WHO Pandemic Treaty: Global Negotiations

The world is currently attempting to draft a historic agreement to prevent the next global health catastrophe from becoming a repeat of COVID-19. Negotiators from the World Health Organization’s 194 member states have been meeting in Geneva to hammer out the details of a “pandemic accord.” The goal is simple in theory but complex in practice: create a legally binding playbook for how nations share information and medical resources when a new virus emerges. However, deep divisions remain regarding money, power, and intellectual property.

The Core of the Conflict: Access vs. Innovation

The primary friction point in these negotiations is the “Group for Equity.” This bloc includes over 70 developing nations, led largely by countries in Africa, along with India, Brazil, and Pakistan. Their argument is rooted in the trauma of the COVID-19 pandemic. During that crisis, wealthy nations like the United States, the United Kingdom, and members of the European Union secured the vast majority of vaccine doses while poorer nations waited months or years for leftovers.

The Group for Equity is demanding that the treaty include concrete guarantees. They want a system where:

• Developing nations receive a guaranteed percentage of pandemic-related products (like vaccines and test kits).
• Intellectual property rules are waived during emergencies so local manufacturers can produce generic versions of life-saving drugs.
• Wealthy nations commit to funding the infrastructure required to monitor diseases in poorer regions.

On the other side of the table are the United States, the European Union, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. These nations are home to major pharmaceutical giants like Pfizer, Moderna, Roche, and AstraZeneca. Their negotiators argue that strictly waiving patent rights will stifle innovation. They believe that if pharmaceutical companies cannot profit from their discoveries, they will have no incentive to develop new medicines quickly during the next outbreak.

The PABS System: Trading Virus Data for Medicine

A specific mechanism causing intense debate is the Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (PABS) system. This is the technical term for the “data sharing” mentioned in news reports.

To make a vaccine, scientists need immediate access to the genetic data of a new virus. Historically, nations have shared this data freely. However, developing nations are now withholding this data as leverage. Their position is that if they provide the biological materials (the virus samples) that allow Western companies to make billions of dollars, they should be guaranteed benefits in return.

The proposed PABS system suggests the following structure:

1. Countries agree to share genetic sequence data immediately upon discovering a new threat.
2. In exchange, manufacturers using that data must set aside a specific portion of their production for the WHO to distribute.
3. Current drafts have floated a figure of 20% of real-time production. This would be split into 10% donated for free and 10% sold at affordable, non-profit prices.

Pharmaceutical trade groups, such as the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA), have pushed back against these fixed percentages. They argue that voluntary cooperation works better than mandatory quotas.

The "One Health" Approach and Surveillance Costs

Another major pillar of the treaty is the “One Health” approach. This concept recognizes that human health is tightly linked to animal health and the environment. Since most recent pandemics (including COVID-19, Ebola, and HIV) originated in animals, the treaty aims to increase surveillance of livestock and wildlife.

While most nations agree this is scientifically necessary, the disagreement is about who pays for it.

Implementation of One Health standards requires strict monitoring of wet markets, farms, and wild habitats. For a country like the Democratic Republic of Congo or Indonesia, this is incredibly expensive. Negotiators from the Global South have stated clearly that they cannot sign up for strict surveillance obligations without a dedicated financial mechanism. They are asking for billions of dollars in committed funding from the World Bank and wealthy donors to build the labs and hire the staff needed to act as the world’s early warning system.

Deadlines and Delays

The Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) originally aimed to finalize this agreement by the World Health Assembly in May 2024. They failed to reach a consensus by that deadline. The divide was simply too wide to bridge in the allotted time.

Rather than abandoning the treaty, the member states agreed to extend the mandate. Negotiations are currently ongoing, with a renewed push to finalize the text by the next major assembly in 2025. The stakes are high. If the treaty is watered down too much, it becomes a symbolic document with no power. If it is too strict, wealthy nations (specifically the US Senate, which requires a two-thirds majority for treaty ratification) may refuse to sign it, rendering it useless.

Frequently Asked Questions

Will the WHO Pandemic Treaty override national sovereignty? No. This is a common concern, but the draft text explicitly states that nations retain full sovereignty over their health policies. The WHO cannot force a country to lock down, close borders, or mandate vaccines. The treaty is about international cooperation and supply chains, not domestic governance.

What happens if countries don’t agree? If no agreement is reached, the world remains under the current International Health Regulations (IHR) from 2005. Most experts agree these regulations are outdated and insufficient for handling a modern, fast-moving pandemic.

Why are pharmaceutical companies involved in the talks? While member states are the ones voting, pharmaceutical lobbyists are heavily involved because the treaty directly affects their business models. They are advocating to protect intellectual property rights (patents) to ensure they can continue to operate profitably.

Which countries are opposing the strict equity rules? The strongest opposition to strict waivers on intellectual property and mandatory donation quotas comes from the United States, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Germany, and Japan. These nations prioritize protecting their domestic biotechnology sectors.