International Trade Daily | October 25, 2001 | By Daniel Pruzin
GENEVA--The chairman of the World Trade Organization's General Council postponed scheduled discussions Oct. 24 on a draft Doha ministerial declaration concerning intellectual property rights and public health because of continuing deep divisions on the issue.
Stuart Harbinson, the Hong Kong official chairing the preparatory talks for the WTO's Nov. 9-13 ministerial conference in Doha, said that he was still planning to issue a revised draft declaration on Oct. 26 but that he had no plans to organize further discussions on the issue before then.
The debate over the declaration, which some critics view as a public relations exercise, is emerging as a major headache for the WTO as it enters the final stage of preparations for Doha, where members hope to launch a new trade round.
A recent court case in South Africa, where 39 pharmaceutical companies sued the South African government over a law allowing for imports of patented medicines sold cheaper abroad, led to growing accusations among nongovernmental organizations that the WTO's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) is preventing poorer countries from obtaining essential medicines such as AIDS treatments at affordable prices.
Pointless to Meet
Harbinson told an informal meeting of WTO ambassadors that there was little point in reconvening open-ended meetings on the draft declaration because of the ongoing divisions, according to officials who attended the meeting. The chairman also said that while some interesting ideas had been put forward for bridging the differences, "nothing has emerged" which could be put forward to the membership as a whole for discussion.
Developing countries led by Brazil, India and South Africa are battling the United States and Switzerland over developing country demands for a Doha ministerial declaration stating that WTO rules on the protection of intellectual property rights should not act as a barrier to ensuring affordable access to essential medicines and achieving other public health objectives.
The United States and Switzerland, home to some of the world's leading drug firms, have said they will only support a text which affirming that TRIPS already contains provisions giving governments the flexibility to ensure affordable access to medicines needed to tackle AIDS and other pandemics. The two claim there is no evidence showing that governments are unable to obtain medicines because of patent protection.
Draft Text Circulated
Harbinson circulated a text over the weekend outlining elements for a draft declaration on intellectual property and access to medicines/public health which stated that TRIPS "permits governments to take measures to [protect public health][to secure access to medicines at affordable prices]. In this connection, we reaffirm the right of WTO Members to use, to the full, the provisions in the TRIPS Agreement which provides flexibility for this purpose, as an integral part of our commitment to the TRIPS Agreement as a whole."
But WTO members have been unable to agree whether the declaration should focus exclusively on access to affordable medicines for pandemics as Switzerland or the United States insist or whether it should be broadened to cover public health policy in general, as developing countries insist. The United States and Switzerland oppose the public health language on the grounds it could be used to justify broad exemptions from TRIPS rules beyond what is needed to address health emergencies.
Harbinson also said that broad differences remain on language in the draft elements text outlining a number of proposed clarifications to TRIPS. The text states that such clarifications are aimed at "providing greater legal certainty ... while preserving the rights and obligations of members under that (TRIPS) Agreement."
Although Harbinson said that he would circulate a more detailed draft ministerial declaration by Friday, some members have expressed doubts. A Brazilian official who spoke to BNA warned that the chairman "would be entering very dangerous ground" if he issued a text "which doesn't satisfy the minimum demands of proponents."
Copyright c 2001 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Washington D.C.International Trade Daily:
