The main advantage of the TRIPS agreement is that it protects companies that have spent millions on research and development (R&D) and allows them to recoup their investment in new technologies. It also encourages them to further invest in R&D, knowing that their investment is protected and will reap financial reward. TRIPS is a global accord and further brings the global economy into a system of order and stability. Russia wants very much to join the WTO but when it does, it will be required to enforce TRIPS and curtail its major counterfeit market. China is still making the transition since securing membership in the WTO in 2001, gradually curtailing counterfeit products and increasing law and order in its marketplace.
TRIPS does not refer to, or incorporate, any pre-existing intellectual property agreements such as the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV). UPOV allows plant breeders to patent new hybrid varieties of seed and GMOs forcing smallholder subsistence farmers to buy their seed annually rather than save some from the previous year’s crop. Member nations of TRIPS have significant leeway to balance IPRs against their national interests.
TRIPS is a work in progress and, presently, developing nations may abide by its minimum requirements allowing, for example, some harvesting and sharing of seeds where the 1991 UPOV agreement (UPOV91) would not allow it. The problem is that many nations, eager for foreign investment, and increased access to markets fear alienating US investors by not adopting the stricter UPOV91 provisions which US firms aggressively lobby for. It exemplifies the classic one-sided power relationship between developing and developed countries. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), comprised of 30 of the wealthiest industrialized countries, coerced poorer nations into signing TRIPS as a condition for economic “co-operation”.
In theory, IPRs are also supposed to protect the innovations emerging from developing countries. This may be an advantage for a small number of rapidly developing countries like India, however, TRIPS produces little economic advantages for most of the peoples of the world and, in fact, IPRs may be curtailing the development of many nation states.
Disadvantages:
Protecting the IPRs of corporate bodies in agreements like NAFTA and TRIPS also protects their right to set high prices in the absence of competition. For example, many countries do not have access to cheaper generic drugs, including drugs for treating HIV/AIDS, because of IPRs. IPRs have a detrimental effect on developing countries because those nations can no longer copy original products. The Japanese and East Asian models of development were based on low levels of IP protection. Copied products contributed significantly to their GDP. This dilemma reaches across many fields including chemicals, seeds, processed foods, dietary supplements, and pharmaceuticals and is a source of political conflict between US-based private sector interests and developing countries.
A graphic example of this public vs. private struggle is occurring in India where farmers use higher yielding Green Revolution hybrid seeds which depend on artificial fertilizers, pesticides and greater amounts of water than other varieties. They often accumulate significant debt which, ideally, is paid back at harvest time. If there is a crop failure due to flooding, drought, or pests the farmer’s land is seized by the moneylender. Despondent and without hope, thousands of peasant farmers have committed suicide in recent years. If IPRs were relaxed, farmers would be able to save seed or share it amongst themselves.
