[Ip-health] FT: WHO fails to strike drug deal

[James Love]

This is a response to the comment by Francisco Rossi.

The IGWG negotiations involve a wide range of topics, and people will
see useful text in several areas, although also important areas where
there is no progress yet, as reflected in the 18 paragraphs still with
brackets.  There is also relatively weak language in some parts.

In terms of new incentives, good language on incentives has in fact
moved ahead.  For example:

-----------
5.3(a) explore and, where appropriate, promote a range of incentive
schemes for research and development including addressing, where
appropriate, the de-linkage of the costs of research and development and
the price of health products, for example, through the award of prizes,
with the object of addressing diseases which disappropriately affect
developing countries  (consensus)
---------

It was difficult to get 5.3(a).  But there is now very good language, on
what we consider a key issue.

7.1, while not as strong as the language in the deleted 7.3, is also
useful.

". . .examine current financing and coordination of research and
development, as well as proposals for new and innovative sources of
financing to stimulate R&D related to Type II and Type III diseases and
the specific R&D needs of developing countries in relationship to Type I
diseases."

In the closing plenary, Barbados said it was assured that its proposals
for prizes would be covered by the language in 7.1 (new and innovative
sources of financing to stimulate R&D). The Barbados intervention led to
a procedural question by the USA, followed immediately by substantive
support for the Barbados position by India.

There is also plenty of useful language in other sections of the
document on this topic, including the front parts (some of which were
changed from the draft now on the web).

My own view is that very good progress has been done on the topic of new
incentive mechanisms that are not linked to prices of products.  This
was aided in part by the generally favorable response to substance and
concrete nature of the Barbados/Bolivia prize proposals.

What the IGWG did not do was fund anything, not only for prizes, but for
grants and other push funding, or AMCS (which are no longer mentioned in
the text) or anything else. The US and Europe did not want to talk about
money at this meeting.  For a number of groups that are looking for
something important for funding neglected diseases, this was a major
flaw in the negotiations so far.  The idea of a biomedical treaty is
alive, and the expert working group on financing R&D will carry the
conversation forward, but this is clearly a delay that is driven by a
lack of political commitment to spend new money in this area.

The debates in May at the WHA will focus on the 18 important paragraphs
where there is no consensus.  People can usefully begin focusing on
these paragraphs, and push their delegations to do the right thing.

  Jamie

On Mon, 2008-05-05 at 15:07 +0000, Francisco Rossi wrote:
> --
> [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
>
> Dear All:
>
> I just want to introduce some reflexions on IGWG outcomes, because I beli=
eve there are some elements to take into account. Despite I coul have reaso=
ns to be especially disapointed, froma apersonnal perspectoive, I think we =
need to be more objective and balanced. Certainly any assesment of IGWG out=
comes is related on expectations.
>
> If we expected a radical re-formulation of IP worldwide, IGWG was a major=
 failure. If our expectations were oriented to introduce alternative incent=
ive models instead of prevelent ones, meeting was a failure.
>
> In the other hand, if we read the meeting as an step on a process to put =
developing countries points of view in the tasble. IGWG was a major sucess.=
 If we read the meeting as a strong movement on the WHO secretariat to take=
 very seriously IP issues, meeting was a major sucess.
>
> I was commenting with some friends that in the past we were working very =
reactive against TRIPS,  and then against FTAs and Trips plus measures. Rea=
ctive and in a defensive perspective. Now, despite the UN lenguage in most =
of the agreements and consensus, there is a open door for the negotiation o=
n Innovation, IP and Public health.
>
> Certainly developed countries and interested industries were there to obs=
tacle any movement. And they worked pretty well. By from my personal point =
of view they lost a lot. And I would like to higligth the developing world =
countries leadership on that.
>
> Just to re-open this discussion.
>
> Best to all
>
> Francisco Rossi
>
>
>
> Francisco A. Rossi. B. > From: james.love@keionline.org> To: ip-health@li=
sts.essential.org> Subject: [Ip-health] FT: WHO fails to strike drug deal> =
Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 10:15:16 -0400> > Short report by FT. Jamie> > WHO fa=
ils to strike drug deal> By Frances Williams> > Published: May 5 2008 03:00=
 | Last updated: May 5 2008 03:00> > > World Health Organisation members fa=
iled at the weekend to agree a new> global strategy on drug innovation and =
intellectual property, designed> to boost access to cheaper medicines in po=
or countries and the> development of treatments for neglected diseases.> > =
The talks, centring on a battle over patents, will continue in the hope> of=
 reaching a deal that can be endorsed by the WHO annual assembly next> May.=
 Frances Williams, Geneva> > > > --> _____________________________> James L=
ove, Knowledge Ecology International (KEI)> http://www.keionline.org, mailt=
o:james.love@keionline.org> voice +1.202.332.2670, fax +1.202.332.2673, US =
mobile +1.202.361.3040, Geneva mobile +41.76.413.6584> > When everyone thin=
ks the same, no one thinks. Bill Walton remix of Walter Lippmann> > _______=
________________________________________> Ip-health mailing list> Ip-health=
@lists.essential.org> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health
> _________________________________________________________________
> Connect to the next generation of MSN Messenger
> http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=3Den-us&sou=
rce=3Dwlmailtagline
> _______________________________________________
> Ip-health mailing list
> Ip-health@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health
>
--
_____________________________
James Love, Knowledge Ecology International (KEI)
http://www.keionline.org, mailto:james.love@keionline.org
voice +1.202.332.2670, fax +1.202.332.2673, US mobile +1.202.361.3040, Gene=
va mobile +41.76.413.6584

When everyone thinks the same, no one thinks.  Bill Walton remix of Walter =
Lippmann