TWN Info Service on Health Issues (May26/01)
7 May 2026
Third World Network

WHO: IGWG recommends extension of PABS negotiations to WHA79

Kochi/Bangalore, 7 May (Nithin Ramakrishnan) – The resumed 6th Session of the Intergovernmental Working Group (resumed IGWG6) of Member States of WHO working on the Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing (PABS) System recommended extending the negotiations to the 79th Session of the World Health Assembly (WHA79).

The resumed IGWG6 took place from 27 April to 1 May at the WHO headquarters in Geneva.

On the third day’s discussions on future steps the majority of Member States expressed their intent to extend the PABS negotiations for one more year.  The IGWG only adopted its report on the last day, which contains a recommendation in the form of a draft decision for extending the negotiations. This draft decision will be adopted by WHA79.

The decision point contained in the Paragraph 4 of the final report of IGWG6 reads thus: IGWG “shall submit the outcome to the Eightieth World Health Assembly for its consideration, or earlier by a special session of the World Health Assembly if possible in 2026 with only one agenda item dedicated to this outcome, and subsequently facilitate, as necessary, activities related to the adoption of said Annex and the opening for signature, ratification, acceptance, approval, accession or formal confirmation of the WHO Pandemic Agreement.”

This indicates the extension of negotiations is requested for a year, with a commitment to work towards concluding them in 6 months.

Interestingly, Paragraph 5 mentions the next meeting of IGWG to be on 6-17 July. The decision further states that there will be informal meetings in mid-June focusing primarily on access as well as on benefit sharing, including contracts and core terms of reference for the WHO Coordinated Laboratory Network and possible WHO PABS-recognized sequence databases.

On another important note, the IGWG also decided that it will, at its seventh meeting, consider its working modalities and update the timeline and deliverables of the IGWG. Reports indicate that such a language was included at the insistence of Colombia to consider changing the decision-making rule in the IGWG to adopt provisions by voting, if a consensus is found too hard to reach.

During the closing of the resumed IGWG6, the Africa Group and the Group for Equity, comprising over 80 developing countries, expressed their regret that the IGWG is still far away from reaching consensus on the text of the Pandemic Agreement Annex on the PABS system. They said it is not because of lack of effort or commitment by Member States, the Bureau, or the Secretariat, but is rather the approaches towards the PABS System that attempted to decouple access and benefit sharing. They called for much more thoughtful compromises.

The European Union on behalf of its Member States expressed regret that the PABS Annex would not be adopted at WHA79. However, the EU added that the PABS Annex will be something that will make real changes in the group and when it unfolds there will be significant enhancement of global pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.

IGWG to continue to work on PABS Annex, including WHO PABS contract

The report of the resumed IGWG6 was not easy to conclude, as developing countries demanded to include the work on “WHO PABS Contracts” in the IGWG mandate. The report was therefore negotiated over nearly a whole day.

A first draft of the report came out for advance circulation on the morning of the 1 May, simply recommending the following decision point to the WHA: “IGWG shall continue its work as mandated in paragraph 9(1) of resolution WHA78.1 (2025) to, as a priority, draft and negotiate the Annex described in Article 12 of the WHO Pandemic Agreement, and shall submit the outcome to the Eightieth World Health Assembly for its consideration…”

Countries including Pakistan, Namibia, Brazil, Indonesia, South Africa, Central African Republic, Nepal and some others from the Africa Group and Group for Equity reportedly proposed to include the work on WHO PABS Contracts. Pakistan wanted to include a mandate to “finalize” negotiations for the PABS Annex, including legally binding WHO PABS contracts.

A second version of the draft report was circulated around 2 pm, but it did not change the above-mentioned decision paragraph for the consideration by the WHA. Instead, it added a paragraph 5 in the IGWG6 report, which is a decision of IGWG itself and not a recommendation to the WHA:

“The IGWG decided to hold its seventh meeting from 6 – 17 July 2026. The IGWG requested the Bureau, with the support of the Secretariat, to organize informal meetings in mid-June focusing primarily on access as well as on benefit sharing, including contracts and core terms of reference for the WHO Coordinated Laboratory Network and WHO recognized sequence databases, with a view to developing draft textual proposals for the consideration of the seventh meeting. The IGWG also decided that it will, at its seventh meeting, consider its working modalities and update the Timeline and Deliverables of the IGWG.”

