[Ip-health] Intellectual Property Watch: WHO Global Strategy on IP and Health Considered, Implementation Advances

[Thiru Balasubramaniam]

http://ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-trackback.php?p=3D1404


Intellectual Property Watch

28 January 2009
WHO Global Strategy On IP And Health Considered, Implementation Advances

Posted by Kaitlin Mara @ 1:23 am
   Link This Article   Leave a Comment   Print

By Kaitlin Mara
Progress made on the World Health Organization strategy on public
health and innovation was highlighted to WHO members on Saturday,
including the production of a key budgeting document detailing
timeframes and estimated costs of implementing the strategy.

The Global Strategy and Plan of Action on Health, Innovation and
Intellectual Property was discussed in the context of the WHO
Executive Board, which met from 19 to 26 January.

The document on proposed timeframes and estimated funding needs [pdf]
was released midway through the board meeting. It estimates that
approximately US$149 billion in spending is needed between 2008 and
2015 to fully undertake the implementation process (IPW, WHO, 22
January 2009).

When the global strategy and plan of action document [pdf] was adopted
at the May 2008 World Health Assembly, two =93urgent=94 requests were made
within its text. These were to finalise the plan of action for
implementing the global strategy, and to establish a =93results-oriented
and time-limited expert working group=94 to examine new and innovative
financing mechanisms for stimulating research and development on
neglected diseases. The working group is seen by many member states as
a key outcome of the negotiating process that led to the global
strategy.

The plan of action was meant to be finalised by this Executive Board
(EB) meeting, and a report on progress was hoped for from the expert
working group.

Plan of Action

On the plan of action, there were still several bracketed (that is,
not yet consensus) items in May: identifying timeframes for
implementation, progress indicators, and estimated funding needs, as
well as identifying the key stakeholders for each item.

With the release of the funding document midweek, the WHO completed
most of the unfinalised actions. Work on identifying stakeholders does
not appear to have been done by the secretariat, though informal
progress was made by member states on this issue (IPW, WHO, 20 January
2009).

=93We expected we=92d finalise bracketed text at this meeting, the
Executive Board,=94 a representative from Slovenia told the meeting. =93We
note that this isn=92t possible but wish to express hope it will be done
at the World Health Assembly.=94

Also completed was a set of proposed progress indicators [pdf],
released in mid-December.

The United States asked what action was expected of the board in
regard to the proposed indicators, on which further work needs to be
done. The country also commented that the magnitude of the funding
needs listed =96 nearly US$150 billion =96 is =93quite staggering=94 and wo=
uld
be difficult for member states to mobilise, but said it was taking the
paper as =93information and not action.=94

Venezuela was similarly curious about the progress indicators, asking
when it would become =93a practical document=94 rather than theoretical,
and asked about the possibility of regional consultations.

Switzerland said a formal negotiation on progress indicators would
involve =93technical difficulties,=94 and that further work should be in
the secretariat=92s hands. It agreed the costs in the budget document
were =93enormous=94 but said all actors, including the private sector,
would be contributing. It expressed hope the plan of action would be
finalised at the assembly, and asked the WHO to explain the process
for working towards that goal.

Expert Working Group

The expert working group on innovative financing mechanisms for
neglected diseases was established in November (IPW, WHO, 19 November
2008), though they did not meet until the week before the Executive
Board.

That meeting was concerned with process questions, with substantive
questions saved for later meetings to come (IPW, WHO, 16 January
2009). Elil Renganathan, who is leading the global strategy and plan
of action coordination at the WHO, confirmed at the Executive Board
that the two future meetings would be in June or July and November of
this year. The group is meant to submit a progress report to the World
Health Assembly in May 2009.

Barbados asked the secretariat to confirm that a set of prize
mechanisms submitted by Barbados and Bolivia would be presented to the
group as possible innovative funding mechanisms. Bolivia asked when
the proposal would be published on the WHO website and properly
translated. They were later assured by the secretariat that the
proposals are on the agenda for the next meeting of the working group,
though an answer was not given on timing of publishing and translation.

Quick Start and Future Work

The WHO director general was also asked within the global strategy
document to =93prepare a quick start programme with adequate budget
provision and begin immediately to implement the elements of=94 the
global strategy that fall under the WHO responsibility.

While a progress report [pdf] released on 20 November said the
programme has been =93initiated=94 in four different areas, details on the
current state of progress are still unclear.

Many countries asked the WHO to keep certain issues in mind when
continuing to implement the global strategy.

=93We should not forget the reasons we got into this process,=94 said
Uganda. =93Many people around the world do not have access to products
critical for their health.=94 The nation then encouraged the director
general to make sure other factors, such as access to medications, are
well monitored to ensure goals are being met.

Bolivia asked that traditional knowledge and indigenous rights be
acknowledged. The country =93rejects the possibility of patenting forms
of life,=94 including on microorganisms and said that international
intellectual property standards were out of phase with developments in
the UN Convention on Biological Diversity and the UN Declaration on
the Rights of Indigenous People.

Nongovernmental agencies also weighed in. The International Federation
of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations said that too many
countries have a shortage of health professionals, and asked that the
work environment of such people be improved.

M=E9decins Sans Fronti=E8res called the global strategy =93proactive public
health at its very best=94 and said they have high expectations for the
expert group, but that transparent criteria need to be established for
the selection of experts provided to give testimony to the working
group. The group must hear the perspective of all stakeholders, MSF
said.

Churches Action for Health urged the WHO as well as other involved
intergovernmental organisations, development partners, research
institutions to keep in mind incentives schemes that would de-link the
cost of research from the cost of drugs, including via the Bolivia and
Barbados proposals. The time is ripe, the organisation added, =93to
seriously consider a health and biomedical R&D treaty.=94

Kaitlin Mara may be reached at kmara@ip-watch.ch.


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


Thiru Balasubramaniam
Geneva Representative
Knowledge Ecology International (KEI)
thiru@keionline.org


Tel: +41 22 791 6727
Mobile: +41 76 508 0997