news analysis advocacy
tips on searching

Search AfricaFocus and 9 Partner Sites

 

 

Visit the AfricaFocus
Country Pages

Algeria
Angola
Benin
Botswana
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cameroon
Cape Verde
Central Afr. Rep.
Chad
Comoros
Congo (Brazzaville)
Congo (Kinshasa)
C�te d'Ivoire
Djibouti
Egypt
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Gabon
Gambia
Ghana
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Kenya
Lesotho
Liberia
Libya
Madagascar
Malawi
Mali
Mauritania
Mauritius
Morocco
Mozambique
Namibia
Niger
Nigeria
Rwanda
São Tomé
Senegal
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Somalia
South Africa
South Sudan
Sudan
Swaziland
Tanzania
Togo
Tunisia
Uganda
Western Sahara
Zambia
Zimbabwe

Get AfricaFocus Bulletin by e-mail!

Print this page

Note: This document is from the archive of the Africa Policy E-Journal, published by the Africa Policy Information Center (APIC) from 1995 to 2001 and by Africa Action from 2001 to 2003. APIC was merged into Africa Action in 2001. Please note that many outdated links in this archived document may not work.


Africa: Right to Health

Africa: Right to Health
Date distributed (ymd): 011110
Document reposted by APIC

Africa Policy Electronic Distribution List: an information service provided by AFRICA ACTION (incorporating the Africa Policy Information Center, The Africa Fund, and the American Committee on Africa). Find more information for action for Africa at http://www.africapolicy.org

Note: For more recent posting with TAC statement, see http://www.africafocus.org/docs01/acc0111b.php>

+++++++++++++++++++++Document Profile+++++++++++++++++++++

Region: Continent-Wide
Issue Areas: +political/rights+ +economy/development+

SUMMARY CONTENTS:

This posting contains three new documents relating to the conflict between public health and the hard-line on intellectual property rights being pushed at the World Trade Organization by the U.S., Canada, Switzerland, and a few other rich countries. They are: (1) a editorial from today's issue of the prominent medical journal The Lancet, (2) a press release from Human Rights Watch, and (3) excerpt from a letter from access rights expert James Love of the Consumer Project on Technology.

It is preceded by a brief cover note from Africa Action executive director Salih Booker.

For additional background see:
http://www.africapolicy.org/action/access.htm

An archive of postings with new information daily can be found at: http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health

A new comprehensive 80-page background paper on TRIPS and Rights, just released last week by the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, is available at
http://aidslaw.ca/Maincontent/issues/cts/TRIPS-brief.htm

+++++++++++++++++end profile++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Cover Note from Africa Action

Press reports say the conflict between public health and the pharmaceutical industry's grab for excessive profits may be the deal-breaker at WTO talks now underway in Doha. The New York Times this morning, in a news article reflecting the views of U.S. trade representative Robert Zoellick, outlines Zoellick's strategy of "driving a wedge between them [African countries] and India and Brazil." Germany and Japan, as well as the U.S., Switzerland and Canada, are reported to be still resisting the demand for a declaration that in emergencies public health should take precedence over patent protection.

Yet the drug companies and rich country governments are losing the battle for public opinion. While the Washington Post in a November 1 editorial echoed Zoellick's views and said his concessions should "silence the controversy," editorials in other leading papers in New York, San Francisco, Boston, Philadelphia and other cities have cited the anthrax alarm and continuing deaths from AIDS as reasons for the U.S. to concede the priority for public health over patents. The developing country position is supported not only by activists long engaged in this struggle, but by mainstream medical and human rights opinion (as indicated by the documents below). Even the World Bank is urging that the WTO "must ensure that rules protecting intellectual property don't keep poor countries from producing or importing cheap drugs to fight AIDS and other pandemics." (Bloomberg News/Boston Globe, November 7).

The bankruptcy of the administration position is apparent in its strategy of "splitting" the South. If U.S. officials were truly interested in saving the more than 6,000 Africans and 2,000 others dying each day of AIDS, they would not be fighting Brazil and India. Instead they would be joining with Brazil, India, African countries, and others to maximize cooperation in getting treatment to those who need it now. They would be pressuring for the lowest possible prices, with even more urgency than they have pressed for lower prices for Cipro. And they would be providing financial resources that were adequate, rather than the token amounts offered to date.

-- Salih Booker


The Lancet
http://www.lancet.com
(selected full-text articles available free with registration)

Volume358, Number 9293 10 November 2001

Editorial

Patent protection versus public health

On October 24,Tommy Thompson, Secretary of the US Department of Health and Human Services, and Helge Wehmeier, president of the Bayer Corporation, announced the federal purchase of 100 million tablets of ciprofloxacin (Bayer's Cipro) at half price. This emergency price cut was agreed after the US government threatened to override Bayer's patent on Cipro. The US government's action was sparked by the Canadian health ministry's decision to commission a local drug company to make ciprofloxacin, violating Bayer's patent rights. Bayer responded by donating a large amount of Cipro to Canada, and promising more in the event of an emergency, which led the Canadian government to agree to acquire ciprofloxacin exclusively from Bayer for the duration of the patent agreement.

No new anthrax cases have been reported in Canada, yet the threat to public health was deemed enough for the Canadian government to challenge Bayer's patent rights. Events in the USA after September 11 have proven the bioterrorist threat to be real with documented cases of anthrax, but it is hard to justify the need for patent challenge on public-health emergency grounds, especially because the anthrax isolates seem to be sensitive to doxycycline.

Bayer's patent for Cipro is protected by the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement, which sets minimum standards of patent law for member states of the World Trade Organisation. Under TRIPS, patent protection lasts for 20 years, although compulsory licensing (production of medicines by companies other than the patent holder) is allowed in public-health emergencies or where there are unfair pricing practices. The US government's action on Cipro is in stark contrast to US trade pressure on less-developed countries to limit compulsory licensing and parallel importing (importing of medicines from countries other than the country of manufacture). Parallel importing is also allowed under TRIPS, and is, like compulsory licensing, widely practised by western countries.

Even where there is clear evidence of a public-health emergency, such as the HIV crisis in Africa and many parts of Asia, the US government has used its might to limit those countries' options to provide affordable drugs. For example, in 1998, under threat from the USA to increase tariffs on imports of wood products and jewellery, the Thai government limited the right to issue compulsory licences for pharmaceuticals. Last year, the US government filed a complaint with the World Trade Organisation over a law that enabled Brazil to produce cheap generic versions of antiretroviral drugs, stating that Brazil's patent law broke the TRIPS agreement. The number of AIDS-related deaths in Brazil has halved since 1995, partly due to the availability of cheap antiretroviral drugs. In June of this year, the US government retracted its complaint, after outcry from international aid agencies. In April, after a 3-year lawsuit, the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of South Africa and 39 international drug companies dropped action to prevent the South African government from importing cheaper drugs for HIV and AIDS. TRIPS allows such imports but it took this case to prove that the AIDS epidemic, which has now affected more than 58 million people worldwide, killing 22 million, is of sufficient proportion to warrant recognition as a public-health emergency in TRIPS terms.

Clarification of and changes to the TRIPS agreement to favour public-health needs over patent protection are urgently needed and have been called for by aid agencies and less-developed countries on the eve of the World Trade Organisation summit to take place in Qatar on November 9-13. So far, however, the US government, backed by Japan, Switzerland, and Canada, is opposing change.

In June at the UN General Assembly Special Session on HIV/AIDS, the USA pledged $200 million for a global AIDS fund, which was judged by many as a paltry sum. A task force to ensure a "comprehensive and coordinated effort" by the USA to combat AIDS was announced, chaired by Secretary of State Colin Powell and Tommy Thompson. It is time that the US government recognised that a "comprehensive and coordinated effort" means that public-health needs may have to override trade profits, and that putting money into a fund while doing its utmost to prevent life-saving treatments reaching those who need them is duplicitous. The US government should apply the same standards abroad as at home in defining what is, or is not, a public-health emergency.


Human Rights Watch
http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/11/wto-aids1107.htm

Press Relase

WTO Summit: Don't Undercut AIDS Drug Access

(New York, November 7, 2001) Trade ministers at the upcoming WTO summit in Doha, Qatar should abandon threats of sanctions against countries trying to obtain medicines for health emergencies such as HIV/AIDS, Human Rights Watch said today. The WTO summit will take place from November 9 to 13.

The part of the WTO agreement dealing with patents, known as TRIPS (Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights), allows exceptions to patent rules in the case of a national emergency or non-commercial uses. Fifty-developing countries and Norway are urging the WTO ministers in Doha to make a pledge not to impede legitimate use of emergency exceptions to TRIPS. In negotiations leading up to the Doha summit, the U.S. and a number of other countries that are home to the major multinational pharmaceutical companies have been intransigent in opposing this pledge.

