[Ip-health] IP-Watch: Cautious Start For WHO IP Working Group As Members Feel Their Way

Tue Dec 5 11:25:03 2006

<SNIP>

A French official told Intellectual Property Watch that France and rest
of the intergovernmental medicine initiative UNITAID is =93absolutely
supporting=94 an idea to create a patent pooling mechanism. (IPW, 21
September 2006).

He said the idea of pooling patents was more important for some
diseases than others, especially certain HIV/AIDS medicines, and he
believed this was an idea that could be supported in the working group
as well. This is also identified as a bullet point in the WHO document.

<SNIP>

Peter Oldham, counsellor at the Canadian mission in Geneva, was elected
chair of the working group, with the following five countries
representing the five other WHO regional committees not represented by
the chair (Americas): Kenya (Africa), Libya (Eastern Mediterranean),
the Netherlands (Europe), India (South East Asia) and Singapore
(Western Pacific).

One nongovernmental source told Intellectual Property Watch that
although Oldham did not have much intellectual property rights
experience, he had worked on the landmine treaty (1997 Mine Ban Treaty)
and would be good at bringing the different parties together.

There also has been some discussion about experts appointed to the
working group, with some questioning that an American, Dick Wilder, did
not reveal that he has been working for the pharmaceutical industry,
and another, Professor N.K. Ganguly also is representing the Indian
government. The WHO said it would look into the last case.

----------------

http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=3D478&res=3D1024_ff&print=3D0

5/12/2006

Cautious Start For WHO IP Working Group As Members Feel Their Way

By Tove Iren S. Gerhardsen

After a slow start in a weeklong meeting on intellectual property and
public health, World Health Organization (WHO) member states appear to
have begun discussing the possible substance of a plan to ensure that
medical treatments are developed for diseases mainly affecting poor
countries. A number of developing countries called for more language on
intellectual property rights.

The 4-8 December meeting is the first for the WHO Intergovernmental
Working Group on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property
(referred to as the =93IGWG=94).

A number of countries, including Canada, Finland on behalf of the
European Union, and Switzerland, supported the idea of proceeding with
a document prepared by the WHO secretariat, at least as a basis for
discussions.

This document, entitled, =93Elements of a global strategy and plan of
action,=94 suggests the following areas: Prioritising research and
development needs; promoting research and development; building
innovation capacity; improving delivery and access; ensuring
sustainable financing mechanisms and establishing monitoring and
reporting systems.

Ghana, on behalf of the African Group, said that the issues of
intellectual property rights management and transfer of technology also
should be mentioned in the document to be discussed. South Africa
supported this.

The United States did not want to discuss these two issues as separate
items until the WHO secretariat had prepared documents outlining the
areas of action. The secretariat promised to have this ready by 6
December.

India and Thailand suggested to first discuss the strategy, then the
plan of action with short and medium-term action and later funding
mechanisms through possibly a trust fund. This could be done through
three drafts and working groups, India said.

How this initiative should be funded also was highlighted by
nongovernmental organisations as well as countries such as Kenya and
Laos.

The Draft

This is the first meeting of the working group, which was set up by the
World Health Assembly in May 2006 (IPW, Public Health, 27 May 2006).

The group is mandated by resolution WHA59.24, which merges a previous
proposal by Brazil and Kenya to set up a global framework for essential
health research and development (EBB117 R13), and one resolution based
on the April report of the WHO Commission on Intellectual Property,
Innovation and Public Health (CIPIH). It made some 60 recommendations
(IPW, Public Health, 3 April 2006).

The group must develop a =93global strategy and plan of action in order
to provide a medium-term framework on the recommendations of the
Commission [CIPIH],=94 according to the resolution.

Some sources argued that if discussions were based on the WHO document,
important aspects of the CIPIH report would be lost. Kenya also said it
was important =93not to lose sight of the recommendations.=94

The commission=92s recommendations target many actors - not just the WHO
secretariat. =93We must acknowledge this fact at the outset, and focus
our work in this meeting in particular on those recommendations that
fall within the core competency of the WHO,=94 the United States said in
a statement.

Mexico said the meeting =93seems to have left out intellectual property
rights,=94 and Brazil, which on 4 December called on the WHO secretariat
to provide all the documents that had led to this meeting dating back
to 2001, said that =93access, access and access again=94 was what had
brought this meeting together. An =93essential problem is the issue of
intellectual property,=94 said a Brazilian official.

Iran, on behalf of a group of countries, said that although the CIPIH
report recommended that bilateral trade agreements should not contain
=93TRIPS-plus=94 [exceeding the World Trade Organization Agreement on
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights] provisions, the
=93suggested elements=94 in the WHO documents =93do not even incorporate
these issues.=94

Bolivia also highlighted the importance of this recommendation for
access to drugs in developing countries. Oxfam also raised concern
about TRIPS-plus provisions for developing countries.

Australia said that this initiative should be consistent with the
international intellectual property rights framework.

The International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and
Associations said that hundreds of compounds are in development and its
members take it seriously the commitment to develop medicines, also for
developing countries.

One developing country source told Intellectual Property Watch that if
the possible strategy and plan of action includes language on TRIPS and
bilateral agreements, it would give these countries =93a little more
leverage=94 when discussing these agreements with developed countries.
=93At the very minimum, it creates public pressure on these issues,=94 the
source said, such as requirements extending beyond TRIPS.

A least-developed country official said that the priorities among the
countries are different, and this group was interested in affordability
and access to medicines.

A French official told Intellectual Property Watch that France and rest
of the intergovernmental medicine initiative UNITAID is =93absolutely
supporting=94 an idea to create a patent pooling mechanism. (IPW, 21
September 2006).

He said the idea of pooling patents was more important for some
diseases than others, especially certain HIV/AIDS medicines, and he
believed this was an idea that could be supported in the working group
as well. This is also identified as a bullet point in the WHO document.

Chairs and Experts

Peter Oldham, counsellor at the Canadian mission in Geneva, was elected
chair of the working group, with the following five countries
representing the five other WHO regional committees not represented by
the chair (Americas): Kenya (Africa), Libya (Eastern Mediterranean),
the Netherlands (Europe), India (South East Asia) and Singapore
(Western Pacific).

One nongovernmental source told Intellectual Property Watch that
although Oldham did not have much intellectual property rights
experience, he had worked on the landmine treaty (1997 Mine Ban Treaty)
and would be good at bringing the different parties together.

There also has been some discussion about experts appointed to the
working group, with some questioning that an American, Dick Wilder, did
not reveal that he has been working for the pharmaceutical industry,
and another, Professor N.K. Ganguly also is representing the Indian
government. The WHO said it would look into the last case.

------------
Thiru Balasubramaniam
Geneva Representative
CPTech
voice +41.22.791.6727
fax +41.22.723.2988
mobile +41 76 508 0997
thiru@cptech.org