Tension was palpable at the start of the sixth – and supposedly final – round of talks on an annex to the Pandemic Agreement, with the African region rejecting the latest draft PABS Annex text.

Pakistan also asserted that an agreement on the Pathogen Access and Benefit-sharing (PABS) annex should not be rushed simply to “manufacture a multilateral success”.

The World Health Organization’s (WHO) Intergovernmental Working Group (IGWG) aims to conclude talks on how to share information about dangerous pathogens – and any vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics that are developed as a result – by Saturday night. 

This would enable the PABS annex to be presented to the World Health Assembly (WHA) in May for ratification.

But while IGWG’s agenda for the final six days of talks runs until 11pm each night, this may not be enough time given the lack of trust and an unwillingness to compromise that was evident at the opening session.

The message from one African country after another was that they would not allow a repeat of the inequity seen during the COVID-19 pandemic, and would not compromise on certain key issues. These include that the countries sharing pathogens need guaranteed benefits, and that the PABS annex needs “legal certainty”, including contracts for commercial users of pathogen information.

Burkina Faso, speaking for the WHO Africa and Egypt, Sudan, Libya and Somalia, noted that registration should be mandatory for all users of the PABS system, benefit-sharing obligations should be clearer, and there should be more capcity-building –including technology transfer – for developing countries.

Return to earlier draft?

Leading Africa’s position, South Africa and Namibia proposed that the draft text circulated by the IGWG Bureau on 9 March should be disregarded in favour of the on-screen text considered at the end of the fifth IGWG meeting on 14 February.

African regional ambassadors had resolved to stick to this text as they had not had time to consult their capitals on the new draft, Namibia reported.

But an exasperated Ambassador Tovar da Silva Nunes, co-chair of IGWG, accused the African countries of attempting to “curtail the possibility of the Bureau to actually fulfil the mandate that it was given by the membership”.

“We will obviously proceed to use all of the contributions that have been put forward, including the [IGWG 5] text,” said Tovar.

“We cannot say that we will only use that [IGWG 5] text because we have so many enriching contributions, including, for example, the contracts that were put forward, including the terms of reference for labs and database that were produced by the secretariat. 

“So I think there, we are not allowed to impoverish our deliberations by just promising that we will solely see and focus on one text,” he asserted, later asking Namibia if it mistrusted the process.

Eventually, Namibia proposed retaining the Bureau’s version as a “reference” while using the IGWG5 text for actual negotiations.

Meanwhile, Nigeria said that the IGWG5 text is “contested”, reflecting “genuine disagreement between delegations on fundamental questions about sovereignty, about binding obligations, about who bears the cost of pandemic equity and who receives its benefits”. 

“That disagreement is real, and this session must resolve its honesty, rather than paper over it with language that creates an appearance of agreement while delivering on none of its substance.”

Nigeria proposed prioritising key issues during the negotiations: sovereignty safeguards during public health emergencies; legal accountability for laboratories and sequence databases, and technology transfer that “directly enables African pharmaceutical manufacturing”.

Changing the status quo

Indonesia, speaking on behalf of the regionally diverse Group for Equity, asserted that “multilateralism is not simply about reaching an outcome. It is about producing an outcome that significantly changes the status quo”. 

Indonesia said that some “multilateral outcomes may appear to show progress on paper, but underlying inequities remain insufficiently addressed.

“We are asking for a higher standard. We recognize the pressure of the timeline, but some of the sticky issues are not about time but the willingness to find meaningful solutions. The time pressure alone should not lead us toward weak design, diluted commitments, or lowered expectations,” said Indonesia.

Pakistan, which is also part of the Group for Equity, said: “The PABS Annex must not be turned into a face-saving exercise for a strained multilateral system. A weak or unbalanced outcome will not strengthen the system; it will undermine it.”

The European Union reminded IGWG that the PABS annex “is intended to create a system for rapidly sharing pandemic pathogen samples and genetic data while significantly improving equitable access to vaccines, treatments and diagnostics for parties and better equipping the WHO and the international community to respond to future pandemics”.

“Without this annex, the Pandemic Agreement will not be open for signature, and ultimately, our collective capacity to effectively prevent, prepare and respond to future pandemics will be significantly reduced and limited,” said the EU representative, on behalf of the 27 EU member states.

He stressed the need for “an open, collaborative and multilateral approach for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response”. and called on all delegations to “muster the necessary result to overcome our remaining differences in the time we have left for this process”.

More time won’t bring agreement

However, WHO Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus warned that “there is a dangerous temptation to think more time might mean a better outcome”.

He cautioned: “We must be realistic: more time will not change fundamental positions, and it will not enable every detail of the PABS system to be set in stone in the treaty. More time would mean trying to continue negotiations in an increasingly unfavourable climate – this will get harder, not easier.”

Instead, Tedros told delegates that “this week, is the best chance – and probably the only chance – to secure an outcome on PABS…. Now is the time to bring solutions, not to reinsert text that will not help to build consensus.”

Tedros also warned: “The conflict in the Middle East and crises elsewhere in our world are reminders that health emergencies can erupt suddenly and affect multiple countries, increasing the risk of disease outbreaks.

“A commitment to upholding international law, multilateral solutions and strong international collaboration to shared threats has never been more needed.”

Civil society questions WHO commitment

Over 100 civil society organisations wrote to Tedros before the meeting, raising the need for the WHO to adher to “access and benefit-sharing (ABS) principles”.

Research indicates that “there are at least 15 WHO coordinated networks engaged in pathogen sample or digital sequence information sharing” without any regard for ABS, they noted, “facilitating biopiracy, including digital biopiracy and increasing biosecurity risks”. 

“Critically, WHO has failed to mandate user registration, identity verification, and data access agreements as baseline requirements,” they added.

Anonymous access “means that genetic resources originating in developing countries can be accessed, commercialised, and exploited with complete impunity, and with WHO’s implicit endorsement”, they noted.

Meanwhile, a range of non-state actors addressed the PABS 6 opening, stressing issues such as the need for equitable access to pandemic countermeasures, enforceable benefit-sharing terms,  transparency and legally binding obligations. 

Pharma calls for ‘precise parameters’

The International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA) appealed for a “workable PABS”.

“Companies need clear, science-based definitions of scope that should focus on pandemic emergencies. If inclusion depends on broad or evolving interpretations rather than precise parameters, it risks capturing routine research operations and creating uncertainty that could negatively impact R&D efforts.

“Experience shows that voluntary, collaborative approaches deliver the strongest outcomes. PABS should support open scientific exchange, rather than condition access to pathogens on contractual arrangements that may limit collaboration.

“In this regard, treating pathogens as sovereign or monetizable resources, or linking access to financial obligations, risks creating barriers to rapid sharing that are inconsistent with global health security objectives,” the IFPMA warned.