Ambassador of New Zealand to the United States, and former WTO Director General, Mike Moore explained today that the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP) may contain the “sequencing” of intellectual property and other provisions for some members. He made the statement today at Brookings event on Japan’s potential entry to the TPP.
Moore was asked if there would be “carve outs” for some countries for some provisions, like those governing pharmaceuticals or for sugar. Moore explained that he opposed carve outs, but added:
“There may be sequencing for some countries. Property, or intellectual property, in Vietnam, for example.”
(This quote is from hand written notes. I could not find a webcast of the event to check the quote).
This is the first I have heard that the parties are discussing some kind of differential treatment, apparently in the form of transition periods or other “sequencing,” within TPP. Some obvious candidates for sequencing would be in intellectual property and the pharmaceutical reimbursement chapter.
Under TRIPS, least developed countries received 10 years from 1995 to apply the bulk of obligations. The 2001 Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health extended the period for least developed countries to comply with provisions on pharmaceuticals to 2016; in 2005 the transition period for LDCs for most other TRIPS requirements was extended to 2013. Without adding these periods to the TPP, Vietnam would be forced to give up these important flexibilities under multilateral law. Furthermore, the US is attempting to convince Peru to give up all the added flexibility on data exclusivity and patent-registration linkage it received through the May 2007 deal.
The other area that is likely the subject of differential treatment discussion is the US proposed chapter on “Transparency and Procedural Fairness for Healthcare Technologies.” Indeed, the US will likely demand differential treatment here to protect the federal Medicaid program, which does not comply with the norms in the U.S. proposal. (See TPP Pharma chapter analysis).
Surprisingly little was said by the U.S. and Japanese government representatives. In another example of US Government trade policy secrecy that would be odd if it had not become so routine, Assistant USTR Wendy Cutler and Michitaka Nakatomi, Principal Trade Negotiator in the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, spoke first, said nothing in response to any public critiques of the TPP agreement or its negotiating process, and departed before any questions could be asked.
(There clearly could have been time for questions. Instead, they added another speaker before the break — a representative of Caterpillar Inc.).
New Zealand Trade Minister Mike Moore explained today that the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP) may contain the “sequencing” of intellectual property and other provisions for some members. He made the statement today at Brookings event on Japan’s potential entry to the TPP.
Moore was asked if there would be “carve outs” for some countries for some provisions, like those governing pharmaceuticals or for sugar. Moore explained that he opposed carve outs, but added:
“There may be sequencing for some countries. Property, or intellectual property, in Vietnam, for example.”
(This quote is from hand written notes. I could not find a webcast of the event to check the quote).
This is the first I have heard that the parties are discussing some kind of differential treatment, apparently in the form of transition periods or other “sequencing,” within TPP. Some obvious candidates for sequencing would be in intellectual property and for the pharmaceutical reimbursement chapter.
Under TRIPS, least developed countries received 10 years from 1995 to apply the bulk of obligations. The 2001 Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health extended the period for least developed countries to comply with provisions on pharmaceuticals to 2016; in 2005 the transition period for LDCs for most other TRIPS requirements was extended to 2013. Without adding these periods to the TPP, Vietnam would be forced to give up these important flexibilities under multilateral law. Furthermore, the US is attempting to convince Peru to give up all the added flexibility on data exclusivity and patent-registration linkage it received through the May 2007 deal. See http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/factsheets/2007/asset_upload_file945_11283.pdf
Surprisingly little was said by the U.S. and Japanese government representatives. In another example of US Government trade policy secrecy that would be odd if it had not become so routine, Assistant USTR Wendy Cutler and Michitaka Nakatomi, Principal Trade Negotiator in the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, spoke first, said nothing in response to any public critiques of the TPP agreement or its negotiating process, and departed before any questions could be asked.
(There clearly could have been time for questions. Instead, they added another speaker before the break — a representative of Caterpillar Inc.).
