[Ip-health] IP-Watch: World Health Assembly Agrees On IP And Innovation; US Abstains

Thu May 24 02:41:31 2007

>
>
> http://ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-trackback.php?p=3D630
>
> -----------
>
>
> <SNIP>
>
> Ellen =91t Hoen of M=E9decins Sans Fronti=E8res told Intellectual Propert=
y
> Watch that the adoption of the resolution was, =93very good news for
> IGWG,=94 as it reflected =93strong consensus.=94 She said there is more
> clarity now on where the IGWG is heading, and the resolution gave IGWG
> some substantive recommendations. She mentioned particularly the idea
> of separating the cost of R&D from the price of medicines.
>
> <SNIP>
>
> While some countries, including Canada and Norway according to
> sources, supported earlier language in the resolution requesting WHO
> to encourage proposals and discussion at the IGWG on a range of R&D
> incentive mechanisms =93including those that separate paying for the
> cost of research and development from the price of medicines,
> vaccines, diagnostic tools and other healthcare products,=94 this was
> suggested amended by Switzerland and backed by Japan and others. It
> now reads: =93=85 a range of incentive mechanisms including also
> addressing the linkage of the cost of research and development and the
> prices of medicines =85=94
>
> The idea of financing R&D of medicines through a prize fund to which
> governments could contribute instead of using high prices has been
> advocated by, among others, the NGO Knowledge Ecology International.
>
> ------------------
>
> 23 May 2007
> World Health Assembly Agrees On IP And Innovation; US Abstains
>
>
> By Tove Iren S. Gerhardsen
>
> After much discussion and hard-won willingness to shift positions on
> what a chair referred to as a =93difficult resolution,=94 member states
> concluded the 2007 World Health Assembly on 23 May with the adoption
> of an agreement on innovation of medicines and intellectual property.
> But it was done without support from the United States, the biggest
> medicines innovator.
>
> The resolution requests the World Health Organization (WHO) to get
> more involved in supporting member states using trade law to improve
> access to treatments, and to encourage discussion of new incentive
> mechanisms for research and development (R&D), such as addressing the
> link between the cost of R&D and the price of medicines.
>
> The agreement is related to an ongoing intergovernmental process at
> WHO on public health, innovation and intellectual property, referred
> to as IGWG. It has been asked to come up with a strategy and plan of
> action for boosting R&D of medicines for neglected diseases mainly
> found in developing countries. The deadline is the May 2008 assembly
> (IPW, WHO, 27 May 2006).
>
> Brazil introduced the draft resolution on 15 May. It was meant to
> =93support the work of IGWG and enforce it,=94 a Brazilian official told
> Intellectual Property Watch. One year after the establishment of the
> IGWG, a progress report was presented and the resolution was
> introduced as part of this agenda item at the assembly (IPW, WHO, 17
> May 2007).
>
> The adopted resolution requests WHO to provide =93as appropriate,
> technical and policy support=94 to member states that intend to use the
> flexibilities in the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on
> Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). It
> states that WHO should do this =93in collaboration with other competent
> international organisations,=94 which include the WTO and the World
> Intellectual Property Organization, but the resolution gives WHO a
> mandate to also deal with this issue. This has previously, especially
> in the IGWG process, been contested by some countries (IPW, Public
> Health, 7 December 2006).
>
> The resolution was adopted by plenary (the full assembly) after having
> been discussed for two days in a drafting group, from which the United
> States walked out twice, sources said. When the agreed draft was
> discussed in a committee on 23 May, the United States returned to the
> discussions and proposed amendments especially related to TRIPS, but
> at that point a majority of member states said it was not acceptable
> that the United States, which had chosen not to be part of the
> drafting group, should be able to suggest amendments. Some smaller
> changes were made on 23 May.
>
> The US reservation came against a background of a number of countries
> and regions having moved from starting positions that were =93miles
> apart,=94 according to the drafting group chair from Namibia, who said
> the agreement had been =93painfully negotiated and agreed upon.=94
>
> At first, there also appeared to be divisions among the developing
> countries regarding the draft resolution, but later both the African
> group, Australia, Canada, Chile, European Union, Switzerland and
> Norway showed support, sources said. A developed country official told
> Intellectual Property Watch that at first the EU had been opposed to
> the resolution but then it decided to negotiate in order to go into
> the November final IGWG meeting well prepared and =93under ideal
> circumstances.=94
>
> The United States said in plenary that, =93The United States cannot
> accept this resolution.=94 When adopted in the committee, the United
> States said it wanted to =93disassociate from consensus.=94
>
> It was unclear what the US objection was, as the United States
> declined to comment further. The first, four-hour drafting group from
> which the US walked out did not make much progress, and the chair
> reported back that it had been adjourned =93mainly due to lack of
> progress.=94
>
> The US move caused tension at the 14-23 May World Health Assembly, the
> annual meeting of the WHO member states, which this year adopted a
> record number of resolutions, including one on the sharing of
> influenza viruses [see related IPW story to come]. A resolution
> suggests changes to international public health practice and to the
