|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on Health Issues (Feb26/02) Geneva, 12 Feb (Rajnia di Vito) — Developing countries called for strengthening the Bureau’s negotiating text on the PABS Annex, particularly with regard to contracts, data governance, and benefit-sharing, on the first day of the Fifth Meeting of the Intergovernmental Working Group (IGWG 5). The IGWG 5 meeting in Geneva from 9-14 February is negotiating the Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing (PABS) System, which will form an Annex to the Pandemic Agreement (PA). Interventions of developing countries consistently emphasised the need for legal clarity, enforceable mechanisms, and avoiding deferring essential operational elements relating to the operation and governance of the sharing of pathogen material and sequence information, as well as benefit-sharing, under the PABS System. The Africa Group and the Group for Equity (GfE), representing 85 countries, referred to their joint submission of December 2025 proposing three types of PABS contracts for the sharing of pathogen samples (PMSI Agreement 1 and PMSI Agreement 2) and sequence information (Data Access Agreement), and underscored the need for these proposals to be formally discussed during IGWG 5. Zimbabwe, on behalf of the Africa Group plus Egypt, Sudan, Libya and Somalia said that the “Africa Group reaffirmed its commitment to the PABS Annex negotiations guided by the spirit of Ubuntu – I am because we are. In the context of pandemics, Ubuntu reflects a fundamental reality: our health security is indivisible. A system that safeguards some while leaving others exposed is not only unjust, it is ineffective.” It said that for the Africa Group “equity and benefit-sharing must be operational, enforceable, and central to the Pandemic Agreement, including the PABS Annex. These elements cannot be aspirational, deferred, or left to voluntary implementation. Past experience has shown the consequences of such approaches.” Referring to the joint submission of the GfE and the Africa Group, Zimbabwe said it was “core” to the PABS discussion and that “it is important that a submission by such large number of Member States be discussed in a formal setting” for the development of a PABS System “that will correct existing imbalances and inequities”. Zimbabwe stressed that “countries that share pathogens, genomic data, and epidemiological information make a sovereign contribution to a global public good, often under conditions of uncertainty and risk. To that end, access without guaranteed returns undermines trust, discourages early reporting, and weakens collective preparedness.” “For the Africa Group, benefit-sharing must therefore be trigger-based, activated at the point of access to pathogens and data, not subject to ad hoc decisions during crises. Obligations must be clear, time-bound, and proportionate to the value derived,” Zimbabwe added. “Equitable benefit-sharing must include assured access to diagnostics, vaccines, therapeutics, and other medical countermeasures through multilateral mechanisms. Such access cannot be overridden by purchasing power or export restrictions. Market-based allocation has failed in previous emergencies and must not define the future system,” Zimbabwe said. It further underscored that “technology transfer and know-how sharing are not optional. Without binding commitments to expand regional and local manufacturing capacity, particularly in Africa, the PABS System will manage scarcity rather than correct it. Equity requires reducing dependency, not institutionalising it.” It cautioned “against approaches that separate access from benefits, weaken obligations, or rely excessively on best endeavour language. Such models risk reproducing existing global inequities under a new legal framework. A Pandemic Agreement that does not correct these structural imbalances will lack credibility and legitimacy.” “Trust is the currency of this negotiation. Trust will be built not through assurances, but through legal certainty, reciprocity, and enforceable commitments,” Zimbabwe said, adding that WHO Members “must be able to demonstrate to their peoples that participation in this framework delivers timely and tangible benefits, particularly in moments of crisis”. Zimbabwe stressed that “equity and benefit-sharing are not negotiating margins; they are the core test of this process” and that “in the true spirit of Ubuntu, let us design a system that reflects our interdependence not only in words, but in binding commitments that protect all”. The Group for Equity echoed many of the concerns raised by the Africa Group. Indonesia, speaking on behalf of the GfE, said, “PABS is the heart of the Pandemic Agreement. If the heart is weak, the body cannot function, and the Agreement will not deliver equity.” Indonesia highlighted weaknesses in the current text and called for its strengthening. “There are currently major loopholes that will prevent the System from functioning effectively. The Annex cannot simply reproduce Article 12 or, even worse, backtrack from it.” A key area identified by Indonesia was user registration, which is critical for traceability, identification, and enforcement of compliance obligations for both materials and sequence information. “The Annex must articulate the operational details of the PABS System, and provide legal clarity on the rights and obligations of the providers of PABS Material and Sequence Information, as well as various users of the System. We also question how any terms and conditions can be enforced when users are permitted to remain anonymous,” Indonesia said. Indonesia added, “Many countries in the Global South are rich in biodiversity, and we are ready to contribute meaningfully to the PABS System, in a manner that respects our sovereignty over our genetic resources. But our contribution to global health security must come with assurance that our genetic resources are accessed and used responsibly and transparently, and that participation in the system strengthens our ability to