Ms Irene Young (Hong Kong, China)

Canada

3; 4; 5 REVIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 27.3(B); RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TRIPS AGREEMENT AND THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY; PROTECTION OF TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND FOLKLORE

66. Canada continues to firmly believe that the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity are complementary, and that there is therefore no need to amend the TRIPS Agreement in this regard. 67. Canada would also like to note its continued support for the important work of the WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC). As has been noted previously, the IGC remains the most appropriate forum for multilateral engagement in this area, providing an important venue to bring together expert views, to discuss the IP-related dimensions of these issues in order to identify evidence-based, balanced, appropriate and mutually-beneficial approaches to these complex and important issues. Canada welcomes both the concrete discussions and exchanges of national experiences in this area at the IGC, which are so important to accurately pinpointing the issues at hand, and looks forward to the upcoming thirty-fifth session of the IGC, to be held March 19 to 23, 2018, in this regard. 68. With respect to discussions at the TRIPS Council, as Canada has previously noted, and without prejudice to our position on substantive matters, Canada is not opposed from a procedural standpoint to a briefing from the CBD Secretariat to the TRIPS Council, should there be sufficient interest from other Members on the matter. Canada could also support the compilation of the three factual notes on the TRIPS Agreement by the WTO Secretariat. Canada remains of the understanding that this would remain a purely factual collating exercise, and in both cases, this is without prejudice to national positions on these issues. 69. Similar to our positions at the IGC, Canada also continues to welcome presentations by any interested Members containing the latest information on the operation and functioning of their national IP regimes concerning genetic resources and traditional knowledge, to inform other Members in this Council. Canada notes the valuable and factual exchanges that have taken place on other issues at recent meetings of the TRIPS Council, such as on "IP and Innovation", "IP and the Public Interest," e-commerce, and elsewhere. We would welcome presentations on national regimes concerning genetic resources and traditional knowledge at future meetings of the TRIPS Council in this regard, without prejudice to our position that the IGC remains the most appropriate forum for negotiations in this area.

The Council took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to the matters at its next meeting.

14. The Chairperson said that, as she had already noted during the previous two meetings, Members had seen important developments in this area over the last decade, but had not shared those developments with the TRIPS Council. Particularly, there had been no responses or updates, since 2003, to the Illustrative List of Questions on Article 27.3(b) (IP/C/W/122), and only 25 Members had responded at all. Likewise, there had been no notifications of domestic mechanisms to protect genetic resources and traditional knowledge. She encouraged Members to submit responses to this Checklist or update their previous responses; as well as notify any relevant changes in their legislation.

15. The representatives of Ecuador; India; Brazil; China; the Plurinational State of Bolivia; South Africa; Canada; Bangladesh; Cuba; Chile; Indonesia; Haiti, on behalf of the LDC Group; the United States; Japan; Switzerland; and Australia took the floor.

16. The Chairperson encouraged Members to have further discussions to resolve the outstanding procedural issues.

17. The Council took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to the matters at its next meeting.

IP/C/M/88, IP/C/M/88/Add.1