|
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 Please note that many outdated links in this archived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: No Patents on Life
Africa: No Patents on Life
Date distributed (ymd): 991126
Document reposted by APIC
+++++++++++++++++++++Document Profile+++++++++++++++++++++
Region: Continent-Wide
Issue Areas: +economy/development+
Summary Contents:
This posting contains two documents relevant to the issue of
the patenting of life forms, which African countries have
demanded be reconsidered at the World Trade Organization
meeting beginning on November 30 in Seattle. The first is a
letter to President Clinton initiated by the Institute for
Agriculture and Trade Policy in Minneapolis. The second is a
background article from Genetics Resources Action
International (GRAIN) in Spain. An earlier posting on the same
topic (
http://www.africafocus.org/docs99/wto9908.php)
included a international NGO statement and the official Africa
group proposal on the subject.
+++++++++++++++++end profile++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Letter to President Clinton
Contact: Kristin Dawkins
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
2105 First Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55404 USA
Central tel: (612) 870-0453; Direct tel: (612) 870-3410
Fax: (612) 870-4846; E-mail: [email protected]
URL: http://www.iatp.org and http://www.wtowatch.org
17 November 1999
Dear President Clinton,
We the undersigned are horrified to learn that the United
States delegation in Geneva has specifically rejected
incorporating references to other relevant international
agreements in the draft Ministerial Declaration being prepared
for the Seattle meeting of the World Trade Organization. As
we enter the 21st century, it is imperative that global
coherence refer not only to coherence among the WTO, IMF and
World Bank; equally if not more important for global food
security, health and welfare is coherence among the WTO, other
treaty bodies and the many United Nations agencies.
In particular, the Convention on Biological Diversity and the
World Health Organization have debated and concluded that
aspects of the WTO's TRIPs Agreement could have a significant
impact on the ability of nations to comply with their mandates
to conserve, sustainably use and equitably share the benefits
of biological diversity and to ensure adequate health care to
the peoples of the world. If the WTO is to preserve its
authority as an arbiter of international trade, it must
recognize that other international laws and understandings
must be respected. This recognition should be explicit.
More specifically, we strenuously urge the U.S. delegation in
Geneva and those who will be in Seattle to acknowledge the
rights of nations to control their biological resources; to
guarantee the a priori rights of local communities to use,
save and exchange seeds; and to provide essential medicines at
affordable prices. Thus, we respectfully request the U.S.
soften its position regarding TRIPs to accept the developing
countries' proposals to:
(1) amend Article 27.3(b) to expand the list of exceptions to
patentability to include living organisms and their parts as
well as the list of essential drugs published by the World
Health Organization;
(2) operationalize Articles 7, 8 and 66.2 to ensure the
transfer of technology on fair and mutually advantageous
terms; and
(3) establish transitional arrangements that enable
developing countries, especially the least developed, to
comply without jeopardizing their right to development and
without counteracting their obligations under other
international agreements, particularly the Convention on
Biological Diversity.
Thank you for your attention to these matters. Please reply to
Kristin Dawkins, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy,
2105 First Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55404 or by fax:
612-870-4846 or by email <[email protected]>.
Sincerely,
ON BEHALF OF THE ATTACHED SIGNATORIES
CC: Ambassador Charlene Barshefsky, U.S. Trade
Representative; Ambassador Rita Hayes, U.S. Mission in
Geneva; Joseph Papovich, U.S.T.R. Office for Services,
Investment and Intellectual Property
[list of signatories available from IATP]
Sprouting Up:
AFRICA URGES "NO PATENTS ON LIFE"
[September 1999, Seedling: The Quarterly Newsletter of
Genetic Resources Action International.
Contact: Girona 25,
pral., E-08010 Barcelona, Spain. Phone: 34-93-301-13-81; Fax
34-93-301-16-27;
E-mail: [email protected];
Web: http://www.grain.org]
Africa has recently made significant strides in indigenous
policy development on intellectual property rights over
biodiversity. In July 1999, Africa took unified position on
the review of the World Trade Organisation's (WTO) agreement
on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
(TRIPS) through two distinct processes:
- On July 6-10 in Algeria, the Council of Ministers of the
Organisation of African Unity (OAU) adopted a number of
proposals for the 1999 review of TRIPS Article 27.3(b), most
notably on the patenting of life forms.
