|
||
|
March 2014 NGOs SLAM US PROPOSAL FOR TRADE PACT The proposed "differentiated approach" by the US in the Trans-Pacific trade pact could curtail access to affordable medicine for all, civil society groups claim. By Kanaga Raja Geneva – A group of civil society organisations has voiced deep concern over the public health implications of a "differential treatment approach" proposed by the United States trade negotiators to the Intellectual Property (IP) chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement. In a joint statement issued on 12 February, the groups said that this "new" approach "not only preserves the life-threatening and access-restricting proposals that USTR [US Trade Representative] has been pushing since 2011, forcing all TPP countries to go far beyond internationally agreed World Trade Organisation (WTO) obligations contained in the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property [Rights] Agreement (TRIPS), but also fails to provide adequate recognition of the urgent access to medicines needs of patients living in developing countries." Among the groups taking this joint position are Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF), Oxfam America, Public Citizen, HealthGAP, Knowledge Ecology International (KEI), Fundacion Mision Salud, the American Medical Student Association, the Student Global AIDS Campaign, CEPFAR, and the Alianza LAC-Global. The concerns of civil society organisations resurfaced following an address delivered by USTR Michael Froman at the Washington-based Center for American Progress on 18 February, in which he had, amongst others, touted the US-proposed "differentiated approach" for IP protection for pharmaceuticals in the TPP. [In his address at the Center for American Progress on 18 February, titled "A Values-Driven Trade Policy", Froman covered various aspects of US trade policy. Speaking about broadening the benefits of innovation to the public and enabling cross-border collaboration, Froman said that the US is "working to find better ways to foster affordable access to medicines, support freedom of information and encourage the free flow of ideas across the digital world." [The USTR went on to offer some examples, one being the TPP, on which he said: "We are asking our TPP partners to accept WTO agreement provisions allowing for the export of generic versions of patented drugs to countries with insufficient manufacturing capacity. In the TPP, we are proposing a ‘differentiated approach' for pharmaceutical IP protections which takes into account countries' individual levels of development and other challenges to ensure that the benefits of innovation are shared with the world's poor." [Froman further claimed: "And, for the first time in any trade agreement, we are asking our trading partners to secure robust balance in their copyright systems – an unprecedented move that draws directly on US copyright exceptions and limitations, including fair use for important purposes such as scholarship, criticism, news commentary, teaching, and research ...". The full text of USTR Froman's speech can be found at: http://www.americanprogress.org/events/2014/02/12/84107/remarks-from-u-s-trade-representative-michael-froman/ [Meanwhile, a post by Ben Beachy, Research Director with Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, on Public Citizen's "Eyes on Trade" blog on 19 February has countered the USTR's assertions about fostering access to affordable medicines in the TPP, saying that: "Leaked negotiating texts reveal that US proposals for the TPP go beyond prior US pacts in handing large pharmaceutical corporations unprecedented monopoly patent protections that would restrict the availability of life-saving generic medicines and raise healthcare costs in TPP countries." [Titled "Fact-checking Froman: The Top 10 Myths Used by Obama's Top Trade Official", the blog post said: "The US TPP proposals would empower pharmaceutical firms to extend medicine patents beyond what the World Trade Organisation allows, to patent even the methods for treating patients, and to re-patent existing medicines without actually inventing anything new. A broad array of public health groups have condemned the overreaching US TPP proposals, warning that they would ‘jeopardize many, if not millions, of lives.'"] In their joint statement of 12 February, the civil society groups said that over the last three years, they as well as public health and development experts, the Vatican, Members of the US Congress, and trading partners of the US in the TPP negotiations have repeatedly expressed concerns "about the public health and global access to medicines implications of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) efforts to augment pharmaceutical monopoly power by creating excessive and additional intellectual property (IP) norms in the TPP." In response, the groups noted, in November 2013, during the Salt Lake City round of the TPP negotiations, United States trade negotiators proposed a "differential treatment approach" to the TPP IP chapter claiming to be extending some of