E-DRUG: HAI Global Statement: 126th WHO Executive Board
------------------------------------------------
Agenda Item 4.3 Public health, innovation and intellectual property:
global strategy and plan of action
Delivered on 19 January 2010 by Sophie Bloemen, Projects Officer
Mr. Chair, distinguished Members of the Executive Board, and
representatives from the WHO Member States,
Health Action International (HAI) is a non-governmental organisation and
global network with an expertise and long history in medicines policy
issues, particularly concerning access to essential medicines and their
rational use. We have extensive programmes of work with WHO on themes
related to medicine prices and the rational use of medicines. In recent
years, we have increased efforts on access at a global level, and in
particular on the impact of intellectual property (IP) rights on Public
Health.
We would like to thank the EB for this opportunity to comment on the
implementation of the Global Strategy and Plan of Action on public
health, innovation and intellectual property (GSPA) and specifically,
the Expert Working Group Executive summary put forward for
consideration.
The GSPA marked the end of stage one in an important process to clarify
the impact of intellectual property on Public Health and Access to
Essential Medicines. It is an extensive and comprehensive document,
which benefits from developing country perspectives on pharmaceutical
innovation and enjoys broad support from Member States.
The current system of innovation incentives is based on various forms of
IP protection, which clearly has failed to meet the needs of developing
countries. It fails because neglected diseases do not represent a
lucrative market and therefore, do not attract adequate investment in
pharmaceutical R&D. Moreover, the present patent system fails to ensure
adequate supplies of innovative medicines to developing countries,
because prices remain unaffordable for many families and health systems
worldwide.
As a key output in the follow up of the GSPA, the conclusions of the
Expert Working Group fall short of many expectations with regard to
truly original financing mechanisms that can respond to public health
needs in developing countries. As intellectual property is one of the
central themes of the GSPA and the priority of the IGWG process, it is
surprising that the draft report omits any real discussion of this
important issue. The report's recommendations ignore the debate about
the validity and appropriateness of IP in Public Health.
In fact, the compatibility of the proposals with the existing IP system
seems to be a main concern throughout the report. This is all in stark
contrast to IGWGs fundamental conclusions.
Furthermore, the Executive Summary emphasises the need for global
coordination to improve efficiency in resource allocation for innovation
without any mention of the proposal for a Biomedical R&D treaty
incorporated in the GSPA. Also absent in the Executive Summary is any
treatment of a submission by Bangladesh, Barbados, Bolivia and Suriname
to the EWG in April 2009 on a proposal for WHO discussions on such a
treaty.
Our concerns are not only with the content of the document, but also the
process by which this report has been produced, noted in previous
statements.
Finally, we had been concerned that the Board was being asked to
consider the conclusions of the EWG without having had sufficient
opportunity to review the full report. So, we therefore support the
proposal that the distinguished Members of the Executive Board are
granted the time to review the full report.
Thank you
Posted by:
Terri Beswick
Communications Officer
Health Action International
Tel: +31 20 489 1077
Fax: +31 20685 5002
Email: terri@haiweb.org