Yes, I think you are right. The original source of the article is Panapress, if you want to take it up with them (feedback@panapress.com). Thanks!
All comments
Roland:
20-Jun-2013
20-Jun-2013
Hello,
I wloud like to know if there is not an error in this information. it seems that it isn’t CEEAC but CAE.
I am french speaking from Cameroon. Young graduted in Trade Policy and Negotiations.
Thank
Burghard Ilge:
12-Jun-2013
12-Jun-2013
Burghard Ilge, Both ENDS, 12/06/2013
Yesterday the World Trade Organization (WTO) officially decided that the country grouping of Least Developed Counties (LDCs) remain excluded from the most far reaching WTO obligations on intellectual property rights (IPR) until 1 July 2021 [1]. This 8 year period may again be extended upon a duly motivated request. This outcome falls short of the original request [2] of the LDCs for a general waiver from the controversial WTO obligations of the TRIPS agreement.
Least Developed Countries, until now were not bound by the strict WTO rules related to the protection of Intellectual Property Rights. This WTO exception for the poorest countries in the world had been one of the few positive results of the tedious negotiations of the Doha development round.
To grant the original LDC request would have been an important sign that richer countries of the WTO member ship are in deed serious about their stated commitment to adjust the existing WTO rules to make them more development friendly.
The struggle behind closed doors at the WTO in Geneva
If the WTO would have followed its own procedures properly the request by the LDC countries should have been granted automatically. However a group of developed countries (in particular US, EU, Canada, Australia, Switzerland, New Zealand, and Japan) [3], opposed the request and instead demanded to open negotiations on this text.
These rich countries insisted on a limited extension period and the inclusion of a so called "non-role back clause". Such a non-rollback clause would have banned LDCs to make revisions from existing IPR law [4] if the former would have granted higher rights and if the modified new rules would be "less compliant" with the TRIPS agreement.
The original LDC request for a general waiver from obligations of the TRIPS agreement received broad based support from a huge verity of stakeholders, reaching from non-LDC developing countries [5] to members of the US Congress [6] and the EU parliament [7] to civil society [8] , industry [9] , academics [10], and UN agencies [11] .
While all these efforts in the end have been futile they at least helped to prevent the worth.
The now agreed new deadline is longer than demanded by the developed countries grouping- the US for example demanded a 3 year shorter deadline - and the proposed "non-rollback clause" has not been included.
What is the problem with the TRIPS agreement?
The rules of the TRIPS agreement have not only been criticized because of the far reaching requirements it puts on countries to recognize and enforce intellectual property rights (like e.g. intellectual property rights on seeds and plant materials or the requirement to allow patents on micro organisms) but also because of the enforcement mechanism the WTO provides .
The TRIPS agreement is unique since it not only defined minimum level for the protection of intellectual property rights (IPR) for WTO member countries, but it also enables complaining countries to enforce these intellectual property rights via the disputes settlement mechanism of the WTO, which then can allow countries to apply trade sanctions against those who failed to full fill their IPR obligations under TRIPS.
Until today there have been already 33 cases citing the TRIPS agreement which have been brought to the Dispute Settlement Mechanisms at the WTO [12]
Based on the decision take yesterday any WTO member country will now also be able to sue a least developed country if it does not comply with these WTO rules after the expiration of the agreed 2012 deadline.
Apparently this is something the US and EU want to be able to do. If not, their ruthless behavior at the WTO would be difficult to explain [13]
The permanent mission of the European Union to the World Trade Organization called yesterday’s decision “a positive result ahead of the ninth WTO Ministerial Conference in Bali in December this year.”
While it might be understandable that the trade department of rich countries, like USTR in the US and DG-trade in the EU want to defend the interests of their "knowledge based" industries, it must be seen as highly unethical to do this at the expense of those most in need in the poorest countries of the world, who already now lack the affordable access to medical care and education.
LDCs are the most vulnerable segment of the international community with more than half of the population living on less than US$1,25 (PPP) per day; they have an average adult literacy rate of 60,7%, and a gross enrolment in tertiary education of under 7%
Who will pay for it?
Another negative effect we will have to expect because of yesterdays decision is that more of the already scares finical resources for development aid will have to be allocated to make LDCs compliant with the rules of the TRIPS agreement by 1 July 2021.
Already now efforts are ongoing to ensure that new WTO texts gets agreed which would ensure that part of the development assistance from developed countries will have to be reserved and used to change the national laws of Least Developed Countries to bring them into conformity with the in 2012 applicable WTO law.
The increased prices which in the future will have to be paid in LDCs for the goods and services protected by such new IPR law, like medicine, educations material or agricultural materials will neither lead to economic growth in these poorest countries of the world nor to sustainable development but instead flow back to the "rights holders" in the developed world
So while those who were fighting for the rights of LDCs in this battle at the WTO TRIPS council should be congratulated with their hard work and that they managed to prevent worth, there is nothing what the country grouping around the US and EU should be proud of, quite the contrary.
***
References
[1] http://www.scribd.com/doc/147391544/WTO-Decision-on-LDC-TRIPS-Waiver
[2] http://www.scribd.com/doc/145834932/LDC-request-for-extension-of-WTO-TRIPS-waiver
[3] The same country grouping failed in the past to amend the TRIPS agreement in away which would have made it go even beyond the current level of IPR protection and to further strengthen its enforcement mechanisms. Reason for this failure was the wide opposition from the majority of WTO member countries. As a consequence they started the negotiation of a new separate multinational treaty for the purpose of establishing international standards for intellectual property rights enforcement. This so called Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) aimed to establish an international legal framework for targeting counterfeit goods, generic medicines and copyright infringement on the Internet, and would create a new governing body outside of the WTO
[4] IPR law not only covers patents and copyrights, but also "test data exclusivity", breeders rights and trademarks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property
[5] See e.g. http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/intellectual_property/info.service/2013/ipr.info.130301.htm and
http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/03/06/wto-wide-support-for-ldc-trips-transition-extension-with-a-hitch/
[6] http://www.scribd.com/doc/141688395/LDC-IPR-Waiver-Letter-to-USTR-5-14-13
[7] http://www.scribd.com/doc/142741593/LDC-Letter-to-Commissioner-de-Gucht-20-May-2013
[8] See Civil Society Letter at http://www.scribd.com/doc/127226202/CSO-Letter-Supporting-LDCs-TRIPS-Waiver and See Statement of Electronic Information for Libraries (EIFL) at http://www.eifl.net/eifl-statement-support-lcd-trips-waiver
[9] See statement by Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) at http://www.ccianet.org/?sid=5&artid=363&evtflg=False
[10] See Global Academics Letter to WTO Members on TRIPS Extension at http://infojustice.org/archives/29370
[11] UNAID and UNDP: http://www.unaids.org/en/resources/presscentre/pressreleaseandstatementarchive/2013/february/20130226prtrips/
and
http://www.unaids.org/en/media/unaids/contentassets/documents/unaidspublication/2013/JC2474_TRIPS-transition-period-extensions_en.pdf
[12] See for a full overview on the WTO website http://bit.ly/14xs4vu
[13] This issue was not only discussed in the TRIPS council meeting as it should have been, a report from the TRIPS council meeting from march can be found here
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/intellectual_property/info.service/2013/ipr.info.130301.htm but also behind closed doors between a small group of countries.
India also pointed out their systemic concern that
"despite overwhelming support from developing countries and a few developed countries, an outcome has been negotiated which is a derogation from the provisions of Article 66.1."
Jose M Lopez Sierra:
3-Jun-2013
3-Jun-2013
Saludos, Tenemos que trabajar juntos para descolonizar a Puerto Rico. Habra una protesta pacifica en las afuera de la ONU este 17 de junio. Te esperamos! Un abrazo! Jose
www.TodosUnidosDescolonizarPR.blogspot.com
Alade Olugbenga MA student FU University Berlin, Germany:
14-May-2013
14-May-2013
This is an attempt to enslave African economy and to deceive us as it was during the colonial era. It is time to wake up from slumbering into the hands of world capitalist and try to develop our land.