prevent, prepare for and respond to future pandemics. This is why we need clearer terms on how PABS Materials and Sequence Information may be used, including a well-defined scope of permitted use, firm conditions on onward sharing, and governance arrangements that ensure compliance with COP decisions and prevent conflicts of interest.” On benefit-sharing, Indonesia, on behalf of the GfE, said that the System “must be proportionate with the level of access the System provides” and cannot rest on “best endeavours”, adding: “For a system built on trust, we need clear obligations.” Indonesia stressed that equitable access to vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics is essential, but “we should also be serious about benefits that support timely diversified regional and local production, including non-exclusive licensing to manufacturers in developing countries, transfer of technology, and meaningful collaboration in R&D”. Indonesia called for a discussion on annual monetary contributions, “in a way that is fair, predictable, and supports the long-term sustainability of the System”. [The Bureau’s text refers to monetary benefit-sharing but in a non-committal way without setting out any methodology for its operationalisation.] Indonesia also highlighted the three draft contracts submitted by the GfE and the Africa Group “as building blocks for operationalisation of a safe, accountable, and transparent System”. It expressed regret that time has not been allocated in formal sessions to consider them properly, adding that the instruments are “not meant to add complexity to the negotiations, but to help us translate principles into practice”. It proposed that the contracts be discussed in a formal session of IGWG 5. “Beyond contracts, we are concerned by the growing list of issues being deferred to later processes, including the terms and conditions for the WHO-Coordinated Laboratory Network (WCLN) and the PABS databases. We must correct the structural inequities inherent in the WCLN and existing databases if they are to form part of the System,” Indonesia said. “If too much is left for later, we risk ending up with an Annex that reads well but does not work in practice. Legal certainty cannot be something we simply hope to settle down the road. It is essential for governments as they consider ratification,” Indonesia stressed. Indonesia also said that the GfE is looking forward to having an Annex by May that can actually deliver a functioning PABS System in totality, warning that “if we cut too many corners now, we will pay for it later in credibility and implementation”. Kuwait, speaking on behalf of the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMRO), reiterated the need for legal clarity. “The Annex must go beyond restating principles and provide clear operational detail and legal certainty on the rights and obligations of providers and users of PABS materials and sequence information. Legal clarity, enforceability, and transparency are essential to building trust and enabling implementation and ratification.” EMRO also expressed concern over the deferral of core elements of the PABS System, including permitted use, onward sharing, and compliance, as well as key institutional components such as the WCLN and WHO- registered databases. “Excessive deferral of these elements risks an Annex that is well-intentioned but weak in practice.” India, on behalf of the South-East Asia Region (SEARO), similarly emphasised the need for legal clarity and certainty, with no scope for ambiguity. “Such clarity is critical for effective implementation and long-term trust in multilateralism. […] the Annex must establish clear, legally binding provisions governing the use of PABS Materials and Sequence Information. This requires a precisely defined scope of permitted use, enforceable conditions on onward sharing in any form, and governance arrangements that ensure full compliance with Conference of the Parties decisions and prevent conflicts of interest.” Colombia characterised the draft text as lacking sufficient safeguards. “The draft currently under discussion is not ambitious enough to meet the need to operationalise a system that can generate and distribute benefits to build real capacities for pandemic preparedness, prevention, and response, and that adequately responds to the lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic.” Colombia further stressed the need for the IGWG to engage substantively on contracts as the primary mechanisms to standardise the transfer of materials and ensure benefit-sharing. “Equity and justice in access cannot be voluntary and mutually agreed upon. They must be embodied in binding multilateral instruments and standards that facilitate their universalisation and are not merely voluntary mechanisms in bilateral agreement with the private pharmaceutical industry.” Namibia highlighted how enforceable benefit-sharing obligations are already operationalised in national law. “Our Access to Biological and Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge Act No. 2 of 2017 demonstrates clearly that enforceable benefit-sharing for genetic resources, including pathogen materials, is not aspirational. It is already operational. Equal footing is therefore non-negotiable.” Namibia also called for attention to additional forms of benefit-sharing, including technology transfer, as reflected in Article 12 of the Pandemic Agreement, particularly in relation to building manufacturing capacity and diversifying production. “Strengthening local and regional production is essential to reducing dependency and building real resilience. Without this preparedness, vulnerability will remain uneven and vulnerability entrenched.” During IGWG 5, concerns were also raised regarding the process. South Africa questioned how time allocated for informal discussions was being used by some Members to facilitate engagement with specific stakeholders with vested commercial and other interests, undermining the transparency and inclusivity of the IGWG process. +
|
||
