[Ip-health] NGO Letter to WHO Director General on Publications Policy

[Sangeeta]

Below is a Civil Society Letter to Dr. Margaret Chan highlighting concerns
in relation to WHO's Publications Policy.

It is widely believed that the recent overhaul of WHO=B9s publication polic=
y
is a response to recent pressures from some developed countries that were
unhappy with some of its publications on the subject of IP and public
health.(see news story titled =B3US Seeks Review Of WHO Publication Policy
After Report On US Trade Deals=B2 available at
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=3D409)

There are serious concerns that the publications policy presented in the
Secretariats Reports will result in =B3self censorship=B2 by WHO and its st=
aff
and will hamper timely advice and support by WHO HQ and regional offices to
member states over important issues such as application of intellectual
property rights and the use of TRIPS flexibilities, other trade and health
matters, reproductive health care and other issues.

The letter strongly urges the WHO Director General to not bow to these
pressures and to reconsider the policy that is contained in the two
documents EB 122/20 and EB 123/7.

Presently about 35 organisations have signed onto the letter.

If your organisation would like to sign-on, do send us an email at
ssangeeta@myjaring.net with the name of your Organisation, Country
as well as details of contact person esp. email.

Sangeeta Shashikant
Third World Network
email: ssangeeta@myjaring.net

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Civil Society Letter to Dr. Margaret Chan, Director General of the World
Health Organisation regarding WHO=B9s publicationS policy

Dr. Margaret Chan, Director General
World Health Organisation
Avenue Appia 20

CH - 1211 Geneva 27

15 May 2008

Concerns Regarding WHO=B9s Publications Policy

Dear Dr. Margaret Chan

We are writing to raise our concerns pertaining to WHO=B9s publication poli=
cy
outlined in the Secretariat=B9s report titled =B3WHO Publications=B2 (EB 12=
2/20
dated 6 December 2007) and further elaborated in another Secretariat report
titled =B3WHO publications policy: guidance on implementation and evaluatio=
n=B2
(EB 123/7 dated 14 April 2008).

For decades WHO at the HQ and regional levels has produced many excellent
publications and briefing papers to support and guide the development and
application of pro-public health policies in developing countries
particularly where it intersects with intellectual property rights. Some of
these publications include: Working Paper on Guidelines for the examination
of pharmaceutical patents: developing a public health perspective (January
2007); Implementation of the WTO General Council Decision on Paragraph 6 of
the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health (April 2004).

Joint publications by WHO and other organisations for example: (1) a study
commissioned by the WHO Commission on Intellectual Property Rights,
Innovation and Public Health (CIPIH) titled =B3The Use of flexibilities in
TRIPS by Developing countries (WHO & South Centre, 2006); (2) =B3Remunerati=
on
guidelines for non-voluntary use of a patent on medical technologies=B2 (WH=
O &
UNDP, 2005); (3) =B3Determining the patent status of essential medicines in
developing countries health=B2 (UNAIDS, WHO & MSF, 2004) and (4) =B3Protect=
ion
of Data submitted for the Registration of Pharmaceuticals: Implementing the
Standards of the TRIPS Agreement=B2 (WHO & South Centre, 2002) are also
evidence of WHO=B9s notable work in the area of IP and Health

Civil society also often relies on these publications as the basis of its
advocacy work.

In our view, WHO=B9s exemplary papers in the area of IP and Health are due
especially to WHO=B9s independence in determining the topics it should spea=
k
on, free from any member state=B9s influence and interference.

However we are very concerned with reports that the WHO has come under
pressure from some developed countries that were unhappy with some of its
publications on the subject of IP and public health.  For example, it has
been publicly reported that a letter was sent by a particular country to th=
e
WHO Secretariat requesting it to withdraw one of the publications it has
co-published that is on the subject of IPRs and public health. (see news
story titled =B3US Seeks Review Of WHO Publication Policy After Report On U=
S
Trade Deals=B2 available at http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=3D40=
9)

It is widely believed that the recent proposed overhaul of WHO=B9s publicat=
ion
policy is a response to these recent pressures.  We believe that such
pressures should not have been put on the WHO, nor should they be repeated.
The WHO Secretariat is mandated to provide independent opinion and research=
,
which are reflected in its publications.  The independence of opinion and
intellectual integrity of the Secretariat are essential conditions for the
public confidence in the WHO.

We therefore believe that the Secretariat, and especially the Director
General, should not bow to pressures by particular member states. For
example, the WHO should not practice =B3self censorship=B2 in an attempt no=
t to
displease certain countries or parties, especially when it has a
responsibility to take a stand and speak up on behalf of public health.

In this context, we are concerned that the publication policy has the high
potential to result in such =B3self censorship=B2 by WHO and its staff. We =
are
also very concerned that this policy will hamper timely advice and support
by WHO HQ and regional offices to member states over important issues such
as application of intellectual property rights and the use of TRIPS
flexibilities, other trade and health matters, reproductive health care and
other issues.

Some of our specific concerns and questions over WHO publications policy as
outlined in the Reports of the Secretariat EB 122/20 dated 6 December 2007
and EB 123/7 dated 14 April 2008 are as follows:

(1) Differential treatment of some publications.

Paragraph 13 of EB 122/20 requires publications =B3that describe the workin=
gs
of a particular government or national health service or that have policy
implications for the Organization or address controversial health-related
issues=B2 to go through =B3additional clearance by the Director-General=B9s
Office=B2 while the final text of all other publications can be cleared by =
the
=B3relevant Assistant Director-General or Regional Director before
publication.=B2

This requirement also seems to be applicable to =B3Any article, book chapte=
r
or invited commentary relating to WHO=B9s work that is to be submitted by a
staff member for external publication=B2. (See paragraph 9 of EB 122/20)

Paragraph 13 raises several questions especially what is the rationale for
treating some publications differently from other publications and what are
the criteria that will be used to determine which topics =B3have policy
implications for the Organization or address controversial health-related
issues=B2 and thus will require additional clearance by the DG=B9s office.

Requiring differing treatment between publications raises the question of
whether publications (including papers written by staff members for externa=
l
publication) that are to be approved by the DG=B9s office will undergo some
kind of political review or approval to ensure that it is politically
acceptable to member states before it is cleared. This would effectively
undermine the independence, neutrality and editorial freedom of WHO and
instead make WHO and its staff more susceptible to political and other
pressures.

We are of the view that the policy proposed above will result in a situatio=
n
where WHO and its staff will shy away from speaking up on topics that have
important implications for public health (such as intellectual property
rights) but that may be unpalatable to some countries, particularly
countries that are significant financial contributors to the WHO.

In our view, WHO reports and publications should be only subjected to
=B3technical review=B2 to ensure that they are factually and technically
accurate, and that they take a public health perspective. In this regard al=
l
publications should be treated equally.

(2) Publications produced by Regional offices

Paragraph (1) also applies to regional offices, which further raises the
question as to the rationale for requiring publications commissioned or
produced by regional offices to be cleared by the DG=B9s office. Regional
directors are elected by member states; thus the regional directors should
have authority to provide clearance to all publications as was the case
prior to the proposed new policy.

In our view, WHO regional offices play an important role by raising
awareness on and supporting member states in developing and implementing
measures that promote public health by commissioning relevant publications,
preparing briefing papers, on request providing advice, participating in
workshops etc.  Civil society groups have benefited significantly from the
services of the regional offices.

We are concerned that the proposed broad definition of the term
=B3publication=B2 coupled with the policy mentioned in (1) would make it
difficult for regional or national-level pro-public health initiatives to b=
e
taken on several important issues where support is needed by member state
and by civil society, as these issues may be considered =B3controversial.=
=B2

The term  =B3publication=B2 is defined in footnote 2 of EB 122/20 as
=B3information products, i.e. Materials that are issued by WHO to the publi=
c
in whatever format and through whatever channel. It excludes materials
internal to WHO.=B2  Paragraph 3 of EB document 123/7 further defines
information products as =B3written or illustrated works that the Organisati=
on
makes publicly accessible. Examples include documents on the website and
journal, articles, guidelines, reports, training materials and advocacy
materials in any format (printed, web, CD-ROM/DVD or audiovisual), whether
sold or distributed free of charge=B2.

The extraordinarily broad definition of =B3publication=B2 appears to includ=
e
materials such as briefing papers, leaflets, power-point presentations,
materials given to a government requesting technical assistance etc.

