"President Obama's historic visit to Ghana, so early in his presidency and on the heels of important commitments at the G8 in Italy, signals the importance of African development to US interests," said Raymond Offenheiser, President of Oxfam America. "President Obama gets it. He understands that without a strong civil society, and capable, transparent governance, efforts to fight poverty and bring about social justice in Africa will at best be incremental. Good governance and sustainable use of resources will inspire more effective international assistance and increase trade."
President Obama had several recommendations that will help Africa on the road to prosperity. Here are a few of the highlights from the speech:
"In the 21st century, capable, reliable, and transparent institutions are the key to success—strong parliaments; honest police forces; independent judges; an independent press; a vibrant private sector; a civil society. Those are the things that give life to democracy, because that is what matters in people's everyday lives." These are all important parts of a thriving democracy, and President Obama made clear in his speech that these should be a priority in Africa just as they should be on every other continent. Building strong institutions that protect the rights of citizens, and allow business and entrepreneurs to flourish, will encourage investment in Africa. Oxfam is focused on helping civil society organizations work to hold their governments accountable. Examples include our partnerships with groups promoting new laws that accord equal rights to women and girls in southern Africa, and a region-wide proposal for uniform laws governing the mining industry in West Africa.
"So in Ghana, for instance, oil brings great opportunities, and you have been very responsible in preparing for new revenue. But as so many Ghanaians know, oil cannot simply become the new cocoa... Dependence on commodities—or a single export—has a tendency to concentrate wealth in the hands of the few, and leaves people too vulnerable to downturns." Resources like gold, diamonds, and oil can bring enormous wealth and potential for development. The road to prosperity will require leaders to avoid the path of poor management, corruption, violence and war. Ghana is a promising example of what is possible: Since Ghana discovered oil near its coast, the country's President John Atta Mills pledged earlier this year to disclose all petroleum agreements, so citizens can track what money comes to the government and how revenues are spent. This pledge has not yet been turned into reality. Real transparency needs to be built into a new legislative framework for how Ghana's new oil wealth will be managed, to ensure revenues are spent on social services and poverty reduction. Oxfam is working with the US Congress on legislation to require all US and foreign companies subject to Securities and Exchange Commission rules to disclose payments to developing country governments. This will be a critically important tool for citizens working to avoid corruption and waste of natural resource revenues.
President Obama also highlighted steps that the US would take to help combat corruption, including addressing corruption in the annual State Department human rights report, a recommendation that was made by Oxfam America in its Presidential transition memos.
"Aid is not an end in itself. The purpose of foreign assistance must be creating the conditions where it's no longer needed." The United States needs to make a number of key reforms to make our foreign aid system as effective as possible in reducing poverty and creating prosperous communities throughout the developing world. The US lacks a coherent strategy for global development. Oxfam is calling on the US to keep recipient country governments and their public informed on the nature and amount of American aid, and let each recipient country lead its own development agenda. President Obama's focus on using aid to defeat poverty is on the right track—one that we hope will lead to a new strategy for global development and a reinvigorated, effective aid system that will also rebuild US leadership in the world.
"A warming planet will spread disease, shrink water resources, and deplete crops, creating conditions that produce more famine and more conflict." Climate change is already affecting the lives and livelihoods of millions of poor people in Africa, as a recent Oxfam report detailed. Tackling these impacts is essential to addressing food security and broader development objectives. President Obama must commit to help bring about a comprehensive global climate strategy that will help poor communities cope with failed crops, dwindling reserves of clean water, and displacement caused by extreme weather events. The US and other wealthier countries must curb their greenhouse gas emissions to prevent climate chaos and provide adequate financial assistance to help African countries adapt in greener and more sustainable ways.
"Now, America can also do more to promote trade and investment." The economic welfare of Americans is inextricably linked with the well-being of people across the globe. While our foreign policy seeks to address the problems of poverty, disease and lack of economic opportunity, our trade policy has often exacerbated them, by demanding greater access to export markets in the poor countries, more favorable rules for US investors that can lead to greater poverty and inequality, and limiting access to affordable medicines. President Obama must develop a new trade policy with economic development as a core objective, spreading the benefits of trade as widely as possible, in the developing world as well as in the United States. This must include focusing efforts on the multilateral trading system to achieve a successful conclusion of the Doha Development Round, while working with Congress to pass legislation providing for duty-free and quota-free market access for all Least Developed Countries (LDCs).
]]>He'd left his village for the first time to explain why companies like Starbucks should recognize Ethiopia's ownership of its own coffee brands.
"The names Yirgacheffe, Sidamo, and Harar are as unique to Ethiopia as the flavors of the coffees," he said. "Whoever says these names are not the property of Ethiopia is as crazy as someone who would say the name I gave my first-born son is no longer his."
