Kuda Pembere
The AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) has backed Zimbabwe’s decision to walk away from a US$367 million health financing deal with the United States, saying the country is justified in demanding fair benefit-sharing from its health data while urging government to mobilise domestic resources to cover the funding gap.
An official from the United States Embassy in Zimbabwe has since denied that the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) contained a mineral rights clause, saying it instead focused on data-sharing arrangements.
The official said the agreement centred on the use of anonymous, aggregated health data, which the US government, through the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, has been using to target assistance, measure programme performance and coordinate responses to disease outbreaks.
However, AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) Zimbabwe Country Manager Dr Enerst Chikwati told HealthTimes on the sidelines of a press conference that Zimbabwe was justified in withdrawing from the deal.
“So my take on the MOU, we all agree we need resources to respond. However, the position taken by the government is really justified. Why? Because we’re talking about data, we’re talking about samples going out.
“From what I read, the request is not to say we can’t give, but the request is to say, if we give you the data, can you agree that you share with us the benefits which comes out of the data? In other words, if you do any research, if vaccines come out of it, if treatments come out of it, can you agree that you share with us as well? This is where I feel the American government needs to come on board as well,” he said.
Dr Chikwati said the collapse of the deal would create a significant funding gap, urging government to prioritise domestic resource mobilisation.
“Because I think it’s justified what the government is requesting to say, if samples are shared, it’s only fair that you share with us whatever comes out of the samples. Whatever you do with the data, whatever comes out of it, it’s only fair that you share with us. So I think that’s, for my take, I think that’s why it’s justified.
“Yes, yes, there will be a gap created. Let’s be honest, there will be a gap created. So I urge probably the government to come up with ways, ways of funding, ways of coming up with ways of covering that gap that will be created,” he said.
He added that data sovereignty remains central to the dispute.
“But otherwise, my take on that, there’s every right to issue data sovereignty. The government is talking about it also. It’s understandable.”
Dr Chikwati said access to data, biological samples and intellectual property rights appeared to be key sticking points in the MoU.
“Yes, the MOUs, if you look in the MOUs, the details of the MOU, please go and read if you’re able to access and understand what is really encrypted there.
“It’s the issue of the data, it’s the issue of the patent actions, it’s the issue of samples. That’s the key area where the Zimbabwean government later said, no, no, no, I don’t think we’ll be able to sign,” he said.
He suggested the US may be pursuing bilateral arrangements to access such data following its withdrawal from the World Health Organization pandemic framework processes.
“I think it’s a way, remember America, they moved out of WHO. They’ve withdrawn from WHO. So all these (Pandemic Treaty) agreements, I don’t think they will be part of them.
“This is WHO agreement, but you remember, I think America has moved out. So I’m sure they’re also having their own way of accessing, maybe. I can’t speak on their behalf, maybe they want to access also information.
“The reason why people talk about data so much is that when they’re doing vaccines, they need that data. When they’re doing the treatments, like even for HIV, they need samples to develop medicines, to develop vaccines. So if you don’t have the samples, you can’t develop those vaccines,” he said.
At the global level, concerns are also being raised about the growing number of bilateral health agreements between the US and developing countries.
Daniela Morich, Head of Policy Engagement and Global Health Platform at the Global Health Centre of the Geneva Graduate Institute, said such arrangements could complicate multilateral negotiations.
“Problematically, these negotiations also unfold against the backdrop of a spate of US bilateral agreements with developing countries – so far 15 in all. In these arrangements, seen as a cornerstone of the new US global health policy, aid and commercial deals are offered in exchange for access to pathogen samples and data about disease outbreaks,” she said.
“Some experts worry that these deals will negatively affect the negotiations in Geneva, and the future PABS systems, as they could create structural dependency that constrains a country’s ability to share data independently with regional or WHO-coordinated networks.”
Meanwhile, the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention(AfricaCDC) has reiterated that Africa’s health sovereignty is non-negotiable. Responding to a question from HealthTimes during a recent virtual press briefing, Director-General Dr Jean Kaseya said African countries have the right to control their own health data.
“We want to own our future. We cannot accept a situation where we do not own our data. We will continue to support our member states,” he said.
Dr Kaseya said Africa CDC would support member states regardless of their decisions on such agreements.
“Even if a country wants to renegotiate and asks Africa CDC to be present, we will be there. This is our mandate, given to us by our Heads of State, and it is grounded in full respect for national sovereignty,” he said.
“I support Zimbabwe if they want further negotiations. I support Zambia and other countries. At the same time, for those countries that decided to sign, we will support them fully in implementation.”
