[Ip-health] At the IGWG

[James Love]

I am sorry that there has been so little information posted to ip-health
from the IGWG, and I encourage others to share some information on the
goings on here.

Briefly, the Latin American delegates were able to get the entire Rio
text into the draft global strategy and plan of action (GSPA), so now
everything is on the table. This was quite important, and did not meet
with that much resistance.

There are now two large drafting groups, and NGOs have been kicked out
of the meetings.

There are several experts who can attend drafting, including several
really good people, as well as "concerned public and private entities,"
which oddly, gives the US trade association BIO full access to all
drafting groups.  (See the list below)

A number of right wing and industry funded groups, like IPN, Hudson, and
IPI were complaining they could not attend the meetings on a public
badge, and apparently they could not get on any delegations, including
PhRMA or BIO.

Apparently the early drafting committee work is going pretty well, but
they are not yet into the real tough subjects.

Big pharma and the country delegations they control or influence (most
of "Group B" at this meeting), have made an enormous push to keep the
words "R&D Treaty" out of any final text.  According to one European
negotiator yesterday, the word "Treaty" has been "redlined" by Europe,
and they will not allow it in the final text, because of the industry
pressure "on the neck" of the European negotiators.  The US has reversed
the position on the R&D treaty from this spring (At a Brussels TACD
meeting State was quite supportive of such discussions), and now seems
to take the PhRMA/BIO line here, and in Demarches to developing country
delegations.  One US delegate said there was no "evidence" that an R&D
treaty would have any benefits.  And by that, he meant, any R&D treaty,
in any form, covering any topics. (Meanwhile, the US and Europe just
announced a push for a new treaty on counterfeits.)

The PhRMA/UK/Germany and WHO/Secretariat strategy is apparently seeking
to push a yet to be announced plan they how to negotiate with Kenya and
South Africa, for a new fund under the WHO DG, which would have
voluntary funding for R&D on neglected diseases. Dollars to be discussed
later, after the IGWG is shut down.  This is based pretty much on the
Norvartis proposal advanced by Paul Herrling, although no one has seen
the details.  According to one report, it also includes some proposals
on differential pricing, which no one has seen.

What PhRMA/BIO/IFPMA want to avoid is any serious multilateral structure
to address in a serious way the R&D agenda, and the European countries
want to avoid obligations to pay.   I asked one involved delegate if the
UK/Germany proposal would address any of the three basic IGWG R&D
mandates (1) setting priorities (2) estimating funding needs and (3)
developing sustainable sources of funding, and did not get an answer.
Germany and the UK are asking NGOs to lower their expectations, and be
satisfied with a small R&D fund of a type supported by big pharma under
Chan.

The European effort to drive a wedge between Africa and other developing
countries is pretty standard operating procedure in these type of
negotiations.  We are not sure of the role of the WHO DG in this, but
given the initial WHO draft GSPA, the now deleted footnotes on disease
targets, etc,  and some in the in-room spin from the secretariat,
it would seem as though this has been in the works for a while.

Meanwhile, there is a lot of anticipation over the coming negotiation on
the Element 5 (IPR), and we are optimistic that the broader R&D issues
will continue to be on the table, in some form.

Bolivia has proposed some changes to the Rio text, 2.4(c), to make the
future discussions about R&D include:

---------
the advantages or disadvantages of a new medical research and
development framework, fund, agreement or treaty
----------
By expanding the possible structures to include in addition to a treat,
a framework, fund or agreement, the Bolivians are trying to make it more
difficult to block future discussions.

  Jamie
----------------

2.4(c) Support further discussion [strike: on] [add: of the advantages
or disadvantages of] a [new] medical research and development
[framework, fund, agreement or] treaty that considers the establishment
of research priorities, the identification of funding needs, and
sustainable funding mechanisms to meet those needs amongst others,
taking into account the specific needs and abilities of developing
countries to support such research. The discussion should also address
incentives to accept obligations to fund research, including but not
limited to the possibility that countries that achieve norms for funding
research be given additional flexibility in terms of obligations to
enforce intellectual property rights on medical inventions.

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

Experts and Concerned Public and Private Entities

See: http://www.who.int/gb/phi/pdf/igwg2/listofexpert-en.pdf

Experts
Professor Fred Binka, Ghana
Mr. Sisule F. Musungu, Kenya
Mr. G=C3=A9rard Requin, Mauritius
Mr. Adrian Walter Paterson, South Africa
Dr. Carlos Morel, Brazil
Mr. Richard Wilder, USA
Dr. Raffaella Ravinetto, Belgium
Dr. Meri Koivusalo, Finland
Mr. Wolf-Michael Catenhusen, Germany
Dr. Biserka Strel, Slovenia
Mrs. Nadia Malek Anas Younis, United Arab Emirates
Dr. Chen Xingyu, China
Mr. Wayne McNee, New Zealand
Dr. Kanikaram Satyanarayana, India
Dr. Jiraporn Limpananont, Thailand

Concerned Public and Private Entities

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO)
Directorate of Science, Technology and Industry, Organization for
Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD)
Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative (DNDi)
Global Forum for Health Research
M=C3=A9decins Sans Fronti=C3=A8res (MSF), Access to Essential Medicines Cam=
paign
Facilit=C3=A9 Internationale d'Achat de M=C3=A9dicaments (UNITAID)