Abstract
The recent Pandemic Agreement negotiations illustrate significant gaps in action required to respond effectively to the lessons of the COVID-19 pandemic and make progress towards public health goals, including SDGs. The pandemic revealed vaccine equity as a unifying health need, and international trade as a Commercial Determinant of Health. We explored where policy action could reshape trade relationships, identifying recommendations for vaccine equity in stakeholder literature pertaining to Free Trade Agreements (FTAs).
We searched online libraries for stakeholder documents that focused on the interface between FTAs, vaccination, and vaccine equity published between 01/01/2010-31/03/2022. Using the rights, regulation and redistribution (3R) framework, recommendations were categorised as Technical Mechanisms, Collaborative and Adaptive Mechanisms, or Determinants of Vaccine Equity. These were then located on a novel systems map to elucidate gaps and actions.
No cohesive strategies for change were identified. Technical proposals were reactive, repetitive, and lacked enforcement mechanisms or incentives. There were significant gaps in the articulation of alternative Collaborative Mechanisms to democratise FTA policymaking processes. The underlying Determinants of Vaccine Equity and lack of policy coherence were not addressed. These findings are limited by under-representation of low– and middle-income country authorship, demonstrating deep institutional and methodological barriers to change, and reflecting imbalances in international policymaking processes.
Overall, our research shows how the current trade paradigm has produced and sustained vaccine inequity, leading a synthesis of action proposals. Transformation of FTA policy is essential and urgent, particularly since new technologies will be crucial for the global response to emerging, neglected, and non-communicable diseases that are vaccine-preventable or –modifiable. Multilateral organisations must, therefore, prioritise the right to health above FTAs serving corporate over community interests, including through TRIPS waiver on Essential Technologies.
Introduction
Despite globally agreed mechanisms to prioritise global public health over short-term commercial interests and partisan actions by individual governments, vaccine delivery in the COVID-19 pandemic has been inequitable [1]. The Doha agreement and World Trade Organisation (WTO) Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) flexibilities have proven inadequate in scope and deployment. On May 5, 2023, as the World Health Organisation (WHO) declared the acute pandemic over, low-income countries (LICs) had delivered 5.65-times fewer vaccine doses per adult than high-income countries (HICs) (0.39 versus 2.26; GitHub and World Bank data) [2–4]. It is vital to understand why global access to vaccines has not been achieved.
The role of the Commercial Determinants of Health (CDH) in pandemic preparedness must be examined, including their contribution to vaccine inequity [5,6]. International trade and profit-related movements of goods, people and services played a key role in the emergence and development of the COVID-19 pandemic, including pathways to delivering essential technologies [7]. Vaccines have not traditionally been seen as commercially traded products, but part of international cooperation and national public health provision by governments. However, policies and practises arising from Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) have affected the manufacture and distribution of vaccines, delaying global vaccination. There is now awareness that FTAs are having a similar impact on vaccine equity as with new medicines.
Vaccines emerge from basic and translational research predominantly funded by the public sector. The expectation that COVID-19 vaccines would be viewed as global public goods (GPGs) was reflected in the resolutions in the 2020 World Health Assembly and UN General Assembly [8,9]. Instead of acting in global solidarity, however, HIC blocs concentrated vaccine supply, disrupted efforts to pool and distribute vaccines in line with need, and resisted efforts to increase and diversify manufacturing capacity in favour of delayed and inadequate charitable distribution [10]. Vulnerable people and healthcare professionals in low– and middle-income countries (LMICs) remained under-vaccinated, while countries above the charitable income limit found their vaccine supplies delayed, less reliable, and often more expensive than HICs [10].
FTAs promote early market capture of policies related to GPGs at all stages from conception to distribution (Fig 2) with limited attention to the purpose of immunisation as fundamental to the right to health. For example, most FTAs strengthen Intellectual Property (IP) law, protection of trade secrets and commercial interests beyond the WTO minimum (TRIPS-plus agreements) [11]. There is, however, scope for vaccines and vaccination-related services to be considered essential health services and global public goods with long-term benefits [12].
