Health Diplomacy Alliance

Category: One Health

  • Against the Odds: The Pandemic Agreement’s Path to Consensus

    Against the Odds: The Pandemic Agreement’s Path to Consensus

    Introduction 

    After more than three years of intense negotiations, WHO Member States reached a historic milestone on April 16, 2025, by finalising the pandemic agreement. As WHO member states prepare for the adoption of the “greened” or agreed legal text at the 78th World Health Assembly, it’s worth reflecting on how governments and non-state actors such as civil society organisations and academia have worked to enable success. While entire books can be written to illustrate what it took for the pandemic agreement to be finalized and serve as a foundation for preventing, preparing for and responding to pandemics, in this blogpost I will share highlights, from FOUR PAWS’ perspective as one of the many “relevant stakeholders” in the negotiation process. 

     

    The Challenges   

    Finishing a treaty in record time 

    The challenge was to finalise an international multi-issue pandemic agreement in record time during an ongoing global health crisis, amid geopolitical tensions and in a UN body that is not a common ecosystem for international treaty negotiations. Member States set the goals of strengthening the international health regulations on the one hand, while also introducing a complementary legal framework to address gaps in pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response. WHO member states took this decision out of necessity, not only to fill the gaps in the global health architecture but to set themselves on a better path than the one they experienced during the pandemic. 

    Expanding the scope of what prevention means   

    While FOUR PAWS was active in several international policy processes, the World Health Organisation was not yet a typical space within which we, as an animal welfare organisation, were present before the pandemic. However, the pandemic made one thing clear: governments cannot fulfil their promise to effectively prevent pandemics without addressing human activities that drive pandemics at the human-animal-environment interface. This realisation, echoed by many non-governmental organisations, experts and institutions, led FOUR PAWS and others from the animal welfare and conservation sector to engage. The scope we considered necessary was not part of the standard measures which public health policies tied to pandemics typically addressed. Traditionally, the focus of the public health sector was on emergencies and the stage after the outbreak. However, when WHO Member States decided to negotiate the pandemic agreement, they added “prevention” and a whole of government and whole of society approach to the scope of the agreement.   

    This was a welcome move. Interventions had to take place at the earliest stage of disease emergence, before communities suffered deadly outbreaks and before public health institutions were confronted with an emergency. Addressing and integrating that policy gap into an international public health debate – within a pandemic agreement that also needed to prioritise health system capacities, pandemic-related health products, and support for implementation and financing, while simultaneously updating the International Health Regulations – was, to put it mildly, very ambitious.  

    Civil society’s access to the negotiations 

    Compared to other international processes, the pandemic agreement negotiations generally offered limited access to CSOs, which made effective engagement a challenge. In other international negotiations, observers have access to the actual negotiation sessions and several spaces to engage with member states. This makes advocacy efforts more effective, as it gives civil society real-time insights into member states’ priorities and concerns, the reasoning behind their positions and an idea on areas where evidence or analysis is needed – ultimately leading to the best use of member states’ and civil society’s time.  

     

    The ingredients  

    Jenga diplomacy: balancing evidence, dialogue and compromise  

    During the first rounds of the pandemic agreement negotiations, early participation was restricted to online statements during opening and closing sessions. Thanks to persistent advocacy by a few member states and civil society champions, our access to the process gradually increased.  

    Before the 7th Intergovernmental Negotiating Body Session in October 2023, which was the first session when “Relevant Stakeholders” were granted in-person access to the WHO building during the negotiations, our engagement with member states was through policy briefs, bilateral meetings with diplomats and events which member states co-hosted with us. In those interactions, member states shared their challenges, challenged our assumptions, flagged gaps and obstacles, asked for expertise, and guided us on how to be more effective.  

    Throughout the process, despite their differences, we noticed a collective unwavering commitment among diplomats to unlock obstacles. Bridge-building countries, experts and civil society organisations all took the initiative to convene a dialogue, which was conducive to trust-building. This mutual exchange gave us much-needed reality checks, helped us identify academic institutions and allies who were also ready to work with member states to advance the process.  

