic destruction around the world.

In December 2021, the World Health Organization (WHO) and its 194 member countries (all national governments) resolved Drafting and negotiating “treaties, agreements, or other international instruments to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response.” One would think that governments around the world would use this unprecedented opportunity to protect themselves, their children, grandchildren, and even future generations from the devastating effects of the pandemic. But that’s wrong.

When this process began, there was a sense of urgency and determination to adopt an agreement that would ensure that something like COVID-19 would never happen again. But what we have seen over the past six months is a decline in political will and a failure to communicate and compromise.

Through the WHO, governments Until May 10th Although no consensus has yet been reached on this international instrument, the release of significant pathogens from wildlife that could potentially lead to coronavirus disease 25, 26 or beyond It seems that we are far from adopting a document that truly prevents this. With only five days left in the negotiation period, governments must show leadership and reach a mutually acceptable document. Otherwise, you risk a weak agreement or no agreement at all.

The WHO estimates that the spread of viral pathogens between wild animals and humans is a zoonotic disease. 75 percent Status of new infectious disease outbreaks over the past 10 years. We know how to prevent such outbreaks, and scientists believe that unless strong action is taken, the next pandemic is a matter of when, not if. I’m making that clear. Unfortunately, most scientists and other NGO experts are not allowed access to the rooms where the WHO consensus text is being hashed out.

While countries need to better prepare and respond to epidemics and pandemics, it is essential to act now to reduce the emergence of infectious diseases at the human-animal-environment interface in the first place. This concept, known as “prevention at the source,” is our first line of defense against future pandemics and recognizes the interrelationships that make up the health of humans, wildlife, livestock, and ecosystems. Masu. one health model.

According to research Primary prevention is the most effective and economical way to avoid future pandemics. However, WHO negotiations have stalled for multiple reasons, including a lack of political will and failure to reach an agreement on sharing both pathogen information and the economic benefits of vaccines. Critical science about the origins of the pandemic is being ignored, and primary prevention is being put on the back burner or not being done at all. I didn’t think so at all.

Furthermore, a lack of precaution in the agreement will disproportionately harm indigenous and local communities, particularly poor and marginalized communities. The overexploitation of the environment, forests, and wildlife to meet the demands of urban and global markets increases contact between people and wildlife, magnifies the risk of pathogen spillover, and affects these communities the most. It will be a big blow.

The laudable commitments contained in other multilateral environmental agreements, such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species (CMS), – Shows progress in health and zoonotic disease spillovers. Prevention in the wake of the coronavirus crisis. But that’s not enough.

Comprehensive, multilateral agreements are essential to reduce the threat of zoonotic disease outbreaks and address inequalities while protecting critical natural resources. A legally binding pandemic agreement will only work if it covers the full scope of pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.

To make progress, governments need to invite subject matter experts from outside the WHO and civil society to re-establish a collaborative, integrated, science-based debate. Negotiators need to embrace full transparency rather than the current closed-door process.

After two and a half years of talks, the international community has agreed to fully implement pandemic preparedness, including a strong and ambitious focus on prevention at source, to achieve the common global good of health for all. It would be possible to present a legally binding international agreement covering the scope. But time is running out.

If negotiators fail to act, all of humanity will be at grave risk of a global health catastrophe, and we will look back on this tipping point with horror at the path not taken. A harsh judgment will be made by the deaf generation.

Susan Lieberman is the Wildlife Conservation Society’s vice president for international policy, Chris Walzer is its executive director for health, and Christine Franklin is its director of intergovernmental policy.