The new chair for the World Trade Organization’s TRIPS Council says there is little forward movement on extending paragraph eight of the TRIPS Agreement on vaccines to COVID-19 diagnostics and therapeutics due to divergent views, raising serious questions about the credibility of the MC12 agreements, WTD has learned.
Without naming the countries, India lamented that some countries entered into “protracted and circular discussions that will not make possible an outcome at MC13.”
As per paragraph eight of the decision on the TRIPS Agreement reached last July, members are mandated to conclude a decision on extending the TRIPS agreement on vaccines to COVID-19 diagnostics and therapeutics within six months.
At the WTO’s TRIPS Council meeting on Wednesday, Chair Ambassador Pimchanok Pitfield of Thailand informed members that her consultations failed to yield any progress due to entrenched differences.
In her first formal meeting as the new chair of the TRIPS Council, Ambassador Pitfield apparently indicated that her “consultations did not bear any fruit in terms of bridging differences on how to address the issue of therapeutics and diagnostics.” She said that she remains committed to do everything in her hand to advance discussion in the run-up to the WTO's 13th Ministerial Conference to be held in Abu Dhabi in February 2024.
New Chair Plans Draft
Ambassador Pitfield indicated that she will develop a draft program along with the Secretariat
that will be circulated for comments. She said that she would take into account Members' preferences for a balanced composition of stakeholders from diverse geographical and organizational backgrounds.
The chair said that a wide variety of views persisted in her recent consultations on paragraph eight concerning the extension to COVID-19 diagnostics and therapeutics. Apparently, members will be able to engage in substantive discussions after they have completed their domestic consultation processes.
Meanwhile, the new chair urged members to continue in consultations based on proposals submitted by Taiwan, Mexico and Switzerland respectively.
The views expressed by a large majority of developing and least-developed countries appears to have reinforced the popular perception about the developments in the WTO and how they are invariably held hostage to the views of some powerful members, said TRIPS negotiators who asked not to be quoted.
Otherwise, it is difficult to explain how the demand for a comprehensive TRIPS waiver, which was raised in October 2020, has been successfully scuttled and even a minimalistic outcome of MC12 is now being stonewalled, said TRIPS negotiators who preferred not to be quoted.
Supporters Speak
At the meeting on Wednesday, South Africa reminded members about “the massive unmet
global health needs for COVID-19 therapeutics and diagnostics.” South Africa explained how demand for diagnostics and therapeutics has been artificially suppressed for various reasons. The reasons include:
unaffordability of many patented tools for low- and middle-income countries;
budget constraints in many of these countries;
opacity in supply agreements;
competing health priorities and knowledge gaps regarding the available health technologies; and
the value of testing and therapeutics.
In this environment, said South Africa, “low- and middle- income countries cannot rely on the goodwill of corporations.”
At the meeting on 14 June, India expressed consternation that it engaged in bilateral consultations with several delegations without success in breaking some new ground. Without naming the countries, it lamented that some members entered into “protracted and circular discussions that will not make possible an outcome at MC13.”
However, both South Africa and India supported the thematic session, emphasizing that such sessions “would have to feature a diverse representation, both geographically and in terms of the diversity of voices and opinions, with the presence of relevant organizations and representatives of civil society.”
Other countries, including Djibouti on behalf of the LDC Group, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Nepal, El Salvador, Peru, Tanzania on behalf of the African Group, Thailand and Cambodia among others endorsed the stand laid out by South Africa and India.
China said “COVID-19 still poses a threat to global health,” adding that “we are witnessing a standstill at the discussion on this topic.” It called on members “to continue promoting consultations and make decisions in accordance with MC12 mandate.”
Noting the wide range of COVID-19 diagnostics and therapeutics and the complex status of related intellectual property rights at the informal meeting held on April 25, China said it “proposed to hold a thematic session on this issue, engaging representatives from government agencies, academic institutions, enterprises and international organizations to share relevant information and experience.”
Brazil drove home the message that as developing countries continue to grapple with the numerous challenges brought by the pandemic, the need for crucial therapeutics and diagnostics to fight infectious diseases has never been more pressing.
Opponents Speak
Major industrialized countries continued to hold skeptical positions on extending the decision on vaccines to diagnostics and therapeutics, said people familiar with the discussions.
Switzerland, which opposed the extension on grounds that there is no need for such a decision, reiterated its position.
Apparently, Switzerland, Japan, the European Union and the United States noted that in the current context is unnecessary and could be counterproductive to the common goal of ensuring timely, affordable and equitable access to COVID-19 medical products and to prepare for future pandemics.
The United States lent support to the Chinese proposal for a thematic session. Washington reported the current status of the investigation launched by the US International Trade Commission into COVID-19 diagnostics and therapeutics, mentioning that public hearings held over the past few months are publicly available on the ITC website.
The EU supported the initiative to convene a thematic session to advance a discussion that characterized as difficult. Brussels apparently “noted that one element that adds complexity to this issue is the lack of clear definition of what products are considered therapeutics and diagnostics, contrary to the situation of COVID-19 vaccines.”
The EU also cited multiple factors that affect the accessibility and affordability of these products, such as variable financing, licensing, procurement mechanisms and regulatory procedures. It spoke about the adequacy of supply of COVID-19 therapeutics and diagnostics, the effect of mechanisms run by the Medicines Patent Pool, UNICEF or the Global Fund on access to these products and more generally, the assessment of various factors that contribute to the accessibility and affordability of COVID-19 therapeutics and diagnostics in low- and medium-income countries.
Japan spoke about the need to prepare for future pandemics, while the United Kingdom said it also considered that realities are very different when it comes to vaccines and therapeutics and diagnostics, both in terms of supply and demand dynamics and the scope of products.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here