[Ip-health] SUNS: WHO Working Group on IPRs and health holds first meeting

[Sangeeta]

SUNS #6156 Wednesday 6 December 2006
=A0
WHO Working Group on IPRs and health holds first meeting

Geneva, 5 Dec (Sangeeta Shashikant) -- The World Health Organization's
Intergovernmental Working Group on Public Health, Innovation and
Intellectual Property (IGWG) began its first session on Monday where
procedural issues dominated much of the discussions.
=A0Among the procedural issues that emerged at the meeting were the electio=
n
of a Chairman and Vice-Chairs, the participation of experts in the Working
Group, and how to structure the discussions of the Working Group.
=A0
The Working Group was established by the World Health Assembly (WHA) (in
resolution 59.24) in May 2006. (See SUNS #6036 dated 30 May 2006.)
=A0
According to resolution 59.24, the Working Group is tasked with "drawing up
a global strategy and plan of action in order to provide a medium-term
framework based on the recommendations of the Commission [on Intellectual
Property Rights, Innovation and Public Health]".
=A0
The resolution stresses that "Such a strategy and plan of action aims 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, proposing clear objectives
and priorities for research and development, and estimating funding needs i=
n
this area."
=A0
The IGWG (meeting from 4 to 8 December) is expected to report to the 60th
World Health Assembly (in 2007), through the Executive Board, on progress
made and to submit the final global strategy and plan of action to the 61st
World Health Assembly (in 2008), also through the Executive Board.
=A0
The meeting on Monday got underway with the Advisor to the WHO
Director-General, Denis Aitken, presiding, as there was no agreement on the
election of the relevant Chairs for the meeting, although several
consultations had been conducted previously.
=A0
However, by Monday afternoon, it was agreed that Peter Oldham, Counsellor o=
f
the Canadian Mission in Geneva, will be the Chair. The Vice Chairs,
representing geographical balance, are from the Netherlands (Mr B.
Wijnberg), Libya (Dr H. Gashut), Kenya (Rapporteur) (Dr A. E. O. Ogwell),
Singapore (Mr. Jaya Ratnam), and India (Mr. N. Dayal).
=A0
Several countries questioned the Secretariat on how the "experts" that are
participating in the meeting were nominated, as the resolution does allow
the Director-General to invite the experts and a limited number of concerne=
d
public and private entities to attend the sessions of the Working Group and
to provide advice and expertise, "as necessary, upon request of the Chair,
taking into account the need to avoid conflicts of interest".
=A0
The experts invited to the meeting include Dr. B. Pecoul and Mrs. N. Dentic=
o
from the Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative (DNDi); Dr. T. Von Schoen
Angerer and Ms. E. 't Hoen from Medecins Sans Frontieres; Ms. L. Feisee fro=
m
the Biotechnology Industry Organization; Mrs B. Callan and Ms. C. Sampogna
from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD); Mr.
E. Iverson from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; Mr. R. Wilder from
Sidley Austin LLP; and experts from the World Trade Organization (WTO), the
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the Global Forum for Healt=
h
Research and the Indian Council for Medical Research.
=A0
South Africa, on behalf of the African Group, asked for clarification from
the WHO Legal Counsel on how the experts were chosen, since a Chair had not
been elected yet and Member States did not have input as to their selection=
.
=A0
The WHO Legal Counsel, Gian Luca Burci, responded by saying that his readin=
g
of Paragraph 4(3) of resolution WHA 59.24 indicated that the Assembly
requested the WHO Director-General to "invite experts".
=A0
The US disagreed with the interpretation of the Legal Counsel and raised th=
e
point that the resolution did not give authority to the Director-General to
appoint experts prior to the election of the Chair. It was regrettable that
the Member States were not told of the Secretariat's plans to invite
experts. The US stressed that the election has to be upon the request of th=
e
Chair. It also noted that the resolution provides that a limited number of
public and private entities could also participate.
=A0
In response, Howard Zucker, Assistant Director-General of Health Technology
and Pharmaceuticals, said that WHO had invited a limited number of persons
representing a broad range of key stakeholders that are considered experts
with outstanding authority in their field and they have a responsibility to
provide advice.
=A0
Regarding the structure of the discussions, the African Group proposed the
division of the Working Group into three sub-groups. It is proposed that th=
e
sub-groups conduct discussions according to the classification of (1)
research and development, (2) trade agreements and pricing of medicines, an=
d
(3) strengthening of health systems. However, no agreement was reached and
discussions are expected to continue.
=A0
Brazil stressed that the role of the WHO in this debate is primordial and
the issues relating to commerce and trade, and IP and innovation is
important for public health and should not be left merely to economic
forums. It welcomed the fact that the matter of innovation is being debated
here in the interest of health.
=A0
The US said that the CIPIH (Commission on IPRs, Innovation and Public
Health) report targets many actors. However, work has to be focused on area=
s
that fall within the core competency of this organization. It also said tha=
t
the challenge was to determine how fast to move while avoiding a
one-size-fits-all approach.
=A0
Norway expressed disagreement and said that the other plans of action of WH=
O
such as the Global Strategy on Diet do speak about other international
organizations. It asks companies to do certain things and the industry has
taken the recommendations very seriously. Norway added that they should not
be excluded.
=A0
The WHA resolution which set up the Working Group is actually a negotiated
amalgamation of two draft resolutions - one proposed by the WHO secretariat
based on the CIPIH recommendations and the other proposed by Kenya and
Brazil.
=A0
This point was stressed by Charles Clift, head of the Secretariat of the
CIPIH when delivering a statement on behalf of the Chairperson of the
Commission Ruth Dreifuss. He also added that the IGWG "needs to consider th=
e
recommendations of the CIPIH alongside the proposals contained in the
Kenya/Brazil resolution".
=A0
Clift said that because of the complexity of the innovation process, the
Commission thought it necessary to look at the bigger picture. Thus it
sought reasons why, in spite of a greater effort in recent years, R&D has
not yet produced the results hoped for, or even expected, for poor people i=
n
developing countries. It therefore placed this issue in a broader
perspective, including, for example, regulation and the determinants of
access to new as well as existing medicines, as well as the importance of
political commitment, in both developed and developing countries, in
promoting innovation and access.
=A0
He also said that the Commission's terms of reference made it clear that th=
e
focus of its enquiry should be the development of new diagnostics, vaccines
and medicines to treat diseases which disproportionately affect developing
countries, but quickly concluded, however, that innovation was pointless in
the absence of favourable conditions for poor people in developing countrie=
s
to access existing, as well as new, products.
=A0
The framework for the Commission's report was the innovation process which
it categorized sequentially as discovery, development and delivery. It then
considered specifically how to foster innovation in developing countries an=
d
how one might move towards a plan to promote sustainable innovation and
access for products required to prevent, diagnose and treat diseases which
disproportionately affect developing countries.
=A0
The detailed recommendations are many, and are listed in the report and in
document A/PHI/IGWG/1/2, and are directed at different stakeholders
including governments, industry, the WHO and other organisations, Clift
said. He added that the recommendations should form, as the report proposes=
,
a menu for consideration by governmental and non-governmental stakeholders.
=A0
Some developing countries raised several pertinent matters particularly in
relation to the WTO TRIPS agreement. For example, India, while stressing it=
s
commitment to continue to supply generic medicines, highlighted the problem
of ever-greening of patents.
=A0
Thailand said that it had recently announced a decision to issue a
compulsory license to import and manufacture a key HIV/AIDS drug Efavirenz.
It also said that it is looking at the impact of TRIPS and TRIPS-plus on
healthcare costs and access. +


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.6/567 - Release Date: 12/4/2006