We must ask: What can be learned from existing measures and prior global outbreaks? Do trade goals conflict with vaccine equity? What policy incoherencies enable capture by non-health interests? What are the existing narratives for change and who is framing them?
We examined gaps in policy, policy recommendations, and action, with a focus on the role of the WTO and FTAs in the pathways to vaccine equity using the publicly available work of international policymaking bodies and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) with key responsibilities in this area.
Methods
We undertook a stakeholder review of the grey literature, complementing an earlier scoping of the peer-reviewed academic literature [13]. We defined stakeholders as organisations with a formal role as policy actors, for example the WTO, SDG custodians, NGOs (international public health bodies, charities, donors, and professional/trade governing bodies with roles in vaccine supply) (Appendix 1).
We searched online libraries for documents that focused on the interface between FTAs, vaccination, and vaccine equity between June 1 and August 31, 2022, enhanced by reference searches and alerts to identify material such as WTO papers becoming publicly available.
We conducted initial screening and then formally searched for English language documents published between 01/01/2010-03/06/2022, to cover the period from 5 years before the adoption of the SDGs, capturing their effects on trade policy related to vaccines, up until the date of our latest search, which covered the entire period of initial COVID-19 vaccine distribution. SDG 3, particularly Target 3.0.b.01 on universal access to vaccines, provided a formal, global commitment to vaccine equity [14]. It was used as a reference against which we could measure adoption and implementation of policy and practices likely to function as facilitators and barriers to vaccine equity, meeting the UN expectation that trade would be harnessed to meet SDG requirements [15]. The documents retrieved formed our dataset (Appendix 2). Appendix 3 includes search terms and PRISMA diagram [16]. We repeated the search on 04/05/2024 to assess whether additional recommendations with transformational potential emerged in response to continuing vaccine inequity in the 2 years after the end of the acute phase of the pandemic.
We followed the documentary analysis method outlined by Dalglish et al: readying, extracting, analysing, and distilling findings from each document and the relationships between them [17]. Two authors (TP and AKM) skimmed titles and abstracts to determine primary focus, before reviewing in detail to identify policy proposals, actions, and outcomes. We discussed and agreed the findings, fitting them to an analytic framework.
Our analytic framework builds on earlier work examining current and potential future approaches to developing sustainable public health and vaccine pathways. We applied and adapted the submission from the Globalisation Knowledge Network to the WHO Commission on the Social Determinants of Health on the Rights, Regulation, Redistribution (3R) framework (Fig 1) [18]. We looked specifically at factors that would affect enforcement of the right to health, impact multilateral regulation for equity in vaccine development and distribution. These factors were mapped onto the analytic framework: Determinants of Vaccine Equity, Technical Mechanisms, and Collaboration and Adaptation around the global free trade environment. Subcategories from the 3R framework were expanded as themes emerged in analysis.
The overarching categories can be considered at three positions along Meadows’ leverage points to intervene in a system [19]. Technical Mechanisms are proximal and visible, addressing specific gaps without effecting deep or sustainable change; Collaborative approaches, shared goals, professional and organisational responsibilities, can enable greater cohesion; Determinants are underlying causes from which pervasive political and commercial health effects emerge.
We discussed the findings first as broad themes under each category and then examined the subcategories, focusing on advancing vaccine equity at specific points in the causal process (Fig 2). This allowed us to interrogate which recommendations could be transformative and identify gaps.
Results
We screened 10,000 documents by abstract and title, 115 papers and reports met our eligibility criteria and underwent full text review (Appendix 2). Sixty-nine were subsequently excluded as they contained no action points (n=25), provided only basic information (n=18), provided no health (n=9), or trade policy (n=8) commentary, full text was inaccessible (n=6), or they were not international (n=3) (Appendix 3). Of the 46 documents included, only 12 came from stakeholders in the Global South (Appendix 1). Stakeholder references from the repeated search were not included in the dataset, as they did not pertain to the acute phase of the pandemic or reveal any novel recommendations, but search results are available on request.
