[Ip-health] IP-Watch on CIPIH and R&D resolutions

[Gaëlle Krikorian]

i find it surprising that it's the EC that insisted to drop the
mention to 'bilateral' agreements:
"Some participants said that on the request of the European Commission
the word “bilateral” had been dropped in the agreed-to text."

do people know more about this?

does anybody has examples of provisions from EPAs that contain
specific TRIPS+ requirements?

gaelle

On May 27, 2006, at 3:48 AM, James Love wrote:

> http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=318&res=1024_ff&print=0
>
> Agreement Reached On IP And Public Health Resolution At WHO
> 27/5/2006
> Tove Iren S. Gerhardsen @ 12:41 am
>
> A technical group at the World Health Assembly today agreed on a
> resolution that will increase the worldwide research and development
> focus on diseases that disproportionately affect developing
> countries. Brazil and Kenya, which have been driving the issue,
> welcomed the resolution, which is expected to be adopted tomorrow, 27
> May.
>
> The text of the resolution is not yet available but will be
> distributed at the meeting on 27 May by the World Health Organization
> (WHO), the chair of the group, Gaudenz Silberschmidt of the Swiss
> Federal Office of Public Health, told Intellectual Property Watch.
>
> He said it is “a text without a single square bracket,” leading him
> to conclude that, “we got the results.” He declined to comment
> further on the content.
>
> The original resolution draft was presented on 25 May by the chair
> and merges two key IP resolutions that have been forwarded to the
> Health Assembly: One a proposal by Brazil and Kenya for a global
> framework on essential health research and development (EB117 R13)
> and another resolution based on a report published by a WHO
> Commission on Intellectual Property, Innovation and Public Health
> (CIPIH) (IPW, Public Health, 3 April 2006). That resolution would
> have established a working group to develop a global strategy and
> plan of action.
>
> The revised draft resolution from 26 May called for the establishment
> of an “intergovernmental working group open to all interested members
> states to develop a global strategy and plan of action to provide a
> medium-term framework [to implement/based on] the recommendations of
> the [CIPIH] commission [taking into consideration WHO’s comparative
> advantage].”
>
> Some have questioned the need for references to both a strategy and a
> plan. But others said that a strategy is needed in order to develop a
> plan.
>
> “It’s very good, we are very happy,” a Brazilian official said,
> adding that the resolution focuses on research and development. One
> issue that had been debated was whether it should refer to diseases
> in general, neglected diseases or something broader such as “health
> problems,” which was in discussion earlier in the day, sources said.
>
> But the Brazilian official said they had settled for “diseases that
> disproportionately affect developing countries,” which reflects the
> CIPIH report.
>
> Another contentious issue in the draft resolution were references to
> flexibilities as stated in the World Trade Organization Agreement on
> Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). In the
> revised draft resolution from 26 May, member states are urged to,
> “[encourage that bilateral trade agreements take into account the
> flexibilities contained in the WTO TRIPS Agreement and recognized by
> the Doha Ministerial Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public
> Health.]”
>
> Some participants said that on the request of the European Commission
> the word “bilateral” had been dropped in the agreed-to text.
>
> A Kenyan official told Intellectual Property Watch that the
> resolution is “a good beginning for a lot of work that is going to
> come in the future.” He welcomed the fact that with the resolution
> they have managed to draw attention to the health problems in
> developing countries.
>
> The official said that the United States had taken most issue with
> reference to patents and intellectual property rights in general in
> the draft, but all of the references to TRIPS that were in the 26 May
> draft appear to be still in the final version. “Not a single
> paragraph has been deleted,” the Kenyan official said.
>
> An official from a developed country said that there had been a good
> spirit among the negotiators and that the Brazilians had even
> referred to the language in the draft resolution as “beautiful
> wording.”
>
> Commenting on the resolution some hours before it was agreed to,
> Matti Rajala of the European Commission Health and Consumer
> Protection Directorate told Intellectual Property Watch that as
> always the resolution was likely to be a compromise and he was sure
> there would be some non-governmental organisations that would be
> “extremely disappointed.” He also believed it was a good idea not to
> mention “neglected diseases” as there is no document defining what
> constitutes a neglected disease.
>
> What’s In and What’s out
>
> The proposed draft resolution that the chair drafted on 25 May
> contained an annex with language from the respective resolutions that
> was taken out when they were combined. The annex did not appear in
> the 26 May version.
>
> Participants said some language was removed due to overlaps from
> combining the two draft resolutions. A comparison of the resolutions
> shows duplicate references to the setting up of an intergovernmental
> committee, and the link between intellectual property, high prices
> and access. There also was some overlap in references to TRIPS
> flexibilities, although the 26 May draft focused on preserving these
> flexibilities in bilateral trade deals and not in general as some of
> the deleted language did.
>
> Deleted language with no apparent overlap may have been removed
> because it was controversial. This might include language
> “recognising the importance of making global health and medicines a
> strategic sector;” and references to open access to public research
> such as the Human Genome Project and open access models in general.
> It might also include references to the public domain (“proper
> balance between intellectual property rights and the public domain”),
> and to the public interest (“imperative to reconcile the public
> interest in accessing the products and derived from new knowledge
> with the public interest in stimulating invention”), a global appeal
> from 2,500 scientists, and the importance of the WHO’s regional
> committees to include the CIPIH report in their agendas.
>
> Trade and Health Resolution Stumbles
>
> Followers of intellectual property-related issues at the assembly
> listened diligently through the delayed agenda today waiting for the
> discussion of another IP resolution: International trade and health
> (EB117 R5).
>
> This resolution suggests that there should be greater collaboration
> and correlation between trade and health ministers and their
> respective work at the national level.
>
> This resolution was unanimously adopted at the WHO Executive Board
> meeting in January and a number of delegations, including many
> developing countries, voiced their support for the resolution today
> as well. There were, however a few suggestions to add new language
> and as the United States said it did not have the mandate to agree on
> the suggestions without consulting its capital, the secretariat said
> that a new document incorporating the changes would be distributed on
> 27 May.
>
> Among the changes was a proposal from Turkey to include language on
> “taking special problems of transition countries into consideration.”
> Venezuela and India also suggested changes. One suggested change was
> to create an intergovernmental group for trade and health, sources
> said.
>
> The US supported the resolution but said that the WHO should advise
> member states on trade in an “unbiased and evidence-based” manner,
> and clear it with the WTO and the World Intellectual Property
> Organization.
>
> There were also some heated exchanges between Cuba and the United
> States, with Cuba blaming the United States’ trade embargo for health
> problems such as lack of access to medicines in Cuba. The US
> representative took issue with the “outrageous attack” made by Cuba,
> calling them unfortunate and saying that the claims had nothing to do
> with the debate on public health and were “totally, totally
> unacceptable by my government.”
>
> This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License. All of the
> news articles and features on Intellectual Property Watch are also
> subject to a Creative Commons License which makes them available for
> widescale, free, non-commercial reproduction and translation.
>
> Tove Iren S. Gerhardsen, the author of this post, may be reached at
> tgerhardsen@ip-watch.ch.
> You can subscribe for automatic notifications of these stories, via
> the RSS feed or via the e-mail alerts. Subscribers can choose the
> frequency of notifications as well as particular topics of greatest
> interest to them.
>
> The URI to TrackBack this entry is:
>
> http://ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-trackback.php?p=318
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> James Love, CPTech / www.cptech.org / mailto:james.love@cptech.org /
> tel. +1.202.332.2670 / mobile +1.202.361.3040
>
> "If everyone thinks the same: No one thinks."  Bill Walton
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ip-health mailing list
> Ip-health@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health
>