World Health Organization member states will propose to continue negotiations on a critical annex to the Pandemic Agreement, after being unable to bridge key disagreements in time for their original deadline. The Intergovernmental Working Group (IGWG) tasked with negotiating a pathogen access and benefit sharing (PABS) mechanism was expected to finalise its work and present the results to the 2026 World Health Assembly taking place 18-23 May, one year after the Pandemic Agreement was adopted. The PABS mechanism, an annex to the Pandemic Agreement, is meant to ensure that countries rapidly share information about pathogens with pandemic potential while ensuring equitable benefits from the products that are developed as a result of this sharing. The Pandemic Agreement cannot be ratified and go into force without the PABS system in place.
Despite late nights and extra sessions – informal negotiations were added the week of 20th April and a resumed session was added from 27 April – 1 May after an agreement proved elusive at the IGWG’s meeting in March – delegates were still unable to reach consensus.
As of this writing, the latest draft negotiated text available to relevant stakeholders (dated 29 April, 23:35) contained 450 pairs of “brackets”, indicating text that is still being considered for inclusion. Very little of the 17-page document has been ‘greened’, indicating consensus has been reached to accept an area of text. While officials talk about progress made last week in Geneva, such progress is not yet reflected in the documentation.
Key unresolved issues include:
Obligations of participating manufacturers:
The PABS Annex is meant to place on equal footing access to pandemic-related materials (including samples and genetic sequencing information) as well as access to the benefits resulting from those materials. The idea is that countries sharing critical information related to emerging pathogens to enable manufacturing of countermeasures, should not then be last in line to access those countermeasures.
But what specific benefits are owed by manufacturers that receive materials through this system is not yet agreed. Some options include: monetary benefits (possibly as a percentage of revenue from pandemic related products or as milestone payments for e.g. patent sales thresholds or regulatory approval); capacity building/technical assistance; granting of non-exclusive licences to developing country manufacturers; and direct provision of vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics (or only some of these).
In the event of a pandemic emergency, countermeasures become more important — as became clear during Covid, unequal access to countermeasures leads to unnecessary loss of human life and prolongation of the pandemic for everyone. The Pandemic Agreement specifies that under the PABS system, manufacturers shall provide rapid access to 20% of their real time production, of which 10% should come as a donation to the WHO. But much work still needs to be done to determine how this will be implemented.
What triggers access/benefit sharing ?
During the Pandemic Agreement negotiations, there was debate over when to trigger provisions in the text — should technology transfer and capacity building happen in ‘peacetime’ or only once the WHO has declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC)? Similarly, there is disagreement within the PABS annex about what ‘triggers’ obligations under the PABS system and how it will be enforced. It is clear that PABS materials should be, by priority, shared with the WHO. Databases participating in the PABS mechanism, that gather and collate pathogen information, will play an important role; as well as the idea of unique, persistent identifier or some other means to track that information and users of the information.
But precisely how information will be managed and how it will be connected to benefit sharing is unclear. A binding contract at the point of accessing material has been proposed. The idea of a hybrid system where pathogen data could be shared via an ‘open’ pathway or a ‘closed’ pathway only available to those who agree to binding benefit-sharing obligations was proposed informally by the EU. But developing countries have raised the concern that acts as an ‘opt-out’ of benefit sharing that fundamentally changes the nature of what the Pandemic Treaty and the PABS annex are trying to achieve: global solidarity in the face of pandemic emergencies.
What constitutes PABS Material?
That member states are committing to share information related to pathogens with sustained transmission in humans with pandemic potential is clear, but precisely what materials fall under this rubric is not yet fully defined, including whether or not modified versions of pathogens created for the development of vaccines, therapeutics or diagnostics also fall under the sharing mandate.
An unstated issue in the background are bilateral deals already moving forward — in particular between the US and some African nations — which risk creating pathways outside the PABS system for the sharing of critical data that would be untouched by whatever the WHO process decides. (The US left the WHO in January 2026.)
Part of the problem is that the Pandemic Agreement does not have firm legally binding commitments for the sharing of intellectual property, technology and know-how. So these issues have come back to haunt the talks on PABS. PABS talks would most likely have been a lot easier if the Pandemic Agreement had provided for firmer commitments in this area.
The World Health Assembly meeting on 18-23 May will receive the latest draft negotiated text from the IGWG, with a cover letter asking to continue the work of the IGWG and submit the outcome of the talks to the WHA in 2027 or at a special session if an agreement is reached sooner. The next meeting of the IGWG will be 6-17 July.
Let’s just hope the next pandemic will also take its time.
Kaitlin Mara, MSc, has been writing about international intellectual property and innovation policy for over 15 years.
Ellen ‘t Hoen, LLM PhD, is a lawyer and public health advocate with over 30 years of experience working on pharmaceutical and intellectual property policies.