WHO Pandemic Agreement: 194 Member States Negotiate First Global Treaty Since 2005
Key Facts
- According to WHO, 194 member states are currently negotiating the Pandemic Agreement, representing the first new international health treaty since the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in 2005
- WHO reports that the COVID-19 pandemic caused over 7 million officially recorded deaths globally, though actual mortality estimates exceed 20 million
- The Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB), established in December 2021, has conducted 10 negotiating sessions as of early 2024, WHO documents show
- WHO data indicates that during COVID-19, high-income countries secured 16 times more vaccines per capita than low-income countries at the pandemic’s peak
- According to WHO’s pandemic preparedness review, only 1 in 3 countries had adequate surveillance systems to detect emerging infectious disease threats before COVID-19
When the World Health Assembly voted in December 2021 to begin negotiating a pandemic agreement—just 20 months after COVID-19 was declared a public health emergency—the decision was both historic and overdue. The pandemic had exposed catastrophic failures: vaccine hoarding, fragmented surveillance, misinformation at industrial scale, and political interference in public health decision-making. But could 194 countries with competing interests, different governance systems, and vastly unequal resources actually agree on binding commitments to prevent and respond to future pandemics? As negotiations extended past the original May 2024 deadline, the answer remained uncertain. This article examines what WHO’s Pandemic Agreement aims to achieve, why it’s proven so difficult to finalize, and whether global health initiatives can overcome the nationalism and inequity that defined the COVID-19 response.
What Is the WHO Pandemic Agreement? — WHO’s Definition
According to WHO, the Pandemic Agreement (formally titled the “WHO Convention, Agreement or Other International Instrument on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response”) is a proposed legally binding international treaty being negotiated under WHO’s constitutional authority to adopt conventions or agreements on matters within WHO’s competence. The agreement aims to strengthen global pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response by establishing coordinated surveillance systems, equitable access to medical countermeasures, sustainable financing mechanisms, and governance structures that prevent the failures witnessed during COVID-19.
WHO frames this not as a theoretical exercise but as a practical necessity. The agreement builds on two existing frameworks: the International Health Regulations (IHR 2005), which provide legally binding rules for disease surveillance and response, and WHO’s constitutional authority to negotiate treaties when member states agree. But unlike the IHR—which focus on notification and response obligations—the Pandemic Agreement is intended to create new commitments around equity, financing, research and development, and accountability. It’s meant to be the architecture that holds when the next pandemic threatens.
The distinction matters. The IHR can be amended through World Health Assembly resolutions requiring two-thirds majority votes, but they lack enforcement mechanisms and many countries haven’t implemented core capacities. The Pandemic Agreement, if adopted, would be a treaty requiring ratification by national legislatures, potentially giving it stronger domestic legal force. Whether that translates to actual implementation is another question entirely.
Global Burden of Pandemic Inequity
WHO doesn’t frame the Pandemic Agreement in traditional disease burden terms—it’s not treating a specific pathogen. Instead, the “burden” here is the catastrophic inequity and systemic failure documented during COVID-19. WHO’s official count shows over 7 million deaths from COVID-19 globally, but the WHO-commissioned analysis published in The Lancet (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)02185-6/fulltext) estimates actual mortality at approximately 18.2 million excess deaths through December 2021 alone. That’s nearly triple the official count—a staggering surveillance and reporting failure.
The equity failures were even more stark. According to WHO’s COVID-19 vaccine tracker data (https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/covid-19-vaccines), by mid-2021, high-income countries had secured 16 vaccines per capita while low-income countries had 0.1. Not 1—one-tenth of one vaccine per person. The COVAX facility, designed to ensure equitable access, delivered only 25% of its 2021 target. Wealthy countries bought up supply through advance purchase agreements, leaving poorer nations to wait. WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus called it “vaccine apartheid”—not diplomatic language, but accurate.
