How Intellectual Property can raise export income and alleviate poverty

The United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (DFID) supported the recent development of an interesting booklet entitled “Distinctive Values in African exports – How Intellectual Property can raise export income and alleviate poverty.”

While this booklet focuses more on consumer goods than on health, it is interesting to hear how Intellectual Property can be used to the advantage of developing countries.  “These innovations use Intellectual Property (IP) in export strategies that literally involve millions of producers and are showing a new and exciting direction for success.  This booklet explores some of the possibilities for large-scale opportunities to increase export income and improve the security of that income for millions all over sub-Saharan Africa.”

“African countries can increase export income by focusing on the intangible value of products and then controlling and managing that value through IP strategies that can result in long-lasting income gains.”

Click here to download a PDF of the booklet.

China looks to strengthen intellectual property rights

New intellectual property plan to boost Chinese patents
Hepeng Jia
24 June 2008

[BEIJING] China has launched a national intellectual property rights (IPR) strategy to encourage innovation and strengthen its legal framework in the field.

The National IPR strategy outline, published earlier this month (5 June) by China’s State Council, aims to turn China into “a nation with an internationally leading level of creating, using, protecting and managing IPR by 2020″.

The strategy aims to boost the number of patents held by Chinese citizens over the next five years.

It also seeks to establish an effective legal protection system for genetic resources and indigenous knowledge.

Although China is one of the world’s top three nations in terms of patents issued (see China hits top three in patent applications), most of its patents for invention are owned by foreign companies operating in the country. According to China’s State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO), 53 per cent of the 67,948 invention patents issued in 2007 were filed by foreign individuals or companies.

The strategy will see China’s government revise laws on patent, trademarks and copyrights. The website of SIPO quoted its head, Tian Lipu, as saying that the new patent law will be submitted to the legislature for approval before the end of the year.

Previous Chinese patent law focused on the protection of the patent, but this revised law will also outline how a patent can be used and benefits shared, as well as how to avoid patent abuses.

The strategy will also seek to increase the ability of government departments and courts to help protect IPR.

Sun Pingping, a spokesperson for SIPO, told SciDev.Net that although there are many existing laws and regulations on IPR, the national strategy can coordinate their functions by guiding their revisions, refining and updating when necessary.

Sun Guorui, an intellectual property law professor at Beihang University in Beijing, says that the main significance of the strategy is it makes IPR creation and use a core value for policymaking.

“For example, in the science community, awards or promotion are given mainly as the result of publishing high-impact papers. But in the future, the number of patents filed can be an important indicator of scientists’ output,” Sun told SciDev.Net.

He adds that the strategy will need to be followed by more concrete action implemented by different government departments. For example, the health ministry will have to finalise its measures on how to protect the patents of traditional Chinese medicine.

Lower tariffs to fight AIDS

25,000 people from around the world gathered this week in Mexico City for the 17th International AIDS Conference.  Thomson Ayodele’s column in yesterday’s New York Post focuses on the main challenges facing patients in developing countries:  lack of healthcare infrastructure and access to safe medicines.

( August 4, 2008 )  This week, 25,000 people from around the world have gathered in Mexico City for the 17th International AIDS Conference.

Many discussions will focus on how best to deal with AIDS in the developing world. Looking to the West – where scientific advances have allowed those with HIV/AIDS to live long, comfortable lives – many attendees will argue that pharmaceutical patents are the main barrier to getting medicines to the poor. That argument misses the true obstacle – local policies.

Consider tariffs. In some African countries, duties and taxes on medicines drive the costs through the roof.

In my home country of Nigeria, there’s a 5 percent tariff on Imported Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs). And all generic medicines imported into Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania are subject to a 10 percent tariff. The rate is 34 percent in Nigeria, 40 percent in Sierra Leone and a whopping 50 percent in Kenya.

Government regulations also add to the price of drugs. It takes the South African government more than three years to grant regulatory approval for medicines already available in developed countries. This not only delays access, it closes off a market – and so drives up drug prices all over the world.

On top of that, drug companies already sell their drugs to poor countries at prices well below cost. Often, they’re free. Just this year, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck and Pfizer donated $450 million worth of drugs to Burkina Faso.

Then there’s the lack of investment in infrastructure. In 2000, numerous African leaders signed the Abuja Declaration, a pact to combat malaria. The agreement called for 15 percent of every country’s budget to be directed toward improving health care – yet most countries that signed it spend less than 10 percent.

That means low wages and low morale for health-care workers – and, ultimately, a loss of medical personnel. Recently, the National Association of Nigeria Nurses and Midwifes said over 300,000 nurses are needed to fill positions in the nation’s hospitals and clinics.

Add to that the lack of roads and electricity in many poor countries, and you start to see why focusing on drug patents misses the point. Many developing countries don’t have the roads to transport drugs to patients, nor the electricity to keep temperature-sensitive AIDS medications refrigerated.

Kevin De Cock, director of the World Health Organization’s Department of HIV/AIDS, recently noted that the main barrier to essential medicines “is not the current price of drugs. The real obstacle is the fragility of the health systems. You have health infrastructure that is dilapidated and supply chains that do not exist.”

Despite understanding these fundamental problems, the WHO has backed a global treaty aimed at weakening pharmaceutical patents and putting drug research under government control. The treaty, known as the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), lets developing nations issue “compulsory licenses” to legally override pharmaceutical patents.

This practice of compulsory licensing isn’t just a distraction from the real issues: It also threatens the safety of many AIDS patients.

Just look at India. As a result of poor-quality knock-offs that don’t have to pass the same safety tests as their brand-name counterparts, drug resistance is on the rise. As a New Delhi-based pharmacist recently remarked, “We lack quality infrastructure to test the quality and purity of drugs.”

This problem extends far beyond AIDS drugs. In May, the science journal PloS One published a study showing that 35 percent of all malaria drugs in Africa are of substandard quality. Such low-grade drugs provide no medical benefit to patients and pose a serious health risk.

If this week’s conference is to have an impact on the growing AIDS pandemic, the participants need to get their priorities straight. Improving medical infrastructure and lowering tariffs should be their chief concern – not weakening drug patents.

Thompson Ayodele is the executive director of Initiative for Public Policy Analysis, a public-policy think tank based in Lagos, Nigeria (ippanigeria.org).

Alberta trucker’s death raises questions about natural remedies

The term ‘natural’ does not necessarily mean ’safe’ — a fact demonstrated by an artcle published in today’s Edmonton Journal about a death connected to the use of a herbal remedy.

Nearly three in four Canadians have used natural health products, according to a 2005 Health Canada survey, and nearly half say if they see a natural health product for sale, they feel sure it’s safe.  While many products are legitimate and safe, better regulation of the natural health product industry (particularly products made outside of Canada) will help ensure the safety of Canadians.

Alberta trucker’s death raises questions about natural remedies
Edmonton Journal – July 31, 2008

Hans Grebenstein had worked shifts in a chemical plant for more than a decade when he started to have trouble getting a good night’s sleep.

A Type 2 diabetic, he was leery of using potentially addictive prescription drugs to help him rest, so when a colleague recommended a Chinese herbal remedy called Sleep Well, he tried it.

“The guy who put us onto it swore by it,” Grebenstein said.

Word got around. Half a dozen men working in the chemical plant were using it.” He looked up all the ingredients, and even got approval from his doctor.

Months later, Grebenstein learned the innocuous herbal medicine contained a powerful prescription sedative called estazolam, one of a class of controlled drugs that can cause drowsiness and dizziness – what he had called his “herbal hangovers.”

Health Canada warned Canadians not to use Sleep Well and two other herbal remedies because of the dangerous side effects.

Four months later, 55-year-old Michael Berggren died in a single-vehicle rollover in northern Alberta.

A toxicologist found estazolam in his blood, too, and the tranquilizer was again traced to a Chinese herbal remedy.

Alberta Justice launched a fatality inquiry to find out if the drug played a role in his death; the inquiry finished this week and a judge will issue a report in the coming months.

Nearly three in four Canadians have used natural health products, says a 2005 Health Canada survey, and nearly half say if they see a natural health product for sale, they feel sure it’s safe.

But for the third day in a row, Health Canada was unable to explain Thursday how the tainted drugs got into Canadian medicine cabinets, or what the government is doing to stop it from happening in future.

A spokesman said the department is still looking for answers.

University of Western Ontario pharmacologist Ed Lui studies traditional Chinese medicine and says in most cases, the drugs are the product of the natural fusion between Western and Eastern medicines in China.

“Many times they do declare it,” he said. “But there are others who intentionally adulterate their product to enhance potency or effectiveness of herbal remedies. . . . Obviously, from a public health perspective, this is something people should be concerned about.”

Lionel Pasen, a consultant for the natural products industry, says change is coming, but Canadians should be cautious.

“Unfortunately, this is a situation Health Canada has not been able to deal with up until now,” he said.

“Because of the tainted products that have been coming in from China – dog food, toothpaste, toys, and herbal products like this – the government brought in Bill C-51. The purpose is to give Health Canada some teeth.” The bill currently being debated before second reading.

Pasen said until now, Health Canada could fine a company $5,000 for breaking the rules. If Bill C-51 is passed, the fine will rise to up to $5 million. Inspectors will be able to seize products at the border and stop them from entering the market. Until the law is changed, however, Pasen says Canadians can stay safe by buying local.

“Stick to products that are made in North America, and you’re not going to have this problem,” he said “I’m not suggesting that all Chinese products are bad, but the chances are increased.”

Grebenstein is still disillusioned.

“It claimed to be all natural. . . . This being herbal, they claimed no addictions or anything like that,” he said.

“I feel Health Canada should be more stringent in looking at what is actually in these things, before allowing them to be distributed as herbal medicines.”