As the world was put in disarray in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a single message being heard over each border: we must do better next time. That message is now being moulded into action through the WHO’s mooted pandemic treaty—a legally binding global treaty to achieve greater fairness, preparedness, and solidarity at the next global health crisis.
But as much as this deal is being celebrated as “landmark,” the journey to its draft was far from smooth. Under the layers of diplomatic language and lawyerly jargon, are the real-world contests of interest among developed and developing countries, and the underlying argument about power, access, and equity in global health.
Let’s dissect that through some of the most important viewpoints that are usually lost in surface-level overviews.
Why Did Developed and Developing Countries Have Different Priorities?
While all agree pandemic preparedness is necessary, the concept of what preparedness is varies widely between the Global South and North.
Developed countries, who took the lead in vaccine development in COVID-19, advocated for more robust biosurveillance, quicker data sharing, and global coordination—a mirror of their technological capabilities and worldwide presence.
Developing countries, however, brought to the table painful recollections of vaccine stockpiling, unequal distribution, and sub-standard health infrastructure. Their request? Equity over efficiency. Access over analytics.
And so was created a foundational point of disagreement:
The North concentrated on “detect fast, contain early” whereas the South insisted upon “share fairly, support equally.”
This is not philosophical—it’s political. Who holds the means of survival when there is a pandemic? For the South, it is not a matter of being promised, “You will get your turn in time.” Equity postponed is equity denied.
Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing: Closing the Inequality Gap?
This is where the Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing (PABS) system comes into play—a mechanism to tackle one of the greatest asymmetries: developing nations tend to give the biological material (pathogens), while rich nations capture the commercial value (vaccines, patents, profits).
How does PABS propose to do this?
In the draft WHO agreement:
Nations that share pathogen samples (e.g., virus strains) will have assured access to the fruits—such as vaccines, diagnostics, and therapeutics—of those samples.
The goal is to establish legally binding commitments from pharmaceutical firms and rich nations to share a share of the products fairly.
From the Global South perspective, this is an absolute non-negotiable. Without such a system, data and samples keep moving upwards, but benefits never get to trickle back down.
But the question really is: Will this system be binding and transparent? Or will it become another “good intentions” clause with no real accountability?
Technology Transfer vs. Intellectual Property: Two Different Games
One of the most contentious issues in the draft agreement is technology transfer—not to be mixed up with intellectual property rights (IPRs).
Here’s the difference:
IPRs grant companies exclusive rights over their innovations. During COVID-19, this meant that even if a country wanted to make its own vaccines, it often couldn’t legally or technically do so.
Technology transfer, by contrast, involves the sharing of the actual expertise—the recipes, the production process, the competencies—so that other countries are able to manufacture life-saving devices locally.
For poor nations, technology transfer is an avenue towards self-sufficiency. They do not merely want the product; they want to be able to produce the product themselves.
Here is where tension occurs:
Pharmaceutical companies and some developed countries fear that forced tech transfer could disincentivize innovation and weaken the IP system that fuels R&D.
The solution proposed in the draft? A voluntary model for technology sharing.
From our lens, that’s not good enough. Voluntariness is not equity. We’ve seen how it plays out—some share, most don’t, and the poorest get left behind.
So, Where Do We Go From Here?
The WHO pandemic treaty draft is a major victory. But we must look at it with measured optimism.
Yes, it’s historic.
Yes, it cracks open the space for actual transformation.
But equity needs to be integrated into its very foundation—not added on like a sticker later.
We need binding quotas of vaccine sharing, not loose obligations.
We require an open and enforceable mechanism of benefit sharing, not trust-based one.
And we require actual investment in health infrastructure and R&D capacity in the Global South, not a crisis-time donation.
Final Word: Equity is Not a Charity—It’s a Right
The pandemic treaty is more than a health deal. It’s a social compact. A moral agreement. A chance for the world to say: “We learned. We’ve grown. We won’t let this happen again the same way.”
But to fulfill that promise, we must hear more loudly the voices from the edges—the nations who have too often been instructed to wait their turn.
Because the next time the sirens go off, where you live shouldn’t matter. What should matter is that the world acts as one—equitably, expeditiously, and without pause.