Actas - Consejo de los ADPIC - Ver detalles de la intervención/declaración

Ambassador Alfredo Suescum (Panama)
246. I would like to quickly respond to some aspects raised by delegations on this agenda item. The first one is that IP is one of many factors affecting access to medicines. As we have mentioned in our statement we do not dispute this fact, however, this is the Council for TRIPS. Under its mandate, it is intellectual property and that is why we should discuss, in our view, the IP-related aspects of the Report. 247. Another point mentions the other documents and reports circulated on the matter and the lack of discussion in this Council. Brazil would very much welcome delegations to propose discussion of those reports. However, that is not what we have seen during the last years. The last aspect I would like to raise is the lack of consensus and divergent views on the Report. In our view this underlines the complexity of the issue and the need to further continue the discussion on the matter.
The Council took note of the statements made.
63. The Chairman recalled that Brazil, China, India and South Africa had requested that this item be added to the agenda of the Council's meeting in November 2016. To introduce the item, they had also submitted a communication (document IP/C/W/619).

64. In the course of that discussion, the delegation of South Africa had requested that this item be continued as an ad hoc item at the next meeting and the Council so agreed.

65. Since this was a continuation of the discussion had held at the Council's meeting in November 2016, he briefly summarized what had been said at that meeting. According to the co sponsors, the request to add this item to the Council's agenda had been intended to facilitate an exchange of views on the recommendations of the High Level Panel, as well as to share national experiences regarding the use of TRIPS flexibilities. At the meeting in November 2016, some delegations had welcomed the discussion of the report in this Council while others had said that they needed more time to consider the recommendations. Some delegations had expressed concern about the narrow scope of the report and had noted that it had neither been mandated nor endorsed by Members of the United Nations.

66. The representatives of India; Bangladesh on behalf of the LDC Group; Brazil; South Africa; China; Indonesia; Nigeria on behalf of the African Group; Egypt; the United States; Japan; Canada; the Republic of Korea; Norway; the European Union; Switzerland; Australia; Chinese Taipei; and Chile took the floor.

67. The representative of the World Health Organization took the floor.

68. The Council took note of the statements made.

IP/C/M/85, IP/C/M/85/Add.1