SINGAPORE: While most are preoccupied with trade tensions and a fracturing world, a landmark moment in global cooperation has quietly happened.
After more than three years of negotiations, governments reached agreement on the text of a new, legally binding treaty designed to ensure the world is better prepared for future pandemics. Set to be formally adopted at the World Health Assembly in May, the agreement is a long-awaited commitment by the 194 member states of the World Health Organization (WHO).
The treaty aims to fix what went wrong during the COVID-19 pandemic. It lays out a vision where countries report outbreaks with more transparency, share data on new pathogens more swiftly, and ensure access to life-saving vaccines, diagnostics and treatments more equitably on the basis of needs, not means.
But as with many international agreements, the outcome will depend less on the words on paper and more on the will to carry them through.
For one, a new mechanism at the heart of the treaty has yet to be finalised.
Known as the Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System (PABS), it seeks to correct a long-standing imbalance: Countries that produce vaccines, tests and treatments want others to share virus samples from an outbreak but many low- and middle-income countries which do so and enable vaccine breakthroughs find themselves last in line for the products.
Under PABS, the WHO would receive up to 20 per cent of such essential health technologies, with half donated and the other half offered at affordable prices – to ensure quicker and fairer access for everyone.
But the operational details of how PABS will actually work are being developed in a separate annex which is expected to take at least another one to two years to finalise. The treaty cannot take effect until 60 countries ratify it – and that process will only begin once this annex is complete.
The agreement also places emphasis on technology transfer and local manufacturing, so that countries can produce their own health tools during a crisis. A proposed Global Supply Chain and Logistics Network would better coordinate how vital health supplies – like masks, medicines and vaccines – are bought, stockpiled and delivered, so they can be dispatched where they are needed, faster and more fairly.
The hope is to avoid the shortages that happened during the early days of COVID-19, and to help regions like Africa and Southeast Asia which were sidelined in global supply chains.
It is hard to disagree with the vision the pandemic treaty paints. Still, several complex challenges remain, one of the biggest of which is balancing public interest with commercial viability.
The pharmaceutical industry has voiced concern about preserving the incentive structures that drive research and innovation. Without a predictable, sustainable system that rewards risk-taking, companies argue, the next life-saving breakthrough may never come.
The treaty acknowledges these concerns and includes commitments for countries to build and sustain research and development (R&D) capacity and strengthen international cooperation. This marks an important step towards addressing both equity and innovation.
This August 2022 photo provided by Pfizer shows vials of the company's updated COVID-19 vaccine during production. (Pfizer via AP)
Equally important is ensuring sustained commitment across stakeholders. While the treaty was developed in a spirit of global cooperation, its success will depend on continued collaboration to support effective cross-border responses.
The treaty also reaffirms the importance of the One Health approach – recognising that pandemic threats do not originate in a vacuum, but from interactions between people, animals and the environment.
This framing is not just theoretical. Diseases like Ebola, H5N1 influenza, SARS, mpox and COVID-19 all emerged from such interactions. By calling for better integration across these sectors, the treaty aims to strengthen early warning systems and prevent outbreaks at their source.
Still, the absence of one key player is hard to overlook. The United States withdrew from the WHO and treaty negotiations in January and is not expected to sign.
The US has historically played a central role in global disease surveillance, vaccine development and emergency response financing – including as the largest contributor to the COVAX facility which supported subsidised procurement during the pandemic. Its regulatory agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), also help shape global timelines by being among the first to evaluate and approve novel vaccines and therapeutics.
What if a novel coronavirus – with no existing vaccine, treatment or diagnostic – were to emerge today, in a country outside the treaty framework?
Without obligations to share data, samples or technologies, and without mechanisms for equitable access to countermeasures, the world could face delays similar to or worse than those seen in the early days of COVID-19. We risk repeating a scramble for resources that favours the most powerful.
Of course, cooperation does not depend solely on legal agreements. In past health emergencies, US-based public health agencies, academic institutions and biotechnology firms have played vital roles in global response efforts.
But the current outlook is more uncertain. The US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention has been ordered to cut communications with the WHO, and the FDA recently cancelled its public advisory meeting for selecting seasonal influenza vaccine strains – a move that raised concerns about transparency in global coordination.
Many US biotech firms depend almost entirely on federal funding for outbreak-related R&D and may have little incentive to share products or technology internationally if that funding is withdrawn. Even academic institutions – typically champions of global collaboration – may face pressure to disengage if cooperation with international bodies is seen as politically risky.
In this context, informal engagement cannot be assumed.
But the rest of the world would still benefit from the consistency and coordination that structured governance provides.
For Singapore – and Southeast Asia as a whole – the treaty presents both a shared responsibility and a valuable opportunity.
With its strong infrastructure, depth of experience and established capabilities, Singapore is well-positioned to contribute meaningfully to pandemic preparedness. This includes continued domestic efforts, as well as support for regional capacity-building, advancing legal and scientific cooperation, and demonstrating practical ways to fulfil treaty commitments.
Working closely with ASEAN, Singapore can help strengthen collective efforts in disease surveillance, emergency response and health security. This could include supporting pooled procurement of essential medical supplies, regional stockpiles, advancing platforms for cross-border data sharing, and contributing to joint financing mechanisms. Regional capacity-building will be critical to making the treaty work in practice.
This proposed pandemic treaty offers a blueprint for a more cooperative, fairer response to global health emergencies – but its impact will hinge on the actions taken in the months and years ahead.
The world came together to agree on the words. The real test lies in what happens next.
Elyssa Liu leads the Legal Frameworks and Governance team at the Duke-NUS Centre for Outbreak Preparedness in Singapore.
Continue reading...
