TRIPS

World Trade Organization Members Embark on Review of the TRIPS Agreement

dlegge — Fri, 05 Jul 2024 03:35:09 +0000

World Trade Organization Members Embark on Review of the TRIPS Agreement

01 July 2024

dlegge Fri, 05/07/2024 - 13:35

Author/s

Ellen ‘t Hoen

MLP

World Trade Organization Members Embark on Review of the TRIPS Agreement

The World Trade Organization (WTO) Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Council will meet on 10-11 July. On the agenda is the review of the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement under TRIPS Article 71.1, as proposed by Colombia. It would be the first time such a review is taking place in the 30 years that the TRIPS Agreement has been in force.

The adoption of the TRIPS Agreement in 1994 and subsequent implementation at the national level brought significant changes in intellectual property law and policy in many countries. TRIPS was part of a set of international treaties agreed upon at the conclusion of the Uruguay Round of negotiations within the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1994. This is the same agreement that established the WTO. TRIPS mandated significant changes in national intellectual property legislation, which in particular affected pharmaceuticals. At the time the Uruguay Round launched in 1986, 49 of the 98 members of the Paris Convention (see box) excluded pharmaceutical products from patent protection, 10 excluded pharmaceutical processes and 22 excluded chemical processes. For a historical overview, see here. TRIPS introduced 20-year patents for any type of invention, whether products or processes, including in the pharmaceutical sector, mandatory for all WTO Members (with the exception of least-developed country Members which were allowed to postpone the implementation of this obligation). It therefore had far-reaching consequences for public health.

The Paris Convention

Before the entry into force of the TRIPS Agreement, the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, signed in Paris, France, on March 20, 1883, was the only multilateral intellectual property agreement setting obligations on patents. It is administered by the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) and has today 180 contracting parties. As a result of the Paris Convention, intellectual property systems, including patents, of any contracting state are accessible to the nationals of other states party to the Convention.

This was first demonstrated on a large scale during the HIV/AIDS crisis of the late nineties when countries struggled to gain access to lifesaving antiretroviral medicines that had become the standard of care in wealthy nations. Generic, low-priced versions of antiretroviral medicines were produced in India (which did not have to grant pharmaceutical product patents until 2005), but could not be shipped to many countries where they were needed because of patents granted in these countries. The TRIPS Council took up the issue of the consequences of TRIPS for public health in 1999 which in 2001 led to the adoption of the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health and in 2017 to the first-ever amendment of the TRIPS Agreement (TRIPS Article 31bis) with a provision for compulsory licensing for export. In particular, the Doha Declaration, which singled out the flexibilities in TRIPS that can be used to overcome patent barriers, contributed to the creation of a global market for generic antiretroviral drugs. It further eased the supply of medicines and brought the price of HIV medications down, saving millions for health systems and donors such as the Global Fund and PEPFAR. It also opened up a policy space that made the creation of the Medicines Patent Pool possible. For an overview of how countries have used TRIPS flexibilities see here.

The recent Covid-19 pandemic again put the spotlight on the challenges of pharmaceutical monopolies in public health. Discussions at the WTO about the TRIPS waiver proposed by India and South Africa in October 2020, resulted in June 2022 in a Ministerial Decision on TRIPS and Covid-19. The Decision primarily reinforced Members’ existing rights to use TRIPS flexibilities. The Decision only concerns vaccines, while it would have been more useful for therapeutics and other health technologies that do not require technology transfer. The Decision was never expanded to include therapeutics and vaccines. See our comment here.

Indeed, COVID-19 and the challenge of accessing the IP necessary to produce vaccines have caused a growing recognition that patents may not be the only barriers to expanding the production and supply of essential products. Better solutions are needed to ensure technology transfer, access to manufacturing know-how, and regulatory data.

Colombia proposed the review of the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement on 15 April 2024 which marked the 30th anniversary of the TRIPS Agreement and was quickly dubbed “Colombia’s birthday present to the WTO” by TRIPS observers.

