Global Activism to Make Patented Drugs More Accessible: An ITPC Case Study of Bedaquiline for Treatment of Tuberculosis
By Priti Patnaik
This report documents efforts by civil society organizations (CSOs) in various countries, including Brazil, Ukraine and Thailand, to make Bedaquiline more accessible by using the flexibilities provided in the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) – the safeguards in the intellectual property system that take into account public health needs. The case study was undertaken during 2023-2024.
Tuberculosis remains a major global health crisis, with drug-resistant forms requiring newer more effective treatments like Bedaquiline which offers shorter treatment times and fewer side effects than older regimens. The report offers an overview of global and country-specific efforts by CSOs to challenge patents held by Johnson & Johnson on the tuberculosis (TB) drug bedaquiline (BDQ) to improve patient access and affordability. CSOs primarily focused on opposing “evergreening” secondary patents that extend Johnson & Johnson’s monopoly beyond the original patent expiration, arguing that these patents lack inventive merit and artificially inflate prices. Successful actions, such as patent rejections in India and Thailand and Johnson & Johnson’s agreement not to enforce patents in 134 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), are discussed alongside challenges, including judicial difficulties, insufficient political will, and the strategic importance of pursuing pre-grant patent oppositions.
Hosted by the South Centre, 5 March 2026, Virtual (Zoom)
On 5 March 2026, the South Centre convened a virtual webinar to mark the conclusion of its seven-year antimicrobial resistance (AMR) programme, supported by the Fleming Fund, Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), United Kingdom (UK) since 2018. The main objective of the webinar was to present the findings of an Impact Assessment of the programme and to gather reflections from key partners on lessons learned and the way forward. The South Centre emphasised that the end of the Fleming Fund grant marks a transition, not a closure as the organisation remains committed to AMR as a core area of work and is actively seeking new partnerships.
The webinar was opened by Prof. Carlos Correa, Executive Director of the South Centre, and moderated throughout by Dr Viviana Munoz Tellez, Head of the Health, Intellectual Property and Biodiversity programme of the South Centre. Eleven speakers from multilateral institutions, the UK Fleming Fund, government delegations, academics, civil society, and the media shared perspectives and calls to action.
South Centre and One Health Trust Information Note
March 2026
92 million deaths could be averted by 2050 with improved access to antibiotics and infection care. The time to act is now, and it requires both access and stewardship.
Together with One Health Trust, we highlight key recommendations to make it happen in a pointed brief.
* Available in 3 languages (English, Portuguese and Spanish)
The South Centre carries out multiple activities to support developing countries with policy-oriented research, inputs and advice for negotiations and capacity building. The Report summarizes the South Centre’s activities in 2025 and highlights the contexts in which they were conducted as well as the objectives that were pursued with their implementation.
The South Centre successful in elevating Global South voices in the fight against antimicrobial resistance, with support from United Kingdom’s Fleming Fund
Geneva | 5 March 2026
As the world intensifies efforts to confront antimicrobial resistance (AMR), one of the gravest global health and development threats of our time, the South Centre has supported low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to strengthen their positions in global governance and policy processes.
A newly released impact report documents how the South Centre, with support from the United Kingdom’s Fleming Fund, has played a catalytic role between 2018 and 2025 in systematically improving Global South engagement in AMR governance, policy discourse, and civil society – led action.
Independent Panel on Evidence for Action against Antimicrobial Resistance (IPEA): Reflections on the Foundational Documents
By Dr. Viviana Munoz Tellez
The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) invited the Quadripartite Organizations to establish an Independent Panel on Evidence for Action against Antimicrobial Resistance (IPEA) in 2025. The launch of the IPEA is planned for 10 December 2025 during the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA). The Quadripartite organizations (the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the World Health Organization (WHO) and the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH)) released in November 2025 updated draft documents for the IPEA for additional consultation with Member States and stakeholders. The IPEA will constitute a welcome addition to global Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) governance, and should be established, starting small and building gradually. Several concerns on the proposed model remain concerning the governance structure, equity in participation, and the independence of the panel. This policy brief provides analysis and recommendations on key issues concerning the draft foundational documents for the IPEA requiring attention.
Analysis of the European Union Proposal on the Pandemic Agreement Annex dated 17 October 2025
South Centre
This note is prepared to provide South Centre Member States and other developing country delegations with analytical comments on the proposal of the European Union (EU) on the Annex to the Pandemic Agreement, implementing the Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing (PABS) System as established in Article 12. The note begins with general commentary on the proposal, followed by detailed analysis of the EU proposal text, which is marked in red below the transcribed text.
