[Ip-health] IP-Watch: NGOs, Industry Differ On WHO IP, Innovation, Public Health Project

Tue Jan 30 14:25:20 2007

<SNIP>

The resolution states that, =93Such a strategy and plan of action aims
at, inter alia, securing 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 the area.=94

=93For the most part, this is a problem of money,=94 said James Love, head
of the non-governmental Knowledge Ecology International. =93It might be
useful to have a smaller committee of the IGWG convened to look at the
financing issues, as well as the priority setting issues.=94

Love added, =93A fairly easy way to do this might be [to] look first at
sustainable sources of funding for the private-public partnerships,=94 or
go beyond the partnerships and support =93various open source R&D
projects.=94 He said both developed and developing countries should
contribute to this, adding that if countries are not willing to talk
about the financing of these partnerships, then they are not serious
about the IGWG.

=93Talk about intellectual property rights without talk about the fiscal
issues is not a very serious conversation,=94 he said. =93[W]e are not
asking that =91hard=92 obligations be a starting point for these
discussions. Various types of =91soft=92 obligations and norms are probably
more realistic confidence building steps.=94

<SNIP>

The agenda item on public health, innovation and intellectual property
was moved up at the Executive Board meeting on 26 January at the
request of Brazil, as a number of officials were scheduled to leave.
But it was later stated that it had been agreed that the agenda item
could be moved up if it did not take too long.

This led the chair to say that NGOs would have to postpone their
statements. The agenda item was, however, closed without NGOs getting a
chance to share their view.

<SNIP>

Michelle Childs, head of European Affairs at Knowledge Ecology
International, said, =93We were surprised that NGOs could not
participate, as we are invited to be involved in the original
resolution. However, the critical issue is the process. Any process
suggested by the WHO secretariat and member states must provide venues
for serious discussion of research and development priorities and
funding. If not, then the process will be a failure. The questions of
what to focus on and how and who pays for R&D are the central points of
this working group.=94

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

http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=3D516&res=3D1024_ff&print=3D0

By Tove Iren S. Gerhardsen

Nongovernmental participants have different opinions about how a World
Health Organization (WHO) working group set up to boost research and
development into neglected diseases, should best move forward. While
some argue that intellectual property rights play a major part, others
say it has nothing to do with it.

The Intergovernmental Working Group On Public Health, Innovation and
Intellectual Property (referred to as the =93IGWG=94) was discussed during
a 22-30 January meeting of the 34-member WHO Executive Board. The group
was formally launched when it met for the first time on 4-8 December
2006. (IPW, Public Health, 11 December 2006). But a number of parties
apparently still have opinions about what route the group should take
to reach its goal.

The working group=92s mandate - from a 2006 World Health Assembly
resolution (WHA59.24) is to come up with a soft law-like global
strategy and plan of action by May 2008, which will help boost research
and development (R&D) into neglected diseases predominantly affecting
developing countries.

The resolution states that, =93Such a strategy and plan of action aims
at, inter alia, securing 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 the area.=94

=93For the most part, this is a problem of money,=94 said James Love, head
of the non-governmental Knowledge Ecology International. =93It might be
useful to have a smaller committee of the IGWG convened to look at the
financing issues, as well as the priority setting issues.=94

Love added, =93A fairly easy way to do this might be [to] look first at
sustainable sources of funding for the private-public partnerships,=94 or
go beyond the partnerships and support =93various open source R&D
projects.=94 He said both developed and developing countries should
contribute to this, adding that if countries are not willing to talk
about the financing of these partnerships, then they are not serious
about the IGWG.

=93Talk about intellectual property rights without talk about the fiscal
issues is not a very serious conversation,=94 he said. =93[W]e are not
asking that =91hard=92 obligations be a starting point for these
discussions. Various types of =91soft=92 obligations and norms are probably
more realistic confidence building steps.=94

A pharmaceutical industry source, however, told Intellectual Property
Watch that the working group process should not be about IP, but rather
the global plan should focus on practical ways to boost R&D processes
that are already in place. One of these, the source said, was the
collaboration between the industry and the WHO Special Programme for
Research and Training in Tropical Diseases.

For example, the source said, the IGWG could agree to focus on a
specific disease=92s eradication within a certain time frame, and all
could work together towards this goal, with mutual accountability.

The source said that if the working group turns into a discussion of
intellectual property rights, which has =93no value in themselves,=94 the
IGWG would not help the people the plan is trying to help. It would be
better to bring together all the parties with their comparative
advantages in a =93constructive and non-confrontational way,=94 the source
said.

The industry source said that countries should be transparent about
their agendas for building R&D of their own, should consider good R&D
models already in place, and should call for more funding for existing
as well as new models.

No Time for NGOs

The agenda item on public health, innovation and intellectual property
was moved up at the Executive Board meeting on 26 January at the
request of Brazil, as a number of officials were scheduled to leave.
But it was later stated that it had been agreed that the agenda item
could be moved up if it did not take too long.

This led the chair to say that NGOs would have to postpone their
statements. The agenda item was, however, closed without NGOs getting a
chance to share their view.

This stirred reactions. Ellen =91t Hoen of M=E9dicins Sans Fronti=E8res sai=
d
it was =93not a very good signal from WHO=94 that NGOs did not get to
speak, as often in cases of lack of time, they were asked to boil down
their statements.

Michelle Childs, head of European Affairs at Knowledge Ecology
International, said, =93We were surprised that NGOs could not
participate, as we are invited to be involved in the original
resolution. However, the critical issue is the process. Any process
suggested by the WHO secretariat and member states must provide venues
for serious discussion of research and development priorities and
funding. If not, then the process will be a failure. The questions of
what to focus on and how and who pays for R&D are the central points of
this working group.=94

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