SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " underway " 612 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Evaluation of WHO’s coordination in health emergencies helps guide humanitarian reforms
The recent evaluation of the Global Health Cluster sheds new light on how WHO, in its unique role as the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) Cluster Lead Agency (CLA) for health, coordinates life-saving health responses in humanitarian crises. It highlights how WHO works through partnerships to reach the most vulnerable crisis-affected populations and strengthen collective action in increasingly complex emergencies. Serving both learning and accountability purposes, the evaluation provided timely and actionable recommendations that are helping to strategically position WHO during the ongoing IASC Humanitarian Reset and the broader UN 2.0 reforms, where prioritization and new ways of working are taking shape. The evaluation was conducted between 2024 and 2025, at a time when humanitarian action funding was plummeting by more than 50%, triggering the launch of the IASC Humanitarian Reset. While restructuring and prioritization across the humanitarian landscape were underway, the evaluation, through iterative feedback loops, shared emerging findings that helped identify the most crucial coordination functions needed. This was especially important at a time when humanitarian needs and health risks due to armed conflict and natural hazards were increasing, while the capacity of health partners to support Member States to equitably reach all populations affected by crises and deliver response was at risk. The evaluation found that the Global Health Cluster (GHC) remains a highly relevant mechanism for strengthening health coordination in crises and has delivered efficiently despite limited resources. It noted strong collaboration with partners and highlighted opportunities to deepen integration within WHO structures and further enhance inter-cluster cooperation. The evaluation also identified areas where greater emphasis on transition planning, national coordination capacity and linkages between humanitarian response and health system strengthening would bring added value. While the GHC has achieved many of its strategic objectives, improvements in monitoring systems would help better demonstrate collective impact. The recommendations will help strengthen the IASC CLA coordination function across WHO, at all levels, and with all partners. It is noted that going forward WHO needs to continue to support capacity to fulfil coordination functions, in line with the IASC Humanitarian Reset whilst ensuring collective prioritization of health cluster action and quality coverage of the health response. The evaluation will help WHO strengthen locally-led action, national ownership and leadership of the sector, and linkages between health system strengthening activities. Additionally, the evaluation evidence will be used to optimize resource mobilization for the GHC and strengthen WHO’s capacity to deliver, plan for and monitor and evaluate results across the Organization. Read the evaluation Global Health Cluster https://healthcluster.who.int/ WHO’s work in health emergencies https://www.who.int/emergencies/overview
Trump’s plan to bolster Europe’s nationalists is already underway
The U.S. administration vowed in its recent National Security Strategy to boost “patriotic European parties” to the detriment of the EU.
Investigation underway after business owner says woman’s body dumped in southwest Miami-Dade
An investigation is underway after a woman’s body was allegedly dumped outside a business in southwest Miami-Dade early Friday morning, according to the owner who discovered the scene.
The New WHO Pandemic Treaty and Global Health Governance: Incorporating Common but Differentiated Responsibilities into PABS - Georgetown Journal of International Affairs
On May 20, 2025, the World Health Assembly unanimously adopted the World Health Organization (WHO) Pandemic Agreement, an international treaty designed to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response. The product of three years of arduous negotiations, the treaty marks a new era of global cooperation in public health. However, core aspects of the agreement remain unresolved—notably the Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (PABS) System, which is intended to ensure equitable access to pandemic-related materials and benefits. To support the successful implementation of the WHO Pandemic Agreement, the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” should be formally incorporated into the negotiating agenda of the PABS annex. Introduction For the first time, an international treaty has enshrined the principle of “One Health,” the compelling idea that the health of animals, humans, and the environment all contribute to pandemic risks. SARS (2003), H1N1 (2009–10), Ebola (2014–16), and COVID-19 all emerged through zoonotic spillover from animal hosts—respectively, civets, hogs, and bats. Together, they underscore the need for a coordinated, cross-sectoral approach. The Pandemic Agreement responds to this call, requiring state parties to acknowledge the ecological interplay and commit to a comprehensive “One Health” strategy. Specifically, Article 5 charges governments to address “the drivers of pandemics and the emergence and re-emergence of infectious disease at the human-animal-environment interface,” including wild animal markets, deforestation, and antibiotic overuse. Yet the effectiveness of this “One Health” vision depends equally on the free flow of