Participation of South Centre Member Countries in the WHO GLASS: Progress and Gaps in AMR Surveillance and Stewardship Efforts
By Dr. Rasha Abdelsalam Elshenawy
This study highlights antimicrobial resistance (AMR) surveillance challenges in LMICs, focusing on the 55 South Centre Member States’ enrolment in the WHO Global Antimicrobial Resistance and Use Surveillance System (GLASS). Despite progress since its 2016 launch, significant gaps persist: only 60 percent of South Centre Member States report AMR surveillance to GLASS, and just 38 percent report antimicrobial use (AMU) data to GLASS. The COVID-19 pandemic substantially disrupted surveillance activities, with rates declining from 2020-2021 compared to pre-COVID-19 pandemic levels. Digital infrastructure, such as mobile reporting tools, cloud-based systems, and interactive dashboards, offers significant opportunities to strengthen AMR surveillance in resource-limited settings. The study recommends a holistic and phased approach for South Centre Member States, including developing integrated national AMR action plans with realistic implementation timelines, investing in laboratory and workforce development, establishing interoperable digital infrastructure, and strengthening regional collaboration mechanisms. By systematically addressing core surveillance challenges while strategically incorporating digital innovations where appropriate, countries can develop resilient monitoring systems that support effective stewardship, protect national populations, and contribute to global health security by preserving antimicrobial effectiveness for future generations.
The GUIDE Framework for Evidence-based Antibiotic Prescribing
Strengthening Antimicrobial Stewardship for the Healthcare Workforce
By Dr. Rasha Abdelsalam Elshenawy
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) poses a critical threat to global health security, with inappropriate antibiotic prescribing in hospitals driving the spread of resistant pathogens. This GUIDE Framework for Evidence-Based Antibiotic Prescribing provides a structured, five-step model designed to strengthen antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) and empower the healthcare workforce to make informed, proportionate prescribing decisions.
Co-organized by the National Commission on International Trade & Health Studies (NCITHS), Thailand together with the International Trade & Health Programme (ITH), South Centre & other partners
This book presents reflections and research that highlight tensions in the negotiations on pandemic preparedness treaties and revisions to the International Health Regulations, underscoring the geopolitical divide between developed and developing countries. It advocates regional health initiatives as a response to the multilateral impasse and reflects on the erosion of foundational public health concepts such as “essential medicines”.
New pandemics are inevitable. How can we best prepare for them and, above all, how can we avoid the mistakes and injustices made during the COVID-19 pandemic?
How can equitable access to medicines and diagnostics be guaranteed when they are produced in a small number of countries? How can we explain the fact that current funding for cooperation in the field of health is in the hands of a small group of Northern countries and foundations from the North? How can the role of the World Health Organization be strengthened? WHO now plays only a minor role in coordinating public health policies. How is it that the concept of “essential medicines”, a major advance in public health policy, is being replaced by that of “medical countermeasures”, a term more in line with the private sectors?
Preparing for future pandemics forces us to ask ourselves: how can we safeguard the general interest, the defense of human rights and public health?
Negotiating Global Health Policies: Tensions and Dilemmas is essential reading for negotiators from the 194 member countries of the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) who participate in international negotiations on health and development. Academics and students of medicine, health sciences, law, sociology and political science, as well as intergovernmental organizations and non-governmental organizations who work on access to medicines and global health issues, also would find the book of interest.
Author: Germán Velásquez is Special Adviser, Policy and Health of the South Centre in Geneva, Switzerland. Previously, he was Director of the Secretariat on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property at WHO. He represented WHO at the WTO TRIPS Council from 2001 to 2010. He is the author and co-author of numerous publications on health economics and medicines, health insurance schemes, globalization, international trade agreements, intellectual property and access to medicines.
He obtained a Master’s degree in Economics and a PhD in Health Economics from Sorbonne University, Paris. In 2010, he received a Honoris Causa PhD on Public Health from the University of Caldas, Colombia and in 2015 he received another Honoris Causa PhD from the Faculty of Medicine of the Complutense University of Madrid, Spain.
Designing an Independent Panel onEvidence for Action on Antimicrobial Resistance: Lessons from Selected Bodies in Global Health, Climate Change and Biodiversity
By Viviana Munoz Tellez and Francesca Chiara
This paper proposes a framework for designing an Independent Panel on Evidence for Action on Antimicrobial Resistance (IPEA), responding to the 2025 United Nations General Assembly mandate. Through a comparative analysis of selected international scientific advisory bodies, we identify the panel’s mandate as the foundational element that will critically shape its composition, scope, deliverables, and governance structure. Our framework addresses key domains of credibility, scientific integrity, authority, policy relevance, and sustainability while establishing equity as a fundamental design principle—not merely ensuring low and middle-income country (LMIC) participation but designing the IPEA to address existing imbalances in antimicrobial resistance (AMR) evidence production and dissemination. We analyse potential mandate options, from evidence synthesis to policy recommendations, highlighting the importance of defining a unique and complementary role for IPEA within the existing AMR governance landscape to avoid duplication and maximize impact on global AMR response.
Description: