Members of the World Health Organization (WHO) last week picked up the task of navigating an unwieldy negotiation on a Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing (PABS) mechanism towards an agreeable landing place. Talks meant to find a way to better prepare the world for future pandemics have been mired for months in core disagreements over how to structure an agreement that links access to data about emerging, potentially pandemic-causing pathogens with binding commitments to make vaccines, diagnostics, and treatments resulting from that access available in a way that is timely, equitable and affordable.
The Intergovernmental Working Group (IGWG) met 14-18 September in Geneva, and is responsible for negotiating the PABS annex to the WHO Pandemic Agreement, which must be completed before the Agreement can go into force and be ratified by member states.
At the moment, countries are stuck on how, and how bindingly, access to pathogen-related data should be linked to benefit sharing. Two complex and conflicting models have been presented as possible ways forward. One emphasises flexibility and choice (but could offer ways for manufacturers to bypass benefit-sharing obligations); the other emphasises national/regional sovereignty over resources with tiered commitments required to access information and to use data for manufacturing (but, some say, could be slow during emergencies). Countries on each side of the fence have to-date been unable to find a common place from which to build a path forward.
Nongovernmental organisation Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) has proposed an alternative route: not linking access to pathogen information and access to products at all. Member states should listen.
KEI’s way forward – first presented in a brief at the IGWG7 in July and presented as a full briefing note on 14 September – suggests linking benefit sharing to field of use rather than to uptake of any PABS material or sequencing information. That is, benefit-sharing obligations would be triggered when a product is authorised for marketing/sale as a pandemic countermeasure. This is sensible, KEI argues, for three reasons. First, not all outbreaks will require access to pathogen material through a WHO system to undertake research and development. In particular, a rapidly spreading virus will be easy to obtain samples of outside the PABS system. If benefit-sharing, including equitable access to products, is linked only to usage of material through the system, a lot of important medical countermeasures could circumvent it. Second, timely and widespread sharing of all pandemic related information is essential during an emergency; any requirement to negotiate can slow down rapid deployment and collaboration. And thirdly, with the rise of AI in R&D it will be increasingly difficult to determine which data – amongst the vast array of training materials – contributed to an AI-generated candidate for a medical product.
Linking benefit-sharing to the marketing authorisation of pandemic-related health products offers a more reliable source of leverage for ensuring equitable sharing of medical countermeasures. In particular the KEI proposed text reads: “Each Party shall take all necessary legal, administrative, or regulatory measures to ensure that any manufacturer seeking to register or sell pandemic-related products within its jurisdiction provides verifiable evidence of a legally binding agreement with the World Health Organization (WHO) that addresses access to such products, consistent with Article 12, Paragraph 6, of the Pandemic Agreement.” Countries wishing to buy from manufacturers without a WHO contract would still be required to honour the benefit-sharing obligations in the Pandemic Agreement, similar obligations under the the 2023 Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction, or BBNJ Agreement, which governs access to marine genetic resource.
The IGWG last week began considering the proposal, and is expected to discuss it in more depth during informal meetings 5-9 October and at the next formal meeting 2-13 November).
Background of the other two models
In October 2025, the European Union proposed a ‘hybrid model’ which proposes sharing PABS materials and sequencing information via different pathways (a WHO sequence database and a WHO network of collaborating laboratories). Access within these frameworks is governed by a traffic light system: granted only after a contract is signed (red); granted with a commitment to sign a contract (orange); and access through a material transfer agreement with no benefit sharing attached (green). Proponents argue this system allows for flexibility so users can act according to their needs, and is reflective of the current ways in which data is shared across multiple pathways. Opponents of this model worry that it makes benefit-sharing easy to bypass and risks recreating the inequities in pandemic countermeasure access seen during Covid-19.
In July 2026, the Africa Group and the 29-country Group of Equity presented a ‘federated‘ model where materials and sequence information are held nationally, regionally, or with a recognised host. A centralised hub run by WHO would offer a searchable catalog and be accessible to users who sign a Data Access Agreement (DAA) and manufacturers who sign both a DAA and a benefit-sharing contract with WHO. The model includes triggers for expedited access during health emergencies, as well as reporting/enforcement measures. Proponents argue this allows countries or regions to retain their sovereignty over PABS materials and data, and guarantee needs-based benefit sharing without providing ways to bypass the system. Opponents argue it will take time during emergencies, though proponents claim they can process requests in 5-30 minutes.
Kaitlin Mara, MSc, has been writing about international intellectual property and innovation policy for over 15 years.