“This is an important step for Ethiopia as it engages with coffee companies on its innovative trademarking initiative designed to help alleviate poverty,” said Raymond C. Offenheiser, president of Oxfam America. “This initiative will help create real change for the 15 million Ethiopians dependent on the country’s coffee sector.”
According to Ethiopia and Starbucks, the agreement is expected to be finalized and signed by both parties in May. More details regarding the content of the agreement will be available once it has been signed.
"Oxfam eagerly awaits the final agreement and long overdue recognition of these coffees as unique and valued products of Ethiopia's coffee farmers," continued Offenheiser.
In the meantime, Ethiopia’s trademarking project has continued to gain momentum. The licensing team heading the project has begun to roll out an implementation plan for the registered trademarks in Canada, the European Union, the United States and Japan. A marketing plan aimed at further raising the profile of the Sidamo, Harar and Yirgacheffe brands on the international market is also underway.
The goal of the trademarking initiative is to help Ethiopia’s coffee sector—including farmer cooperatives—earn more from its valuable coffee brands, increase its negotiation leverage through control of the marks, and ultimately increase the price received for its best coffees. Ethiopia will be able to protect the valuable reputation of its coffees and enable poor growers to capture a greater share of the retail price.
In October 2006, Oxfam launched an international public campaign to encourage Starbucks to engage with Ethiopia directly on the issue of the country’s ownership of its specialty coffee names. Over 93,000 supporters have called on Starbucks to sign a licensing agreement with Ethiopia.
]]>"One part was washed out by the landslides," cooperative member Lucas Izapo told us. "Before Stan, the land was thick with coffee plants, everything was covered with coffee plants. When the landslide came, it took the coffee bushes with it. The hill was left bald, and covered in rock.
"Now I am fixing up my land, little by little. But it's not going to take a year to fix it, it'll take three, four, or more years before this part is back to normal. Because it isn't easy to build walls. This year I planted living fences with Yucca and Bower Vine. And little by little I am going to make a stone wall, to protect the coffee from the rain that falls [each winter]."
The cooperative was able to support its members with the donation of new coffee plants to replace the older ones, organic fertilizer, and $62 for each member. They needed to make this investment to care for the plants they still had left.
They cooperative also repaired the channel that drains the coffee washing stations. This was essential to renew their fair trade certification; without this certification their income would drop even more.
Like other places in Guatemala, farmers in Solola lost much of their corn. Lucas said it has been difficult to feed his family of 10.
"I had to work even harder to sustain us, because I didn't have my harvest which was lost the year before. I lost 160 to 200 pounds from that corn harvest. So I had to plant tomato and onion and sell it to buy the corn that I used to grow for myself. Little by little I was able to buy the corn—100 pounds, another 100 pounds—because I grew these other crops."
]]>Recovering the coffee crop is not a quick endeavor. In the majority of cases it will be three or four years until the harvest is at its normal level. And cleaning up the destroyed plots of land also takes time. It is an additional task that the coffee growers had to undertake in the moments when they weren't tending to the crops spared by the storm.
The first cooperative we visited was ASUVIM, in the province of Quetzaltenango, where we spoke with the president of the cooperative, Daniel Balux. The principle problem this cooperative faced was that nearly 30 percent of its harvest was affected by black bean, a deformation of the coffee bean that cannot be seen when the coffee is harvested, but only once it is dried. It changes the color and the taste of the coffee, disqualifying it from the gourmet and fair trade markets.
Can you tell us about the black bean problem?
Actually, we detected it here at the mill. We saw that we had black beans, but we didn't think it was so extensive, we thought it was just the first beans. But as we continued with the harvest it was the same. It was the whole harvest. The coffee looked good as parchment coffee but if we look at them all—the ones with a different color, they are black beans. We can't say that our members brought in bad coffee, because the cherries looked good, they didn't even look a little rotten or anything like that. The coffee was good. You can't say to the people, look, bring us better coffee or chose it better—[but] of course when they cup this coffee the cuppers will say it is green coffee, coffee that didn't reach its full maturity. So the aid for the black bean was something necessary [to compensate for the low price]. So, what did we do after all this? Well, thanks to the help that came from you, at least the members got their normal price. At least we could say to them, 'Look, the coffee was shipped at this price, but we are going to help you a little bit and we are going to pay you this much.' The people saw that at least there was an effort behind all this."
In addition to this monetary compensation that was given to the members, what other actions did ASUVIM take to overcome the crisis?
