Why in News?

After over three years of negotiations, WHO member states (excluding the United States) have agreed on a draft of a legally binding treaty aimed at improving global preparedness and response to future pandemics.

This treaty, set to be ratified at the World Health Assembly in May, marks only the second legally binding accord in WHO’s history—the first being the 2003 tobacco control treaty.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Need For a Global Pandemic Treaty
• Key Provisions of the Pandemic Treaty
• Criticism of the Global Pandemic Treaty

Need For a Global Pandemic Treaty

• Unequal Vaccine Distribution During COVID-19
  • When the Omicron variant surged in late 2021, vaccine-producing countries hoarded doses, leaving low-income nations with limited or no access.
  • This highlighted deep global inequities in pandemic response.
• Preventable Loss of Lives
  • A 2022 study in Nature estimated that over one million lives could have been saved with fairer vaccine distribution.
  • By that time, COVID-19 had already taken more than seven million lives globally.
• Systemic Failures in Global Response
  • A 2021 report by the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response blamed poor strategic choices, inequality, and lack of coordination for turning the pandemic into a major humanitarian disaster.
• A Call for Coordinated Global Action
  • In response to these failures, WHO member states began negotiating a pandemic treaty in December 2021.
  • After 13 rounds of talks over nearly three-and-a-half years, a draft agreement was reached to ensure better preparedness, equity, and coordination in future pandemics.

Key Provisions of the Pandemic Treaty

• Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing
  • The treaty introduces a system where pharmaceutical companies gain access to scientific data—like pathogen samples and genomic sequences—in exchange for a commitment to equitably share the resulting vaccines, drugs, and diagnostics during a pandemic.
• Production Allocation to WHO
  • Manufacturers participating in the agreement must allocate:
    • 10% of their pandemic-related products (vaccines, therapeutics, diagnostics) to WHO free of charge, and
    • An additional 10% at affordable prices.
• Technology and Knowledge Sharing
• Member states are expected to encourage or incentivize the transfer of technology and know-how, enabling developing countries to manufacture their own medical tools during pandemics.
• Conditions on Publicly Funded Research
  • Countries must create policies that require any publicly funded research—whether at universities or private companies—to ensure equitable and timely access to resulting treatments or diagnostics during health emergencies.
• Government Intervention for Public Benefit
  • The treaty empowers governments to intervene when life-saving medicines, developed using public funds, are unaffordable or inaccessible, ensuring availability for citizens and vulnerable populations worldwide.

Criticism of the Global Pandemic Treaty

• Limited Authority of the WHO
  • While the treaty is considered a major step forward, it does not grant the WHO any legal power over individual countries.
  • Clause 24 explicitly states that the WHO cannot direct or change any national laws or policies.
    • It also cannot enforce travel bans, lockdowns, vaccine mandates, or any public health measures.
• No Enforcement Mechanism
• The WHO has no power to ensure compliance. In a future crisis, countries could again prioritize national interests—such as hoarding vaccines—without facing consequences.
• This weakens the treaty’s enforceability.
• Concerns from the Pharmaceutical Industry
  • Pharma leaders argue that unclear rules around intellectual property and benefit-sharing may discourage investment in high-risk pandemic research.
  • They emphasized the need for legal certainty to maintain innovation and public-private partnerships in future health emergencies.
• Lack of Clarity in Key Provisions
  • The “pathogen access and benefit sharing” system—central to the treaty—lacks detailed implementation guidelines, raising concerns about its practicality and effectiveness.
• Absence of the United States
  • The U.S., a major player in vaccine and drug production, withdrew from negotiations after Donald Trump’s return to power.
  • Its absence significantly weakens the treaty’s impact.
  • Experts described the lack of U.S. participation as a “gaping hole” in global pandemic preparedness efforts.