[Ip-health] SUNS: WHO: Executive Board unable to reinvigorate IP Group process

[Thiru Balasubramaniam]

<SNIP>

Thailand agreed that the Board should focus on the process of the IGWG.
The way
forward following the submission by Members in February was not clear
and there
is need to maintain the momentum of discussions.

It proposed text that the Board request the Secretariat at all levels
to pro-actively
support the implementation of the WHA resolution by providing: (a)
support to
countries to contribute to the content and processes in the drafting of
the Global
Strategy and Plan of Action by mid March; (b) a summary, synthesis and
elaboration of relevant documentations by June 2007; and ( c) support
to member
states to provide inputs to the IGWG's second meeting through the
regional
mechanism and intensive consultations.

However, the Thai proposal met a dead end following a query by the US
to the
WHO's legal advisor as to the powers of the Board to advise on the IGWG
process. The legal advisor clarified that the Board can discuss and give
recommendations to the WHA, but it cannot be the master of the process.
It added
that the Board would not be able to take decisions beyond what had been
decided
by the WHA or the IGWG.

-----------------------------

WHO: Executive Board unable to reinvigorate IP Group process

Geneva, 28 Jan (Sangeeta Shashikant) -- Several developing-country
members of
the Executive Board of the World Health Organisation have expressed
concern
and frustration at the lack of progress and direction of a WHO group
tasked with
charting the organisation's future action on intellectual property,
innovation and
health.

These concerns were voiced at the WHO's Executive Board meeting being
held
here on 22-30 January. At the end of the discussion on the item last
Friday, the
frustration was even more palpable because the Board itself could not
seem to
make any progress on the issue.

Some developing-country delegations and NGOs that are closely watching
the
process are now concerned that if the process is not strengthened,
little if anything
concrete would be achieved by the end of this year, when the WHO's
Intergovernmental Working Group on Intellectual Property, Innovation
and Health
(IGWG) is scheduled to meet for a second and possibly final time.

At the formal session of the Board, Brazil described the inaugural
meeting of the
IGWG last December as "ridiculous", and "not an event that brings
honour" to the
WHO.

Kenya joined in to express disappointment. Thailand proposed a plan of
action to
reinvigorate the process but no formal decision was taken on it.

The developing countries and health-related NGOs have been pinning
their hopes
on the IGWG to develop a new global strategy and action plan to promote
research
and development and innovation in medicines and health care, while also
treating
IPR issues in a manner in which public health concerns take priority.

However, it became clear at the Board meeting that developing countries
that have
led this process are dissatisfied with the process so far, especially
the lack of
concrete results at the IGWG's inaugural meeting last December.

At the Board meeting last week, these countries called for a
strengthened and
expedited process to ensure that the IGWG produces a positive outcome
this year.
However, the Board discussion ended without any substantive results,
while the
WHO Secretariat announced its plans for this year's activities in this
area.

At the start of the Executive Board meeting, Kenya and Switzerland
tabled a draft
resolution suggesting areas for early implementation of the
recommendations of
the WHO Commission on Intellectual Property, Innovation and Health
(EB120/Conf.Paper No. 3).

The Commission had produced a report last year, which became a large
part of the
basis for the World Health Assembly decision last May to establish the
IGWG.

The draft resolution selected some of the recommendations contained in
the
Commission's report, with the intention that they be adopted for early
implementation. It contained two action points for member states to
implement,
and 10 points for the Secretariat.

This resolution was not discussed substantively during the Board's
discussion on
the item on 26 January (Friday). Instead, Kenya requested that
consideration of the
resolution be postponed, which was also supported by Switzerland and
Namibia.

This followed a week of informal consultations on the resolution, which
yielded
little results. During an informal meeting hosted by Kenya and
Switzerland on 24
January, there was a general feeling that the draft resolution was
premature.
Several delegates also felt that the content was too weak and had to be
strengthened.

During the informal meeting, several members also vented their
frustration over
the outcome of the IGWG meeting held in December. Brazil said that it
was not
clear that there was a need for a resolution, to move ahead, adding
that the IGWG
was not successful as there were no good background papers presented at
the
meeting. The US also agreed with Brazil.

Apparently ready to respond to the allegations that the IGWG process
lacked
direction, Howard Zucker, WHO's Assistant Director General (ADG) in
charge of
the IGWG process, read during the formal Board meeting a detailed
step-by-step
process that would lead to the second and final meeting of the IGWG.

Zucker said that a letter had been sent to member states to solicit
inputs on the
Global Strategy and Plan of Action and proposals for experts and
concerned
entities (to be members of the IGWG) by the end of February. Using these
suggestions, the Secretariat would prepare a draft global strategy and
plan of
action by July 2007 for review by governments.

