[Ip-health] At the IGWG

[Michelle Childs]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
We have further information about the proposal from the EU to the
African group for  some form of fund for a limited set of  diseases.
We have been told that the proposal was made by the EU Presidency
( Portugal) . This means that it is made on behalf of all EU Member
States, though the actual negotiations are likely to be lead by
certain member states.
Michelle

On 7 Nov 2007, at 09:57, James Love wrote:

> 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=E9rard 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=E9decins Sans Fronti=E8res (MSF), Access to Essential Medicines Campaig=
n
> Facilit=E9 Internationale d'Achat de M=E9dicaments (UNITAID)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ip-health mailing list
> Ip-health@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health
>

Michelle Childs
Head of European Affairs
Knowledge Ecology International
michelle.childs@cptech.org