perhaps some of the NGOs represented on Gambia-l are interested in signing
this. Best, Ylva
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: [log in to unmask]
Organization: Africa Policy Information Center
Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 09:59:27 -0500
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: ACTION: TRIPS/Africa Group & NGO sign-on
ADNA Action: 020901
Message from: Africa Trade Policy Working Group, AFJN chair
For contact information see also:
http://www.africapolicy.org/adna
Dear ADNA members,
Following find the NGO statement for sign-on from the Third World
Network, submitted for your consideration and signature by the
ADNA Africa Trade Policy Working Group, chaired by the Africa
Faith and Justice Network. The statement is developed in support of
the Africa Group of countries in the WTO, and background on their
position is included at the end of the statement.
Feel free to share this with your contacts and networks, and submit
your signatures with name, title, organizational name, and country to
the Third World Network, (e-mail address noted below) as quickly as
possible. No official deadline is set, but if you can reply within the
next week to 10 days that would be optimum.
Regards,
Vicki Ferguson
ADNA Communications Facilitator
JOINT NGO STATEMENT ON THE REVIEW OF ARTICLE 27.3(b)
OF THE TRIPS AGREEMENT
We, the undersigned social movements, citizen groups and non-
governmental organisations, express our concern over the attempts
to prevent a substantive review of Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS
Agreement.
Article 27.3(b) lies at the core of the debates surrounding patenting
of life forms, the effects of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) on
farmers' livelihoods and food security, local communities rights and
access to resources, and the environmental effects of IPRs. Article
27.3(b) facilitates the misappropriation, by Northern corporations, of
the traditional knowledge and biological resources originating from
the South. This biopiracy of the South's resources is an ironic twist
of the TRIPS Agreement, which promised to facilitate transfer of
technology from the North to the South but instead is now being
used by corporations in the North to obtain private ownership rights
over the South's resources and knowledge.
Review Stalemate
Its controversial nature necessitated a compromise text of Article
27.3(b), into which a review process had been mandated four years
after the TRIPS Agreement came into force. However, this review
process has been deadlocked, without any agreement having been
reached on the scope or timetable of the review. Many developing
countries view the review as an important opportunity to open up
Article 27.3(b) so as to revise it, in order to prevent and limit its
negative effects. The US, EU and most other developed countries
have consistently opposed proposals to amend the provisions,
arguing that the review is only about the extent to which the
provisions have been implemented.
TRIPS: Negative development and human rights impacts
In the meantime, there is increasing evidence to suggest that Article
27.3(b) is being employed as a protectionist instrument to promote
corporate monopolies over technologies, seeds and genes. The
1999 UNDP Human Development Report warns of negative impacts
of high standards of intellectual property rights on economic and
social development in developing countries. The United Nations Sub-
Commission for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights
(Resolution E/CB.4/Sub.2/2000/7 dated 17 August, 2000) has also
taken note that "actual or potential conflicts exist between the
implementation of the TRIPS Agreement and the realisation of
economic, social and cultural rights in relation to, inter alia,
impediments to the transfer of technology to developing countries,
the consequences for the enjoyment of the right to food of plant
variety rights and the patenting of genetically modified organisms,
'bio-piracy' and the reduction of communities' (especially indigenous
communities') control over their own genetic and natural resources
and cultural values, and restrictions on access to patented
pharmaceuticals and the implications for the enjoyment of the right
to health ..."
In this connection, developing countries in the WTO have raised
important questions as to whether the TRIPS Agreement promotes
or hinders economic development of developing countries and
enables countries to strike an appropriate balance between public
interests and private rights. These fundamental issues are at the
heart of the review of Article 27.3(b) and must be addressed. During
the Seattle Ministerial Conference, developing countries had
submitted numerous proposals in an effort to address and resolve
the implementation problems they faced, including that of Article
27.3(b). The failure of the WTO to address the implementation
problems has resulted in a loss of credibility of the multilateral
trading system. If the WTO is to rebuild confidence of the
developing countries, a meaningful review of Article 27.3(b) should
be the first of many steps towards this objective.
There is a growing public objection to Article 27.3(b), which not only
facilitates but makes it mandatory for all WTO member countries to
patent certain life forms and living processes. This is unacceptable
from the ethical, environmental, social and developmental
perspectives. We note with encouragement that many developing
countries have also come to the same conclusion and that some of
them have strongly voiced their demands that Article 27.3(b) should
be revised.
African Group proposal
In particular, we note that the African Group of countries in the
WTO has proposed that Article 27.3(b) should be amended to clarify
that life forms and living processes cannot be patented. A number of
other developing countries in the WTO have supported this position.
