[Ip-health] Event Memo from Health Action International- Expert Meeting at the European Parliament

[Terri - Louise Beswick]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
Event Memo from Health Action International (HAI), Europe for the Expert Me=
eting on the European Union - Andean Community (CAN) Free Trade Agreements =
and Access to Medicines in the Andean region.



Expert Meeting at the European Parliament: Trade Agreements and Access to M=
edicines



On 17th February 2009, an expert meeting on the European Union - Andean Com=
munity trade agreements brought together diverse actors involved in Intelle=
ctual Property (IP) and Access to Medicines. Participants included represen=
tatives from the European Parliament on behalf of the International Trade a=
nd Development Committees; officials from the European Commission (EC) on b=
ehalf of DG Trade; DG SANCO; and DG DEV; as well as intellectual property e=
xperts, and representatives from both European and Andean civil society org=
anisations.



The aim of the meeting was to raise awareness amongst policymakers about th=
e impact of overly rigid intellectual property (IP) policy at European Unio=
n (EU) level and convince Members of the European Parliament to take action=
 to protect access to medicines in the Andean community (CAN) countries. Th=
e meeting offered a timely platform to openly debate the negative impact th=
at the EU's IP strategy has on access to medicines and to look for opportun=
ities to reconcile IP policy towards developing countries with public healt=
h and development priorities.



The latest round of trade negotiations with Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru in =
Bogota concluded the week prior to the meeting and it seems there is still =
a long way to go to ensure that Access to Medicines has been appropriately =
protected in the chapter on IP.



The meeting began with a brief introduction from Else Boonstra of the Evert=
 Vermeer Stichting, EU Coherence Programme, underlining the importance of p=
olicy coherence for proclaimed priorities such as, development.



The second presentation, by Sophie Bloemen from Health Action International=
 (HAI), emphasised the imbalance in the EC's proposed text to the CAN, whic=
h is dominated by the IP right holders' perspective and protection of those=
 rights. Promoting such stringent IP rights prolongs the monopoly on a medi=
cine which in turn, affects the affordability of medicines in developing co=
untries as it delays the entry of cheaper generic medicines into the market=
. Ms. Bloemen called for "the right balance between the protection of IP ri=
ght holders' interests, the protection of public health, and free competiti=
on."



The two guest speakers, German Holguin, Director of the Colombian public he=
alth NGO, Mision Salud, and Xavier Seuba, author of the first expert analys=
is of the proposed EC chapter on IP, presented crucial public health and te=
chnical issues arising from the EC's proposals for the text of the IP chapt=
er. Both speakers did an admirable job of outlining the policy incoherence =
inherent in the EU's approach to trade, intellectual property and access to=
 medicines.



German Holguin, Coordinator of the Andean civil society organisations in th=
e EU-CAN NGO Alliance, presented a powerful case for the impact of high IP =
rights on access to medicines. His presentation was extremely useful in hig=
hlighting the potential public health threats for Andean populations from i=
ncoherent high-level EU policymaking on IP.



Xavier Seuba presented the technical aspects of the IP chapter and describe=
d the consequences of these provisions from the perspective of public healt=
h protection. Seuba's analysis as a Lecturer in Public International law sp=
ecialising in IP was very valuable for bringing to light the worrying trend=
 of ratcheting up IP rights protection through border measures and enforcem=
ent provisions without due consideration for the potential impact in other =
policy areas, namely public health and development.



Following each of the guest presentations, the meeting was opened up to all=
 participants to engage in discussion. The meeting co-chairs, MEP Helmuth M=
arkov (GUE/NGL) and MEP Thijs Berman (PSE) ensured that all participants ha=
d ample opportunity to comment and question both the speakers, and other re=
presentatives present.



The main issues arising from the plenary discussion were as follows:



=B7         Policy incoherence on IP and access to medicines where the EC's=
 trade proposals contradict EU commitments in international fora. Andean ci=
vil society views the IP proposals to the CAN as close to offensive as it d=
isregards the consequences of the IP provisions.

