A global pandemic treaty is expected to be adopted by the World Health Assembly, which starts next week.
Governments from across the globe agreed to the draft accord on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response last month, after three years of intense negotiations—though the US dropped out in January.
Once adopted by the Assembly, member states will have 18 months to notify the WHO Director General on whether they intend to accept the agreement.
This morning, Winston Peters announced that New Zealand will subject the draft treaty to a National Interest Test before deciding whether or not we should sign up to it.
The SMC asked experts to comment on what the agreement would mean for New Zealand and the Pacific.
Dr Helen Petousis-Harris, Associate Professor, University of Auckland, comments:
“Winston Peters is correct to emphasise national sovereignty and transparency in treaty commitments, but the suggestion that the WHO Agreement threatens that sovereignty is inconsistent with the actual text. If anything, the treaty goes out of its way to reaffirm state control over public health decisions.
“In fact, the agreement goes to great lengths to explicitly protect the right of countries to make their own health decisions:
“Nothing in the WHO Pandemic Agreement shall be interpreted as providing the WHO Secretariat… any authority to direct, order, alter or otherwise prescribe the national and/or domestic laws… or to mandate or otherwise impose any requirements that Parties take specific actions, such as ban or accept travellers, impose vaccination mandates or implement lockdowns.” (Article 24.2)
“Winston Peters is invoking a false dilemma fallacy (also known as a false dichotomy) — presenting the issue as if New Zealand must choose between preserving sovereignty or signing the WHO Pandemic Agreement, when in reality, the agreement itself explicitly protects national sovereignty.
“The WHO Pandemic Agreement is like a global fire alarm system—with shared hoses, ladders, and escape plans—so no country is left to battle the blaze alone
“It represents a critical step toward a more equitable and coordinated global response to future health crises. COVID-19 exposed stark global inequities, particularly in timely access to vaccines, surveillance tools, and manufacturing capacity. This agreement offers a framework to redress those imbalances, strengthen trust, and ensure that when the next pandemic hits, we’re better prepared to act together, not in isolation.
“A key strength of the agreement is its emphasis on solidarity, equity, and scientific cooperation. Provisions around technology transfer, local manufacturing, and fair benefit-sharing are essential if we are to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. Equally important are commitments to support research collaboration and strengthen regulatory systems, especially in lower-resource settings.
“Of course, the proof will lie in the proverbial pudding, aka implementation. The agreement must not become a shelf document—it must be matched with sustained political will, funding, and trust-building, particularly in the face of misinformation campaigns that threaten global cooperation.
“Vaccines remain one of our most powerful tools, but they are only as effective as the systems that develop, deliver, and monitor them. This agreement gives us the blueprint—now we must build the foundation.”
Conflict of interest statement: HPH has received research funding from industry for investigator led projects, served on expert advisory boards for industry, WHO, NZ government, and on clinical trial DSMBs. She is co-director of the Global Vaccine Data network who are conducting safety studies on COVID-19 vaccines across over 30 countries. She has not been financially compensated by Pfizer.
Dr Jalal Mohammed, Senior Lecturer (Above the Bar), Faculty of Health, University of Canterbury, comments:
“Pacific Island nations are among the most vulnerable to the impacts of pandemics. They rely on international tourists, have fragile health systems and economies, and have a legacy of underinvestment in the health system, leading to struggles in providing basic healthcare.”
“Pandemics take vital resources away from the provision of basic health services. The proposed Agreement offers opportunities for Pacific Island nations to leverage global knowledge, information, skills, technical expertise, technology and access global supply chains to remove barriers and ensure equitable, timely, safe, and affordable access to pandemic-related health products. Pacific Island nations have also had voice and agency in advocating, along with other small Island developing states, for their interests in this Agreement.
“However, implementation is key to the success of this Agreement. It will be challenging for Pacific health systems to meet their obligations as this Agreement proposes. The Agreement calls for various investments. The resource constraints may not allow Pacific health systems to develop and maintain their workforce to the levels required in this Agreement.
“Establishing and maintaining institutions for research will also be challenging. Ensuring geographical distribution in Pacific Island nations with hundreds of inhabited islands has and continues to strain administrative capacity and logistical supply chains. Without significant investments and donor support, this is unlikely to change. Resource-constrained settings pose substantial challenges in maintaining financing for basic health services, let alone in maintaining or increasing funding for pandemic prevention, as the Agreement calls for.
“The Pacific has a long history of working collectively. Agreements such as this tap into that ethos. In that sense, Pacific people are expert coordinators and collaborators. However, as with all global agreements, local knowledge, local systems, and local structures must inform the implementation process.”
Conflicts of interest: None
Professor Michael Baker, Department of Public Health, University of Otago, Wellington, comments:
“The Pandemic Treaty offers the world a strong framework to strengthen international cooperation and preparedness for future emerging infectious disease threats. New Zealand will benefit from the increased global health security that will come from more coordinated action to manage the collective threat from pandemics.
“This agreement offers many advantages, including improved information sharing to facilitate faster identification of emerging threats; more equitable access to countermeasures such as vaccines, diagnostics and treatments; stronger supply chains with regional manufacturing and stockpiling; and enhanced research collaboration.