The economic burden was similarly unequal. The International Monetary Fund estimated global GDP losses from COVID-19 at $12.5 trillion through 2024. But while high-income countries deployed massive fiscal stimulus—the US spent over $5 trillion—low-income countries faced debt crises and couldn’t finance pandemic response or economic support. According to research in BMJ Global Health (https://gh.bmj.com/content/7/5/e009044), the poorest countries bore disproportionate mortality relative to healthcare capacity, while wealthy countries with stronger health systems could implement intensive care and pharmaceutical interventions.
The surveillance gap remains massive. WHO’s 2021 Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response (https://theindependentpanel.org/) found that most countries lacked adequate genomic sequencing capacity to detect variants, early warning systems to identify outbreaks, and laboratory infrastructure for rapid diagnostics. When Omicron emerged in southern Africa in late 2021, countries with genomic surveillance detected it—and were immediately punished with travel bans. The lesson: transparency gets penalized, not rewarded.
These aren’t abstract policy failures. They’re moral and political failures that killed millions. The Pandemic Agreement’s premise is that without binding commitments to equity, transparency, and cooperation, the next pandemic will follow the same pattern. But whether a treaty can overcome the nationalism, protectionism, and shortsighted self-interest that defined COVID-19 response remains deeply uncertain. The parallels to other global health governance challenges are clear: just as the International Health Regulations provide a legal framework for managing cross-border health risks but often lack enforcement, treaties are only as strong as their implementation mechanisms and political will.
Causes of Pandemic Vulnerability and Structural Risk Factors
The Pandemic Agreement doesn’t address biological mechanisms of disease transmission—that’s not its purpose. Instead, WHO’s negotiating framework identifies structural causes of pandemic vulnerability: fragmented global health governance, inadequate financing for preparedness, weak surveillance and laboratory systems, inequitable access to medical countermeasures, misinformation and infodemic management failures, and lack of political accountability.
WHO’s risk assessment framework points to specific drivers of future pandemic risk. Zoonotic spillover—when pathogens jump from animals to humans—causes approximately 75% of emerging infectious diseases, according to WHO data and research published in Nature (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03427-0). Deforestation, wildlife trade, industrial animal agriculture, and urbanization increase human-animal contact and spillover probability. Climate change is expanding vector ranges and altering disease ecology. Antimicrobial resistance, driven partly by misuse in human and veterinary medicine, threatens to render common infections untreatable.
But the Pandemic Agreement focuses less on these upstream ecological drivers than on health system and governance failures. WHO’s pandemic preparedness assessments, conducted through Joint External Evaluations under the IHR, found that before COVID-19, only 27% of countries had national pandemic preparedness plans that were funded and operational. Laboratory capacity was insufficient in most low- and middle-income countries. Supply chains for personal protective equipment, diagnostics, and therapeutics were concentrated in a handful of manufacturing countries, creating bottlenecks when demand surged globally.
The governance gap is perhaps most critical. During COVID-19, there was no mechanism to enforce transparency when countries delayed reporting cases, no way to prevent export bans on vaccines or PPE, no system to ensure equitable allocation of scarce medical countermeasures. The Access to COVID-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator, including COVAX, was voluntary and chronically underfunded—it raised only 60% of its financing needs. Rich countries pledged donations but delivered late, and often only surplus doses nearing expiration.
Intellectual property rules created additional barriers. Research published in The Lancet Global Health (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(22)00126-5/fulltext) documented how patent protections and technology transfer restrictions delayed vaccine manufacturing scale-up in low- and middle-income countries. The TRIPS waiver proposed at WTO—to temporarily suspend certain IP protections for COVID-19 medical products—was blocked by high-income countries for nearly two years, and when finally adopted in mid-2022, was so watered down it had minimal impact.
These structural factors aren’t acts of nature—they’re policy choices. And they’re exactly what the Pandemic Agreement is supposed to address. But negotiating binding commitments on equity, technology transfer, and financing has proven extraordinarily difficult when national economic interests are at stake.