Colombia’s proposal lists the following themes for the discussions of the TRIPS Council:

To analyse both domestic and international concentration of production in knowledge intensive sectors over the years, based on relevant metrics.
A global stocktake on royalties paid in and out by country for the use of Intellectual Property Rights, as expressed in the Balance of Payments of countries.
A global stocktake on the use of Compulsory Licences since 1996, with a focus on the problem of export limitations faced by ́sandwich ́ countries (not too small, not too large).
A global stocktake on the residency/nationality of innovators across Members, coupled with an examination of Patenting activity by Office of Subsequent Filing -OSF- (to better understand who is patenting internationally and domestically, and the incentive mechanisms that exist for innovators to go abroad).
A related discussion on the exploitation of ́disclosures ́ after IPRs finish their terms of protection. As an implementation matter, are these innovations/creations publicly available? Are they used by Members (especially developing ones)? Are they available for training of artificial intelligence models? (optional trigger questions).
The utilization of Article 44(2) of TRIPS by WTO Members.
However, the final list of topics for the review will be determined by the WTO Members. In the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic, IP and public health, access to data and know-how, technology transfer, and the use of compulsory licensing are likely to feature. These are also central topics in the Pandemic Accord negotiations which will continue at the World Health Organization on 15-16 July.

We would like to propose that the TRIPS review includes the following themes:

An assessment of implementation of TRIPS flexibilities in national law and regulations. Certain countries and regions make it needlessly difficult to use TRIPS flexibilities. Greater insight into why some national rules are restrictive towards using the TRIPS flexibilities would be useful. Part of this exercise should be examining regulatory barriers such as test-data exclusivity to registering pharmaceutical products produced under a compulsory licence. We have advocated for model laws for national implementation of TRIPS flexibilities that take public health needs into account.
Revisit TRIPS Article 31bis and examine an exception under Article 30 as a solution to the Article 31(f) export restriction on products produced under a compulsory licence.
An assessment of how TRIPS Objectives and Principles have been implemented in national law and policy, in particular:
- the commitment to “the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of technology, to the mutual advantage of producers and users of technological knowledge and in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare, and to a balance of rights and obligations.” (Article 7).
- measures taken to “prevent the abuse of intellectual property rights by right holders or the resort to practices which unreasonably restrain trade or adversely affect the international transfer of technology.” (Article 8) Discuss options for ensuring access to know-how for example through conditioning public funding of innovations.

It is unclear whether external stakeholders will be invited to contribute to the TRIPS review process. The TRIPS Council is not open to participation by external stakeholders. The Informal Thematic Session for External Stakeholder Input, which was held on 28 September 2023, to discuss expanding the Covid-19 Ministerial Decision to therapeutics and diagnostics, was an exception. The Thematic Session was well received by WTO Members and may offer a model for input by external stakeholders during the TRIPS review.

Keywords

TRIPS

Pressure from European countries related to the use of TRIPS Flexibilities

dlegge — Thu, 09 May 2024 03:33:54 +0000

Pressure from European countries related to the use of TRIPS Flexibilities

08 May 2024

dlegge Thu, 09/05/2024 - 13:33

Author/s

Medicines Law & Policy

Pressure from European countries related to the use of TRIPS Flexibilities

The draft text of the World Health Organization pandemic accord reaffirms countries’ rights to use to the full the flexibilities contained in the World Trade Organization TRIPS Agreement and the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health. However, in reality, countries that do use TRIPS flexibilities encounter complaints and pressure from the European Union and other countries (such as the United States) not to use them to their full extent.

It is, therefore, no surprise that countries are seeking additional assurances in the pandemic accord, which is in its final days of negotiations before it is meant to go to the World Health Assembly. In March, a group of developing countries proposed the following wording:

4bis. The Parties shall not challenge, or otherwise exercise any direct or indirect pressure on the Parties that undermine the right of WTO Members to use TRIPS flexibilities at any multilateral, regional, bilateral, judicial or diplomatic forum.

This provision was quickly nicknamed “the peace clause”. We commented at the time: The proposed peace clause in the pandemic accord in fact echoes the basic principle of the WTO TRIPS Agreement Article 1.1 which specifies that countries are not obliged to adopt TRIPS-plus measures and “shall be free to determine the appropriate method of implementing the provisions of this Agreement [TRIPS] within their own legal system and practice”. In other words, the proposed peace clause is a welcome reminder of this basic principle, certainly in the context of pandemics.

However, the EU remains opposed to the peace clause, presumably because it draws attention to their pursuit of TRIPS-plus laws and policies in third countries.

