Minutes - TRIPS Council - View details of the intervention/statement

Ambassador Dacio Castillo (Honduras)
193. The representative of Switzerland thanked the Secretariat for organizing the workshop and said that it had been held in a constructive and forward looking spirit. He also thanked the LDC Group for its observations and comments. His delegation had introduced its new report at the workshop and wished not to repeat details about its content and format to which it had made several changes in an attempt to reflect some of the suggestions made by the LDC group. He said it had been interesting to participate in the discussion about the format proposed by the LDC Group. Switzerland was open to discuss proposals which aimed to make reporting more efficient and transparent. 194. He said his delegation might include further parameters from the LDCs proposed list in the Annex of its report, but a viable cost-benefit ratio needed to be ensured when asking everybody to compile lots of data and information, as the value added and the transaction costs needed to be appropriately balanced every time reports were drafted. At the same time, if an interested party or country required specific information about a programme or project, it should not hesitate to contact the people in charge at the address indicated in the annex of the Swiss 2012 report, who would be pleased to help and provide detailed information. 195. If the reporting format were to be standardized, Members should still have some flexibility to put down their text according to their programmes. One parameter which his delegation might continue to include in future reports was the Policy objective and purpose, broken down into a few key messages, to also keep the report as lean as possible. There were other examples of parameters which seemed difficult to include for each and every programme: first the Government Agencies and Institutions addressed in developed countries, and second the Enterprises and Institutions eligible for incentives in LDCs. The reason why it could be fairly difficult to provide this information was that, depending on the concrete programme, there would be a long list of eligible institutions which still might not be comprehensive since certain enterprises and agencies would easily be forgotten and the list would be incomplete. Another reason for renouncing a parameter on eligible enterprises and institutions in LDCs was that those beneficiaries often cannot be identified due to the fact that work was being carried out via intermediaries. At least some of the beneficiaries at the end of the supply chain regularly remained unknown. 196. His delegation looked forward to continuing cooperation and dialogue with the LDCs and the WTO Secretariat on how to further improve Article 66.2 annual reports.