[A2k] NGO Letter to Member States on Publications Policy

[Sangeeta]

In light of the gains made at the recent WHA on IP & Public Health, member
states should revisit the publications policy.

Sangeeta


CIVIL SOCIETY LETTER TO WHO MEMBER STATES REGARDING WHO=B9s PUBLICATIONS
POLICY

Dear Representatives, Member States of WHO

We the undersigned civil society organizations are very concerned about
WHO=B9s publication policy outlined in the Secretariat=B9s report titled =
=B3WHO
Publications=B2 (EB 122/20, 6 December 2007) and further elaborated in anot=
her
Secretariat report titled =B3WHO publications policy: guidance on
implementation and evaluation=B2 (EB 123/7, 14 April 2008).

We suspect that the publication policy is a response to recent pressures by
a few developed countries which were unhappy with a few of WHO=B9s
publications on IPRs and public health.  We are concerned that the proposed
policy, if implemented, will result in a tendency towards =B3self-censorshi=
p=B2
by WHO and its staff at regional and HQ offices, to the detriment of the
needs and interests of public health, especially in developing countries.

We are also very concerned that this policy will hamper timely advice and
support by WHO HQ and regional offices to member states over important
issues such as application of intellectual property rights and the use of
TRIPS flexibilities, other trade and health matters, reproductive health
care and other critical issues.

In our view little information has been provided as to the need and
rationale for overhauling the present publication policy, and putting in
place measures as mentioned in the above EB documents. For example it is
unclear what is the rationale for requiring publications (even those
produced by the regional offices) and that =B3address controversial
health-related issues=B2 to go through additional clearance by the
Director-General=B9s Office.

The policy raises questions as to the rationale for treating some
publications differently from other publications and the criteria that will
be used to determine which topics =B3have policy implications for the
Organization or address controversial health-related issues=B2.

Prior to WHO adopting such a policy, the implications of the policy for
developing countries should also be assessed and discussed. For example
while cost-effectiveness may be appreciated, reducing copies that are
printed and distributed (see paragraph 6 of EB 123/7) will simply shift
printing costs to governments that will have to go online to print WHO
publications, and as a result hamper easy access to hard copies that contai=
n
important information for developing countries. The aim to reduce number of
=B3titles=B2 may undermine functions of the WHO stated in its Constitution =
for
example =B3to provide information, counsel and assistance in the field of
health=B2; =B3to promote...research in the field of health=B2 and =B3to ass=
ist in
developing an informed public opinion among all peoples on matters of
health=B2.

In this regard please find attached a letter that NGOs have sent to Dr.
Margaret Chan, Director General of the World Health Organisation to
reconsider the publications policy. Many of our specific concerns are
addressed in that letter.

We thus urge you to thoroughly discuss the issue of publications policy and
to assess its implications for the independence, intellectual integrity and
effectiveness of the World Health Organisation tasked with =B3attainment by
all peoples of the highest possible level of health=B2.

We urge you to ensure that the issue of publications policy is specifically
added to the Agenda of the upcoming World Health Assembly and discussed at
the Assembly as one of the functions of the Health Assembly is to determine
the policies of the Organization (see Article 18 of the Constitution)

Signatories


1.    Act-Up Paris
2.    Africa Action, USA
3.    AID FOR AIDS International
4.    AIDES, France
5.    AIDS and Rights Alliance for Southern Africa
6.    American Medical Student Association.
7.    Argentinean Network of Women Living with
       HIV/AIDS
8.    Baby Milk Action, UK
9.    Brazilian Interdisciplinary Aids Association
10.    Center for Policy Analysis on Trade and Heath
11.    Coalition for Research and Action for Social
       Justice and Human Dignity
12.    Consumers=B9 Association Penang, Malaysia
13.    Diverse Women for Diversity, India
14.    Economic Justice and Development
       Organization, Pakistan
15.    Empower
16.    European AIDS Treatment Group, Belgium.
17.    Essential Action, USA
18.    Global AIDS Alliance
19.    Health Action International
20.    Health Action International Asia Pacific
21.    Health Gap (Global Access Project) USA
22.    IBFAN Africa
23.    IBFAN Asia
24.    IBFAN Latin America and Caribbean
25.    IBFAN International Code Documentation
       Centre
26.    INFACT Canada
27.    INTAL, Belgium
28.    Initiative for Health, Equity & Society, India
29.    Institute of Science in Society, UK
30.    Initiative for Medicines, Access &
       Knowledge
31.    Knowledge Ecology International
32.    Medico International
33.    Medical Action Group, Inc., Phillipines
34.    Mozambique AIDS Treatment Access
       Movement
35.    Navdanya, India
36.    Network of Zimbabwean Positive Women
37.    Oxfam International
38.    Osservatorio Italiano sulla salute Globale
39.    Peoples Health Movement, Secretariat
40.    Peoples Health Movement, Bangladesh
41.    Peoples Health Movement - India
42.    Positive Malaysian Treatment Access &
       Advocacy Group, Malaysia.
43.    Program on Information Justice and
       Intellectual Property, American University, US
44.    Public Personalities Against AIDS Trust
45.    Research Foundation for Science Technology &
         Ecology, India
46.    Sidaction, France
47.    Stop HIV/AIDS in India Initiative, USA
48.    The Network, Pakistan
49.    Third World Network
50.    Treatment Action Campaign
51.    Universities Allied for Essential Medicines
52.    Vermont Global Health Coalition
53    World Alliance for Breastfeeding Action