The EU and global health security: Co-crafting the pandemic agreement and International Health Regulations

The failure to prevent the recent pandemic (COVID-19) and the difficulties in managing it resulted in immense loss of human health and life as well as unprecedented disruption of societal activities worldwide. This created momentum for the reform of the global health architecture. To prevent a repetition of the crisis, the World Health Organization (WHO) member states launched two parallel government-led processes to introduce targeted amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) and draft a new, legally binding pandemic agreement (WHO CA+). The EU, which is an informal observer without voting rights in the WHO, has been a key player in both processes. In line with its internal procedures and with its 2022 global health strategy, the EU has been actively involved in the discussions, and has tabled proposals for the WHO CA+ and amendments to the IHR. They include many recommendations from the European Parliament, which has called for the simultaneous strengthening of the obligations and enforceability of the IHR, while addressing the gaps (including funding, equity and global governance) through the pandemic agreement. The WHO member states, including the EU Member States, are expected to adopt the resulting texts at the 77th World Health Assembly (WHA) in May 2024. Designing the pandemic agreement and amending the IHR is not without challenges, and a strict timeframe has put pressure on the negotiating parties. The two processes tend to overlap, not only in procedural matters but also in content. While aiming to be complementary, the scope of the two instruments remains to be further clarified. Due to the different legal basis of the WHO CA+ and the IHR, the particularities of their entry into force would differ and thereby shape the outcomes. In the context of the negotiating parties' differing interests, several provisions – such as those on intellectual property rights or responsibility sharing – have reflected a stark North-South divide. In addition, civil society has raised questions about transparency, the protection of human rights, and 'weak' provisions on equity, among others. The spread of misinformation regarding the WHO CA+ and the amended IHR has also burdened the processes.