[Ip-health] India's statement on LDC Extension: Informal Meeting of TRIPS Council
ssangeeta at myjaring.net
Thu May 23 08:48:54 PDT 2013
>Yesterday at the informal open meeting of the TRIPs Council, developing
>countries reiterated their support for the LDC request for an extension
>This includes the African Group (Morocco speaking), Saudi Arabia,
>China, Brazil, Bolivia, Mexico, India, Cuba and South Africa.
>Developed countries (US, EU, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, Japan and
>Switzerland) that remain opposed to the LDCs' extension demand did not
>make any intervention, according to sources.
>With permission, below is India's statement at the informal TRIPS Council
>Thank you Mr Chairman for convening this informal meeting to
>brief us on your consultations on the request of LDCs for an extension in
>The transition period under Art 66.1 of the TRIPS Agreement.
>Let me begin by recalling that during the last TRIPS Council
>meeting in March 2013, India had supported the LDC request by stating
>any artificial deadline would not help in creating a sound and viable
>Technological base and that the decision to extend the transition period
>should not be
>circumscribed by any conditionalities like a no roll back clause¹ or
>implementation. We, therefore, join previous speakers in extending our
>support to the LDCs in their request for an extension.
>We understand that there is opposition to the LDCs request for extending
>the transition period till
>They remain LDCs. They have been offered to provide an extension of 5
>several conditionalities that go against the intent and spirit of Article
>66.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. We are concerned with this state of
>And urge the developed country Members to restrict the negotiations to the
>Language of Art 66.1. We oppose any reference requiring LDCs to commit to
>Implementation or compliance when the objective of Art 66.1 is to provide
>flexibility for LDCs to establish a viable and sound technological base.
>We are also concerned with the insistence on the ³no roll
>back clause² which alters the nature of rights, that the LDCs are legally
>entitled to under the TRIPS Agreement. We do not support inclusion of
>a clause in the extension decision.
>On the issue of duration, we fully support LDCs¹ request for an extension
>for as long as they remain LDCs, in
>View of the extensive development and technological challenges facing
>countries. We stress that LDCs need time and policy space to overcome
>constraints and to develop a viable technological base. We remain opposed
>to short-and impractical time frames or to time-frames conditioned on
>review on LDCs¹
>progress towards TRIPS implementation.
>Let me conclude by saying that we have confidence in your
>leadership and we hope that you will be able to guide the negotiations so
>That the LDCs can get a transition period that would provide them maximum
>flexibility to develop a sound and viable technological base as intended
>Article 66.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. India remains ready to engage
>constructively in this process so as to achieve the desired outcome.
More information about the Ip-health