Minutes - TRIPS Council - View details of the intervention/statement

H.E. Ambassador Lundeg Purevsuren
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
103.   Australia believes that the WIPO IGC is best placed, with appropriate technical expertise, to consider the complex issues relating to intellectual property and genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge and cultural expressions. 104.   We hope Members will adopt a spirit of compromise when the issue of genetic resources is next considered. 105.   Australia believes the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity are fully consistent, and that the TRIPS Agreement therefore does not need to be amended. 106.   Australia fully implements our obligations under both agreements, which we view as mutually supportive. 107.   In relation to procedural matters, Australia is open to a briefing by the CBD Secretariat on the Nagoya Protocol, and can be flexible in relation to the Secretariat updating the three factual notes. 108.   Australia regards the current flexibilities under TRIPS Article 27.3(b) as sufficient to allow Members to take decisions on the patentability of life forms in accordance with national policies. These flexibilities should be retained.
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