179.  Since we have already been engaging in 90's nostalgia, I am going to take you back to the 1990s to reflect on how this reporting process came into being, and why, and in a sense, what we can get out of it today. The situation then, was as it is now, in that technical assistance relating to the TRIPS Agreement and implementation of the TRIPS Agreement is unusual in character because it involves engagement with an exceptionally wide range of counterparts and constituents. From the WTO point of view, in particular, it can be distinguished from some of the other areas of technical assistance, if you think of trade facilitation, or government procurement or the area of Sanitary and PhytoSanitary measures where there is a fairly specific set of issues to address, and most importantly in capital a very well-defined catchment area, if you like. 180.  This is not the case with the TRIPS Agreement, which typically engages a wider range of domestic players, depending on the exact topic, and that makes coordination of TRIPS related Technical Assistance a distinct challenge. I believe, as I was in a delegation in the late 90s, the coordination of technical assistance was a consideration even then. This goes to both, those offering technical assistance, because it can come from a range of different programmes, and for the in-country partners for technical assistance because these range from customs departments to justice departments, to quite technical IP offices, to the departments dealing with health and environment, so the question of coordination is particularly challenging. 181.  Further, and this is a practical observation from many years of this work, it is very rare to see a specific aid, or technical assistance programme, that is exclusively focused on TRIPS implementation as such, and indeed there are a number of instances where opportunities for co-operation are overlooked because the relevant programmes and the relevant needs on the face of it look as though they are in different categories altogether. 182.  And yet, we know now from the fantastic reporting we are receiving from Members that there is a great deal of potential in a wider range of technical co-operation programmes, as you will see from the review we are about to put before you. A programme may bear the heading of, say, business readiness - this was a specific case I am thinking of – where a certain trademark office was in need of support for automation and improving its procedures, a very hands-on practical requirement, and there was real difficulty finding a technical co-operation partner. It turned out that separately there was a business-readiness technical assistance programme looking for counterparts to work with. The two had a completely congruent objectives and indeed ended up working together very fruitfully, but on the face of it there was no obvious correlation between the two. This is one example, and there are many of them, of why the process of information sharing and coordination in a practical sense does become very important. It is also a matter of effective use of resources in a climate in which we are looking at constraints of available resources, and necessity is the mother of invention, and that maybe fruitfully compels a more careful approach to making the best use of available resources. 183.  Quite a number of the programmes that have been implemented to promote or assist with TRIPS implementation fall under quite a wide number of other categories, such as support for innovation or support for industry start-ups and SMEs. Obviously, the digital economy-related programmes and programmes supporting engagement with the online economy. Increasingly, sustainability has a TRIPS dimension, programmes on rural development, sustainable agriculture, health, environment and climate change. We are seeing all of these increasingly taking on a TRIPS component. All of this is to underscore why we would suggest that the process of promoting and improving coordination and sharing of information that was established by this Council 25 years ago is worthy of Members attention both in terms of making most effective use of available programmes and above all ensuring that developing countries and LDCs do get the priority resources and support that they are understandably looking for. 184.  So, just to recall that this is an obligation in the TRIPS Agreement, the provision of technical assistance but it does presume a coordination-type process – a request and mutually-agreed terms and conditions as part of the process of identifying needs and responding to those needs. It also recalls what was clearly an early strong emphasis on the development of laws and regulations but also aspects of the prevention of the abuse of IP rights more structural and administrative infrastructure requirements as well. I hope I am not reading anything into this, but this is certainly how this provision has been played out. I might mention that this does refer to developed country Members as partners in technical co-operation, but of course a number of other partners have engaged in technical co-operation and that is clearly worthy of attention and something to learn from, for example South-South cooperation. But an important part has been the reports, the updates we have had from our international organization sister partners, and the reporting process has been expanded, at the request of the Council, to cover international organizations as well, and regional organizations. 185.  