[Ip-health] Statement on IGWG: On a Road Named Nowhere

[amit sen]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
On a Road Named Nowhere
  The Slippery Slope of Negotiations at the IGWG on
  Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property

  As the negotiations wound down to a close at the Intergovernmental Workin=
g Group on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property, a familiar =
pattern unfolded. To the dismay of all those who saw in the IGWG an opportu=
nity to make a real difference in a starkly iniquitous situation =96 a situ=
ation where medicines required the most for the world=92s poorest and most =
vulnerable populations are rarely researched or made accessible and afforda=
ble =96 the conclusions arrived at, may well make little or no dent in the =
present situation.

  Chicanery and doublespeak by developed countries

  The week of negotiations, have been replete with instances of chicanery a=
nd doublespeak on the part of most developed countries, led by the United S=
tates. The principal thrust of their strategy has been to obstruct any forw=
ard looking measure that would promote the basic objectives of the IGWG, ob=
jectives that were designed to find real mechanisms that can promote both i=
nnovation and access to medicines that are required for the poor in develop=
ing countries. They have insisted on language in the draft strategy documen=
t being negotiated that is designed to defend IPRs even in situations where=
 there is glaring evidence regarding how such rights stand in conflict with=
 efforts to promote innovation and access to medicines. They have also obst=
ructed provisions that are designed to provide for the WHO a bigger role in=
 issues related to public health, access, and intellectual property. The ca=
tch phrases used by the negotiators from the North, in order to dilute all =
meaningful
 proposals have been =93voluntary=94, =93if feasible=94 and =93where approp=
riate=94. Their strategy has received a huge boost from large delegation fr=
om pharmaceutical companies (attending the negotiations as NGOs!), who can =
be seen all over the corridors, lobbying various country delegations.

  Developing Countries Forced to Negotiate Away Text

  In the face of such an onslaught, developing country delegations have had=
 to defend their positions, virtually with their backs to the wall. Their a=
bility to do so has been compromised by the relative small sizes of their d=
elegations, and the limited expertise they have been able to harness to bac=
k their arguments. They have also been further handicapped by the negotiati=
ons being repeatedly split into 2 or more negotiating groups, thereby helpi=
ng countries in the North with large delegations and a wider pool of expert=
ise in negotiations to draw from. There have been significant attempts to k=
eep a semblance of balance in the negotiations by developing countries such=
 as India, Brazil, Thailand, Bolivia, Barbados, Surinam, Kenya, etc. But it=
 is fairly clear that such efforts have not been adequate.

  A basic asymmetry in the negotiating strategies was also seen to unfold a=
s the negotiations proceeded. Developed countries, operating from a positio=
n of strength, were secure in the knowledge that they had nothing to lose. =
Developing countries, acutely conscious that a fiasco in these negotiations=
 would set back the agenda of innovation and access by years, if not decade=
s, were repeatedly forced to negotiate away language in the text that is us=
eful to them, just in order to ensure that the negotiations concluded on a =
positive note. Being forced to do so, we are dangerously close to a situati=
on where they the negotiated text goes nowhere, and does not attempt to cha=
rt a course that could remedy the present situation.


  Big Pharma comes away happy with Financing Mechanism

  Such a situation has clearly emerged in the crucial Element 7 of the nego=
tiated text, that deals with the promotion of sustainable financing mechani=
sms to secure resources for R&D that focuses on the specific health problem=
s of developing countries. The Element had three negotiating points. The fi=
rst deals with a proposal to set up a working group that would examine pres=
ent financing mechanisms as well as new mechanisms to support desired R&D. =
The second deals with product development public-private partnerships, and =
proposals to document, analyse and  support them. The third dealt with the =
proposal to set up an R&D fund to address the needs of R&D in areas of prio=
rity for developing countries. In a way, this Element is crucial to the suc=
cess of the negotiations, as it is designed to secure resources for the pro=
cess to go forward.

  The negotiated consensus text dilutes the intent of the first proposal by=
 only talking of a =93expert=94 working group that would be set up for the =
purpose of =93examining=94 =93sources=94 of financing, instead of the propo=
sal earlier to look at =93models of financing=94. While the proposals on pu=
blic-private partnership have been endorsed, the proposal on setting up of =
an R&D fund has been deleted. Thus, what we are left with is a mere promise=
 to examine new funding mechanisms, without a matching commitment that such=
 examination would lead to anything tangible. Possibly, the ones who would =
be the happiest with such a turn of events would be Big Pharma. They are le=
ft with no real threat of a possible challenge in the form of alternate mec=
hanisms to their domination through control on R&D. On the other hand they =
can go back satisfied at having secured three loud cheers for public-privat=
e partnerships, which in many cases puts more money in the pockets of Big P=
harma, in exchange for
 marginal benefits. In a curious turn of events, typical of how developing =
countries have had to compromise on useful text in these negotiations, Indi=
a =96 which had proposed the text on the R&D fund in November =96 failed to=
 defend its own proposal, and was virtually silent when the clause was dele=
ted.

  Too hasty in negotiating?

  Given the lack of direction in the final text on concrete ways to start m=
aking a difference on how alternate mechanisms of R&D can be promoted, and =
how they are to be financed, there is a strong case to examine if developin=
g countries have been too hasty to try to arrive at a forced consensus on m=
ost issues. There is perhaps a moral hidden somewhere in this. Developing c=
ountries, including many of the bigger ones with developed capabilities, ca=
me to these negotiations too ill-prepared. The most obvious gap was in the =
capability to understand and present opinions regarding S&T capabilities an=
d R&D mechanisms. For example, some developing countries came ill-prepared =
to present their country=92s own initiatives in drug discovery. Clearly, in=
terdisciplinary co-ordination has been lacking in the process through which=
 developing country delegations have been briefed. This is of particular co=
ncern, because such capabilities do exist in the larger developing countrie=
s, and it=92s a
 pity that this capability was not harnessed. On the other hand, in some ar=
eas where country delegations were well briefed, they did a remarkable job =
in defending domestic and developing country interests -- such as the India=
n delegation on IP issues.

  These deficiencies, at the end of the day, may well have made the crucial=
 difference. Also lacking was the political will to follow through proposal=
s that were clearly in domestic interest or in the broader interest of deve=
loping countries. The =93fear factor=94 of being isolated in obstructing a =
manufactured consensus, seems to have also prevented delegations of develop=
ing countries for speaking out (in contrasts these negotiations have been r=
eplete with instances of text being marked as =93consensus, pending US deci=
sion!).  Finally, it was also clear that the developing block were not alwa=
ys working in tandem, and the lack of leadership being provided by the larg=
er developing countries was often acutely felt. All is however not lost and=
 the World Health Assembly and further work on the Plan of Action are oppor=
tunities to regain some ground.

  Amit Sen Gupta
  All India Peoples Science Network

  K.M.Gopakumar
  Centre for Trade and Development (CENTAD), India


---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it =
now.