May be we can learn from China, Japan and others. The Dependent theory does not work for Africans and in African socio-political context.
anon:
28-Apr-2013
28-Apr-2013
The page is not misleading. The flags are in the outer frame of the page and are divided into three groups - Peru trade agreements in force, Peru trade agreements signed and ratification in progress, Peru trade agreements in negotiations. Those groups are not related to the TPP, but include all Peru trade agreements (TPP is only one of those and is correctly listed in the "in negotiations" section).
You get confused, because the inner frame of the page is about the TPP - and you make a mistake in assuming that the outer frame with the flags is also about the TPP.
Finally, when you click on the Thailand flag the inner frame of the page display the information about the bilateral Peru-Thailand agreement, not about TPP.
Matthäus Fink:
16-Apr-2013
16-Apr-2013
Hello,
i am interested in the fuller details of the case. My name is Matthäus Fink. I am from Germany and i am writting a doctoral thesis on the interaction between investment law and environmental law, so i am interessted in the case.
Many Thanks and best wishes from Germany,
Matthäus Fink
IAReporter:
15-Apr-2013
15-Apr-2013
For those interested in the BIT claim mentioned by Herbert Smith in this law firm news release, the fuller details of the claim were reported in this article by Investment Arbitration Reporter:
http://www.iareporter.com/articles/20130403_3
(If you’re not a subscriber, feel free to email us and we can give you a courtesy copy of the report).
20-Mar-2013
Next are the EFTA states (Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Switzerland).
The article implies that the addition of Mexico, Canada and Turkey is strange or random - and mentions how far Turkey is from the Atlantic, but such logic is flawed. "Transatlantic" is simply a label, not a strict geographical rule for participation. Expansion of TAFTA is quite natural and obvious - it starts as EU-US idea, Mexico and Canada join because they are tightly integrated with the US (in NAFTA), Turkey joins because it’s tightly integrated with the EU (in a Customs Union that actually obliges Turkey to start FTA negotiations with anybody that the EU has a FTA - so this "strange announcement" is simply implementation of the Customs Union agreement). EFTA states will most probably join because they are tightly integrated with the EU (in EEA and bilateral Single Market agreements).
The "Expanded-TAFTA" can then be further extended and morphed into an OECD FTA (by joining of Australia, New Zealand, Chile, Japan, South Korea - all of those participating in or contemplating the TPP; and Israel). Further down the line that can be combined with the whole TPP (by joining of the rest of TPP states from ASEAN and the Americas). Somewhere along that path a regional EU-ENP (Mediterranean and East Europe) FTA may be established and afterwards merged into TAFTA. The TAFTA-OECD-TPP (and each of the individual integration agreements, if they aren’t merged yet) could gather also additional members from the respective regions (the few which currently don’t participate) and subsequently it can be adopted as a global trade regime under the WTO umbrella (e.g. finally realizing the Doha round - or replacing it).
The tricky part of the wider agreements is to establish dispute resolution institutions and mechanisms with satisfactory enforcing rights (e.g. penalties against governments, etc.) - wrongly cherished nationalism that only serves to protect ineffective or corrupt status quo (under the disguise of social, environmental or other noble goals) should be strongly resisted - by establishment of supranational institutions, intergovernmental consultation processes and investor-state dispute resolution procedures.
B. Ilge:
13-Mar-2013
13-Mar-2013
Thank you for keeping this article on line.
Here a link to a disclaimer made by the World Bank with the title
"World Bank did not urge Africa to reject EPAs with EU"
http://bit.ly/13WdeSh
Don’t know if this disclaimer is the reason why the original article seems no longer available on the various websites which reported on this before.
Georgia:
28-Feb-2013
28-Feb-2013
Oh, yes! Thank Heaven for that, things are changing on our tiny conceited dear little blue globe!
Marc Maes:
22-Feb-2013
22-Feb-2013
Much can be said abouth the EPAs and the way that they are presented in this article. Let me just make two remarks:
1. It is not sure yet whether the deadline for the termination of the interim EPAs will be 1.1.2016. The EU Commisison proposed 1.1.2014 and while the European Parliament wanted to extend this to 1.1.2016, the EU Council (of Ministers of the member states) supported the Commission’s proposal. Negotiations between the three institutions will determine the final date and that might lie closer to 1.1.2014 than people will hope for.
