Debates of the European Parliament 1

22-10-2009 EN Debates of the European Parliament 1 THURSDAY, 22 OCTOBER 2009 IN THE CHAIR: MR MARTÍNEZ MARTÍNEZ Vice-President 1. Opening of the sitting (The sitting was opened at 09.00) 2. Transfers of appropriations: see Minutes 3. Documents received: see Minutes 4. Problem of limited access of developing countries to some vaccines (debate) President. – The first item is the oral question to the Commission from Mr Goerens, on behalf of the Group of the Alliance of Democrats and Liberals for Europe, on the problem of limited access of developing countries to some vaccines (O-0100/2009 – B7-0214/2009) Charles Goerens, author. – (FR) Mr President, within the context of this question to the Commission, I would like to help explore the routes likely to put an end to an injustice that consists in denying 80% of the world’s population access to the A (H1N1) flu vaccine in particular, and to vaccines in general. The problem is not new. In fact, the question comes up every year in connection with the flu season. Generally speaking, new seasonal flu viruses first appear in developing countries. From then on, laboratories in the industrialised countries start producing a new vaccine. They can only begin production if they have previously obtained strains from the country – generally a developing country – where the new type of flu first emerged. Once developed, the vaccine is only just enough to protect the populations of the industrialised countries. The result is that the populations of the South are unprotected against pandemics. I am addressing the Commission in order to ask it what it intends to do to end this injustice. Is it morally defensible to have the level of health protection available to a population depend on the financial resources its country has? I would therefore like to know whether the Commission can tell us what resources it is able to mobilise to fill this gap. What, if need be, would be the Commission’s strategy, and what partnerships would it establish with the states concerned and with the institutions of the United Nations’ system, or with the private sector, in the effort to enable citizens in developing countries to have access to the vaccine? Does the WHO’s system of protecting intellectual property, which I did not mention in my written version, constitute an obstacle to the production of vaccines by developing countries? If so, would the European Union be prepared to initiate a debate within the WHO aimed at removing that obstacle? I would like to add one final question. Can the Commission outline the measures to be taken to improve the standard of health infrastructure in developing countries, an essential precondition for fairer access to vaccines? Leonard Orban, Member of the Commission. – (RO) I would like to thank the distinguished MEP Charles Goerens for his question, which gives me the opportunity to deal with both the aspects relating directly to the influenza A (H1N1) pandemic and wider aspects concerning the European Commission’s contribution to improving health infrastructures in developing countries. The Community has taken action against the influenza A (H1N1) pandemic both internally and externally. In fact, we are dealing with a crisis requiring a global approach, both for reasons of effectiveness in terms of protecting our citizens and from considerations linked to solidarity with less developed countries. We talk about effectiveness in terms of the rapid alert systems, the close monitoring of the development of the pandemic and actual virus itself, as well as the assessment of the effectiveness of the preventive and curative measures adopted in the countries where the pandemic first occurred, which are all vital elements in preparing and adapting our own responses. However, we also talk about solidarity because the Europe 2 EN Debates of the European Parliament 22-10-2009 Union, as a main financer of public development aid and a key partner of a large number of developing countries, must support these countries in facing these new threats. In our response to these threats, the Commission and the European Union as a whole are not starting their efforts from scratch. Based on the precedent of bird flu, resulting from the H5N1 virus, the EU has been able to introduce, along with international organisations such as the World Health Organisation, the World Bank and others, effective procedures for exchanging information and coordinating technical assistance, as well as financial instruments such as a trust fund at the World Bank. As Mrs Chan, Director-General of the World Health Organisation, says, the world has never been so well prepared for a pandemic. The Commission has already played and continues to play a particularly important role in these systems whose components have now been extended to cover every type of flu threat. As regards the developing countries’ generalised access to vaccines, the new flu pandemic has revived the debate which has been going on for well over two years within the WHO and the working party making the preparations for the flu pandemic, set up at the request of the World Health Assembly, following the decision made by Indonesia, referred to by Mr Goerens. This week in Geneva, the WHO is presenting its first recommendations from the group in which the Community has played an active role. In accordance with the World Assembly’s resolution, the final recommendations must be presented to the WHO’s Executive Council, which will meet at the end of January. At that juncture, the best possible balance must be identified between, on the one hand, boosting the research into and rapid development of new medical products largely derived from private sector research, for which intellectual property rights nowadays provide a key form of incentive, and, on the other hand, fairness in terms of providing access to the products developed from this research. The European Community has reservations regarding any restriction on the exchange of biological material required to carry out the relevant research activities. Active international collaboration on a transparent basis and coordinated by legitimate institutions, such as the WHO and its network, is crucial to the rapid development and distribution of solutions for responding to the pandemic. In the specific case of influenza A (H1N1), for which there were no vaccine stocks available, there has also been the issue of production capacity and who has first option on this capacity when huge orders are placed by the countries which have the necessary resources. The commitment made by some vaccine manufacturers and, more recently, by some countries to earmark 10% of their production or orders for donations or sale at a reduced price to developing countries is an encouraging sign of global solidarity. As far as the Commission is concerned, the provision of assistance to third countries in tackling the pandemic is vital and must not just be limited to access to vaccines when they are available. It is of paramount importance to continue the support provided by the Commission and Member States in various forms, aimed at consolidating health infrastructures, along with assistance for projects, sectoral or general budget support for partner countries, and even support for international organisations. Respect for the principle of allowing countries to assume responsibility for their own development and the commitments to provide effective aid will need to be guaranteed by ensuring, in particular, that attention will continue to be focused on priority diseases and interventions. The response to a pandemic is actually based, first and foremost, on having health infrastructures that are better equipped and treat cases early in order to have available, in a fair manner, preventive resources when they are available. In the event of a severe crisis, the European Commission will be able to mobilise its humanitarian and emergency intervention resources and will also be able to demonstrate flexibility in its use of the resources already allocated to partner countries which have requested assistance. During such severe crises, non-governmental organisations and, in fact, major institutional networks will definitely have an important role to play. The Commission therefore knows that it can count on these agencies also effectively swinging into action. Gay Mitchell, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, the inevitable arrival and recurrence of a flu pandemic has thrust the issue of vaccination to the forefront of the news agenda. However, this has been a long-standing and persistent problem for the developing world. The oral question this morning raises an excellent point about the hypocrisy and inequity of the Western world demanding materials for vaccines from developing countries to protect their rich citizens, and then having the audacity to sell the selfsame vaccines back to the poor. 22-10-2009 EN Debates of the European Parliament 3 Above and beyond the need for the developing world to have similar access to flu vaccinations, we must strive to set up a system whereby the poorest people of the world, who are almost invariably more exposed to disease, have the opportunity which we in the West take for granted to protect themselves from preventable diseases. Tuberculosis is a good example of the contrast between us and our neighbours in the developing world. In Europe, children are routinely given the BCG vaccination, which has greater than 80% effectiveness. This has led to a situation in Europe where TB is not the persistent threat is once was. Contrast this with the developing world, where 26% of avoidable deaths are caused by tuberculosis. The effect of TB in these countries is exacerbated by the fact that it is a highly infectious airborne disease that spreads easily within confined spaces such as the squalid shanty towns so prevalent in many developing nations.

Load more