90-Second Read: WHO faces deadlock over pandemic treaty amid crisis over Hantavirus outbreak

The outbreak is yet another reminder of the threat that emerging viruses pose to humans," says Neil Vora, an epidemiologist and executive director of Preventing Pandemics from the Source (PPATS). For Vora, the outbreak's overlap with the diplomatic deadlock in Geneva is not merely symbolic. The Hantavirus outbreak has, however, triggered the International Health Regulations (IHR), the WHO's main instrument for managing cross-border alerts. The next day, health authorities reported several confirmed and suspected cases aboard the Arctic cruise ship MV Hondius, which had departed from Argentina. The sequence, diplomatic failure one day and a health alert the next, underscores how the international community is still debating the rules for confronting the next pandemic while pathogens continue to spread without waiting for political consensus.

The talks, however, again ended on 1 May without consensus, forcing yet another delay in the implementation of the pandemic treaty. Although Article 12 of the already approved pandemic treaty enshrines real‑time access to vaccines and treatments, the PABS must establish the mechanisms for sharing data on new pathogens without allowing the benefits to become concentrated once again in the hands of a few. We all know there will be another pandemic, and right now we are witnessing another worrying outbreak. In recent weeks, we have seen the negotiation of the annex regulating the Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System [PABS] fail, and that is a loss for everyone," he says. The devil is in the details," says Michel Kazatchkine, a member of the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response.

Pedro Gullón, Spain's director‑general for Public Health and Health Equity and one of the country's negotiators, acknowledges that the deadlock reflects, "to simplify a lot", the divide between the global North and South. Spain, he adds, has tried to play a mediating role to "move toward an operational agreement," even if that means accepting an annex less ambitious than the ideal, as long as it allows the pandemic treaty to be activated as soon as possible. Kazatchkine also questions the extent to which the world is better prepared today for a new health crisis. But, he adds, time is working against them: "The PABS agreement is key because, without its signature, the ratification process for the pandemic treaty cannot begin. The mechanism is supposed to be approved at the next.

It is estimated that around $10 billion a year would be needed for pandemic preparedness, but the Pandemic Fund created after COVID-19 has barely raised around $2 billion," he says. Even so, both Gullón and Kazatchkine agree that the fact that no agreement has been reached on the annex does not necessarily mean the treaty is doomed. As WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus noted last Thursday, the episode "shows why the international health regulations exist and how they work," providing a framework for notification and coordinated response. But they do not regulate access to vaccines, treatments, or diagnostics, the gap the PABS is meant to fill. The genetic sequence of a new pathogen should be a global public good," says Kazatchkine, who warns that this principle clashes with the current.