This article is part of the series The COVID-19 Vaccine Challenge: Contextual and Country Analysis.
Wherever the art of medicine is loved, there is also a love of humanity – Hippocrates
Amidst worldwide struggle with new variants for SARS-CoV-2 and with increasing number of the world’s population being vaccinated, albeit with global inequality in vaccine distribution, governments and international organisations around the world have been extensively discussing the challenges of global vaccine supplies. South Korea (ROK) is not an exception, and the agenda was on the table during South Korean president Moon Jae-In’s visit to the United States (US) this May. The two countries agreed to establish a global vaccine partnership, which includes ‘increasing production capacity in Korean manufacturing facilities rapidly, and expanding the US supply of raw materials needed for vaccine production globally’ while the two will also ‘actively carry out scientific and technological cooperation to improve infectious disease response capabilities against global public health emergencies’. The partnership also includes Memorandums of Understanding (MoU) between the two countries’ healthcare industry actors such as SK and Samsung from South Korea and Novavax and Moderna from the US to manufacture vaccines. Many expect that the combination of the expertise of the US and production capability of South Korea will boost global vaccine supplies based on this partnership.
Many expect that the combination of the expertise of the US and production capability of South Korea will boost global vaccine supplies based on this partnership.
As of July 17, slightly over 16 million people, which amounts to 31.3 percent of ROK’s entire population, got their first shots of the COVID vaccine while 12.7 percent of the population have gotten the complete two doses. However, as the country secured a total of 192 million doses of vaccines (at the time of writing) and is targeting to finalise the first dose of vaccination for 70 percent of its citizens by the end of this September, it is expected that the expanded vaccine production capacity of the country can contribute to solving the current global COVID-19 vaccine production bottlenecks by exporting home-produced vaccines to other countries, especially within the Asia-Pacific region. The partnership also enumerates an updated MoU on healthcare cooperation between the two countries to increase ‘vaccine and drug development against novel infectious diseases, digital health care, and bio health industry.’ This partnership is aligned with South Korea’s strengthened investment in the healthcare industry over the last 10 years while the current pandemic has strengthened the country’s belief in the need to grow its healthcare sector, especially pharmaceutical production capacity with the foresight that there can be more pandemics beyond the current COVID-19 pandemic.
While national and regional policies such as the ROK-US global vaccine partnership can also contribute to a more stable global public health governance where medical and pharmaceutical supply chains are interwoven across the globe, the World Health Organisation (WHO) and other world organisations’ role will remain, and might become even more significant. The global community’s past struggle with smallpox and its ultimate win over the disease teaches us how important WHO’s role is when it comes to improving health conditions at the global level. Through its decades-long Smallpox Eradication Programme (SEP), WHO could successfully announce the end of smallpox against the pressures of the Cold War and the reluctance of some governments in participating in the programme.
The concept of common heritage of mankind for medicine does not necessarily need to be only applicable to plants or plant genetic resources but can also be applied to chemicals or other ancillary resources, especially for vaccine or other pharmaceutical production and distribution in times of crisis.
To take a step further from SEP, WHO and the entire global community might start approaching medicine as a common heritage of mankind with more rigorous legal reviews concerning the concept during and after this pandemic. This is more so when export bans on crucial materials for vaccine production and distribution have caused serious public health crises in the other parts of the world during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although applying the concept to plants and plant resources was already discussed in the early 1990s ,which finally resulted in the signing of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the International Treaty for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture that make these resources subject to national sovereignty, research showed that sharing data on plant genetic resources have availed major advances in biology, medicine, and agriculture. The concept of common heritage of mankind for medicine does not necessarily need to be only applicable to plants or plant genetic resources but can also be applied to chemicals or other ancillary resources, especially for vaccine or other pharmaceutical production and distribution in times of crisis.
Prohibition of export bans, and, thus, guaranteeing the free flow of crucial materials for vaccine production and distribution, especially in the times of crisis like a global pandemic can also be discussed to be ‘erga omnes’ (towards everyone). Although this sounds too utopian at this moment, WHO-led production and reservation of vaccines, or other medical knowledge or resources can also be sought out in the future so that they can truly remain as ‘res communis omnium’ (of the entire community). When years of research in material science that resulted in the discovery of lipid nanoparticles made the rapid development of the COVID-19 vaccine possible, the global community might also be able to expect WHO-led research initiatives in material or medical science whose fruits will remain as ‘res communis omnium’ for the generations to come.
Through the ROK-US global vaccine partnership, two countries’ contribution to solving challenges within these global vaccine supply chains will surely be a step forward to loosening the vaccine supply chain bottlenecks. However, without stronger initiatives by WHO or other world organisations to co-manage critical medical resources and regulatory challenges for vaccine production and distribution, severe impediments to global vaccine supplies such as export bans on crucial raw materials will continue to pose great risks to global vaccine supplies. The growing understanding of harmonising and streamlining entire vaccine production and distribution procedures has already pushed the global community to have increased talks on drawing up concrete plans on the current cross-border global vaccine supply chains.
The World Trade Organisation’s recent symposium on COVID-19 vaccine supply chain and regulatory transparency was part of the effort to map both the technical and regulatory terrains of COVID-19 vaccine production and distribution, while WHO has published vaccine supply and logistics guidance. The TRIPs agreement review has also been an important agenda over the years. However, this might not be enough for us to be truly prepared with adequate global vaccine supplies in the case of future pandemics. Along with considering medicine a common heritage of mankind, only multilayered approaches—multilateral or multistakeholder—with the strong leadership of WHO will be able to fill the gaps that cannot be closed by unilateral approaches or bilateral agreements between governments within the webs of vaccine supplies as it was reaffirmed in the Rome Declaration.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Yeseul is in a program committee for Asia Pacific School on the Internet governance and also is an individual member for APRALO ICANN.She also used ...
Read More +
PREV
