The WHO Pandemic Agreement is the first international treaty designed to coordinate how countries prepare for and respond to future pandemics. After more than three years of negotiations led by WHO member states, the World Health Assembly formally adopted the agreement by consensus in May 2025. The vote in committee passed 124 in favor, zero objections, and 11 abstentions. But the agreement isn’t fully in effect yet: a key piece on sharing pathogens and pandemic products still needs to be finalized before countries can sign and ratify it.
What the Agreement Actually Does
The WHO Pandemic Agreement, formally called the “Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response Accord,” creates a binding framework for how countries share information, resources, and medical products when a new pandemic-level threat emerges. Its core logic is simple: during COVID-19, wealthy nations hoarded vaccines while poorer countries waited months or years for access. The agreement tries to prevent that from happening again by building obligations into international law before the next crisis hits.
The negotiations were conducted through an Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB), which held its final sessions in early 2025 before presenting the proposed text to the World Health Assembly. The agreement covers pathogen sharing, manufacturing commitments, disease surveillance at the animal-human-environment boundary, technology transfer, and intellectual property considerations during emergencies.
The 20 Percent Rule for Pandemic Products
One of the most consequential provisions is Article 12, which requires pharmaceutical companies that use shared pathogen data to give back a portion of what they produce. Specifically, manufacturers must provide 20% of their real-time pandemic production to the WHO for distribution based on public health need. At least half of that (10% of total production) must be donated outright, and the remaining 10% offered at affordable prices.
This applies not just to physical virus samples but also to genetic sequence data. During COVID-19, companies used publicly shared genomic sequences to develop vaccines and treatments without any formal obligation to share the resulting products equitably. The agreement closes that gap by explicitly including sequence information alongside physical materials in its scope. In theory, even downloading a pathogen’s genetic code and using it to design a product triggers the duty to share benefits.
Pathogen Sharing Still Being Negotiated
The system that governs how all of this works in practice, called the Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (PABS) system, is not yet finalized. When the World Health Assembly adopted the agreement, it simultaneously launched a new intergovernmental working group to draft and negotiate the PABS annex. That process is expected to wrap up by the next World Health Assembly, likely in 2026.
The PABS system is designed to do two things simultaneously: get pathogen samples and genetic data flowing quickly to researchers and manufacturers worldwide, and ensure the benefits of that sharing (vaccines, treatments, diagnostics) flow back equitably. Countries that share dangerous pathogens essentially get a guarantee that they won’t be last in line for the products made from their data. Until the PABS annex is adopted, the agreement won’t open for formal signature and ratification by national legislatures.
Preventing Pandemics at the Source
Article 4 of the agreement requires countries to develop national pandemic plans that address diseases where they actually start: at the intersection of human health, animal health, and the environment. This “One Health” approach reflects the reality that most emerging infectious diseases jump from animals to humans. COVID-19, Ebola, avian influenza, and mpox all followed that pattern.
Countries are expected to build systems for early detection of high-risk pathogens, including those circulating in animal populations and environmental reservoirs. They must also monitor ecosystem-level factors that drive disease emergence, such as deforestation, wildlife trade, and agricultural practices that bring humans and animals into closer contact. The agreement calls for responsible stewardship of medicines across sectors, aiming to slow the development of antimicrobial resistance, which could fuel the next pandemic threat. All of these obligations are subject to national legislation and available resources, giving countries flexibility in how they implement them.
What Happened to Intellectual Property Waivers
One of the most contentious issues throughout negotiations was whether the agreement would allow countries to override pharmaceutical patents during a pandemic. Early drafts were far more aggressive on this point. The initial “zero draft” text explicitly called on countries to “support time-bound waivers of intellectual property rights that can accelerate or scale up manufacturing of pandemic-related products.”
That language did not survive. The final adopted text in Article 11 contains no reference to waiving intellectual property rights. Instead, it asks countries to “cooperate, as appropriate” on time-bound measures they’ve already agreed to through other international organizations. On royalties, the shift was similar but less dramatic. The zero draft would have required patent holders who received public funding to waive royalties for developing-country manufacturers during a pandemic. The adopted version softens this to “encourage” patent holders to “forgo or otherwise charge reasonable royalties,” particularly for developing-country manufacturers, with the goal of increasing affordability for vulnerable populations.
For critics who wanted the agreement to break down patent barriers during health emergencies, this represents a significant retreat. For the pharmaceutical industry, it preserved the existing intellectual property framework while adding moral pressure to act generously during crises.
Sovereignty and What Countries Must Actually Do
The agreement was negotiated by and for WHO member states, not imposed on them. Countries drove the text through the INB process, and adoption at the World Health Assembly required consensus. The agreement doesn’t give the WHO power to override national health policy, impose lockdowns, or mandate vaccination programs. Those decisions remain firmly with individual governments.
What the agreement does create is a set of commitments countries make to each other: to share pathogen data quickly, to build surveillance capacity, to contribute pandemic products equitably, and to invest in preparedness infrastructure. Enforcement relies on peer accountability and the reputational costs of non-compliance rather than any penalty mechanism. Countries that ratify the agreement will be expected to align their national laws and plans with its provisions, but the specifics of implementation remain a domestic matter.
What Comes Next
The agreement is adopted but not yet operational. The critical next step is finalizing the PABS annex through the new intergovernmental working group, with results expected at the 2026 World Health Assembly. Once that piece is in place, the agreement opens for signature, and individual countries will need to ratify it through their own legislative processes. For some nations, that could mean parliamentary votes, constitutional review, or extended domestic debate. The timeline from adoption to full implementation across a critical mass of countries will likely stretch well beyond 2026.