The Punishing Cost of the Global Pandemic Scheme

by Keri Molloy

In the weeks ahead the New Zealand government will weigh up the cost of the World Health Organisation’s new package of amended International Health Regulations.

The government will need to decide its position before a December 2025 deadline.

The WHO’s package of international rules came into force for many countries on Friday last week. But not for New Zealand, or ten other countries that had lodged opposition to certain amendments.

New Zealand’s reservation has given it more time to weigh up any benefits against the million dollar price tag. But the government has to be on the ball. If New Zealand doesn’t formally reject the amendments by the December deadline, the rules will automatically enter into force for the country.

To clarify, International Health Regulations (IHR) are legally binding treaty obligations for WHO member states. They create a duty to cooperate with the WHO and implement its recommendations.

And then there’s the WHO’s looming Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing (PABS) scheme.

Legal commentator Katie Ashbie-Koppens offers a startling overview about the hunt for pathogens, the WHO’s broad ‘one health’ ambitions and ramifications for humans and animals.

View the interview: legal-hub-katie-ashby-koppens-pathogen-sharing-and-sovereignty/

What’s in this long running treaty campaign for the WHO? Power, global control and the means for a perpetual cycle of pandemics with associated trade deals.

What’s in it for us? A big bill and a duty to act on the WHO’s legally binding recommendations (that we could independently and voluntarily respect for free, simply as a matter of polite international cooperation).

Let’s look at the cost of signing up.

The cost

On top of New Zealand’s annual contributions to WHO as a member state (nearly $12million per year), we are looking at millions more to accommodate the WHO’s pandemic treaty.

ChatGPT estimates (in NZ dollars):

Staffing, senior leadership, legal and policy officers, epidemiologists, officers for international reporting and officers for agency and international coordination:

Ballpark salary cost: $2million to $4million per year.

Cybersecurity and redundancy systems:

Ballpark for a one-off build $5million to $10 million and then $1million to $2 million per year.

Office space, secure servers, comms infrastructure plus travel, liaison with WHO and regional partners:

Ballpark $1million to $2 million per year.

Training and exercises, simulations, WHO workshops

Ballpark $500,000 to $1million per year.

Legal work:

Ballpark $500,000 to $1million one-off.

So we’re looking at $10million to $15million for the first 2–3 years, for capital and setup alone, then $5million to $8million per year for operating costs.

The NZ government must consider whether this huge and ongoing spend would be better used at home to improve our own health system, where support is needed to solve a nursing shortage, improve GP accessibility, address shortfalls in mental health, addiction and hospital infrastructure.

If NZ fully accepts all amendments, it will become fully bound by the amended regulations.

This means

establishing a National IHR Authority with legal mandate and capacity to coordinate compliance across health products, intellectual property, border control, surveillance and communications.
conducting reporting, surveillance, information-sharing and compliance with WHO recommendations.
ensuring public health agencies, labs, epidemiology and surveillance providers are sufficiently resourced.

The National IHR Authority would likely be housed within the Ministry of Health, requiring additional staff, IT systems, and inter-agency linkages.

All this might require legislation or administrative change.

The WHO narrative

WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has warned repeatedly that a pandemic or major global health emergency is ‘not a question of if, but when’.

He and his committee of selected experts now have the power to declare one.

Having declared an emergency, the Director General will then issue recommendations, approved by an ‘emergency committee’ (whose members are selected by the Director General).

The emergency committee will advise on recommendations and the Director-General will make the final determinations.

The World Health Organisation is now urging member states to finalise its Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing system as a critical final phase. Without it the agreement will not be complete, the Director General laments.

The WHO warns that a state that is slow to notify WHO, or if disagreements arise over whether criteria are met, or over what measures are reasonable, there may be diplomatic and political fallout. There might be disagreements, for example, about lockdowns, privacy or trade and travel disruptions.

So, there are minimal enforcement mechanisms in place at this stage but the WHO can put pressure on non-complying states and shame them.

We don’t know who will be advising the New Zealand government in the weeks ahead. The Ministry of Health has not disclosed this.

Institutional actors who have been narrative shapers in the past include former Director General of Health Sir Ashley Bloomfield and Otago University Professor Michael Baker, both of whom have links to the WHO.

Sir Ashley has been actively involved in shaping national and international strategies for pandemic preparedness. Notably, he said he wanted the government to treat pandemics as a security threat, rather than a health one.

Prof Baker has made submissions and public commentary on the WHO IHR amendments and pandemic treaty. In 2024 he co-authored a briefing that argues that NZ should adopt the amended IHR amendments, without reservations, and implement necessary domestic infrastructure, including a National IHR Authority.

This is the well known Prof Baker who followed WHO recommendations during COVID.

He will be remembered for advocating mask wearing, strict lockdowns, vaccines and boosters – even for children, robust border control and isolation requirements..

He is now director of the Department of Health’s Public Health Communication Centre. In the past Prof Baker worked for the WHO in Manila and Geneva.

“A comprehensive Pandemic Agreement going beyond the IHR is essential to address broader issues and achieve greater global cooperation and equity. Global solidarity is crucial to prevent future pandemics and honour the memory of the millions who have died from COVID-19.” – Professor Michael Baker

NZ must decide whether to accept, reject or enter reservations under its domestic treaty making process, which includes: Cabinet approval, a National Interest Analysis, and Parliamentary Treaty Examination.

In February 2024, New Zealand’s cabinet approved a renewed negotiating mandate for pandemic treaty negotiations.

Among the objectives, the mandate makes it clear that New Zealand’s negotiating

position will:

• preserve domestic flexibility

• maintain the primacy of New Zealand’s domestic law over any international agreements

• preserve the right of states (including New Zealand) under international law to legislate, make policy, and implement measures in pursuit of their own health objectives.

NZ has said its policy priorities include upholding fundamental human rights and supporting international rules that are consistent with other areas of international law, including trade and intellectual property law.

Public concerns

The Ministry of Health ran a public consultation in early 2024 to gather feedback from citizens. The vast majority of submissions strongly opposed the package.

A common concern raised in the submissions was that the amendments would require New Zealand to cede parts of its sovereignty and give the WHO too much power.