Who gains from saving nature
Ledger 1 : 33 — For each dollar financing nature-based solutions in 2023, about $33 financed activities harmful to nature. (UNEP)
Cases / Genetic resources and benefit-sharing · Indonesia · 2007–2026

Indonesia's H5N1 sample withholding and the WHO PIP Framework

Nature's voice · report
No measurement of the harm done to me here is on record.
Did nature suffer? Not measured.
Not on record
  • The record does not name which of my species, waters, soils or forests were harmed.
What the record lacks: 3 none on record · 1 insufficient · 1 not measured · 1 disputed See the gaps

In 2007 Indonesia stopped sending H5N1 virus samples to the WHO over how its strain was used in a vaccine. The dispute preceded the WHO's Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Framework, and the pathogen access and benefit-sharing annex to the Pandemic Agreement remained unadopted in 2026.

USD 28 millionAnnual contribution of vaccine makers under the PIP Framework
Per year since 2012, per the WHO Q&A.

Status As of October 2026: the Pandemic Agreement had not been opened for signature and the PABS annex was deferred to May 2027.

What?
Indonesia withheld H5N1 samples from the WHO over the use of its strain in a vaccine. CIDRAP
Where?
Indonesia; WHO. CIDRAP
When?
2007-2008; framework contributions since 2012; Pandemic Agreement 2025-2026. CIDRAP
Who?
Gained
  • Vaccine manufacturers — Contribute USD 28 million a year to the PIP Framework. WHO
Lost
None on record
Harmed
None on record
Why?
Indonesia's reason, as reported by CIDRAP: its strain was used in a vaccine without authorisation. CIDRAP
How?
Sample withholding led to the PIP Framework, according to a project summary. WHO
6 of 6 questions answered from the record

What happened

The record, in order.

In 2007 and 2008 Indonesia stopped sending H5N1 samples to the WHO. CIDRAP reported that Indonesia gave as its reason that the company CSL had used its strain in a vaccine without authorisation.

A project summary links the episode to the WHO's Pandemic Influenza Preparedness (PIP) Framework. Under the framework, vaccine manufacturers have contributed USD 28 million a year since 2012. By June 2016 USD 92.8 million had been collected, the collection rate for 2014-2015 was 96 per cent, and manufacturers had pledged 350 million doses for a pandemic.

The Pandemic Agreement was adopted at the World Health Assembly in May 2025; Health Policy Watch reported that its entry into force depended on acceptance of an annex on pathogen access and benefit sharing (PABS) and on 60 ratifications. In May 2026 the World Health Assembly did not adopt the annex; PAHO reported that talks were deferred to May 2027 and that the agreement had not been opened for signature.

  1. 2007Indonesia stops sending H5N1 samples to the WHO
  2. 2012Manufacturers begin annual PIP Framework contributions of USD 28 million
  3. 2016USD 92.8 million collected under the PIP Framework (by June)
  4. 2025Pandemic Agreement adopted at WHA78 (May); entry into force awaits the PABS annex
  5. 2026WHA79 does not adopt the PABS annex (May); talks deferred to May 2027

What was said

Claims, in the words of those who made them.

Where accounts differ

Each party's account, side by side, with its source. The record does not settle these points; it shows them.

Who should share in the benefits of H5N1 virus samples?
Government and regulators
Indonesia

Stopped sending samples after CSL used its strain in a vaccine without authorisation.

CIDRAP
International bodies
WHO

Under the PIP Framework manufacturers contribute USD 28 million a year; USD 92.8 million had been collected by June 2016.

WHO

How it looked

What was shown, beside what was recorded.

Shown

    Recorded

    • Indonesia stopped sending H5N1 samples to the WHO after CSL used its strain in a vaccine without authorisation, as CIDRAP reported.
      CIDRAP
    • The PIP Framework collected USD 92.8 million from manufacturers by June 2016; the 2014-2015 collection rate was 96 per cent.
      WHO
    • The zero draft of the Pandemic Agreement listed five drivers of outbreaks (climate, land use, wildlife trade, desertification, antimicrobial resistance); the final Article 4 lists none.
    • The PABS annex was not adopted in May 2026.
      PAHO

    Who gained

    Money that reached nature, beside money that stayed elsewhere.

    Reached nature or the ground

    Not published
    No figure published.

    Gained elsewhere

    Not totalled
    Manufacturers' contributions to the PIP Framework, to June 2016$93m
    Currency: USD · Window: 2012-2016. All figures cover the same period. * Estimate built from cited figures.

    Responses on record

    • Indonesia (2007-2008): Stopped sending H5N1 samples to the WHO after its strain was used in a vaccine by CSL without authorisation. · CIDRAP

    In court and with insurers

    Every proceeding and every insurer decision on record.

    Lawsuits and rulings

    No court case on record. No court has ruled on this case.

    Insurers

    No insurer decision on record.

    What nature saw

    Outcomes measured on the ground, and nature's note.

    Nature's report opens this page. Below: further outcomes measured on the ground.

    Drivers of outbreaks listed in the agreement
    5 to 0
    Zero draft versus final Article 4 (May 2025)
    PABS annex
    Not adopted
    WHA79, May 2026

    What we don't know

    Undisclosed, unproven, untried: recorded as data.
    No court caseNo independent ecological evaluationUnder standard-setter review

    Nature

    • Not measured Harm to nature: No independent ecological evaluation is on record.

    Court

    Accounts

    • Disputed Who should share in the benefits of H5N1 virus samples?

    Record

    • Insufficient Reported but not independently verified: a WHO WPRO update was cited as giving 1,002 human H5N1 cases and 479 deaths (47.8 per cent) in 25 countries from 2003 to 7 August 2026; the document could not be checked.
    • None on record Indonesia's own account of its reasons is reported only through CIDRAP in the sources reviewed.
    • None on record No source reviewed gives CSL's account.

    Did the harm stop?

    Not on record in the sources reviewed.

    Who paid?

    Not established in the sources reviewed.

    Sources

    Voices on record: — Company or project— Government and regulators— Courts✓ Press and investigations— Communities and civil society— Researchers✓ International bodies

    Press and investigations

    International bodies

    Connected cases

    Related matters, and cases linked to this one through the same organisations, with the role each played in both.
    Similar cases
    Genetic resources and benefit-sharing · Indonesia · 2014–2025
    Shiseido withdrew a jamu patent after NGO pressure; kratom patents were contested
    Same type: Genetic resources and benefit-sharingSame countryHarm to nature not measured
    Genetic resources and benefit-sharing · India · 2004–2022
    Turmeric, neem, basmati, Nap Hal patent revocations
    Same type: Genetic resources and benefit-sharingSame regionHarm to nature not measured
    Genetic resources and benefit-sharing · Protected area / relocation · Global · 2024–2026
    Cali Fund (digital sequence information)
    Same type: Genetic resources and benefit-sharingSame regionHarm to nature not measured
    Genetic resources and benefit-sharing · India · 2017–2025
    Red sandalwood funds made up most of India's benefit-sharing payouts
    Same type: Genetic resources and benefit-sharingSame regionHarm to nature not measured
    Genetic resources and benefit-sharing · Brazil · 2014–2024
    Brazil: benefit-sharing fund (FNRB) and IBAMA biopiracy fines
    Same type: Genetic resources and benefit-sharingHarm to nature not measured
    Genetic resources and benefit-sharing · International · 2004–2025
    FAO Plant Treaty multilateral system and benefit-sharing fund
    Same type: Genetic resources and benefit-sharingHarm to nature not measured