The United States has also bilaterally threatened sanctions against several countries with severe AIDS problems, such as Thailand, South Africa and Brazil.

"AIDS is already tearing these countries apart," said Joanne Csete, director of the HIV/AIDS program at Human Rights Watch. "They shouldn't face sanctions from the developed world on top of that."

Approximately 9,000 persons a day die of AIDS, the large majority in countries where anti-retroviral drugs are unavailable or unaffordable. More than 22 million people have died of AIDS, about 18 million of them in sub-Saharan Africa.

The office of the U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick announced last week that instead of the 53-country proposal reinforcing the health emergency exceptions in TRIPS, it would support a counter-proposal that would give "least developed countries" more time until they are required to be fully compliant with TRIPS and would impose a five-year moratorium on initiation of WTO complaints against countries seeking TRIPS exceptions.

Csete noted that the U.S. proposal is a step in the right direction but would cover only the poorest countries and would not include others such as Brazil and South Africa that have capacity for domestic production of generic drugs. She urged the United States not to use bilateral threats and sanctions when the global system allowed exceptions that Washington opposed.

The United States, Canada, Japan and the United Kingdom have been granted exceptions to TRIPS and the pre-WTO trade rules many times to protect their own interests in areas as wide-ranging as pharmaceuticals, computers, software, and biotechnology innovations. Canada recently said it would seek a compulsory license - a license to produce and import the generic version of a brand-name medicine - to ensure its stock of anti-anthrax drugs. New Zealand, Australia and Italy have also used compulsory licensing as an antitrust measure.

In contrast, no low-income developing country has succeeded in obtaining a compulsory license for generic AIDS drugs. The United Nations Development Programme's "Human Development Report 2001" attributes this disparity to threats from Europe and the United States of trade sanctions, loss of foreign direct investment, or litigation against low-income countries hoping to obtain compulsory licenses. Earlier this year, for example, the U.S. threatened to put Thailand on "priority watch" - a disadvantageous trade status - in response to the Thai government's attempt to shorten the waiting period for production of generic drugs in Thailand after the release of their brand-name counterparts. (An estimated 750,000 persons in Thailand suffer from AIDS.) A similar U.S. action against Brazil, brought through the WTO, was dropped this year only in the face of heavy international pressure against the case.


Letter to USTR Zoellick regarding WTO Patent discussions

[full text available at:
http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/ip-health/2001-November/002379.html]

James Love
Consumer Project on Technology
[email protected], http://www.cptech.org
Doha mobile phone +974 539 2726

November 10, 2001

Robert B. Zoellick
United States Trade Representative
[email protected]

Dear Ambassador Zoellick,

I am writing to urge the US government to withdraw its opposition to language in the WTO Ministerial declaration that addresses important public health problems, and support substantive efforts to deal with trade relates aspects of public health. In her November 9, 2001 statement on the WTO negotiations, WHO Director General Gro Harlem Brundland said "access to health care is a human right and we all have an obligation to see this right progressively realized," noting further that "many millions of people still cannot get the medicines and vaccines they need at an affordable price." These problems will certainly become more acute as the WTO rules are more fully implemented.

Despite confusion created by public relations efforts by US and European export industries, it is increasingly clear that the WTO TRIPS accord presents barriers to medicines for many poor countries. It is also clear that the public in the US and Europe do not support government trade policies that make medicines unaffordable in developing countries.

Unfortunately, in the current negotiations the US government has engaged in a number of strategic maneuvers designed to prevent the developing countries from obtaining interpretations that would address existing problems with the implementation of the TRIPS agreement. The US has been in some cases proposing language that would appear to benefit the poor, but which would actually narrow protections for consumer interests, and in other cases, asking African countries to take short term extensions of compliance periods as a substitute for more permanent and sustainable solutions. Given the power of the US government and the situation in many developing countries, you may well succeed, but only to our shame -- undoubtedly contributing to the growing list of grievances against the US which harm other foreign policy objectives and lower our standing in the world community.