We identified 267 recommendations likely to influence vaccine equity. Those that could enable significant vaccine progress towards SDG 3 were considered potentially transformational (Table 1). Technical Mechanisms constituted 152/267 (56.9%) proposals, of which 12/152 (7.9%) were considered potentially transformative, 48/267 (18.0%) focused on Collaborative and Adaptive Mechanisms, of which 8/48 (16.7%) were transformative, while 67/267 (25.1%) addressed Determinants of Vaccine Equity, with 9/67 (13.4%) transformative (Table 1). Our updated search identified no new transformational recommendations, though additional examples of Technical and Collaborative mechanisms were identified for points a.ii, c.ii, d.ii, g.i, i, o.iii in Table 1 [20–27].
Thematic Analysis
We drew out the processes involved in vaccine development, production, distribution, and service delivery, and identified where FTAs and trade-related policies and procedures had the potential to facilitate or constrain efforts to progress vaccine equity.
Technical Mechanisms
Development and application of technical mechanisms that limit or facilitate access to vaccines dominated the policy discourse. Technical recommendations focused on addressing vaccine inequity post-policy capture (Fig 2). Patents, supply chain and borders issues dominated (Table 1, a.-d., f.), tending to provide workarounds to mitigate short term harm rather than transformation.
Almost two-thirds of regional FTAs include TRIPS-plus agreements [28]; one vaccine can entail multiple patents and trade secrets covering essential technologies and processes [29]. Without access provisions at a public-private technology transfer stage, new FTAs and TRIPS-plus agreements afford market exclusivity to the few companies that own patents, proprietary technology, and trade secrets for periods that extend beyond the acute phase of an outbreak or pandemic. Few stakeholders acknowledged the importance of early intervention to support public development, prevent or limit exclusive licensing (Fig 2, a.-c.), and assure adequate governance to prevent market domination and excessive profit-taking (Table 1, g., h., i., n.iv.v). Without effective interventions, supply is capped. In addition, few countries produce vaccines, so most governments have limited scope to use domestic legislation to address emerging inequities, ensure affordability, or investment in infrastructure development.
Documentary analysis repeatedly identified Article 31 on TRIPS flexibilities [30]. Compulsory licensing is designed to combat TRIPS-related inequity of access to medicines, but complexity, potential costs, and lengthy timescales have limited its use (b.iii.1) [31,32]. Concern about the risk of trade and non-trade sanctions has limited repurposing of existing facilities and reverse engineering of vaccines (Table 1, b.iii.1, c.i.ii.iii.iv.v.1) [33]. Significant effort has been expended on complex negotiations and workarounds, while the WTO has recognised that TRIPS flexibilities were designed to address national rather than global emergencies [34]. To effect responsive vaccination to curtail a polio outbreak in Israel, the manufacturer waived the patent voluntarily, enabling local production [35]. The original compulsory licensing framework relied on exceptional conditions and, when designed, did not anticipate the range of behaviours of companies or vaccine-producing trading blocs that now distort the relationship between supply and need [32]. Few stakeholders addressed the relatively weak measures available to address failures to protect public health. Legal measures to formalise research ethics and public protections in law were key themes despite receiving little public attention.
Collaborative and Adaptive Mechanisms
We identified calls for open communication and information sharing with interested parties (Table 1, i.). Among the best-established examples are those for globally sharing intelligence, tissue, data, and expertise to support horizon-scanning and syndromic surveillance for emerging threats to health for vaccine preventable and modifiable diseases [36]. These efforts sit alongside advocacy for clinical trial transparency, action on price negotiations, epidemiological mapping and supporting infrastructure [37,38]. However, Collaborative Mechanisms should provide alternative means of resolving trade related issues related to vaccine equity. Significant gaps and inconsistencies impede this possibility [39]. In addition, while some grassroots and NGO efforts addressed supply chain issues, the role for other than market-based actors or activities, including governments, was minimal.
