Compte rendu ‒ Conseil des ADPIC ‒ Afficher les détails de l'intervention/la déclaration

Ambassador Alfredo Suescum (Panama)
Afrique du Sud
255. In terms of the agenda item, as one of the co-sponsors, we had requested a continuation of discussion, given the fact that many delegations had indicated that they were still in contact with their capitals and would revert at the next meeting, so we expected that such delegations would have come back during this meeting. Also given the fact that this is an ad hoc item, an item which has been described in respect of the procedural rules, the question arises whether or not, it would be clear that a further continuation would be appropriate. Given your comments, and also some of the other comments, we have two possibilities: should such delegations still wish to revert back to this particular item, we could inscribe a continuation of discussion of this topic on the agenda of our next meeting. If this is not the case, of course, the other option, as India had indicated, would be that proponents of this item use the High Level Panel Report as an appropriate peg to highlight many of the issues that are relevant to the TRIPS Council; many delegations have also indicated that some of the recommendations are specifically directed at the work that we deliberate on. 256. Given this fact, if there is no continuation of this particular topic, I think it would be incumbent on the proponents for the next meeting, once again, to place an item on the agenda that proposes to look at aspects of access to medicines and of course this proposal would be elucidated and described within an appropriate context, perhaps with another document outlining some of the topics that we would like to discuss, and to cover not only the next meeting, but the following meeting. I think those are the two possibilities, and we would be happy to hear what other Members think of this.
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