scientific information and data among countries and institutions. Just as environmental and animal health factors have been neglected in past global frameworks, so too has data sharing been marginalized, despite its centrality to timely detection and response. The Pandemic Agreement takes an important step by requiring governments to enhance data collection and cooperate with the World Health Organization (WHO). However, these provisions will remain aspirational without a robust Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (PABS) annex. The PABS system will determine whether countries and researchers can rapidly exchange pathogen samples and genetic data while ensuring equitable access to resulting research and development, including diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines. Without such mechanisms, the treaty’s promise to operationalize “One Health” and strengthen global preparedness will risk becoming largely symbolic, echoing earlier failures to translate shared principles into coordinated action. Equity Concerns When the 2025 Health Assembly adopted the Pandemic Agreement, it left the difficult question of access to pathogens and the sharing of resulting benefits to be addressed in a separate agreement. Negotiations on this separate agreement, PABS, are now underway in Geneva. Yet governments remain divided over fundamental questions of equity between the countries that primarily contribute to the system and those that primarily draw from it—and consequently benefit. For example, wildlife in countries bordering the equator is likely to produce PABS materials, but companies in Europe are likely to use them to develop lucrative products. The most likely contributor countries are likely to be those biodiverse countries around the equator, such as Brazil, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Indonesia, where the number of human-mammalian viral host interactions is large. Conversely, countries most likely to benefit from this material are those with the technology, investors, and infrastructure to capitalize on genomic data, such as the United States, EU member states, and Japan. This imbalance reflects a broader pattern seen in prior international frameworks. Now, as in the past, the wealthiest countries in the world (a useful heuristic is membership of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)) disproportionately benefit from systems in which pathogens and genomic sequencing data are contributed to a common source. Under the International Agreement on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (the “Plant Treaty” or “Seed Treaty”) and the Pandemic Influenza Preparedness (PIP) Framework, companies from Europe and North America disproportionately withdraw biological samples and data for development into lucrative medical products. Their governments and companies have both statutory and contractual claims to the products that those companies correspondingly produce. PABS appears poised to follow the same pattern. The text calls for strong language on access to pathogens and associated data, but the corresponding benefits that should flow to poorer countries are couched in equivocal or non-binding language. Common but Differentiated Responsibilities To address these inequities, the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” should be formally incorporated into the negotiating agenda of the PABS annex. Common but differentiated responsibilities are often a feature of climate change negotiations. The basic principle is that, even though all countries should reduce carbon emissions, governments that became rich and powerful through massive carbon emissions (e.g., France, the United Kingdom, the United States) should have a greater obligation to address the resulting crises. Applied to PABS, it would require that governments hosting and supporting companies developing lucrative products carry greater obligations toward the cost of running the PABS system; share benefits or final medical products; and transfer technology to help countries worldwide develop their own capacities to innovate and manufacture vaccines during an emergency. For example, an annex could mandate that any company based in an OECD country that withdraws PABS material would be obligated to donate the resulting diagnostics, therapeutics, or vaccines to the WHO during a public health emergency or pandemic. Questions remain about how robust those donations would be, but the principle is that they should deliver highly significant lifesaving benefits to be equitably shared. Theoretically, this approach mirrors the PIP Framework, in which companies withdrawing influenza samples are required to pay half of the operating costs. In practice, however, the framework has fallen short. The PIP Framework Secretariat has struggled to secure payments from companies, with companies often disagreeing over how much is owed. Additionally, without another pandemic influenza to test the strength of the agreement during a public health emergency, corporate compliance with sharing mechanisms remains unknown. Even if these limitations did not characterize the PIP Framework, partially paying for operating expenses does not address the inequity in access to genetic data and pathogen samples that left less developed countries last in line for COVID-19 vaccines (and, before them, H1N1). Common but differentiated responsibilities would go further, addressing governments’ legitimate grievances regarding information sharing. It would make withdrawals of PABS material and resulting products more transparent, building trust across the board. Enforcement