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

H.E. Ambassador Dr. Walter Werner
Central African Republic on behalf of LDC Group
10   SIXTEENTH ANNUAL REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE DECISION ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 66.2 OF THE TRIPS AGREEMENT

247.   Central African Republic, on behalf of the LDC Group, do have a few questions we would like to pose on some of them. However, before doing so we would like to reiterate our intention to pursue further discussion of our proposal in IP/C/W/640 and the room document found in RD/IP/24, which we request to be placed on the agenda for the next TRIPS Council. In addition, the LDC Group intends to hold further bilateral discussions with the Members obligated under Article 66.2 TRIPS, in order to explore possible convergence on a way forward. 248.   On the reports, we can say that some Members have provided new and interesting incentives that we might wish to explore further with the relevant named LDCs. However, the reports still contain information that appear to fall more appropriately under TRIPS Agreement Article 67, technical assistance and capacity building, than as incentives toward technology transfer. 249.   Questions we would like to pose for the time being, without prejudice to the LDC Group coming back seeking more clarifications or individual LDCs doing so are the following. 250.   The LDC Group appreciates the comment made in the United States submission that "the United States continues to believe that the effective functioning of Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement requires a robust dialogue between developed country Members and LDC Members, in order to target incentives in a way that is most responsive to the self-identified technology transfer interests and needs of LDC Members. The United States encourages the efforts of the TRIPS Council Secretariat and Members to organize discussions among the Members regarding Article 66.2 TRIPS implementation." In this light we also hope that our proposal found in IP/C/W/640 will be considered. 251.   We note that Papua New Guinea is specifically reported yet Papua New Guinea is not an LDC. Article 66.2 TRIPS is only available with respect to LDCs. 252.   Regarding item 13.1, which is read as for Nepal, there is a reference to a workshop in PhnonPhem. Can the United States clarify the relationship to Nepal? 253.   The LDC Group appreciates where the United States has referred to specific transfer or dissemination of technology for example, in items 3.5.4 for Togo, 10.4 in Cambodia, 11.8.25 for Zambia, and others. 254.   Regarding the other country specific programmes for LDC countries, can the United States further summarize for us where an incentive was provided for technology transfer? 255.   The LDC Group also wonders if in future the United States can use the template which would help the LDC Group better identify the application of United States programmes to the specific elements of Article 66.2 TRIPS. 256.   The LDC Group thanks Switzerland for their submission and we continue to examine further the programmes with the relevant LDC Members. 257.   The LDC Group appreciates Switzerland's use of the template and also where it has provided clear information on specific benefitting LDCs and on technology transferred or incentives for technology transfer. 258.   Regarding those programmes identified in the submission as "open to all LDCs" can Switzerland inform us of which LDCs have benefitted from the programmes or there have been none as yet? 259.   Regarding Japan, Australia, Canada and Norway, and we also thank them for using the template and request if they could highlight for us specific technology transfer or incentives that resulted in more than know-how and training, but included for example dissemination or transfer of software, equipment or methodologies retained by the LDC? In the case of Canada, where references are made to LDC transferees being to only "multiple countries" in sub-Saharan Africa or just multiple countries, can Canada elaborate any specific countries? Where Norway refers to technology transfer as "risk capital" can Norway elaborate further? 260.   The LDC Group would like to thank all the delegations having submitted reports and we have made these comments without prejudice any comments by any individual LDC.

The Council took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to the matter at its next meeting.
37.   The Chair recalled that under the TRIPS Council decision of February 2003, developed country Members were to submit annual reports on actions taken or planned in pursuance of their commitments under Article 66.2. They were to provide new detailed reports every third year and updates in the intervening years. In June 2018, the Council had requested developed country Members to submit the sixth set of new reports in time for the present meeting, and the Secretariat had since circulated a reminder.
38.   The Council had received new detailed reports from the United States of America, Switzerland, Australia, Japan and Canada. Since the circulation of the revised agenda, Norway had also submitted its new report. This documentation had been circulated in document IP/C/W/646 and addenda. In addition, shortly before the meeting, the Council had received the reports from New Zealand, as well as from the European Union and some of its member States, namely Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Advance copies of both reports had been made available as room documents on documents online and would also be circulated as addenda to document IP/C/W/646.
39.   Paragraph 2 of the Council's Decision on the Implementation of Article 66.2 explained that the annual review was to provide Members with an opportunity to pose questions in relation to the information submitted and request additional information; discuss the effectiveness of the incentives provided in promoting and encouraging technology transfer to least developed country Members in order to enable them to create a sound and viable technological base; and consider any points relating to the operation of the reporting procedure established by the Decision.
40.   Some of the information by developed country Members had been received only very recently, and most of it is, so far, available only in its original language. Members would have an opportunity to make further comments at the next meeting of the Council. This would allow Members to study the information recently circulated and any additional information subsequently received. For the same reasons, the Article 66.2 Workshop that would had been held before that meeting had been postponed. The plan was to convene the Workshop on 11-12 February 2019, backto-back with the Council's next meeting in February 2019.
41.   The Chair informed Members that, the day before, there had been an informal small group meeting and ideas had been exchanged with regard to the organization of the forthcoming Article 66.2 Workshop.
42.   The representatives of the European Union; Canada; Japan; Australia; the United States of America; Norway; the Central African Republic, on behalf of the LDC Group; and Cambodia took the floor.
43.   The Council took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to the matter at its next meeting.
IP/C/M/90, IP/C/M/90/Add.1