[Ip-health] IP-Watch: WHO IP Working Group To Address Conflicting Interests Before December Meeting

[Thiru Balasubramaniam]

      WHO IP Working Group To Address Conflicting Interests Before
      December Meeting

Tove Iren S. Gerhardsen @ 1:14 pm

An intergovernmental working group on public health and intellectual
property, which the World Health Assembly said in May should be set up
=93immediately,=94 is scheduled to meet for the first time in December in
Geneva, according to informed sources. But apparently it is no easy task
for the World Health Organization (WHO) to coordinate the matter.

A senior WHO official told /Intellectual Property Watch /that the
meeting would =93probably=94 take place on 4 December, but there are
apparently still quite a few pieces up in the air about the group.

The official said that the six regional WHO committees now will discuss
=93how to go about=94 setting up the group, both in terms of who will be
part of it and what the substance will be. They are meeting in sequence
from 22 August to 29 September
<http://www.who.int/mediacentre/events/2006/regional/en/index.html>,
starting with Southeast Asia, Africa, Eastern Mediterranean, Europe,
Western Pacific, and the Americas.

Each regional committee would choose two or three governments that would
designate representatives for a smaller group, which would be discussed
at the December meeting, he said. The smaller group could meet before
December, but this is still to be decided, the official said.

The official admitted that there are =93some very difficult negotiations
going on,=94 adding that the work was very =93complicated=94 as there are
=93different interests=94 involved. The official would not specify what the
interests are, but referred to the history of the resolution upon which
the working group is based and its many =93angles and issues.=94

While the annual assembly mandated the WHO to manage the group, it also
said that other stakeholders such as non-governmental organisations
should be involved, and the pharmaceutical industry also has showed a
strong interest in the WHO=92s work on IP.

Within the WHO, discussions and speculations about who will head the
group also have been intense, sources said, amidst larger staff concerns
such as replacing the late Director General Lee Jong-wook (/IPW/, United
Nations, 31 May 2006 <http://ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-trackback.php?p=3D321>)=
.

The WHO Executive Board will meet on 6-8 November to nominate a
candidate for director general who will be proposed to a first-ever
special session of the World Health Assembly on 9 November. Member
countries may propose candidates for the director general post from 1
June to 5 September, and these will be forwarded by the secretariat to
all member states by 5 October, the WHO said.

The next full WHO Executive Board meeting is scheduled for January 2007.

The May resolution
<http://www.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA59/A59_R24-en.pdf> mandating
the intergovernmental group is entitled: =93Public health, innovation,
essential health research and intellectual property rights: towards a
global strategy and plan of action=94 (WHA59.24, Agenda item 11.11).

The May agreement merges one resolution based on the recommendations of
the WHO Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation and
Public Health (CIPIH), and another resolution calling for a new global
framework for research and development put forward by Brazil and Kenya.

Both earlier resolutions leading to the current one were debated. There
were major disagreements among the 10 experts forming the CIPIH, on
which the first resolution is based, with some being concerned that
there were industry-backed views in the report (/IPW/, Public Health, 23
January 2005 <http://ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-trackback.php?p=3D199>). Five
of the 10 experts, from both sides of the issues, expressed reservations
about the report outcome.

The Brazil and Kenya-sponsored resolution was forwarded to the World
Health Assembly with a number of undecided sections (/IPW/, Public
Health, 17 January 2006
<http://ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-trackback.php?p=3D194>). A compromise was
found at the World Health Assembly, which many attributed in part to the
support of the United States and the Swiss chair of the working group
(/IPW/, Public Health, 27 May 2006
<http://ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-trackback.php?p=3D318>).

The Art and Politics of Setting Up a New UN Committee

Meetings with stakeholders, whom the WHO official did not specify, were
scheduled for 21 July and 24 July. Industry representatives were not
available for comment for this story.

The WHO is in the process of putting together the secretariat, and =93most
of it is in place,=94 the official said, declining to comment further.

All member states will be able to attend the December meeting, but it is
still to be decided whether other stakeholders, such as NGOs, will be
able to attend despite being specified in the resolution, the official
said.

=93I think I am satisfied with progress being made,=94 Tom Boya, first
chancellor at the Kenyan mission told /Intellectual Property Watch/.
Kenya was a cosponsor with Brazil of one of the two resolutions that led
to the group=92s creation.

Boya said he had recently met with senior WHO officials, including
Acting Director General Anders Nordstr=F6m, to discuss the matter as in
late June he was getting eager to learn more about what was happening.
At that point there was no news about the group, other than that the WHO
said that it should be ready =93in the next few days=94 (/IPW/, Public
Health, 23 June 2006 <http://ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-trackback.php?p=3D341>)=
.

The resolution mandated the establishment of an =93intergovernmental
working group open to all interested member states to draw up a global
strategy and plan of action in order to provide a medium-term framework=94
based on the recommendations in the April report of the CIPIH.

The idea is that the plan will secure research and development of
medicines, as well as estimates for what kind of funding would be
needed, for diseases that =93disproportionately affect developing
countries=94 or that are neglected.

At the moment the six regional WHO committees would discuss the group,
Boya said, adding that the African regional group would meet in August
and the working group would be on the agenda.

He said each regional group could, for example, propose two member
countries each to form a =93management group,=94 which would have to be
approved at the 4 December meeting when =93weight and endorsement=94 would
be given to a smaller group.

Boya said the issue needs broader involvement, and he praised the WHO=92s
handling of it, calling the process =93open, transparent and inclusive.=94
Earlier, the process of setting up the working group appeared to be
focused on who within the WHO should be in charge, with some names being
mentioned. Boya said that the group would not be linked to one
particular department at the WHO. The WHO declined to comment on this
point.

Boya said the WHO had tried not to =93dictate=94 the group, leaving it up t=
o
the regional groups and members to decide the composition of the final
working group. He noted that the inter-governmental working group was a
subgroup of the World Health Assembly and that one =93needs a small group
to guide its agenda.=94

<>The 4 December meeting is open to all member states, Boya said, adding
that the WHO would not choose who would be able to attend this meeting.
The mandate for the working group is that it: =93shall report to the
Sixtieth World Health Assembly [May 2007] through the Executive Board on
the progress made, giving particular attention to needs-driven research
and other potential areas for early implementation action. (4) that the
working group shall submit the final global strategy and plan of action
to the Sixty-first World Health Assembly [May 2008] through the
Executive Board.=94

While seven months hardly can be considered =93immediately,=94 Boya said
this was =93reasonable=94 for the WHO, which at the moment also is in the
process of appointing a new director general.