February 27, 2003
PASCAL LAMY
Dear Dr. Dabade,
Thank you for your letter of 13 February 2003 on the issue of TRIPS and
Public health.
I fully concur with you that the disease scope of the decision on compulsory
licensing for countries without manufacturing capacity should be that of the
Doha Declaration. Therefore, I fear that the concerns you raise in your
letter are based on a misunderstanding of the EU's position. The EU is by no
means trying to limit the diseases covered by, the system. What the EU is
trying to do is to propose a solution that would allow for a quick
resolution of this matter.
The EU has accepted the draft agreement of 16 December 2002 in its entirety,
including its scope, which is based entirely on the Doha Declaration. I
regret that no consensus could be found around this text, and I cannot
countenance the possibility that the TRIPS health negotiations might end in
failure. I remain convinced that a multilateral solution must be found as
soon as possible, and that the 16 December text remains the best basis for a
deal. This is the concern underlying my 7 January proposal.
I would like to make one thing quite clear from the outset: for the EU the
Doha mandate is deliberately broad in its scope and that breadth must be
respected. In short, the WTO mechanism for gaining access to medicines can
and must be activated whenever there is a serious public health problem.
However, we must not lose sight of the political reality. The fact of the
matter is that there is one WTO Member that does not trust other WTO members
to use the system in good faith. This demands a neutral arbiter, which is
why I have proposed to involve the WHO, whose experience in public health
matters is undisputed.
This would give us an agreement offering the coverage called for in the Doha
Declaration. As for the practicalities of the agreement's implementation,
there would henceforth be a universally recognised presumption that AIDS,
malaria and a long list of other diseases are normally covered by the
agreement.
This list is not, however, exhaustive or restrictive. It is just a list of
diseases which even the US has in the past admitted should be covered by the
system, a list that could be applied without objections from any quarter.
But the system's use would not and should not be confined to the diseases on
that list. This is very important, and there must be no misunderstanding on
this score.
In the event of any other serious public health problem, the implementing
arrangements would be slightly different : wherever there were doubts about
a measure's legitimacy, WTO members could turn to the WHO for an expert
medical opinion. The possibility of obtaining an opinion (not a binding
ruling) from the WHO should help dispel the US’s misgivings about the
system's use by the developing countries. I must underline that this would
be and advice, not an arbitrage, in full conformity with WYO [should read
WHO; comment by BUKO] role to give advice to governments.
My 7 January proposal has led to further discussions in Geneva, which was
one of its objectives. Discussions are continuing, and the EU is making all
efforts it can to restore a climate of confidence among parties.
Finally, I have to admit that I am a little bit perplexed by the content of
your letter. When I launched my proposal, I have made my intention very
clear, and these intentions have been further clarified by myself and by my
services at several occasions, be it in the press, the European Parliament
and, last but not least, in the context of the Commission's meeting with
civil society on 30 January 2003, which you attended yourself. I therefore
regret that there have been continuing attempts to mislead the public on the
positions taken by the EU and on the reservations underlying its action. I
sincerely hope that this letter contributes to dispelling any
misunderstanding that may still exist.
I am copying this letter to European Public Health Alliance, Médecins sans
Frontières and Oxfam International and I will publish it on the website of
the Commission's Directorate General for Trade.
Yours sincerely,
MEMBRE DE LA COMMISSION EUROPEENNE
RUE DE LA LOI, 200, B-1049 BRUXELLES
Brussels,
27 February 2003
IG/mc D (2003) 829
Pascal LAMY
Return to: CPTech Home -> Main IP Page -> CPTech on WTO -> Paragraph Six Page |