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

H.E. Ambassador Dr Lansana GBERIE
United Kingdom
12 PARAGRAPH 8 OF THE MINISTERIAL DECISION ON THE TRIPS AGREEMENT ADOPTED ON 17 JUNE 2022
268.   The United Kingdom welcomes a return to substantive discussions on this issue in the Council for TRIPS, which is the right venue for Members to consider the evidence relating to the potential extension of the MC12 TRIPS Decision to COVID-19 therapeutics and diagnostics. We recognize this as an important issue, and Members should have the opportunity to seek clarification on the issues that have been raised and to work towards a decision which is underpinned by evidence-based policymaking. We would like to stress the importance of open, inclusive, and transparent processes going forward, as many Members have called for previously. 269.   The UK has long maintained that the TRIPS Agreement strikes the correct balance between incentivizing innovation and ensuring access through its flexibilities, including those enshrined in the Doha Declaration. We recognise the essential role of generic manufacturing and believe that, during the life of the patent, this should be enabled by voluntary licensing arrangements which include the transfer of technology and know-how. This collaboration ensures that generic manufacturing adheres to regulatory practices that are internationally recognized so products meet the necessary quality and safety standards. We have noted before that there are approximately 130 voluntary licensing arrangements in place for COVID-19 treatments, which cover most low- and middle-income countries, including important regional manufacturers of generic medicines. We would welcome being made aware of any evidence on how these arrangements fail to meet current international demand. 270.   We recognize the proposal for extension from December 2022. The UK has considered this proposal carefully. Our view is we must first form consensus on whether extension is required, based on the available evidence. We have also noted that a number of questions have been raised by Members in relation to this proposal, including, but not limited to, the scope of products covered by the proposal and the implications for dual and multiple use. As has been discussed, COVID-19 therapeutics and diagnostics rely on pre-existing treatments and testing technology, used in different contexts to test and treat other diseases. 271.   In this regard, we consider the papers circulated in 2022, by Mexico and Switzerland and by Chinese Taipei, as important contributions to address these unresolved issues. We understand that the questions raised in those papers are yet to be addressed. These relate to, among other things, questions over the scope of the potential extension, as well as to the current supply and demand dynamics for these products. 272.   As demonstrated by Chinese Taipei's discussion paper, a key factor to increase production and to enhance access to therapeutics is closer industrial cooperation between originators and generic producers. The UK is ready to engage in conversations on ways to foster industrial cooperation with low- and middle-income countries to achieve this at the Council for TRIPS and in other relevant fora. The UK recognises that COVID-19 remains a serious challenge and that we need to promote equitable and effective distribution of COVID-19 products globally. A holistic response is needed to address the barriers to access, including better health infrastructure and health system readiness, harmonized regulatory mechanisms, as well as effective procurement and distribution strategies. 273.   We maintain that changes to the international intellectual property framework, if implemented without substantial evidence, could weaken its ability to incentivize investment and innovation, thus risking our ability to tackle health and other emergencies both now and in the future. As ever, the UK stands ready to engage constructively in an evidence-based conversation on this important question.
60. The Council so agreed.
56. The Chair recalled that under paragraph 8 of the Ministerial Decision on the TRIPS Agreement, adopted on 17 June 2022, Members had agreed to make a decision within six months from adoption, on whether to extend this Decision to cover the production and supply of COVID-19 diagnostics and therapeutics. He also recalled that at the last formal meeting in October – and resumed in December – the Council had recommended to the General Council to extend the deadline for such a decision. The General Council, at its meeting on 19 December 2022, had agreed to this recommendation and resolved to return to the question of the duration of the extension at its next meeting. At its recent meeting on 6-7 March 2023, the General Council had agreed that it would keep the question of the duration of the extension on its agenda again for its next meeting – and that Members would provide updates on where they stand on their internal processes. In the meantime, substantive discussions would continue in the Council for TRIPS. It was against this background, that the item was on the Council's agenda.
57. The representatives of Tanzania, on behalf of the African Group; South Africa; Bangladesh, on behalf of the LDC Group; Nepal; Egypt; Kenya, on behalf of the ACP Group; Indonesia; China; India; the United States of America; Brazil; Switzerland; Japan; the United Kingdom; Chinese Taipei; the European Union; Korea, Republic of; Singapore; and Norway took the floor.
58. With respect to next steps, the Chair said that in his experience, Council discussions were most constructive when they were well prepared and took place on the basis of submissions and proposals that Members had been able to study in advance. The 10-day rule for the closing of the Airgram was intended precisely for that purpose, namely, to allow Members to prepare for the items on the agenda, so that discussions at the Council meeting were constructive and focused. The next formal meeting of the Council was scheduled for 14-15 June – and the agenda for that meeting would close on 1 June.
59. Given that his term as Chair ended with the current meeting, he suggested that the new Chair be invited to consult with Members on how best to move forward with work under this agenda item.
60. The Council so agreed.
IP/C/M/107, IP/C/M/107/Add.1