The author argues that global players that develop greater diplomatic and trade relations with African states will be greatly advantaged. For many countries, particularly those that have framed their relations with Africa largely in humanitarian terms, this is argued to require a shift in public and policy perceptions. Without this shift, many of Africa's traditional partners, especially in Europe and North America, will lose global influence and trade advantages to the emerging powers in Asia, Africa and South America. The author argues that economic fortunes across Africa are diverging, making it less meaningful to treat Africa as a single entity in international economic negotiations. He claims that it is in the global interest that the African Union should be granted a permanent place at the G20 and that in turn, a more focused, sophisticated and strategic African leadership is needed.
Health equity in economic and trade policies
This paper explores regional integration in Africa. The author observes that fragmentation of countries has led to the absence of scale in the production of goods and services. Industrialisation and regional integration policies were proposed to overcome this. For some communities, such as the Southern African Development Communities, there were also political objectives. None of the regional integration arrangements are yet fully fledged customs unions. The author notes the limits to intraregional trade by virtue of the low industrial capacity of the countries in the region. However regional integration provides in theory the economies of scale that attract investment and protects producers within a common market. He argues that these benefits of regional integration have not been achieved. As regional integration is argued to be important, the author argues that it needs to be more strongly based on national strategies for enhancing production capacities.
According to this report, the current economic slowdown in sub-Saharan Africa may soon be over. Output is projected to expand by 4¾% in 2010, compared to 2% in 2009. Most countries in the region are now bouncing back from the growth slowdown or contraction in output experienced during the global recession. The brevity of the slowdown owes much to the relative strength of the region’s economies heading into 2008–2009, the expansionary macro-economic stance then adopted by most countries, and the relatively quick recovery in global economic activity. The report predicts that prospects for 2011 and beyond look good. Output growth is projected to accelerate to 5¾% in 2011, playing off the expected continued improvement in global economic conditions. Over the medium term, growth rates in most sub-Saharan African countries are expected to be only marginally below those enjoyed in the mid-2000s. In the meantime, most countries have been able to shield pro-poor and pro-growth public spending. According to preliminary budget out-turn numbers, health and education spending increased in real terms in 20 of the 29 low-income countries in the region in 2009. In a similar vein, government capital spending also looks to have held up in 2009, increasing in real terms in more than half of the countries in the region.
This collection of papers reviews select issues on the regional integration agenda in east and southern Africa. It starts by assessing the African Paradigm of Regional Integration, as well as the broader AU integration agenda. It also reflects on the impact of the global economic crisis on Africa. This is followed by a review of progress on regional integration in the Southern African Development Community (SADC). It then considers country-specific issues, including the trade policy choices of several countries, the role of new generation trade issues, such as services on the regional integration agenda, and assesses the status of protectionism, trade remedies and safeguards in regional trade agreements, both intra- and extra-regional. Finally, it presents a review of the developments in the negotiations concerning SADC’s economic partnership agreements, specifically focusing on concerns raised within the SADC group.
The Joint Africa-EU Strategy (JAES) launched by European and African leaders at the Lisbon summit of 2007 is argued to have so far failed to deliver on its key promise to fundamentally transform development and political cooperation between the continents. Three years of uncertain implementation reveals just how wide a gap separates the rhetoric and reality of the new strategic partnership. This policy brief shows how the Joint Africa-EU Strategy has struggled to integrate some pre-existing frameworks and transform the logic of elevated partnership. Both sides admit difficulties in the face of unfulfilled expectations of additional European Union (EU) funding. At the same time implementation of the agreement is clouded by dissonant discourses from both sides of the negotiation table. To complicate matters further, institutional complexity in Europe is met by an embryonic process of continental integration in Africa.
Health activists in Malawi have expressed concern at what they call government’s ‘secret conduct’ on the proposed anti-counterfeit law, which they fear could legislate against the generic drugs on which Malawi’s health care system heavily relies. In keeping with World Trade Organisation (WTO) and international trade agreement terms, countries in East and Southern Africa are introducing laws reportedly to crack down on infringement of trademark and intellectual property rights. According to this article, Malawi’s proposed law to that effect has already been examined by Cabinet on its way to becoming law. However, health activists have expressed concern that the law may cause drug stock-outs if generic medicines are treated as counterfeits, as has been raised in East African versions of counterfeit law. Government is allegedly denying health civil society access to the document, saying it is not for public consumption. Executive Director for the umbrella body Malawi Health Equity Network (MHEN), Martha Kwataine, said enacting a law against generic medical products will reverse Malawi’s efforts in improving health care and worsen drug stock outs in hospitals. ‘Once we have the new laws, it means we will be forced to buy the most expensive brand-name drugs,’ she added. ‘The big companies that are owners of the patents will be making huge profits at the expense of the lives of poor people in Malawi.’
In this open letter to Margaret Chan, Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO), Health Action International (HAI) urges WHO to dissociate itself from the work of IMPACT, a global intellectual property (IP) enforcement body that seeks to impose an IP agenda to deal with broader problems of medical products with compromised quality, safety and efficacy. It further demands that WHO no longer involve itself in IP enforcement with regard to pharmaceuticals and other medical products. It argues that, not only is the IP enforcement agenda ineffective in terms of addressing the wider public health threats from spurious and sub-standard medical products, but it has also been shown to impede access to medicines by undermining competition from generic medicines. WHO should continue to prioritise public health issues over issues of trade, which HAI points out has always been WHO's proper mandate.
India and Brazil have taken the first step towards raising a dispute at the World Trade Organization (WTO) against the European Union (EU) and the Netherlands over the seizure by EU customs of generic medicines in transit to developing countries. Their request for consultations under the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism is the first step in the possible establishment of a panel at the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), if the consultations fail. Indian ambassador, Ujal Singh Bhatia, said that both India and Brazil were concerned primarily over two considerations. Firstly, the seizures seemed to emanate from complaints made by patent holders in Europe, even though the generic drugs were perfectly legitimate under WTO rules in the source countries, as well as in the destination countries. He noted that the intellectual property issues raised were unmerited and international transit guarantees were being violated. Secondly, he noted that the seizures confused intellectual property rights with substandard or spurious medicines. He believed there was a concerted effort to put together a TRIPS-plus enforcement agenda that does away with the flexibilities that are guaranteed to developing countries under the TRIPS regime.
While the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is getting a lot of attention with its draft consolidated version just published, there is another convention dealing with one major aspect it was always said ACTA would tackle. The Medicrime Convention of the Council of Europe sets the first international standard for criminalising the manufacturing and distribution of counterfeited medicine risking public health. Governments that will sign the convention later this year commit to establish as offences 'the intentional manufacturing of counterfeit medical products, active substances, excipients, parts, materials and accessories' (Article 5), 'the supplying or the offering to supply, including brokering, the trafficking, including keeping in stock, importing and exporting of counterfeit medical products, active substances, excipients, parts, materials and accessories' (Article 6) and also the 'falsification of documents' (Article 7). Medicrime also covers falsified medical devices and aims to see 'aiding, abetting and attempt' of the described acts criminalised. According to Medicrime, falsification of generic drugs also would be covered and so would the distribution of legal drugs on the black market like hormones sold without prescription to people who want to build up their muscles or enhance their performance. Also drugs brought to the market without undergoing existing controls will be covered.
More than 45 non-governmental organisations (NGOs), from countries as diverse as Switzerland, India, the United States and Uganda, have voiced concern over the involvement of the World Health Organization (WHO) in the issue of 'counterfeit' medical products. In an open letter to WHO, the NGOs criticised WHO's involvement in the International Medical Product Anti-Counterfeit Taskforce (IMPACT), including its links to entities that are engaged in matters pertaining to intellectual property (IP) enforcement, the central role played by the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Associations (IFPMA) in IMPACT's activities, the lack of transparency surrounding IMPACT's activities and the lack of accountability, as IMPACT has operated outside the purview of WHO member states. The open letter said that equating 'counterfeit' with spurious and falsely labelled pharmaceutical products not only undermines confidence in much-needed affordable quality generic products but also results in public health problems being addressed through an IP enforcement lens. It noted that spurious and falsely labelled pharmaceuticals will arise irrespective of whether or not there is an IP violation.