PHA-Exch> Report on WHO IPR-innovation groujp meeting

[martin khor]

*
*

*please place on PHA list serve....Thanks (from Martin Khor)

*

*
*

*TWN Info Service on Intellectual Property Issues *

*16 November 2007*

*Third World** Network*

*www.twnside.org.sg*

* *

* *

*WHO Working Group on IPR and innovation finishes*

*week of work, to meet again in April 2008
*

*
*

*Published in SUNS #6364 dated 13 November 2007* 

 

 

By Riaz K. Tayob (Third World Network)


Geneva, 11 Nov 2007


Member governments of the World Health Organization ended Saturday a 
week of intensive negotiations on a global strategy and plan of action 
to improve access to health care in developing countries, in particular, 
health research and development on diseases disproportionately affecting 
developing countries.

 

The negotiations at the WHO Intergovernmental Working Group (IGWG) on 
Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property Rights, chaired by 
Peter Oldham of Canada, were suspended on 10 November evening to resume 
again at a meeting tentatively set for 28 April to 3 May 2008. The dates 
are to be confirmed by the bureau of the IGWG.

 

At the six-day talks, the negotiators are reported to have made some 
progress in a few areas, but with considerable and difficult 
negotiations ahead to agree and draw up "a global strategy and plan of 
action" to provide a medium framework based on the recommendations of 
the WHO Commission on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual 
Property Rights. The strategy and plan of action are to aim at among 
others an enhanced and sustainable basis for essential health research 
and development on diseases that disproportionately affect developing 
countries. Clear objectives and priorities for research and development 
in this area are to be set, and funding needs estimated.

 

The draft being negotiated includes texts on aim, focus and principles; 
and on elements to prioritize and promote R&D, building innovative 
capacity, transfer of technology, management of IP, improving delivery 
and access, financing mechanisms, and monitoring and reporting systems. 
The Plan of Action, based on the Global Strategy, includes specific 
actions, stakeholders and indicators.

 

The negotiations were conducted in two drafting groups, the first Group 
A chaired by Dr. Viroj Tangcharoensanthien of Thailand, and Group B, 
chaired by Mr. N. Dayal of India.

 

On Saturday, Oldham proposed to the Committee of the Whole, that the 
working group session be suspended to resume before the meeting of the 
World Health Assembly next year. The tentative dates for the working 
group are set at 28 April to 3 May. The IGWG has been mandated to 
provide a draft Global Strategy and Plan of Action to the 2008 WHA.

 

The secretariat, in consultation with the bureau, is to prepare a 
progress report for the Executive Board (21-26 January 2008). The 
secretariat is to prepare and issue (for the next meeting of the IGWG) a 
document on the work so far - clearly indicating language that is 
agreed, bracketed texts (parts discussed but where no agreement has been 
reached as yet), and the parts of the texts yet to be discussed. Members 
will have time till end January to comment on the parts not yet 
discussed, and the secretariat will issue a paper with these comments. 
There will also be an open-ended meeting of the sub-drafting group on 
elements one and two of the Plan of Action (prioritizing R&D, and 
promoting R&D), immediately after the January meeting of the Executive 
Board.

 

While member states are invited to make comments before end January on 
texts not yet discussed, no comments are to be made on texts discussed, 
but without reaching consensus. At the next meeting, the texts not yet 
agreed are to be discussed, but no new texts can be introduced on them.

 

A Conference Paper issued on 10 November (to be finalised and revised by 
the secretariat, taking account of the discussions on 11 November) shows 
that Members have been unable to agree upon the aims of the Global 
Strategy. Though members had not proposed any limitations, the 
secretariat document of 31 July, limited the focus to 14 diseases. This 
part is marked (but not agreed yet) for deletion, pending consensus.

 

There is consensus on the aim and strategy to promote R&D, focussing on 
type II and type III diseases, and specific needs of developing 
countries in respect of type I diseases - those that are incident in 
rich and poor countries, and with large numbers of vulnerable 
populations in each, Type II diseases are those in both rich and poor 
countries, but with a majority of cases in poor countries - often termed 
neglected diseases, like tuberculosis. Type III are those diseases 
overwhelmingly or exclusively incident in developing countries, and 
termed very neglected diseases. (See SUNS #6360 dated 7 November 2007.)

 

There is lack of consensus on supporting the application and management 
of intellectual property that maximises health-related innovation, 
protects public health and promotes access to "health products" or 
"medicines." Divergences exist on the use of the terms "health products" 
or "medicines." There are also divergences on support to explore and 
implement "innovative" or "alternative" incentive schemes for R&D "to 
complement the existing ones." The US is reportedly against suggestions 
that the current incentive system is inappropriate.

 

Similarly, there is consensus except from the US, regarding the 
development of proposals for health-needs driven R&D to include a range 
of incentive mechanisms and a method for tailoring the "optimal mix of 
incentives" to a particular condition or product for addressing diseases 
that disproportionately affect developing countries.

 

Under Principles, there is consensus that, intellectual property rights 
are an important incentive in the development of new health care 
products. However, this incentive alone does not meet the need for the 
development of new products where the potential market for the sale of 
the products is small or uncertain.

 

Two alternate principles are also pending further discussion. The Rio 
Text Group (a group of 14 Latin American countries) has proposed that 
"right to health takes precedence over commercial interests"; this is 
posed as an alternative to the "objectives of public health and the 
interests of trade should be appropriately balanced and coordinated."

 

Under element one, prioritising research and development needs, there is 
consensus to map and identify gaps in research and development on 
diseases that disproportionately affect developing countries. Developing 
countries are also to set research priorities on traditional medicine.