2.The biggest challenge for Namibia will NOT be to find ways in which to incorporate a development aspect into the EPA, but to make the EU accept this. The chances that the EU will do that are very small. In the end the cost of doing an EPA with the EU may far exceed the costs of losing prefential access to the EU market.
Ali Haribou Ex-Fonctionnaire International ONU/FAO; Ex-Chargé de Liaison FAO Auprès de la CEA et de l’Union Africaine; Ex-Représentant de la FAO à Djibouti et IGAD (Intergovernmental Authority on Development):
22-Feb-2013
22-Feb-2013
Et l’Afrique (en déhors de l’Afrique du Sud, faisant partie des BRICS) dans tout cela?...
A Madame Susan George: Votre livre sur" Comment Meurt l’autre moitié du Monde..." restant d’actualité est à rapprocher ici...
Ali Haribou
Ex-Fonctionnaire International ONU/FAO;
Ex-Chargé de Liaison FAO Auprès de la CEA et de l’Union Africaine;
Ex-Représentant de la FAO à Djibouti et IGAD (Intergovernmental Authority on Development)
margaret beresford:
21-Feb-2013
21-Feb-2013
Rather odd, given the number of successful US lawsuits against tobacco companies found to have caused cancer and other pulmonary diseases. Governments were also citing health care costs including the affects of second hand smoke. Maybe tobacco companies can then revisit these lost cases . One thing all of these bilateral agreements have in common are investor rights that only apply to companies of the signing country. Seems too one sided for proper contract law to be in good standing. Why are governments signing for financial responsibility of their taxpayers and finalizing them in secret? Does the fact that most of these trade deals are done in secret, to whit only the taxpayers as potential losers are left in the dark and on the hook after.
P C Jena, CUTS International:
4-Feb-2013
4-Feb-2013
India’s trade competitiveness has declined in recent years, especially with those countries or regional entities with which it engages through preferential trade agreements (PTAs). Export and import data till September 2012 show that the country has not been able to reap optimal benefits from such arrangements. In fact, PTAs have facilitated more imports than exports for India – especially owing to low-tariff rates of partner countries – and show no signs of reduction.
Please see my article which was published on Business Standard on 8th January, 2013.
20-Dec-2012
African Nations have an option , to engage the Middle East , Asian Region(China,India etc) and the USA in alternative EPAs because the EU is doing Exactly that and therefore the Trade Preferences being offered by the EU are going to be eventually eroded. we shall never get any preferences, it is the EU that will benefit as African Nations Liberalize their markets for the EU. Alternative is re-engage the negotiations processes on a different level without being forced to substantially liberalize. the definition of substantial liberation is yet to be agreed at the WTO and therefore the assumptions of 80% plus is a dishonest figure.
P C Jena, CUTS International:
16-Dec-2012
16-Dec-2012
A Judicious trade policy mix is required in this regards. I have light upon some areas in selected third party PTA and its effect on India trade in a briefing paper of CUTS-CITEE. It is high time for the government of India to revisit the PTAs which have already signed.
Tim Lash:
7-Dec-2012
7-Dec-2012
Lettre ouverte au Premier ministre du Canada, les députés et les sénateurs, et d’autres.
Il s’agit d’un problème mondial, l’approfondissement des précédents dans d’autres accords. Dans tous les pays, s’il vous plaît respectueusement partager, écrivez votre propre lettre ou une copie du présent. Encouragez les autres. Merci.
Cher Monsieur Harper,
Tout d’abord, de toute urgence, NON, NE RATIFIEZ PAS l’APIE Canada-Chine telle qu’elle est maintenant. PLUTÔT nous avons besoin des accords de protection des investissements qui servent le Canada comme une nation forte dans un monde connecté.
• Le texte que nous avons vu donne la souveraineté canadienne sur à un tribunal non élu, et pas responsables envers nous par le biais des gouvernements ou les tribunaux canadiens.
• Une fois que le projet de loi actuel Omnibus C-45 supprime les lois et réglementations environnementales, le FIPA bloquer un niveau de référence nettement moins élevés pour les gouvernements fédéral, provinciaux, municipaux pour la protection de l’environnement – par exemple, la protection perdue pour la plupart des eaux navigables. Il pourrait également prévenir d’amélioration des mesures de santé publique du Canada s’ils pourraient réduire les bénéfices attendus des investisseurs, indépendamment des besoins du public et de l’environnement.