Collaborative and adaptive approaches should provide enabling mechanisms for public health FTA exemptions as a minimum, as attempted by the Medicines Patent Pool (MPP) [40]. However, such efforts remain context and topic specific. Without a systems approach, positive examples remain largely invisible to wider FTA decision-making. Equity must be upheld as a collaborative process and outcome, but we found public health measures reduced to specific interventions, reflecting hard-won, case-by-case global health diplomacy rather than progress towards system redesign. We found no proposals for community or grassroots representation in decision-making processes from the bodies responsible for multilateral governance.
Determinants of Vaccine Equity
There was no clear pathway to deliver vaccine equity in line with the requirement for universal access to vaccines. The Doha Declaration on the TRIPS agreement and Public Health and subsequent amendments allow for measures to address public health problems, including through vaccination [32,41]. However, we found limited evidence of attention to the structural, systemic, and institutional barriers to vaccine equity associated with FTAs including the trade-related issues that complicated the response to Ebola [42,43]. After limited progress towards a more comprehensive pandemic waiver in WTO [44], equity and access questions during pandemics are now considered within Pandemic Agreement negotiations (potentially Committee E) and revision of International Health Regulations (IHR) [45].
Analysis of Specific Recommendations
Technical recommendations frequently referenced procompetitive corporate governance (Table 1, a.-b.). Suggested amendments to patent challenging processes such as patent thickets and evergreening complicate an already resource intensive pathway for LMICs to access vaccines within WTO rules [37]. Corporate rights also dominated policy discourse. Narrowly drawn recommendations may illustrate a deliberately incremental approach favoured by some authors but there was little evidence of a strategic plan for vaccine equity in the stakeholder literature [46]. Just 6/152 recommendations (3.9%) addressed secrecy and restrictions (h.), and 7/152 (4.6%) technology transfer (g.), both crucial to vaccine equity.
Twelve Technical proposals were potentially transformational (Table 1). One, patent waiver (a.ii.iii.iv.1), directly addressed patents, trade secrets and non-patent related IP (a., h.). Propositions included a multilateral investment framework compatible with the SDGs (b.ii.2), breaking down barriers to employing TRIPS flexibilities (b.iii.1), and equitable vaccine research and production processes with ‘march in’ rights where products are not being made or distributed at scale to meet public health needs (g.i.1-2).
Collaborative recommendations focused largely on pre-existing declarations (17/48, 35.4%) (j.) such as implementation of TRIPS amendments or mechanisms designed to increase transparency (21/48, 45.8%) (i.) [30]. These often fall back on best endeavours rather than enforceable requirements or agreements formalising collective commitments, intelligence, and action. Potentially transformational recommendations included more comprehensive commitments to transparency and knowledge sharing (i.i.ii.1-2), alternative vaccine delivery partnerships (j.i.ii.1) and unlocking LMICs’ R&D potential. (l.i.1).
Recommendations considering the social, political, and commercial Determinants of Vaccine Equity as a subset of health equity – other than increasing average national income – were infrequent. Discourse on the determinants of health revolved around gaps in (financial) regulation and increasing the potential of LMICs to undertake innovative commercial health technology research (49/67, 73.1%) (m.-n.) rather than attention to rights, redistribution, or sustainability (o-p.).
Gaps in healthcare provision, access to care (11/67, 16.4%) (o.) and underlying causes of health and healthcare inequities that manifest as barriers to vaccine equity were overlooked (7/67, 10.4%) (p.). In the Determinants category, potentially transformational recommendations included calls to strengthen legislation around planetary health versus corporate interests (m.i.1), tailored financial support to address the social determinants of health at community (o.i.ii.1) and macro levels, including addressing the impacts of debt repayments (o.ii.iii.1).
Inter-related Nature of Recommendations
The relationships between individual recommendations were clear but largely unacknowledged. Technical Mechanisms often depended on Determinants of vaccine equity, for example releasing resources for health system strengthening by revoking or minimising the impact of debt repayments (b.v.1, o.ii.iii.1), but without a clear Collaborative bridge for mobilisation, for example as seen with the recommendation for national self-determination of research and healthcare goals in LMICs (e.ii.iii.iv.1, l.i.1, n.i.ii.iii.iv.v.1-2).
