Is the New WHO Treaty a Hidden Weapon? 5 Shocking Secrets You MUST Know Before It's Too Late!

Global Health and the “One Health” Principle

For the first time in history, an international treaty has enshrined the principle of “One Health,” highlighting the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health in combatting pandemic risks. This concept reflects lessons learned from past outbreaks such as SARS (2003), H1N1 (2009–10), Ebola (2014–16), and COVID-19, all of which emerged through zoonotic spillover from animal hosts. The new Pandemic Agreement acknowledges this critical relationship and mandates that state parties adopt a comprehensive “One Health” strategy, specifically outlined in Article 5. Governments are now tasked with addressing key pandemic drivers, including wild animal markets, deforestation, and the overuse of antibiotics.

Nonetheless, the success of this “One Health” vision hinges significantly on the free exchange of scientific information and data. Historically, data sharing has been marginalized in global health frameworks, despite its essential role in timely detection and response to outbreaks. While the Pandemic Agreement takes a step in the right direction by requiring governments to enhance data collection and cooperate with the World Health Organization (WHO), the absence of a robust Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (PABS) annex raises concerns. This system is crucial for enabling rapid exchange of pathogen samples and ensuring equitable access to ensuing research and development, including diagnostics and vaccines. Without these mechanisms, the treaty risks becoming symbolic, echoing past failures to translate shared principles into effective action.

Equity Challenges in Global Health

When the 2025 Health Assembly adopted the Pandemic Agreement, it left unresolved questions regarding pathogen access and benefit-sharing for future negotiations in Geneva. There is a significant divide among governments about equity issues, particularly between nations that contribute data and those that primarily benefit from it. Countries like Brazil, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Indonesia, rich in biodiversity, are likely to provide critical PABS materials. However, it is the wealthier nations—such as the United States and EU member states—that are poised to capitalize on these resources to develop profitable health products.

This dynamic mirrors patterns seen in previous international frameworks, where wealthier nations disproportionately benefited. The International Agreement on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture and the Pandemic Influenza Preparedness (PIP) Framework both illustrate how countries with advanced technological capabilities often extract biological samples and genomic data for commercial gain, leaving less developed countries at a disadvantage. The PABS framework, while promising strong language around access, also contains vague commitments regarding equitable benefit-sharing, risking a replication of these historical imbalances.

Addressing Inequities Through Common Responsibilities

To address these disparities, it is critical to incorporate the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” into the PABS negotiations. This principle, often applied in climate change discussions, asserts that while all nations should contribute to global health efforts, those that have historically profited at the expense of others must shoulder greater responsibilities. This could mean that countries hosting companies that develop lucrative medical products would be obligated to help fund the PABS system and ensure that benefits are shared equitably.

An effective PABS annex could demand that companies in OECD countries withdrawing PABS materials provide resulting diagnostics or vaccines to the WHO during public health emergencies. Although the success of such donations may depend on their scale and immediacy, the underlying principle remains vital: equitable access to healthcare innovations must be a priority. This approach could draw lessons from the PIP Framework, which requires companies to cover half of the PIP operating costs. However, compliance has been inconsistent, highlighting the necessity for robust enforcement mechanisms.

The Need for Strong Enforcement Mechanisms

A key consideration in ensuring the PABS framework's success is the establishment of meaningful enforcement authority. The WHO Pandemic Agreement hands governance responsibilities to a Conference of the Parties (COP), which lacks the authority to compel compliance or impose sanctions on non-compliant governments. Without effective mechanisms in place to ensure adherence to PABS provisions, the treaty’s effectiveness is undermined.

The establishment of a strong enforcement mechanism would not only enhance compliance but also restore trust in the WHO’s credibility, particularly in global health governance. By promoting accountability, this could lay the groundwork for more robust enforcement of international health regulations and frameworks during future public health crises.

In conclusion, the PABS annex presents an opportunity to forge a fair social contract. Wealthier nations must recognize that their access to vital scientific information comes with an obligation to ensure equitable health outcomes across the globe. Innovations that arise from collective contributions should be accessible to all, as every individual deserves a fair chance at surviving pandemics. The lasting impact of this treaty will depend on its ability to operationalize these principles, ensuring that future health crises are met with coordinated and equitable responses.