Appendix
Joint NGO statement on TRIPS and public
health WTO deal on medicines: A "GIFT" bound in red
tape (Issued September 10, 2003)
The August 30 WTO deal on exports of generic
medicines is being presented as a gift to the poor. However, it
is a "gift" bound tightly in red tape. As a measure
of trade policy, it contradicts the basic principles of the WTO
and free trade.[64]
The good news is that the developing countries
resisted pressure from the United States, the European Union,
Japan and other developed economies to limit the agreement to
only a few diseases or for only extraordinary circumstances.
For a WTO "deal" to be more than a
public relations exercise for a new round of trade rules, it should
actually work in practice. The WTO took a 52-word mechanism[65]
that was endorsed by the European Parliament in 2002 and created
a 3,200-word maze of red tape that was plainly designed to frustrate
and undermine the objective of protecting public health and promoting
access to medicine for all.
These are the main problems with the rules:
1. The WTO is requiring the issuance of
two compulsory licenses when the new mechanism is used.
2. The WTO has added many constraints on
the business practices of the generic companies.
3. The WTO deal introduced an extra layer
of uncertainty by stating that the system should not be an instrument
to pursue industrial or commercial policy objectives, creating
uncertainty over the role that will be played by the businesses
that manufacture and sell generic drugs.
4. The decision leaves unclear whether or
not economic efficiency is a grounds for determining a lack of
manufacturing capacity in the importing country. The lack of clarity
on this issue has been defended as a matter of that they will
oppose "economic efficiency" as grounds for allowing
a country to import generics.
5. The deal gives the WTO itself new authority
to second guess and interfere in the granting of individual compulsory
licenses to generic companies.
6. The United States and other Developed
Economies now have greater opportunities to pressure and stop
developing countries from issuing compulsory licenses.
The current decision is only a temporary waiver,
and a permanent amendment to the TRIPS is scheduled for 2004.
We call upon the WTO member countries to draft an amendment to
the TRIPS that simplifies and clarifies the procedures and removes
unnecessary obstacles to the export of medicines to address public
health problems.
We also call upon every country that does not
have access to medicines for all to begin to use the TRIPS flexibilities,
and the 30 August 2003 decision, to provide affordable medicines
to the poor. We urge counties to resist implementation of TRIPS
plus obligations in regional or bilateral trade agreements. If
the framework imposed on countries by the WTO cannot be used effectively
to promote public health and access to medicines for all, then
poor countries should not be obligated to issue patents on medicines.
ACT Up Paris
Consumer Project on Technology
Consumers International
Essential Action
European AIDS Treatment Group
Health Action International
Health GAP
International People's Health Council
Meúdecins sans Frontie"res
OXFAM International
People's Health Movement
SEATINI
Third World Network
Women in Development
64 First, the new "deal" explicitly accepts
a protectionist framework, where rich countries can export to
poor countries, but 23 rich countries were allowed to bar imports
from developing countries. Second, the long list of new regulatory
requirements does not apply to compulsory licenses in countries
with capacity for manufacturing. Finally, the entire framework
of export restrictions is designed to limit rather than promote
economic efficiency, the putative rationale for free trade agreements. Back
65
Amendment 196 to the European Directive on Medicines for Human
Use: "Manufacturing shall be allowed if the medicinal product
is intended for export to a third country that has issued a compulsory
licensing for that product, or where a patent is not in force
and if there is a request of the competent public health authorities
of that third country." Back
| 
