PHM-Exch> The WHO Executive Board today - Geneva

[Claudio Schuftan]

From: AIS Bolivia aisbol at entelnet.bo
*
                                                                      PRESS
RELEASE
*

*Governments Scrutinise WHO On Pandemic Response, R&D Finance Group *By
William New @ 8:29 pm - Jan 18 - 2010

The World Health Organization today declared it will launch a review of the
global – including its own - response to the H1N1 swine influenza epidemic,
as questions swirl around whether the UN agency trumped up the importance of
H1N1. The WHO also faces charges this week that it has acted without
transparency and inclusiveness in leading a process to find alternative
financing for research and development into medicines for diseases occurring
predominately in developing countries.

The WHO will prepare an interim version of its review of the global H1N1
response in time for the next World Health Assembly in May, WHO Director
General Margaret Chan announced to the WHO Executive Board today. Meanwhile,
a new proposal emerged from governments on how to proceed on the related
issue of pandemic flu access and benefit sharing, and is expected to be
discussed Wednesday.

All the issues are on the agenda of the WHO Executive Board, meeting from
18-23 January. The board’s recommendations will be carried forward to the
annual World Health Assembly in May.

Bigger issues of governance and funding for the WHO are in the background
this week as well, as Chan on 12-13 January held a meeting on this with some
30 people from UN missions and ministries of health and finance. A report
from the meeting will be made public for comments on the WHO website and a
paper reflecting the results are expected to be submitted to the Board
within a year, she said.

Chan in her opening remarks listed several subjects that members see a need
to address at the international level, including public health, innovation
and intellectual property. The WHO in recent years has developed a global
strategy and plan of action on these issues, and the financing aspect is a
final step.

It is under this topic that the World Health Assembly mandated (Resolution
61.21) an Expert Working Group on R&D financing come up with ideas for
encouraging research into diseases for which there are not significant
markets for private sector R&D investment. The board began work on the
topic, agenda item 4.3 of this week, late this afternoon.

The working group produced a report in December that found there is no
evidence of global coordination on research and development in neglected
diseases.

According to working group Chairman George Allewyn, the working group worked
through nearly 100 proposals, chose from among proposals they thought would
be most efficient and doable. Allewyn in his report to the board skimmed
over numerous proposals, such as prize funds and patent pools, which are
generally unpopular with industry.

Three proposals were highlighted by the working group report: some variation
of a new indirect, consumer-based tax; voluntary business and consumer
contributions (like purchase of a product that includes a donation to the
cause); and new donor funds for health R&D. The group also recommended the
creation of a global health research and innovation coordination and funding
mechanism.

Transparency Concerns

But transparency questions plagued the working group, as media was shut out
of its progress for the past year, and non-governmental groups raised steady
concerns. “We have serious concerns about the transparency of the process,”
Health Action International said in a 15 January open letter to the
Executive Board, adding that the report avoids substantive issues and
intellectual property. Chan in the past has stated that intellectual
property is not a public health issue.

The most troubling accusation came from one of the experts on the working
group, Colombian Senator Cecilia López Montaño, who said in a 15 January
open letter urged board members to reject the report. She said she felt
“utilized to legitimize a process in which neither I nor the majority of the
members of the group participated in a full manner.” She said there was poor
information from the WHO secretariat, documents were sent at the last
minute, meetings rushed, and intellectual property issues were avoided
despite being germane to the group’s mandate. She also said she requested
information from WHO official German Velasquez, another Colombian, who would
have normally been involved in the issue, but he was “sidelined” him from
the report. Transparency concerns raised along the way were ignored by the
WHO, she said.

Allewyn and the Executive Board Chairman quickly dismissed the Colombian
letter without mentioning specifics, saying only that it should have been
brought up in the same working group that López Montaño said was
unresponsive. Allewyn referred to the letter only as “that little mishap.”

Allewyn said it was “humanly impossible” to finish the report and get it
translated in time for the Board meeting, so they were only provided with a
summary. The translated full report will follow in the next 4-6 weeks, he
said.

India and Brazil criticised aspects of the working group report. India said
it “falls well short” of the plan to address Type II and III diseases
(affecting mostly developing and least developed countries), and lacked a
clear focus on technology transfer, the best solution in its opinion. Brazil
said intellectual property issues can be addressed from a public health
standpoint, proposed the director general convene intergovernmental meetings
in the lead-up to the May assembly, and signalled support for the global
health R&D coordination and funding mechanism.

H1N1 Assessment

While all countries on the Board lined up to praise the WHO’s response to
the H1N1 pandemic that broke out in spring 2009, a variety of countries
asked that WHO review its work on the pandemic, and Japan suggested it could
look at measures in future to assess the seriousness of any flu outbreak,
such as number of patients hospitalised.

But developed countries such as the United Kingdom and the European Union
represented by Hungary particularly spoke against criticism that has arisen
of the WHO’s strong actions against what has amounted to a less lethal flu
pandemic than feared. The UK urged members not to become “complacent” as a
result of the criticism, but rather to continue to keep high levels of
response. The European Parliament recently begun considering launching an
investigation into the WHO’s behaviour on H1N1.

Chan proclaimed in her opening statement that the moderate nature of the
pandemic is the best health news of the past decade. She said a number of
things could have gone worse: the virus could have mutated, resistance did
not develop to oseltamivir and the vaccine could have been less effective,
she said.

She cited the generosity that has led to “well over 23,000 viruses and other
specimens” being submitted to WHO network laboratories for analysis.

Chan said in some countries in the northern hemisphere the worst may be
over, but, she cautioned, “there is quite a lot of winter left,” and the
southern hemisphere will enter its influenza season soon. She urged
countries to continue to push their populations to get vaccinations, and
said for developing countries “concerned about their access to pandemic
vaccines, WHO is ramping up its donation programme.” She also noted the
difficulties in communicating to populations the need to get vaccinated.

Chan also said the pandemic has been the first test of the 2005
International Health Regulations, which some countries are proposing to
review. The regulations are a “system of checks and balances,” said Chan.
“They ensure that no one, myself included, has unfettered power.”

Reliable estimates of deaths from the current pandemic will take one or two
years after the pandemic has ended, she said.

A WHO official said 265 million doses of vaccine have been distributed. Next
autumn and winter expect another influenza season, he added. The virus has
all the characteristics of one which will be long term.

Pandemic Access and Benefit Sharing

The international system for access and benefit sharing related to pandemic
influenza, a key agenda item of the week, was postponed to Wednesday to
allow, sources said, time for governments to discuss the issue among
themselves. A new proposal has emerged from about a dozen countries such as
Canada and the United States on procedure for what should be done next on
the flu issue, which arose about two years ago when Indonesia declined to
share its strain of the avian flu virus (H1N5) out of concern that it would
be used in research by developed countries, patented and sold back to
Indonesia at too-high prices. It is not about H1N1, the so-called swine flu,
a proponent government source said.

The new proposal, not publicly available, would establish a member working
group at the next assembly in May, encourage governments to consult in the
meantime, and promote mission briefings on the issue, according to a copy
seen by *Intellectual Property Watch*.

Other Issues

>From the outset, the Board meeting quickly hit a subtle North-South overtone
as two urgent late addition agenda items were discussed: pneumonia, which
affects developed countries and was proposed by the United Kingdom, and
Hansen’s disease (leprosy), which affects developing countries and was
proposed by Brazil. Japan, the meeting chair, and the director general,
pressured Brazil to postpone or marginalise its request (e.g., in an
informal side meeting), but Brazil held its ground. Brazil raised the issue
after 44 WHO members met in New Delhi and drafted a global strategy on the
disease, for which there was last a strategy in 2001.

Also, Uganda on behalf of the African region proposed the development of a
joint framework among the heads of the WHO, World Trade Organization, and
World Intellectual Property Organization, to report to the next meeting.

*William New may be reached at wnew at ip-watch.ch.

*
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/01/18/governments-scrutinise-who-on-pandemic-response-rd-finance-group/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://phm.phmovement.org/pipermail/phm-exchange-phmovement.org/attachments/20100120/b62e7af8/attachment-0001.html>