Unfortunately, there has been strong resistance from the US, which
would like to maintain the position that life forms can be patented,
and indeed, some must be patentable. This position, if maintained,
will lead to serious consequences.
Even now, patents on life are being granted almost indiscriminately
by patent offices, mostly in the North. These patents distort a patent
law system that was originally intended for mechanical inventions, in
order to grant corporations and individuals private rights and
ownership over biological and genetic resources, traditional
knowledge and genetically modified organisms, in order to obtain
monopoly profits. The patent system is being used to facilitate the
theft of biological resources and traditional knowledge from the
South. The monopoly control over such essential resources will also
have tremendous impact on food security and the livelihoods of
farmers and communities in the developing countries.
Our demands
The situation is very serious and requires urgent action. We
therefore:
* Strongly support the position taken by the African Group on the
review of Article 27.3(b), as contained in the paper submitted by
Kenya on its behalf (WT/GC/W/302, dated 6 August 1999). The
African Group has clearly laid down the approach and content of the
review, and should therefore, be followed. This is summarised
below:
- The review of Article 27.3(b) must be one of a substantive nature,
not merely of implementation. In such a substantive review, the
following issues should be clarified
- Relating to the patenting of life, there should be a clarification that
plants, animals, micro-organisms and all other living organisms and
their parts cannot be patented, and that natural processes that
produce plants, animals and other living organisms should also not
be patentable
- Relating to the option of establishing a sui generis system for
protection of plant varieties, Article 27.3(b) should be clarified with a
footnote which states that sui generis laws for plant variety
protection can provide for protection of innovations of indigenous
and farming communities in developing countries, consistent with
the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the FAO's
International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources, preserve
traditional farming practices (including the right to save, exchange
and save seeds), and prevent anti-competitive rights or practices
which may threaten food sovereignty of developing countries
- On the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD,
the review process should seek to harmonize Article 27.3(b) with the
provisions of the CBD and the International Undertaking, in which
the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, the
protection of the rights and knowledge of indigenous and local
communities, and the promotion of farmers' rights, are fully taken
into account
- The implementation of Article 27.3(b) should be extended until after
the completion of the substantive review of Article 27.3(b). The
period given for implementation of the provisions should be the same
as that allowed in Article 65(1) and (2) of TRIPS; namely, five years
from the date the review is completed. This period is provided to
allow developing countries to set up the necessary infrastructure
entailed by the implementation.
* Strongly urge other WTO Member to support the position taken by
the African Group in their proposals on the review of Article 27.3(b)
* Call on the WTO Members to amend Article 27.3(b) as soon as
possible, in line with the proposals of the African Group, as stated
above
* Urge WTO members to agree on a moratorium on the
implementation of Article 27.3(b), whilst the review and revision of
Article 27.3(b) is on going. The transition period expired on 1
January 2000, which means that the majority of the developing
countries are now legally obliged to implement Article 27.3(b).
Governments, which have yet to implement the TRIPS agreement
should not be forced into enacting laws that will allow for patents on
life. Therefore, member countries should refrain from invoking a
dispute settlement procedure with regard to the implementation of
Article 27.3(b), during the period of review of the provisions of this
Article and also, the review of Agreement itself under Article 71.1
* Call on WTO Members to agree to extend the deadline for
implementing Article 27.3(b) of TRIPS from the present date of
January 2000 to five years after the completion of the review of this
Article (as has been proposed by the African Group).
Sign on to the Joint NGO Statement on the review of Article 27.3(b)
of the TRIPS agreement by sending your name, organisation and
address to the Third World Network at [log in to unmask]
***
This message from the Africa Trade Policy Working Group chair at
Africa Faith and Justice Network, is distributed through the
Advocacy Network for Africa (ADNA).
Vicki Lynn Ferguson
Advocacy Network for Africa
Communications Facilitator
c/o Africa Policy Information Center
110 Maryland Ave, NE #509
Washington, DC 20002
Ph: 202-546-7961
Fax: 202-546-1545
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Web: http://www.africapolicy.org/adna
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups
Click here for more details
http://click.egroups.com/1/11231/1/_/23029/_/981760619/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
Our next meeting is Wednesday, Feb 28, Safeco Center, E Main and 23rd, Seattle
7:00 PM WSAN business meeting
8:00 PM Program: TBA
We usually meet the last Wednesday of the month. To post a message: [log in to unmask] To subscribe sending a blank message to [log in to unmask] To unsubscribe send a blank message to [log in to unmask] For complete information on the Washington State Africa Network visit: www.ibike.org/africamatters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
You may also send subscription requests to [log in to unmask]
if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write your full name and e-mail address.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