Here are some examples of EU trade policies and actions:

More here

Keywords

PandemicTreaty

TRIPS

WTO: Pharma-producing nations remain evasive on TRIPS Agreement review

dlegge — Thu, 09 May 2024 03:31:48 +0000

WTO: Pharma-producing nations remain evasive on TRIPS Agreement review

02 May 2024

dlegge Thu, 09/05/2024 - 13:31

Author/s

D. Ravi Kanth

TWN

WTO: Pharma-producing nations remain evasive on TRIPS Agreement review

The United States on 26 April appears to have adopted a “diversionary” stance on Colombia’s proposal for a comprehensive review of the implementation of the World Trade Organization’s controversial TRIPS Agreement, saying that it is ready to accommodate the issues as a review of the domestic implementation of the Agreement, which is contrary to the mandate, said people familiar with the development.

At the WTO’s TRIPS Council meeting that concluded on 26 April, the US position seemed like skirting the main issue of a comprehensive review of the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement, which is supported by many developing countries, said people familiar with the discussions.

https://twn.my/title2/intellectual_property/info.service/2024/ip240501.htmhttps://twn.my/title2/intellectual_property/info.service/2024/ip240501.htm

Keywords

TRIPS

TRIPS Waiver Decision for Equitable Access to Medical Countermeasures in the Pandemic: COVID-19 Diagnostics and Therapeutics

dlegge — Mon, 04 Mar 2024 04:39:50 +0000

TRIPS Waiver Decision for Equitable Access to Medical Countermeasures in the Pandemic: COVID-19 Diagnostics and Therapeutics

25 December 2023

dlegge Mon, 04/03/2024 - 15:39

Author/s

Nirmalya Syam and Muhammad Zaheer Abbas,

South Centre

TRIPS Waiver Decision for Equitable Access to Medical Countermeasures in the Pa…

The Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO) allows WTO Members to agree to temporarily waive obligations under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). However, the TRIPS Decision adopted by the 12th ^WTO Ministerial Conference in June 2022, after lengthy and protracted negotiations lasting for 20 months in the middle of a pandemic, allowed only a fragment of the waiver proposal submitted by India and South Africa. Moreover, since the adoption of the Decision there has been an impasse in the WTO about extending the Decision to COVID-19 diagnostics and therapeutics even though the WTO Members were mandated by the Decision to decide on this matter within six months of the Decision. This research paper analyzes the current state of play and concludes that there is a need to immediately and unconditionally extend the Decision to COVID-19 diagnostics and therapeutics. Moreover, the paper suggests options for how the TRIPS flexibilities can be optimally utilized in a pandemic situation without developing countries being resigned to the vagaries of negotiations on a waiver which is supposed to be an urgent emergency solution. In this regard, the paper also suggests options that could be considered for reforming the process of decision-making on a waiver proposal to ensure that decisions on waivers are taken in a timely and expedited manner without being negotiated for an extensive period of time in the in the midst of an emergency.

Keywords

A2M (Access to health technologies)

TRIPS

PandemicTreaty

The WTO Failed the World in Covid Pandemic-related technology and intellectual property cannot remain in its authority.

dlegge — Mon, 04 Mar 2024 04:23:30 +0000

The WTO Failed the World in Covid Pandemic-related technology and intellectual property cannot remain in its authority.

28 February 2024

dlegge Mon, 04/03/2024 - 15:23

Author/s

Matthew M. Kavanagh,

The WTO Failed the World in Covid Pandemic-related technology and intellectual …

This month the World Trade Organization threw in the towel on COVID-19. Medicines like Paxlovid have been plentiful in the U.S. and Europe, but because of insufficient supplies and high prices, hardly anyone in Africa, Asia, and Latin America has had access. After more than three years of debate, the WTO declared on Feb. 13 that it was unable to reach agreement on waiving global patent rules for COVID-19 treatment to ease the way for expanded production.

Those confused about why the WTO is even still debating COVID-19 nearly a year after the public health emergency was declared over by the World Health Organization can be forgiven. Not only is this slow speed not what the world needs in a pandemic, it is also not how the World Trade Organization is supposed to work, and begs questions on WTO’s relevance in a multi-crisis world. It also makes clear that responsibility for the global governance of pandemic-related technology and intellectual property cannot remain with the WTO.

