Why Trans-Pacific pact is worrying health activists

It is being seen as the mother of all trade deals. But the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has public health advocates worried, as secrecy continues to shroud the details of the pact.

Ministers representing 12 countries, including the US, Australia, Canada, Singapore, Japan and Malaysia, had said on Monday that they had sealed a “comprehensive” trade pact.

The overarching trade deal covered an “ambitious” range, from supporting employment creation and retention to enhancing innovation, transparency, labour and environment protection, according to the US Trade Representative’s office.

But public health advocates across the world have called for details of the deal to be made public, their key concern being the enhanced protection of intellectual property (IP) and the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provision.

And the concern is, if TPP sets a benchmark on these issues, it could have a ripple effect on other trade deals and negotiations.

ISDS is a contentious feature that allows foreign investors to sue a government internationally, if they feel that domestic policy had hurt their investment in that country.

Enhanced IP, on the other hand, raises concerns of increased research data protection and patent linkage with marketing approvals — measures that could encourage monopolistic behaviour and hurt public health.

Details are still not out and there is little clarity on the commitments made between countries on data protection and linkages, observed Leena  Menghaney of Médecins Sans Frontières or Doctors without Borders.  

Indian generic drugs — from HIV treatment to recent incidents involving Hepatitis C drug Sofosbuvir — have been a big draw, she points out. Patients from other countries have come to India to access treatment, as it is typically very expensive in their countries. The trade pact could feature measures that topple India’s capacity to provide inexpensive medicines to its citizens as well as patients across the world, she said, calling for details to be made public.

On the ISDS front, tobacco has been carved out of this deal; but that is a disservice to health, as it makes other aspects of health vulnerable for companies to exploit, said Menghaney. Health is not just about tobacco, there are medicines for lung cancer, for example, that are expensive, she added.

Canada and Australia, having faced the brunt of ISDS, should have reformed this provision in the trade regime. India should stand up to the pact as it does not affect just public health but other aspects of trade too, such as banking and finance, she said.

PV Appaji of Pharmexcil (a body that promotes India’s drug exports) said the organisation is concerned that the pact could hurt India’s medicine exports to the ASEAN region.

This has been raised with the Centre, he added.

Expressing concern over the secret ‘in-principle’ TPP deal, Patricia Ranald of Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network said that non-publication of the agreement’s text may hide trade-offs on issues, such as medicines and corporate rights to sue governments.

 “Australia has agreed to the inclusion of rights for foreign investors to sue governments in international tribunals if they can argue that a change in domestic law or policy ‘harms’ their investment, known as ISDS.

 “There are increasing numbers of such cases against health and environmental law, like the Philip Morris tobacco company case against Australia’s plain packaging law, which is still not finished after four years. Claimed ‘safeguards’ have not prevented such cases in the past, and again the detail in the TPP is not available,” she said.

Governments have three months before the deal is sealed. “If this is such a good deal, the text should be released before it is signed by governments…,” Ranald added.

COMMENT NOW