Negotiators at the World Health Organization ended the seventh round of negotiations on the pandemic agreement’s pathogen access and benefit-sharing (PABS) annex this week without resolving core differences between two competing systems. Delegations split broadly between a sovereign, regionally linked approach favoured by African countries and a hybrid framework promoted by the European Union and other developed states.
Two rival architectures on the table
The Africa Plus Group, represented by Algeria at the talks, advanced a "federated" model. That proposal would centre on national and regional nodes that retain authority over biological samples and associated data while being connected through a WHO-hosted metadata index. The arrangement seeks to ensure traceability and to make access conditional on binding benefit-sharing obligations at the point when materials or sequence information are used.
By contrast, the EU and its allies pressed for a "hybrid" arrangement, which mixes centralised and decentralised elements and aims to balance rapid access for public health use with agreed benefit-sharing mechanisms. The precise contours of the hybrid approach remain under negotiation.
"Access and benefit-sharing started feeling like two sides of an argument... more of us now start to see them again as two halves of one promise,"
WHO director-general Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus used that language to describe the tone of discussions as they closed, while warning that substantive differences persist and require the same seriousness in future sessions.
What the models would mean in practice
- Federated model: emphasis on sovereign control, persistent identifiers and end-to-end traceability of physical materials and digital sequence data.
- Hybrid model: seeks a balance between rapid access and centrally coordinated benefit-sharing, with elements of both central registry and national control.
The federated proposal treats digital sequence information and physical materials with parity and would condition access on contractual benefit-sharing commitments. Proponents argue this preserves national sovereignty and accountability; opponents caution it could impede timely access during emergencies.
| Feature | Federated | Hybrid |
|---|---|---|
| Control | National/regional nodes | Shared central/decentralised |
| Traceability | WHO-hosted metadata index with persistent IDs | Varied approaches under negotiation |
| Treatment of sequence data | Parity with physical materials | Subject to negotiated terms |
Next steps and remaining challenges
Dr Tedros reported that many participants indicated the annex could be finalised this year, and he urged delegations to sustain momentum. He also cautioned that significant gaps remain and that they should be dealt with in subsequent sessions. The unresolved issues include the precise mechanics of access, enforceability of benefit-sharing commitments and how to reconcile rapid scientific exchange with protections against misuse and commercial exploitation.
For countries watching closely, the outcome will shape how pathogen samples and sequence data circulate in future health emergencies and how benefits derived from them — such as diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics — are shared across regions. The debate highlights a deeper tension in global health law: how to combine equitable benefit-sharing with the speed needed for effective outbreak response.
