[Ip-health] Preliminary Update from Doha

[Paul Davis]

Preliminary Update from Doha:

Just got a phone call from our team on the ground that there has been a
major development. The reality seems to be different and more negative that
what is circulating in the Kaiser summary.

It seems that Brazil brokered a compromise with the USG in a closed
drafting group. The deal seems to be quite angering at least some of
the African countries as a breach in solidarity. This information only
comes over the phone currently, and therefore should be considered a
paraphrase. A more thorough report should come soon from Doha.

original language: "[the TRIPS agreement] shall not prevent a member state
from protecting public health"

compromise language: "the [TRIPS Agreement] does not and should not prevent
member states from protecting public health"

Clearly, it is quite a step down to go from a clarifying "shall not" to
language that accepts current interpretation ("does not") and a somewhat
weak plea ("should not").

Also of extreme importance, the issue of import and export of generics for
countries that lack domestic manufacturing capacity has simply been
delayed. It is unfortunate that these critical negotiations will happen in
the comparative secrecy of a TRIPS Council staff-driven process at the WTO
rather than under the bright lights of the ministerial.

--

Paul Davis
pdavis@critpath.org
Health GAP Coalition
ACT UP Philadelphia

+1.215.474.6886 direct tel.
+1.215.474.4793 fax
+1.215.731.1844 ACT UP




on 11/11/01 3:08 PM, Robert Lovelace at rlovelace@solidaritycenter.org
wrote:

> Paul, what is your read on where this stands?
>=20
>>>> Paul Davis <pdavis@critpath.org> 11/11/01 12:09 PM >>>
> 11 NOVEMBER 2001
>=20
> TRIPS: will the majority prevail?
>=20
> NGO Statement on Ministerial Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health
>=20
> Act-Up Paris, Consumer Project on Technology, Consumers International,
> Health GAP Coalition, M=E9decins sans Fronteires, Oxfam, Tebtebba Foundatio=
n,
> Third World Network
>=20
> (11 November 2001) We call on the WTO Members at the Doha Ministerial
> Conference  to endorse an interpretation of the TRIPS Agreement that
> protects public health. This declaration will determine whether people
> living in developing countries will be supported in measures to gain
> access to life saving drugs.
>=20
> We support the leadership declared by the 71 countries of the African,
> Pacific,  and Caribbean Countries, that the Ministerial Declaration on
> the TRIPS Agreement  and Public Health must state that "nothing in the
> TRIPS Agreement shall prevent  governments from taking measures to
> protect public health". Given the support among Latin American and
> Asian countries, it is clear that the majority of WTO Members now
> support this proposal.
>=20
> At a minimum, the declaration on TRIPS and Public Health should affirm
> the following points:
>=20
> * nothing in the TRIPS Agreement shall prevent governments from taking
> measures to protect public health;
>=20
> * governments have the right to grant compulsory licences and determine
> the grounds on which these licences can be granted;
>=20
> * countries have the right to export medicines under Article 30 of the
> TRIPS for any valid public health purpose, to ensure that all countries
> can benefit from compulsory licences, including those without
> manufacturing capacity;
>=20
> * parallel imports are allowed undr the TRIPS Agreement and there should
> be no conditionalities or limitations on the rights of WTO Members to
> take such measures;
>=20
> * an extension of five years and ten years of the deadline for
> implementing  patent protection for healthcare products and processes
> for developing countries and least developed countries, respectively.
> This extension would operate  without prejudice to least developed
> countries' rights to further extensions under Article 66.1;
>=20
> A declaration that excludes any of these points calls TRIPS into question=
.
> Without a strong declaration on TRIPS and public health, countries will
> be asked to implement intellectual property rules that harm the public
> health. This is unacceptable.
>=20
> Language to be avoided in the Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health
> includes:=20
>=20
> * restricting country use of safeguards to the presence of "public
> health crises" and to the presence of specific pandemics -- excluding
> conditions like cancer, pneumonia, and asthma -- requiring developing
> countries to react only when a public health problem has already
> become a crisis.=20
>=20
> * a moratorium on dispute settlement, which can only be applied in
> extremely restrictive circumstances. The current draft Declaration
> language, for example, declares a moratorium only for sub-Saharan
> Africa developing countries in connection with patented medicines
> that are used in the treatment of HIV/AIDS and other pandemics.
>=20
> We urge the developed countries, particularly the United States,
> Japan, and Switzerland, to withdraw their opposition to developing
> country proposals.
>=20
> We also call on the EU to stop shirking its responsibility in taking
> the so-called "middle ground" in this debate. Instead of demonstrating
> its support for the developing countries, the EU has chosen to play the
> role of an "honest broker" to bridge the difference between the developin=
g
> countries and the US-hardline position. The EU has to choose its side now
> -- either there is a clear statement on the primacy of public health, o
> there is not.=20
>=20
>=20
> For more information, contact:
> Gaelle Krikorian, Act-Up Paris +33 609 17 7055
> James Love, Consumer Project on Technology, 539 2726
> Jayanti Durai, Consumers International +44 797 4922 703
> Asia Russell, Health GAP Coalition +1 267 475 2645
> Daniel Berman (+41 79 286 9649) Ellen 't Hoen (+33 6 22 37 5871), Medecin=
s
> sans Frontieres
> Michael Bailey, Oxfam +44 79 68 196 102 or +44 77 99 606 987
> Cecilia Oh, Third World Network +41 (0) 76 523 1233
>=20
>=20
>=20