Attac about TRIPS
By: Attac
Sand in the Wheels (n°103), November 7, 2001
Divisions in the EU over the TRIPS
At the October 12th meeting of Committee 13 in Brussels, the Committee's
proposal for a more pliant Trips position on compulsory licences was
rejected.
The
pharmaceutical industry revealed that opposition to the proposal came
mainly from Germany and the Britain, whose labs had most to lose from this
proposal if adopted.
The
developing countries, headed by Brazil and India, want the Trips clauses
allowing the use of compulsory licences to be interpreted as meaning that,
in the event of a national emergeny or "extreme urgency", these
licences could be imposed and could by-pass negotiations with the patent
holder, the government concerned being allowed to consider valid a
compulsory licence coming from another member state.
The
USA and Switzerland, which are home to some of the biggest laboratories,
are against a declaration on this subject, and stick to their stand that
the Trips already contains clauses allowing governments sufficient room
for pliability in ensuring access to medicines for Aids or other
pandemics.
The pharmaceutical industry considers that
Brussels leans too far in the direction of the developing countries'
position
It
is thought that this proposal to soften the Trips rulings was made with
the idea that it would bring more Southern countries to support a new
Round.
The EU proposal
nevertheless included a ban on the re-export of medicines and on demand
being met by local producers.
Another clause
provided that no country could issue compulsory licences if it already
benefited from special tariff conditions, reduced below the price normally
due to the patent holder.
Anthrax and TRIPS
The link between the Trips and access to essential medicines is still very
much in the public eye, with Canada having recently set aside the Bayer
patent on an antibiotic, Cipro, intended for the treatment of anthrax, so
as to be able to buy a generic version of the drug produced locally,
despite the fact that Bayer said it was able to respond to demand. Canada
is accused of using doublespeak, since it actively took part in defending
the laboratory patents in the treatment of Aids in developing countries.
The US was not duped, and criticized Canada's position, fearing that it
would weaken the American position with regard to the use of compulsory
licences in a national emergency. (Canada finally decided to buy the Bayer
medicine). However, an American coalition demanded that the US follow the
Canadian example, considering that a decision not to provide generic
medicines would prevent poor Americans from obtaining Cipro. The Director
of the Brazilian Aids Programme declared : "I hope this case (of
anthrax) will bring them to reflect on our position, which is that
compulsory licences are a perfectly legitimate instrument."
In Geneva, states take diametrically
opposed stands on the TRIPS
The US has submitted a new proposal, suggesting that the transitional
period for implementing the agreements could be extended to 2016 for the
Least Developed Countries. It proposed a 5-year moratorium before a suit
could be presented to the DSB on the application by developing countries
in Sub-Saharan Africa for improved access to medicines for treatment of
Aids and other pandemics.
This proposal is however considered narrower and more restrictive than the
options already available to the Least Advanced Countries, such as the
right according to Art.66 to demand an extension at the end of the
transitional period ending in 2005.
The EU, for its part, proposes that the developing countries take measures
to prevent cheaper medicines finding their way to the markets of developed
countries. The developing countries fear that this clause would restrict
the Trips options, which make no mention of such an obligation.
To contact them http://www.attac.org
|
