WHO Pandemic Agreement: Preparing the World for Future Pandemics

In May 2025, the World Health Assembly approved the WHO Pandemic Agreement, marking an important point in global health governance. The agreement, shaped over three years of discussion by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB), addresses shortcomings identified during the COVID-19 epidemic. It establishes a legal structure for coordinated global action in future health emergencies grounded in equity, cooperation, and preparedness.

The agreement is not only a corrective measure to past failures but also an attempt to create a proactive global order. Though 124 countries voted in favour, its reach is limited by the absence of key actors like the United States, casting shadows of doubt over the strength of its future implementation.

A major objective is the creation of a multilateral mechanism for pathogen sharing and benefit distribution. Under this system, manufacturers participating in emergency response are to allocate 20% of real-time production, half donated and half at affordable rates, to the WHO for equitable global use. This is intended to prevent the unfair practices and hoarding that have occurred during past pandemics.

The agreement also outlines a global surveillance system anchored in the One Health approach, which recognises the interconnections between human, animal, and environmental health. In order to avoid the delays that affected the early COVID-19 reaction, states are expected to reinforce early-warning systems, enhance biosafety standards, and ensure quick data exchange.

In research and development, the agreement promotes more geographically distributed innovation ecosystems. It encourages the inclusion of access-oriented clauses in publicly funded R&D to ensure that products developed with public money remain affordable and widely available. It also advocates for improved product quality monitoring during times when the supply chain is stressed, as well as faster regulatory approvals during emergencies.

Disagreements continue to exist around intellectual property provisions. The agreement excludes demands such as compulsory licensing and automatic patent waivers. Instead, the focus is on voluntary licensing and collaborative technology sharing, particularly among corporations in low- and middle-income countries. WHO will support technology transfer hubs, although participation is not required. While this facilitates diplomatic agreement, critics argue that non-binding features may fail when fairness is most needed.

The agreement establishes a global supply chain and logistics network to facilitate the acquisition and delivery of medical instruments. It also proposes the establishment of a Coordinating Financial Mechanism to improve pandemic preparation, particularly in resource-constrained environments. However, exact monetary commitments and operational rules have yet to be defined.

Although the agreement is legally binding, it purposefully does not grant WHO the authority to order member nations to take public health measures. Although it cannot impose restrictions, like vaccine requirements or lockdowns, the organisation will act as the secretariat. The treaty thus depends on national political will for its implementation, without formal penalties for non-compliance.

What’s there for India?

India actively supported the treaty and voted in its favour, articulating its position through the theme “One World for Health”. Its emphasis on equity, technology access, and data transparency reflected long-standing advocacy for the Global South. India’s messaging tied global cooperation to inclusivity and systemic reform.

India's policy direction can be seen in many of the agreement's objectives. Greater access to healthcare has been made possible for millions of Indians through initiatives like Ayushman Bharat and the Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PM-JAY). Digital platforms have further improved the delivery of services, like health records and immunisation tracking. India's recent decision to provide public healthcare to all citizens over 70, regardless of their financial situation, also aligns with the treaty's demand for fair access.

However, India could face big challenges in putting the agreement into action, as it may need to change its laws and procedures to meet the treaty's requirements for monitoring, consistent regulations, and sharing of pathogens. Concerns regarding intellectual property rights, biological data ownership, national security and technology sharing may result in institutional resistance. Given India's growing pharmaceutical sector, which safeguards its patents and corporate interests, a careful policy balancing would be necessary that would align with the agreement's objective.

Furthermore, the Indian federal system has its own challenges. For effective implementation, the national and state governments will need to collaborate on infrastructure, medical education, and illness surveillance. Even though new international funding paths are anticipated by the agreement, financial resources could continue to be stretched.

Navigating a Divided Global Health Landscape

The United States’ decision to stay out of the agreement creates a significant gap. As a home to many of the world’s leading pharmaceutical companies, U.S. absence affects both the availability of medical countermeasures and the broader legitimacy of the treaty. For India, such an absence raises geopolitical and operational questions about how to engage in global systems not backed by the world's largest health R&D funder.

The Pandemic Agreement lays the groundwork for more equitable and well-coordinated health governance in spite of these shortcomings. India validates a long-standing position centred on fairness and accessibility while testing its ability to implement internationally recognised values domestically.

The treaty does not guarantee immediate change. Its effectiveness will depend on how firmly national governments choose to act and how strongly they commit to international cooperation and equity during times of crises without enforcement teeth. But by turning the failures of the last pandemic into a shared political agenda, the agreement surely reshapes the conversation around health solidarity, and India must play a central role in shaping what comes next.