Epidemic outbreak of hantavirus aboard the HV Hondius liner, deadly outbreak of Ebola in Central Africa, recent weeks are a reminder of how vulnerable the world remains to these health risks. However, a “global agreement” to fight pandemics is suspended in a standoff between states. Since the World Health Assembly which met in Geneva from May 18 to 23, the WHO has called for the negotiations to be concluded.
In a few days, the outbreak of hantavirus aboard the MS Hondius liner and the deadly outbreak of Ebola in Central Africa reminded decision-makers that the pandemic risk which had shaken the planet so much during Covid-19 was still relevant.
Coincidence, the World Health Assembly, the major annual event under the aegis of the World Health Organization (WHO) was taking place this week from May 18 to 23 in Geneva.
Unfortunately, not all the ingredients were there to make these six diplomatic days a historic moment in the fight against pandemics. Result: the world is still vulnerable to the risk of a global epidemic, due to lack of political will from member states.
Unfinished negotiations
The enthusiasm caused by the adoption in May 2025 of the global agreement on pandemics has waned after months of fruitless negotiations. This treaty imagined in 2020 after the Covid-19 crisis to improve prevention, preparation and response against highly transmissible infectious diseases is blocked.
The text cannot be ratified until the member states have resolved their disagreements on “Annex 12” dedicated to the so-called “PABS” system. Behind this curious acronym lies a unique mechanism for global sharing of samples and genetic sequences of pathogenic agents but also of vaccines, treatments and screening tools.
“We all hoped that the negotiations would be completed in time for the PABS to be adopted at this Assembly. This is not yet the case, but I am convinced that it will happen,” declared Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the WHO in the preamble of the the World Health Assembly. Member states voted to extend the discussions for another year.
Bronca of part of the international community
Without this agreement, the WHO remains a potentially failing actor in the event of a dark scenario. At the beginning of the month, Helen Clark, the co-chair of the group of independent experts for pandemic preparedness and response, expressed her bitterness in a press release.
“If a new pathogen were to emerge today, the world would remain largely unprepared. Failure to act to prevent and prepare for the next pandemic threat is a disservice to humanity.”
Médecins Sans Frontières also expressed its regrets at this new postponement and calls on member states not to remain passive. “Negotiations will continue but in the meantime, governments can already implement concrete measures,” Olena Zarytska, advocacy officer at the NGO, explains to BFM. “This could materialize by opening access to clinical trials to communities at risk, or more equitable distribution of resources based on needs,” she explains.
Rapid access to a share of vaccines
The PABS system provides in particular that voluntary laboratories guarantee to the WHO, in the event of a pandemic, “rapid access to a targeted percentage of 20% of its real-time production of vaccines, treatments and diagnostic products (…) on condition that a minimum of 10% of its production” is made available to the WHO “as a donation” and the remaining percentage “at an affordable price”.
This annex is a direct response to the glaring inequalities observed for decades between rich countries and countries with limited income. “The inequality of access to health products predates the Covid crisis, but it was at that moment that we realized its indecency,” relates political science researcher Stéphanie Tchiombiano to BFM.
For the record, orders for doses of vaccines against Covid-19 from Western countries had been so massive that they had far exceeded the needs of their populations while those of low-income countries were deprived of them. Several billion doses were sent to these countries later, sometimes expired or poorly stored.
“The leaders of these states have organized themselves, structured themselves to speak collectively on the international stage and say that things could no longer happen this way,” continues the specialist in international public action in matters of health.
“We need binding texts”
Negotiations are particularly stumbling over the desire of countries with limited income to benefit from constant equitable access to vaccines and not just during pandemics. They also demand financial contributions from pharmaceutical laboratories wishing to participate in PABS and benefit from pathogen samples.
Médecins Sans Frontières also points out the injustice which has often led pharmaceutical manufacturers to develop vaccines using data collected from contaminated patients without them being able to then benefit these communities.
“This is a situation that we experienced with Ebola in 2014/2015. The laboratories used samples from contaminated patients who passed through our centers and who were refused access to these products. Measures based on voluntary action do not work, binding texts are needed,” Olena Zarytska advocates.
In addition to African countries, other states also defend such a position, like India and China. A working group mandated by the WHO will resume negotiations in the coming weeks to try to reach an agreement and validation of this Annex 12.
An organization deprived of the United States and its funds
At the same time as these negotiations around the PABS system, the World Health Assembly also had to take note of the thunderous disengagement of the United States from the WHO. At the start of the year, the world’s leading power, under the leadership of Donald Trump, left the organization citing disputed dysfunctions. Before its withdrawal, the country was the largest contributor with 1.3 billion dollars.
“Although increased contributions from Member States cushioned the impact of these cuts, it was not enough and we had to reduce our programs and part with a large number of staff,” admitted the WHO Director-General during his introductory speech.
The height of bad faith, the American leaders continue to attack the body which they nevertheless left with a bang. Thus, Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, accused the WHO of having been “a little late” in identifying the new Ebola epidemic. The country had already contributed a few months earlier to the weakening of the health response by abolishing the federal agency for humanitarian aid, USAID, leading to the end of numerous partnerships, particularly in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where the disease broke out.
Furthermore, Donald Trump’s United States has made several African countries sign bilateral agreements to condition aid in the field of health on heavy compensation, in particular access to strategic resources or mining exploitation.
“There were 194 countries within the WHO, after the departure of the United States and Argentina, there are still 192. We should especially not say that as a result, the instruments available to us are no longer universal. The international health regulations (the text that the treaty on pandemics wants to enrich, Editor’s note) are a common good and these two countries continue to benefit from it,” recalls political science researcher Stéphanie Tchiombiano.
Although there is room for improvement, international health regulations have allowed the United States and Argentina to be informed of the detection of recent hantavirus or Ebola infections and of the seriousness of the situation.
