On Friday, 22 March 2024, Ambassador Mauricio Alberto Bustamante Garcia, Permanent Mission of Colombia to the World Trade Organization (WTO) delivered the following statement at the WTO General Council in relation to the submission by Bangladesh, Colombia, Egypt, and India on TRIPS for Development: Post MC13 work on TRIPS-related Issues – Communication from Bangladesh, Colombia, Egypt and India.
The proposal can be found here: https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=q:/WT/GC/W925.pdf&Open=True
The communication (WT/GC/W/925, IP/C/W/708) by Bangladesh, Colombia, Egypt, and India stated:
1. We, keeping in mind the upcoming 30th anniversary of the TRIPS Agreement, call upon the Council for TRIPS to undertake and finalize its first review under Article 71 on the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement.
2. Pursuant to paragraph 19 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration, we request the Council for TRIPS to expedite ongoing work to examine the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the protection of traditional knowledge and folklore.
3. We also call upon the TRIPS Council to examine how the TRIPS Agreement could facilitate transfer and dissemination of technologies to developing countries including LDCs.
4. We further call upon the Council to examine the TRIPS Agreement, the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health of 2001 and the Ministerial Decision on the TRIPS Agreement of 2022, to review and build on the lessons learned during COVID-19, with the aim to address the concerns of developing countries including LDCs in the context of health emergencies including pandemic.
5. In undertaking this work, the TRIPS Council shall be guided by the objectives and principles set out in Articles 7 and 8 of the TRIPS Agreement and shall take fully into account the development dimension and shall provide a report on the progress made, including any recommendations, to the Ministers at the 14th Ministerial Conference.
__________
Colombia opened by noting:
-
“Just 2 or 3 years ago the world experienced a pandemic that paralyzed our societies and gave rise to the most critical debates on intellectual property. Global health became one, and discussions about equity and access to medicines took on a renewed role in all our discussions. The TRIPS rules were pushed to the limit and harshly questioned by a very significant number of countries.”
Today, a few meters from here, a pandemic treaty to better respond to future pandemics is being discussed by our same countries at the WHO, with difficult and profound discussions about the role of IP in the diversification of production, equity and access.”
On climate change, Colombia stressed:
“At the same time, the world faces a climate crisis. We all agree that we need the rapid dissemination of green technologies for mitigation and adaptation. The more competition there is, the more economic actors are authorized to participate, then the more effective and equitable our response to the challenges of climate change will be. However, the existence of exclusivity rights over technologies slows down and makes this dissemination more difficult. Collectively assessing the balance between greater speed and diffusion, on the one hand, and the promotion of innovation by some actors on the other, is of course a crucial issue in today’s world.”
In terms of WTO in dealing with the intersection of IP and health, climate change, and geopolitical tensions in technology, Colombia noted:
“And the strictest intellectual property rules belong here, to the WTO. Not to WIPO, not to the UN, whose treaties or provisions are much less strict. The WTO TRIPS Agreement is the basis of the existing institutional rules scheme regarding intellectual property, and its monitoring and discussion belongs and should happen in this house, in the WTO.
And yet… at the WTO Ministerial we decided not to talk about any of this.”
The original intervention in Spanish and the English translation are reproduced here.
Intervención de Colombia
Consejo General OMC 21 y 22 de marzo de 2024
PUNTO 5
LOS ADPIC PARA EL DESARROLLO: LABOR POSTERIOR A LA CM13 SOBRE LAS CUESTIONES RELACIONADAS CON LOS ADPIC – COMUNICACIÓN DE BANGLADESH, COLOMBIA, EGIPTO Y LA INDIA
Español
Gracias señora presidenta y gracias a los copatrocinadores de este punto de agenda.
El escenario asociado a la propiedad intelectual ha venido cambiando de manera vertiginosa en los últimos años.
Hace apenas 2 o 3 años el mundo vivió una pandemia que paralizó a nuestras sociedades y originó los más álgidos debates en propiedad intelectual. La salud global se hizo una sola y las discusiones sobre equidad y acceso a medicamentos adquirieron un rol renovado en todas nuestras discusiones. Las reglas del ADPIC fueron llevadas al límite y duramente cuestionadas por un número muy significativo de países.
Hoy se discute, por nuestros mismos paises, un tratado pandémico en la OMS para responder mejor a las futuras pandemias, con discusiones difíciles y profundas sobre el rol de la propiedad intelectual en la diversificación de la producción y en la equidad en el acceso.
Por otro lado, los costos en salud que afectan los presupuestos de todos nuestros países han venido creciendo de manera sostenida y drástica en los últimos años de la mano de nuevas tecnologías.
Esto ha hecho que todas nuestras economías estén tomando medidas y que incluso las economías más grandes en esta sala estén tomando decisiones audaces sobre flexibilidades en el marco del ADPIC y sobre control de precios de medicamentos. Eso quiere decir que sí se puede, que hay margen para mejorar el acceso a los medicamentos. El gasto público global tiene un componente en salud que crece sin parar, fuertemente atado a derechos de exclusividad que por naturaleza incrementan los costos.
