[Ip-health] WHA debate on the R&D treaty

Jamie Love james.love at keionline.org
Wed May 23 01:39:28 PDT 2012


To be a bit more precise, at #WHA65: Australia, Canada, Japan, Monaco
and the US have submitted a resolution on the #CEWG report
(A65/A/Conf. Paper No.5), and there will be a negotiation among
countries to try to reach a consensus text.   Thiru is at the WHA for
KEI, along with MSF, UAEM, TWN, HAI, Oxfam, DNDi, Berne Declaration,
PHM and some others, and news will also be on twitter with the has tag
#wha65.

I will say that all of the four proposed resolutions on the CEWG could
be read positively, since all require a consideration of the CEWG
recommendations, including those on open innovation and financing R&D.
 But there is considerable skepticism regarding the intentions of
those supporting the Swiss and US led proposals.

For those not in Geneva, it has been pretty clear this week that the
big drug companies are no longer opposing the R&D treaty, a fact
confirmed yesterday by the IFPMA, GSK and every by PhRMA hardliner
Abbott.  This makes opposition to the treaty increasingly difficult
for the US and certain European countries to justify.  The US position
is particularly hard to appreciate, since the US is among the
countries that are already spending more money than the CWEG mandates
of .01 precent of GDP, on type II and III disease R&D, and the
agreement would lift the level of R&D spending by other countries,
including developing countries, which collectively would have an
obligation of about $2 billion per year.

Under the CEWG proposal, the obligations for spending on Type II and
III disease R&D, including both the money spent in national programs
and via pooled funding mechanisms, are presented below.  This is based
on 2010 GPD levels, and assuming everyone joined and paid (which is
highly unlikely):

World   $6,325,697,022
High income     $4,323,994,672
Low & middle income     $2,008,549,131
Middle income   $1,964,509,032
Upper middle income     $1,531,908,513
Lower middle income     $432,295,516
Low income      $41,921,002
Euro area       $1,214,912,395
European Union  $1,624,113,549
Latin America & Caribbean $512,324,260
Least developed countries: UN classification    $61,113,154
North America   $1,616,954,098
Sub-Saharan Africa  $112,362,602
Caribbean small states $5,875,534

Right now I am at WIPO, where patents on health will be discussed,
apparently all day.

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 2:40 AM, Jamie Love <james.love at keionline.org> wrote:
> Next time some US or EU trade officials starts to lecture people about
> the importance of R&D, in justifying some new IPR agreement, ask them
> why they oppose a binding agreement at the WHO to increase R&D
> spending?  If R&D is important, why oppose measures that would
> increase the amount of spending on R&D?
>
> And, if "binding" agreements are such a bad idea, why adopt ACTA, the
> WCT, the WPPT, and the zillion IPR chapters in various trade
> agreements?
>
> Today countries will begin to give their formal positions on the R&D
> treaty.  There are already four formal resolutions in the mix.  In the
> order to which they either support or oppose an R&D treaty, they would
> be ranked:  Kenya, UNASUR, Switzerland and the United States.    In
> other words, Africa and Latin America are pushing for more medical
> R&D, and the United States and Switzerland are saying R&D is not that
> important.
>
>
> --
> James Love.  Knowledge Ecology International
> http://www.keionline.org, +1.202.332.2670, US Mobile: +1.202.361.3040,
> Geneva Mobile: +41.76.413.6584, efax: +1.888.245.3140.
> twitter.com/jamie_love




More information about the Ip-health mailing list