[Ip-health] WHO IGWG : Statement by Consumers International

[Michelle Childs]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
  Read out today at 1.10pm
STATEMENT BY CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL
  A/PHI/IGWG/1/4Add.1 Agenda item 2.3
Elements of the global strategy and plan of action- additional elements
December 6th, 2006

Consumers International (CI) represents 234 consumer groups and
Organizations in 113 countries.  It strives to promote a fairer
society through defending the rights of all consumers, especially the
poor, marginalized and disadvantaged.

We wish to raise comments on two issues.

Firstly, in relation to the additional elements paper (A/PHI/IGWG/1/4),

Bullet point on transfer of technology: This should not just be a
paper exercise counting the number of patents or the number of
libraries opened The focus must be on transfers which result in
meaningful benefits for developing countries and which promote R&D in
areas, which developing countries have identified as a priority.

Bullet point on promotion of collaboration. This should be expanded
to specifically include institution-to-institution collaborations.
We urge Member States to consider in this respect the recent call by
prominent scientists and student groups, known as the Philadelphia
Consensus Statement, which outlines how universities can improve
access to medicines and transfer of knowledge to the developing world
by changing their licensing policies and intellectual property
rights.  It may be useful for the IGWG to consider the development of
best practices models for such licensing.

Secondly, in relation to the work of the drafting group, it is
important that the resultant document does not repeat the weakness of
the first elements paper, which in our opinion did not accurately
reflect existing analyses. We urge that any new strategy document
must retain the breadth of issues contained within the CIPIH report.
The intergovernmental group should not lose sight of the report=92s
recommendations when moving forward.


In addition to  the above points: in general there appears to be a
paradox in the discussions in relation to IPR and R&D incentives for
neglected diseases. On the one hand it  is generally  acknowledged
that IPR systems have a limited role to play in stimulating new R&D
for neglected diseases, yet some of the IGWG delegates are reluctant
to explore new and possibly more effective mechanisms, on the grounds
that they present a threat to the existing systems of strong IPR.

In this respect Consumers International strongly supports the
proposals by several member states to look to new incentive
mechanisms for Type II and III diseases.  These new incentive
mechanisms must not be linked to high drug prices, but on the
contrary, be consistent with the 2001 Doha Declaration mandate to
promote access to medicines for all.

We support  the SERO region=92s  calls for discussions of a new treaty
on R&D to provide for greater global co operation in supporting
research and development.  There are many different models for such a
treaty, including the proposal outlined in the 24 February 2005
letter to the WHO EB and CIPIH on this topic, which Consumers
International has signed.   As a practical step, the IGWG should ask
the Secretariat, member states, experts, NGOS and other interested
parties to comment on the appropriate elements and objectives of such
a treaty.  We certainly think that such a treaty should address
priority setting, transparency and information sharing,
identification of funding needs, and norms for sharing the costs of
such R&D.   It might also consider issues such as the incentives of
member states to join such a treaty, and whether or not the countries
that sign such a treaty could be granted greater flexibility under
trade agreements that cover drug patents or drug prices.