It is objectionable that the US delegation is seeking to discredit the positions advanced by the Brazil and Indian delegations on the grounds that these countries are pursuing commercial rather than public health objectives, positions that were advanced in today's New York Times, for example. As you know, India is today the most important global source of low cost generics, and policies that enable India to supply low cost generic drugs globally clearly benefit the poor. We recognize that rules that allow India to be a major global supplier of generic drugs, including those produced for sale in countries that issue compulsory licenses, runs contrary to US export company interests. But without the ability of poor countries to obtain cheap alternative sources of drugs, the poor will suffer, and the rules that will determine if this can be done are at the core of this week's WTO discussions. Also, the US needs to acknowledge the role that Brazil has played in leading the way in terms of its commitment to funding HIV treatment, and which also created a global market for generic HIV drugs, benefiting not only Brazil, but also leading to huge reductions in the prices of HIV drugs in Africa and other poor countries.

THE NEED FOR PRO-PUBLIC HEALTH INTERPETATION OF THE TRIPS

In some cases the problems with the present TRIPS accord are manageable within the current framework of the agreement, if one can obtain clarifications and pro-public health interpretations of important sections of the agreement, and also if developing countries manage to enact and implement laws that take advantage of the much discussed "TRIPS flexibility," something which has yet to happen. Here too it is noteworthy that the US government has mounted a series of attacks on the WHO programs for technical assistance on patent law changes, raising basic questions about the good faith of US government officials who claim the existing agreement has sufficient flexibility. It is hardly creditable to bash the WHO for its efforts to help the poor countries write fast track compulsory licensing laws, and pressure countries in bilateral discussions, and then tell reporters at the WTO meeting that we support the right of poor countries to write such laws.

...

SHORT TERM EXTENSIONS OF COMPLIANCE PERIODS

The most cynical approach by the USTR has been to offer short-term extensions of TRIPS compliance to African countries, hoping they will make a separate deal with the US, splitting the developing country delegations.

The problems with the US proposals are many. The least developed countries already have the right to ask for extensions of TRIPS compliance, and the US proposal probably has the effect of limiting the term of such extensions, since they can be open ended now under Article 66 of the TRIPS. Of course many African countries do not even qualify as LDCs, including countries like Kenya, Botswana, Ivory Coast, Ghana, Nigeria or Zimbabwe, which are hardly rich countries by US or European standards.

But also, developing countries face very difficult non-WTO pressures, including for example annual AGOA certification on IPR issues, threats to withhold GSP benefits, and numerous bilateral and regional trade negotiations where the US aggressively advances TRIPS plus positions. Unless the US government has some binding way to ensure that it will not separately pursue high IPR standards in these other proceedings, LDCs and African countries will not benefit from even these putative extensions. It is of course relevant that H.R. 3005, a bill to give the USTR fast track negotiating authority, requires the USTR to seek accelerated compliance with TRIPS, as well as to oppose price controls on medicines. Also, note that right now some 37 countries in Africa already issue patents on antiretroviral drugs, five years before required to do so by the TRIPS, so the notion that the formal extension will be meaningful needs to be balanced with the reality that US bilateral trade pressures make this a difficult if not impossible situation for LDCs and African countries. For these and other reasons, we support measures that actually modify the understanding of what constitutes compliance under the TRIPS -- a more realistic benefit to developing countries than a phony extensions that will be taken away in bilateral negotiations.

More important, however, the interests of LCDs and indeed every county in Africa will be linked to the rules faced by India, Brazil and other developing countries that are excluded from the benefits of the US proposal, for two reasons. First, LDCs and African countries need to import medicines or at least active ingredients from countries that have the best capacity to manufacture them -- such as China, Korea, India, Brazil, etc. Second, the LCD and African markets are so small that they lack the necessary economies of scale to make generic manufacturing efficient for many drugs. As has been pointed out on several occasions, it was the decision by Brazil to purchase generic HIV drugs which created a sufficient market to make today's low cost generics ARV drugs possible, ultimately benefiting African countries and making HIV treatment a feasible goal after years of high prices by US and European drug companies. This is the empirical reality that you must deal with, and take responsibility for as millions perish and suffer from AIDS and other illnesses. ...

Sincerely,

James Love
Director, Consumer Project on Technology


This material is being reposted for wider distribution by Africa Action (incorporating the Africa Policy Information Center, The Africa Fund, and the American Committee on Africa). Africa Action's information services provide accessible information and analysis in order to promote U.S. and international policies toward Africa that advance economic, political and social justice and the full spectrum of human rights.

URL for this file: http://www.africafocus.org/docs01/acc0111.php