The TRIPS Agreement and the countries which are left behind a global crisis

By Sruthi Sajeev

The ‘Trade Related Aspects of International Property Agreement’ (TRIPS Agreement) is a barrier to the production of effective vaccines in developing countries as it lowers the accessibility of vaccine knowledge and medical technologies. The issue of whether to waive this agreement in light of the pandemic was put forward by India and South Africa in October 2020 and it has been highly debated over the past two years. The refusal of high-income countries to accept this proposal is reflective of the fact that they prioritise the technological progress of their own countries as opposed to the wellbeing of the international community.  

The TRIPS Agreement is a multi-lateral agreement that was initially established in order to recognise the patent rights of members of the World Trade Organisation during a period of increased globalisation.  In doing so, it aimed to incentivise innovation by conferring intellectual property rights. However, patent laws can be a bar to the accessibility of life-saving medical resources and technology during a global crisis as it is essential to ensure that countries have greater capacity to manufacture products. In allowing local manufacturers in developing countries to produce effective vaccines as opposed to generic medicines, they could have a positive global contribution and fast-track the process of reducing COVID-19 cases. 

Pharmaceutical companies however are free to use their discretion to sell their products and many, such as Pfizer, are concerned with building up revenue and as a result are more likely to sell to higher income countries. As of January 2022, 72% of vaccine shots have been distributed to high income countries whilst one percent have been given to low income countries. Pfizer and Moderna have also increased their vaccine prices despite amassing huge profits.  It can be argued that these companies are exhibiting a lack of due diligence, contrary to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights as they are not considering the ‘differential purchase power of populations within a country’ and are therefore undermining human rights.

Nevertheless, opponents of the waiver argue that it can be hard to produce these vaccines and to transfer this knowledge especially because the vaccines are mRNA based and are thus a relatively new medicine. However, this argument merely suggests an unwillingness to share information as Astra-Zeneca has been able to successfully transfer their technology to Indian Serum Technology which is the biggest vaccine producer internationally. 

To continue with this ‘business as usual’ approach in the face of a pandemic is unethical, especially considering the fact that the TRIPS waiver would be time-limited and therefore will not be a bar to innovation in the future. During a time of international crisis, it is essential that we re-examine our values so as to collaboratively work towards our collective goal of eradicating the pandemic.