One element of the coordination process that we would suggest has been underutilized, is the system of contact points for technical assistance that was established by a decision of this Council back in 1996. Since then, we in the Secretariat have maintained the list of contact points, which has been transformed from inaccessible documents to a provision on the e-TRIPS platform so that it is much easier to locate and track down the contact points. The practice for contact points has differed between Members. Some identify one individual or specific contact point for all areas of technical assistance, others have broken it down in different ways. Either according to subject matter, i.e. different contact points for copyright, or trademarks or patent law. Others have set aside a distinct contact point for enforcement, so it might be in the customs or the police department. Which means that there is quite a diversity of practice among Members in identifying their contact points. One thing we can say though, is that the contact point system has been tremendously underutilized – I had the honor myself of being a contact point for four years and was not contacted once. I think that is part of a broader trend, and this is perhaps one reason why the majority of contact points have not been updated for many years, in many cases for 15 years or even longer. We do know anecdotally that many of these contact points are completely out of date. People have moved on to different jobs, so it is one of the areas in notifications and reporting generally where you can have a negative feedback loop. There is a sense of as it is out-of-date, no-one is using it, so we need not bother updating it. That then increases the incentives for ignoring it, whereas if it is kept up-to-date and there is more confidence that it is worth using, then there is a positive feedback loop being established. So we would certainly suggest that the challenges of coordination of technical assistance, the challenges of identifying the right partner in technical assistance has not become easier, arguably it has become even more complex, and so the role of the contact points, their potential contribution is, I would suggest, greater than ever. So it is certainly worth paying attention to making use of this possibility, because it is a solution that this Council came up with to a continuing challenge, and one that is in the interest on both sides of the bargain of mutually-agreed terms for technical assistance. This assists both sides in making the most of the resources available. That is the end of my advertisement. 186.  The reporting material is another area where we have been gathering large quantities of information that are difficult to make use of. Ironically, the more diverse, the more inclusive, the more comprehensive the information, the harder it is to work with. And once again this was a measure that the Council itself established, again in 1996/1997, to promote exactly the coordination to line up available resources to address the needs of developing country Members. It was also based on the assumption that there would be a degree of conversation in the Council itself, based on that information. At that point, the Chair pointed out that this was a way, both of providing information, and also finding ways to match supply and demand in respect of technical assistance. So again, that critical coordination challenge that certainly remains the case today. 187.  This was the background to the establishment of these reports, and the very range, the very complexity of these reports has made them ironically difficult to work with. So that is why we have been probing into the more recent reports, to get a sense of how we can draw out broader insights from them, in the hope that this may encourage and facilitate the use of these reports as a resource, as a practical tool, for coordinating the planning and delivery of technical assistance in priority areas. As you will see from this chart, from the very first days of this Council, there have been a number of reports submitted by Members about technical assistance programmes, reaching a high point, interestingly, in the early 2010s. This is in terms of specific reports received from individual Members, including collective reports, and you will see the comparisons we have made, and here I should acknowledge our colleagues Owen Henderson, who has ploughed through this material and produced these reports. 188.  You will see the vast range of programmes - almost 600 distinct programmes were reported in 2016, and around 414 programmes last year. Apart from Owen and the translators, I am not convinced anyone else has read through all of these documents. They are long detailed documents, they are full of very interesting and worthwhile information, but making use of that information, using if for those practical reasons that the Council set up this programme in the first place, that remains a challenge. That said, also some caveats: We should not read too much into the drop in the sheer headcount of programmes. There is a great diversity across the different programmes reported upon, and so taking a simple headcount of the programmes is not a measure of the overall scale of impact and activity, but it is at least a starting point to understand the trends. Looking at reports from last year, we have from the point of view of Members, 414 distinct technical assistance programmes reported, and among international and regional organizations, some 411 programmes that were reported. Just to recall that at the time the reporting process was set up, while Article 67 does refer specifically to developed country Members, it was the decision of the Council at that stage also to extend this reporting, and to invite international organizations to contribute as well. That is why we have these combined figures. 189.  If we look at the developments, and we will circulate this as a Room Document, we see an interesting spread across regions and within regions very roughly corresponding to the size and extend of the regions in particular. We do see interesting developments in these trends. In particular, there has been a marked increase in programmes working within Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean. We have not been able to break down in great detail what is behind that trend, but it is quite noticeable if you look at developments over time, as these charts certainly illustrate, but it is the kind of broader meta trends that can be discerned from these materials. 