SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
Subscribing entitles a reader to complete stories on all topics released as they happen, special features, confidential documents and access to the complete, searchable story archive online back to 2004.

Advertisement


Inside Views

Submit ideas to info [at] ip-watch [dot] ch!

We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

To What Extent Can Global IP Rules Be Responsive To Public Interest Demands? The Case Of The Treaty For The Visually Impaired

To what extent can global intellectual property rules address in an effective manner the needs of the most vulnerable members of society? This is the key question with which member states of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) are faced as they prepare to meet next week for a diplomatic conference, in Marrakesh, that should result in the adoption of a treaty to facilitate access to copyrighted works by visually impaired persons and persons with print disabilities.


Interview With Tanja Rajić: The Impact Of EU Enlargement On Trademark Practice In Croatia

Ten years after applying for membership, Croatia is finally joining the European Union on 1 July 2013. Tanja Rajić, senior associate at PETOSEVIC, explains how six years of accession negotiations and the adoption of the acquis communautaire have affected intellectual property protection in Croatia and prepared it for becoming a member state.





Latest Comments
  • We've taken a detailed look at the Myriad decision... »
  • “INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY BLUEPRINT 2014-2020”by Jeon... »

  • For IPW Subscribers
    A directory of IP delegates in Geneva. Read more>

    A guide to Geneva-based public health and intellectual property organisations. Read More >

    Monthly Reporter

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter, published from 2004 to January 2011, is a 16-page monthly selection of the most important, updated stories and features, plus the People and News Briefs columns.

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter is available in an online archive on the IP-Watch website, available for IP-Watch Subscribers.

    Access the Monthly Reporter Archive >


    Chan: WHO Embarking On “Most Extensive” Reforms In Its History

    Published on 16 May 2011 @ 8:01 pm

    By , Intellectual Property Watch

    World Health Organization Director General Margaret Chan today presented her broad vision of a reformed WHO at the opening of the annual assembly of the organisation, and said the WHO was clear of suspicion of alleged pharmaceutical industry influence on the management of the H1N1 pandemic.

    The World Health Assembly (WHA) meeting from 16-24 May will address diverse health-related issues, such as the future financing of the organisation, pandemic influenza preparedness, AIDS, fake medicines, communicable and noncommunicable disease, and reforms of the organisation.

    Chan said the WHO is facing financial difficulties, and having to cut back on “some of our traditional areas of work,” but, she said, “We are most definitely not bankrupt.”

    However, times have changed, she said. “When WHO was dealing mainly with germs, hygiene, medicines, vaccines and sister sectors, like water supply and sanitation, our job was much more straightforward. But that job has changed, gradually over time and then dramatically within the past decade,” she said, making reform essential.

    WHO is “embarking on the most extensive administrative, managerial, and financial reforms, especially financial accountability, in its 63-year history,” she said.

    “I have a vision,” Chan said, “of a WHO that gives a bigger voice to the many partners working on health, but encourages them to speak with a coherent voice that responds, first and foremost, to the needs and priorities as defined by recipient countries.”

    “On this journey of reaffirmation, remembrance, reform and revitalisation,” that Chan called on countries to join, Chan said her vision included “a WHO that pursues excellence,” an efficient, responsive, objective, transparent and accountable organisation. She also called for effective development aid that builds capacities for countries. “Countries want a hand up, not a hand-out,” she said.

    Chan’s vision is laid out in her report on the future of financing for WHO [pdf].

    Chan’s opening speech was punctuated with the chorus phrase “remember the people,” as she commended advances in vaccines and in the improved accessibility of treatments in developing countries, such as a vaccine preventing meningitis in Africa. The vaccine, she said, was coordinated by WHO and PATH, a non-profit organisation, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The vaccine was developed in record time, ant at about “one-tenth of the cost usually need to bring a product through development to the market.”

    She also said that innovative financing mechanisms from the GAVI Alliance had helped issue new vaccines against diarrhoea and pneumonia.

    A new diagnostic test for tuberculosis was also developed and “WHO endorsement of the test brought an immediate price reduction of 75 percent for developing countries,” Chan said. She also praised the “massive drug donations from both traditional and newly supportive pharmaceutical companies” of treatment of neglected tropical diseases.

    “The purchasing power of development dollars has expanded, and this means expanded access to medical products for the poor,” she said, adding that all the achievements were the result of good collaboration with countries, other UN agencies, global health initiatives and funding mechanisms, civil society, foundations, and the private sector.

    WHO’s Clean Hands in H1N1 Pandemic

    Chan said that the report of the Review Committee on the Functioning of the International Health Regulations (2005) in relation to Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 had cleared the WHO of the allegation of possible undue influence by the pharmaceutical industry in the management of the H1N1 pandemic. Concerns after it became apparent that the virus turned out to be relatively mild and industry received a substantial financial benefit from the declaration of pandemic.

    According to Chan, the report answers the two main questions about the pandemic: Was WHO right about declaring a pandemic, and were WHO decisions shaped by ties with the pharmaceutical industry. “In other words, did WHO declare a fake pandemic in order to line the pockets of industry?” she said.

    Chan said that the 180-page report [pdf] “exonerates WHO on both counts.” The report offers some constructive criticism, and gives a number of specific recommendations to better prepare for the next global public health emergency.

    WHO Having Identity Crisis, NGO Says

    The People´s Health Movement issued a press release [pdf], saying that the WHO is facing a financial crisis, but “is also suffering from a crisis of identity and legitimacy.

    WHO’s “role and mandate have been diluted and usurped by the proliferation of new actors in the field of global health,” it said.

    “The driver of the reforms foreshadowed in the DG’s report [pdf] is the financial crisis in which the WHO finds itself,” the NGO said. “In accordance with the demands of the donors, the report simply addresses issues of effectiveness, efficiency, responsiveness, objectivity, transparency and accountability. However, while the report sets out broad directions for the WHO, it has few concrete recommendations and inadequate analysis of the financial crisis.”

    US Backs WHO

    United States Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sibelius, in her address to the plenary today, committed to supporting Chan’s agenda for reform.

    Sibelius also said that progress has been made on infectious diseases, “but we must remain vigilant.” She highlighted the smallpox virus, and said the Assembly should not set an immediate date for the destruction of the last known samples of the virus.

    “Today, most of the world’s population has no immunity to the disease, and it is quite possible that undisclosed or forgotten stocks of smallpox exist,” she said in prepared remarks, adding that the virus’ genetic code is available on the internet and the technology exists to wrongfully create a new smallpox virus in a laboratory.

    The US has effective vaccines, but global supplies are limited. “We have more work to do before these safe and highly effective vaccines and antiviral treatments are fully developed and approved for use,” she said. “Once they are ready, we intend to share the fruits of this research with the world.”

    Catherine Saez may be reached at info@ip-watch.ch.

     

    Comments

    1. Riaz K Tayob says:

      Chan is in a tough battle. 80% of her budget is off-budget not under member state control, a choice largely made by the rich country donors. This is a choice that is undemocratic and anti-multilateral. The failures of WHO (and exonoration or not) must be shared by the rich countries as well, who are the prime beneficiaries of WHO policies, even though something nice is done for the poor countries once in a while especially if there is good publicity on offer.
      What actually is happening in Global Public Health is a tragedy unfolding before our eyes. The same “stakeholders” (don’t you just love that pandering word?) who used the rich countries’ levers of power to kick African butt (on small pox, compulsory licenses, user-fees, swine flu “pandemic”;) are now using it against their populations: 40 million Americans without health care, the UK dismantling its NHS, pharma pricing in Australia under attack, etc. It was fine for WHO to parade the “steer don’t row” mantra for poor countries, but it fails to do it for the rich countries. Why? Chan is on a nice short leash!
      Will democratic multilateral governance win out or will WHO be on an even shorter leash after the much needed reforms? That is an open question, but if WHO is exonerated on the Swine Flu issue, then there ain’t no blowback, and it business as usual. And while there is a case for WHO reforms, if the rich countries are supporting it, then it is reasonable to presume that whatever “good stuff” is in the reforms will go the same was as the single payer issue in US Healthcare reform. Pity that WHO has not cultivated people with an institutional loyalty (obsequiousness pays, with good people and publications hounded out regularly by the organisation and rich countries) in the upper to provide some resitance. The only internal hope is the WHO Staff Association that for years relates critiques politely at meetings but hardly ever gets heard and whose prime concern is that WHO is a leading precarious employer in the UN system. Short leashes everywhere. And now we can expect that Global Public Health will move inevitably to the Global Health Security issue… as the rich countries ordered in the undemocratically selected title for a World Health Report.

    2. News updates out of World Health Assembly | Humanosphere says:

      [...] IP Watch: WHO head embarking on most extensive reforms in history [...]


    Leave a Reply

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website. By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

    By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

    2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

    3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

    4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

    5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

    6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

    7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

    8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

    9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

     

     
    Your IP address is 50.16.36.153