A Robust PABS System: Make or Break for the Pandemic Accord [Guest Essay]

Newsletter Edition #78 [Treaty Talks]

Hi,

We reported last week that the success of reaching consensus towards a new Pandemic Agreement at the World Health Organization, hinges on the possibility of member states agreeing on a new mechanism to facilitate the access to information on pathogens while also committing to share benefits. We were also told that without such a dedicated system for global health, a new legal instrument to govern pandemics may not become a reality. Worse, negotiators also indicated the possibility of a plurilateral mechanism on Access and Benefits Sharing if a global mechanism is not established.

In today’s guest essay, scholars Lawrence O. Gostin & Jayashree Watal, delve further into monetary contributions and non-monetary benefits of such a mechanism (This is in response to our earlier story on rising industry interest in such a mechanism). They have suggestions for negotiators on ways to use the contributions to this mechanism, in order to make this system workable for all countries, in particular low and middle income ones.

The authors have also previously published a piece in these pages from November 2023. (See: Squaring The Circle On Equity in a Pathogen Access And Benefit Sharing System).

An iteration of the draft Pandemic Agreement is underway and is expected on April 18th. Countries continue to disagree on what a PABS mechanism should look like.

Apart from providing our readers with original reporting, we are keen on bringing diverse perspectives from global health experts. Get in touch with us if you wish to access our audience of diplomats, decision-makers, scholars, the private sector and other experts who shape global health policy.

Support public interest global health journalism, become a paying subscriber. Tracking global health policy-making in Geneva is tough and expensive. Help us raise important questions, and in keeping an ear to the ground. Readers paying for our work makes this possible.

Our gratitude to our subscribers who help us stay in the game!

We are having an online event tomorrow where readers can engage with our editorial process and ask us questions to know more about Geneva Health Files. Register here!

Until later.

Best,

Priti

Feel free to write to us: patnaik.reporting@gmail.com. Follow us on X: @filesgeneva

---

Illustration Credit: Amy Clarke, Chembe Collaborative

I. GUEST ESSAY

A Robust PABS System: Make or Break for the Pandemic Accord

By Lawrence O. Gostin & Jayashree Watal

Gostin is Distinguished University Professor, Georgetown University and Director, O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, Washington, D.C., USA.

Watal is Visiting Professor, National Law University Delhi, India.

---

In the Geneva Health Files, we proposed a robust Pathogen Access and Benefits (PABS) system that imposes binding obligations on users of biological materials and genetic sequence data (GSD) to make mandatory monetary contributions. PABS is necessary but not sufficient to ensure equity. There is still important work to do on intellectual property waivers and technology transfers. But PABS is important. The Africa Group and the Equity Group are unlikely to acquiesce to a treaty without a strong PABS system. At the same time, GHF recently reported that the pharma industry is warming up to PABS, but wants unconditional access sans benefit sharing obligations. That’s a non-starter.

Article 12 of the March 7^th negotiating text released by the INB Bureau adopts the monetary platform we proposed, but not entirely in the way we recommended. Here, we propose vital improvements to Article 12 that are important for the demandeurs for equity. We focus on monetary contributions but also recognize the importance of non-monetary benefits such as real-time contributions from manufacturers out of their production.

---

Image Credit: Photo by Markus Spiske, Pexels