PHA-Exchange> USA and Intellectual Property Rights at the WHO

[claudio at hcmc.netnam.vn]

from Louis Reynolds <reynolds at ich.uct.ac.za> -----
Subject: Digest for globalizationandhealth at topica.com, issue 538
	
	US Advises Developing Country FTA  Partners Not To Follow WHO
   IP Plan
	By ershaffer at cpath.org

------------------------------------------------------------
>It is interesting that the US considers IP outside the competence of the
>WHO when there was never any doubt that IP was outside the competence of
>GATT and the WTO.
>
> > http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=485&res=1024_ff&print=0
> >
> > US Advises Developing Country FTA Partners Not To Follow WHO IP Plan
> >
> > By Tove Iren S. Gerhardsen
> >
> > The United States has busily negotiated bilateral free trade agreements
> > with a variety of developing countries in recent years, and now appears
> > to be using these to influence those countries’ positions in
> > multilateral bodies such as the World Health Organization (WHO).
> >
> > Developing countries that have free trade agreements (FTAs) with the
> > United States received an email in the form of a “démarche” from the US
> > government before the 4-8 December meeting of the WHO Intergovernmental
> > Working Group on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property
> > Rights. The demarche said that it had become apparent that the WHO was
> > trying to go beyond its competency and address intellectual property
> > rights and trade, which could have impact on the scope and effect of
> > FTAs, according to a government source.
> >
> > This, the email said, and the proposed global framework described in
> > World Health Assembly resolution WHA59.24 from May this year, could
> > potentially harm the patent system. The United States was therefore
> > proposing a more “pragmatic” solution, as it appeared the WHO tried to
> > go beyond its technical expertise, the source said.
> >
> > The working group was mandated by the resolution, which states that it
> > should come up with: “a global strategy and plan of action in order to
> > provide a medium-term framework based on the recommendations of the
> > commission” aiming at “inter alia, securing an enhanced and sustainable
> > basis for needs-driven, essential health research and development
> > relevant to diseases that disproportionately affect developing
> > countries.”
> >
> > This refers to the WHO Commission on Intellectual Property Rights,
> > Innovation and Public Health (CIPIH), which published with its
> > recommendations in April.
> >
> > The US email also noted that these issues should be discussed at the
> > World Trade Organization (WTO) and the World Intellectual Property
> > Organization (WIPO), the source said.
> >
> > A demarche is used for direct high-level government-to-government
> > communication. It is common practice for embassies to contact relevant
> > countries before meetings to lay out their view and ask for support,
> > and for this meeting, the United States wanted to ensure that the
> > meeting would not undermine the IP regime, according to a developed
> > country official.
> >
> > Signing a free trade agreement with the United States usually carries
> > intellectual property-related terms that exceed those of international
> > rules like the 11-year-old WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of
> > Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).
> >
> > A Peruvian official told a side meeting at a WIPO meeting last week
> > that the country somewhat hastily broke from its Andean region partners
> > and signed a deal with the United States last year because it was on
> > the verge of a presidential election. In the agreement, Peru agreed to
> > terms beyond the TRIPS agreement, and once the agreement takes effect,
> > it will have to check with the United States before agreeing to terms
> > in multilateral negotiations at international organisations. The Peru
> > agreement is expected to come before the US Congress this year for
> > ratification, but may already have legal effect in Peru, he said.
> >
> > WHO and IP
> >
> > On 7 December at the WHO meeting, Brazil also talked about WHO’s
> > mandate in relation to IP, but instead of arguing that it should stay
> > out if it, Brazil said that WHO should do its own work based on its
> > “own mandate from its own decision-making body,” with access to health
> > as the main objective.
> >
> > Brazil said that the intergovernmental working group should avoid
> > “trying to import mandates from other United Nations agencies,” adding
> > that WHO should analyse intellectual property as it relates to health
> > concerns, and “take a health perspective on IP” as the objective should
> > be “access to health.”
> >
> > The Brazilian delegate said WIPO dealt with the protection of IP per
> > se, and the WTO with liberalisation of trade.
> >
> > Brazil particularly took issue with references to counterfeiting, and
> > said the CIPIH had not really dealt with this issue, which was now
> > pushed at the WTO as well as WIPO.
> >
> > One developed country official told Intellectual Property Watch that
> > the intervention of Brazil was “bizarre,” and that the suggestion that
> > counterfeit medicines is not a public health issue was a “farce.” Also,
> > the source said, issues such as patent pools belong in WIPO, and had
> > nothing to do with WHO.
> >
> > Other countries, including Canada and Norway, suggested that the plan
> > and strategy of action should state that no work here will duplicate
> > work in other organisations, but other countries took issue with this,
> > including the United States, Australia and Japan.
> >
> > “Work here should take into account work [in other organisations],” the
> > United States said, which also noted that the World Health Assembly had
> > not endorsed, but welcomed the CIPIH report.
> >
> > ------------
> > Thiru Balasubramaniam
> > Geneva Representative
> > > thiru at cptech.org
> 

------------------------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through Netnam-HCMC ISP: http://www.hcmc.netnam.vn/