Health Impacts of Pandemic Preparedness Failures
WHO identifies the health impacts of inadequate pandemic preparedness through the lens of COVID-19’s catastrophic toll. Direct mortality—7 million officially, likely over 20 million actually—is just the beginning. Long COVID affects an estimated 10-20% of COVID-19 survivors according to WHO data, causing persistent fatigue, cognitive impairment, cardiovascular complications, and disability that will burden health systems for decades.
Indirect health impacts were massive. WHO’s 2022 survey of essential health services during COVID-19 (https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-EHS-continuity-survey-2022.1) found that over 90% of countries experienced disruptions to routine health services. Tuberculosis case detection dropped 21% in 2020, setting back years of progress. Childhood vaccination coverage fell for the first time in decades—23 million children missed basic vaccines in 2020 alone. Cancer screening and treatment were delayed. Mental health services, already inadequate globally, were overwhelmed even as demand surged.
The economic devastation translated directly to health harm. According to World Bank estimates, COVID-19 pushed approximately 100 million people into extreme poverty—people who now can’t afford healthcare, nutritious food, or safe housing. Maternal and child health outcomes worsened. Food insecurity increased. These ripple effects will compound for years, causing preventable deaths from malnutrition, untreated chronic diseases, and delayed diagnoses that could have been prevented with functioning health systems.
Misinformation killed. WHO documented an “infodemic” of false claims about COVID-19 transmission, prevention, and treatment that undermined public health measures. People died taking ivermectin or bleach as supposed cures. Vaccine hesitancy, amplified by coordinated disinformation campaigns, reduced uptake and prolonged transmission. The erosion of trust in public health institutions and expertise is itself a health impact—one that will make future pandemic response even harder.
Mental health impacts are profound but poorly quantified. WHO reports significant increases in anxiety and depression globally during the pandemic, with lockdowns, isolation, economic stress, grief, and trauma taking measurable tolls. Healthcare workers experienced extraordinary burnout—many left the profession entirely, worsening existing shortages. Children experienced developmental delays from school closures and social isolation. These aren’t temporary effects that resolve when case counts drop.
The health impacts of pandemic preparedness failures aren’t hypothetical future risks—they’re ongoing. The structural weaknesses that allowed COVID-19 to kill millions remain largely unaddressed. Without the Pandemic Agreement or equivalent reforms, the next pandemic—and WHO is clear there will be a next pandemic—will likely follow a similar trajectory. The question is whether political systems can learn from catastrophic failure, or whether short-term national interests will continue to override collective survival.
Treatment and Response Architecture
WHO reports that current approaches to pandemic response remain fragmented and inequitable despite the COVID-19 experience. The existing architecture includes the International Health Regulations (2005), which require countries to report public health emergencies and maintain core surveillance capacities; WHO’s Health Emergencies Programme, which coordinates international response; and various financing mechanisms including the Contingency Fund for Emergencies and the Pandemic Fund (established in 2022 with $1.4 billion—a fraction of estimated need).
But the response gaps are obvious. During COVID-19, WHO issued evidence-based guidance on testing, treatment, and public health measures—but had no enforcement authority when countries ignored it. WHO declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern on January 30, 2020—but many countries delayed action for weeks or months. When treatments like dexamethasone and oxygen became established as effective, access remained wildly unequal—many low-income countries lacked basic oxygen supplies even as high-income countries stockpiled therapeutics.
The ACT Accelerator and COVAX were improvised during the pandemic—not standing architecture but emergency responses created under crisis conditions. According to WHO’s ACT Accelerator evaluation (https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/act-accelerator-strategic-review), the initiative faced chronic underfunding, lacked binding commitments from countries, and couldn’t overcome the structural advantages of bilateral deals that allowed wealthy countries to corner markets. The model succeeded in accelerating R&D and manufacturing scale-up, but failed spectacularly at equitable distribution.
Regional disparities in response capacity remain stark. High-income countries could implement test-and-trace systems, deploy vaccines rapidly, provide economic support to workers in lockdowns, and access therapeutics quickly. Many low-income countries lacked testing capacity, had healthcare systems overwhelmed by baseline disease burden even before COVID-19, and couldn’t finance response measures. WHO’s technical support helped, but couldn’t compensate for decades of health system underinvestment and global economic inequality.
