Press play to listen to this article
European Commission officials on Monday reiterated a barrage of vague threats about blocking coronavirus vaccine exports, but couldn’t explain exactly what they planned to do, when they wanted to do it, or how this would actually lead to more doses that would be injected into the arms of EU citizens.
So after another day of far more questions than answers about the EU’s slowly advancing vaccine campaign, only so much was clear: the constant stumbling in Brussels would not stop the grumbling among EU citizens and national leaders in the run-up to a virtual European Council. top on Thursday.
The threats from the Commission, first articulated by President Ursula von der Leyen last week, are nominally directed against the UK – the only vaccine-producing country to have received doses produced on the European continent but not export doses in all respects. domestically produced.
The British government – and the British people – have reacted angrily to the EU’s saber rattle, and Prime Minister Boris Johnson has reached out to European counterparts to avoid new restrictive measures that could put pressure on him to respond. Some allies are already urging him to keep his fire, even if the EU takes action, to avoid a trade war that could disrupt delicate supply chains.
But for now, the Commission held its fire.
“Look, we are not going to speculate on the tools or the actual details of what we could propose to achieve the goals,” said Commission chief spokesman Eric Mamer. “Our problem is indeed with the underperformance, under-delivery of vaccines compared to what is stated in our contracts with these companies and that is the problem we want to solve – how we can make sure companies deliver to the EU under contract.”
But while Mamer, speaking at the regular afternoon press conference, was referring to multiple companies, the Commission’s anger is currently focused on only one: AstraZeneca, which falls short of tens of millions of doses of what it promised to deliver.
As a way to potentially overcome that shortage, the Commission is examining the possibility of limiting exports of AstraZeneca vaccines manufactured in a factory in the Netherlands run by a subcontractor, Halix. And on Monday, Dutch officials indicated that they were cooperating with a Commission decision to ban such exports.
But it’s unclear if that would even help. Internal market commissioner Thierry Breton, the EU leader on increasing vaccine production, said earlier that the Halix plant has not shipped doses to the UK, although that may have changed.
As a separate complication, the European Medicines Agency has not yet authorized the Halix plant to manufacture vaccines for the EU. The snafu appears to be a technical error that was as much the fault of the Commission in not insisting that AstraZeneca ask for authorization, as the company’s error of not doing so. That approval is now pending, Mamer said.
Mamer repeatedly stressed during Monday’s press conference that the objectives of the Commission were simply to force vaccine manufacturers to follow the EU’s purchase agreements and to achieve “reciprocity” from other vaccine-producing countries receiving EU-made doses – again, namely the UK.
He defined reciprocity as the export of finished vaccine doses or raw materials needed to make vaccines.
At the same time, he confirmed that even if the Commission were to block exports, it currently has no legal authority to seize and reuse unsent vaccines for EU countries. Such a move would require additional emergency measures and could run the risk of violating World Trade Organization rules and further undermine the EU’s reputation as a champion of international rules-based free trade.
“This is not about banning the export of vaccines,” Mamer said. “It’s about making sure we are able to receive the vaccines that are planned for Europe.”
Journalists and some national officials still wondered how the Commission would actually guarantee the delivery of the expected vaccines, something it has yet to do with AstraZeneca. So far, with Italy’s support, the Commission has blocked only one shipment: AstraZeneca vaccines destined for Australia. On Monday, Mamer said the Commission did not know what had happened to the blocked 250,000 doses and referred questions to the company.
EU leaders will discuss the issue of vaccine exports at their video conference summit on Thursday. But because they don’t meet in person, they can’t make an immediate, formal decision.
There has been some speculation that leaders, who are under increasing political pressure due to the slow pace of vaccination, might want to broaden export bans to focus not only on AstraZeneca, but also BioNTech / Pfizer, Moderna and possibly other producers complying so far their contractual obligations towards the EU.
Such a move would anger not only the companies, but also other countries, including partners such as Canada, Australia and Mexico, who purchase vaccines from EU manufacturers.
When von der Leyen issued her new threats last week, she offered a reason to block exports on a larger scale – a move that, while controversial, could even increase vaccination coverage in the EU. Coincidentally, in a super election year, it could also boost the ruling party of the Christian Democratic Union in Germany.
But other EU countries said they would oppose such an aggressive move, warning that von der Leyen’s incendiary approach endangered the EU’s reputation in an attempt to perform in front of a German audience.
“I feel more and more that we are all just part of … a German election piece,” said an EU diplomat.
Two EU diplomats said only France and Italy were clearly in favor of a broader export ban, while Germany’s position remained unclear. And France was the only country openly behind that new risky approach.
“I support the announcements of the President of the Commission… especially to demand reciprocity,” President Emmanuel Macron said last week.
Officials from Spain, Sweden and the Netherlands, among others, said they were against blocking the export of vaccines from companies that kept their contracts.
With EU countries divided and leaders virtually gathering, it seemed unlikely that a resolution of the debate would come this week.
Meanwhile, the earlier attempt by European Council President Charles Michel to challenge the UK to reveal how many doses it has exported seemed forgotten amid the din of Commission threats – not to mention London’s warnings about the possibility of a damaging trade war.
Emilio Casalicchio and Anna Isaac and contributed to the reporting
This article is a part of POLITICSPremium policy service: Pro Health Care. From drug prices, EMA, vaccines, pharma and more, our specialist journalists will keep you updated on the topics driving the healthcare policy agenda. E-mail [email protected] for a free trial.