190.  I think one of the very interesting aspects of this analysis are the different categories, or different forms of technical assistance that Members have reported. This not a taxonomy or a structure invented by the Secretariat, this an empirical observation as to the areas of technical assistance that Members themselves have chosen to report on, and some of them quite rooted in the law of TRIPS and TRIPS implementation. This includes support for legislation and the development of domestic legal systems. Secondly, institutional support, the development of the various bodies and institutions that undertake administration of the IP system. And then more broadly, as I alluded to earlier, programmes that go beyond that and look at TRIPS implementation in a broader sense in supporting innovation and technology transfer as well as raising awareness of the IP system. there is also more specialized training, judicial training and the training relating to enforcement. And then again, as I mentioned earlier, what we can call Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)-related or developed-related projects that look at the IP system and the implementation of TRIPS within the broader context of promoting transition to green technologies and of course dealing with public health issues and sustainable development goals more generally. 191.  I did not want to single out anyone in particular, and this slide – page 15 – is really just to illustrate the point I made earlier. Firstly, there is a wide range of programmes that correspond to each of those six broad categories, but they can fall under quite different headings, or technical assistance programmes that you would not automatically assume related to IP and TRIPS implementation, but in practice do. This is an example of how making use of these reports can be very helpful in overcoming those coordination challenges, and can help find the appropriate partnerships between the provision of technical assistance and the priority needs of developing countries. Looking at the contrast between the reporting Members and the international and regional organizations, interestingly the international organizations have been more active on the administration aspects, the infrastructure aspects, and I would guess that WIPO's remarkable resources in that areas may be one explanation for that. But also in the area of IP awareness, much more activity on the international organization side than the reporting Members side. It is the opposite when it comes to enforcement and the training of the judiciary, and one can only speculate as to why that is the case. We also see a very significant chunk of work relating to development activities. You can break these down according to region, and it is interesting to look at overall trends. Likewise, when it comes to individual programmes, again we see the same kind of general trends between 2016 and 2022 among reporting Members. So here we see, for example, roughly the same focus on development related areas, we see interestingly an increase in programmes relating to legislative support, and yet a significant decrease when it comes to administrative infrastructure. 192.  I hope this wets some appetite for the value of getting to grips with this data. I know how much hard work goes into compiling these reports, I certainly know how much work of the Secretariat goes into turning these reports into documents and building them into the e-TRIPS platform, and into translating the material. It is an enormous investment, generally, that Members are making in assembling this material and making it available, and the suggestion is that we can do more to dig into it and put it to service of Members to promote what I think everyone would hope for – the better use of available technical assistance resources, that are better matched to the immediate priorities of developing countries. 193.  As far as Aid for Trade is concerned, it goes in two directions. Certainly, there are relevant programmes which the Secretariat puts together, which fall very generally under the Aid for Trade banner, but also programmes beyond our reach. There can be confusion about categories, or an assumption for example that Aid for Trade doesn't include dealing with IP in some way, whereas in practice it actually does. There remain coordination challenges, for example with the Enhanced Integrated Framework (EIF), with our colleagues in the International Trade Centre (ITC) as well, that is something that we are conscious of and need to work on further. It is a changing scene, for example there are programmes that touch on value-added for local agricultural products, so the Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF) has a role in that area, the EIF, ITC and there is also a TRIPS dimension, so that is a good example of the kind of dimension we are seeking to practice in-house. 194.  There are also COVID-related programmes and that is another example of coordination. Under our trilateral co-operation – which is a collaboration between WHO, WIPO and the WTO – the three Directors-General got together and instructed us to "ramp up" coordination in that area, and this has taken various forms, including policy support and drawing together information on policy responses at the practical level. For example, the Trilateral Gateway was established for Members seeking specific technical support in relation to COVID-19. That is a good example of where a coordinated approach is not merely desirable, but essential, because by definition there are overlapping fundamental health challenges, with an IP dimension, with a trade dimension from the very beginning. Fortunately, that framework was already established at the time of the pandemic, but it had to be intensified and the three Directors-General set out a specific set of activities to intensify that at a technical-assistance-level response to COVID-19.