Europe’s Pandemic Stance Risks COVID’s Moral Failure

IMBALANCE: As global negotiations near conclusion in Geneva, critics warn the European Union is weakening key equity provisions, threatening to leave developing nations last in line once again…

By Guilherme Faviero and Nithin Ramakrishnan

As final negotiations unfold in Geneva on the World Health Organization’s Pandemic Agreement, the stakes could not be higher. 

At issue is, not only the technical design of a global health framework, but a moral question shaped by the failures of COVID-19: will the world correct the deep inequities exposed during the pandemic, or quietly reproduce them?

At the centre of this debate lies the Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (PABS) system — the final and most contested piece of the agreement. It is here that the promise of equity must either be made real or reduced to rhetoric. The PABS system is designed to ensure that when countries share pathogen samples and genetic sequence data — the raw materials of vaccines, diagnostics and treatments — they are not left behind when those life-saving tools are distributed. In principle, it is a simple exchange: contribution in return for fair access.

In practice, however, that balance is under threat. The COVID-19 pandemic offered a brutal lesson in global inequality. While developing countries contributed to scientific progress by sharing data and participating in research, access to vaccines remained heavily skewed toward wealthier nations. Delays in vaccine distribution may have cost more than a million lives — deaths that could have been prevented with timely and equitable access.

The Pandemic Agreement was meant to ensure that this never happens again. Yet as negotiations reach their final stage, there are growing concerns that the same structural imbalances are being rebuilt into the new system — this time by design.

Europe’s Contradiction

The European Union has publicly championed the principle that “no one is safe until everyone is safe.” But its negotiating stance on the PABS annex tells a different story. Developing countries have pushed for clear, enforceable benefit-sharing obligations — including guaranteed access to vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics during global health emergencies. These are not radical demands. They are practical safeguards to ensure that cooperation delivers real outcomes.

However, the EU has resisted efforts to embed these guarantees in binding terms.

Instead, recent proposals shift critical decisions into undefined “options” and bilateral negotiations between pharmaceutical companies and individual countries. This approach weakens the multilateral framework and risks concentrating power in the hands of commercial actors.

In effect, it replaces certainty with discretion — and equity with negotiation.

The Danger of Bilateralism

Deferring benefit-sharing to bilateral agreements is not a neutral technical choice. It fundamentally alters the balance of power. Under such a system, developing countries — often negotiating from weaker economic positions — would be forced to bargain individually with powerful pharmaceutical companies. 

The result is predictable: reduced leverage, inconsistent outcomes, and limited legal protection. This stands in stark contrast to existing frameworks such as the Pandemic Influenza Preparedness (PIP) system, which has, for years, relied on standardised agreements with defined benefit-sharing terms. To abandon that model now is not innovation. It is regression. The contradiction at the heart of the current negotiations is stark.

On one hand, countries are expected to share pathogen materials and genetic data as a mandatory obligation. On the other, benefit-sharing commitments from industry remain vague, optional, and largely unenforceable. This imbalance undermines the very foundation of the PABS system.

If obligations are binding for states but flexible for commercial entities, the system no longer operates on equal footing. It becomes extractive — drawing resources from developing countries without guaranteeing reciprocal benefits.

Such a framework cannot provide the legal certainty needed to ensure that life-saving technologies reach those who need them most.

The Accountability Gap

Another critical fault line in the negotiations concerns transparency and accountability.

Developing countries have proposed practical measures to ensure oversight — including user registration, identity verification, and binding data-access agreements for those accessing pathogen sequence information.

These are not extraordinary demands. Many genomic databases already operate with such safeguards, balancing openness with accountability.

Yet several European states have resisted these provisions, arguing they could hinder scientific collaboration. This argument is difficult to sustain.

Within Europe itself, the European Health Data Space already imposes strict requirements on researchers accessing sensitive data — including registration, traceability, and oversight. The technical capacity clearly exists.The resistance, therefore, appears less about feasibility and more about control.

A Risk to Global Cooperation

At its core, the success of the PABS system depends on trust. If countries that provide pathogen materials come to believe that their contributions will be exploited without fair return, they will have little incentive to participate in a global pooling system. The likely consequence is fragmentation — with countries turning to bilateral agreements or restricting data sharing altogether. This would weaken global preparedness and undermine the very purpose of the Pandemic Agreement. Ironically, by resisting equity, the system risks becoming less effective for everyone. 

It is important to be clear: the current trajectory is not inevitable. It is the result of political choices. European governments still have the opportunity to align their negotiating positions with the principles they publicly endorse — fairness, multilateralism, and global solidarity.

This would require supporting:

• Clear and enforceable benefit-sharing obligations

• Standardised contractual frameworks

• Transparent and accountable data governance systems

These are not obstacles to cooperation. They are its foundation.

The Final Test

The Geneva negotiations from March 23 to 28 represent the final scheduled round before the PABS annex is presented to the World Health Assembly. The decisions made now will determine whether the Pandemic Agreement becomes a genuine instrument of equity — or a document that institutionalises inequality under the guise of cooperation.

The European Union has the influence to shape this outcome. The question is whether it will choose to do so in a way that reflects its stated values — or repeat the failures of the past. Because if the world has learned anything from COVID-19, it is this: in a global health crisis, delayed equity is not just unfair. It is deadly. – Healthy Policy Watch

* Faviero is a director at the AHF Global Public Health Institute and Ramakrishnan is a senior researcher at Third World Network. They write in their personal capacity