Medicines Law & Policy statement at WHO PABS negotiations (IGWG 5)

Co-chairs, Thank you for the opportunity to say a few words. 

My comments address issues related to technology transfer (TT), a topic we have been following throughout the INB negotiations for the Pandemic Agreement and now at the Intergovernmental working Group (IGWG) tasked with negotiating the Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing (PABS) system to be an annexed to the Pandemic Agreement.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, manufacturers seeking to produce vaccines in or for developing countries were often unable to obtain the necessary TT. The COVID-19 experience showed us that TT cannot be left to the voluntary actions of rights holders only. Something we have observed also in other pandemics, including HIV. 

The provisions for TT in the Pandemic Agreement are weak. At the first session of the IGWG, I expressed hope that the IGWG would be an opportunity to agree on stronger obligations in TT and know-how sharing.

The last draft of the PABS annex however, seems to further cement the notion that TT can only be on voluntary and mutually agreed terms (VMAT). One even finds this qualifier in articles meant to create firm obligations (see: Section C Art. 1. (c )iii.5. and Art. 2.(c) iv.).

Of course, voluntary TT and licensing are very important, but in their absence, it is equally important that governments can intervene. We therefore warn against provisions in the PABS Annex that further limit the legal options and policy space countries have to access health technologies. This issue was also raised by delegates at the recent 158th WHO Executive Board meeting in relation to references to “voluntary and mutually agreed technology transfers” in the Draft updated Global Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR).

Medicines Law & Policy has documented over two decades of government interventions, known as TRIPS flexibilities, undertaken by low-, middle-, and high-income countries to access health technologies (including COVID-19 products). This research was published on 28 January this year by the British Medical Journal-Global Health. We are happy to share the paper with the Bureau and delegates.

Avatar photo
+ posts

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.

Newsletter

Never miss a post! Sign up for ML&P's newsletter.

Recent Articles

Legal tools that lower medicines prices have expanded access to medicines for over two decades, research reveals

LONDON, UK: Millions of people are priced out of access to life-saving medicines. Use of legal tools to reduce prices has been under-reported and...

Wrapping up 2025: A tumultuous year for global public health law & policy

The end of 2025, a tumultuous year for global public health, is here, and it’s time for the usually highly biased Medicines Law &...

The Role of Activism in Shaping Law and Policies that Support Access to Medicines

This article is also available as a PDF here. Almost 26 years ago, here in Amsterdam, on November 25-26, 1999, Health Action International, Médecins Sans...

Generic versions of a lifesaving cystic fibrosis treatment will save patients $360,000 a year – expanding access and prolonging lives

Generic versions of a cystic fibrosis treatment will now be available at $6,375 per child, per year under a new scheme – offering hope...

WHO Members meet to finalise the Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing Instrument

In May 2025, the WHO member states adopted the Pandemic Agreement, but they left the work to establish an instrument for Pathogen Access and...

Related Articles