The final missing piece of the Pandemic Agreement – a pathogen access and benefit-sharing (PABS) system – is unlikely to be agreed on by the World Health Assembly (WHA) later this month.

This was the view of civil society observers of the talks taking place at the World Health Organisation (WHO) headquarters in Geneva, who briefed the media on Thursday. The sixth round of talks is scheduled to end late on Friday night (1 May).

Earlier in the week, WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus told a Geneva media briefing that “key differences remain on key issues”.

“I still see a common will to reach consensus, which means I continue to believe there is a way to reach consensus,” Tedros added.

Although the notion of a “hybrid” PABS system is being discussed informally, its proponent, the European Union (EU), has not presented any formal text, Third World Network’s (TWN) KM Gopakumar told the media briefing, which was hosted by TWN and the AIDS Healthcare Foundation.

While Brazil and Botswana have apparently indicated that they might support a hybrid or “blended” compromise, the Africa Group is opposed to it, according to the civil society representatives.

WHO member states are negotiating how to share both information about dangerous pathogens and some of the “benefits” that manufacturers may develop from that information – namely, vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics (VTDs).

The “hybrid” or “blended” proposal is a mix of mandatory and voluntary measures for sharing pathogen information and any benefits that flow from this information. It de-links information-sharing and benefit-sharing.

Gopakumar said that, in terms of the blended agreements, countries that shared pathogens “will have the freedom to choose to attach certain conditions for sharing the data and the sample, including benefit sharing requirements” or share without any conditions.

Kill the efficiency

Shifting the choice to individual countries would undermine the efficiency of a single PABS system as users would need to negotiate with the individual countries instead of through a centralised system, he argued.

“If you have a hybrid system, first of all, it kills the efficiency [of a single system], and second, it’s going to debase the access and benefit sharing norms set by the international instruments like the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Nagoya Protocol. 

Any attempt to dilute benefit-sharing obligations would be a “disaster” for equity, said AHF’s Tamara Prisenberg.

Lauren Paremoer of the People’s Health Movement said that the blended model introduces “a two-track system for accessing pathogens” that violates access and benefit-sharing on an “equal footing” specified in Article 12 of the Pandemic Agreement.

One track would allow anonymous users to access pathogen data without upfront commitments to benefit-sharing or legally binding contracts.

The other was in line with Article 12, permitting access to pathogens through databases and laboratories that would require users to register and commit to specified benefit-sharing. 

Earlier in the day, the Intergovernmental Working Group (IGWG) briefed civil society on text-based negotiations, but very little of the text they shared had been “greened” to show agreement.