The Pandemic Agreement aims to create standing response architecture: pre-negotiated terms for technology transfer, advance commitments for equitable allocation of medical countermeasures, sustainable financing that doesn’t require emergency fundraising mid-crisis, and accountability mechanisms when countries fail to meet obligations. But whether this can be negotiated and implemented remains uncertain. The parallel to other supply chain challenges is instructive: fake medicines that kill an estimated 250,000 children annually show how weak governance and enforcement enable preventable deaths—pandemic response faces similar structural weaknesses.
Prevention, Preparedness and the One Health Approach
WHO frames pandemic prevention as requiring action across three interconnected domains: reducing spillover risk at the human-animal-environment interface (One Health approach), strengthening health system capacities for early detection and rapid response, and building governance systems that enable coordinated international action. The Pandemic Agreement is intended to operationalize these prevention pillars with binding commitments rather than voluntary cooperation.
The One Health approach recognizes that human, animal, and environmental health are interconnected. WHO, in partnership with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH), and UN Environment Programme (UNEP), has developed the Quadripartite One Health framework (https://www.who.int/news/item/01-12-2021-tripartite-and-unep-support-ohhlep-s-definition-of-one-health) to coordinate surveillance at the human-animal-environment interface, reduce zoonotic spillover risk, and address antimicrobial resistance. But implementation requires resources most countries lack.
Early detection depends on surveillance systems that don’t exist in many regions. WHO’s pandemic preparedness targets include genomic sequencing capacity, integrated disease surveillance platforms, laboratory networks, and community-based surveillance systems. According to WHO’s 2023 Universal Health and Preparedness Review (https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/universal-health-and-preparedness-review-(uhpr)-2023), only 37% of countries have met core IHR surveillance capacities. Building this infrastructure requires sustained financing—estimated at $10-15 billion annually for low- and middle-income countries alone.
Research and development coordination is another prevention priority. WHO’s Blueprint for R&D Preparedness identifies priority pathogens (Disease X—unknown pathogen with pandemic potential) and aims to accelerate vaccine and therapeutic development. But R&D is concentrated in high-income countries and driven by market incentives that don’t prioritize diseases primarily affecting poor populations. The Pandemic Agreement negotiations include provisions for technology transfer and R&D coordination, but intellectual property protections and commercial interests create significant barriers.
Financing prevention has proven extraordinarily difficult. Unlike responding to active outbreaks—which generates political urgency—investing in preparedness faces a “prevention paradox”: success means nothing dramatic happens, making it hard to sustain political and financial support. The Pandemic Fund, established by the World Bank in 2022 with G20 support, has mobilized only $1.4 billion—a fraction of estimated global needs. Compare this to the trillions spent on pandemic response, and the underinvestment in prevention is glaring.
The governance dimension is where the Pandemic Agreement could make the biggest difference—or fail most completely. Binding commitments to share pathogen samples and genomic sequences, to not impose trade and travel restrictions that aren’t evidence-based, to allocate medical countermeasures equitably, and to finance preparedness in all countries would transform pandemic prevention. But these are exactly the commitments that countries have proven unwilling to make when national interests are at stake. The negotiations have stalled repeatedly on equity, financing, and sovereignty concerns.
WHO’s Global Efforts and Negotiating Process
WHO’s work on the Pandemic Agreement began formally on December 1, 2021, when the World Health Assembly held a special session—only the second in WHO’s history—and adopted decision SSA2(5) to establish an Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) to draft and negotiate a pandemic agreement. The decision gave the INB until May 2024 to deliver a final text for consideration at the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly. That deadline came and went without consensus.
The negotiating process has been complex and contentious. The INB, composed of all 194 WHO member states, conducted its first meeting in February 2022 and has held 10 substantive sessions as of early 2024. WHO’s documentation (https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/pandemic-prevention–preparedness-and-response-accord) shows the bureau structure includes representatives from all six WHO regions, with South Africa’s Precious Matsoso and the Netherlands’ Roland Driece serving as co-chairs. Negotiations proceed through regional consultations, informal working groups on specific topics, and formal plenary sessions—standard multilateral treaty negotiation procedures.
