What does the new WHO Pandemic Agreement mean for UK life sciences?

After three years, members of the World Health Organisation (WHO) concluded negotiations on the pandemic preparedness accord and adopted it as an international treaty at this week’s annual World Health Assembly (WHA). In this blog, Senior Policy and Public Affairs Manager Linda Bedenik takes a look at what the agreement means for life sciences.

On 20 May, the World Health Assembly (WHA) adopted a historic Pandemic Agreement that aims to improve future global preparedness and responses to pandemics. The proposal for an international accord, now the WHO Pandemic Agreement, and subsequent years-long negotiations emerged in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the need identified by governments around the world and the WHO to better prevent, prepare for and respond to future pandemics.

As a member of the WHO, the UK was heavily involved in negotiating the agreement from the start and is likely to ratify it in the coming years, that is, commit to implementing it legally in the UK. This will bind the UK to fulfil the treaty’s obligations, with impacts on the UK's life sciences industry which may face new obligations under the treaty.

While the agreement deals with many aspects of pandemic preparedness and response, from health system resilience and public awareness to supply chains and whole-of-government approaches, some of the 37 Articles of the agreement are of direct significance to life sciences companies in the UK, particularly those involved in developing and manufacturing ‘pandemic-related health products’.

What does this mean for the life sciences industry?

The BIA has engaged closely with the UK government throughout the negotiations of the agreement. In particular, we provided in-depth industry insights and guidance to ensure any provision on tech transfer and the sharing of know-how and IP would be based on voluntary measures. We also leaned on our manufacturing expertise and longstanding experience in dealing with international agreements affecting genetic resources. We successfully leveraged these to prevent life sciences companies from facing inhibitive conditions in their pursuit to develop and manufacture pandemic treatments.

Voluntary tech transfer

Until the very last hours of negotiations on the agreement in April 2025, the terms under which tech transfer were to take place for pandemic-related health products, during and outside of a pandemic situation, were contended. Ultimately, the UK, alongside other proponents, secured a voluntary interpretation of the terms (see Article 11). A mandatory obligation, which could have resulted in serious consequences for life sciences businesses and their ability to develop pandemic-related health products, was narrowly avoided.

Under the agreed text, governments are to facilitate or incentivise the transfer of technology and know-how on mutually agreed terms, so as to enable the ‘sustainable and geographically diversified production of pandemic-related health products’. It remains to be seen what measures the UK government may take towards this aim. BIA is committed to ensuring that any measures will be developed closely with industry.

Sharing the ‘benefits’ of pathogens

Another contentious part of the agreement was Article 12, which introduces a Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing (PABS) System. The PABS System links companies' access to and use of ‘pathogens with pandemic potential’, and/or the digital sequence data thereof, with obligations to share benefits over that use. The benefit being, for example, the resulting development of a vaccine or other treatment. This is similar to how the access and use of genetic materials are governed under the Nagoya Protocol and the new multilateral mechanism for Digital Sequence Information (DSI).

Companies using those pathogen materials may be required to contribute financially to the WHO, commit to supplying a portion of pandemic-related products they are developing, such as vaccines and medicines, directly to the WHO (targeting 20% of real-time production, with at least 10% as a donation), or potentially engage in non-monetary benefit-sharing such as technology transfer or licensing.

The details of the PABS System are yet to be fully finalised, including how it will interact with overlapping benefit sharing obligations under Nagoya and the DSI mechanism. However, the UK government has already stated that it will be ‘entirely voluntary for pharmaceutical companies’, who are free to enter into such a commitment directly with the WHO. In return, the PABS system promises those who join to gain faster access to the pathogens, data and genetic sequences that they need to create new vaccines, treatments and tests to respond to a pandemic. There are also no requirements placed on governments to share vaccines or treatments they have purchased.

While this provides some certainty to UK businesses, the BIA will monitor the finalisation of the PABS system closely to ensure the system does not have unintended consequences, or become too burdensome for businesses who want to sign up to it, or lead to legal uncertainty.

What’s next?

As is common with international treaties, the accord will come into effect once 60 countries have ratified it (notably, this will likely exclude the US). This can take a few years, particularly given that the details of Article 12 are yet to be discussed towards the next WHA in May 2026, during which time ratification will not be open. This gives governments and industry some time to prepare before the treaty is fully implemented and takes effect in the UK.

BIA will continue to advocate for UK life sciences and innovators and manufacturers, particularly on the development of the PABS System and the potential stacking of obligations alongside the Nagoya Protocol and DSI mechanism, as well as the treaty’s implementation in the UK.