The EU has provided KEI with a copy of the EU statement delivered at the 65th World Health Assembly on Wed, May 23, 2012, on the WHO Consultative Expert Working Group on R&D Financing. In a nutshell, the EU position is to “generally support” the US led position, and to slow everything down. Here are some of the main points:
- We recognise that current measures are insufficient, although we also cherish the collective efforts that have been made with respect to the issue so far.
- As the CEWG report correctly cites, the EU recognizes in its 2010 council conclusions the need for action in this area.
- We first need to agree on the exact scope of the initiative, including how to deal with the categories of diseases, and by which to possibly start.
- Second, we need to have sufficient data on MS current R&D efforts and public spending on health research.
- Our third point is that the discussion needs to be put in perspective with the WHO reform process.
- For all these reasons we generally support the line proposed in the Draft Resolution proposed by US, Canada, Australia and Japan.
The EU statement follows:
Consultative Expert Working Group Report
FINAL EU STATEMENT
1. The EU thanks the CEWG for its report which provides a rich range of recommendations to the follow up of the Global strategy and plan of Action on Public Health, innovation and intellectual property action.
2. We appreciate the fact that the report concludes an in-depth work conducted in a transparent manner.
3. We recognise that current measures are insufficient, although we also cherish the collective efforts that have been made with respect to the issue so far. The progress report on follow up of the WHA61.21, under agenda item 13.6 clearly demonstrate the EU firm commitment, among other partners, to the implementation of the Strategy and the Plan of Action.
4. Our position is that more clarity is needed on what we want to achieve before discussing the legal nature of the outcome of the discussion The EU is confident that exploring practical and flexible solutions is likely to help setting the components of a comprehensive approach. If its different parameters are clearly defined and agreed upon, this could lead to framing a global package.
As the CEWG report correctly cites, the EU recognizes in its 2010 council conclusions the need for action in this area. We are ready to discuss what form this action could take once we all agree on what we all want to achieve.
5. We have found it impossible to complete a substantive analysis of the comprehensive recommendations of the CEWG’s report before the Sixty-fifth World Health Assembly but can provide a few preliminary remarks :
First, we first need to agree on the exact scope of the initiative, including how to deal with the categories of diseases, and by which to possibly start.
Second, we need to have sufficient data on MS current R&D efforts and public spending on health research. The coming publication on the funding landscape for research and development to tackle infectious diseases will help inform the discussion. The report is currently prepared by UNICEF, UNDP, the World Bank and the WHO Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases.
Our third point is that the discussion needs to be put in perspective with the WHO reform process. We need feasibility studies and a clear assessment of where this item fits in the WHO priority setting, its work and the next General Program of Work.
6. For all these reasons we generally support the line proposed in the Draft Resolution proposed by US, Canada, Australia and Japan.