As negotiations have reconvened this week in Geneva over a new Pandemic Treaty, the question of which organizations should manage the response is a live question. Some negotiators are pushing for a role for the world’s health ministers and the World Health Organization on intellectual property, but the U.S. negotiator and others say these questions should stay with the WTO. The WTO’s failure, though, make this an increasingly untenable position: If the WTO cannot act in a pandemic to remove patents barriers and promote sharing of technology so the world can produce enough medicines and vaccines, then the WHO must be empowered to do so.

Keywords

WTO

TRIPS

PandemicTreaty

Production (of healthcare products)

The WTO Failed the World in Covid Pandemic-related technology and intellectual property cannot remain in its authority.

dlegge — Sun, 03 Mar 2024 06:21:04 +0000

The WTO Failed the World in Covid Pandemic-related technology and intellectual property cannot remain in its authority.

28 February 2024

dlegge Sun, 03/03/2024 - 17:21

Author/s

Matthew M. Kavanagh,

The WTO Failed the World in Covid Pandemic-related technology and intellectual …

WHEN THE WORLD Trade Organization was created in 1995, it marked a fundamental change to international trade law. Where the international system it replaced had primarily dealt with flow of goods across borders, WTO rules expanded the definition of “trade” to include the intangible—including patents on pharmaceuticals. All members were required to enforce 20-year monopolies over making new medicines. As the late scholar Susan Sell described it, this was a remarkable act of “forum shifting.” Before that, patents (effectively government-granted monopolies) were not part of “free” trade. Into the 1970s, many rich countries such as Italy and Japan did not allow patents on medicines, and many developing countries like India, Brazil, and Mexico had continued to exclude medicines from patent monopolies into the 1990s. But they were convinced to expand intellectual property in the new WTO agreement with a promise of “technology transfer” and a requirement that wealthy countries incentivize their companies to share with least-developed countries. This has not gone as promised.

The first effective medicines in the AIDS pandemic arrived just as the WTO came into being. It quickly became clear this debate about globally enforceable intellectual property was life-or-death as patents proved a major barrier to access. Twelve million Africans died between 1997 and 2007 with AIDS medicines too expensive and pharmaceutical companies blocking affordable generic versions. Eventually manufacturers in India, Brazil, South Africa, and elsewhere overcame barriers and made the drugs at a 99 percent lower cost. Today 30 million people are on treatment and cutting-edge medicines costs less than $50 per year.

Did drug companies voluntarily relent? Unfortunately, no. Dozens of low- and middle-income country governments issued “compulsory licenses” forcing drug companies to allow local producers to make HIV medicines. Activists pressured companies to drop their price and share their technology. The WTO eventually agreed on the “Doha Declaration” clarifying WTO rules allowing countries “flexibilities” to make affordable medicines and special consideration during emergencies. It took over a decade, but eventually the Medicines Patent Pool was created to facilitate voluntary sharing of technology—though companies only joined because compulsory alternatives left them little choice.

When the pandemic hit, these structures to transfer technology were all available, but world leaders decided to only use the voluntary elements—an approach that failed spectacularly. Scientists delivered vaccines in record time. Highly effective mRNA vaccines were developed in under a year and treatments followed. Paxlovid proved among the most effective—a long-standing HIV drug combined with a new drug similar to HIV antiretrovirals. Costa Rica and the WHO proposed a mechanism to pool technology and patents even before medicines were developed and approved. Over 100 different drug and vaccine manufacturers around the world were prepared to make them, several even showing they could reverse engineer mRNA vaccines. But no drug company agreed to share its technology, and none of the governments where companies were based compelled them to.

With neither a relaxation of WTO rules nor enough voluntary sharing to enable factories in Africa, Asia, and Latin America to expand supply, global leaders backed a set of voluntary efforts for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). COVAX, the international effort to procure and equitably distribute vaccines, tried to secure vaccines from companies like Pfizer and Moderna. Predictably, however, COVAX quickly discovered high-income countries were locking up global supplies by using economic and political power to secure preferential access from companies. By the end of the first year, less than 1 percent of all vaccines had gone to low-income countries. Medicines fared no better. One analysis showed need for Paxlovid exceeded supply in LMICs by 8 million doses—leaving 90 percent without access. The lowest reported price was $250—200 percent of the average per capita spending on all health in lower middle-income countries.

These shortages had consequences. Analyses show as many as 27 million lives lost to the pandemic, many of which were preventable. Beyond the direct effect, dangerous coronavirus variants swept the world from contexts of high transmission and low vaccinated immunity. The pandemic has been longer and more damaging because of an artificially limited global supply of countermeasures.

Throughout this time the WTO was locked in debate. South Africa and India proposed a temporary waiver of WTO rules on all COVID-19 products during the pandemic. Pharmaceutical industry lobbyists cast this as a dangerous idea, launching a campaign against it claiming “voiding patents” would undermine innovation for pandemic products. In reality, a waiver does not take away IP rights. It simply suspends global rules temporarily, giving policymaking authority back to national governments to decide whether to enforce patents on pandemic-products during the pandemic without threat of WTO-linked sanctions. A waiver alone would not have solved the pandemic supply problem, which also required shared know-how and expanded manufacturing. But it would have removed threats of lawsuits for companies making financial and infrastructure investments in production lines and threat of sanctions from powerful states for governments allowing local production.

The WTO is supposed to be able to use mechanisms like waivers to respond to crises in a matter of weeks, not years. The Marrakesh Agreement explicitly includes a provision on waivers, stating the General Council must act within 90 days on a waiver request, assuming consensus, but falling back to a vote of three-fourths of members. Every year multiple WTO waivers are granted on issues from pharmaceuticals to diamonds to preferential trade for neighbors. But since 2020, the WTO’s efforts to pass a waiver in the middle of a world-changing event hit institutional and ideological roadblocks. Even as heads of state weighed in and wide swaths of the global economy depended on stopping the coronavirus, the institutional structure encouraged gridlock. Despite seemingly supportive law, the WTO’s structures encourage narrow interest-group politics, excluding actors with a broader public interest and economic agenda.

NARROWLY-FOCUSED INTELLECTUAL property negotiators framed the COVID-19 issue in ways that insulated negotiators, focused on footnotes and eligibility instead of stopping the pandemic, and gave an effective veto to trade negotiators from a few states with strong pharmaceutical lobbies. By the time the 12th WTO Ministerial Conference rolled around in June 2022, a simple pandemic-long waiver proposed two years earlier had morphed into a complicated mechanism that several developing countries declared unworkable. It only covered vaccines, pushing treatments to further negotiations. Eight months of more negotiations yielded no further progress, leading to the WTO’s declaration of no agreement last week.

It is time for a new forum shift. Negotiations over a new Pandemic Treaty are intensifying as negotiators hope for a May conclusion. The draft agreement includes a commitment to waive intellectual property during a pandemic and to use WTO flexibilities to produce pandemic-fighting products. These are the minimum steps to make the whole world safer. President Joe Biden already supported a patent waiver during the pandemic and is using these flexibilities at home, including “march-in” rights to limit patent monopolies on high-priced drugs in the U.S. The U.S. negotiator’s opposition suggests misaligned foreign policy.

But the agreement should go further. Given the WTO’s repeated failure, the new agreement should shift authority to waive patent rules to the World Health Assembly. And it should include a binding agreement to share publicly funded technologies for global production. States delegated authority to the WTO, which has proved a barrier rather than an asset in pandemics. Taking it back is just good governance.

Keywords

TRIPS

A2M (Access to health technologies)

What’s at Stake at the WTO’s 13th Ministerial Conference This Month in Abu Dhabi?

dlegge — Mon, 26 Feb 2024 01:47:51 +0000

What’s at Stake at the WTO’s 13th Ministerial Conference This Month in Abu Dhabi?

23 February 2024

dlegge Mon, 26/02/2024 - 12:47

Author/s

DEBORAH JAMES

CEPR

What’s at Stake at the WTO’s 13th Ministerial Conference This Month in Abu Dhab…

rom February 26–29, 2024, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) will host the 13th Ministerial Conference (MC13) of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Governments from 164 countries will be joined by Timor-Leste and Comoros, the first two nations to join the group since 2017.

At stake is a fight between two visions of what role the WTO, as the world’s most powerful rule-making body in the global economy, should play.