Discussion
There was insufficient recognition of FTA impact on vaccine equity in the international stakeholder literature. Attempts to apply incremental fixes such as 31bis in practice, or even case by case approaches such as compulsory licensing mechanisms, were not linked to new forms of collaboration or solution-building. Siloed technical solutions overwhelmed efforts to address the building blocks of vaccine equity such as reforming undemocratic decision-making, power imbalances, enabling technology transfer and addressing barriers including patent thickets and trade secrets.
Vaccine equity could have been designed into the global pandemic response, but efforts were diverted by a best endeavour framing of public health needs lacking the enforceability of corporate rights. The European Union, the UK, and the US were able to veto the COVID-19 technologies TRIPS waiver despite support from around 100 nations and calls for international cohesion from WHO, WTO and WIPO leadership [47]. As new WTO regulations require consensus, countries with stronger negotiating positions can block transformational proposals, limiting progress towards vaccine equity. Trade-offs and compromises across different areas of negotiation can also undermine improvements. WTO and WIPO are thus unlikely to be able to support transformative measures to enhance vaccine equity but will be bound to expanded and strengthened global agreements.
Addressing Gaps in the Current Approach to Addressing Vaccine Equity
Technical Mechanisms are vital tools that can enable introduction of specific interventions that address barriers or enable vaccine equity. However, they link to no coherent strategy in the policy discourse. Discussions on co-created models of financial support (o.i.ii.1) were overshadowed by those imposed by HICs and multilateral organisations, particularly GDP and World Bank national income category as proxies for resource availability. MSF Access reports illustrate that LMICs are subject to cliff edges in funding from international development organisations like Gavi when national income or GDP reaches an externally imposed threshold [48]. There has been little recognition that modelling and pricing processes do not take need, purchasing power parity or affordability into account. Rather than assuring the right to health, the global COVID-19 vaccine programme has been directed by growth-oriented FTA economics that simplifies complex geopolitics. There were no proposals for more inclusive shaping of international trade beyond the existing WTO regulation of FTAs. Instead, energy had to be directed towards resolving preventable issues like vaccine dumping.
Costa Rica’s proposal for a global technology and IP pool in March 2020 and Eswatini, India, Kenya, and South Africa’s proposal for a TRIPS waiver were important interventions that were rebutted [49,8]. Instead, underdeveloped Collaborative Mechanisms and limited multilateral governance undermined the ACT-A and COVAX collaborations and the additional emergency measures proposed. This failure is reflected in the IHR and Pandemic Agreement negotiations as LMICs advocacy for global equity has received significant pushback [50,52]. An enforceable global IP pool or TRIPS+ waiver including action regarding, for example, trade secrets or measures to limit profiteering, would have facilitated greater vaccine equity and informed wider corporate regulation.
Unlike the current proposals, access goals should be enshrined in law, supporting progress towards SDG 3 commitments, including universal access to vaccines. Existing mechanisms requiring corporations to fulfil public tasks before allowing the exclusive licensing of essential medicines and technologies that limits their distributive potential in health emergencies, could be built on. This would extend the disaster prevention and major incident response requirements placed on certain industries to pandemics [52]. IP regulations must ensure that public health measures can be enacted rapidly, dismantling patents or trade secrets as barriers. To build on the success of the pre-prepared protocols and mechanisms for rapid resourcing and implementation of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine trials there must be pre-defined conditions and methods for waiving patents and trade secrets on pandemic products, failing removal from TRIPS coverage [53]. While these issues, including benefit-sharing, are included in the Pandemic Agreement, the scope indicates limited progress [50].
