H.E. Ambassador Xolelwa Mlumbi-Peter (South Africa)

Chile

8 NON-VIOLATION AND SITUATION COMPLAINTS

293.   Our delegation's position is well-known among Members. Moreover, we welcome the decision made at the last meeting of the General Council in December 2019 to extend the moratorium. We would like also to thank the Secretariat for the briefing session organized on September 2020 that was very useful. 294.   In our delegation's view, both formal and informal talks on this matter at the Council have brought to light the existence of different positions concerning the conditions and modalities, and it is therefore appropriate to continue discussing the various aspects contained in the mandate of Article 64 of the TRIPS Agreement. Chile believes that it is vital to continue extending the moratorium until a common understanding can be reached on this matter. 295.   We would appreciate receiving more information on the South African document that has been mentioned by the Brazilian delegation as our delegation is not aware of its contents. We believe that there could be a more inclusive and transparent approach in order to have a more fluid dialogue.

The Council so took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to the matter at its next meeting.

40. The Chair recalled the General Council decision of 10 December 2019, in which Members had decided to extend the Moratorium on TRIPS non-violation and situation complaints until the 12th Ministerial Conference (MC12). In line with the original mandate, that decision had instructed the TRIPS Council to "continue its examination of the scope and modalities" for such complaints "and make recommendations to the 12th Ministerial Conference."
41. In December 2019, many delegations had emphasized the need for a more detailed discussion on TRIPS non-violation, so that Ministers could take a wellinformed decision on scope and modalities at MC12. Most delegations had also said that they were open to engage constructively and discuss concrete proposals for scope and modalities.
42. There had also been a suggestion that one Member might be developing a submission. She encouraged delegations to table submissions that might assist to shape the discussion resulting in a meaningful outcome at MC12. Also, the LDC Group had suggested that the Chair should hold dedicated informal discussions on this issue to facilitate engagement.
43. Since the July 2020 meeting, the Secretariat had also held a Briefing Session on TRIPS nonviolation and situation complaints. She invited the Secretariat to brief Members.
44. The representative of the Secretariat took the floor.
45. The Chair invited delegations to share their views on how the Council should approach TRIPS non-violation discussions between now and MC12, specifically where delegations thought there were areas of commonality, as the discussion had been evolving for some time, and areas that required further clarifications among Members so as to have focussed discussions.
46. The representatives of Brazil; Tanzania, on behalf of the African Group; South Africa; Bangladesh; Egypt; Nigeria; Chile; India; Jamaica, on behalf of the ACP Group; Argentina; Thailand; China; Indonesia; Switzerland; the United States of America; the European Union; Canada; Chinese Taipei; South Africa; Ecuador; and the Republic of Korea took the floor.
47. The Chair noted that she would send a communication with a view to facilitate informal consultations with Members.
48. The Council so took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to the matter at its next meeting.

IP/C/M/96, IP/C/M/96/Add.1