The Director General in consultation with the Officers of the IGWG (on
the basis
of proposals received) will identify a pool of experts and concerned
entities with a
balanced representation between regions, he added.

In August and September, regional consultations could take place with
identified
experts and entities from the region in question contributing to the
consultations,
and that the regional committees may wish to discuss the outcome of the
consultations. A second "public hearing" via the internet could be
arranged also
during those months, said Zucker, adding that it is intended that the
second and
final session be held in October to finalise the draft strategy and
plan of action.
Officers of the IGWG may also meet before the meeting to consider other
possible
inter-sessional work and the Secretariat will implement the CIPIH
recommendations specifically addressed to WHO.

He also mentioned the setting up of task forces to map the research and
development scene and the various stakeholders involved as well as a
website for
member states to contribute comments on a voluntary basis as to how
they have
implemented the Commission's recommendations.

This is the first time that such a detailed plan on the IGWG has been
presented by
the Secretariat, although several aspects of the process outlined by
the ADG, are
not however reflected in an information document later prepared by the
Secretariat
(EB120/INF.Doc/5). Some participants at the Board meeting speculated
that such
a plan was being presented to avoid Board members criticizing the
Secretariat for
its lack of initiative and blaming it for the weakness of the process.

The IGWG was set up following the 2006 World Health Assembly Resolution
59.24 that mandated its establishment to draw up a global strategy and
plan of
action in order to provide a medium-term framework based on the
recommendations of the WHO Commission on Intellectual Property,
Innovation
and Health.

Such a strategy and plan of action should help secure 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 in this area.

The IGWG is to report to the World Health Assembly in May 2007 giving
particular attention to needs-driven research and other potential areas
for early
implementation action and to submit the final global strategy and plan
of action to
the WHA in 2008.

It was evident during last week's meetings that several WHO Board
members and
many NGOs were worried that  the IGWG outlined a weak process between
the
December meeting and the second meeting (October 2007) and thus there
would
be no concrete results within the tight timelines set by the WHA
resolution.

The IGWG merely decided that Members would submit comments on the global
strategy and plan of action by February 2007, with the Secretariat
preparing a text
for negotiation by June 2007 and the possibility of holding another
IGWG in
October 2007.

Some Board members felt that the IGWG could have done better by
outlining a
more robust  process with focus on expediting discussions on the
drawing of a
global strategy and plan of action.

At the Board meeting, Brazil called the December meeting "ridiculous",
and "not
an event that brings honour" to WHO or to itself, adding that it was
not accusing
any particular entity. It reminded  Board members that the WHA
resolution was
adopted with "the spirit of Geneva" in which health was put as the
foremost
priority. However, this was not the case during the meeting in
December, said
Brazil.

It stressed that the Board should focus on strengthening the process
and not the
substance (referring to the Kenya/Swiss proposal).

Kenya stressed that the participants at the IGWG meeting were not
pleased with
the process. On behalf of the Africa Group, it said that the "process
needs to move
faster".

It also referred to an informal meeting during the week in which there
was
consensus that it was more prudent to strengthen the process without
engaging in
substantive discussions in the Board (referring to the
Kenya/Switzerland proposal).
Thus, it requested that discussion on its proposal be postponed.

Thailand agreed that the Board should focus on the process of the IGWG.
The way
forward following the submission by Members in February was not clear
and there
is need to maintain the momentum of discussions.

It proposed text that the Board request the Secretariat at all levels
to pro-actively
support the implementation of the WHA resolution by providing: (a)
support to
countries to contribute to the content and processes in the drafting of
the Global
Strategy and Plan of Action by mid March; (b) a summary, synthesis and
elaboration of relevant documentations by June 2007; and ( c) support
to member
states to provide inputs to the IGWG's second meeting through the
regional
mechanism and intensive consultations.

However, the Thai proposal met a dead end following a query by the US
to the
WHO's legal advisor as to the powers of the Board to advise on the IGWG
process. The legal advisor clarified that the Board can discuss and give
recommendations to the WHA, but it cannot be the master of the process.
It added
that the Board would not be able to take decisions beyond what had been
decided
by the WHA or the IGWG.

The recently appointed WHO Director General Dr. Margaret Chan also
intervened,
saying that it was important to follow the IGWG process as set out by
the WHA.
However, she added that it was important to obtain different views and
integrate
them into the timeline presented, and pledged strong support for the
process.

------------
Thiru Balasubramaniam
Geneva Representative
CPTech
voice +41.22.791.6727
fax +41.22.723.2988
mobile +41 76 508 0997
thiru@cptech.org