Vaccine equity requires a focus on collaboration over competition. Corporate commitments to transparency may be welcome first steps but will not deliver the improvements in the determinants of vaccine equity or lower vaccine need; they have previously been used to argue that deeper change to IP and trade secrets is unnecessary [54]. This implies that the transformative potential of cooperative action and non-for-profit collaboration has not been considered. Without greater connection between populations, developments like the MPP cannot function as desired. The lack of an overarching strategic approach means that exclusion and inequity are baked into current FTA governance. For equity to be integral to pandemic preparedness, decision-making must centre independent regional, NGO, and grassroots civil society, currently excluded from closed-door negotiations.
Our stakeholder review found that power imbalances, postcolonial trade justice and human rights obligations, were under-recognised [55]. LMIC voices, particularly in-country NGOs, and advocacy bodies, were barely present; we identified only 12 policy documents from the Global South. Without a critical lens on how policymaking processes contribute to the determinants of health, opportunities for vaccine equity were missed throughout the pandemic. For example, available mRNA vaccines had exacting cold chain requirements. Community-based LMIC-led innovation could reduce barriers to local production, energy– and resource-dependent delivery, and hesitancy [42,43].
Action to address the flaws and limitations of current multilateral governance mechanisms is required, particularly in relation to the roles of the WTO and the WHO. Table 2 gives our synthesis of priorities for action. Trade is a tool, not an outcome, and public health must be consistently central to FTA negotiations, with enforceable definitions of compliance with the right to health as a corporate obligation rather than a task-specific, incentivised, discretionary mechanism.
Strengths and Limitations of This Study
We examined publicly available material that documented and analysed existing and proposed policy positions and mechanisms. We included international policy and advocacy organisations advising or negotiating trade-related agreements, or proposing solutions to address public health in FTAs. By reviewing complementary sources on a timeline designed to analyse progress towards the SDGs, particularly universal access to vaccines, we achieved saturation of key themes [56]. However, we could not identify all potential stakeholders due to gaps in discoverability, global representation in on-line databases, language restrictions, and a Westernised lens on free trade in multilateral organisations. We recognise that, as Pandemic Agreement negotiations have developed, additional evidence is emerging. Our findings, therefore, must be considered as the minimum required for action and we are conscious that novel approaches, alternative narratives and priorities for action from those populations most affected by the adverse impact of trade-related factors on vaccine equity may have been overlooked or misinterpreted.
Towards a New Framework
We found that action to address vaccine inequity could be evaluated using the 3R framework. By taking a systems approach, the relationships between specific Technical, Collaborative, and Determinant policy interventions could be mapped onto Meadows’ points of leverage to intervene in a system, highlighting transformative potential [19]. Achieving vaccine equity requires action on two fronts: a strategic plan bringing together the implementation of incremental and transformational improvements and a broader framework that centres the Determinants of Vaccine Equity.
The systems map of factors affecting vaccine equity shows the interlinked nature of the action required. Technical recommendations, for example, depend on new forms of collaboration by addressing areas where policies affecting the right to health are contested. Without shifts to the wider context in which technocratic measures evolve, access initiatives remain reactive, politically unfeasible, at risk of capture or overwhelm by corporate interests as with COVAX [57]. For example, compulsory licensing and/or waiving trade secrets (Technical) to enhance production of and access to vaccines are necessary due to a lack of equity in research and technology transfer (Determinants), as seen with SARS CoV-2 vaccines [1], but even pooling mechanisms (Collaborative) are not employed, reflecting fear of sanction or non-preference in FTAs.
While development, application and evaluation of technical fixes can mitigate harm, these measures alone will not achieve vaccine equity. For example, where the policy literature focused on tariff reductions to lubricate the production chain (Table 1, f.), FTAs could, instead, exclude essential health services such as immunisation, with vaccines as essential medicines excluded or technically exempted from the articles on procurement, investment and commercialisation of services that contribute to inequities in access. A framework for addressing vaccine inequity must prioritise the determinants of health, while developing new policy spaces by strengthening collaborative mechanisms to make changes stick, and then applying technical mechanisms to enable implementation. Pandemic Agreement negotiations could still provide the basic wiring with the Conference of Parties and Committee E as fora for such measures.