- On July 29 in Geneva, the African Group at the WTO
communicated its own proposals for the 1999 review of TRIPS
27.3(b) to the General Council. These proposals were tabled as
part of the official preparations for the Third Ministerial
Conference of the WTO, which will take place on November 30 -
December 3 in Seattle, USA.
In both cases, Africa requested that the TRIPS Agreement
clarify that plants and animals, as well as microorganisms and
all other life forms and their parts and the processes used to
obtain them, cannot be patented. The reasoning put forward is
that there is no basis for the distinction, within TRIPS,
between plants and animals, which need not be patented, and
microorganisms, which must be patented. Nor is there a basis
for distinction between essentially biological process, which
cannot be patented, and microbiological processes, which must
be patented. Without a basis for such differentiated
treatment, and given that life forms and the processes through
which they are generated are part of nature, African trade
policy makers argue that there should be no patenting in this
arena.
The African Group has gone a step further with its demands to
the WTO. In addition to barring life patenting, it wants TRIPS
to allow any national sui generis law to protect the rights of
farmers, indigenous and local communities. Such "community
rights" are recognised in the Convention on Biological
Diversity and in the International Undertaking on Plant
Genetic Resources. The sui generis option in TRIPS Art 27.3b
has been quite controversial. It requires that some kind of
protection of intellectual property over plant varieties be
provided at the national level either patents or an
effective sui generis system. Many countries are opting for a
sui generis solution without being sure what it means,
especially if it is to be considered "effective" in World
Trade disputes. Subject to the outcome of the 1999 review of
Art 27.3b, which Africa wants extended, developing countries
have until January 1, 2000 to implement this provision.
Both at the OAU and in Geneva, Africa has made solid and
exemplary steps forward. Civil society organisations around
the world are quickly rising to commend and defend these
intiatives. In particular, an NGO Statement of Support for the
African Group Proposals on the TRIPS Review is circulating in
several languages (see below). But will Africa's position hold
up? It can, if other developing country government quickly
come out and support it. This will depend for a great measure
on whether NGOs, peoples' organisations and other groups use
the space opened up by Africa to voice their demands. The
position that many of these groups hold is "biodiversity out
of TRIPS." That means not only no patents on life, but no
forced requirement to provide intellectual property rights
over plant varieties under TRIPS either.
The bottom line for many groups is that WTO should not have
the authority to determine, administer or sanction rights to
biodiversity. Biodiversity is not a trade issue. It is a
livelihood issue. Until peoples' rights over biodiversity are
clearly secured, the WTO's role in this arena should be loudly
contested. There is a huge momentum building up to say "no" to
any further trade negotiations at the WTO Ministerial in
Seattle (November 30-December 3) and to assess the gains and
losses incurred under the WTO so far. Even on such a
high-stake issue as trade in genetically-modified organisms
(GMOs), European leaders, concerned about the implications of
transgenic crops and food, have announced their resolve to
call for "no trade agreement." Calling for a halt on IPRs on
life in this context, in full support of Africa's excellent
proposals, is a matter of urgency.
Statement of support for Africa
A Joint NGO Statement of Support for the Africa Group
Proposals on Reviewing the WTO TRIPS Agreement (Article 27.3b)
was issued by Third World Network in August 1999. For copies
of the statement in English, Spanish or French, and to sign up
before Seattle, contact TWN by email at [email protected], by
fax at (60-4) 226 45 05 or on the web at
http://www.twnside.org.sg
Sources: Council of Ministers, 7th Ordinary Session (July
6-10,1999, Algiers), Elements for Positive Agenda in the New
Trade Negotiations under the WTO from an African Perspective,
OAU, Addis Ababa, CM/2110 (LXX)Annex IV, pp 14-17; Gen.
Council, Preps. for the 1999 Ministerial Conference: The TRIPS
Agreement, Communication from Kenya on behalf of the African
Group, WT/GC/W/302, 6 August 1999, WTO, Geneva, avail. in
English, French, Spanish at
http://www.wto.org/wto/ddf/ep/public.html
This material is being reposted for wider distribution by the
Africa Policy Information Center (APIC). APIC's primary
objective is to widen international policy debates around
African issues, by concentrating on providing accessible
policy-relevant information and analysis usable by a wide
range of groups and individuals.
|
