EXPLAINER: The World Health Organization’s pandemic accord
The Covid pandemic was one of the biggest public health crises in modern times. Concerned that the world was unprepared for the next pandemic, the World Health Organization, or WHO, began developing a treaty to guide countries in preventing, preparing for and responding to future pandemics.
The agreement is still being negotiated. Despite this the draft agreement has been the subject of much false information. For example, it is regularly claimed by its critics that the accord will strip countries of their sovereignty.
In January 2025, the US announced its withdrawal from the WHO. Newly elected president Donald Trump cited “the organisation’s mishandling of the Covid pandemic” as one of the main reasons.
In this explainer, we look at some facts about the treaty.
Founded in 1948, the WHO is the United Nation’s health agency. It works with member states – countries that have signed a partnership agreement with the WHO – to achieve the highest standards of public health.
The World Health Assembly is the WHO’s decision-making body. It is responsible for setting global health policies, approving budgets, and overseeing the agency’s work. Delegates from each member state attend the WHO’s annual meeting to discuss and vote on topics prepared by its executive board.
The international health regulations, adopted in 1969, required member states to report infectious diseases detected within their borders. The regulations initially covered six diseases, and later three – yellow fever, plague and cholera.
The regulations were amended again in 2005 to include, among other updates, “a scope not limited to any specific disease or manner of transmission”.
“The international health regulations focus on public health emergencies of international concern,” Safura Abdool Karim, a public health lawyer and adjunct professor at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health in New York City, told Africa Check.
“They are a tool for managing the spread of disease and minimising disruption to trade,” she said.
The pandemic agreement, on the other hand, is more about “pathogen sharing, resources for preparedness and the development of medical countermeasures”. This includes, but is not limited to:
The accord was prompted by the impact of the Covid pandemic, which deepened economic inequality and burdened public health systems.
Health services were forced to focus on Covid-related issues while ignoring other equally serious illnesses, such as cancer and heart disease. Access to clean water, already a global challenge, became an even bigger issue, as good hygiene practices were key to avoiding infection.
The release of Covid vaccines further highlighted the disparities in resource availability. The term vaccine apartheid was widely used to describe the unequal distribution of vaccines, as high-income countries continued to control the rights to produce and distribute them.
Negotiators remain divided over some of the treaty’s terms, such as a system for pathogen access and benefits sharing that would see countries share technology and information on emerging disease threats.
While better surveillance can help, it also has risks. For example, when South African scientists discovered the Omicron variant of Covid-19 and shared their findings, the country faced harsh travel restrictions, even though the variant was already in other countries. The South African government said this was like punishing South Africa for its ability to quickly detect new variants.
Another question is how strong the treaty would be in ensuring that its terms were met. According to the WHO, once an international legal instrument is in force, it should be implemented in “good faith”. The current draft of the amendments shows that stronger legal language is being considered.
“No accord is better than a weak accord,” Abdool Karim told Africa Check.
Misinformation about the treaty has also been a point of contention. The draft does not put the power of nations in the hands of the WHO, as has been claimed. On the contrary, it reaffirms “the principle of sovereignty of States Parties in addressing public health matters”.
Equally false are claims that the treaty will usher in the reign of a “New World Order” with one global government accountable to no one.
“The process to finalise the accord is ongoing,” Mijail Santos Luján, a communications officer at the WHO’s strategy, planning and coordination division, told Africa Check.
Santos Luján said that it was hoped the final draft would be ready in time for the 78th World Health Assembly in May 2025, where it would be presented to WHO member states for consideration.
This contradicts false claims that the treaty has been abandoned after public backlash.
Progress of the treaty negotiations can be followed on the WHO’s website.
