LONDON: Global vaccine alliance Gavi and its partner UNICEF will pay 25 percent less for a new malaria vaccine made by the Serum Institute of India within roughly a year’s time, allowing them to reach more children despite cuts in international aid.
The deal will reduce the cost of the R21 vaccine to $2.99 a dose from around $4. Unicef buys the vaccines with funding from Gavi, a partnership that works with governments to immunize children in the world’s poorest countries.
Gavi estimates the price drop will save $90 million, which can fund 30 million more doses for up to 7 million more children over the next five years.
Gavi raised $3 billion less than its target at a fundraising event earlier this year as international donors, led by the United States, focused on other priorities.
“At this critical juncture of unprecedented decline in funding for international aid, Unicef is determined to continue our proactive work with partners,” said Leila Pakkala, director of UNICEF’s supply division, in a statement.
Babies require four doses of the vaccine to be fully protected against malaria, which still claims more than 500,000 lives annually, mainly children under 5 years old in sub-Saharan Africa. That means a full course of R21 will cost $11.96.
Treating a case of uncomplicated malaria in sub-Saharan Africa costs $4 to $7 per outpatient visit, while severe cases requiring hospital care can cost more than $70, according to World Health Organization figures quoted by Gavi.
The other malaria vaccine, made by GSK, is priced at around $10 a dose. Earlier this year, Bharat Biotech and GSK pledged to halve that price when Bharat takes over production in 2028.
Gavi, UNICEF sign deal to cut malaria vaccine price
https://arab.news/8na6s
Gavi, UNICEF sign deal to cut malaria vaccine price
- Deal to reduce the cost of the R21 vaccine, made by the Serum Institute of India, to $2.99 a dose from around $4
- Babies require four doses of the vaccine to be fully protected against malaria. That means a full course of R21 will cost $11.96
Climate activist group files second lawsuit against Sweden
- Sweden’s Supreme Court in February 2025 ruled that the complaint filed against the state was inadmissible
- “We still have a chance to get out of the planetary crises and build a safe and fair world,” Edling said
STOCKHOLM: A group of climate activists said Friday they were filing another lawsuit against the Swedish state for alleged climate inaction, after the Supreme Court threw out their case last year.
The group behind the lawsuit, Aurora, first tried to sue the Swedish state in late 2022.
Sweden’s Supreme Court in February 2025 ruled that the complaint filed against the state — brought by an individual, with 300 other people joining it as a class action lawsuit — was inadmissible.
The court at the time noted the “very high requirements for individuals to have the right to bring such a claim” against a state.
“We still have a chance to get out of the planetary crises and build a safe and fair world. But this requires that rich countries that emit as much as Sweden stop breaking the law,” Aurora spokesperson Ida Edling said in a statement Friday.
The group, which said the lawsuit had been filed with the Stockholm District Court Friday, said it believes the Swedish state is obligated “to reduce Sweden’s emissions as much and as quickly as necessary in order for the country to be in line with its fair share.”
“This means that emissions from several sectors must reach zero before 2030,” the group said, while noting this was 15 years before Sweden’s currently set targets.
The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency as well as the OECD warned last year that Sweden was at risk of not reaching its own goal of net zero emissions by 2045.
While the first lawsuit was unsuccessful, the group noted that international courts had made several landmark decisions since the first suit was filed, spotlighting two in particular.
In an April 2024 decision, Europe’s top rights court, the European Court of Human Rights, ruled that Switzerland was not doing enough to tackle climate change, the first country ever to be condemned by an international tribunal for not taking sufficient action to curb global warming.
In 2025, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion stating that countries violating their climate obligations were committing an “unlawful” act.
