TWN Info Service on Health Issues (Apr26/01)
13 April 2026
Third World Network

WHO: IGWG6 suspended, EU and other developed countries refused to accept equitable PABS System

Kochi, 12 April (Nithin Ramakrishnan) – The sixth meeting of the Intergovernmental Working Group (IGWG6) was suspended due to the refusal of the European Union and other developed countries to accept proposals for a fair and equitable Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing (PABS) system.

The Working Group tasked to develop the PABS Annex to WHO’s Pandemic Agreement adopted last year, took place at the WHO Headquarters in Geneva, in a hybrid mode, on 23 to 28 March 2026.

The PABS System is intended to facilitate access to pathogen samples and sequence information to researchers, and developers including manufacturers of pharmaceutical products, in return for a fair and equitable sharing of benefits they make using such access, especially pandemic-related health products such as vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics (VTDs). Both access and benefit sharing are to be treated on an equal footing, with elements of equity especially rapid access to VTDs during early outbreak stages and public health emergencies of international concern (PHEIC), contracts as a condition to access to pathogen samples and sequence information, traceability mechanisms for both samples and data (including user registration in WHO recognized databases) and biosecurity safeguards.

The interim report of the meeting reads: “The IGWG decided to hold a resumed session of the sixth meeting of the IGWG from 27 April to 1 May 2026, including stocktaking during the week. The IGWG requested the Bureau to organize informal hybrid meetings during the intersessional period, open to all IGWG members, to continue to work towards convergence and focus on key areas in sections II.B and II.C of the text, including contracts. The IGWG further agreed that any convergence arising from the said meetings will be presented to IGWG and considered in the resumed session with a view to build on the onscreen version of the iGWG6 draft PABS Annex text.”

Some developing countries wanted to record reasons as to why the situation warranted a resumed meeting before the 79th Session of the World Health Assembly in the report. They told Third World Network, “a report should speak to the world. We are doing closed door drafting negotiations throughout the week. The world needs to know who is doing what, at least in summary, and only then there is meaning to adopt reports”.

As a result of continued reluctance of the developed countries to accept elements of equity, there was very little “greening” of the text (indicating initial consensus) and limited “yellowing” (indicating emerging convergence) in the negotiating document. Notably, there was no meaningful progress in Sections II.B and II.C, which address access to pathogens of pandemic potential and their sequence information, and benefit sharing respectively. Hardly three paragraphs were partially greened, in Section II A-C [Paragraph II A.1-2 and C.1.(c)]. These again are subject to further consultations. Countries are also against selective greening as there is no consensus on the fundamental issues such as contracts as pre-condition to access to biological materials and sequence information.

According to those familiar with the negotiations, Section III (Governance) was only partially discussed. Due to limited interpretation availability, text-based negotiations on this section were suspended on the final day, and discussions shifted to next steps.

Efforts on the way forward

Discussions on the way forward were relatively brief until deliberations began on the meeting report. While there was general agreement on the need for another round of PABS negotiations and intersessional informal meetings, disagreement emerged over how future discussions should be structured and guided.

Developed countries pushed for a “convergence framework” to guide further negotiations and expected the IGWG to work on that basis. However, developing countries emphasized that any intersessional process must be guided by the principle of equity and anchored in Article 12 of the Pandemic Agreement.

France attempted, on the penultimate day, to facilitate a discussion on this convergence framework. Although developing countries made efforts to engage constructively with it as a basis for compromise, it became evident that there was no meaningful flexibility from the Global North. Some developed countries were seen advancing the idea of a dual-track (hybrid) system as a compromise approach, though it is a win for the North and a loss for the South.

At first the draft report read: “The IGWG decided to hold a resumed session of the sixth meeting of the IGWG from 27 April to 1 May 2026, including stocktaking in the middle of the week in view of the mandate of the IGWG to submit its outcome regarding the PABS Annex to the Seventy-ninth World Health Assembly. The IGWG requested the Bureau to hold informal hybrid meetings during the intersessional period, open to all IGWG members, to continue to work towards convergence and focus on key areas in sections II.B and II.C of the text, including contracts. The outcomes of such informals will inform the discussions at the resumed session which will work on the basis of the onscreen version of the IGWG6 draft PABS Annex text.”

Debate also arose regarding the inclusion of a “stocktaking” exercise, with some negotiators expressing concern that the language could cast doubt on the IGWG’s mandate or allow text to be forwarded to the 79^th World Health Assembly (WHA79) without consensus. “There should be an open discussion on the way forward after the stocktake, preferably at the end of the week. A stocktake in the middle of a 5-day session would be premature, we are not doing a 2 weeks exercise,” according to a developing country negotiator.

