Newsletter Edition #166 [Treaty Talks]
Readers,
We bring you a quick update on the negotiations on the Pathogen Access Benefit Sharing System that began at the WHO in Geneva earlier this week.
The temperature both inside and outside the room is climbing. Whether countries will have anything cooked during this meeting will remain to be seen. It is slow, tough, and that should not surprise anyone given the nature of these discussions where political and technical considerations are entwined in inextricable ways.
As before, we urge that shooting the messenger is never a good idea. We are only doing our job!
It is great that our work is of value to our readers. Sharing or forwarding our work is flattering, but it hits us where it hurts most. If you are an institution, or a even reader who spends more on a single meal than our monthly subscription, reassess the importance of independent journalism in a field riddled with commercial and political interests. You can help us report these closed-door negotiations that are both, time and resource intensive. Support our work.
More from us in the coming days. We will be onsite at the WHO to track how the discussions are simmering this month.
Geneva Health Files offers value to our readers who are experts in global health. Tracking global health policy-making in Geneva is tough and expensive, without institutional support. For six years, we have provided you with the information and tools that directly contribute to your work in the field. We rely on our readers who value news they can use.
By becoming a paying subscriber you make our work possible. Our subscribers contribute towards greater accountability in global health.
Thank you for your engagement.
Best,
Priti
Priti Patnaik, Founder & Publisher, Geneva Health Files
Feel free to write to us: genevahealthfiles@gmail.com ; Find us on BlueSky, Instagram and Linkedin.
Presenting our weekly in-depth analysis on global health that captures the big picture and the nuances like no one else does. This is an exclusive edition for our subscribers.
I. GHF ANALYSIS
Binding Benefits, Open Data and Innovation: PABS Fault Lines Return, Positions Fierce as Negotiations Resume
By Anjan Rosario & Priti Patnaik
Negotiators returned to Geneva this week with more time to negotiate the Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (PABS), but with many of the political and legal divisions still intact. The PABS annex is a critical part of the WHO Pandemic Agreement.
The seventh meeting of the Intergovernmental Working Group on the WHO Pandemic Agreement is taking place from July 6–17, 2026. The group is expected to conclude negotiations by the Eightieth World Health Assembly in May 2027, unless countries reach consensus sooner and call for a special session of the Assembly in December 2026.
Opening statements made at the meeting, revealed broad support for the need for a PABS system, but showed considerably less agreement on how the access to pathogen materials and sequence information should be legally connected to benefit-sharing. Formal statements indicate that positions continue to be entrenched, and have become more fierce.
African and Caribbean countries called for standardized and legally binding obligations, including mandatory monetary contributions, traceability and technology transfer. The European Union placed greater emphasis on preserving incentives for private-sector research and innovation. Relevant stakeholders were similarly divided over how much legal and technical friction could be introduced without slowing scientific collaboration during an outbreak.
The state of play
The meeting began with a presentation by co-facilitators who encapsulated informal discussions and highlighted some areas of convergence. (France and South Africa who cofacilitated the informals in April 2026, Mexico, Norway and Spain led informals in June 2026).
The briefing discussed support for legally binding terms governing the WHO Coordinated Laboratory Network and WHO-recognized sequence databases; a transfer document or shipment notice for physical materials; unique persistent identifiers; and recognition of the PABS contract as the principal source of benefit-sharing obligations.
The core design questions, however, remain unsettled.
Delegations have not agreed whether signing a PABS contract should be a condition of access, whether a commitment to sign later would be sufficient, or whether users could merely be notified that contractual obligations might arise. They also remain divided over mandatory user registration, the content of data-access or click-wrap agreements, and whether obligations should vary according to the nature of the user.
On benefits, discussions indicated support for monetary fees from participating manufacturers, but differences remain over revenue-based contributions, the scope of mandatory product set-asides and the obligations applicable to research institutions and other non-manufacturing users.