After more than three years of negotiations, governments reached agreement on the text of a new, legally binding treaty designed to ensure the world is better prepared for future pandemics. Set to be formally adopted at the World Health Assembly in May, the agreement is a long-awaited commitment by the 194 member states of the World Health Organization (WHO).
The treaty aims to fix what went wrong during the COVID-19 pandemic. It lays out a vision where countries report outbreaks with more transparency, share data on new pathogens more swiftly, and ensure access to life-saving vaccines, diagnostics and treatments more equitably on the basis of needs, not means.
But as with many international agreements, the outcome will depend less on the words on paper and more on the will to carry them through.
A PUSH FOR EQUITY
For one, a new mechanism at the heart of the treaty has yet to be finalised.
Known as the Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System (PABS), it seeks to correct a long-standing imbalance: Countries that produce vaccines, tests and treatments want others to share virus samples from an outbreak but many low- and middle-income countries which do so and enable vaccine breakthroughs find themselves last in line for the products.
Under PABS, the WHO would receive up to 20 per cent of such essential health technologies, with half donated and the other half offered at affordable prices – to ensure quicker and fairer access for everyone.
But the operational details of how PABS will actually work are being developed in a separate annex which is expected to take at least another one to two years to finalise. The treaty cannot take effect until 60 countries ratify it – and that process will only begin once this annex is complete.
Related:
The agreement also places emphasis on technology transfer and local manufacturing, so that countries can produce their own health tools during a crisis. A proposed Global Supply Chain and Logistics Network would better coordinate how vital health supplies – like masks, medicines and vaccines – are bought, stockpiled and delivered, so they can be dispatched where they are needed, faster and more fairly.
The hope is to avoid the shortages that happened during the early days of COVID-19, and to help regions like Africa and Southeast Asia which were sidelined in global supply chains.
THE HARD QUESTIONS OF IMPLEMENTATION
It is hard to disagree with the vision the pandemic treaty paints. Still, several complex challenges remain, one of the biggest of which is balancing public interest with commercial viability.
The pharmaceutical industry has voiced concern about preserving the incentive structures that drive research and innovation. Without a predictable, sustainable system that rewards risk-taking, companies argue, the next life-saving breakthrough may never come.
The treaty acknowledges these concerns and includes commitments for countries to build and sustain research and development (R&D) capacity and strengthen international cooperation. This marks an important step towards addressing both equity and innovation.
This August 2022 photo provided by Pfizer shows vials of the company's updated COVID-19 vaccine during production. (Pfizer via AP)
Equally important is ensuring sustained commitment across stakeholders. While the treaty was developed in a spirit of global cooperation, its success will depend on continued collaboration to support effective cross-border responses.
The treaty also reaffirms the importance of the One Health approach – recognising that pandemic threats do not originate in a vacuum, but from interactions between people, animals and the environment.
This framing is not just theoretical. Diseases like Ebola, H5N1 influenza, SARS, mpox and COVID-19 all emerged from such interactions. By calling for better integration across these sectors, the treaty aims to strengthen early warning systems and prevent outbreaks at their source.
A NOTABLE ABSENCE
Still, the absence of one key player is hard to overlook. The United States withdrew from the WHO and treaty negotiations in January and is not expected to sign.
The US has historically played a central role in global disease surveillance, vaccine development and emergency response financing – including as the largest contributor to the COVAX facility which supported subsidised procurement during the pandemic. Its regulatory agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), also help shape global timelines by being among the first to evaluate and approve novel vaccines and therapeutics.
Related:
What if a novel coronavirus – with no existing vaccine, treatment or diagnostic – were to emerge today, in a country outside the treaty framework?
Without obligations to share data, samples or technologies, and without mechanisms for equitable access to countermeasures, the world could face delays similar to or worse than those seen in the early days of COVID-19. We risk repeating a scramble for resources that favours the most powerful.
Of course, cooperation does not depend solely on legal agreements. In past health emergencies, US-based public health agencies, academic institutions and biotechnology firms have played vital roles in global response efforts.
But the current outlook is more uncertain. The US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention has been ordered to cut communications with the WHO, and the FDA recently cancelled its public advisory meeting for selecting seasonal influenza vaccine strains – a move that raised concerns about transparency in global coordination.
Many US biotech firms depend almost entirely on federal funding for outbreak-related R&D and may have little incentive to share products or technology internationally if that funding is withdrawn. Even academic institutions – typically champions of global collaboration – may face pressure to disengage if cooperation with international bodies is seen as politically risky.
In this context, informal engagement cannot be assumed.
Related:
A MOMENT FOR REGIONAL LEADERSHIP
But the rest of the world would still benefit from the consistency and coordination that structured governance provides.
For Singapore – and Southeast Asia as a whole – the treaty presents both a shared responsibility and a valuable opportunity.
With its strong infrastructure, depth of experience and established capabilities, Singapore is well-positioned to contribute meaningfully to pandemic preparedness. This includes continued domestic efforts, as well as support for regional capacity-building, advancing legal and scientific cooperation, and demonstrating practical ways to fulfil treaty commitments.
Working closely with ASEAN, Singapore can help strengthen collective efforts in disease surveillance, emergency response and health security. This could include supporting pooled procurement of essential medical supplies, regional stockpiles, advancing platforms for cross-border data sharing, and contributing to joint financing mechanisms. Regional capacity-building will be critical to making the treaty work in practice.
This proposed pandemic treaty offers a blueprint for a more cooperative, fairer response to global health emergencies – but its impact will hinge on the actions taken in the months and years ahead.
The world came together to agree on the words. The real test lies in what happens next.
Elyssa Liu leads the Legal Frameworks and Governance team at the Duke-NUS Centre for Outbreak Preparedness in Singapore.
Continue reading...