Should the institution expand as an even more corporate-influenced body, with rich countries allowed to set agendas, impose negotiation mechanisms in their favor, and leave poorer countries — and multilateralism itself — in the dustbin of history?

Or should members of the institution recognize the constraints that the current rules place on developing economies, including the harm caused to workers, farmers, and the global environment, and increase flexibilities so that these countries can use trade for their development?

Ministerial Declaration

Debates over the Ministerial Declaration illustrate most clearly what is at stake. There are two primary assaults through which rich countries are attempting to take the WTO in a more pro-corporate and less multilateral direction. First, by changing the rules on how the WTO operates. Many developed countries, with support from the director-general, are attempting to make it even more responsive to corporate wishes and even less able for developing countries to have a fair shake at negotiations, under the rubric of “WTO reform” and the euphemism “Reform by Doing.” And second, by negotiating plurilateral agreements to replace multilateralism and requirements for consensus and impose an even more neoliberal order, notwithstanding developing-country resistance.

WTO “reform” has emerged as a key focus of WTO activities in recent years. But rather than make the institution more responsive to members’ needs for development policy space, the current efforts must be understood as hijacking the “reform” concept to eviscerate developing countries’ ability to bargain collectively.

Read more at: https://cepr.net/whats-at-stake-at-the-wtos-13th-ministerial-conference-this-month-in-abu-dhabi/

Keywords

WTO

WTO dispute settlement

WTO Development

WTO Investment facilitation for development

WTO Services domestic regulation

How Should the WHO Pandemic Treaty Negotiations Tackle Intellectual Property?

dlegge — Mon, 26 Feb 2024 01:02:10 +0000

How Should the WHO Pandemic Treaty Negotiations Tackle Intellectual Property?

22 February 2024

dlegge Mon, 26/02/2024 - 12:02

Author/s

Viviana Muñoz Tellez

South Centre

How Should the WHO Pandemic Treaty Negotiations Tackle Intellectual Property?

The WHO pandemic instrument should commit the Parties to limit the exclusionary effects that government-granted patents and other IPRs may have during pandemics in support of rapid diffusion of new vaccines, diagnostics, medicines and other tools and facilitate collaboration and freedom to operate. The current draft text of Article 11 would not make any change to the status quo.

Keywords

PandemicTreaty

TRIPS

World trade cooperation will be put to the test in Abu Dhabi

dlegge — Mon, 26 Feb 2024 00:32:54 +0000

World trade cooperation will be put to the test in Abu Dhabi

25 February 2024

dlegge Mon, 26/02/2024 - 11:32

Author/s

DOUG PALMER, CAMILLE GIJS

Politico Pro

World trade cooperation will be put to the test in Abu Dhabi

Here’s a roundup of the issues at stake at the upcoming ministerial:

Fishing subsidies: The WTO reached a partial agreement at its last ministerial conference in June 2022 to curb subsidies that threaten the future of ocean fish supplies.

This time they are trying for a more comprehensive agreement that would hopefully have a much bigger impact on maintaining one of the world’s most important food stocks.

Of all the issues at stake in Abu Dhabi, officials are most hopeful about getting this negotiation over the line. “If there’s no agreement on fish at MC13, that’d be a tragedy,” one Geneva-based diplomat said.

For Okonjo-Iweala, the negotiation is proof the WTO is still relevant. “260 million people depend on fisheries for their livelihood, and the oceans are being overfished. [The question for ministers in Abu Dhabi is] can we save the oceans, be part of the regenerative blue economy and save jobs?” she told POLITICO in an interview.

Digital trade: One of the biggest achievements of the upcoming ministerial meeting could be maintaining a ban on the collection of tariffs on digital goods and other “electronic transmissions.”

The ban has been in place since 1998, but some member countries such as India, South Africa and Indonesia believe they are missing out on valuable tariff revenue because of streaming services that have largely replaced DVDs and CDs.

Supporters of the ban say the lost revenue is trivial compared to the cost of letting the moratorium expire, which they worry could open the door for tariffs on all sorts of data and transactions that cross borders over the internet.

Business groups also argue failure to renew the moratorium would be a major setback since it would be the first time the WTO has made a decision that makes it harder to trade.

“The majority of members want the extension but there are a few members who find it's a problem because they think it has an impact on revenues,” Okonjo-Iweala said. “Let's see what comes up from the negotiations. We were able to successfully extend the e-commerce moratorium” at the WTO’s 12 Ministerial Conference in June 2022.

