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

53.   Brazil's position in this matter remains unchanged. We remain convinced that the TRIPS Agreement should be amended to include a requirement for the disclosure of origin of genetic resources in patent applications. 54.   We believe that a multilateral provision on disclosure is the most effective means to protect genetic resources as determined by the Convention on Biological Diversity. This would increase the legal security of the system as a whole. 55.   We also take this opportunity to invite Members to engage constructively in discussions on the WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore. As we all know, the IGC is mandated to undertake "text-based negotiations with the objective of reaching agreement on a text(s) of an international legal instrument(s), which will ensure the effective protection of traditional knowledge (TK), traditional cultural expressions (TCEs) and genetic resources (GRs)". The WIPO Assemblies renewed this mandate in October 2019. We therefore urge delegations to exercise flexibility so that we can advance in this pressing issue. It is within our expectation that a diplomatic conference be convened to negotiate an instrument as soon as possible. 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.

11.   The Chair proposed that, following past practice, agenda items 3, 4 and 5 be addressed together. He recalled that one tool for the review under item 3 was the information provided by Members in response to a list of questions on Article 27.3(b). Last year the Council had received the responses by Ukraine and Mexico. These had been the first responses after 15 years. He encouraged delegations to submit responses to this Checklist or update their previous responses; as well as notify any relevant changes in legislation.
12.   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 several 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.
13.   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.
14.   The representatives of Brazil; India; Bangladesh; Nigeria; China; Indonesia; Kenya; South Africa; Ukraine; the United States of America; Switzerland; Japan; Canada; and Plurinational State of Bolivia took the floor.
15.   The Council took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to the matters at its next meeting.

IP/C/M/94, IP/C/M/94/Add.1