-
CENTRES
Progammes & Centres
Location
As the draft Pandemic Accord talks wrap up, vague equity measures, weak obligations, and postponed benefit-sharing terms hint at critical pending negotiations in the future
Image Source: Getty
On 16 April 2025, the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB), which was established to draft and negotiate an international legal instrument on addressing future pandemics and health emergencies, concluded the Pandemic Accord (PA) negotiations. The PA addresses all three important aspects of the pandemic—prevention, preparedness, and response. The European Union (EU) announced the idea of a legally binding international agreement on the pandemic in November 2020 during the Paris Peace Forum—a French non-profit organisation that convenes to address global challenges. This was followed up in March 2021 with a joint letter endorsed by 25 global leaders and the Director General of the World Health Organisation (WHO). A coalition of countries that validated the idea of an accord was formed under the ‘Friends of the Treaty’ umbrella to pursue the demand for PA within the WHO’s Working Group on Pandemic Preparedness and Response (WGPR). In December 2021, the World Health Assembly’s Special Session established the INB to draft and negotiate the PA.
The European Union (EU) announced the idea of a legally binding international agreement on the pandemic in November 2020 during the Paris Peace Forum—a French non-profit organisation that convenes to address global challenges.
The preamble of the decision to establish INB [SSA2(5)] states the vision of the PA, which includes:
The WHO member states have attained a consensus over the pandemic agreement in the aftermath of the United States’ (US) steps to exit the WHO and its disinterest in leading global health efforts. Though equity has been given primacy, the measures to realise equity are blurred. Qualifiers, such as ‘national circumstances’ to address obligations by member states, are vague, and there is little clarity in how they can be measured or enforced. The sections below will discuss in detail how the final PA text is far short of the vision stated.
As expected, the North-South divide was visible during the negotiations. Northern countries were more focused on surveillance and therefore pushed mandatory data-sharing. Although they characterised it as pandemic prevention, it can also be useful in predicting subsequent pandemics. The Global South was focused on addressing the inequities faced during the pandemic, and they argued for a legal obligation to have guaranteed access to health products required for preventing and responding to the pandemic. Further, southern countries also sought access to finance and technology for implementing the PA, especially in building and maintaining Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response (PPPR) capacities, on which North was not ready to make any legal commitment.
The Global South was focused on addressing the inequities faced during the pandemic, and they argued for a legal obligation to have guaranteed access to health products required for preventing and responding to the pandemic.
As a result of this divergence, all substantive provisions of the PA are drafted with qualifications or in the best endeavour language except Article 12 and therefore, do not bring any change in the status quo concerning PPPR. Few provisions that legally guarantee some action are concentrated in Article 12, which establishes a Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing (PABS) System – the system that recognises the timely sharing of biological materials, data, and the benefits that arise from them. The operational details of the PABS system under Article 12 are subject to future negotiations.
Article 4.2 on prevention and surveillance lists party obligations on pandemic prevention and coordinated multi-sectoral surveillance, and is qualified with several terms. Thus, the implementation of Article 4.2 depends on factors, such as— ‘taking into account its national circumstances’, ‘subject to the availability of resources’ and “taking into account its public health priorities”. Since there is no predictable resource flow from developed to developing countries, the Article’s implementation would be uneven across regions.
Similarly, Article 5 (‘One Health’) also qualifies terms such as ‘as appropriate’, indicating that its implementation will be subject to national circumstances and resource availability.
Articles 9, 10, 11, and 13 deal with research and development (R&D), geographically diversified production, technology transfer, procurement, supply chains, and distribution. None of these articles creates predictable access to R&D outcomes, technology or relevant health products for PPPR.
The only provision that offers guaranteed access is the PABS system, under Article 12. PABS is to facilitate the rapid sharing of pathogens of pandemic potential along with the benefits emerging out of such sharing. Although details of the PABS System need to be developed through further negotiations, it is expected to be concluded before the 79th WHA in 2026. Moreover, Paragraph 6 of Article 12 already stipulates that every participating manufacturer must make 20 percent of their real-time production available to the WHO in case of a pandemic. Out of this, 10 percent should be donated, and the remaining provided at an affordable price to the WHO. However, manufacturers have the flexibility to determine the percentage to be provided at an affordable price, depending on the nature and capacity of the manufacturers.
PABS is to facilitate the rapid sharing of pathogens of pandemic potential along with the benefits emerging out of such sharing.
Paragraph 7 of Article 12 requires the manufacturers to share the benefits, ‘including options regarding access to safe, quality and effective vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics for the pathogen causing the public health emergency of international concern.’ There is no mention of the amount donated or availability at an affordable price to the WHO during Public Health Emergencies of International Concerns (PHEICs). Nonetheless, the occurrence of PHEICs is more common than a pandemic. Paragraph 8 also provides similar options for access to health products before a PHEIC is determined, to prevent an outbreak from becoming a PHEIC. However, implementing these provisions must be negotiated to attain predictable access.
This may create a situation wherein PA parties are obliged to share the pathogen of pandemic potential around the clock. On the other hand, access to health products would occur only during a pandemic. Further, the negotiations on the PABS System are to determine important issues, such as the design of the PBAS system, Standard Material Transfer Agreements (SMTA), Data Access Agreement to facilitate access to the Digital Sequence Information (DSI) of pathogens, and definitions of terms– such as ‘pathogens of pandemic potential’, ‘participating manufacturer’ and so on. The PA will be opened for signature only after adopting the PABS System. A broader scope of defining pathogens with pandemic potential could result in an unequivocal sharing of several pathogens, which poses a biosecurity risk, especially since such sharing takes place without safeguards to protect data.
The conclusion of the PA is only one phase of the negotiation. The provisions of the PA, except Article 12, offer no predictable access to health products for PPPR. The PABS System proposes to create an obligation to share benefits against the commitment to share a certain percentage of health products during a pandemic. However, the discussions on the critical elements of the PABS System are postponed, citing ‘urgency’ to conclude PA. The next phase of the negotiation on the PABS System is crucial to countries, including India, from an equity and biosecurity perspective.
K M Gopakumar is a Senior Researcher and Legal Advisor at Third World Network (TWN), New Delhi, India.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
K. M Gopakumar is a Senior Researcher and Legal Advisor at Third World Network (TWN) and based in New Delhi, India. TWN is an independent, ...
Read More +
PREV
