All would benefit from greater transparency in TPP talks

DESPITE some happy talk about the pace of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations after the latest round in Sydney last week, it is obvious that a final agreement is a long way off. The biggest obstacle is, without doubt, the US congressional decision to withhold approval of "fast track" authority for President Barack Obama. Unless he has the power to conclude a deal that the US legislature can only vote for or against (but will not be able to pick apart), no other country will want to show its hand even though talks have been going since 2005.

But even if the newly elected Congress votes for fast track authority in the coming months, other obstacles remain. The passage of time has created its own problems. While most of the text is wrapped in extraordinary secrecy, the sections on intellectual property rights and investor state dispute settlement (ISDS) system have been leaked - and these provisions are being viewed with alarm. It is being asked pointedly why, for instance, there is a need to extend copyright to 100 years after the owners' death, from the previous 50 years. The leaked documents also show that there is a push to allow patents to be extended by the process of "evergreening" - making some minor change to the product to enable the patent-holder to enjoy monopoly rights for an extended period. Public health advocates in many participating countries demand that there be no change on the length of patents for medicines. They argue that lengthening monopoly rights of patent holders would mean poor people will not be able to turn to life-saving generic drugs.

Even more contentious is the ISDS mechanism. These provisions would enable a foreign investor to be able to sue a host country for changes to laws or policies that would affect the company's profits. In effect, it would mean that the foreign investor would have more rights in a signatory country than a local investor. An example of this is being played out with Australia being sued in Hong Kong by an American tobacco conglomerate over Canberra's plain packaging laws for cigarette packs. Indeed, Canada, which was planning to pursue a similar strategy to reduce smoking, has had to back down because of an ISDS clause in its North America Free Trade Agreement with the US and Mexico. Canada's situation is being cited as a case of sovereignty being diminished by a trade agreement.