    Access to the WHO building during the negotiations in late 2023 brought with it a new layer of valuable insights. After several rounds of negotiations, the Bureau’s draft evolved into a member-state-owned text. Just observing which groupings were convening jointly or alone at the building showed us a progression in the interregional dynamics. While in the earlier stages, only a few member states engaged in informal dialogue with member states from other regions, with time, we saw an encouraging increase in outreach and a growing number of interregional huddles as the process advanced. 

    While relevant stakeholders were not allowed to observe the actual negotiations, even after we had access to the building, opportunities including meetings with the Bureau, daily statements in the mornings in plenary, and the possibility in the final negotiation sessions, of hosting side events inside the WHO at a meeting room that was made available for non-state actors were spaces where we could also share our observations and concerns in real time. Interestingly, our participation at the margins of the negotiations and member states’ willingness to engage with relevant stakeholders often gave us a more complete understanding of the positions and flexibilities than what member states shared in the formal negotiation sessions.  

    The Bureau and member states called on CSOs to be constructive and support in advancing the process, which we were increasingly better positioned to do. Stakeholders, including academia, think tanks, CSOs, and member states, all did their parts in bridge-building by hosting workshops, synthesising evidence, and promoting dialogue. 

    The negotiation process often felt like a collective game of Jenga. Each block— regional priorities, expert insights, myth-busting, interregional dialogue—had to be carefully informed by what member states were collectively able to agree to. To avoid collapse, all sides had to make sure every move was agreeable, all sides made concessions. Towards the end, it felt like we all became one global community working together towards a common purpose. 

     

    Conclusion: A Foundation for the Future 

    The final agreement is not without its flaws. It reflects the compromises of a politically complex time. Yet, it represents a monumental step forward. It not only offers a future-ready foundation that must be further developed to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response —it’s a testament of global solidarity for health equity, and the recognition that no country can face future health threats alone. 

    The world, despite its many differences, stayed together. The pandemic agreement is more than a legal document—it’s a symbol of our collective commitment to achieve health for all. Health diplomats from every region brought constructive proposals to the table, showing that even in a divided world, unity is achievable. FOUR PAWS is proud to have contributed to this process as one of many stakeholders, and we remain committed to ensuring that prevention and One Health remain central to the future of global health governance. 

    About the Author

    Nina Jamal has been engaged in the WHO Pandemic Agreement Negotiations in her capacity as the International Head on Pandemics & Campaign Strategies at FOUR PAWS International, a global animal welfare organisation for animals under direct human influence. Before taking on that role and since 2013, Nina led the International Campaigns on Farm Animals and Nutrition at FOUR PAWS. Nina also spent several years in the field of climate campaigns and international policy within the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change negotiations. She worked in the private sector on sustainability and at the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation on the implementation of international multilateral environmental agreements. Her academic background is in Environmental Health Sciences, Public Health and International Environmental Policy. 

  • Science as Diplomacy: The Strategic Power of One Health in Global Policy

    Science as Diplomacy: The Strategic Power of One Health in Global Policy

    The One Health approach, which recognizes the interdependence of human, animal, and environmental health, is not only a matter of scientific collaboration but also a prime example of Science Diplomacy in action. Science Diplomacy goes beyond cooperation to engage science as a strategic diplomatic tool, capable of influencing global policies, easing geopolitical tensions, and fostering trust between nations with differing agendas. Through this lens, the One Health approach becomes a means of addressing complex and often contentious global challenges by leveraging scientific expertise in diplomatic negotiations, international treaties, and conflict resolution.

    The diplomatic role of science becomes evident in how scientific knowledge informs global health policies, mediates disputes, and fosters international trust. For instance, pandemic preparedness is not just about sharing research and data but also about aligning different national interests in a way that can prevent diplomatic rifts during crises. During the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, the distribution of vaccines, access to essential medicines, and the regulation of travel and trade became highly politicized. Scientific expertise, combined with diplomatic negotiation, helped to form frameworks like COVAX that sought to balance national interests with global health equity. This balance required science to be used as a diplomatic instrument, guiding international discussions toward a common understanding of the evidence and creating mutual agreements amidst political tension.