After the phrase “to work towards convergence”, Namibia inserted “on the basis of proposals from all IGWG members, including those reflecting principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibility” to ensure the negotiations do not lose focus on the equity issues.

After almost negotiating on these issues for more than 2 hours, the following compromise language was agreed by all Member States:

“The IGWG decided to hold a resumed session of the sixth meeting of the IGWG from 27 April to 1 May 2026, including stocktaking during the week. The IGWG requested the Bureau to organize informal hybrid meetings during the intersessional period, open to all IGWG members, to continue to work towards convergence and focus on key areas in sections II.B and II.C of the text, including contracts. The IGWG further agreed that any convergence arising from the said meetings will be presented to IGWG and considered in the resumed session with a view to build on the onscreen version of the iGWG6 draft PABS Annex text.”

A developing country delegate said after the suspension of IGWG6, “Conclusion of the PABS negotiations is still within reach. That is the message we are sending by agreeing to an additional round before the World Health Assembly. We are working towards it”.

A Key Reason for the Deadlock: Legal Uncertainty on Access to VTDs

As explained by a developing country delegate, to outside observers, the negotiations may appear highly technical and complex, needing more time to conclude. It talks about issues such as WHO coordination of laboratories, databases, pathogen sharing, and real-time production etc. However, at their core lies a simple question that is fundamentally political: Will there be legal certainty for equitable access to VTDs to prevent and respond to health emergencies?

As long as this question is answered with a positive affirmation the success of IGWG can be declared at WHA79. However, the Global North positions, especially that of the G6, EU, Norway, Switzerland, and Australia are not providing this confidence to the developing countries.

(G6 is G7 without the United States which has left the WHO – Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom.)

Developing countries reported three key challenges that undermine the demand for legal certainty in the PABS negotiations. First, developed countries expect developing countries to share pathogen samples and sequence information freely, while deferring benefit-sharing to future negotiations between WHO and pharmaceutical manufacturers.

Second, they seek to avoid contractually enforceable  legal obligations for recipients of PABS materials and sequence information including laboratories, databases and academic researchers regarding the use of PABS resources adding to the legal uncertainty of waiting for WHO to conclude contracts with manufacturers.

Third, the WHO Secretariat and IGWG Bureau propose adopting a “skeleton” PABS Annex, with critical elements such as PABS contracts to be negotiated later by the Conference of Parties to the Pandemic Agreement after it enters into force.

As noted by Norway during the opening of IGWG6, the expectation of the Global North is that developing countries should share pathogens now and rely on a WHO mandate to later negotiate benefit-sharing arrangements with pharmaceutical companies which have accessed and utilized PABS resources, i.e. make the manufacturers a participant accessing the PABS resources with no obligations attached. This approach directly contradicts the principle of legal certainty embedded in Article 12 of the Pandemic Agreement.

It is from this conception of delinked access and benefit sharing, the rest of contentious issues of PABS system emerge, in particular with respect to accountability and transparency of the system, and the functions and obligations of the databases and laboratories.

According to an African country delegate stated: “So far, the commitment in Article 12 has not advanced even an inch in the PABS Annex. While manufacturers may be required to allocate 10% of real-time production of VTDs during pandemics, there is no such clarity on access to VTDS for early outbreaks or Public Health Emergencies of International Concern (PHEICs). We are being told this depends on the decision of the participating manufacturer. Not only the percentage, but even whether to give supplies to WHO at all depends on the decision of the manufacturers. How can anyone reasonably expect us to sign such a deal?”

At the same time, sources say that countries such as Switzerland and Norway have drawn a red line against any commitment to set aside some VTD supplies for WHO to distribute to needy countries and populations before a pandemic is declared, backtracking on the emphasis they have been making on pandemic prevention during the negotiations for the Pandemic Agreement. In general, developed countries are taking positions that will not help to operationalise the PABS at the time the Pandemic Agreement enters into force.

“A situation where the [Pandemic Agreement] enters into force but the operational elements of PABS remain to be negotiated is unacceptable to us,” said another developing country negotiator.

“We can work towards the conclusion of these negotiations easily, if we agree on one point: there must be legal certainty for access to sufficient supply of VTDs at all stages of an outbreak. added the negotiator.

Despite developing countries expressing willingness to engage on proposals that developed countries may make on delivering timely access to VTDs during early outbreak stages, the Global North did not present alternative solutions, but kept reiterating their hardline positions.