By Brenna Matendere
The European Union is on edge as the Intergovernmental Working Group (IGWG) on the WHO Pandemic Agreement reconvenes in Geneva on Monday at an extra-ordinary session where the Aids and Health Foundation (AHF) is fronting a racket of amendments for global equity in the deal.
Failure to reach a deal risks the world facing the next pandemic with no guarantee that countries will urgently share pathogen samples needed to develop drugs and vaccines, or that life-saving technologies will be distributed equitably.
This upcoming session, informally referred to as IGWG6 Part B, represents the last scheduled opportunity for Member States to reach agreement on the Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (PABS) Annex before its consideration by the World Health Assembly in May 2026.
AHF has released updated positions for negotiations including the informal proposal for a hybrid or dual-track system and a pro-public health approach to intellectual property.
It has been developed by AHF and the AHF Institute in consultation with NGO partners and in collaboration with Third World Network (TWN), and is intended to serve as the basis for coordinated civil society messaging.
Clever Taderera, the AHF Zimbabwe Programmes Manager today briefed journalists in Harare on key advocacy positions and emphasised that without them included in the agreement, the impact on lower countries in world pecking order will be devastating.
Key Advocacy Positions
1.No Equity, No Agreement.
The Pandemic Agreement cannot be ratified without the PABS Annex, and the Annex must not be approved without binding equity provisions guaranteeing enforceable benefit-sharing during pandemics, PHEICs, and interpandemic periods.
“If countries are going to share virus samples and data, they must also share the benefits that result from what they share..
The Pandemic Agreement should not move forward unless there are clear, enforceable equity rules in the PABS Annex that guarantee fair access to vaccines, diagnostics, and treatments during pandemics, PHEICs, and the periods between them,” said Taderera.
2.Mandatory Benefit-Sharing During PHEICs and Interpandemic Periods (updated).
Minimum mandatory benefits must be agreed upfront—not deferred to bilateral negotiations between WHO and manufacturers—and must include: (a) set-aside percentages of vaccines, diagnostics, and therapeutics (VTDs); (b) pre-negotiated licenses and technology and know-how transfer; (c) annual monetary contributions; and (d) public domain availability of non-commercial outputs.
Taderera said people can’t leave fairness up to last-minute deals adding the rules need to be set up front.
That means:
A guaranteed share of vaccines, diagnostics, and treatments resulting from contributions made to the PABS Annex
Real technology and know-how transfer so more regions/countries can produce their own supplies
Annual financial contributions to support the system
Public access to research that isn’t commercial (e.g., scientific data, virus sequences, research findings, and publicly funded studies made freely available for global use)
“In short, everyone who benefits from the system must give back—and the rules should be clear from the start,” said Taderera
- Standardized Contracts with Essential Terms Negotiated by Countries (New). All elements of the PABS system—user registration, traceability, accountability, and enforceability—rest on contractual arrangements. Key contract provisions must be negotiated upfront by countries, not left to subsequent bilateral negotiations between WHO and recipients, which would strip provider countries of bargaining power and legal certainty. Without standardized contracts, the benefit-sharing system has no backbone.
Taderera said countries must be able to negotiate on the key terms up front or everything will get pushed into bilateral negotiations between WHO and countries later—and that weakens fairness adding without that, the system simply won’t work. - No Registration, No Access. Mandatory user registration and traceability must apply to all PABS system users, regardless of whether they access materials, sequence information, or both. The claim that registration undermines open science must be rejected—it does not, and the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science (2021) is unambiguous on this point.
- Reject the Hybrid/Two-Track System (New). Countries must reject proposals for a “hybrid” or dual-track system in both formal and informal negotiations. Such a system would decouple access from benefit-sharing, create an unaccountable open route that companies and researchers could abuse, and hollow out the PABS architecture entirely. It is not a compromise—it is a structural way to bypass benefit sharing obligations. This is ultimately a choice between an accountable system and an unaccountable one.
We stand for a Pro-Public Health Approach to IP (New).
IP must be addressed from a public health perspective: (a) non-commercial use must not give rise to IP monopolies over shared resources or resulting outputs; (b) where IP is claimed over R&D arising from commercial use of shared resources, licenses must be granted to WHO for sub-licensing, especially to entities in developing countries; and (c) no IP may be claimed over materials, sequences, or parts thereof in a way that prevents others from using the parts thereof in a way that prevents others from using the same.
Taderera emphasised that intellectual property rules should support public health—not block it which means no one should be able to monopolize shared resources from the PABS Annex or the products that result from them. - If companies develop products from shared data, licenses must be granted to allow for broader access—especially in developing countries
Why EU Countries and the EU Commission are primary targets:
The EU Commission is the central power broker; EU resistance is the primary obstacle to stronger equity measures; the EU publicly champions solidarity and fairness and must act accordingly; and a shift by key EU members—including Spain, Belgium, and Luxembourg—could break the deadlock. Norway, Switzerland, and Germany may be susceptible to reputational pressure.
Advocacy Posture:
AHF says it does not propose compromises.
“ Compromise proposals must come from governments. We are a pressure group, not a mediation group. Our role is to empower developing countries fighting for equity and to ensure the other side blinks first at the negotiating table.
“The EU, Norway, and Switzerland must stop blocking equity. A weak Annex risks repeating the vaccine apartheid of COVID-19. A strong PABS Annex is not symbolic—it saves lives,” Taderera said.
About Author
