The global community has missed a critical deadline to finalize a comprehensive treaty designed to prevent and manage future pandemics. Despite the passage of the main agreement in May 2025, a vital component—the system for sharing pathogens and medical countermeasures—remains unresolved. This stalemate leaves the world vulnerable to the next major disease outbreak, raising urgent questions about international cooperation and public health security.
The Missing Piece: Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing
The core of the current impasse revolves around the Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing (Pabs) system. For the World Health Organization’s (WHO) pandemic agreement to become fully operational, nations must agree on how to handle the exchange of genetic material from dangerous viruses and bacteria, as well as the equitable distribution of resulting vaccines, tests, and treatments.
Currently, the Pabs framework is stuck in an annexe to the main treaty, requiring separate negotiations. Until this annex is completed and ratified, the broader agreement cannot open for signatures or enter into force. This technical bottleneck has significant real-world consequences: even if the treaty is signed, it cannot legally bind countries to a coordinated response until the benefit-sharing mechanism is settled.
A Deep Divide Between Nations
The delay stems from entrenched mistrust between developed and developing nations, a rift that widened during the COVID-19 pandemic. The dispute centers on equity versus innovation:
- Developing Nations: Groups such as the Group for Equity and the Africa Group are demanding a mandatory standard contract. They argue that if a country shares a pathogen that leads to a new vaccine or treatment, it should be guaranteed access to those medical products. This ensures that the nations most likely to host emerging diseases are not left behind in the race for cures.
- Developed Nations: Several European countries have resisted mandatory sharing, arguing that it could stifle private sector research and development. They have proposed a hybrid model that combines mandatory and voluntary requirements, aiming to balance public health needs with commercial incentives.
This disagreement highlights a broader trend in global governance: the tension between collective security and national or corporate sovereignty. Disinformation campaigns, including false claims that the treaty would undermine national sovereignty, have further complicated negotiations by fueling public skepticism.
The High Cost of Inaction
The failure to reach an agreement is not just a diplomatic setback; it is a public health emergency in the making. Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, former president of Liberia, and Helen Clark, former prime minister of New Zealand, co-chairs of the WHO’s Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response, described the situation as “deeply regrettable.”
Their panel originally recommended the treaty five years ago after reviewing the response to COVID-19. Their analysis concluded that a faster, more coordinated international effort could have saved millions of lives. They warned that “a lack of action to prevent and prepare for the next pandemic threat is a disservice to humanity.”
WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus echoed this urgency, stating that the next pandemic is a matter of “when, not if.” He urged nations to approach the remaining issues with renewed speed, emphasizing that preparedness is the only defense against the unpredictable nature of emerging pathogens.
Conclusion
While the passage of the main pandemic treaty in 2025 was hailed as a victory for public health amidst a backdrop of fragmenting global cooperation, its effectiveness is currently suspended. Until nations bridge the divide over how to share biological resources and medical benefits, the world remains structurally unprepared for the next crisis. The delay underscores a critical lesson: without equitable frameworks for sharing data and treatments, global health security remains fragile and incomplete.
