WHO, Innovation and Health - the next stage
Thanks to IP Watch for this helpful report on the present status of CIPIH follow up.
After week long discussions, with drafting being carried out "live" on a big screen (oh that brings back happy memories of practice), a draft resolution has been prepared to be considered by the World Health Assembly on 22-27 May.
Key features of the resolution are to take advantage of the flexiblity offered in TRIPS and the Doha Declaration in respect of public health (with Kenya also proposing an (undiscussed) subresolution referring to other TRIPS material regarding impact on public health, and a balance of rights and obligations); and the need to ensure that bilateral agreements do not impose TRIPS PLUS requirements on developing countries which reduce access to medicines. More generally, the appointment of an intergovernmental working group is sought. The report also has an interesting interview with Graham Dutfield on whole issue.
I'm intrigued to see what happens next. As is referred to in the report, while it is of great value that these discussions are taking place at all, are they taking place in the most appropriate forum? If the flexibilities in TRIPS are, as is the case, already there, what can the WHA do to encourage their exploration? And of what use is this given the risk of TRIPS PLUS bilaterals? That said, the fate of the TRIPS balances so far suggests that political, as well as legal, support is necessary for them to work. Might the WHA contribute to this?
After week long discussions, with drafting being carried out "live" on a big screen (oh that brings back happy memories of practice), a draft resolution has been prepared to be considered by the World Health Assembly on 22-27 May.
Key features of the resolution are to take advantage of the flexiblity offered in TRIPS and the Doha Declaration in respect of public health (with Kenya also proposing an (undiscussed) subresolution referring to other TRIPS material regarding impact on public health, and a balance of rights and obligations); and the need to ensure that bilateral agreements do not impose TRIPS PLUS requirements on developing countries which reduce access to medicines. More generally, the appointment of an intergovernmental working group is sought. The report also has an interesting interview with Graham Dutfield on whole issue.
I'm intrigued to see what happens next. As is referred to in the report, while it is of great value that these discussions are taking place at all, are they taking place in the most appropriate forum? If the flexibilities in TRIPS are, as is the case, already there, what can the WHA do to encourage their exploration? And of what use is this given the risk of TRIPS PLUS bilaterals? That said, the fate of the TRIPS balances so far suggests that political, as well as legal, support is necessary for them to work. Might the WHA contribute to this?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home