The May 2024 World Health Assembly marked a critical juncture. Member states agreed to continue negotiations and extend the INB’s mandate, but couldn’t reach agreement on core provisions. According to WHO’s press statements from the WHA77 (https://www.who.int/news/item/01-06-2024-seventy-seventh-world-health-assembly-update-1-june), countries adopted interim amendments to the International Health Regulations—strengthening surveillance and response obligations—but the full Pandemic Agreement remained under negotiation. The historic pandemic resolution adopted at WHA77 represented partial progress, but fell short of the comprehensive treaty originally envisioned.
The sticking points are predictable. Equity provisions—particularly commitments to share vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics during pandemics—face resistance from countries hosting pharmaceutical manufacturers who worry about undermining commercial incentives. Technology transfer and intellectual property provisions remain highly contentious, with some countries pushing for TRIPS waiver-style suspensions during pandemics and others insisting on maintaining patent protections. Financing commitments are stuck on how much, from whom, and with what conditions. Pathogen access and benefit sharing—ensuring that countries sharing viral samples receive equitable access to vaccines and treatments developed from those samples—remains unresolved.
Sovereignty concerns have emerged as significant barriers. Some countries and advocacy groups worry that the agreement could give WHO excessive authority to mandate pandemic responses, though legal analysis shows WHO cannot override national sovereignty under its constitution. Misinformation campaigns have amplified these fears, with conspiracy theories about “WHO takeover” circulating despite having no basis in the actual negotiating text. WHO has attempted to counter this through transparency—publishing draft texts and conducting public consultations—but mistrust persists.
The parallel negotiation of IHR amendments alongside the Pandemic Agreement has created both opportunities and complications. The IHR amendments adopted in June 2024 include new provisions on surveillance, laboratory capacities, and supply chain resilience. These provide some of the technical infrastructure the Pandemic Agreement was meant to establish, but without the equity, financing, and governance innovations the agreement is supposed to deliver. The risk is that countries treat the IHR amendments as sufficient, reducing pressure to finalize the more ambitious Pandemic Agreement.
Regional dynamics matter enormously. African countries, organized through the Africa CDC, have pushed strongly for equity provisions and technology transfer, having experienced extreme vaccine inequity during COVID-19. Latin American countries similarly advocate for access guarantees. European countries generally support equity principles but face pressure from pharmaceutical industry lobbying. The United States, under different administrations, has oscillated between supporting multilateral cooperation and prioritizing domestic interests. China and Russia have engaged but with skepticism about transparency obligations. These geopolitical fault lines make consensus extraordinarily difficult.
WHO’s role is both facilitative and substantive. The WHO Secretariat provides technical drafting support, legal analysis, and evidence synthesis to inform negotiations. But WHO cannot dictate terms—member states control the process. Director-General Tedros has repeatedly advocated for an ambitious agreement, calling pandemic preparedness “a matter of life and death” and warning that without binding commitments, the next pandemic will repeat COVID-19’s failures. But rhetorical urgency hasn’t translated to negotiating breakthrough.
The editorial question is whether this negotiating process can produce anything meaningful. Multilateral treaty negotiations are inherently difficult—the Paris Climate Agreement took years to finalize and its implementation remains contested. The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, WHO’s only prior treaty, took over a decade from initial proposal to entry into force and has had mixed implementation success. The difference here is urgency: climate change and tobacco use are slow-moving crises with long time horizons for action. Pandemic risk is immediate. The next Disease X could emerge tomorrow, and the global response architecture would look nearly identical to what failed during COVID-19.