Al mismo tiempo, el mundo enfrenta una crisis climática. Todos estamos de acuerdo en que necesitamos la rápida diseminación de tecnologías verdes para la mitigación y la adaptación. Ahora bien, la existencia de derechos de exclusividad sobre las tecnologías ralentiza y dificulta esta diseminación. Evaluar colectivamente el equilibrio entre una mayor velocidad y difusión, por un lado, y la promoción de la innovación de algunos actores, por otro, es un tema crucial en el mundo actual.
Ahora bien, la propiedad intelectual está también en el centro de los debates sobre desarrollo tecnológico, autonomía, sofisticación de las cadenas productivas e incluso seguridad nacional. Los grandes debates geopolíticos se explican fácilmente en términos tecnológicos. La brecha tecnológica entre paises en desarrollo y desarrollados, o la creciente competencia tecnológica entre actores estatales, tiene un componente fundamental en la propiedad intelectual.
En suma, la propiedad intelectual está en el centro de los debates más importantes de nuestro tiempo:
Salud humana,
Cambio climático,
Sostenibilidad presupuestal,
Desarrollo económico del mundo en desarrollo,
Tensiones geopolíticas en tecnología.
Y las reglas de propiedad intelectual más estrictas están acá, en la OMC. No en la OMPI, no en la ONU, cuyos tratados o disposiciones son menos estrictas.
Y sin embargo… en la MC13 decidimos no hablar de nada de esto.
Varios países dijeron de manera explícita y reiterada que no se hablaría sobre propiedad intelectual en la CM13. A pesar de ser uno de los tres pilares de esta Organización junto con los bienes y los servicios, y a pesar de ser la base de los principales problemas de nuestro tiempo, resulta entonces que era mejor no hablar de propiedad intelectual.
Solo un párrafo valioso, pero en todo caso repetido de la Ministerial previa, y finalmente una decisión sobre reclamaciones no basadas en una infracción que entró a los resultados ministeriales “in extremis”. Esos fueron los únicos y magros puntos que se lograron.
Sin embargo, había otros puntos sobre propiedad intelectual que se propusieron discutir en la Ministerial, sin éxito. Colombia manifestó su descontento desde el momento en que las modalidades y la agenda propuesta para la ministerial no incluían ninguna discusión de propiedad intelectual. Es irónico que luego de la Ronda de Uruguay, en la cual un número de países, especialmente en desarrollo, decía que la propiedad intelectual no debía de ser parte de la OMC, mientras que otros, especialmente desarrollados, decían que era fundamental incluirla en la OMC. Hoy los roles se han invertido. El mundo en desarrollo quiere tener una conversación al respecto. El mundo es cada vez más dependiente de tecnologías protegidas por la propiedad intelectual y, sin embargo, no queremos hablar de eso.
Y hay que decirlo: no fue solo la Ministerial. El Consejo de los ADPIC, medicamente hablando, está anémico. A pesar del gran trabajo de la Embajadora Pimchanok de Tailandia y de la Secretaría, y sus esfuerzos en intentar hacer avanzar el Consejo del ADPIC, su agenda ha permanecido prácticamente la misma desde hace décadas y el Consejo no avanza en ninguno de los temas globales asociados a la propiedad intelectual que interesan a todos.
En el Consejo del ADPIC se reúne un nicho técnico de excelentes funcionarios, relativamente reducido en tamaño, pero francamente se dejó de lado la discusión de política pública en torno a los objetivos que persigue esta Organización y el Acuerdo de propiedad intelectual.
Señora Presidenta, con este punto de agenda, de la mano de nuestros copatrocinadores, queremos invitar a los Embajadores a retomar este tema; a que se involucren más; a que desmitifiquemos las discusiones sobre propiedad intelectual y las hagamos más plurales y abiertas; a que le perdamos el temor a abordarlas más allá de sus tecnicismos. El ADPIC no es física nuclear, es política pública que busca un equilibrio entre la innovación y el acceso y es uno de los pilares de la OMC. Por lo tanto, estas discusiones no deberían ser eliminadas en las Ministeriales, o limitadas a un nicho de expertos específico.
El grupo de países que solicitamos este ítem de agenda tiene ideas y propuestas para comenzar a abrir más la discusión. No son las únicas, animamos a todos a traer propuestas sobre este Acuerdo al centro de esta Organización, al centro donde pertenece y cada vez con más fuerza. Colombia, en particular, hará una serie de propuestas asociadas a la revisión periódica de la aplicación del acuerdo que se debe hacer según su artículo 71.
Nos dijeron que éste es un tema que se debe tocar en el Consejo del ADPIC y no en la Ministerial; allí estaremos haciendo propuestas concretas y esperamos que allí por fin se le dé cumplimiento después de 30 años de espera .
