The latest draft of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) pandemic agreement shifts key decisions to the Conference of the Parties (COP) – a body that will be set up after the World Health Assembly (WHA) has adopted the agreement.

The draft, developed by the WHO Bureau overseeing the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) talks, was distributed to delegates late on Monday.

Details about how to implement the contentious Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing (PABS) system (Article 12) – a mechanism to share information and benefits about pathogens with pandemic potential – is one of those kicked down the road.

“The provisions governing the PABS system, including definitions of pathogens with pandemic potential and PABS Materials and Sequence Information, modalities, legal nature, terms and conditions, and operational dimensions, shall be developed and agreed in an instrument in accordance with Chapter III,” according to the draft.

Chapter III deals with institutional arrangements to bring the pandemic agreement into effect, primarily via a COP convened by the WHO “not later than one year after the entry into force of the WHO Pandemic Agreement”. 

The PABS system will also need to be recognised under the Nagoya Protocol, according to the new draft.

‘Lots of blanks’

Provisions for “pandemic prevention and surveillance” (Article 4) have also been kicked down the road to the COP, which will be charged with further developing these, “taking into consideration a One Health approach”.

In the One Health section (Article 5), the onus rests entirely on countries to develop and integrate measures governing animal and human health.

“This new text sets up a pandemic agreement ‘lite’ where there are lots of blanks left to fill in after the agreement,” says Elliot Hannon, Spark Street senior researcher and an observer at the negotiations.

“The Bureau’s new suggested language really shows they’re taking out the most contentious issues, particularly on PABS, and leaving the details to be worked out later. The aim, of course, is to meet their deadline and to produce some kind of agreement on PABS,” he added.

Hannon also pointed out that the language in the new draft had softened from terms like “hereby establish”, to “agree to establish”. 

“Almost all of the changes are designed to not have to deal with the intricacies of PABS right now. The same goes for Articles 4 and 5 on ‘prevention, surveillance’ and ‘One Health’,” he added.

“This is, obviously counter to what many Global South or developing economy countries are interested in and demanding, as they see the PABS system as a key ball game,” said Hannon.

New tech transfer definition

The draft introduces new two definitions:  “The transfer of technology is understood to mean non-coercive transfer and on mutually agreed terms,” according to the new text. 

“This understanding is without prejudice to other measures that parties may take pursuant to their domestic and/or national legislation, provided that such measures are consistent with their relevant international obligations regarding intellectual property,” it adds.

Meanwhile, it defines “know-how” as the “knowledge and skills required to manufacture products”.

“Negotiators are struggling to find compromise language on technology transfer,” noted Knowledge Ecology International director Jamie Love.

“Everyone knows it is important, but there is a lot of industry lobbying that is making it difficult to reach agreement.”

The 11th meeting of the INB ends on Friday. Negotiators have until May 2025 to reach agreement but keep getting stuck on PABS.