As world market prices for crops such as grain and soybeans have risen, governments in countries that import food have realised they can no longer depend on the market for supplies. At the same time, predictions that food and water shortages are being exacerbated by climate change and expanding populations have convinced countries such as China, South Korea, Saudi Arabia and others to buy large amounts of land in poor countries in Africa, according to this paper. Agribusinesses, government agencies, and investment funds alike have been acquiring long-term leases for more than 50 million hectares of land in countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, Madagascar and Mozambique. But in many cases the contracts are just a few pages long, and the land is sold for less than US$1 per hectare. These so-called “land grabs” are water acquisitions as well; some contacts include turning over water rights without a fee. And since most of the leases are for up to 100 years, the local population often loses the rights to its land and water for generations. Why are the governments in these African countries signing such fragile deals? Poor African nations hope to gain jobs and infrastructure development, the author concedes. Yet many local farmers living on land sold to foreign entities stand to lose much as most of the contacts to acquire the land were completed without local participation or notification.
Health equity in economic and trade policies
This book is based on a macro analysis of 79 countries and micro-surveys in different sectors and countries, spanning seven years. In it, the authors argue that rich countries have built strong institutions to complement to their production systems, which has allowed them to build up strong production and the exportation of high quality goods and services, a path followed by emerging economies. However, poor countries continued to produce raw materials for the richer countries. Central to the production activities of all countries that became rich is a set of industrial and innovation policies, which are discussed in the book. ‘Latecomer countries’ are defined as countries that are late in developing, and which do not innovate at the 'global frontier,' which is occupied by the top industrialised countries. They need industrial and innovation policies that shift attention from commodities to development of productive capacities. Innovation is not research and development, it is about knowledge that countries acquire, according to the book.
The request by least developed countries (LDCs) to push back the date on which they would have to enforce intellectual property rules under the World Trade Organisation (WTO) is the subject of ongoing informal consultations between delegations, as the deadline is fast approaching. Particularly at stake is the time period of the extension, which developed countries would prefer to be limited. Although a large consensus has emerged to grant an extension to LDCs for complying with TRIPS, developed countries voiced their preference for a time-limited extension at the WTO’s March 2013 meeting. Another problem for developing countries is the so-called “no roll-back clause,” which seeks to ensure that if LDCs have granted intellectual property protection to some products, they cannot go back on this decision. LDCs consider this clause as a hindrance to their ability to use policy space. A delegate from an LDC country said that it is important that the extension be awarded as long as a country remains an LDC because many LDCs do not have a technological base. Without that technological base, LDCs would not be able to benefit from intellectual property protection, which might actually hinder their development.
The Bridges Africa editorial team features various analyses that take a closer and fresh look at the unique challenges facing least developed countries in the context of the trade-innovation nexus. The dynamics underpinning the IPR and public policy debate are often epitomised by the topic of the protection of patented drugs by LDCs. In 2001, the latter obtained a separate waiver to implement TRIPS provisions on pharmaceutical products until January 2016. Should LDCs seek the renewal of this waiver before it expires, or does the general extension for the TRIPS Agreement until July 2021 already allow for exemptions from patent protection motivated by public health concerns? These and related questions are addressed in this edition.
Least developed countries (LDCs) that are members of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) have submitted a request to the TRIPS Council for an extension of the transition period for them to comply with the TRIPS Agreement for as long as they are classified as LDCs. The request was submitted by Haiti, on behalf of the LDCs, at a meeting of the TRIPS Council on 6-7 November 2012. The exemption will continue to allow LDCs to access affordable medicines without the risk of violating patents on the medicines. Haiti argued that because of their extreme poverty, LDCs need the policy space to access various technologies, educational resources, and other tools necessary for development. Furthermore, LDCs have such small economies that they do not represent a significant loss of profits for pharmaceutical patent owners. Most intellectual property-protected commodities are simply priced beyond the purchasing power of these countries’ governments and their nationals, the spokesperson for Haiti added. Haiti has asked for this issue to be put on the agenda of the next TRIPS Council meeting, scheduled to take place in March 2013.
The Least Developed Countries (LDCs) have submitted a "duly motivated" request to the WTO TRIPS Council for an extension of the transition period for them to comply with the TRIPS Agreement "for as long as the WTO Member remains a least developed country". The request was submitted by Haiti, on behalf of the LDCs, at a meeting of the TRIPS Council on 6-7 November 2012. The exemption will continue to allow LDCs to access affordable medicines without the risk of violating patents on the medicines. Haiti argued that because of their extreme poverty, LDCs need the policy space to access various technologies, educational resources, and other tools necessary for development. Furthermore, LDCs have such small economies that they do not represent a significant loss of profits for pharmaceutical patent owners. Most intellectual property-protected commodities are simply priced beyond the purchasing power of these countries’ governments and their nationals, the spokesperson for Haiti added. Haiti has asked for this issue to be put on the agenda of the next TRIPS Council meeting, scheduled to take place in March 2013.
On 15 November 2011, least-developed countries (LDCs) tabled a proposal on extending the current deadline of 1 July 2013 for them to implement the World Trade Organisation's (WTO) TRIPS Agreement, which affects patents on medicines and access to medicines in their countries. The proposal has been submitted for the upcoming eighth WTO Ministerial Conference (MC8) taking place in Geneva from 15-17 December 2011. The proposal recognises that LDCs continue to face serious economic, financial and administrative constraints in their efforts to bring their domestic legal system into conformity with the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement. It also takes note of the challenges faced by most LDCs to submit their priority needs for technical and financial co-operation under the Decision of 29 November 2005 and the lack of resource mobilisation to support their individual priority needs. The proposal recalls the commitment by Developed Country Members to provide enhanced technical and financial co-operation in favour of LDCs to assist them in implementing the TRIPS Agreement and develop a viable technological base in line with their special needs and requirements.
Health reforms based on market principles have been introduced widely in both developed and developing countries over the past 20 years. In developing countries, international donors have insisted on health reform as a precondition of providing external aid. The reform packages that have been introduced have been strikingly similar across countries as wide apart as Uganda, Bolivia, and Russia. Uganda embarked on market based health reforms in 1994. These reforms have not only failed to improve health services and the health of the population but have arguably been the key factor behind their deterioration. What can we learn from Uganda's experience?
The economic and financial crisis generated by COVID-19 has deepened initiatives - which are not entirely new - to sustain local production of pharmaceuticals through a variety of mechanisms aimed at recovering 'strategic autonomy'. The pharmaceutical industry (including biotechnological products) can be one of the axes in new policy frameworks oriented to local production. A UNCTAD study concluded that in many developing countries companies have achieved the economies of scale required to produce medicines competitively and will expand over the next decade. Taking advantage of these opportunities to strengthen a pharmaceutical/ biotechnology industry may require the reformulation of industrial policies, to promote the sector as a generator of value added, employment and foreign exchange, as well as an instrument for achieving health autonomy to address public health needs. The author argues that this requires the deployment of well-articulated instruments, in line with the concept of 'mission-oriented industrial strategy'.
Current debates about the potential positive and negative implications of agricultural biotechnology for human nutrition do not seem to be well informed by lessons learned from the Green Revolution. This paper will examine the following question: what was learned from the Green Revolution concerning its effects on food consumption and/or nutrition? 2) In what respects is the agricultural biotechnology issue similar to the Green Revolution? 3) In what respects is it different? 4) Under what circumstances (if any) do you think it would be appropriate to introduce genetically engineered crops into the farming systems of developing countries? 5) What are the pros and cons of the preceding recommendation?