Gracias presidente.
(English)
Thank you very much, Madam President, and many thanks to the co-sponsors of this Agenda Item.
The scenario associated with intellectual property has been changing rapidly in recent years.
Just 2 or 3 years ago the world experienced a pandemic that paralyzed our societies and gave rise to the most critical debates on intellectual property. Global health became one, and discussions about equity and access to medicines took on a renewed role in all our discussions. The TRIPS rules were pushed to the limit and harshly questioned by a very significant number of countries.
Today, a few meters from here, a pandemic treaty to better respond to future pandemics is being discussed by our same countries at the WHO, with difficult and profound discussions about the role of IP in the diversification of production, equity and access.
On other hand, health costs that affect the budgets of all our countries have been growing steadily and drastically in recent years, and this caused mostly by new technologies. This has made all our economies to take action, and even the largest economies in this room are now taking bold decisions on flexibilities under TRIPS and on drug price controls. That means that this is possible, there is room to improve access to medicines and health products. Global public spending has a steadily growing health component, strongly tied to exclusivity rights that by nature increase costs.
At the same time, the world faces a climate crisis. We all agree that we need the rapid dissemination of green technologies for mitigation and adaptation. The more competition there is, the more economic actors are authorized to participate, then the more effective and equitable our response to the challenges of climate change will be. However, the existence of exclusivity rights over technologies slows down and makes this dissemination more difficult. Collectively assessing the balance between greater speed and diffusion, on the one hand, and the promotion of innovation by some actors on the other, is of course a crucial issue in today’s world.
Further, intellectual property is also at the center of debates on technological development, autonomy, sophistication of production chains and even national security. The great geopolitical debates are easily explained in technological terms. The technological gap between developing and developed countries, or the growing technological competition between state actors, has a fundamental component in intellectual property.
In short, intellectual property is at the center of the most important debates of our time:
Human Health,
climate change,
budgetary sustainability,
economic development of the developing world,
geopolitical tensions in technology.
And the strictest intellectual property rules belong here, to the WTO. Not to WIPO, not to the UN, whose treaties or provisions are much less strict. The WTO TRIPS Agreement is the basis of the existing institutional rules scheme regarding intellectual property, and its monitoring and discussion belongs and should happen in this house, in the WTO.
And yet… at the WTO Ministerial we decided not to talk about any of this.
Several countries explicitly and repeatedly said that intellectual property would not be discussed at the ministerial. Despite being one of the 3 pillars of this organization along with goods and services, and despite being the basis of many of the main problems of our time, it turns out that it was better not to talk about intellectual property. Only a valuable paragraph, but in any case a repeated paragraph from the previous ministerial, and further a decision on non violation claims that entered the ministerial results ‘in extremis’. Those were the only, and meager, points that were achieved.
However, there were other points on Intellectual Property that were proposed as discussions for the Ministerials, to no avail. Colombia expressed its discontent from the very moment that the modalities and agenda proposed for the ministerial did not include any discussion of intellectual property. It is even ironic that after the Uruguay Round, in which a number of countries, especially developing ones, said that intellectual property should not be part of the WTO and others, especially developed ones, said that it was essential to include it in the WTO, today the roles have been reversed. The developing world wants to have a conversation. Indeed, the world is increasingly dependent on IP-protected technologies, and yet we don’t want to talk about it.
And it must be said: it was not just the Ministerial. The TRIPS Council, medically speaking, is anemic. Despite the great work of the Ambassador Pimchanok of Thailand and the Secretariat, and its efforts to advance the TRIPS Council, its agenda has remained practically the same for decades and the Council has not made progress on any of the global issues associated with intellectual property.
The TRIPS Council brings together a very technical niche of excellent officials, relatively small in size, but frankly the public policy discussion regarding the objectives pursued by this Organization and the Intellectual Property Agreement is missing.
Madam President, with this agenda item, together with our co-sponsors, we want to invite the Ambassadors to return to this topic, to get more involved; to demystify discussions about intellectual property and make them more plural and open; to lose the fear of addressing them beyond their technicalities. The TRIPS is not nuclear physics: it is public policy that seeks a balance between innovation and access, and is one of the pillars of the WTO. Therefore these discussions cannot continue to be abandoned in the Ministerials, or limited here to a very narrow niche of experts.
The Group of countries that requested this agenda item has ideas and proposals to open the discussion more. About the review, about the Biodiversity Convention, about learning from the pandemic, about the technological evolution of developing countries. These are not the only issues, we encourage everyone to bring proposals related to the rules of the Agreement to the center of this Organization, where it belongs, and with increasing importance. Colombia in particular will make a series of proposals associated with the periodic review of the implementation of the agreement that must be done according to its article 71. We have been told that this is an issue that must be addressed at the TRIPS Council, so we will be making concrete proposals, and we hope that such a mandated discussion will finally be fulfilled after 30 years of waiting.
Thank you president