Addressing Determinants of Vaccine Equity
The vaccine requirements of populations with high exposure and risk of harm during the COVID-19 pandemic could have been predicted if the determinants of vaccine equity had been considered and the technical and collaborative mechanisms aligned. Instead, countries with high-risk environments and significant levels of multimorbidity, Global South nations that hosted clinical trials, like South Africa [58], experienced avoidable harm from delayed supply and excess cost of vaccines [59]. Few recommendations supported policy action to manage countries’ evolving health needs and inequities. Precipitous GDP-related removal of support when reaching externally imposed thresholds was also hardly covered. Global actors responsible for vaccine programmes must acknowledge FTA-related factors and protect against increasing health inequities, rather than presuming increasing national income as result of trade will enable universal access to healthcare.
Building Blocks
The WTO and WHO now have Global South leadership and more progressive ambition than before the pandemic. This must translate into action. Global negotiations to develop a pandemic treaty endeavour to address equity, trade– and IP–related issues, but have made limited progress and risk removing effective recommendations. WTO decision-making must adapt to address planetary health challenges; longer-term constitutional change and progress in addressing wider CDH is glacial. The roles of the WTO and multilateral organisations in FTAs have been widely criticised by LMICs, especially the difficult and inequitable dispute mechanisms [60,61]. It should be possible for Member States to support strengthening the role of WHO in relation to the wider determinants of health, including planetary health, and reposition the WTO with more effective global oversight. Multilateral bodies must have the capacity to create the conditions that enable countries to pass laws to hold corporations accountable for fulfilling their public responsibilities, promoting more equitable decision-making. Collective efforts should enable countries to translate currently unenforceable best endeavours agreements regarding health and its determinants into laws to protect public health, with the precautionary principle at the heart of pandemic preparedness. As a first step, this means WTO engaging with all populations regardless of UN state classification, rather than WTO members only, with space for an independent voice to advocate for peoples of disputed territories. Recent progress on multilateral governance in relation to tax provides a model worthy of further exploration as similar agreements could set out agreed minimum standards for countries to address gaps in current laws [62,63]. Meanwhile, to increase FTA transparency and accessibility, formal observer status should be granted to representatives of national public health bodies and independent civil society organisations. This should be complemented by joint working to measure gaps in policy against priorities held by all nations undertaken in collaboration with WHO, through its collaborating centres.
Vaccine equity is a planetary health challenge for which FTAs could be an enabling mechanism rather than a barrier. A systems approach to multilateral governance centring Determinants would enable just and nuanced support for health needs, increase visibility of levers that hinder progress in multiple dimensions of health justice, facilitating a clearer path to action.
Conclusion
The complex web of policy decisions that constitute FTAs has shaped vaccine inequity and the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. There can be no international tolerance for this scale of inequity. Here we have illuminated trade as a CDH, a link previously difficult to track but made clear by analysing barriers to vaccine equity. We have shown why institutional change is often refractory, making visible the distortion of public benefits by corporate policy capture, and the prevention of transformation from sole focus on technical measures. Known injustices and harms have deepened as a result. Our framework is transferable to other public health problems, for example, environmental change and pandemic propensity.
A framework for the transformation of FTAs is urgent, with interventions developed, tested and their impact evaluated. To facilitate action and analysis, a new multilateralism is needed. Our review identified steps towards a new framework, but our methodology is limited by potential publication bias, the lack of Global South and independent community representation. Future work must reduce inequity in discoverability of scholarship and research with an easily accessed and updated policy bank for LMIC sources. Sustainable vaccine equity requires that we transform the relationship between trade and the determinants of health. This requires an overhaul of the processes by which policy is made and governed, changing how we move towards collective planetary outcomes.
Data Availability
All databases produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript and supplementary file. Data synthesis beyond the manuscript is available upon reasonable request to the authors.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful for the support of Dr Siddharth Basetti, NHS Scotland, for fruitful discussions and support with organising and checking data.
Footnotes
Updated formatting that is more clear in the PDF format – previous version was difficult to follow as the tables came after everything else. Search methods have also been expanded and explained for clarity.