Pakistan and other developing countries suggested that paragraph 5 will not suffice, and they wanted the WHO PABS contract to be mentioned in the decision by the WHA79. Hence, they insisted on changing the decision point recommended to WHA in paragraph 4.

Japan, Switzerland and the EU tried to oppose such an inclusion, while some other developed countries came up with proposals such as working on the standard and model clauses for WHO PABS contract. Nevertheless, developing countries insisted that the proposal have the WHO PABS contract as an appendix to the PABS Annex, as in the case of the Pandemic Influenza Preparedness (PIP) framework. The adopted report therefore now includes the following clause: “including to develop legally binding contracts to be negotiated and signed with WHO” in the draft decision.

The full text of the draft decision contained in the report thus reads:

“The Seventy-ninth World Health Assembly,

Recalling resolution WHA78.1 (2025), which adopted the WHO Pandemic Agreement pursuant to Article 19 of the Constitution of the World Health Organization and, inter alia, decided to establish an open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group (IGWG), and noting the progress of the IGWG to date,

DECIDED that the IGWG shall continue its work as mandated in paragraph 9(1) of resolution WHA78.1 (2025) and shall, as a priority, draft and negotiate the Annex described in Article 12 of the WHO Pandemic Agreement, including to develop legally binding contracts to be negotiated and signed with WHO, and shall submit the outcome to the Eightieth World Health Assembly for its consideration or, as may be necessary, earlier by a special session of the World Health Assembly in 2026 with only one agenda item dedicated to this outcome, and subsequently facilitate, as necessary, activities related to the adoption of said Annex and the opening for signature, ratification, acceptance, approval, accession or formal confirmation of the WHO Pandemic Agreement.”

“Equity” and “Legal Certainty" should be the end-goal

One of the most cited reasons why WHO should conclude the WHO Pandemic Agreement negotiations and start the ratification process is the urge to show “multilateralism is working, and possibly without the United States”. Several developing country delegations have been approached by numerous actors, including developed country negotiators, Secretariat staff and experts, as well as non-state actors, urging them to compromise sooner and align with the proposals from the EU, citing the above reason.

Incidentally, the draft versions of paragraph 2 of the report of the IGWG6 regarding the opening remarks of the WHO Director-General highlighted his call on Member States to stand up for multilateralism: “The Director-General, in his opening remarks, urged the IGWG to complete, during the week, an agreement that is fair and operational, focusing on agreeing text that would allow the system to start operating. He encouraged delegations to come together, stand up for multilateralism and global health, and prove what the world can achieve when we stand together.”

However, it is understood that developing countries questioned this approach and resultant pressure on them to compromise on their demand for legal guarantees for equitable access to life-saving products. They had to explain to the above-mentioned actors both informally and formally that a treaty cannot be adopted for the purposes of simply having a treaty. It should change the status quo of rights and obligations of the Parties to the treaties. The PABS Annex is the last hope to achieve such legal guarantee.

In line with the insistence of the developing countries, the final report however changed paragraph 2 and it now reads: “The Director-General, in his opening remarks, urged the IGWG to complete, during the week, an agreement that is fair and operational, focusing on agreeing text that would allow the system to start operating. He reminded delegations that when sovereign states come together to find shared solutions to shared problems, they create a shared future.”

South Africa during the closing session stated on behalf of the Africa Group and the Group for Equity the following:

“The Africa Group and the Group for Equity are strongly united on the essential elements of a PABS system that is fair, equitable, and capable of correcting longstanding imbalances, including inequitable access to VTDs and unjust extraction of our genetic resources. To be clear, a credible landing zone requires legal certainty at the point of access on how benefit-sharing obligations will be operationalized and enforced. This is neither excessive nor unreasonable; it is fundamental to trust in the system.”

South Africa added: “We remain convinced that an equitable PABS system is not only necessary, but fully within reach. Achieving them will require political will, thoughtful compromise, sustained persistence, as well as a strong commitment to move away from current and historical disparities and deliver equity. This endeavour is bigger than any pharmaceutical company, any database, or any immediate constraint.”