Robe spoke at this coffee ceremony last December as a kind of local celebrity. His face—the gray beard, the unflinching stare—had become the iconic image of Oxfam America's Starbucks campaign. Launched in October 2006, the campaign asked that the coffee giant sign an agreement acknowledging Ethiopia's right to license and distribute its fine coffees. By recognizing Ethiopia's intellectual property rights, Starbucks could give poor farmers a chance to earn a greater share of the profits.
Aware of Starbucks' status as a global brand interested in maintaining its socially responsible reputation, Oxfam used grassroots activism and strategic media to draw attention to the issue. Though initially reluctant, Starbucks entered into serious talks with Ethiopia in May. By June, they had finalized an agreement that could change the coffee industry forever.
"The true victors of this campaign are the 1.5 million coffee farmers in Ethiopia whose lives will improve," said Abera Tola, director of Oxfam America's regional office in Ethiopia."They have given a glimmer of hope to millions more like them all over the world who deserve recognition for the quality products they generate."
At Oxfam, we feel it's important to stop and recognize a victory. But after all the celebratory emails have been sent, what comes next? For an organization interested in creating lasting solutions to poverty, the end of an effort is in many ways the beginning. This is when the real analysis comes in; just what went into this win?
Oxfam began negotiating with Starbucks in 2005 when we first learned about Ethiopia's efforts to trademark its fine coffees. After dozens of conversations between our Boston headquarters, the Seattle home of Starbucks, and Ethiopia's Intellectual Property Office in Addis Ababa, it became clear that high-level talks would not be enough. It was time to enlist the public.
At a grassroots level, Oxfam worked with a coalition of allies to organize members of the Ethiopian Diaspora, students, Starbucks employees, and our own supporter base. By the campaign's end, more than 100,000 people had gotten involved, many of them sending Robe's photo around the world on postcards, flyers, and posters. Robe's face even appeared on web sites and in newspaper ads during a series of global "days of action" in places like Seattle, Scotland, and Hong Kong. The accompanying message to Starbucks remained simple: Honor your commitments to coffee farmers.
Throughout all this work, Oxfam tested creative ways to engage our supporters. We filmed the days of action and posted the video on YouTube. We sent a petition to Starbucks that became the most popular online action in our organization's history. We had supporters participate in a photo petition on Flickr. And we promoted it all on our social networking pages on MySpace and Facebook.
Eventually Oxfam's message reached Starbucks' shareholders. A few sent letters to Starbucks supporting Ethiopia's trademark initiative. And at the Starbucks annual general meeting in April, some joined members of the Ethiopian community in asking pointed questions of both the company CEO and chairman.
With activists combining efforts around the world, Oxfam ramped up the public pressure by focusing on the press. Over the course of the campaign, major media outlets&mdsah;including NPR, the BBC, CNN, Time, Fortune, and The Wall Street Journal—featured the David-and-Goliath struggle of the Ethiopian farmers and Starbucks.
"What might have remained a little-noticed bureaucratic dispute became an international affair when Oxfam, a nonprofit relief and development group, began publicizing it in the fall," wrote The Wall Street Journal in a March 5 article.
Each aspect of the campaign had its impacts. But it just may have been the voice on the ground that resonated loudest with Starbucks. In the end, the company seemed to accept the simple truth: The campaign wasn't about a development agency, a roaster, or a government. It was about people like Robe, the coffee farmer demanding economic justice.
When the old farmer from Afursa Waro village, whose face had launched the entire campaign, made one final appearance, it was in a thank-you video for Oxfam supporters.
Sitting among his fellow farmers in a lush meadow overlooking the Yirgacheffe hills, Robe looked into the camera once again. "We know that Oxfam and many people around the globe are standing by our side in supporting us in this effort," he said. "You, our supporters, have given voice to our cause."
Then Robe stood alongside his fellow farmers and, in unison, offered a series of customary bows. "Gelatoma. Gelatoma. Gelatoma," they said in Oromifa, their region's language. "Thank you. Thank you. Thank you."
]]>Oxfam responded by saying that Starbucks did prompt the National Coffee Association (NCA), of which it is a leading member, to file an opposition to the applications, which is the reason the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) gave for rejecting them. At a meeting held this past July at the Ethiopian Embassy, Embassy staff and advisers met with the NCA president to discuss a letter of protest filed against Ethiopia’s trademark applications. Ethiopian Embassy staff asked the NCA President what had prompted the NCA to file the opposition after more than year of silence on the issue. The NCA President responded that Starbucks had just brought it to the NCA's attention.
It is therefore disingenuous for Starbucks to claim they were not responsible for the application being blocked. Ethiopian Embassy staff and Ron Layton of Light Years IP, a Washington DC-based intellectual property rights organization that is helping to advise the Ethiopian government, have gone on record with this.
Starbucks has also claimed that its investment in social development projects and micro-finance initiatives in coffee growing regions has been recognized for its leadership within the industry.
While Starbucks has taken some positive initial strides in this area, Oxfam thinks the company can do better. As a company that prides itself in such efforts, it is unclear why Starbucks would oppose Ethiopia’s efforts to help its farmers realize a greater portion of the value their coffee commands on the international market.
Intellectual property ownership makes up a huge proportion of the total value of world trade but rich countries and businesses capture most of this. Ethiopia, the birthplace of coffee, and one of the poorest countries in the world, is trying to assert its rights and capture more value from its product. It should be helped, not hindered.
Oxfam continues to call on Starbucks to show leadership for other coffee companies by immediately recognizing Ethiopia's rights in this case and signing the licensing agreement that Ethiopia presented to the company in September, recognizing the country’s rightful ownership of its coffee names.
]]>“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.
]]>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.”
]]>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."
]]>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."
]]>"It's good to see Starbucks finally coming to the table, which they initially refused to do," said Seth Petchers, coffee lead for Oxfam International's Make Trade Fair campaign. "Starbucks now says it won't block the initiative, but what it hasn't said is how it will actively support Ethiopia's stated efforts to obtain trademarks for its coffees which will bring added benefits to poor farmers."
After initially dismissing Ethiopia's plan to trademark its specialty coffees, Starbucks, which came under international pressure from campaigners, has now said it is ready to recognize Ethiopia's right to pursue this path.
Ethiopian officials have said Ethiopia will continue to pursue the trademarking and licensing initiative and hopes to enter in to partnership with Starbucks and other companies through negotiated licensing agreements. These would recognize Ethiopia's ownership of the coffee names and allow them to get a fairer share of the profits for their producers. Ethiopia has obtained a trademark in the US for its Yirgacheffe coffee.
Oxfam and other partners have supported the trademarking initiative as a way to pass down more of the value of coffee sales to poor producers who typically receive a tiny percentage of final sale price, and struggle to make a living.
On February 15 Starbucks announced initiatives to benefit coffee farmers in Ethiopia including funding for a quality improvement project and increased coffee purchases in East Africa. While the additional purchases and support are beneficial, these initiatives fail to address the fundamental rights issue at hand. What the Ethiopians have asked coffee roasters to do is recognize Ethiopia's right to control and share in the value of the country's specialty coffee names through trademarks.
"As a market leader, Starbucks should take concrete steps that the Ethiopian government has called for, including reaching an agreement that recognizes Ethiopia's legal ownership of its coffee names," continued Petchers.
]]>In the ongoing lawsuit, Novartis is challenging India’s patent law in an attempt to protect its own profits. Although the case revolves around a patent application for leukemia drug Glivec, it has potential ramifications for millions of poor people worldwide, according to Oxfam. If Novartis is successful, the entire Indian generic drug industry, which is by far the biggest provider of affordable medicines for poor people, will be threatened.
“Oxfam believes that Novartis is misinforming the public as it defends its decision to pursue legal action against India,” said Jeremy Hobbs, Executive Director of Oxfam International, in a letter to Novartis. “We are not – and have never been – opposed to Novartis’ donations program, but such program can never hope to supply free medicines to all patients, for all diseases, throughout their lives.”
Over a thousand e-mails from doctors, cancer patients and patients’ relatives in support of the corporation’s Glivec donation program were sent to Oxfam via the Max Foundation, in what Oxfam believes is an attempt to deflect attention away from the wider implications of a Novartis victory in this case.
“Novartis and its colleagues in the pharmaceutical industry should respect countries’ rights to take measures that balance the protection of innovation and the promotion of public health,” said US Representative Henry A. Waxman, Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, in a letter to the Novartis urging the company to reconsider its position on the case. “India’s robust generics market supplies affordable, essential drugs both to its citizens and to poor nations around the world. If India is pressured to make its patent laws more stringent than its obligations under international trade law, this crucial supply of medicines could be threatened.”
The Doha Declaration in 2001 recognized the right of all World Trade Organization members to use such legal flexibilities without fear of challenge. India denied Novartis a patent for Glivec on these grounds, but instead of appealing only that decision, the company has gone much further and challenged the very constitutionality of the Indian law. If successful, Novartis’ actions could lead to a collapse of India’s entire generic drugs industry. Today’s hearing goes to the heart of the debate around universal access to medicine: if Novartis wins its case, access to all of these vital affordable medicines for AIDS and other diseases will be jeopardized.
“If Novartis wins this case, countless medicines previously available cheaply to poor people will be patented and priced out of reach,” said Hobbs. “The medicine cabinet will be firmly locked, and only companies like Novartis will hold the keys.”
]]>