Date: 15 February 2011
Link: www.keionline.org
Hon. Craig Emerson, Trade Minister
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Australia
H.R.H. Prince Mohamed Bolkiah, Minister
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Brunei Darussalam
Hon. Alfredo Moreno Charme, Minister
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
Yb. Dato? Sri Mustapa Bin Mohamed, Minister
Ministry of International Trade and Industry, Malaysia
Hon. Tim Groser, Trade Minister
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade of New Zealand
Hon. Eduardo Ferreyros, Minister
Ministry of Foreign Trade and Tourism of Peru
Hon. Lim Hng Kiang, Minister
Ministry of Trade and Industry of Singapore
Amb. Ronald Kirk, Trade Representative
Office of the United States Trade Representative
Hon. Vu Huy Hoang, Minister
Ministry of Industry and Trade, Vietnam
Re: Safeguarding Access to Medicines in the
Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement
Dear Trade Ministers,
We, the undersigned civil society organizations, write to you regarding intellectual
property provisions in the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement
(TPPA). We are concerned that intellectual property measures that may be
included in an eventual agreement could undermine patients” access to vital
medicines, and contravene promises of a new trade model and “21st century” agreement.
Nearly two billion people still lack regular access to medicines in developing
countries. Although several important factors contribute to this, one
critical problem is the high price of monopolized medicines. Intellectual
property provisions that go beyond the standard required by the World Trade
Organization`s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (WTO`s
TRIPS) “ so-called “TRIPS-plus” measures “ restrict generic competition,
leading to medicine prices that are unaffordable for most people, and
healthcare costs that can restrict health programs” abilities to provide
treatment or other services, in both developing and wealthier countries.
The parties should seek to end the harmful impact of trade agreements on access
to medicines. In the past, the United States (among other countries) has
negotiated trade agreements imposing TRIPS-plus measures on trading partners,
and limiting flexibilities that could otherwise help promote cost-lowering
competition.
Therefore, the best result for many parties to the Trans-Pacific Partnership
Agreement may be no intellectual property or pharmaceuticals provisions at all.
Nevertheless, we urge countries that are considering intellectual property
chapters in the TPPA to table alternatives to the TRIPS-plus model, including
forward-looking proposals that would:
* Establish TRIPS as the maximum standard of substantive
protection required by the TPPA and preexisting trade agreements in the region,
and
* Assist the effective implementation of TRIPS
flexibilities.
We are available to discuss these proposals and some suggested components in
detail.
The U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement, the most recent U.S. trade agreement to
be ratified and implemented, benefited from an historic agreement between the
U.S. Congress and the previous administration. This May 10th, 2007
agreement achieved an unprecedented reversal in the decade-long trend of
increasingly severe intellectual property provisions. Intellectual
property provisions in the U.S.-Peru agreement make patent term extensions and
patent linkage voluntary instead of mandatory, and place limits on the term and
scope of data exclusivity.
The May 10th agreement fell short of adequately addressing access to medicines
concerns. Its provisions, including data exclusivity, still imposed new
costs on public health. Nevertheless, it represented an important
progression in U.S. policy. The other TPPA parties should insist that any
intellectual property text tabled by the United States build on this progress,
beginning by eliminating data exclusivity requirements. Data exclusivity
requirements compromise access to medicines and are inconsistent with ethical
standards regarding the duplication of tests on humans or vertebrate animals.
Under no circumstances should the TPPA undermine the May 10th agreement by
insisting on stricter intellectual property measures than those included in the
US-Peru FTA. Under no circumstances should the TPPA require accession or
adherence to the terms of the controversial proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade
Agreement (ACTA). And under no circumstances should the TPPA impose
procedural or substantive restrictions on the ability of government agencies,
including those at the state level, to regulate drug prices through
reimbursement policies.
New Zealand`s recent TPPA proposal states the parties “should be cautious about
moving beyond TRIPS standards under [the] TPP,” noting that “there is a tendency
towards overprotection of IP in all our societies, particularly in the areas of
copyright and patents.” New Zealand proposes an alternative “TRIPS-aligned”
structure, focusing on operational coherence and enforcement, and
capacity-building in developing countries. We applaud New Zealand for
introducing this alternate vision.
New Zealand`s proposal is a better starting point
for any regional IP negotiation than the U.S.-sponsored TRIPS-plus status
quo. There are still dangers in each of New Zealand`s proposed focus
areas, including considerably increasing the bias of IP enforcement policy
toward rights holders. This reveals the risks inherent in negotiating any
intellectual property or pharmaceuticals provisions in the TPPA. But New
Zealand`s paper also reflects growing awareness of the dangers of TRIPS-plus
measures and rigid exclusive rights in many countries.
A 21st century agreement must not accept harmful 20th century terms. Instead,
the TPPA should look forward to new, open and flexible policy models. The
TPPA should facilitate, rather than impede, the parties honoring their
commitments to access and innovation. The TPPA should preserve countries”
options to “explore and, where appropriate, promote a range of incentive
schemes for research and development including addressing, where appropriate,
the de-linkage of the costs of research and development and the price of health
products,” in accordance with World Health Assembly Resolution 61.21.
Finally, the TPPA must respect the WTO`s 2001 Doha Declaration on the TRIPS
Agreement and Public Health” not only in principle, but in practice “including
specifically Doha`s guarantee that “the [TRIPS] Agreement can and should be
interpreted and implemented in a manner supportive of WTO Members` right to
protect public health and, in particular, to promote access to medicines for
all.”
Broad public consultation, input and review of proposed agreement terms will be
essential to safeguarding the sensitive public health interests at stake. We
urge the TPPA parties to agree in Chile to release the draft texts and
associated country papers after each negotiating round.
We look forward to discussing these issues further.
Please direct inquiries to Peter Maybarduk at Public
Citizen, 1600 20th Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20009, USA, pmaybarduk@citizen.org,
tel. +1 (202) 588-1000.
Sincerely,
Public Citizen
Peruvian Network for Globalization with Equity (RedGE)
Keywords: WTO / TRIPS / IP / US
|