    Similarly, global efforts to combat antimicrobial resistance (AMR) highlight the diplomatic weight science carries in policy discussions. AMR is driven by practices in agriculture, healthcare, and environmental management that are influenced by economic interests, political priorities, and social norms in different countries. Here, science provides the common ground upon which diplomatic negotiations occur. Initiatives like the Global Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance, developed by WHO, FAO, and WOAH, were not just scientific collaborations but diplomatic triumphs—binding nations to a shared set of guidelines that balanced national sovereignty with the need for collective action. In this case, scientific evidence served as the backbone for treaty-making, where diplomatic negotiations turned scientific consensus into political commitments.

    The One Health approach to climate change and environmental degradation similarly exemplifies Science Diplomacy. Environmental health directly impacts national economies, food security, and public health, making it a politically charged issue. Here, science plays a diplomatic role by creating a neutral ground for dialogue between countries that may be at odds on other fronts. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), for example, has been instrumental in shaping the Paris Agreement. Through scientific assessments of climate change’s impact on ecosystems, agriculture, and human health, the IPCC’s work serves as a diplomatic bridge, ensuring that all parties—despite conflicting political or economic interests—base their negotiations on shared scientific understanding. Science thus becomes a tool not just for cooperation but for diplomatic consensus-building, helping to mediate conflicts over resource management, carbon emissions, and environmental responsibility.

    In the context of wildlife conservation and zoonotic disease surveillance, Science Diplomacy plays a role in preemptive conflict resolution. Zoonotic diseases, such as Ebola and avian influenza, often emerge from regions with significant biodiversity and sometimes weak governance structures. The risk of diseases spilling over into human populations can become a source of diplomatic tension between neighboring nations or trading partners. Science can act as a diplomatic intermediary by offering objective, evidence-based assessments of the risks and by establishing internationally recognized protocols for disease surveillance. This allows nations to resolve potential conflicts diplomatically before they escalate, with organizations such as the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) providing platforms for scientific-diplomatic engagement. Rather than being a purely cooperative effort, this is a strategic use of science to negotiate boundaries, responsibilities, and shared risk.

    Food safety and food security provide further examples of the diplomatic role of science. Disputes over food standards, trade, and agricultural practices can create tension between nations, particularly when health and safety regulations differ. Science Diplomacy here is used to harmonize these standards while respecting national sovereignty, thus preventing potential trade wars or diplomatic standoffs. For example, the Codex Alimentarius Commission, a joint effort by WHO and FAO, plays a diplomatic role in mediating disagreements over food safety, using scientific evidence to broker consensus on what constitutes safe food practices. In this capacity, science is not just enabling cooperation but is driving diplomatic negotiation, ensuring that trade disputes do not escalate into larger geopolitical conflicts by grounding them in neutral, scientifically verifiable standards.

    In the broader context of environmental issues like biodiversity loss and pollution, science is used to establish common metrics for environmental impact assessments, which then feed into diplomatic negotiations for treaties like the Convention on Biological Diversity or the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer. Science acts as a form of diplomatic currency in these discussions, allowing countries with divergent interests to engage in constructive dialogue based on mutually understood scientific principles. Diplomatic negotiations often hinge on the interpretation of scientific data, with science providing the means to translate complex environmental challenges into actionable policies, thus preventing potential conflicts over resource use and environmental degradation.

    In conclusion, the One Health approach is not just about scientific collaboration; it is a key arena for Science Diplomacy, where science plays a diplomatic role in shaping international policies, mediating disputes, and fostering global trust. By applying scientific principles in diplomatic contexts, nations can navigate the challenges of human, animal, and environmental health with greater clarity and consensus, ultimately leading to more effective and equitable global governance. In this sense, the diplomatic role of science in One Health goes beyond cooperation—it is about using scientific knowledge as a strategic tool to resolve conflicts, negotiate treaties, and build long-term, sustainable relationships between nations.

    About the author

     

    A Medical Doctor specializing in Urology, with advanced studies in International Cooperation, he has over 18 years of experience bridging science, health, and diplomacy. His career spans roles at UNESCO, where he led science policy and capacity-building projects, collaborated with the AAAS on science diplomacy, and secured European Commission funding for global partnerships. As Secretary General of EUGLOH, he advanced academic collaboration in global health, and currently, at OSH, he promotes sustainable One Health strategies, and at HDA, where he works on Science Diplomacy. His multidisciplinary expertise integrates clinical knowledge with international relations to address global health challenges through institutional and cross-sectoral collaboration.