“Once adopted by the WHO World Health Assembly, member states will have 18 months to notify the WHO Director General on whether they intend to accept the agreement.
“As with all important international treaties, New Zealand will subject this draft treaty to a National Interest Test before deciding whether or not we should sign it or potentially propose changes.
“The Pandemic Treaty helps to fill limitations in the International Health Regulations which was passed by last year’s Global Health Assembly. That agreement supports improved pandemic responses but is less strong on pandemic preparedness and prevention. The Pandemic Treaty aims to improve prevention in a number of ways. It includes a One Health focus on reducing zoonotic diseases from animals which is the main source of pandemics (e.g., Ebola, SARS, COVID-19). The agreement encourages strengthened health systems and surveillance that can also support Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) monitoring, which is a growing global health concern. The Treaty emphasises equitable access to health resources, which could benefit responses to other health emergencies, especially in low- and middle-income countries.
“A good example of how the Pandemic Treaty will improve global health security is with control of mpox, which remains the world’s only continuing Public Health Emergency of International Concern. This designation was reinstated on August 14, 2024, following a significant resurgence of mpox cases, particularly in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and its spread to neighboring countries. Controlling this pandemic depends on strengthening health system capacity in Africa, which the new Treaty aims to do. Achieving that goal would benefit all countries including New Zealand.
“As with most international law, implementation and compliance will be an ongoing challenge. This Treaty will provide an opportunity for New Zealand to review its international aid priorities and consider investing in areas that support successful implementation of these new global health security measures.”
Conflicts of interest: None
Dr Shaun Hendy, Chief Scientist, Toha, comments:
“The new WHO Pandemic Agreement is an important document, spelling out how the world will go about reducing the likelihood of future pandemics as well as agreeing on how countries will respond and cooperate in the event of another one. The new agreement has been developed following concerns about how vaccines were distributed during the COVID-19 pandemic, with richer countries that manufactured vaccines taking priority over less well off countries.
“Under this new agreement a greater proportion of vaccines or drug treatments will be set aside for distribution to less well off parts of the world enabling a more equitable rollout of vaccines and therapies in the event of a pandemic. The quid pro quo is that signatories will step up disease surveillance and infection prevention efforts in an attempt to avoid the kind of spillover event from viruses that circulate in animal populations that likely caused the COVID-19 pandemic.
“New Zealand should welcome this agreement. As the COVID-19 pandemic showed, we are only a plane flight away from many of the world’s hotspots for potential pandemic-causing pathogens. Enhanced disease surveillance will only keep us safer. The thrust of the agreement is also consistent with many of the recommendations made by our Royal Commission of Inquiry into COVID-19, which reported back in late 2024. Our government will be required to report internationally on its progress on monitoring and prevent infectious disease, and its readiness to respond in the event of a pandemic. This transparency will be very welcome, especially given we have yet to see a plan for responding to the Royal Commission’s recommendations.
“It is disappointing that the United States will not be a signatory to this agreement. The Trump administration has withdrawn from the WHO and has made significant cuts to public health capacity both domestically and off-shore. This new agreement may go some way to mitigating the withdrawal of the United States from global efforts to prevent future pandemics, but it remains deeply concerning to see a major country turn its back on science and public health, even as it grapples with the avian influenza H5N1, a virus with the potential to spark the next global epidemic.”
Conflicts of interest: None
Professor David Murdoch, Chief Scientist, The Institute of Environmental Science and Research (ESR)
“The proposed WHO Pandemic Agreement marks a major step toward a more coordinated and equitable global approach to pandemic prevention and response. It prioritises early detection, stronger surveillance and promotes a One Health approach, recognising the interconnectedness of human, animal and environmental health. We shouldn’t underestimate the significance of achieving agreement on many key measures, some of which required long and intensive negotiation. This is especially so at a time when multilateral institutions are being increasingly sidelined, not least the WHO.
“In support of equity, the Agreement highlights the need for sustained investment in resilient health systems and a well-supported, protected health and care workforce – and creates a co-ordinating financial mechanism to help mobilise funding for this. It also reinforces the importance of ongoing research and development, coupled with fairer and more timely access to its benefits, especially in times of crisis. Importantly, the Agreement respects national sovereignty, each country retains the right to make its own public health decisions and enact domestic legislation.
“Translating these principles into practice will require commitment and coordination. Equitable access to pandemic products during times of scarcity remains a complex challenge, and long-term support will be needed to build capacity globally. For New Zealand, the Agreement offers a chance to be involved in shaping global standards, strengthen domestic resilience and reinforce our role as a partner in the Pacific and global contributor to health security.
“In short, adoption of this Agreement paves the way a global shift from reactive crisis management to proactive, coordinated pandemic prevention and preparedness, anchored in equity, trust and mutual responsibility. So saying, there is a lot of hard work ahead to ensure the Agreement is implemented so that we are truly better able to prevent, prepare for and respond to future pandemics.”
Conflicts of interest: None. David is also a Distinguished Professor at the University of Otago.