Global Health In The Glare In G7 Final Resolutions; Trade Deals Promised For 2016

Reform of the WHO, support for the Contingency Fund for Emergency to enable swift initial responses by the WHO, and a special R&D and innovation chapter in the G7 Ise-Shima Vision for Global Health that does not include the word intellectual property are some of the notables after the G7 Summit closed today in Japan. Counting pages, Global Health and lessons from the recent Ebola and Zika outbreaks did receive the biggest attention. But the G7 would not be its old usual without considerable warnings and some concrete proposals how to fight global terrorism and violent extremism.

The G7 also campaigned against the so-called “Brexit”. The upcoming referendum of British citizens on whether they want to leave the European Union is explicitly mentioned in the 32-page main G7 Declaration as a one “potential shocks of a non-economic origin. A UK exit from the EU would reverse the trend towards greater global trade and investment, and the jobs they create,  and is a further serious risk to growth.”

All documents are here.

Trade Agreements to be Finalised by 2016

“Global trade performance has disappointed in recent years,” the G7 leaders wrote, pointing to escalated geopolitical conflicts, terrorism and refugee flows, as complicating factors in the global economic environment.

The bilateral and multilateral trade agenda looks stuffed, and the G7 leaders committed to ambitious – some would say rather fantastic – timelines.

“We aim to conclude an ambitious Environmental Goods Agreement (EGA) that eliminates tariffs on a broad range of environmental products by the G20 Summit in September in Hangzhou, having in mind a future oriented agreement,” the G7 leaders wrote.

They also said they “look forward to concluding negotiations on an ambitious, balanced and mutually beneficial Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) by the end of 2016.” TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) signatories are “encouraged” to complete its domestic process and the “strong commitment” of Japan and the EU welcomed “to reach agreement in principle on a comprehensive, high-level and balanced Japan-EU EPA as early as possible in 2016.”

Even for TTIP (the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership), which has suffered quite a setback, heads of states said they were “committed to applying the necessary political will to reach a TTIP agreement as early as this year, provided that it is ambitious, comprehensive, high standard and mutually beneficial, with a view to harnessing the full potential of the transatlantic economy as soon as possible.”

Plus, CETA (the Canada-EU Trade Agreement) should be brought into force as early as possible. Trade negotiators might see a busy agenda in the second half of 2016. Progress at the World Trade Organization at the same time is embraced and further steps are called for as well.

Cyber-rights and Cyber-menaces

As expected a dedicated document was signed for internet communication.

It states: “We welcome the work of the G7 Cyber Experts Group in the financial area to foster cyber security and enhance cooperation among G7 countries in this area. We also welcome and support the effective implementation of the G20/OECD Principles of Corporate Governance. In particular, we look forward to the development of the assessment methodology of the Principles.“

Many nice things are listed in the “G7 principles and actions on Cyber” on the “cyberspace we seek,” like openness, interoperability, reliability, security of the internet as enablers to freedom, democracy and human rights – principles derived from recent multi-stakeholder platforms.

The multi-stakeholder principle is applauded and the “role of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in addressing the global challenges and achieving progress on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” emphasised.

The multi-stakeholder model mentioning was very welcome, said Wolfgang Kleinwächter, professor emeritus for international law and internet governance expert, in an initial reaction. And it was a good signal to the UN General Assembly that will this year again tackle internet-related questions in three committees. It remains to be seen, Kleinwaechter said, what the mandate for the newly announced G7 Working Group on Cyber would look like and if, in the end, the composition would follow the multi-stakeholder model.

Certainly with cyber there are also warnings on the “malicious use of cyberspace both by states and non-state actors, including terrorists,” and as expected the acknowledgement of cyberspace as a potential field of war. In the fight against terrorism, for example, one concrete project mentioned is “expand the use of Passenger Name Records and Advance Passenger Information in traveler screening,” a project rather unbeloved by most European data protection authorities.

Also the stepping up of intermediaries and administrators of relevant applications “to facilitate counterterrorism investigations, including the collection of relevant data, and to address the use of the internet for terrorist purposes to recruit, radicalize, and mobilize followers to violence” is an issues for G7 governments.

Global Health

On global health, there are a lot of proposals on WHO reform and promotion of Universal Health Coverage (UHC). There is also some acknowledgement that the international community including the G7 has a lot of work to fix the problems.

“We commit to take concrete actions for advancing global health as elaborated in the G7 Ise-Shima Vision for Global Health, highlighting that health is the foundation of economic prosperity and security not only for individuals, but also for nations,” it states.

At the juncture of the first G7 summit after the historic adoption of the 2030 Agenda, the G7 states are “fully committed to implementing the health-related Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)” and mark that “our leadership is needed more than ever in this regard.” Lessons learned from the Ebola from experts all over the world, including the UN High-Level Panel on the Global Response to Health Crises were that “health systems need to be resilient and have the capacity to respond to, better prepare for and prevent global public health threats such as pandemics and other severe events.”

WHO reforms, funding mechanisms that enable speedy disbursement for prompt response, coordinated implementation of action among relevant stakeholders and systems, and better implementation of the International Health Regulations (IHR) were needed. A special focus is also put on antimicrobial Resistance (AMR).

MSF Responds

Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF, Doctors Without Borders) in a first reaction to the G7 decisions said it was disappointed by the results. The public health group had hoped G7 leaders would show “more guts” to “tackle one of the biggest threats to global health.”

The group had been encouraged by commitments on health from the G7 and the acknowledgment that the current system of research and development is failing to deliver innovation and access to medicines and vaccines for people around the world, the organisation stated in a press release. But the solutions proposed by the G7 would not address these failures head-on, and the barriers to access to affordable medicines which they create.

“The laudable aim of universal health coverage is going to be severely hamstrung without investing in approaches to research and development that encourage patients’ needs-based innovation and are not dictated by the perspective of high market profit,” said Jeremie Bodin, general director of MSF Japan. While the G7 declaration is supportive of new investments in research and development, it does so “without ensuring such innovation, for example for new antibiotics, will safeguard access.”

The support for free trade agreements, such as the Trans Pacific Partnership – “which is the most harmful trade agreement ever negotiated as related to access to medicines” – is also detrimental, he said.

“We hope that by September, Ministers will focus on promoting approaches to innovation that guarantee access to affordable medicine,” Bodin said.

What is lacking between the many words are figures like the one for climate change, where a commitment to “progress toward achieving the goal of jointly mobilizing US$ 100 billion annually by 2020 in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation” is earmarked. Or the US$3.6 billion in bilateral assistance and other financial support promised for Iraq. Hard figures like these also are curiously lacking from the special document on quality infrastructure.

Also, UK Prime Minister David Cameron in a speech, called for the creation of a global fund for research into new antibiotics.

 

 

Image Credits: G7