[Ip-health] ICTSB-UK Bridges Article on IGWG

[Ann-Marie Sevcsik]

International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, UK http://www.i=
ctsd.org/weekly/06-12-13/story5.htm

GROUP ON HEALTH, INNOVATION, AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY HOLDS FIRST MEETING

Delegates from more than 100 member states of the World Health Organization=
 (WHO), joined by civil society and industry representatives, met in Geneva=
 on 4-8 December to chart a way forward on a plan to promote research on di=
seases that disproportionately affect people in poor countries.

The new Intergovernmental Working Group (IGWG) on Public Health, Innovation=
 and Intellectual Property was established in May 2006 by the WHO's top dec=
ision-making body, the World Health Assembly (WHA). It was mandated to draw=
 up a medium-term framework based on the findings of an earlier WHO Commiss=
ion on Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation, and Public Health (CIPIH).=
 After two years of investigations, that commission had in April 2006 produ=
ced a report containing some 60-odd recommendations relating to the discove=
ry, development, and delivery of medicines, as well as innovation for healt=
h research in developing countries.

The IGWG was charged with agreeing on a global strategy and plan of action =
to submit to the 2008 World Health Assembly, "giving particular attention t=
o needs-driven research and other potential areas for early implementation.=
"

Some see the new working group as an opportunity to explore alternatives to=
 drug patents as a means of encouraging the development of new and affordab=
le drugs. One proposal under consideration calls for a global treaty for fu=
nding pharmaceutical innovation, which would have governments fund research=
 and development (R&D) and make the findings public. Drugs thus developed c=
ould then be produced and sold cheaply, since manufacturers would not have =
to recoup heavy expenditures on research.

Bernard Pecoul of the Drugs For Neglected Diseases Initiative described the=
 IGWG's work as providing a chance to "overcome today's fatal imbalance in =
health research and development and to improve the access situation of the =
million patients suffering from diseases which disproportionately affect de=
veloping countries."

"It's about saving lives," acting WHO Director-General Anders Nordstr=F6m s=
aid of the group's task at its opening session. "It's about making sure peo=
ple don't die because they don't have access to health-care products."

Building on the CIPIH's report

During the IGWG meeting, government negotiators discussed a document based =
on the CIPIH report that had been prepared by the WHO Secretariat, with inp=
ut from pharmaceutical sector and NGO representatives. Called the "Elements=
 of a global strategy and plan of action," it included sections on how to i=
dentify research and development priorities, promote research and developme=
nt, and build innovative capacity. It also addressed improving delivery and=
 access; ensuring sustainable financing mechanisms; and establishing monito=
ring and reporting systems.

Countries met in regional groupings to examine the text. The Secretariat in=
corporated their comments into the body of the text, with the stated aim of=
 being "as inclusive as possible."

Ultimately, member countries agreed to break the document into two annexes =
-- one on the plan of action and the other on the global strategy. They exp=
anded the plan of action to include elements on technology transfer and the=
 management of intellectual property. This includes recommendations such as=
 to "encourage innovations adapted to realities of health-care delivery in =
developing countries."

The global strategy annex stresses that "high quality research and the gene=
ration and application of knowledge are critical for achieving the internat=
ionally agreed health-related development goals." Drawing from the WHO cons=
titution, past resolutions, and the CIPIH report, it sets out principles, c=
hallenges, and responsibilities, declaring that "efforts to develop new pro=
ducts will be of no value if they cannot be made available and accessible t=
o those who need them."

With regard to alternative ways of promoting medical research and developme=
nt, an Indian delegate suggested that the IGWG could set up a "trust fund" =
and establish rules for how it would be funded and accessed. Brazil suggest=
ed that governments should aim to devote 0.7 percent of GDP to research and=
 development. A ten-member regional group of countries from South and South=
east Asia, and a 22-member group of North African and Middle Eastern countr=
ies both expressed support for the notion of a global treaty on research an=
d development.

Defenders of the existing patent system, including the pharmaceutical indus=
try, have been sceptical of attempts to develop complementary structures to=
 promote innovation. They claim that intellectual property rules are only a=
 small part of the problem with regard to access to medicine.

Managing the time crunch

Due to the limited time available for incorporating members' comments, the =
chair of the IGWG, Peter Oldham (Canada), explained on the final day of the=
 meeting that governments would have until the end of February to provide a=
dditional observations and corrections to the document. The IGWG will meet =
again for a week in October 2007 to finalise the text so that it can be pre=
sented to the World Health Assembly in May 2008.

In the meantime, Oldham recommended that members continue work by linking I=
GWG issues with other WHO meetings, explaining that "we are not going to be=
 able to crunch this in one week."

The Secretariat is expected to update the document to include comments subm=
itted by the end of February, and make it available by June 2007.

Early implementation

As the meeting came to a close, countries turned their attention to identif=
ying relatively easy-to-obtain 'low-hanging fruit' among the CIPIH's recomm=
endations, in order to slate them for early implementation. However, a dele=
gate from Brazil contended that delegations should make this assessment "wi=
th great care," rather than "hurrying through it."

In the end, countries agreed that they would be able to discuss early imple=
mentation at the January 2007 meeting of the WHO Executive Board, the 34-me=
mber panel responsible for implementing the decisions of the World Health A=
ssembly.

Participation of other stakeholders

The WHO Secretariat had identified and invited several experts and institut=
ions to formally participate in the meeting, in response to a WHA resolutio=
n (59.24) requesting it to "invite experts and a limited number of concerne=
d public and private entities to attend the sessions of intergovernmental w=
orking group and provide advice and expertise."

Throughout the meeting, participants asked questions about the role in the =
working group of such experts and civil society. In particular, a South Afr=
ican delegate, speaking on behalf of the African region, asked how experts =
had been selected for participation, as well as how civil society could tak=
e part in the meeting.

Countries including the US suggested that member states should have been in=
formed about the Secretariat's plans to appoint experts. Additionally, some=
 observers questioned why the South Centre, an intergovernmental organisati=
on, was not invited to attend as an expert. Members agreed that for future =
talks, governments would be invited to advise the Director-General on exper=
ts to include in upcoming meetings.

Additionally, at the request of countries including Canada, the US, and Ken=
ya, the IGWG agreed to explore a "fast-track" accreditation process for mem=
bers of civil society to participate in future meetings. Normally, it takes=
 non-governmental organisations three to four years to establish official r=
elations with the WHO.

One observer suggested that the talks should have been more "globally repre=
sentative," complaining that the delegate list excluded more than half of W=
HO's member states and many least developed countries.

Others noted that the Secretariat's document that was the basis of discussi=
ons for the meeting did not reflect the entire CIPIH report. Sabina Voogd o=
f the Dutch ministry of foreign affairs told Intellectual Property Watch th=
at the "mystery of the whole thing" is why the Secretariat did not list all=
 of the CIPIH recommendations.

Documents from the IGWG meeting are available online at http://www.who.int/=
gb/phi/ <http://www.who.int/gb/phi/> .

ICTSD reporting; "WHO Group Lays Foundation For Global Neglected Diseases R=
&D Plan," INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY WATCH, 11 December 2006; "Global strategies=
 need truly global discussions," LANCET, 8 December 2006; "Working Group Di=
scusses Elements of Global Strategy, Plan of Action" SOUTH-NORTH DEVELOPMEN=
T MONITOR (SUNS), 7 December 2006; "WHO Panel Weighs Radical Ideas," SCIENC=
E, 1 December 2006.