The Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement: Implications for public health regulation and access to medicines
PHM Oz is concerned about proposed provisions in the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) that could undermine public health policy and access to essential medicines.
The TPPA is a large regional trade and investment agreement currently being negotiated between Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam. Japan and Thailand are considering joining.
The implications of the TPPA are not confined to the countries currently involved in the negotiations. The TPPA is likely to expand to include further countries in future and will set a new global standard for future trade agreements.
Contents |
Public health implications
Access to affordable medicines
The United States Trade Representative has put forward proposals for the TPPA that would compromise access to affordable medicines.
Strong intellectual property rights for pharmaceuticals have been proposed that would keep medicines under patent for longer, broaden the application of patenting and delay the introduction of cheaper generic medicines.
The US has also proposed provisions that would undermine schemes that subsidise medicines and medical devices.
Threats to public health regulation, including tobacco plain packaging
Proposed expropriation and investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions in the TPPA could enable foreign corporations to sue governments over legislation that is deemed to reduce the value of their investments. Big Tobacco is likely to take advantage of such provisions to sue the Australian government over tobacco plain packaging legislation.
Threats to access to essential medicines in developing countries
The US, at the behest of pharmaceutical companies, is seeking highly restrictive intellectual property provisions that could compromise access to essential medicines such as HIV/AIDS drugs in developing countries involved in the TPPA.
Provisions sought by the US include: expanded patent protections, elimination of pre-grant opposition (opposition by third parties to unmerited patents) and greater rights for pharmaceutical companies in court. These provisions would result in limited generic competition and higher drug prices.
The Australian Government's position
The Australian Government's Trade Policy Statement Trading our Way to More Jobs and Prosperity was released in April 2011. In this statement, the Government makes explicit commitments to rejecting provisions that might constrain the ability of Australian governments to make laws on 'social, environmental and economic matters'. The trade policy statement says: 'The Government has not and will not accept provisions that limit its capacity to put health warnings or plain packaging requirements on tobacco products or its ability to continue the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme' (p. 14). The statement also excludes investor-state dispute resolution procedures in trade agreements.
The Australian Government is likely to come under increasing pressure from the US to include TRIPS Plus intellectual property provisions and investment provisions in the TPPA. It is essential that the Australian Government stands firm and continues to reject these provisions.
Campaign activities
In February 2011, PHM Oz joined with many other civil society organisations in signing an open letter to Julia Gillard and Craig Emerson protesting the secrecy under which TPPA negotiations are being conducted, and calling for an open and transparent negotiation process. Read the AFTINET Press Release
In October 2011, PHM Oz again joined with AFTINET and many other organisations to ask for the release of a secret memorandum of understanding that reportedly binds the participating countries to keeping negotiating documents secret for four years.
PHM Oz has also endorsed an AFTINET sign-on letter to the trade ministers of the TPPA negotiating countries. This letter urges the parties to consider excluding intellectual property and pharmaceuticals provisions from the TPPA or at least to table alternatives to the TRIPS-plus model.
Further information
Visit the AFTINET (Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network) website
Read the AFTINET TPPA Campain Leaflet
Summaries of the health issues
AFTINET Leaflet: Don't Trade Away Health
Gleeson, D. & Legge, D. Public health at risk in trade talks. The National Times, 14 September 2011.
Ranald, P. New trade agreement threatens Australia’s laws on medicines and tobacco. Croakey, 1 September 2011.
Gleeson, D. Trade agreement threatens health in Australia and Pacific. The Canberra Times, 3 August 2011.
Intellectual property provisions and access to medicines
Faunce, T. A., & Townsend, R. (2011). The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement: challenges for Australian health and medical policies. MJA, 194(2), 83-86.
Public Citizen (2011) Briefing memo: Vietnam and the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement
Bilaterals.org (2011) US breaks UN AIDS summit commitment on access to treatment
The Bangkok Declaration on Free Trade Agreements & Access to Medicines
Leaked US paper on eliminating pre-grant opposition
Public Citizen analysis of the US paper on eliminating pre-grant opposition
Leaked US Draft Trans Pacific Partnership Intellectual Property Rights Chapter
Public Citizen Analysis of the U.S. Intellectual Property Proposal and Australian Law
Faunce, T. & Townsend, R. (2010) Potential Impact of the TPPA on Public Health and Medicine Policies Submission to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
Gleeson, D. (2011) Trade talks set to undermine access to medicines for the world's poor. The Conversation, 16 September.
Investment provisions and tobacco plain packaging
Tienhaara, K. & Faunce, T. (2011) Gillard must repel big tobacco’s latest attack. Canberra Times.
Gleeson, D. & Legge, D. (2011) Big Tobacco v Australia: dangers looming in the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement. The Conversation, 7 July.
Tienhaara, K. (2010) Investor-State Dispute Settlement in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. Submission to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 19 May 2010.
Ranald, P. (2011) Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS): The threat to health, environmental and other social regulation. Paper presented at the Stakeholders Forum, eighth round of Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, September 10, 2011, Chicago, USA.
Joint PHAA & AFTINET media release, 1 September 2011 Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement proposals increase corporate rights, reduce access to affordable medicines, say public health and fair trade groups.
Cook, H. Patent talks lift fear of drugs price rise. The Canberra Times, 2 September 2011
Other useful references
Ranald, P. (2011) The experience of the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement: lessons for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement negotiations. Paper presented at the Stakeholders Forum, seventh round of Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, June 19, 2011, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
Order the book 'No Ordinary Deal: Unmasking the Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement, edited by Jane Kelsey (2010). About the book: At a time when the global financial crisis has exposed deep flaws in the global free market, the US, Australia, New Zealand, Brunei, Chile, Peru and Vietnam are negotiating a free-trade agreement initiated by the US which resurrects the issues raised by the US-Australia Free Trade Agreement in 2004, including higher prices for Australian medicines, less local media content and deregulation of GE food. Jane Kelsey and her international team of expert commentators, including Dr Patricia Ranald, expose the myths of yet another neo-liberal adventure.