Where these information products relate to topics that =B3have policy
implications for the Organization or address controversial health-related
issues=B2, then it would have to be approved by the DG=B9s office.

In our view, the approach being taken is very worrying as it will hamper th=
e
timely provision of advice and support particularly by regional offices to
member states.  It can be expected that WHO staff would have to face time
constraints and several hurdles to get their views approved by the DG=B9s
office before they can present them.

(3) Master List of planned publications.

Paragraph 8 of EB 122/20 requires that a master list of planned publication=
s
be prepared for executive approval at the beginning of each biennium.

We are concerned that this will hinder WHO=B9s ability to deal with new iss=
ues
or concerns that arise during the year.

(4) Need for more information and debate on the issue of publications:

In our view little information has been provided as to the need and
rationale for overhauling the present publication policy, and putting in
place measures mentioned in the EB 122/20 and EB 123/7. For example it is
unclear what is the rationale for requiring publications that =B3address
controversial health-related issues=B2 to go through =B3additional clearanc=
e by
the Director-General=B9s Office.  Could the WHO please provide a list of wh=
at
these controversial issues are, and what is the criteria for designating an
issue as =B3controversial=B2?

Also the implications of the policy for developing countries should also be
assessed and discussed. For example while cost-effectiveness may be
appreciated, reducing copies that are printed and distributed (see paragrap=
h
6 of EB 123/7) will simply shift printing costs to governments that will
have to go online to print WHO publications, and as a result hamper easy
access to hard copies that contain important information for developing
countries. The aim to reduce number of =B3titles=B2 (see paragraph 6 of EB
123/7) may undermine functions of the WHO stated in its Constitution for
example =B3to provide information, counsel and assistance in the field of
health=B2; =B3to promote...research in the field of health=B2 and =B3to ass=
ist in
developing an informed public opinion among all peoples on matters of
health=B2.

EB 122/20 seems to indicate that the previous publications policy has
undergone a =B3fuller review=B2 and yet there is almost no information as t=
o
what was the previous publication policy, the persons involved in this
review and the outcome of this review.

(5) Policy will de-motivate WHO Staff

We are of the view that the numerous steps listed for the preparation and
clearance of publications in EB 123/7, present hurdles and will only result
in frustrating staff initiatives in emerging with good publications on a
timely basis. Ultimately the loser in this process will be the public
especially in developing countries.

We are of the view that prior to implementing the proposed publication
policy, the policy should be the subject of thorough discussion among all
member states. WHO member states should also be provided with full
information so as to enable informed decision-making.

As mentioned above we are much concerned that the publication policy will
result in a tendency towards =B3self-censorship=B2 by WHO and its staff at
regional and HQ offices, to the detriment of the needs and interests of
public health, especially in developing countries.

Therefore we strongly urge you to reconsider the policy that is contained i=
n
the two documents EB 122/20 and EB 123/7.

We the undersigned Organisations would also like to request as soon as
possible an opportunity to dialogue with you on this critical issue, as
there are other concerns that we have pertaining the policy.

Signatories
Act-Up Paris
American Medical Student Association.
Baby Milk Action, UK
Brazilian Interdisciplinary Aids Association
Consumers=B9 Association Penang, Malaysia
Diverse Women for Diversity, India
Economic Justice and Development Organization, Pakistan
European AIDS Treatment Group, Belgium.
Essential Action, US
Health Action International
Health Action International Asia Pacific
Health Gap (Global Access Project) USA
IBFAN Africa
IBFAN Asia
IBFAN Latin America and Caribbean
IBFAN International Code Documentation Centre
INFACT Canada
Initiative for Health, Equity & Society, India
Institute of Science in Society, UK
Initiative for Medicines, Access & Knowledge
Knowledge Ecology International
Medico International
Medical Action Group, Inc., Phillipines
Navdanya, India
Oxfam International
Peoples Health Movement, Secretariat
Peoples Health Movement - India
Positive Malaysian Treatment Access & Advocacy Group, Malaysia.
Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property, American
University, USA
Research Foundation for Science Technology & Ecology, India
Sidaction, France
Stop HIV/AIDS in India Initiative, Washington DC
The Network, Pakistan
Third World Network
Universities Allied for Essential Medicines
Vermont Global Health Coalition