Is a flawed agreement better than no agreement? Some public health experts argue that weak equity provisions and inadequate financing are better than nothing—at least establishing principles and mechanisms that can be strengthened over time. Others warn that a weak agreement could be worse than none, providing false assurance while entrenching inequitable systems. The parallel to other global health governance challenges is striking: just as social determinants like ZIP code often matter more than genetics in shaping health outcomes, structural inequities in global governance determine pandemic outcomes more than technical capabilities. Whether a treaty can overcome those structural inequities when negotiated by the same governments that created and maintain them is an open question.
From world history, we know that transformative international institutions—the UN system, WHO itself, the post-WWII economic architecture—were created in moments of crisis when catastrophic failure made the status quo untenable. COVID-19 was certainly catastrophic, killing millions and costing trillions. But has it generated sufficient political will to overcome nationalism and accept binding international commitments? Or will countries return to business as usual once the immediate crisis fades? The ongoing negotiations suggest the latter. And that suggests the next pandemic will find the world scarcely better prepared than it was in January 2020—a prospect that should terrify anyone paying attention. Similar to sustained campaigns that have shifted health outcomes in specific areas, as evidenced by initiatives like World Cancer Day awareness efforts, pandemic preparedness requires not just crisis response but sustained political commitment—something that remains elusive even after COVID-19’s devastating toll.
FAQ
What is the WHO Pandemic Agreement and why is it being negotiated?
The WHO Pandemic Agreement is a proposed legally binding international treaty being negotiated by all 194 WHO member states to strengthen global pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response. Established by World Health Assembly decision in December 2021, it aims to address failures exposed by COVID-19 including vaccine inequity, fragmented surveillance, and lack of coordinated international response mechanisms.
What are the main issues preventing agreement on the Pandemic Treaty?
WHO documents show key sticking points include equity provisions for sharing vaccines and therapeutics during pandemics, technology transfer and intellectual property protections, sustainable financing commitments from wealthy countries, pathogen access and benefit sharing terms, and sovereignty concerns about WHO’s authority. Pharmaceutical industry interests and geopolitical tensions between regions further complicate negotiations.
Will the Pandemic Agreement give WHO power to override national governments?
No. WHO’s constitution and international law do not permit the organization to override national sovereignty. The Pandemic Agreement would create binding commitments that countries voluntarily accept through treaty ratification by their own legislatures. WHO would have no enforcement authority beyond existing mechanisms like dispute resolution. Claims about “WHO takeover” are misinformation without basis in actual negotiating texts.
When will the WHO Pandemic Agreement be finalized?
The original May 2024 deadline was missed. WHO member states at the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly in June 2024 extended the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body’s mandate to continue negotiations. No new firm deadline has been set, though countries expressed commitment to finalizing the agreement “as soon as possible.” Consensus on contentious provisions remains elusive as of early 2026.
How does the Pandemic Agreement relate to the International Health Regulations?
The International Health Regulations (IHR 2005) are existing legally binding rules requiring disease surveillance and response. WHO member states adopted IHR amendments in June 2024 strengthening some capacities. The Pandemic Agreement is intended to complement the IHR by addressing equity, financing, R&D coordination, and governance issues the IHR doesn’t cover. Both are meant to work together as comprehensive pandemic preparedness architecture.
Sources
- World Health Organization. (2024). WHO Pandemic Agreement. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/health-topics/who-pandemic-agreement
- World Health Organization. (2024). Pandemic prevention, preparedness and response accord. Questions and answers. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/pandemic-prevention–preparedness-and-response-accord
- The Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response. (2021). COVID-19: Make it the Last Pandemic. Retrieved from https://theindependentpanel.org/
- Msemburi, W., et al. (2023). The WHO estimates of excess mortality associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Nature, 613(7942), 130-137.
DISCLAIMER
This article adapts publicly available information from WHO’s Pandemic Agreement page. This content is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. ObserverVoice.com is a news and information platform—not a healthcare provider.
Observer Voice is the one stop site for National, International news, Sports, Editor’s Choice, Art/culture contents, Quotes and much more. We also cover historical contents. Historical contents includes World History, Indian History, and what happened today. The website also covers Entertainment across the India and World.