 

Under element two, promoting research and development, there is no 
consensus on whether developed countries "shall allocate a progressive 
percentage of its budget" or an "appropriate proportion" of their health 
R&D to the health needs of developing countries. There is also 
contention on whether there should be facilitation of upstream research; 
the identification of intellectual property provisions that might 
negatively affect increased research on public health; the creation of 
open databases and compound libraries; and consideration and assistance 
of the use of research exemptions in legislations of developing 
countries to address public health needs.

 

There is consensus that there should be support for national health 
research programmes in developing countries through political action and 
"where feasible and appropriate, long term funding." There is also 
encouragement for further exploratory discussions on the utility of 
possible instruments or mechanisms for essential health and biomedical 
R&D including an essential health and biomedical R&D treaty.

 

Regarding element three, building and improving innovative capacity, 
there is no consensus to urge member states to mitigate the adverse 
impact of the loss of health personnel through migration; strengthen 
clinical trials and regulatory infrastructure in developing countries 
particularly in sub-Saharan Africa; promote protection and documentation 
of traditional knowledge and natural genetic resources in an 
international sui generis framework; and, encourage and promote national 
and international policies on traditional medicine to facilitate prior 
art for patent regimes and disclosure and benefit sharing. There is 
consensus to strengthen health surveillance and information systems, 
ethical reviews in R&D, and regulatory capacity in developing countries.

 

Under element four, transfer of technology, there is no consensus to 
devise a list of essential technologies related to research and local 
production; encourage/promote the dissemination of health-related 
technology information contained in patents, patent applications and 
information related to patent status, oppositions, revocations and 
nullifications; make arrangement to support technology transfer from the 
North to the South; and, consider additional or voluntary and 
complementary or alternative mechanisms to promote innovation. There is 
consensus to encourage North-South and South-South cooperation and to 
continue to promote technology transfer to least developed countries 
consistent with Article 66.2 of the WTO TRIPS agreement.

 

Under element five, Management of Intellectual Property, there is 
agreement that incentive schemes for R&D into type II and type III 
diseases need to be explored, and where appropriate type I. However, 
there is no consensus on many of the elements discussed thus far 
including support for the application and management of intellectual 
property that maximises health-related innovation to meet the R&D needs 
of developing countries, and, the compilation and maintenance of global 
databases on the status of health patents.

 

Discussions are to continue in the reconvened session. The proposal to 
promote and support national and regional institutional frameworks and 
international cooperation to build and strengthen capacity to manage and 
apply intellectual property in a manner orientated to public health 
needs and priorities of developing countries, is pending consensus from 
the US.

 

Regarding element 7, promoting sustainable financing mechanisms, there 
is no consensus on the establishment of a task force to examine current 
financing, coordination and prioritisation of R&D; devising and setting 
up sustainable sources of funding; or, the establishment of a global R&D 
fund. Element 8, on monitoring and reporting systems envisages the 
establishment of systems to monitor performance and progress of the 
implementation of each element of the Global Strategy and Plan of Action 
and to report periodically to the WHO governing bodies. A progress 
report will be submitted every two years and a comprehensive evaluation 
of the strategy will be undertaken after four years.

 

At the closing session, WHO Director General, Margaret Chan, expressed 
WHO's and her personal commitment to move forward in areas where "we 
have mandates and the organisation is gearing to do more."

 

Kenya, for the 46 member states of the AFRO region, said that current 
systems have failed to meet the needs of the poor and that type II and 
III diseases are not given attention. It expressed the hope that no one 
will put brackets around this.

 

The current proprietary regimes results in major problems in Africa and 
the Working Group must provide leadership, Kenya said. Avoiding the real 
problems will not bring a solution. To achieve results, "we must have a 
clear funding mechanism; this is the cement that will hold the structure 
together."

 

Kenya assured the constructive role of Africa and urged others to 
negotiations with a view to provide a solution through the spirit of 
flexibilities to save lives and reduce suffering. It requested that AFRO 
members receive the documentation for Working Group meetings well in 
advance. In addition, Kenya looked to the Secretariat to provide for the 
participation of African delegations so that it is not disorganised, 
particularly, as relates to travel arrangements.

 

Honduras, on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean 
Countries, reiterated what Brazil had said regarding the follow-up 
process. Honduras emphasised that the further discussions must take into 
account the (health) situation of countries and their level of development.

 

Libya, for the EMRO region, stressed that the main objective was to find 
solutions and hoped there would be solid cooperation through transfer of 
technology and exchange of experiences in order to produce medicines 
that are available to all.

 

Oldham, in some personal comments, hoped that there would be no reversal 
at the next meeting of the progress achieved so far.

 

Brazil said after the meeting that it takes a great amount of effort to 
change a culture of monopoly and the concentration of power. Progress 
has been painfully slow but WHO has shown itself to be more engaged. It 
said the shortcomings of the intellectual property system go to the 
heart of delivery and that the in-depth discussion would enrich the WHO.

 

The United States, backed by the EU, expressed concern that some parts 
of the Conference paper, that have been merged and marked as consensus, 
was not acceptable to the US, and wanted a review to accurately reflect 
the discussions. +

* *

* *


============================================================== WTO-Intl 
- the listserv the Our World Is Not For Sale network (OWINFS)
If you have any questions/concerns, contact the list owner at:
WTO-INTL-request at LISTSERVER.CITIZEN.ORG
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://phm.phmovement.org/pipermail/phm-exchange-phmovement.org/attachments/20071115/5f3a9826/attachment-0001.html>