=B7         IP enforcement and border measures such as, criminal penalties =
on all IP infringements and border measures that, in effect, create barrier=
s to legitimate trade. The proposed provisions on these issues go beyond EC=
 law (EC plus provisions). Teresa Alves, from HAI and Alexandra Heumber, fr=
om M=E9decins sans Fronti=E8res described the recent case of the Dutch seiz=
ure of generics in transit from India to Brazil in relation to the provisio=
ns in the EC proposal to the CAN as a prime example of overly-ambitious bor=
der measures in action, in this case, hindering the arrival of essential an=
ti-hypertensive medicines to patients in Brazil.

=B7         The data exclusivity provisions recently added by the EC in its=
 proposal demands can, in practice, delay access to generic medicines. The =
proposals project internal EU regulations onto the Andean Community countri=
es. This is the first instance of such proposals being made to developing c=
ountries in trade agreements.

=B7         The strategy of associating counterfeits with legitimate generi=
cs to create confusion, used by the pharmaceutical industry and the EU Comm=
ission in order to advance IP rights. An intervention by the DG Trade repre=
sentative, which referred to dangerous counterfeits in connection with the =
enforcement of border measures to generics in transit, was rebuked by civil=
 society representatives as an inexcusable blurring of two very separate is=
sues.

=B7         The fragmentation of the CAN regional bloc by the EC through th=
e negotiation process, which is at odds with the initial goal of fostering =
regional integration and development. Xavier Seuba noted that the same had =
happened with the group of African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries a=
nd is happening again with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEA=
N) countries. This fragmentation is becoming a frequent occurrence that wea=
kens the bargaining position for developing country regional blocs. However=
, DG Trade's representatives attributed the fragmentation of the CAN bloc t=
o internal divisions between the Andean countries, which was refuted by del=
egates from the Bolivian embassy.

=B7         The uncertain influence of the European Parliament over the EC =
was highlighted by several participants. The main question seemed to be whe=
ther MEPs have sufficient influence to follow-up requests and directives wi=
th actions to prevent incoherence affecting public health and development. =
However, both MEPs chairing the meeting did make a strong commitment to "do=
 everything in our limited power to address this issue" in current and futu=
re negotiations with developing countries.

Given that the European Commission, on behalf of EU Member States, has comm=
itted to prioritising public health and development issues over commercial =
interests in a number of multilateral fora, it is essential that all partie=
s are aware of the policy incoherence currently being displayed by trade ne=
gotiators in these and other agreements.



The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS), wh=
ich includes flexibilities to accommodate public health needs, and the 2001=
 Doha Declaration signed by all World Trade Organization (WTO) members, inc=
luding the EU, specifically enshrines the principle of public health priori=
ties taking precedence over IP policy. Moreover, the more recent Global Str=
ategy and Plan of Action (GSPA) on Public health and intellectual property,=
 adopted by all World Health Organization (WHO) members in May 2008, reiter=
ates the commitment to public health over purely commercial interests.



During the question and answer sessions and the plenary discussions, DG Tra=
de was offered several opportunities to present their position. Marianne Gu=
maelius, Deputy Head of Unit at DG Trade, acknowledged that the goal for ne=
gotiators was to protect the IP rights of European industry. Whilst recogni=
sing this role of commercial protection, a number of participants voiced co=
ncern that this approach disregarded the damaging side-effect of reduced ac=
cess to medicines that has been demonstrated in impact evaluations conducte=
d on IP and access to medicines in developing countries.



Despite this, DG Trade's interventions were very technocratic in nature and=
 seemingly oblivious of developments in global fora like WHO and WTO on the=
 question of IP and Access to Medicines. The rigidness of DG Trade's positi=
on in the meeting illustrates the tough battle that is being fought and the=
 current failure of Europe's moral duty to implement a consistent approach =
to its public health and development commitments.



This expert meeting was part of a broader campaign by Health Action Interna=
tional, the Evert Vermeer Foundation and a broad coalition of civil society=
 organisations both in Europe and in Latin America. The ultimate aim of the=
 European campaign is to have the EC take full account of the public health=
 perspective and remove contentious provisions from their proposal to the C=
AN countries.



For more information please contact, Sophie Bloemen, European Projects Offi=
cer, HAI Europe