Trans Pacific Partnership "/stumbles"

New York Times article

Appropriately, the one or two secret sticking points are mentioned.

In the end, a deal filled with 21st-century policies on Internet access, advanced pharmaceuticals and trade in clean energy foundered on issues that have bedeviled international trade for decades: access to dairy markets in Canada, sugar markets in the United States and rice markets in Japan.

Australia, Chile and New Zealand also continue to resist the push by the United States to protect the intellectual property of major pharmaceutical companies for as long as 12 years, shielding them from generic competition as they recoup the cost of developing next-generation biologic medicines.

The countries did agree on environmental protection rules

The bright spot might have been the environmental negotiations. The completed environmental chapter would cover illegal wildlife trafficking, forestry management, overfishing and marine protection, and it could prove to be a landmark, setting a new floor for all future multilateral accords.


Good to hear that NZ is holding fast on concerns over pharmaceutical IP protection.

Access to cheap drugs is one of the things that keeps our healthcare costs relatively low, despite the fact that we have to provide services for the population of a large city spread around a decently sized country. (We have more territory than the UK, but if we all went to live in Auckland, it still wouldn’t make the list of 50 Most Populated Cities).

I have a horrible suspicion that we’ll trade up Pharmac for the opportunity for Fonterra to easily access Canada’s dairy market though … :frowning:


This topic was automatically closed after 567 days. New replies are no longer allowed.