> policies and priorities of WHO.
>
> What Does It All Mean for IGWG?
>
> The overarching question seems to be what the US disagreement will
> mean for the IGWG process ahead and the November meeting, with some
> arguing that the resolution was a step forward and others arguing that
> the process would have been better served without it.
>
> =93We have a consensus,=94 a Brazilian official told Intellectual Propert=
y
> Watch, saying that everybody had agreed and was again talking about
> the =93spirit of Geneva,=94 referring to the cooperative spirit on which
> the IGWG was founded. He said the resolution had =93definitely=94 helped
> as everybody was now going in the same direction, and had agreed on
> process, principles and are willing to work together.
>
> The United States said in its reservation in plenary that it did not
> consider the resolution consensus text, but said it hoped for a
> =93successful outcome=94 of the November IGWG. It said it hoped all membe=
r
> states would join the US in =93working constructively together towards
> that end.=94
>
> The pharmaceutical industry agreed with the United States in that the
> resolution was not useful. On 22 May, while it was still being debated
> in the drafting group, Director General Harvey Bale of the
> International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and
> Associations (IFPMA) told Intellectual Property Watch that the
> resolution was an attempt to =93pre-write the conclusions of the IGWG at
> the assembly level.=94 He said the move abrogated the WHO approach and
> was moving the process without a basis in evidence. For example, Bale
> said a nongovernmental organisation (NGO) had argued that there are no
> tuberculosis products in development, while there are in fact 17 drugs
> in development.
>
> Bale said that the proposal to separate R&D costs from the prices of
> drugs was not =93necessarily realistic.=94
>
> Ellen =91t Hoen of M=E9decins Sans Fronti=E8res told Intellectual Propert=
y
> Watch that the adoption of the resolution was, =93very good news for
> IGWG,=94 as it reflected =93strong consensus.=94 She said there is more
> clarity now on where the IGWG is heading, and the resolution gave IGWG
> some substantive recommendations. She mentioned particularly the idea
> of separating the cost of R&D from the price of medicines.
>
> Content and Process
>
> The 15 May resolution was revised quite a bit in formal as well as
> informal drafting groups, and the final version focuses mostly on the
> process of IGWG, but also contains some =93content=94 on what the IGWG en=
d
> product should contain.
>
> The most noteworthy language relates to TRIPS. The resolution requests
> WHO, =93to provide as appropriate, upon request, in collaboration with
> other competent international organizations, technical and policy
> support to countries that intend to make use of the flexibilities
> contained in [TRIPS] and other international agreements in order to
> promote access to pharmaceutical products, and to implement the Doha
> Ministerial Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health and
> other WTO instruments.=94
>
> After =93pharmaceutical products=94 there is a footnote, referring to the
> Doha Declaration. This was also used in a malaria resolution adopted
> at the assembly, leading one official to say that the malaria
> resolution would set a standard for the future (IPW, WHO, 21 May
> 2007).
>
> While some countries, including Canada and Norway according to
> sources, supported earlier language in the resolution requesting WHO
> to encourage proposals and discussion at the IGWG on a range of R&D
> incentive mechanisms =93including those that separate paying for the
> cost of research and development from the price of medicines,
> vaccines, diagnostic tools and other healthcare products,=94 this was
> suggested amended by Switzerland and backed by Japan and others. It
> now reads: =93=85 a range of incentive mechanisms including also
> addressing the linkage of the cost of research and development and the
> prices of medicines =85=94
>
> The idea of financing R&D of medicines through a prize fund to which
> governments could contribute instead of using high prices has been
> advocated by, among others, the NGO Knowledge Ecology International.
>
> On process, the resolution urges member states to =93support fully and
> actively=94 the IGWG process and =93provide adequate resources=94 to WHO.
> Members appear to agree that the first meeting of the IGWG in December
> 2006 was less constructive and Brazil is among the countries that want
> to speed up the process.
>
> The agreement also says that technical and financial support should be
> given to regional consultative meetings before the November meeting.
> During the assembly, it was particularly the African and Latin
> American regions that called for such support.
>
> The resolution also calls on WHO to prepare background documents on
> the elements IGWG has been discussing so far, including an overview of
> who is doing what, gaps, and financial implications. This was
> particularly suggested by the European Union, a source said, which
> also raised this issue in a consultation round on IGWG earlier this
> spring.
>
> The resolution also captures WHO Director General Margaret Chan=92s
> statement at the assembly that she is committed to the IGWG process
> and encourages her =93to guide the process.=94 Chan has been following th=
e
> discussions on this issue closely at the assembly, and in her closing
> remarks said she is =93fully committed=94 and has =93noted your desire to
> move faster.=94
>
> At press time, the resolution was only available in hard copy as
> A60/B/Conf.Paper No.3 Rev.2.
>
> Tove Gerhardsen may be reached at tgerhardsen@ip-watch.ch.
>

---------------------------------
Thiru Balasubramaniam
Geneva Representative
Knowledge Ecology International (KEI)
voice +41.22.791.6727
fax +41.22.723.2988
mobile +41 76 508 0997
thiru@keionline.org