No compulsory licences for vaccines, but definite commitments to supply poorer countries.

There has been an international struggle for a pandemic agreement since 2020. COVID-19 made it very clear that the world was extremely inadequately prepared for global health crises. Now the time has come: Five years on mid-April this year, the World Health Organisation (WHO) announced that 190 countries had agreed on a proposal for the pandemic agreement. The proposal comes at a time when the WHO is facing the withdrawal of its largest contributor, the USA.

The pandemic agreement also obliges the participating countries to intensify their monitoring of health threats and to exchange diagnoses, medicinal products and vaccines more quickly. The transmission of viruses from animals to humans should also be prevented whenever possible, antimicrobial resistance should be combated and national healthcare systems should also be reinforced. This comes at a time when, at least in Europe, the systems are under severe demographic strain and growing right-wing populist forces are turning their backs on multilateralism.

Voluntary technology transfers

The WHO's success in bringing the pandemic agreement to a successful conclusion is generally considered to be a major success. However, there is also criticism that the agreement has been watered down over time. Reaching agreement on the “technology transfer clause” proved particularly difficult. This agreement regulates intellectual property rights and other instruments used during the production of medicinal products and vaccines. This agreement pitted low-income countries against wealthy industrialised countries as well as the EU. There was a dispute about the so-called ‘patent waiver’ for years and thus, the granting of compulsory licences to countries in need. This is now off the table. The result is that technology transfers will remain voluntary. Germany had also argued in favour of this.

Stockpiling for poorer countries is now mandatory

Alternatively, the proposed agreement states that the ‘participating manufacturers’ should make twenty per cent of their medicinal products and vaccines available to a supply reserve for poorer countries and ten per cent of this should be donated. The USA's withdrawal from the WHO, which will come into effect in January 2026, is problematic at this point. This regulation will probably not apply to US producers as the US is not expected to ratify the treaty. This will create large gaps in the WHO's reserves.

Benefit-sharing has yet to be agreed upon

The benefit-sharing issue has also not been fully resolved. This involves countries supplying drug manufacturers with pathogen samples in order to gain access to medicinal products and vaccines. It has been agreed that this system, known as PABS (Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing), should be implemented. However, the exact details are still unclear and they will be clarified in the coming months and attached to the agreement.

The agreement will now be submitted for consideration and adoption by the World Health Assembly, which will meet in Geneva from May 19 to 27. It will come into force once 60 countries have ratified it.