Newsletter Edition #154 [Treaty Talks]
Readers,
Many fault multilateralism for its pace. But one of the interesting aspects of multilateralism is also its unpredictability. We also know that while in theory, every country gets a vote, in practice some votes count more than others. However, all voices matter, at least that it is the rhetoric.
It happens ever so often, that voices do get louder. We saw this yesterday at the World Health Organization, where countries threw open what is supposed to be the final round of negotiations on the Pathogen Access Benefit Sharing system.
Our report today brings you a picture of the proceedings, but not only. This was publicly webcast you can watch and get a sense of the temperature in the room. We are onsite, speaking to numerous diplomats in the negotiations to also get you behind-the-scenes considerations which drove what played out on screen.
My colleague Nishant has overnight, pulled together the proceedings and most statements made by countries. This is pain-staking work, but a necessary record for posterity.
Also, it will be a miss if we don’t note that, women negotiators are being skillful in these discussions. See more on this below. This may make folks uncomfortable, but we got to smell the coffee. (In case you missed it, our analysis from last year on Feminist Health Diplomacy)
Thank you for reading. More from us, as things heat up in the coming days.
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.
Later,
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.
“We Mean Business”: Key African Countries Force Recalibration of the Negotiations on Pathogen Access Benefits Sharing System at the WHO
By Priti Patnaik & Nishant Sirohi
International diplomacy is often stage-managed. But sometimes, it is not possible to do so for a number of factors including realpolitik, politics and the vast changes beyond the control of many.
WHO member states have gathered in Geneva this week, in what is supposed to be a final effort to reach consensus on the Pathogen Access Benefit Sharing System – an annex to the Pandemic Agreement. While the Pandemic Agreement was adopted in May 2025, as per current commitments, countries had signed up to conclude negotiations on the PABS by May 2026. This would push open the door for ratification of the Agreement itself.
Therefore, many cards have been lined up, all of which follow if countries reach consensus on the PABS annex – a key component to operationalize the objective of equity in Pandemic Prevention Preparedness and Response. Member states began deliberations on the PABS annex in July 2025.
In the few remaining days this week, they must agree on not only on the operational elements which are complex and technical, but also the key political trade-offs on the benefits that will flow from such a mechanism. Two puzzles have to interlock: the specifics of the obligations on sharing pathogen information based on conditionalities to such access; and agreeing on the kinds of benefit sharing obligations. With more than 190 countries, there are a range of preferences on both these counts. (See our PABS cheat sheet from last week.)
Fundamental disagreements continue, including developed countries questioning whether at all this mechanism needs a framing of Access and Benefits Sharing - as already agreed in Article 12 of the Pandemic Agreement. (We wrote about this earlier.)
In February 2026, at the previous round of formal negotiations, the Bureau of the Intergovernmental Working Group (IGWG), set up to negotiate this annex was tasked to build on the discussions, and produce a text for further consideration by countries.
Given the limited time left, most assumed that countries would get to work immediately. They did, but not without a kerfuffle. Come Monday morning (March 23, 2026), many African countries caught the IGWG by surprise, and insisted on using the text, where countries left off on February 14, 2026 at the conclusion of the previous meeting. They insisted that the latest Bureau’s text (March 9, 2026), did not reflect countries’ proposals, and wanted the February text as the basis to resume negotiations.
In this story, we present a blow-by-blow account of what transpired.
Civil society actors have long pushed for greater transparency in these proceedings, but a range of member states have been reluctant. The limited public webcast of these proceedings revealed the dynamics in these closed-door negotiations. The political utility of open proceedings came to the fore.