[A2k] [Ip-health] Mail & Guardian: Drug exemption extended for world's poorest nations
ulendo at yahoo.com
Sun Jun 16 08:51:08 PDT 2013
I am now getting confused in the light of various interpretations of the extension of the exemption. How does the extention affect the 2016 deadline on pharmaceuticals?
From: Thiru Balasubramaniam <thiru at keionline.org>
To: a2k at lists.keionline.org; Ip-health at lists.keionline.org
Sent: Sunday, 16 June 2013, 8:17
Subject: [Ip-health] Mail & Guardian: Drug exemption extended for world's poorest nations
Drug exemption extended for world's poorest nations
14 JUN 2013 00:00 MARA KARDAS-NELSON
Patients in the world's poorest countries will continue to receive access
to drugs cheaply for at least another decade.
That's because, on June 11, the council in the World Trade Organisation
(WTO) responsible for overseeing the agreement on Trade Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property, or Trips, agreed to give the least-developed
countries another eight years before they have to include globally
standardised intellectual property protection in their own laws.
The Trips agreement, signed in 1995, outlines minimum intellectual property
standards that all WTO members must adopt. Most of the world's countries,
save for a few in Africa, Asia, and the former Soviet Union, are now
members of the WTO.
While all WTO members with developing country status were given until 2005
to enact Trips measures, least-developed countries, or LDCs, were granted a
further seven and a half years to comply. That extension was to expire this
month, until Haiti asked the Trips council to consider a further extension.
As of Tuesday's agreement, the world's poorest countries now have until
they are either no longer considered an LDC, or until July 1 2021,
whichever comes first, to become Trips-compliant.
Notably, the agreement allows for least-developed countries to amend or
retract intellectual property laws already in place in their country.
This is at odds with the conditions attached to the seven-and-a-half-year
extension granted in 2005, which included a "no-rollback clause",
restricting LDCs from amending already enacted laws. Those close to
negotiations say that the United States pushed strongly for this clause to
be included in the current extension, but it was rejected in negotiations
by the developing country block.
LDCs, developed countries, Brics members such as India and South Africa,
and nongovernmental organisations (NGOs), have nearly universally welcomed
"This [extension] gives LDCs time to overcome national restraints to work
towards developing a viable technological base," said Sangeeta Shashikant,
a legal advisor for the NGO Third World Network.
Shashikant said the world's poorest countries should focus their resources
on basic development indicators and on strengthening their own industries,
rather than setting up an intellectual property regimen.
The extension notably allows LDCs to continue to disregard patents on
pharmaceutical products, allowing for cheaper versions of drugs to hit the
market and for local producers to make generic versions of otherwise
Shashikant also noted that many of today's most prosperous countries
historically had lax intellectual property laws, which allowed them to
develop their own industries. "What the LDCs are seeking is simply to have
the policy space that industrialised countries and developing countries had
when they were developing," she said.
But an extra eight years, though welcome, isn't what LDCs were asking for.
They had been seeking an indefinite extension, expiring only when
individual countries "graduate" from LDC status.
Their request was denied in negotiations with developed countries in the
global north, with the US proposing a five-year extension instead.
A European Union official, speaking off the record, said that while the
union always supported an extension, "we observed that [the agreement]
provides for the possibility of granting time-specific extensions of the
transition period, but does not speak about indefinite extensions".
After seven months of back and forth, an eight-year extension was finally
Some NGOs and WTO members condemn the lack of transparency saying the
negotiations took place secretly. Speaking at the council, the Indian
representative expressed "concern about the process adopted in reaching
this decision, which was negotiated between a small group of countries to
the exclusion of the larger membership. This would, no doubt, have broader
implications for negotiations in other areas as well and is something that
is best avoided in the interest of the system and its membership."
LDCs and their allies are expected to go back to the drawing board as the
2021 deadline approaches.
Ip-health mailing list
Ip-health at lists.keionline.org
More information about the A2k