Economic partnership agreements were one of the topics discussed at the 6th African, Caribbean and Pacific Summit of Heads of State and Government held in Accra, Ghana from 30 September to 3 October. African, Caribbean and Pacific countries decided whether to sign agreements that they have initialled, re-negotiate them or expand interim goods agreements further. Among the conclusions of the analysis of this topic are that the provisions on movement of capital and entry of EU providers of financial services may magnify the problem of instability that new financial services generate, and that the developing countries would have to undertake obligations in market access and rules in new areas (investment, government procurement, competition policy) that had been rejected as negotiating topics in the WTO. For example the right to regulate services has been narrowed further than GATS, universal service provision will be more limited.
Health equity in economic and trade policies
The Executive Coordinator of the Millennium Campaign has called for coherent global collaborative action to effectively deal with trade imbalances suffered by developing countries. Addressing the inaugural Geneva Trade and Development Forum at Crans-Montana, she bemoaned the current situation where developing countries are left fragmented in negotiating processes: ‘It is time to make trade policies part of the broader relationship, not just with other countries, but, more importantly part of the broader agenda of challenges of global poverty, the environment and security.’ Included in the agenda should be the issues of public health, food security and nutrition, as well as the relationships among the three.
Some developing nations nave accused developed nations of overreaching themselves in their push to escalate enforcement of intellectual property rights and want their efforts to be reined in and centralised in the World Intellectual Property Organisation. This especially applies to a secret negotiation led by the United States, Europe and Japan to create an Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). The ACTA might create trade barriers and harm consumers, domestically and outside the signatory nations. The agreement lacks ‘democracy’ and balance, as it relies heavily on industry groups and rights holders with no representation on behalf of consumers. And as the law enforcement side rises, individual legal rights may be diminished. Secrecy around the treaty negotiation has fuelled speculation that its terms will undermine vital consumer interests, including access to low-cost generic medicines.
This paper from the South Centre is concerned with the widening development gap in the setting of new international policy regimes and a changing global economic environment. It discusses participation and developing country governance adaptation issues in the WTO and in the UN Conference on Trade and development (UNCTAD). It concludes that developing country group action should be an essential component in global trade governance. Inclusive governance will require clear policy issue and agenda articulation from shared understanding, institutionalised coordination and group leadership mechanisms, good working relationships between individual country delegates and other developing country delegates, and full and continuous institutional support of high professional quality.
The Brazilian Patent Office has rejected a patent application by Gilead on the drug tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), in a move that could increase access to a key HIV/AIDS medicine across the developing world. The decision means that the medicine can now be produced by Brazilian generic companies or imported from other generic sources from abroad. This is the first time that a patent related to an antiretroviral (ARV) medicine has been rejected as a result of a pre-grant opposition in Brazil. The patent office in Brazil rejected it on the grounds that it lacks inventiveness – one of the key requirements for a patent in Brazilian and international patent law. The consequences extend far beyond Brazil’s borders and may set a precedent for other developing nations.
The behaviour of China and India as development partners is changing the global aid picture, most importantly in Africa. Welcomed by African governments as alternative sources of development finance to the West, they have modelled their development finance on a framework of concessional loans and aid for resource security and infrastructure reconstruction. But their development assistance remains negligible, compared to the DAC and multilateral donors, who remain Africa’s main development partners. Until fairly recently, both countries have received large Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) disbursements. Conflicting definitions of aid as co-operation or ODA, offered by the Chinese government and well positioned academic sources, reflect a lack of clarity in Chinese foreign aid policy. Trying to pigeon hole or compartmentalise aid policies in each country into neatly defined boxes proves difficult, particularly as China and India’s donor activities in Africa are often inextricably viewed together with commercial interests and investment projects.
Africa’s share of world trade declined from 5.5% in 1980 to 2% in 2003, with an overwhelming dependency on trade with the EU (European Union). Trade policies have a critical role to play in supporting economic development across Africa. These policies are increasingly set through agreements in international arenas. Whilst the World Trade Organisation has set trade rules that have implications for African countries, it is a new generation of bilateral/regional trade and investment agreements that will critically determine the types of trade and wider economic policies that governments can use to support development. There are widespread and justified fears that the configuration of the EPA negotiating blocs will undermine rather than promote aid effectiveness.
This policy brief assesses the current status of health and trade policies and analyses opposition to liberalizing trade in health care. It conceptualises and contrasts two international policy dialogues. One, typified by UN bodies such as the World Health Organisation, is skeptical - if not hostile - to increased trade in health care, particularly North-South integration. Its policy errs on the side of protectionism and favours an industrial policy approach. The other, operating under World Trade Organisation (WTO) discourse, has more of a free trade bent. And yet, in policy practice, few countries in the WTO trade in health care and trade agreements typically contain little to promote liberalisation. Examples in this study from those few (mainly developing) countries that have shown initiative towards trade in health care contradict this negative and apathetic approach. Countries as diverse as Brazil, China, Cuba, India and South Africa are already significant exporters of health care. Trade does hold some very tangible benefits for this sector, for North and South alike, and does not necessarily entail undermining government regulatory power. Further analysis of different health care systems’ trade-compatibility is needed.
This article discusses African countries and the second generation of ‘emerging market’ countries. Eight countries in sub-Saharan Africa have been deemed to meet the ‘emerging market’ criteria by the International Finance Corporation: Botswana, Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia. The rise of some African countries to emerging market status gives them great economic opportunity. The article looks at ways to determine a countries growth prospects, depending on whether a country is resource-rich or resource-scarce.
The World Trade Organisation Doha Round talks ended bitterly on 31 July, but negotiators left town with the general consensus that hard-earned work to date should not be lost and that there might be resumption of talks sometime in the future. The fate of intellectual property (IP) issues at the WTO remains vague and may not come clear for weeks or months, according to some sources, while others said it will be business as usual for international trade rules on IP.