News Release
Contact: Amy Kapczynski
Assistant Professor of Law
University of California, Berkeley
Faculty Director, Berkeley Center for Law & Technology
Berkeley Declaration on IP Enforcement & Access to Medicines
BERKELEY, CA July 15, 2010 — A coalition of public-interest groups and academic experts, meeting last week at the University of California Berkeley Law School, have issued the "Berkeley Declaration on Intellectual Property Enforcement and Access to Medicines" (see below). The statement calls attention to the dangers that a new international intellectual property (IP) enforcement agenda poses to access to medicines for the poor. The text of the statement is available below and through the Berkeley School of Law.
The Declaration is being released on the occasion of the joint WTO, WIPO and WHO Technical Symposium on Access to Medicines, to be held July 16, 2010. It will be delivered to WTO Director-General Lamy, WHO Director-General Chan, and WIPO Director-General Gurry.
Last week's convening of experts was sponsored by
- Berkeley Center for Law & Technology
- Miller Institute for Global Challenges & the Law
- Wheeler Center for Emerging & Neglected Diseases
- Open Society Institute
Berkeley Declaration on Intellectual Property Enforcement & Access to Medicines
All people have the right to access the medicines they need to be
healthy. As public health groups, humanitarian and inter-governmental
organizations, experts and academics that work on access to medicines,
we gathered at the University of California at Berkeley to analyze the
serious threats that recent "intellectual property enforcement"
initiatives pose to this right. The enforcement agenda threatens the
last decade of efforts to achieve access to medicines for people in
low- and middle-income countries, and compromises the attainment of
health-related Millennium Development Goals. We make this Declaration
to call upon policy makers in governments and international
organizations to reject the cynical and dangerous efforts that have
been made through this agenda to prioritize commercial interests over
the right to health.
The IP enforcement agenda promotes new standards that will require
increased surveillance of goods and more intrusive police powers for
government officials without adequate procedural protections. It aims
to substantially increase the penalties for people alleged to have
infringed patents, trademarks, and copyrights. It would require judges
to consider a range of measures that would restrict the freedom of
people to use knowledge goods, and would impose new punishments for
third parties without due regard for the implications on access to
medicines.
Access to medicines in developing countries depends on the ability of
countries to produce, export, and import generic medicines.
Restrictions on generics impede competition, leading to increased
prices, and preventing people with limited resources from accessing
the medicines that they need. New enforcement measures have been used
by customs officials to disrupt the supply of legal generic medicines
between developing countries as they transit through Europe. The draft
Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) represents a deliberate and
non-transparent attempt to bypass multilateral institutions, while
ultimately aiming to impose its standards on developing countries. The
enforcement agenda commandeers public money for private gain, and has
a chilling effect on the manufacturing of and trade in legitimate
generic medicines. Contrary to assurances, it undermines key public
health safeguards that allow countries to balance the right to health
with their obligations under the World Trade Organization's Trade
Related-Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS).
While enforcement norms are typically considered procedural, it is
clear that this new agenda goes far beyond procedures and has serious
implications for substantive areas of intellectual property law.
The recent IP enforcement agenda is being promoted in many fora:
globally, in the ACTA negotiations; regionally, with the East African
Community draft "anti-counterfeit" policy and Bill; and nationally in
free trade agreement negotiations with the European Union and national
"anti-counterfeiting" laws, among others. Additional sites of these
initiatives include the World Customs Organization SECURE project, the
World Health Organization International Medical Products Anti-
Counterfeiting Taskforce (IMPACT), and Interpol. Public safety is
being cynically used as a pretext to promote these initiatives. In
particular, we reject the attempt to conflate the serious public
health issue of medicines quality with private concerns about the
enforcement of intellectual property rights.
IP enforcement initiatives must not interfere with access to
medicines, and should:
—Be grounded in human rights principles
—Protect innovation, competition, and consumer rights
—Be negotiated through a transparent, inclusive, and open
process, that does not bypass existing multilateral institutions
—Protect the full use of TRIPS flexibilities that promote
access to medicines
ACTA represents some of the worst enforcement practices on both
substance and process. The agreement has been conducted through a
secretive, illegitimate process, and there is no evidence that its
procedural or substantive shortcomings can be remedied in the current
structure. ACTA should be abandoned.
The European Union should cease its efforts to export its much-
criticized enforcement policies to low- and middle-income countries.
We call for a moratorium on exporting these policies through free
trade agreements and technical and financial assistance. The review of
EU customs regulations that was prompted by the recent generic drug
seizures must be concluded with amendments to these regulations that
remedy the threat that they pose to access to medicines.
The East African Community "anti-counterfeiting" draft policy and
proposed legislation introduces unprecedented IP norms at the regional
level, threatens access to medicines, and should be discarded. It is
particularly inappropriate because it seeks to impose TRIPS-plus
provisions when TRIPS itself does not require the majority of the
participating countries to enforce patents on medicines. The East
African Legislative Assembly, national governments affected, and the
EU Parliament should investigate the origins of such laws at the
national and regional level. We also welcome efforts made to challenge
the recent "anti-counterfeiting" law in Kenya in court.
We recommend all developing countries approach IP enforcement and
"anti-counterfeiting" initiatives with caution and reject any such
initiatives that affect the ability to produce, export, import, and
use generic medicines. We also call for enhanced South - South
collaboration in developing frameworks for the management of IP from a
public health perspective.
Finally, WHO should immediately disengage from IMPACT, and instead
take a public health approach to the problem of medicines quality,
safety, and efficacy. Such an approach must strengthen drug
regulatory authorities, ensure the availability and affordability of
medicines to diminish incentives for unregulated and unsafe medicines,
promote rational use, and require transparency and accountability in
the pharmaceutical sector. WHO should scrutinize and publicize the
implications of IP and its enforcement on public health, and WHO
member states should focus on and lead the implementation of the
Global Strategy and Plan of Action on Public Health, Innovation and
Intellectual Property.
Against the background of continued problems with excessive drug
prices, falling donor commitments, the real danger of not meeting
Millennium Development Goals targets, and the failure of the TRIPS
Agreement to meet the expectations of developing countries on access
to medicines, innovation for unmet health needs, and technology
transfer, a focus on IP enforcement is hypocritical and immoral. It
will deepen global health inequality, and exacerbate inequity in
access to medicines.
Signed
Farmamundi
Health Action International Africa
Knowledge Ecology International
Public Citizen
Third World Network
Universities Allied for Essential Medicines
William L. Aldis MD, Assistant Professor (Global Health), Faculty of
Public Health, Thammasat University, Bangkok, Thailand
Kajal Bhardwaj, Lawyer (HIV, health and human rights), India
Michelle Childs, Director Policy Advocacy, Medecins Sans Frontieres
Campaign for Access to Essential Medicines
Gwen Hinze, International Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation
Busingye Kabumba, Lecturer on Law, Human Rights and Peace Centre
(HURIPEC), Makerere University
Amy Kapczynski, Assistant Professor of Law, University of California
at Berkeley Law School
Els Torreele, Project Director, Access to Essential Medicines
Initiative, Open Society Institute
German Velasquez, Senior Adviser for Health and Development, The South Centre, Geneva
July 15, 2010
