H.E. Ambassador Lundeg Purevsuren

Japan

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

91.   We have discussed this agenda at length during a series of meetings of the TRIPS Council. This delegation, therefore, believes that our position is well-recognized among Members, so we would like to make our intervention brief, highlighting some major points. 92.   The delegation of Japan would like to reiterate our position that the Convention on Biological Diversity is by nature not relevant to the intellectual property system. In this regard, we need to seek appropriate ways to deal with the utilization of genetic resources. This means that we should bear in mind that any measures taken must not adversely affect the existing intellectual property system or hinder the creation of innovations utilizing genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge. 93.   This delegation is firmly convinced that to include the disclosure requirement in the IP system would discourage industries from conducting research and development activities on biological materials. This is the very consequence of the disclosure requirement that Japan has been concerned about. The same holds true for not only developed countries but also emerging and developing countries. Japan believes that the disclosure requirement is not an adequate means for dealing with the utilization of genetic resources. 94.   In line with the above-mentioned position, we firmly believe that the protection of GRs, TK and Folklore should be designed in a manner that both supports creativity and innovation. 95.   In addition, this delegation believes the WIPO IGC is the most appropriate forum for holding technical discussions on genetic resources, traditional knowledge and folklore from IP aspects, and the IGC meetings will be held this year. This delegation has been actively contributing to the discussions at the IGC meetings, making various proposals, and remains willing to contribute to evidence-based discussions on these issues in a constructive and effective manner.

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