Thank you, Mr President,

Public Services International is a global trade union federation representing more than 15 million healthcare workers.

We are not discussing open science. If the countries now pushing for unrestricted access to pathogens, genetic sequences and information were concerned about that, the TRIPS waiver would have been approved without delay during the pandemic. Open access does not mean data extractivism, but rather preventing the monopolisation and privatisation of health technologies.

Therefore, biodiverse countries should not be asked to sign an instrument that will institutionalise their exchange without mechanisms to prevent the privatisation of the benefits derived from it.

PABS databases must have mandatory features such as user registration, data access agreements, the assignment of unique persistent identifiers to PABS materials, and transparent, legally binding provisions for subsequent exchange. Without this, the system will prioritise the needs of corporations over those of patients or healthcare workers. This undermines the work of the INB itself, which included in Article 7 the guarantee of ‘priority access to health technologies’ for healthcare workers. Worse still: it will institutionalise the cruel notion that some lives are worth more than others.

Countries must work towards a PABS system that operationalises predictability, legal certainty and global solidarity. A fair and equitable PABS system can save lives. We must not use multilateralism as a pretext to legalise continued extractivism and preventable deaths.

Thank you, Chair.

Public Services International is a Global Union Federation, representing more than 30 million workers in 157 countries.

Member States should keep working towards an equal two-pillar approach. Negotiations should proceed based on the best available evidence and practices. We have innumerable examples that user registration, standardized contracts, binding terms and conditions work in practice.

The European Health Data Space regulations on primary and secondary use of electronic health data promote transparency, accountability, and biosecurity. The PIP Framework demonstrates ease and efficacy of standard benefit-sharing contracts, signed up front. The GISAID database user registration policy has not impeded scientists from connecting easily. This shows user registration does not frustrate scientific collaboration. Why is it a wall? Why not use these as a template for the PABS system? Why keep pushing for a double standard in the world?

Open science does not mean complete disregard for international law and perpetuating colonial extraction and opening the door to biopiracy. Open science means keeping technologies in public domain, not under private monopolies. How can anyone be afraid of an instrument that creates predictability, safety, security, and fosters the advancement of science? If this is the case, user registration, standardized contracts, and binding terms and conditions should not be feared, but the goal.

Finally, Mr. Chair, the conclusion of the negotiations must not be an end in itself. The goal must be to create a sound instrument that promotes a more equitable response than the shame we experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Thank you, chair, 

PSI is a global union federation representing more than 30 million workers around the world, more than half of which are from the health sector. 

This discussion is not about open science or open access. If the countries that are now pushing for unrestricted access to pathogens, genetic sequences and information were concerned with open access, then the TRIPS Waiver would have been approved without delay during the pandemic. Open access means impeding the monopolization and privatization of technologies 

Therefore, biodiverse countries should not be asked to sign an instrument that will institutionalize their sharing without mechanisms preventing the privatization of benefits derived from this.  

This discussion is happening because COVID-19 pandemic proved that there is an unbalance that needs to be made right. PABS databases must have mandatory features like user registration, data access agreements, attaching unique persistent identifiers to PABS materials, and transparent and legally binding onward-sharing provisions. Without this, the PABS system will put the needs of commercial manufacturers first, not patients or health workers. This undermines Article 7’s requirement to ensure "priority access to health technologies” for healthcare and essential workers. Even worse: it will institutionalize the cruel understanding that some lives are worth more than others.  

Countries must work towards a PABS system that operationalizes predictability, legal certainty and global solidarity. A fair and equitable ABS system can save lives. A system with loopholes will sanction continued extractivism and avoidable deaths. Delegations should not be pressured to adopt an unbalanced text that is only in the interests of developed countries and corporations.  

Extant international law recognises the sovereign rights of states over pathogens in their territories. The CBD and the Nagoya Protocol already enshrine their right to enter into ABS arrangements. For the PABS annex to ignore established international law would at the very least present a serious inconsistency which undermines multilateral rules-setting. This will not be a vote for open science. It will amount to a defiance of subsisting collective will of nations. And with the palpable trajectory of discourse here, it can only emerge as a position foisted on a majoritarian stand for equity, irrespective of a possible consensual form.

We must not promote a false dilemma of R&D and innovation versus the recognised sovereignty of states and the urgent need for health equity, especially considering the experience of vaccine imperialism during the COVID-19 pandemic.

We recall the “save lives in the next pandemic: ensure vaccine equity now” open letter from two hundred and ninety scientists from 36 countries to the INB two years ago. As they argued, and as most Member States in the IGWG have reiterated, a fair system for benefit sharing, paired with traceable and accountable access, would be science-forscience and would enhance pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response.

We thus urge all Member States to support the formulation of a PABS annex that upholds user registration and verification to protect biosecurity and biosafety, and which makes a fair benefit-sharing system mandatory, to ensure global health equity and pandemic PPR.