Member states of the World Health Organization (WHO) have reached an agreement on how to tackle future pandemics courtesy of a new treaty that will facilitate international collaboration and shared response efforts.
The draft agreement, which will be put forth at an upcoming World Health Assembly in May, comes after three years of negotiations between governments. It is considered a global health victory amid funding uncertainty from the US government and anti-WHO rhetoric voiced by President Donald Trump.
The Pandemic Agreement is a proposed international joint initiative to fight the next pathogens that threaten global health. “In reaching consensus on the Pandemic Agreement, not only did [nations] put in place a generational accord to make the world safer, they have also demonstrated that multilateralism is alive and well, and that in our divided world, nations can still work together to find common ground, and a shared response to shared threats,鈥� said Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General.
The draft agreement proposes a variety of measures to shore up the world鈥檚 infectious disease defences. These mainly centre around shared health initiatives, instilling a 鈥極ne Health鈥� approach. Proposals include establishing a pathogen access and benefit sharing system, building geographically diverse research and development capacities, and creating a global health emergency workforce, amongst others.
One of the key strategies is a coordinated financial mechanism to tackle pandemics in the future. Money is something WHO is 聽having to grapple with as the US, the organisation鈥檚 聽largest supporter in terms of funding, is set to withdraw from its ranks in 2026. Separately, cuts to United States Agency for International Development (USAID) have also significantly impacted global health programmes. Ghebreyesus has asked the US to reconsider its position on foreign healthcare aid. 聽
Treaty criticism is still present聽
A wider criticism shared by other countries relating to the pandemic agreement was the potential for power rerouting and illegitimate legislative capacity. In a statement announcing the agreement proposal, WHO said that 鈥渘othing in the draft agreement shall be interpreted as providing WHO any authority to direct, order, alter or prescribe national laws or policies, or mandate States to take specific actions.鈥� Such actions include accepting or banning travellers, imposing vaccination mandates, or implementing lockdowns.
There are other concerns over the new agreement. One relates to how pharmaceutical research and development is shared as per the treaty, highlighted by the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA).
Reacting to the agreement today, the trade body said it: 鈥�Intellectual property protection and legal certainty are essential for the innovative-based pharmaceutical industry to invest in high-risk R&D and enable voluntary partnerships that we will need in the next pandemic. We hope that in subsequent negotiations Member States maintain the conditions for the private sector to continue innovating against pathogens of pandemic potential.鈥�
The AHF Global Public Health Institute, meanwhile, has said that nations are defending the private interest of pharmaceutical companies over global health security, and that the agreement is a 鈥淲HO power grab鈥�.
The international non-profit Human Rights Watch had also called on member states to push for core human rights protection during the negotiations.
