On April 15, 2024, Colombia formally called for a review of the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement’s implementation, as mandated by it (Article 71).
The mandate is for a compulsory review of its implementation, two years after the developing country transitions (January 1, 2002). It also mandates a similar review after identical intervals. However, no such move had been initiated till the Colombian proposal.
According to their submission, the TRIPS agreement “reflects the ideas, experiences and conditions prevalent in the early 1990s” and the review clause acknowledges the changing context. The submission proposes an analysis/stocktaking of various aspects, including concentration of production in knowledge-intensive sectors, royalties, issuance of compulsory licence since 1996, disclosure of IPR etc.
Following the submission, the TRIPS Council Chair invited inputs from the Member States. It circulated a two-year Member States-driven process consisting of six informal review sessions along with a formal meeting of the Council. Though the proposal obtained overwhelming support from WTO Members (including India), there is no consensus on the scope of the review yet. The European Union, the US, the UK, Japan, Singapore and Switzerland want the scope and topics to be defined before the review. Further discussions are expected in November.
It is important to gather evidence whether implementation of the TRIPS succeeded in achieving its objective mentioned under Article 7: “to contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of technology, to the mutual advantage of producers and users of technological knowledge and in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare...”
A review can bring in rich evidence on the effects of TRIPS’ implementation on areas of social and economic development especially access and affordability to medicines, research and development of neglected diseases, concentration of manufacturing of health products, technology transfer in pharmaceutical sector, etc.
Countries like India should not wait for the formal TRIPS Council decision to carry out its review — and should instead collate evidence of TRIPS impact on sectors including pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, IT etc — to frame an evidence-based IP law and policy. This is critical in the 20th year of product patent protection in India, to trigger a policy response to the excessive prices of medicines.
(The writer is an associate with Third World Network. Views are personal).