E-drug: OXFAM on TRIPS and Medicines
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oxfam Statement on the TRIPS Council Special Session on Patents
and Access to Medicines
18 September 2001
The next two months offer an unparalleled opportunity to shift
WTO patent rules so that life-saving medicines are not priced out of
reach of people living in poverty. Unfortunately, the US and Swiss
governments are blocking proposals to shift the rules in favour of
public health. Oxfam urges industrialised countries, above all the
USA, to support proposals put forward by African countries, to
agree to an in-depth review of TRIPS, and to cease putting pressure
on developing countries to implement unduly restrictive patent
measures.
The outcome of key World Trade Organisation (WTO) meetings over
the next two months will have a major effect on the lives of people
living in poverty. Will vital medicines be affordable in future, or will
WTO patent rules price them out of reach? Unfortunately, the
United States and Swiss governments are blocking attempts by
developing countries to shift the rules. On the eve of the ministerial
conference in Doha, lack of progress on this issue threatens to
undermine still further public confidence in the WTO and to alienate
its developing-country members. More importantly, it threatens the
health of millions of people in developing countries, which is why
Oxfam is promoting a public campaign for WTO members to take
urgent action.
On 19 September, countries belonging to the WTO will meet in
Geneva to discuss the public-health impact of these controversial
rules, known as the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Participants will discuss
proposals for the Doha summit in November. These are crucial
opportunities for governments to correct the fatal mistakes made
when drawing up what was the most significant extension of
patenting rights in the twentieth century.
Prior to the 1999 Seattle summit, over a hundred developing
countries called for changes to the TRIPS agreement to make it less
damaging for public health and for development. But the proposals
fell on deaf ears. Widespread public concern about the issue has
since forced many industrialised countries to shift positions.
Progress is now possible - but only if the WTO, and most notably
the US government, changes its policy. The challenge is all the
greater since corporate lobbies, led by the pharmaceutical sector,
are out in force to defend the rules they designed and promoted.
Transnational companies, being by far the greatest beneficiaries of
globalised intellectual property (IP) rules, have large interests at
stake. Last year, US companies earned US$36.5 billion abroad from
royalties and licensing fees alone, more than half the world total.
From a health perspective, the essential flaw of TRIPS is to oblige
all countries, rich and poor, to grant at least twenty years' patent
protection for new medicines, thereby delaying production of the
inexpensive generic substitutes upon which developing-country
health services and poor people depend. And there is no upside: the
increased profits harvested by international drug firms from
developing-world markets will not be ploughed back into extra
research into poor people's diseases - a fact some companies will in
private admit.
Two million children die every year from pneumonia, almost all of
them in developing countries. US-based Pfizer's best-selling
antibiotic, azithromycin (Zithromax), is particularly good for treating
child pneumonia. It is under patent in Kenya, where it costs as
much as in Norway. But Kenya only spends US$17 per head every
year on healthcare, while Norway spends US$2300. Kenya is not
allowed to import the generic equivalent available in India at
one-fifth of the price. Indian companies manufacture azithromycin
because the government has not yet implemented medicine
patenting. If TRIPS-compliant rules had come in earlier, manufacture
would have been impossible.
Many rich countries argue that TRIPS is a blend of principles and
general rules which gives countries sufficient freedom in the design
of national laws, and provides safeguards for protecting the public
interest, such as leeway to override patents on health grounds. In
practice, the US government presses developing countries into
passing 'TRIPS plus' legislation based on the most restrictive
interpretation of TRIPS, shorn of the already-weak safeguards that
TRIPS allows, and containing levels of IP protection that go well
beyond anything mandated by TRIPS. These pressures, from which
Brazil, South Africa, the Dominican Republic, and Thailand have all
suffered, are backed by the threat of unilateral trade sanctions,
which can be authorised either by Section 301 of the US Trade Act,
or by successfully appealing to the WTO 'court'. The US
administration also makes extensive use of treaties such as the Free
Trade Area of the Americas and dozens of investment agreements
to achieve the same aims. However, rigid defence of high levels of
IP protection is a risky strategy for industrialised countries. Refusal
to countenance even pro-public health interpretations of TRIPS
would provoke a backlash against the patent system, reduce the
chances of consensus over a new round of trade talks, and further
damage the public standing of the WTO.
What the WTO member states do now about TRIPS and access to
medicines is widely seen as a decisive test for whether global trade
is managed for people or merely for profit. For the sake of the
millions of people in poverty, Oxfam urges the industrialised
countries:
- to support the interpretation of TRIPS put forward by the African
nations for approval at Doha; the proposal affirms the primacy of
public-health objectives and strengthens the safeguards, and is
backed by many Latin American and Asian countries
- to support a commitment at Doha for an in-depth review into the
health and development impact of TRIPS, with a view to amending
the length and scope of pharmaceutical patents and other IP rights
- to cease putting pressure on developing countries to implement
'TRIPS plus' or unduly restrictive patent measures, whether through
bilateral economic agreements or the threat of sanctions.
Contact: Michael Bailey in Geneva (mobile) +44 1865 7968
196102
--
Send mail for the `E-Drug' conference to `e-drug@usa.healthnet.org'.
Information and archive http://satellife.healthnet.org/programs/edrug.html
Mail administrative requests to `majordomo@usa.healthnet.org'.
For additional assistance, send mail to: `owner-e-drug@usa.healthnet.org'.