the public health flexibilities included in the 2007 New Trade Policy (May 10 Agreement) to the developing countries currently negotiating the TPP. "We are deeply concerned about the public health implications that these measures will have for millions of patients in need of access to affordable medicines around the whole Asia-Pacific region, and about the mis-characterisation of this proposal as being coherent with the May 10 Agreement," said the civil society organisations (CSOs). Recognising the detrimental impact of excessive IP protections for developing countries, the CSOs said in their statement that the May 10 Agreement "took a necessary, though still insufficient step" in the right direction. "The deal provided developing countries negotiating trade agreements with the United States at the time – Peru, Colombia and Panama – flexibilities for the implementation of the most burdensome IP provisions on the table during those negotiations (patent linkage, patent term extensions, and data exclusivity)." The groups said that they are concerned that "even the principles of the May 10 Agreement – to avoid the harmful effects of excessive IP protections in less wealthy countries where many people still live in poverty – are not being maintained in the TPP negotiations." The groups were specifically concerned that the USTR's proposal will impose undue burdens on public health in the following ways: * USTR's proposal seeks to impose unprecedented and excessive "TRIPS-plus" IP protections for both developed and developing countries. In this regard, the joint statement said that the USTR's proposal seeks to limit the flexibilities granted under the TRIPS Agreement aimed at protecting public health, and oblige countries to implement new and harsher measures that will endanger access to medicines. Such measures favour the expansion of drug monopolies at the expense of patients' health, it added. * The USTR proposal fails to preserve even the modest pro-access steps achieved under the May 10 Agreement. According to the groups' joint statement, the TPP imposes new and harsher measures for health that were never part of the US trade agreements with Peru, Colombia and Panama and therefore were not considered in the May 10 Agreement. Yet, the statement stressed, all TPP countries are expected to adopt these new provisions, which include: -- lower patentability standards that will expand the scope of what can be patented, thus facilitating patent ‘evergreening' and prolonging access barriers for existing medicines; -- patents for methods of treating patients such as surgical, diagnostic, and therapeutic medical procedures that will increase healthcare costs and limit availability of medical best-practices, knowledge and care; and -- a special, extra-long additional period of data exclusivity for biologics that will block access to more affordable biotech medicines that are urgently needed to treat diseases such as cancer and hepatitis. * The USTR's differential treatment proposal is not only inadequate in scope - failing to fully incorporate the May 10 Agreement - it is also unacceptably limited in scale. According to the civil society groups, under the USTR's proposal, only a few of the less wealthy countries will be eligible for differential treatment, and they would still be forced to adopt access-restrictive IP protections in the long-term. "USTR's differential treatment proposal simply consists of the limited application of some of the harmful provisions of the IP chapter (patent linkage, patent term extensions, and certain types of data exclusivity) for certain developing countries," they said. "Yet, the terms of these provisions may still be more restrictive than those afforded to developing countries under the May 10 Agreement." Further, these different standards would only be available until those countries cross a certain income threshold. And they may not be available for other developing countries that may accede to the TPP in the future. By contrast, the groups noted, the terms offered to Peru, Colombia and Panama under the May 10 Agreement were permanent. "We stress the importance of ensuring the negotiations take into account the health needs and economic disparities of ALL patients living in TPP countries, and urge USTR to halt its efforts to limit countries' freedom and flexibilities under accepted international norms to implement IP standards that are most appropriate for their public health needs," said the groups' statement. Otherwise, it warned, the proposed "high-standard, 21st century" trade deal will prove to be a low standard for public health and jeopardize many, if not millions, of lives. – Third World Network Features. -ends-
The above article is reproduced from SUNS #7749, 24 February 2014. When reproducing this feature, please credit Third World Network Features and (if applicable) the cooperating magazine or agency involved in the article, and give the byline. Please send us cuttings. And if reproduced on the internet, please send the web link where the article appears to twnet@po.jaring.my. 4068/14
|
||