Dispute settlement: The United States’ most meaningful move at the WTO in recent years was a negative one in 2019, when the Trump administration effectively killed the group’s powerful Appellate Body, which decided trade disputes between member countries, by blocking the appointment of new judges.

Trump officials charged the panel had gone too far in restricting how the United States could impose duties on goods it believes are unfairly priced or subsidized. Trump’s chief trade negotiator, Robert Lighthizer, called it “a colossal and tragic failure” in a recent book.

But most other members want to see the Appellate Body restored so they can appeal lower panel decisions that they believe are mistaken.

Some progress could be made in Abu Dhabi, but Biden administration officials have been clear they see the end of 2024 — after the U.S. presidential election — as the real deadline for reaching an agreement to reinstate some sort of judicial function.

Food security: In what has become a regular feature of recent WTO ministerials, India wants its anti-hunger program to be permanently protected against a challenge that it violates the country’s cap on trade-distorting farm subsidies.

It won a temporary peace agreement in 2013, but major agricultural exporters, including the United States, are increasingly frustrated by the way India operates its food security program, particularly for heavily-traded commodities such as rice and wheat.

India has threatened to block progress on all other issues at the upcoming ministerial unless an agreement on its public stockholding is reached. That puts tremendous pressure to accommodate India’s demand or risk having a failed ministerial.

Covid-19 treatment patent waivers: WTO members could also face a decision on whether to waive intellectual property protections for Covid-19 therapeutics and diagnostics. That would open the door for developing country manufacturers to make generic versions of Paxlovid and other treatments, as well as test kits and assorted other products.

But with Covid-19 feeling like a problem of the past for some, expectations of a deal are very low.

South Africa, India and other developing countries have pushed for the decision after winning a waiver for Covid-19 vaccines at MC13. The Biden administration has avoided taking a public position on the issue, which is fiercely opposed by the U.S. pharmaceutical industry and the business community more broadly, but supported by groups on the left.

The WTO committee in charge of discussing intellectual property rights recently told the WTO General Council that it had been unable to reach agreement on the issue after more than 18 months of discussion. That could signal the end of the road for efforts to expand the waiver, but pharmaceutical industry officials fear it could still be approved by ministers at MC13 as part of the final horse-trading that occurs to reach some deal.

WTO accessions: One bright spot on the meeting’s agenda is the accession of two new members, Comoros and Timor-Leste, to the WTO. They will be the first new members since Liberia and Afghanistan joined in July 2016.

The combined population of the two countries is less than 2.5 million, so the accessions won’t mean much to world trade. Timor-Leste is the larger of the two, with an estimated population of about 1.3 million in 2021, while Comoros has less than 900,000 people.

Another 22 countries are currently negotiating the WTO, another statistic Okonjo-Iweala cites to refute talk that the group is becoming irrelevant. The number of applicants “speaks for itself in terms of the organization and the way that people and countries see it,” she said.

Keywords

WTO dispute settlement

e-commerce

WTO to Pull the Plug on Extension Decision on COVID-19 Tests & Treatments. TRIPS Chair Calls for “Conclusion” as Talks "Exhausted"

dlegge — Sat, 17 Feb 2024 23:29:00 +0000

WTO to Pull the Plug on Extension Decision on COVID-19 Tests & Treatments. TRIPS Chair Calls for “Conclusion” as Talks "Exhausted"

31 January 2024

dlegge Sun, 18/02/2024 - 10:29

Author/s

PRITI PATNAIK

GHF

WTO to Pull the Plug on Extension Decision on COVID-19 Tests & Treatments. TRIP…

Developed countries have managed to push the TRIPS waiver talks over the precipice.

After an arduous push uphill since the time developing countries led by South Africa and India, first brought the proposal to the WTO in October 2020, the “waiver” talks will soon be concluded, failing to reach consensus among members. (The original proposal had sought a time-bound temporary waiver of certain IP rules boost production of COVID-19 medical products.)

In its wake, however, the long-running “Waiver” discussions have revitalized, and brought under the scanner the relationship between intellectual property and public health. It has also entrenched further, the turf wars in the policy spheres of health and trade.

Keywords

TRIPS