Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-04-Speech-4-040"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011004.2.4-040"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, allow me first of all to express my appreciation for the work of the rapporteur, Mr Khanbhai.
On the second issue, "ever-greening", there are no provisions in the TRIPS Agreement that could be applied here. The substance and level of invention for the granting of a patent is evaluated by national patent authorities.
Allow me to make a few remarks on the other paragraphs. Ninety-five percent of drugs listed as essential drugs by WHO are off patents and may be produced freely. The remaining 5% are drugs patented in most countries. It is the Commission's view that compulsory licenses should be issued in accordance with the rules laid down in Article 31 of the TRIPS Agreement. Tiered pricing, in the sense that pharmaceutical companies voluntarily offer their products at heavily discounted prices to developing poor markets, is something the Commission strongly supports. It was one of the sticking points in the discussion of the guidelines for the health fund.
We are working towards a global system of tiered pricing that will supply markets on a sustainable basis. Supplying poor markets at the lowest possible prices should be the rule. This should comprise all essential and key medicines. Of course, if large quantities of tiered price products are exported to developing countries, the risk of trade diversion becomes high. Therefore we are considering stronger measures to prevent the re-importation of tiered-price products into the Community.
In paragraph 38 the report calls for the establishment of a fund for infectious diseases. You will all be aware that this Global AIDS and Health Fund was launched by the UN Secretary-General at the special session on HIV/Aids in June. On behalf of the Commission President Prodi pledged EUR 120 million to the fund. Total contributions have now reached USD 1.8 billion. We are actively involved in working out the operational modalities for the fund, its governance, legal basis and its focus.
I agree with what a few of the speakers said concerning the situation of women. The whole agenda concerning reproductive and sexual health and rights needs to be kept in mind whenever we discuss these issues.
Mrs Sandbæk mentioned the issue of testing. I want to clarify that we are working on testing in Africa ...
I feel confident that those Members who really want to hear what I have to say are definitely trying to do so. I thank them from the bottom of my heart.
Concerning the activity of the Commission in the area of research, the reality is that we are proving quite successful in the attempt to organise a big Africa-focused network and to carry out testing as part of the whole research and development process. This is progressing quite well.
The subject of the Global AIDS and Health Fund was touched upon by many speakers. I want to give some additional information here.
In the eight months since the Commission adopted an ambitious programme for action targeting the major communicable diseases, a number of events have reconfirmed the need for action, for the global mobilisation of efforts and financing, and for the political will to achieve our aims. Health is fully on our agenda now, and the same is true of our own Member States. Health in developing countries is, together with education, one of the six priorities for the Commission for 2002. Investing in health is a key strategy for economic development and poverty reduction, and hence a crucial component of a sound development strategy.
We are involved in discussions on the modalities of the fund and there are still a few differences that need to be resolved. They concern the balance between prevention and care, especially in relation to HIV/AIDS. They concern the question to what extent the fund should supply anti-retrovirals, whether the fund should also cover research activities, the structure of tendering in the fund, and its focus in terms of geography.
Many issues are therefore, being discussed now. As a background to this discussion we also note that there is a section within the NGO community that sees the fund as a distraction from longer-term development processes, in particular support for strengthening the health systems. In my view, these words of warning have to be taken seriously. There are still many questions to resolve before it becomes clear what real added value the fund will create, especially in the most important area of improving delivery on the ground, which is still the biggest challenge.
I thank the rapporteur, Mr Khanbai. We look forward to working – as we have done until now – hand-in-hand with Parliament and keeping up the pressure to move this agenda forward.
I wish to highlight and express my strong agreement with the remarks made by Mrs Korhola and Mr Bowis on the need to organise basic health care in a manner that actually works. In this regard we should bear in mind that annual per capita spending on public health services in sub-Saharan Africa is between USD 2 and USD 6. This is the economic framework before us. Reconciling the low capacity of health systems with, in particular, care and work on administering anti-retroviral drugs to AIDS and HIV-positive patients is an extremely difficult task.
I should like to mention one case that illustrates this. In Botswana USD 100 million has been mobilised jointly by Merck, one of the big pharmaceutical companies, and the Bill Gates Foundation. They are doing everything they can to organise their work on the ground and use these advanced types of medicine in ongoing treatment. Their experience is that very little has been possible. The absence of infrastructure in this area, of educated nurses and of the conditions required for these types of advanced medicine, which are very difficult to administer, to work, shows that even concentrated, well-funded efforts spanning one-and-a-half years in a place that is better organised than most others in Africa has not done the trick. This is also why the pharmaceutical companies are warning against highlighting too uncritically the use of anti-retroviral drugs as the solution. That warning has to be taken seriously.
Our programme for action has been moving forward. We are speeding up the actual disbursement rate in the field of health. I would not go as far as to express satisfaction at this, but the situation is improving. We are disbanding dormant projects and improving projects that need to be improved. All this work is taking place.
Now a few remarks on financial allocations. Firstly, I appreciate the remarks made today by Mr Khanbhai concerning the mechanics of how we allocate this money. We would like to get away from input-related targets. They are advantageous in being easier to communicate regularly; however, we are seeking to focus on output and processes rather than on input. An important aspect of this debate is the fact that the budget does not reveal directly how much we are actually doing in areas such as health and education. It must be borne in mind that macroeconomic support, our budget support, is in fact linked to health and education. That link provides the answer as to how much – or how little – we are doing. At present it is extremely difficult to quantify this specifically but we are working on this.
Mr Khanbhai also referred to a change relating to the import of drugs and the need to abolish tariffs in this regard. This is definitely something that must be done. It should be borne in mind that liberalisation on a regional basis, which we are urging our partners to move forward on, is also an answer to this problem. Furthermore it can solve the problem of creating a better basis for starting up medicine production in developing countries. If you cannot access a neighbouring market from a given African country investing there in order to do something in this area is not a good idea.
The question of access to medicines, an issue brought up by many, is currently being discussed at the TRIPS Council in Geneva. The discussions have sought to strike a balance between the need to pursue access to affordable medicines and the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement. A declaration for the ministerial meeting in Doha is now being prepared. May I state most clearly that the EC has no intention of applying pressure on or criticising developing countries that invoke their rights under the TRIPS Agreement. It is in the interest of all WTO members that the TRIPS provisions be clear, so as to provide for lawful and correct implementation of the agreement.
As to paragraph 41 on Mr Khanbhai's report, the current review process within the TRIPS Council of certain provisions does not include the patent periods, nor the so-called "ever-greening" of patents mentioned in the report. It is not the opinion of the Commission that the patent period needs to be amended."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"(The President called for order to allow the speaker to be heard )"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples