Read on Twitter
The discussion on #Africa's access to vaccine is not just a domestic governance issue. It also needs to be positioned in the broader context of international trade and the role of money, which we are not talking about enough. A thread on why 
Some background: rich countries secured their doses by risking billions hoping a vaccine development process wd succeed. For those who could risk "betting" billion, it was a smart move. Many betted right and so were able to secure early access. (this is aside from R&D investment)
Once available, the question was for how much could countries access it. It was a matter of negotiations. Even among rich countries, the prices differed. E.g. The US pays $19.5 per shot of the Pfizer vaccine, the EU $14.76 and the UK $20.
A side note here that the benefit of negotiating for large doses played a role: buying 40 million doses is different from buying 300 million...and the price tends to follow. What lessons for Africa?
The challenge now is upscaling production and ensuring affordable access. That is subject to intellectual property rights rules, especially under the WTO. It is here where South Africa jointly with India introduced a request to the WTO on 2 October '20 https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=q:/IP/C/W669.pdf&Open=True
The proposal was for a *temporary* waiver of some provisions of the Agreement on Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights to allow more flexibility for countries to produce medical products, including vaccines, needed to fight the pandemic.
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights to allow more flexibility for countries to produce medical products, including vaccines, needed to fight the pandemic.
Several countries opposed the request, notably the EU, the UK, Switzerland, Canada, Japan, and the US. This was the UK response to the request: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-statement-to-the-trips-council-item-15
This was the Canadian response:
https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/international_relations-relations_internationales/wto-omc/2020-12-10-TRIPS-ADPIC.aspx?lang=eng
https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/international_relations-relations_internationales/wto-omc/2020-12-10-TRIPS-ADPIC.aspx?lang=eng
This was the EU's response: https://www.keionline.org/34275
The contradictions in the arguments advanced by some countries opposing the request are, in my opinion, well outlined in the questions raised here by some countries notably South Africa https://twitter.com/ThiruGeneva/status/1350687966725890048?s=20
Some of those who have opposed the motion have now indicated that they will give the doses they received with Africa once they finish vaccinating their population. In other words: they will share their leftover. What Africa needs is a fair system not leftovers!
Take aways:
- Investment treaties & international trade agreements matter! They need to b handled seriously
- Numbers matter (Africa still has work to do to purchase but also to pool resources for R&D).
- In the international realm there are no friends. There are just interests
- Investment treaties & international trade agreements matter! They need to b handled seriously
- Numbers matter (Africa still has work to do to purchase but also to pool resources for R&D).
- In the international realm there are no friends. There are just interests
@gfkkb @mukundigeorge @SolomonADersso @EbbaKalondo @TamukaKagoro77 @SarahLawan @ir_ramdoo @BobJusu @loomnie @gyude_moore @MelakuD
Let me temper my opening tweet regarding domestic governance: the management of the crisis shows the need for a leadership that is up to the task; one that's forward-looking and courageous enough to take on reforms that will allow us to be in a better position next time around!