Here 60 percent of what people earn comes from coffee. If there are problems with the coffee, there are problems in the families. Either there is little schooling, or people are unable to complete projects they had planned or there isn't much food. Here in ASUVIM we also helped out with corn. We gave each member 800 pounds of corn. Part of it we donated, the other part the members had to buy. Each family of six consumes about 1,600 pounds of corn per year. [They lost 80 percent of the harvest.] What happened with the 20 percent that they were left with? They ate it in January, maybe into February, but by March they had to buy corn. Then the problem is that when there is high demand for corn, the price rises. So we helped them with this, with 800 pounds. We think it's 50 percent of the corn they eat, we could now say that at least they had corn to eat.
The other damage we suffered as an organization is related to the landslide here next to the patio where we sun dry the coffee. With the rain, little by little, we were losing more of it. So we were faced with an emergency. Either we did something or our patio would collapse. And the more time that passed, the worse it was. So we received aid from Oxfam America because the construction is big. But it was necessary because if we lose the patio, it'd be an additional expense.. We are still constructing, but we are making the wall. We aren't doing something that is simply going to fall apart next year and then we would have to invest in it all over again. We want to invest, to spend and if that means chipping in ourselves, we do it.
]]>By seeking the right to control its most famous coffee trademarks—Sidamo, Harar and Yirgacheffe—Ethiopia aims to work with the worldwide coffee industry to build the value of its coffee ‘brands’ and give its farmers a greater share of the retail value of their coffees. Coffee is among the most valuable commodities in Ethiopia, one of the world’s poorest countries, and these rights could help lift farmers and their families out of poverty.
“Starbucks continues to break its promises to the poorest communities,” said Seth Petchers, coffee lead in Oxfam International’s Make Trade Fair campaign.“The company has branded itself as a friend to poor farmers. But when these farmers seek the right to own their coffee brands and compete in the global market on an even playing field, Starbucks refuses to support them.”
In mid-February, Starbucks issued a joint release with the government of Ethiopia stating that the company would no longer stand in the country’s way to obtain trademarks. However, since that meeting, Starbucks has balked at signing a voluntary licensing agreement and has refused to engage in good-faith discussions with Ethiopia about the trademarking initiative.
Ethiopia has continued to garner support for this project, most recently from the deputy secretary-general of the twenty-member Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa at the East Africa Fine Coffees Association meeting in Addis Ababa last month. Ethiopian farmers, in a recent statement from the Ethiopian Fine Coffee Farmers Cooperative Unions and Exporters, accused Starbucks of dodging the real issues and encouraged the coffee chain to sign the licensing agreement.
In a Valentine’s Day memo to staff leaked to the public in February, Starbucks Chairman Howard Schultz stated that changes that have come with rapid growth and success also, “have lead to the watering down of the Starbucks experience.” Earlier this month, Schultz told Fortune magazine that "Starbucks is the quintessential people-based business... Everything we do is about humanity."
“If Starbucks is seriously committed to humanity, it needs to change its position and agree to negotiate a licensing agreement with Ethiopia that respects its ownership of its unique coffee trademarks,” said Petchers. “Starbucks has retailed these Ethiopian coffees for as much as $26 a pound yet most Ethiopian coffee farmers struggle to survive on one dollar a day.”
At its Annual General Meeting today, Starbucks is celebrating growth of more than 20 percent in net revenues over the past year. Meanwhile, coffee farmers struggle to meet their most basic needs.
“Is this the best that a company that is all about humanity can do?” asked Petchers. “It’s time for Starbucks to allow Ethiopian coffee farmers to find their way out of poverty instead of continuing to stand in their way.”
]]>Twenty-five developing countries have now signed free trade deals with developed countries, with more under negotiation, according to the report, Signing Away the Future. In total, there are more than 250 regional or bilateral trade agreements in force today, governing 30% of world trade. The US Congress is now considering new Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) already signed with Colombia and Peru, agreements which will harm thousands of vulnerable small farmers, block access to affordable medicines and favor foreign investors, according to Oxfam.
“Trade could be an engine to lift millions out of poverty, but these agreements are simply bad for development,” said Stephanie Burgos, Trade Policy Advisor for Oxfam America. “Agreements such as the ones with Peru and Colombia will only exacerbate poverty in countries by imposing hardships on developing country farmers, making access to affordable medicines more difficult, and constraining the kinds of policies developing country governments should enact to protect their own citizens and fight poverty.”
The poorest people in developing countries often bear the brunt of FTAs, as seen in the case of Mexico and the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). In the first ten years after the agreement was enacted, Mexico lost 1.3 million agricultural jobs, according to the report. Manufacturing jobs were initially created but competition from cheap labor in China led to 200,000 job losses between 2001 and 2004 as firms relocated. In Peru, studies show that up to 900,000 people could be left without access to medicines if the US-Peru trade agreement goes ahead.
“Mexico has already suffered the initial impacts of the NAFTA—I saw it first hand when I met with small-scale producers of corn in Chiapas - and it will be worse if they fully liberalize the market for corn, beans and rice,” said Mexican actor Gael Garcia Bernal who has been working with Oxfam’s Make Trade Fair Campaign. “These agreements demonstrate the absence of political will to transform trade into a tool in the fight against poverty.”
The Oxfam report recommends that all trade rules, whether multilateral, regional or bilateral:
“Here in Washington, Congress should develop a new framework of objectives and priorities for US trade policy to ensure that it is not a tool strictly for advancing mercantile US business interests, but for shared prosperity, increased integration, and cooperation,” said Burgos. “Congress should recognize the dangers of such bilateral agreements and quickly vote to reject them.”
]]>Overall, the proposal would spend an estimated US$10 billion less over the next 10 years than projected spending for the 2002 Farm Bill, which is set to expire in September 2007. Much of the anticipated savings are from expected high prices for many commodities in future years. However, the Johanns proposal actually would spend US$5 billion more from 2008 – 2012 than simply extending the existing provisions in the 2002 Farm Bill.
Download the attached file to read the full text of this report by Oxfam America employee Emily Alpert. (From Bridges No. 1, February-March 2007, published by the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development.)
]]>Two institutional investor organizations have joined Oxfam and other campaigners in criticizing Novartis as the company holds its annual general meeting in Basel today (Mar 6).
Dan Rosan from the US-based Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR), an association of 275 faith-based institutional investors and with $110 billion in collective assets, said: “Novartis has substantially invested in neglected disease research, policy development, and stakeholder engagement, differentiating itself from the rest of the pharmaceutical industry. Now, their actions in this case are undermining that record. Novartis’s legal tactics in this case have raised the stakes higher than the several thousand Indian patients relying on Glivec, to involve the millions of people kept alive today by generic AIDS drugs from India.”
Alex van der Velden from FairPensions, a British-based campaign for responsible investment, said: “Novartis is threatening its own future profits as well as access to medicines, putting at risk its reputation in key emerging markets and undermining public acceptance of the intellectual property regime on which pharmaceutical profits depend.”
Oxfam says that the Novartis case threatens access to affordable medicines for millions of poor people in developing countries. Novartis is suing the Indian government in an effort to ratchet up patent protection in India by eliminating the legitimate public health provisions in the country’s patent law. The specifics of the case center around a patent on the Novartis cancer drug Glivec.
Oxfam says that Novartis cannot pursue the case while continuing to tout its charitable credentials. A number of petitions have been set up by campaigners against Novartis and nearly 400,000 people have signed. More investors are starting to question Novartis’s policy on this case and the risk it is taking with its reputation.
“Novartis wants ‘good news’ headlines about its sales figures or its drugs pipeline or its philanthropy. But the real headline is about the company attacking how some of the poorest people in the world are getting affordable medicines,” said Celine Charveriat, head of Oxfam’s Make Trade Fair campaign. “Novartis should do the right thing and drop its case today.”
Julien Reinhard from the Berne Declaration said: “The Novartis case in India goes beyond the case of anticancer medicine Glivec because it is directly challenging an internationally recognized public health safeguard. This has consequences far beyond India alone. The concerns expressed by the former President of the Swiss Confederation Ruth Dreifuss and South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu, along with thousands of campaigners worldwide, deserve to be taken seriously by the company. It is time for Novartis to show corporate responsibility by dropping its case in India.”
]]>Billed as the first summit between the Ethiopians who produce the coffee and the US and Canadian companies that buy it, this week's meeting showcased real unity and support for Ethiopia's efforts. Ethiopia has asserted ownership of the names of its coffees so that it can increase the coffees' value, gain more leverage, and receive an equitable price in the market. Already some companies, such as Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, have agreed to work with Ethiopia on this initiative. Their representatives showed their support by attending the meeting.
"Now that the trademarking work is becoming fruitful, many in the specialty coffee market are happy with us and accept that we want to increase our negotiating power and ensure greater returns to small farmers," said Tadesse Meskela, manager of Oxfam partner, the Oromia Coffee Farmers Cooperative Union.
As the three-hour meeting unfolded, I was struck by the achievements already realized by the Ethiopians. It was clear that everyone in the room was ready to work together to help Ethiopian farmers get an equitable share of the coffees, which have sold for as much as $26 a pound in the US. The stakeholders and coffee companies left the meeting with a "To Do" list and a promise to meet again in the coming months.
It was a tremendous achievement for Oxfam's partners, three farmer cooperative unions, to sit side-by-side with private exporters, government representatives, and foreign coffee buyers, discussing ways to improve the livelihoods of Ethiopia's coffee farmers.
During the meeting, I had the opportunity to speak about the tremendous global support Ethiopia's efforts have garnered. Since October, more than 90,000 Oxfam supporters from around the world have voiced their solidarity for Ethiopia's initiative. Through their efforts, these supporters have sent a clear message that coffee companies must recognize the legitimate right of countries and farmers to use the names of their coffees and their unique reputations to compete in global markets and realize higher incomes.
While much attention has been paid to Starbucks's unwillingness to recognize this right, I left the meeting feeling inspired. The conversation has moved from whether Ethiopia has the rightful ownership of its coffee names to how the coffee industry should recognize those rights and act accordingly.
As Ashenafi Argaw of Oxfam partner, Sidama Coffee Farmers Cooperative Union, said, "Our farmers deserve a better price than they are getting right now. Let's plan and discuss ways to get them better benefits from the market."
]]>The current ICA expires in September 2007. Negotiations regarding the next ICA are an excellent opportunity to implement policies to advance international cooperation on the development of a more sustainable, participatory, and equitable coffee supply chain. Oxfam urges reforms along three general themes:
In 2005, cancer patient groups in India used Indian intellectual property law to stop a patent application by Swiss company Novartis for its anti-cancer drug, Glivec. This allowed Indian companies to continue making generic versions at about $2,700 a year, as opposed to Novartis having a monopoly priced version for sale at about $27,000 a year.
Novartis recently appealed the decision in a direct challenge to India's right to use safeguards contained in trade rules agreed by the WTO in 2001 in the interests of public health.
What is Glivec?
Glivec (Gleevec in the US) is an important drug that means the difference between life and death for cancer patients suffering from leukemia (CML), stomach tumors, and other conditions. Glivec is a significant improvement over other forms of treatment and should be as widely available as possible, at affordable prices.
Why is Novartis enforcing its patent on Glivec in India and in other in developing countries?
Glivec is a key drug for Novartis worldwide. It's the company's second best selling drug with sales reaching $2.8 billion in 2005 and accounts for 9.6 per cent of Novartis's estimated share value. Research indicates that there are multiple diseases that respond to the drug. In only five years, Glivec is now approved in the US for seven different diseases. There is a danger that the company could apply for a new patent based on these "new uses" elsewhere, which would extend its monopoly and delay availability of affordable generic versions of Glivec for people who need it.
Novartis says that there is virtually no commercial market for Glivec in India and that it is taking the case in part to "align Indian IP laws with TRIPS", The World Trade Organization's agreement on intellectual property. This action is one that will affect India's right to produce not only generic versions of Glivec but also for other new medicines in the future.
What would happen if Novartis were successful in its appeal?
Not only would it increase the price of the drug it would also jeopardize India's generic export industry. India is the world's leading supplier of inexpensive generic medicines to developing countries with approximately 67 percent of its exports going to developing countries. As a result people needing cheaper versions of medicines in many developing countries would lose out.
Oxfam believes that generic competition reduces the price of many patented medicines and makes them much more affordable to poor people in developing countries. Lower prices via generic competition could ensure free or subsidized medicines for millions of poor people through increased public sector funding for health, through health insurance and because many poor people are willing to pay out of pocket for medicines because the health and well being of themselves and their family a top priority.
]]>Intellectual property is knowledge which societies have decided can be assigned specific property rights to either individuals, companies or organizations. It allows people, companies and organizations to own their creativity or innovation in the same way they can own physical property.
Intellectual property includes inventions, literary and artistic works, symbols, names, images, and designs used in commerce.
The owner or creator has the right to prevent others to use his property during a limited period of time.
A patent is a legal creation describing "ownership" of an invention. Patents are issued by individual governments and are meant to benefit both the inventor and the society at large. Patents provide the inventor with a temporary right to produce and sell their invention without the threat of competition. This monopoly results in higher prices which provide incentives for inventors.
A Trademark is ownership over product names or brand identity e.g. NIKE and PUMA. This allows for a distiction to be made between different traders of goods and services
Copyright is ownership over creative materials such as literature, art, music and films, sound recordings, software and multimedia. Copyrights usually provide the author or creator with lifetime ownership over their own materials.
These give ownership protection over designs for a product's appearance and can last up to 25 years.
Developing countries, taken as a whole, are net importers of technology and new inventions, most of which are supplied by the developed countries. Companies and organisations in developed countries own the overwhelming proportion of patent rights worldwide.
It is widely recognized that knowledge is essential for development, and that developing countries have much to gain if they are to fully exploit the many opportunities opened up by new technologies. However, increasingly restrictive intellectual property rights are limiting the benefits that new technologies can bring to developing countries.
Fact: Between 1991 and 2001, the net US surplus of royalties and fees (which mainly relate to IP transactions) increased from $14 billion to over $22 billion. In 1999, figures from the World Bank indicate a deficit for developing countries for which figures are available of $7.5 billion on royalties and license fees.
The challenge is for developing countries to use Intellectual property to their own benefit. Only under 2 percent of patent applications in the US in year 1999-2001 came from developing countries.
A reason for that is the lack of capacity for most developing countries to generate their own inventions. To build their capacity, they need to be able first to use other people's inventions, hence their need to have access to cheap technology to kick start their own development. The current IP system is too rigid to cater for these development priorities and needs to be reformed.
Another reason is that the current system does not help developing countries benefit from their own assets and resources. Their traditional knowledge in medicines, their genetic resources, or the names of high-quality products are often patented by foreign companies, which capture all the gains without having to return a fair share of their profits to the origin countries and populations.
A clear illustration of this problem is Ethiopia's Sidamo coffee, which is one of the best coffees in the world. Whilst earning coffee companies higher prices due to its quality and name, it still fails to produce enough returns for coffee farmers to make a decent living. The Ethiopian government wants to trademark this and other Ethiopian coffee names, to build its coffee industry and help its own farmers. However, this trademark is being opposed in the United States by the National Coffee Association of America, of which Starbucks is a member.
Fact: In 2001, less than 1 percent of US patents were granted to applicants from developing countries, nearly 60 percent of which were from seven of the more technologically advanced developing countries.
R&D expenditure is heavily concentrated in developed countries, and in a few of the more technologically advanced developing countries. Few developing countries have been able to develop a strong indigenous technological capability. This means that it is difficult either for them to develop their own technology, or to assimilate technology from developed countries.
Fact: In sub-Saharan Africa in 1998 (excluding South Africa), 35 patents were granted to residents compared to 741 for non-residents. By contrast in Korea, 35,900 patents were issued to residents, compared to 16,990 to non-residents. In the US, the corresponding figures were 80,292 and 67,228.
]]>Following a traditional coffee ceremony featuring some of Ethiopia's finest coffees—Harar, Sidamo, and Yirgacheffe—the farmers said they wanted the opportunity to make more money off the coffees they cultivate, which command such high prices among consumers.
While Starbucks charges as much as $26 a pound for Ethiopian specialty coffees, Ethiopian coffee farmers get only 5-10 percent of that price. For this reason, Ethiopia has asked Starbucks to sign a trademark agreement that would give Ethiopia the ability to control the use of its coffee names, occupy a stronger negotiating position with foreign buyers, and capture a larger share of the market.
"Just because I'm a farmer, don't think that I don't understand what's happening in the global market," said Tadesse Terro, who traveled from Yirgacheffe to speak out. "I do listen to the radio and I know how much my coffee retails for overseas. The money I earn for my hard work does not come close."
More than 200 people came to the Sheraton hotel in Addis Ababa to attend the coffee ceremony. Government officials and diplomats joined community activists and farmers. Each person signed a petition asking Starbucks to honor its commitment to Ethiopian coffee farmers by recognizing the country's ownership of its coffee names.
One farmer, 85-year-old Gemede Robe, left his Abaya district hometown for the first time to attend the event. Unable to read and write, he signed the Starbucks petition with his fingerprint.
Robe became the face behind Ethiopia's trademark initiative late last year when Oxfam began using his photograph to publicize the campaign.
"Like any other human being, we Ethiopians hold our names very dear," Robe said. "If given the opportunity to speak with people at the big company (Starbucks), I would ask them why they're resisting us owning our coffee names. I am sure they know, as the whole world does, that our coffees are some of the best in the world. But why are they refusing to give us the recognition we deserve?"
Oxfam is part of a broad coalition calling on Starbucks to sign a trademark agreement with Ethiopia. More than 89,000 people in 70 countries have already joined the campaign. Earlier in December, activists from New Zealand to Scotland to the US demonstrated outside of Starbucks stores. The coffee ceremony in Addis Ababa represented the culmination of these global actions.
]]>But lately that medicine has become harder to come by as pharmaceutical corporations have priced poor people out of the market. Five years after the World Trade Organization's members unanimously reaffirmed developing countries' rights to produce, export, and import affordable copies of patented drugs, rich country governments keep breaking their promises.
Countries like the US are forcing developing nations to accept free trade agreements that violate the spirit of the WTO's decision on medicine patents. The provisions contained in US-negotiated free trade agreements would restrict the availability of generic drugs; people who can't afford brand-name medicines for infectious diseases like HIV/AIDS or for chronic illnesses like diabetes or heart disease would have to go without.
This fall, Oxfam's partner, the Educational Network for Global and Grassroots Exchange, brought three Thai HIV/AIDS activists to New York, Washington DC, Pennsylvania, Texas, Illinois, Minnesota and California to speak out against the proposed US-Thailand Free Trade Agreement. The tour was part of Oxfam's campaign to change trade rules that favor rich countries over poor people and company profits over public health.
"Americans don't know much about the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Thailand or the negative impact that a US free trade agreement would have on the cheap drugs that the government makes," said Matthew Coghlan, Oxfam's Regional Trade Policy Officer in East Asia. "This tour gave the Thai speakers the chance to educate Americans about what's really at stake."
Boripat Donmon, or Pii Muu as he's known, has been living with HIV for 13 years. During that time, he has become an instrumental leader in the fight for greater access to HIV and AIDS medicines in Thailand. His organization, the Thai Network of People Living with HIV/AIDS, gathered 50,000 signatures from the Thai public to lobby the Thai government to revise its national health policies. With pressure from hundreds of other organizations mounting, the Thai government announced last year that it would include treatment for HIV and AIDS in the national health insurance plan, commonly known as the "30 Baht Scheme."
Since then, though, people like Pii Muu have been forced to stop treatment. As they become resistant to older drugs that are manufactured by the Thai government, they must take newer drugs still under patent to prolong their lives. But currently patent rules give brand-name companies exclusive rights to market their medicines for 20 years, which allows them to charge more than most sick Thais can afford.
"The situation will only worsen if the US-Thailand FTA is approved," Pii Muu said during a stop on the tour in New York City. US free trade agreements severely restrict the ability of developing countries to ensure availability of generic versions of patented medicines—the only proven way to lower prices. "Most Thais make $140 a month—way below what patented medicines cost," he continued. "I don't know how anyone will be able to afford them with an FTA."
Sang-Siri Teemanka, also known as Pii Tui, agreed. An organizer with Thailand's Aids Access Foundation, she has also spent much of her career campaigning to get the Thai national health system to offer affordable anti-retroviral medicines.
"The problem now in Thailand is that the basic treatment manufactured ... at the cheap price will become ineffective for some patients after just three to five years. They will need to change medicines, and the new drugs are patented by the giant foreign pharmaceutical companies," Pii Tui said. "These drugs are very expensive."
Negotiations for a free trade agreement with the US are a contentious issue in Thailand. In January 2006, thousands of people took to the streets in Chiang Mai, Thailand to protest their lack of involvement.
The Thai activists touring the US said they want their government to recognize the people's rights to shape the trade rules that would have real effects on their daily lives. Specifically, the Thai activists asked that the government educate the people about the US-Thailand FTA, consult with them when negotiating it, and invite them to participate in decision-making.
They also asked that Americans lobby the US government and the WTO to help poorer countries like Thailand assert their right to make available generic versions of the patented drugs.
"We want the US to understand that the FTA is not balanced," Pii Tui said. "Access to medicine is very important to Thailand. It is not like CDs or computer software. People's lives are at stake."
]]>