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

H.E. Ambassador Dr. Lansana GBERIE
United Kingdom

175.   The United Kingdom would like to thank you, Chair, and the Secretariat for navigating the TRIPS Council through a complex negotiating process during MC12. While the process for reaching the consensus-based TRIPS Decision was by no means perfect, and lessons could be learned, your leadership and guidance was valuable in helping us reach an outcome and will no doubt be required moving forward. We also extend our gratitude to all Members for their cooperation and patience throughout the process. 176.   The United Kingdom has listened carefully and understood concerns raised by developing countries, particularly those regarding use of the compulsory licensing system. Bearing such feedback in mind, the United Kingdom engaged constructively in discussions on how compulsory licensing could help developing countries to achieve their public health policy objective of accessing COVID-19 vaccines. After a series of intense negotiations, we understand the aim of this Decision is to make it easier for eligible Members, who choose to do so, to make exports of life-saving COVID- 19 vaccines more streamlined, while preserving incentives to invest in innovation embedded in intellectual property rights. 177.   The United Kingdom will engage constructively and in good faith, being guided by evidence and noting the distinction between vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics. We welcome all Members' views and the opportunity to engage bilaterally on the matter. We are pleased to see the IP framework has been put in use by licensing partnerships for COVID-19 treatments underway, including via the Medicines Patent Pool. 178.   We also thank delegations for the unofficial room document RD/IP/49 circulated today. This text will certainly form part of our analysis of the matter. Given the complexities of therapeutics and diagnostics, we will use the time available, and we call on others to do the same, to gather and analyse evidence and engage bilaterally during the summer months, so that we are able to deliver on the mandate via multilateral evidence-based discussions to take place after the summer. We see the TRIPS Council with you, Chair, at the helm as the right forum to hold these discussions.

This Council took note of statements made and agreed to revert to this matter at its next meeting.
52. The Chair recalled that on 17 June 2022, the 12th Ministerial Conference had adopted a Ministerial Decision on the TRIPS Agreement which aimed to improve the capacity of developing country Members to produce and supply COVID-19 vaccines to other eligible Members. Paragraph 8 of the Decision provided that no later than six months from the date of this Decision, Members would decide on its extension to cover the production and supply of COVID-19 diagnostics and therapeutics.
53. The Chair recalled that barely three weeks had passed since the Ministerial Conference, which was concluded on 17 June, and that some were still recovering from the intense negotiations. He did not expect that Members had had time to prepare an in-depth position on the complex question of extending this decision to additional products, such as therapeutics and diagnostics. He also recalled from the negotiations during the 12th Ministerial Conference, that one reason for postponing a decision on extension to 6 months after adoption was that certain Members did not have a mandate to consider covering diagnostics and therapeutics, and that they would need the six months for discussions in their domestic arena to obtain such a mandate. He therefore assumed that Members would need time to prepare their engagement in this regard. and what could be expected at this first consideration of the topic would be a sharing of views on how best to approach the matter going forward.
54. The representatives of South Africa; Uruguay; Pakistan; Maldives; Ukraine; Egypt; Tanzania; Bangladesh; Indonesia; Argentina; Sri Lanka; China; India; the Russian Federation; Hong Kong, China; Chile; Bolivia, Plurinational State of; Australia; Brazil; the United Kingdom; Singapore; Norway; Canada; Japan; Korea, Republic of; the European Union; Malaysia; the United States; New Zealand; Nicaragua; Thailand; Switzerland; Panama; Mexico; and Peru took the floor.
55. The Chair said he had carefully listened to Members' views on how work in the Council should proceed on this very important matter. He said he recognized, as many delegations had, that this was a ministerial decision with a tight timeline and that the matter therefore needed to be treated with urgency. He also recognized that a number of delegations needed to consult with their capitals in order to agree on a proper framework for this decision.
56. He confirmed that there was a commitment by the Council to keep this matter alive until the decision was finalized. As regards reporting to the General Council, he noted that the next meeting was scheduled for 25-26 July, which was only 20 days away, and that therefore chances were slim that the TRIPS Council would have a lot to report by that time, given also that other meetings like the WIPO Assemblies were taking place in the meantime. Against this background, he suggested that it would be the best use of time if Members themselves brought their assessment of the discussions to the attention of the General Council during the next meeting.
57. With respect to continuing discussions, which he as Chair was committed to, he said it was important for meaningful discussions to start as soon as delegations were ready to engage on the substance of this rather complex question. It was important to carefully balance the urgent need to take this decision before the deadline in December as well as the time for domestic consultations necessary for some to proceed. In designing the proper framework on how to engage in this process it was also important to ensure that discussions were open, inclusive and transparent - as had been emphasized by many delegations.
58. He said that the experience of the negotiations leading to the Ministerial Decision suggested that, in the meantime, bilateral discussions and small group discussions could be extremely helpful to work out a proper framework around which a decision could be constructed by consensus – which remained an absolute requirement with respect to decisions by the Council and by the WTO. He therefore encouraged bilateral and small group meetings in the meantime, and said that this certainly remained a very active matter, that it would be properly discussed and the decision arrived at within the timeframes set by the ministerial decision.
59. This Council took note of statements made and agreed to revert to this matter at its next meeting.
IP/C/M/105, IP/C/M/105/Add.1, IP/C/M/105/Corr.1