H.E. Ambassador Lundeg Purevsuren

Brazil

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

92.   As we have stressed in our previous statements, Brazil favours the inclusion of a requirement in TRIPS for the disclosure of origin of genetic resources in patent applications. 93.   Brazil, as well as other countries, believes that this subject is within the scope of patent rights and obligations. There are currently around thirty disclosure regimes worldwide, and other countries are studying to follow this trend. The creation of different national legislations on the subject could lead to legal uncertainty in the detriment of users, providers and knowledge holders. 94.   We thus believe that a multilateral provision on disclosure is paramount, besides being the most effective means to protect genetic resources as determined by the Convention on Biological Diversity. 95.   The ideal scope of disclosure in our view would require patent applicants to disclose the country of origin of a biological resource and provide evidence of compliance with prior informed consent and benefit-sharing. 96.   While it is true that WIPO is conducting negotiations on genetic resources, whose mandate was renewed by the WIPO Assemblies in October 2019, we still do not have consensus for calling a diplomatic conference. 97.   We therefore urge delegations to engage in order to allow for advances in the negotiations. This will enable the multilateral IP system to provide a concrete answer to the rights of countries hosting a rich biodiversity.

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

14.   The Chair proposed that, following past practice, agenda items 3, 4 and 5 be addressed together. He noted that, Ukraine had recently submitted its responses to the List of Questions on Article 27.3(b), which had been circulated in document IP/C/W/125/Add.26. He invited Ukraine to introduce its submission.
15.   The representative of Ukraine took the floor.
16.   The Chair encouraged delegations to submit responses to the List of Questions or update their previous responses; as well as notify any relevant changes in legislation.
17.   He noted that two longstanding procedural issues under these items had been discussed extensively on the record, at every regular meeting of the Council for almost nine years:
a. First, the suggestion for the Secretariat to update the three factual notes on the Council's discussions on the TRIPS and CBD and related items; these notes were initially prepared in 2002 and last updated in 2006; and
b. second, the request to invite the CBD Secretariat to brief the Council on the Nagoya Protocol to the CBD, initially proposed in October 2010.
18.   Positions on these issues were well-known and already extensively recorded in the Council minutes. In addressing these procedural questions, he encouraged delegations to focus on suggestions as to how to resolve them.
19.   The representatives of South Africa; Bangladesh; India; Ecuador; Indonesia; the Plurinational State of Bolivia; Zimbabwe; Brazil; Nigeria; Australia; Thailand; Chile; China; Canada; Japan; Switzerland; and the United States of America took the floor.
20.   The Council took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to the matters at its next meeting.

IP/C/M/93, IP/C/M/93/Add.1