How did WHO nations strike a pandemic deal? | Explained

The story so far: After more than three years of intense negotiations involving over 190 countries, the World Health Organization (WHO) has finalised a historic pandemic accord aimed at preventing and responding to future global health crises. The agreement was reached during a marathon session at the WHO headquarters in Geneva and concluded in the early hours of April 16, 2025.

Why was it needed?

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO director-general, called it “a significant milestone in our shared journey towards a safer world,” emphasising the importance of global solidarity in facing health emergencies. The agreement comes five years after the outbreak of COVID-19, a pandemic that laid bare the vulnerabilities of international health systems. With the growing threat of infectious diseases such as H5N1 bird flu, mpox, measles, and Ebola, the sense of urgency among negotiators was palpable.

The centrepiece of the newly adopted agreement is the proposed Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System (PABS), which is designed to facilitate the swift sharing of pathogen data among nations and with pharmaceutical companies. This data-sharing mechanism is expected to play a critical role in accelerating the development of vaccines, diagnostics, and treatments during future pandemics. The agreement outlines a system where cooperation becomes not just ideal, but operationally necessary, enabling scientific collaboration at an unprecedented pace. It also includes provisions to ensure fair and equitable access to pandemic-related health products, particularly for low- and middle-income countries that were left behind during the COVID-19 response.

The COVID crisis had seen wealthier nations securing vast supplies of vaccines, testing kits, and protective equipment, while many poorer countries struggled with shortages and delays. The new deal directly addresses these imbalances by introducing guidelines aimed at preventing such inequities from recurring.

Technology transfer was one of the most debated aspects of the agreement. Developing countries pushed for language that would mandate the sharing of critical health technologies during pandemics. However, countries with powerful pharmaceutical industries resisted such mandatory provisions, citing concerns about intellectual property rights and innovation incentives. A compromise was eventually reached, with the final text stating that any technology transfer must be “mutually agreed,” a clause designed to balance the needs of global equity with the business realities of pharmaceutical innovation. The 32-page document was marked entirely in green, indicating complete consensus among the participating countries.

What gaps did the pandemic expose?

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed serious gaps in the world’s ability to mount a coordinated response to global health emergencies. These gaps included fragmented and delayed data sharing, unequal access to vaccines and other medical tools, lack of standardised protocols, and limited international accountability. Many nations acted in isolation, often hoarding resources or closing borders in panic, which hindered collective efforts and prolonged the pandemic’s impact. Although initiatives like COVAX attempted to create more equitable access to vaccines, they were hampered by underfunding, supply chain challenges, and a lack of global cooperation.

Public health experts have long warned that without a globally accepted and legally grounded framework, the world risks repeating the same mistakes in the face of future outbreaks. In an increasingly interconnected world, where viruses can cross borders in hours, pandemics are no longer national crises — they are shared threats.

What were the key challenges?

Negotiations were deeply complex and often stalled due to diverging national interests. Article 11 of the agreement, which deals with the transfer of pandemic-related technologies, became a major sticking point. Low- and middle-income countries argued that equitable access to life-saving innovations like vaccines, antivirals, and diagnostics could not be guaranteed unless there was a mechanism for sharing intellectual property and manufacturing know-how. On the other hand, nations with large pharmaceutical industries, particularly in Europe, opposed any language that would make such transfers obligatory. They contended that mandatory provisions could undermine the financial incentives needed for rapid pharmaceutical innovation and would interfere with existing international trade laws. The compromise to allow “mutually agreed” transfers reflects a diplomatic middle ground, though some critics argue it lacks enforceability and may not protect vulnerable populations.

Will it shape global cooperation?

One of the crucial aspects of the agreement is its strong emphasis on equity. The WHO chief highlighted that the text reflects a broader commitment to fairness in access, especially for countries that often bear the brunt of health crises without the resources to respond adequately. The agreement acknowledges that pandemic preparedness is not just about stockpiling vaccines or hospital beds; it’s about establishing a framework for transparency, trust, and timely action. For lower-income countries, the agreement promises capacity building and international support to strengthen health infrastructure and logistics. Although equity is central to the agreement’s language, its realisation will depend heavily on political will and practical implementation.

Helen Clark, former Prime Minister of New Zealand and co-chair of the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response, noted that this accord shows that global multilateralism is still possible — even in a fragmented geopolitical environment.

David Reddy, director-general of the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA), remarked that while the agreement is a useful starting point, certain conditions must be met to maintain industry participation in pandemic preparedness. He emphasised the need for legal certainty and protection of intellectual property if companies are to continue investing in the research and development of high-risk, high-cost medical solutions. The industry fears that poorly designed policy interventions could discourage innovation or delay crucial products.

What lies ahead?

While the agreement has been finalised, member states will be expected to integrate its principles into national laws, establish financing mechanisms, and develop monitoring systems that ensure compliance. The agreement will be presented for formal adoption at the WHO’s annual assembly.