CIVICUS discusses ongoing Pandemic Treaty negotiations with Alexandra Finch, Project Manager for the Panel for a Global Public Health Convention, an independent coalition that works to strengthen global outbreak prevention and response. Alexandra is also a Senior Associate at the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law and Adjunct Professor of Law at Georgetown <a href="https://healthylife7.com/researchers-at-columbia-university-in-the-u-s-have-published-a-study-showing-that-a-lack-of-sleep-f/” title=”Researchers at Columbia University in the U.S. have published a study showing that a lack of sleep f..”>University
While states adopted the Pandemic Agreement in 2025, they’re currently negotiating a crucial supplementary instrument on sharing pathogens and their genetic data, and on equitably distributing the resulting benefits. Talks have repeatedly stalled, delaying the wider treaty’s entry into force even as pandemic risk grows, as exemplified by the current Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
Why have pathogen access and benefit-sharing negotiations been difficult?
The Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (PABS) Instrument that World Health Organization (WHO) member states are negotiating is an annex to the Pandemic Agreement that was adopted in May 2025. The Intergovernmental Working Group (IGWG) is tasked with fleshing out article 12 of the agreement, which sets up the PABS system but only in broad principle. The instrument must cover two things on an equal footing: the rapid sharing of pathogens and their sequence information, and the fair sharing of the benefits that flow from them, including diagnostics, therapeutics, vaccines and monetary contributions.
Several legally and technically complex issues remain unresolved. Database governance is one core challenge. Negotiators must decide how the PABS system will work, given the range of platforms used to share sequence information. These platforms follow different rules. Some, like GenBank, are ‘open’, allowing unrestricted access without registration. Others, like GISAID, are ‘closed’. And there are newer, hybrid models, like Pathoplexus, that let scientists choose between open release and time-limited restricted use. Global south states generally favour a registration-based model, possibly hosted by the WHO, since this would let benefit-sharing obligations be attached at the point of registration. Global north states favour an open model, arguing this would not delay scientific exchange, research and the development of lifesaving products.
Benefit-sharing obligations are another sticking point. Article 12 fixes the rules for sharing diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccines during a pandemic. But obligations for other benefits, such as capacity building and technology transfer, are unresolved, as are the rules for other times. The Africa Group and Equity Group want binding obligations, including product set-asides, extended to public health emergencies of international concern and inter-pandemic periods. Global north states have, until recently, preferred to confine binding obligations to pandemic emergencies, leaving benefit-sharing optional elsewhere. There is now, thankfully, some convergence emerging around more tangible benefit-sharing obligations outside pandemics.
Monetary benefit-sharing is also unresolved. States disagree over what financial contributions should cover. Some want them limited to the PABS system’s running costs. Others want them tied to the commercial returns from PABS materials and sequence information, including royalties, profit shares and milestone payments at various stages of clinical development, which could deliver far more funding overall
Finally, article 12 requires legally binding contracts between the WHO and users of PABS materials and sequence information. These remain contentious. Delegates disagree on who should draft the standard contracts, when they should be concluded and what they must contain. The core tension is between preserving enough flexibility for commercially to deliver the Pandemic Agreement’s equity promise
What does the current state of the PABS negotiations mean for the treaty?
Having failed to reach consensus on the PABS system under article 12, WHO member states set up the IGWG to negotiate it separately as an annex. Crucially, the Pandemic Agreement cannot open for signature until that annex is adopted. This reflects three things: how central the PABS system is to the treaty’s equity promise, the depth of mistrust between states over whether equity commitments will be honoured and the sheer complexity of the issues at stake
States originally gave themselves a year to finish the annex. By April 2026, after six rounds of negotiations, it was clear the deadline would be missed. At the most recent World Health Assembly, states agreed to extend negotiations by a year, aiming to submit the annex to the 2027 Assembly or, if possible, to a special session in 2026, though that now looks highly unlikely
In practice, this holds the whole Pandemic Agreement hostage. This includes its new obligations on One Health – linking human, animal and environmental health to catch outbreaks at theirquitable sharing of health products, and new governance mechanisms such as the conference of the parties
Nothing formally stops states from implementing the treaty’s core provisions in the meantime. But in the absence of a binding treaty, they have little incentive to do so. The world, meanwhile, remains unprepared and at risk
What would an effective and fair PABS mechanism look like?
First, it would hold all users of PABS sequence information accountable for benefit-sharing. Recent Ebola and hantavirus outbreaks show that scientists use a range of platforms to share sequence information. A hybrid model reflects this reality best and could potentially draw in a wider pool of benefits. But more is needed. Enforceable benefit-sharing obligations must apply to PABS sequence information wherever it is hosted, and there should be requirements for databases to use persistent identifiers that trace how the data is used.
Second, it would give legal certainty to the full range of benefits, not just those triggered by a pandemic emergency. This means set-asides for products during public health emergencies of international concern, and a mandatory choice of other benefits, such as technology transfer and capacity building, essential for diversifying manufacturing, during inter-pandemic phases, tailored to each user’s capacity. That would replace crisis-driven, voluntary negotiations, which often fail to deliver equity.
Third, contracts between the WHO and users of PABS materials and sequence information need clearly defined minimum requirements. These should cover benefit-sharing obligations, key definitions, such as what counts as force majeure, liability and reporting requirements. At the same time, they would need enough flexibility to stay commercially
Finally, it needs accountable governance in the form of a PABS Advisory Group with a clearly defined relationship to the conference of the parties, a regular review process and transparent decision-making
How has civil society engaged with the process?
Access has been disappointingly limited. Drafting sessions are restricted to member state delegations and, in a notable departure from other multilateral processes, civil society organisations aren’t permitted to observe them. Instead, civil society has had to work through side events, brief statements in plenary sessions, external communications and informal lobbying of delegations
This opacity forces civil society to spend its limited energy and revidual negotiators and trading intelligence in the WHO cafeteria, rather than shaping outcomes. The legitimacy of a process with major public consequences is also undermined when it’s conducted behind closed doors and beyond the reach of independent scrutiny
What should states and civil society do now?
States must use the extra time to urgently convert convergence into agreed treaty language. Beyond that, they’ll need real political will and flexibility to resolve the remaining sticking points. Positions are well known by now, and the world can’t afford to sit around while delegates simply repeat them
Civil society, meanwhile, must keep applying pressure and technical scrutiny to the negotiations, holding states to the bold aspirations of the Pandemic Agreement and pushing them to deliver a PABS Annex that actually works
CIVICUS interviews a wide range of civil society activists, experts and leaders to gather diverse perspectives on civil society action and current issues for publication on its CIVICUS Lens platform. The views expressed in interviews are the interviewees’ and do not necessarily reflect those of CIVICUS. Publication does not imply endorsement of interviewees or the organisations they represent