and Enduring Success A key implication of this approach is that the governing mechanism of the PABS must have real enforcement authority. The WHO Pandemic Agreement delegates its core governance responsibilities to a Conference of the Parties (COP)—a governing body composed of one representative from each participating government, similar to those established under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. The proposed WHO Pandemic Agreement COP is charged with oversight functions but ultimately possesses no real authority to compel a government to take any action it does not wish to take. The text does not give the COP the ability to, for example, sanction a party that does not comply with either textual obligations or PABS provisions. In other words, there are no effective mechanisms in place to ensure compliance. Perhaps just as significant, establishing a meaningful enforcement mechanism within the PABS system would strengthen the WHO’s credibility and its ability to ensure compliance across global health governance. By setting a precedent for accountability, such a mechanism could enhance the organization’s authority not only within the Pandemic Agreement but also in enforcing the revised International Health Regulations and other frameworks for public health emergencies. Conclusion The PABS annex can—and should—be different. It should establish clear responsibilities for funding as well as for sharing the diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines that result from contributions to the system. The system, in turn, must include a dedicated body empowered to hold governments and the corporations they sponsor accountable for their responsibilities before, during, and after pandemics. Doing so would restore trust in the broader agreement, which was eroded as commitments were repeatedly diluted while parties scrambled to meet their own self-imposed deadlines during the Pandemic Agreement negotiations. A robust PABS Annex would cement a grand social bargain. Wealthier countries and their corporations would gain unimpeded access to scientific information essential for developing and manufacturing lifesaving medical products. As such, they would stand to gain considerable economic benefit. Yet that privilege must be matched with responsibility. The grand bargain must include not only the right to innovate, but also the duty to ensure that innovation serves all. As medical products are developed and produced through collective contributions, every person must have equal access. All human beings deserve an equitable chance to survive—to save their own life, the lives of their families, and the well-being of their communities. … Sam Halabi, JD, MPhil, is the Bette Jacobs Endowed Professor at Georgetown University’s School of Health and the Director of the Center for Transformational Health Law at Georgetown Law. He serves as the co-lead for the WHO’s Working Group on Regulatory Consideration on AI and Health’s training workstream. He earned his JD from Harvard, his MPhil from Oxford, and undergraduate degrees from Kansas State University. Lawrence Gostin, LLD (Hon.), JD, BA, is University Distinguished Professor and Founding Director and Timothy and Linda O’Neill Professor of the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law. He is the author of Global Health Security: A Blueprint for the Future (Harvard University Press, 2021); Global Health Law (Harvard University Press, 2014); Public Health Law: Power, Duty, Restraint (University of California Press, 3rd ed., 2016); Public Health Law and Ethics: A Reader (University of California Press, 3rd ed., 2018); Law and the Health System (Foundation Press, 2014); Principles of Mental Health Law & Practice (Oxford University Press, 2010). He also directs the WHO Collaborating Center at Georgetown University. Image Credit: United States Mission Geneva, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Station Trio Back on Earth; Expedition 74 Keeps Up Science, Maintains Systems
Expedition 73 has ended and NASA astronaut Jonny Kim has returned to Houston and Roscosmos cosmonauts Sergey Ryzhikov and Alexey Zubritsky have returned to Moscow. Expedition 74 is now underway with veteran NASA astronaut Mike Fincke as commander.
Revival of St. Petersburg's iconic Science Center moves forward
The long-awaited revival of St. Petersburg's beloved Science Center is officially underway, following the city council's decision to sell the property to the St. Pete STEAM Group.
Major SCOTUS Case Underway - Inside Politics with Dana Bash and Manu Raju - Podcast on CNN Podcasts
Christmas in LeClaire offers fun, helps make up for Small Business Saturday
Holiday fun is underway in LeClaire.
How to watch every Investec Champions Cup match on TV this weekend
Rugby union’s premier club competition gets underway with Bordeaux Begles as the defending champions after beating Northampton Saints in last year’s final
Construction underway at Hazzard Business Park
Construction is underway in Spokane’s Chief Garry Park neighborhood on a $1.5 million industrial park dubbed Hazzard Business Park, located just southwest of the Trent Avenue and Freya Street intersection, says owner and developer Luke Shuman.
U.S. and Ukrainian negotiators meet as Donald Trump seeks to broker an end to the war
High-level peace talks were underway Sunday in Hallandale Beach.
California Politics 360 Full Episode | Cost of Capitol Annex, offshore oil drilling proposal & more
Construction is underway on the State Capitol Annex Project. However, project leaders have not updated taxpayers on the cost of the project since 2021.