Contracts, contracts, contracts. Virtually all the regional blocs that addressed the start of the eighth round of the pandemic agreement talks on Monday stressed that any pathogen access and benefit-sharing (PABS) system needs to include standard contracts with pharmaceutical manufacturers.

These would set out the terms of accessing dangerous pathogens, as well as how to share any “benefits” – vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics – that were developed from this knowledge.

However, the powerful European Union (EU), which did not address the opening session, opposes such contracts and what its chief negotiator, Ambassador Americo Zampetti, has described as a “transactional approach” to the PABS negotiations.

The PABS annex is the last outstanding piece of Pandemic Agreement, adopted by the World Health Assembly in May 2025, holding up the agreement’s adoption.

The World Health Organization’s (WHO) African Region, Group of Equity, Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMRO), and South East Asia Region (SEARO) all spoke of the need for “legal certainty” that such contracts will ensure.

“Benefit sharing should be predictable, timely, and effective during a pandemic, without relying on ad hoc negotiations at a moment when certainty and solidarity are most needed,” said Guyana, speaking for the Caribbean states of Bahamas, Barbados, Dominica and Belize.

“Standardised PABS contracts should provide the legal foundation for the system. They should establish transparent, enforceable, and consistent obligations throughout the PABS chain, while ensuring that the use of PABS material and sequence information generates meaningful benefits for all countries, regardless of size or economic capacity.”

Pakistan’s Adeel Mumtaz Khokhar, speaking for EMRO, reinforced this: “Replacing the link between access and benefit sharing with voluntary contributions or goodwill assistance cannot be the way forward. In this regard, legal certainty for both providers and users of PABS materials and DSI [data sequence information] can only be achieved through legally binding contracts.”

Nepal, representing SEARO, said that while state parties “are expected to make an obligation to share PABS materials and sequence information rapidly and timely, the system must ensure that this contribution is met with meaningful, equitable, and predictable benefit sharing, firmly anchored in legal certainty”.

It added that “to operationalise this, we support clear, predictable, and legally binding contractual arrangements”. 

Indonesia, speaking for an alliance of developing countries known as the Group of Equity, said that the obligations of both access-sharing and benefit-sharing should be clear.

“What comes back from the sharing of pathogens should be just as clear and agreed beforehand [as terms of access]. 

“We know this has sometimes been described as a transactional approach, but we would put it differently. There is nothing unusual about wanting to know what each side has committed to, and that is what makes the system fair and workable for all of us.”

Algeria, speaking for the 47-member African region plus Egypt, Somalia and Sudan (part of EMRO), did not explicitly mention contracts but rather stressed the “legal certainty required by [the Pandemic Agreement’s] Article 12.5, paragraph B, on which providers, researchers, and manufacturers equally depend”. 

This paragraph specifies that the PABS system must establish clear “modalities, terms and conditions on access and benefit sharing that provide legal certainty.”

‘Federated’ or ‘hybrid’?

The Africa Group champions a “federated model”, where regional nodes retain sovereign control over the biological data of pathogens, and pharmaceutical manufacturers are required to sign binding benefit contracts with the WHO before they get access to the data.

Conversely, the European Union advocates a “hybrid model” featuring multi-tiered pathways and open databases to enable fast access to pathogen information. 

Arguing for the “federated” approach, Namibia told the opening of the Intergovernmental Working Group (IGWG) that Europe’s Genomic Data Infrastructure (GDI) project was based on countries retaining sovereignty over pathogen information.

Some €40 million has been invested in the GDI over the past four years, uniting 70 institutes across 24 European countries. 

“This is the design of a federated model, where the data is held at national level,” said Namibia’s Taime Sylvester. 

“Its aggregated and non-sensitive information is openly discoverable through a federated query system, with controlled access guaranteed to approved users in both public and the private sectors,” said Sylvester.

“We are not asking to build something new. We are asking that this meeting of IGWG8 begins from what already exists.” 

Algeria repeated Africa’s proposal, describing it as a “federated model as the architecture for the [PABS] system as a whole: sovereign national nodes, common rules for all, a shared index, access on agreed terms, and obligations that travel with the material and the information”. 

“We did not conceive this architecture in isolation. Federated systems are today the operating choice of several public genomic and health data infrastructures. What we propose is therefore not a regional approach, but a common solution applicable to all parties on the same terms, in which international cooperation strengthens the sovereign rights of states.”

Downstream obligations

However, several non-state observers of the talks support a more pragmatic approach, involving more open access to pathogen information with strings attached to any commercial products developed as a result when they are ready for sale.

Championing this approach is Knowledge Ecology International (KEI), which proposes that manufacturers obtain contracts with the WHO, “not as a condition of having access to PABS materials and digital sequences, but as a condition of registering and selling products” to address pandemics or public health emergencies of international concern (PHEIC).

Supporting KEI’s position was Medicines Law and Policy’s Ellen ‘t Hoen, who asked the IGWG opening whether member states would engage with the proposal – with co-chair Ambassador Tovar Nunes Da Silva assuring her that they would.

The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) stressed that the success of PABS “depends on investment in de-risking R&D, so that authorised manufacturable products can reach people quickly”.

It proposed two “complementary mechanisms” to facilitate R&D: “an R&D safe harbour and an equivalency mechanism”.

The “safe harbour” would provide developers with a “low-friction pathway” to access pathogen materials without negotiating “the full PABS benefit-sharing package at the point of access”. 

Like KEI, CEPI proposes that developers should only meet full PABS obligations “downstream upon reaching defined commercialisation thresholds or triggers”. 

Meanwhile, “equivalency” would enable “qualifying commitments [to be] made through accredited R&D funders”, and these would count towards corresponding PABS benefit sharing obligations. 

“Where an accredited funder’s equitable access framework already meets agreed PABS standards, a developer’s compliance with that framework would be recognised as satisfying corresponding PABS obligations”. 

These two proposals would provide greater legal certainty and a more predictable pathway from upstream R&D to full PABS compliance, while reducing duplication, transaction burden, and compliance cost”, argues CEPI. 

Industry rejects ‘contractual requirements’

The International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA) urged negotiators to “focus on practical, open, and workable mechanisms that strengthen preparedness and accelerate scientific collaboration between public and private researchers”.

It called for a PABS system that preserves “open, de-linked access, interoperability with existing databases and laboratory networks, and multiple pathways for accessing pathogens and sequence information”. 

“Contractual requirements, restrictive access conditions, or burdensome compliance measures introduced as a precondition for research risk creating delays precisely when speed matters most,” the IFPMA’s Grega Kumer told IGWG 8.

Warning of a shortage of funds for R&D, Kumer stressed: “PABS alone will not generate vaccines, therapeutics, or diagnostics. A system that introduces legal uncertainty, increases costs, duplicative obligations, or administrative burdens risks creating friction without addressing the underlying causes of access gaps.”

Top leadership present

Several countries sent their top diplomats to the opening of the Geneva talks, signalling their seriousness. This included new ambassadors to the UN in Geneva, Ireland’s Laurence Simms and South Africa’s Zaheer Laher, as well as the EU’s Zampetti.

France’s Ambassador Anne Claire Amprou, former chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) that negotiated the Pandemic Agreement, was also present, as was her counterpart, Precious Matsoso, who is now part of the South African delegation.