The COVID-19 pandemic was not only a global health emergency but also a stress test for the international system meant to manage it. It revealed some of the system’s shortcomings, from intellectual property rules that constrained equitable vaccine access to institutional weaknesses that left the international system struggling to respond effectively.
This webinar brought together researchers and civil society practitioners to discuss the implications of the newly adopted World Health Organization (WHO) Pandemic Agreement and the future of global health governance.
The panellists included:
- Óscar Fernández, Maastricht University
- Jaume Vidal, Health Action International
- Nina Jamal, Four Paws International
- Alexandra Finch, Panel for a Public Health Convention and Georgetown University
Initial Points
Panellist Óscar Fernández opened the conversation by presenting findings from his recent ENSURED report on the Pandemic Agreement, outlining the origins of the treaty and the numerous hurdles it overcame to reach the stage of adoption. Fernández argued that the Agreement represents a tentative win for multilateralism: it incorporated equity provisions throughout and is the first agreement to include the crucial “One Health” approach to international law. The Pandemic Agreement has not yet been ratified, as the contentious Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (PABS) Annex is still under negotiation.
The conversation then turned to the question of what went wrong during the pandemic. Panellist Nina Jamal noted that the pandemic exposed health governance’s tendency to focus on symptom control rather than prevention. Initial conversations on the Pandemic Agreement did not even feature a preventive approach; it was only added after effective civil society advocacy. Panellist Jaume Vidal described how the global response to the pandemic was marred by inequities, with nations in the Global North hoarding protective equipment and vaccines. Consequently, many countries in the Global South had to wait far longer for supplies, while their citizens fell ill.
The PABS Challenge
Panellist Alexandra Finch outlined what is at stake in the current PABS Annex negotiations. If the Annex gets ratified, countries would share pathogen samples and genetic sequence data that pharmaceutical manufacturers could use. In return, the latter would have to share certain benefits, such as sending 20 percent of real-time production of relevant vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics with the WHO (that would later be distributed to countries).
However, there is still a divide in the negotiations, especially between Global North and South countries. The Africa group and Group for Equity are pushing for standardised contracts to be finalised now, arguing PABS is too important to defer; governments would benefit from having clarity about the process sooner rather than later. Some wealthy countries, as well as the EU, believe there is neither enough time nor expertise in the room to do so in a timely manner, preferring to defer details to the Conference of the Parties which will be held at a later date. As Vidal said, the reality is that “we will be constantly asked to choose between what is necessary and what is possible —a tragic choice.”
Civil Society Participation
All panellists expressed frustration with civil society organisations’ (CSO) lack of access to the negotiations. While relevant stakeholders can receive end-of-day briefings, they cannot observe closed-door sessions, setting PABS apart from other global governance processes. However, the panellists explained they were able to evade these restrictions by engaging directly with multiple delegations from different regions. Jamal, for example, pointed out that civil society can get an accurate picture of the goings-on and can ask follow-up questions by talking to all sides.
The panellists shared several ideas for moving the PABS negotiations forward, including:
- Supporting bridge-building efforts to convene member states from different regions for informal dialogue before negotiations;
- Creating greater civil society access to negotiations, especially for organisations from the Global South, as well as fostering internal CSO coordination and speaking in one voice on critical issues;
- The EU stepping up to play a mediating role in the negotiations and making concessions on issues like technology transfer.
Negotiation success will depend on rebuilding trust between the Global North and South. As Jamal emphasised, when governments do not explain their positions clearly in negotiations, "the other side makes assumptions," which can lead to an ultimately unproductive downward spiral. Inter-regional cooperation improved over the course of the Pandemic Agreement negotiations – similar efforts will be essential in future PABS talks.
Despite these challenges, the panellists remained cautiously optimistic. New players like Brazil, Indonesia, South Africa, and Colombia are creating some momentum in the negotiations. The target for adopting the PABS Annex remains May 2026, with the September 2026 UN High-Level Meeting on Pandemic Preparedness offering another opportunity to generate political support.
Missed the webinar? Watch the recording:
About the ENSURED Webinars
In Conversation with Civil Society is a year-long webinar series exploring how global governance institutions can become more effective, robust, and democratic. Each session brings together ENSURED researchers, policymakers and civil society leaders to discuss practical reform pathways across seven key policy areas. Through a conversational format, the series connects ENSURED’s research with the experience of civil society actors, identifying political opportunities for institutional change and highlighting where advocacy can have the greatest impact — especially across fragmented governance landscapes and persistent North–South divides.
The webinar series is coordinated and facilitated by CIVICUS.
Photo: Ian Hutchinson/Unsplash (Unsplash Lizenz)
.jpg)
.png)