• Les entreprises canadiennes pourraient utiliser FIPA à prévenir ou à se soustraire à l’environnement et mesures de santé publique - tout ce dont ils auraient besoin serait une prise de participation minoritaire par une société chinoise.
•, La provision “la nation la plus favorisée” de l’ALENA se propage automatiquement que le meme pouvoir anti-souveraineté à des entreprises américaines ainsi.
Nous avons besoin plutôt des accords de protection des investissements étrangers qui servent le Canada comme une nation forte et entière dans un monde connecté, en fournissant
• l’amélioration de la confiance et du soutien de l’avantage net dans les dimensions des droits économiques, environnementales et humaines, EN MÊME TEMPS, souscrite par le renforcement de la gouvernance démocratique au Canada. Ils devraient encourager le même dans le pays partenaire, dans ce cas, en Chine.
• un cadre qui définit les dimensions et les critères de cet avantage net du Canada “triple-bottom-line” et démocratique, pour les investissements telles que la proposition du CNOOC à acheter Nexen.
Je vous remercie,
Tim Lash
Ottawa, Canada
Tim Lash:
7-Dec-2012
7-Dec-2012
Open letter to Canada’s PM, Conservative MPs , and Senators, and others.
It’s a global issue, setting precedents for other agreements. In all countries, please respectfully share this, mail your own letter or a copy of this. Encourage others. Thank you.
Dear Mr Harper,
First, urgently, NO, DO NOT RATIFY the Canada-China FIPA as it is now. INSTEAD, we need foreign investment protection agreements that serve Canada as a strong nation in a connected world.
• The text we have seen gives Canadian sovereignty over to an unelected tribunal not accountable to us through Canadian governments or courts.
• Once the current Omnibus Bill C-45 removes environmental laws and regulations, FIPA would lock in a drastically lower reference level for federal, provincial, & municipal environmental protection – such as lost protection for most navigable waters. It could also prevent future improved Canadian public health measures that could reduce investors’ expected profits, regardless of public and environmental needs.
• CANADIAN companies could use FIPA to prevent or evade environment & public health measures - all they’d need is a minority investment by a Chinese company.
• NAFTA’s most-favoured-nation clause automatically spreads that anti-sovereignty power to US companies as well.
INSTEAD, we need FIPAs (foreign investment protection agreements) that serve Canada as a strong nation in a connected world, providing
• improved confidence and support for NET BENEFIT in Economic, Environmental, and Human Rights dimensions AT THE SAME TIME, underwritten by strengthened democratic governance in Canada. They should encourage the same in the partner country, in this case, China.
• a framework that defines the dimensions and criteria for this DEMOCRATIC TRIPLE-BOTTOM-LINE NET BENEFIT TO CANADA, for investments and purchases under the agreement, such as the CNOOC proposal to purchase Nexen.
Thank you very much,
Tim Lash
Ottawa, Canada
4-Jul-2013
Dear Sir/Madam
Hello,
I am Professor of International Economic Law of Development at the Faculty of Law and Economics at University of Marrakech in Morocco.
Let me mention that from 10 July to 30 October 2013, I will be engaged (busy) in preparing 2 papers (in French) for two African’s Conferences: the first one will be held in Dakar-Senegal on October and the second conference will be organized in Jouhanesbourg /South-Africa on last October 2013.
The 2 papers are entitled « les Accords bilatéraux d’investissements, entre les pays développés et les pays d’accueil Africains, sont-ils attractifs de l’investissement direct étranger ? » and « Vers une intégration régionale Africaine profonde et durable : l’expérience d’intégration de l’ASEAN+3 comme modèle juridique comparatif pour l’Afrique ? ».
Je vous serai très reconnaissant de savoir si je pourrais collaborer à l’avenir avec BIT.ORG et s’il est possible de faire des contacts avec des universitaires internationaux et des acteurs de la société civile Mondiale plus particulièrement.
Kind Regards,
Oudebji Mohamed.
Prof. Faculty of Law and Economics,
University of Marrakech-MOROCCO
Email : oudebji@hotmail.com
Email : moudebji@hotmail.com