On 26 February 2013, one week before the WTO TRIPS Council (5-6 March 2013) meets to consider the LDC Group’s request (IP/C/W/583) for an extension of the transitional period under Article 66.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, UNDP and UNAIDS have issued a policy brief highlighting the benefits in deferring LDC compliance with the TRIPS Agreement.
The policy brief states:
The present LDC Group proposal is set to be discussed at the next TRIPS Council meeting, scheduled for 5-6 March 2013. The potential benefits for LDCs in deferring compliance are broad: from the direct public health benefits of being able to manufacture and provide inexpensive essential medicines, to the flow on effects to the wider economy of a more sophisticated technology base which is encouraged though freer transfers of technology. Furthermore, TRIPS is clear about the obligation to accord extensions following duly motivated requests. This proposal should therefore be given close and immediate attention by all WTO Members, especially LDCs.
In UNDP’s web release, UNDP Administrator Helen Clark states,
Access to affordable HIV treatment and other essential medicines is vital if Least Developed Countries are to achieve the health-related and other Millennium Development Goals.
In the UNAIDS press release, Michel Sidibé, Executive Director of UNAIDS, states,
An extension would allow the world’s poorest nations to ensure sustained access to medicines, build up viable technology bases and manufacture or import the medicines they need,” said Michel Sidibé, Executive Director of UNAIDS.
The UNDP web release stresses that
failing to extend an internationally agreed transition period for poor countries to comply fully with the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) could jeopardize access to lifesaving HIV/AIDS treatment and other essential drugs for those who need them most.The 49 UN-designated Least Developed Countries (LDCs) are home to some of the world’s most vulnerable people and bear considerable health burdens. In 2011, some 9.7 million of the 34 million people living with HIV worldwide were in these countries. Of that number, 4.6 million were eligible for antiretroviral treatment, in accordance with 2010 World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines, but only 2.5 million were receiving it.
LDCs also face a disproportionately high burden in non-communicable diseases, such as cancer and diabetes. Data from low-income countries suggest cancer will increase by 82 percent from 2008-2030, compared with 40 percent in high-income countries that have widespread access to vaccines and medications.
In describing the LDC Group proposal (IP/C/W/583), UNDP/UNAIDS highlight the following aspects:
The ‘LDC Group proposal’While LDCs currently can choose to be exempt from the requirement to apply the bulk of TRIPS provisions, this exemption is set to expire on 1 July 2013. LDCs are currently seeking to have this period extended. At the 5 November 2012 WTO TRIPS Council meeting, Haiti, on behalf of LDCs, submitted a proposal requesting an extension of the transitional period, under Article 66.1 of the TRIPS Agreement.29 If this proposal is adopted in its current form, it would effectively also extend the waiver issued to LDCs with regard to pharmaceutical-related provisions (due to expire in 2016).
As reasons for the proposed extension, the LDC Group proposal cites little change in the development position of LDCs since the last extension, and refers to the potential technology transfer and development benefits of deferring full TRIPS implementation. In view of the impossibility of determining when individual LDCs will be able to overcome the constraints that prevent them from creating a viable technological base the proposal suggests that LDCs should not be required to apply the bulk of TRIPS provisions until they cease to be a LDC. The proposal also attaches draft text of a decision for adoption by the next Council of TRIPS meeting. Notably, this draft decision does not incorporate the ‘no-roll back’ provision that prevented LDCs from abandoning existing national levels of IP protection under previous extensions, and would remain in place so long as a LDC remains classified as a LDC.