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

H.E. Ambassador Xolelwa Mlumbi-Peter
5; 6; 7 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
191.   My delegation would like to reaffirm its position on the great importance on the negotiation of relationship between TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity, as well as the protection of traditional knowledge and folklore. 192.   We also reiterate our position that Article 27.3(b) and Article 29 of the TRIPS Agreement does not provide any legal obligation for Members to take all necessary measures for fair and equitable sharing of benefits as required by the CBD and the Nagoya Protocol. This legal omission provides a room for misappropriation and misuse of genetic resources and traditional knowledge that, in the end, defeat the purpose and objective of the CBD and the Nagoya Protocol. 193.   Substantive discussions of this issue should not be delayed simply because it is being negotiated in other fora, such as WIPO. The discussions to take place in this Council should reinforce what has already been agreed at the multilateral level, such as CBD, and should complement negotiations/discussions in other fora. We believe that parallel discussions will enhance effort and understanding in achieving a fair and balanced trading system with regard to intellectual property. 194.   Indonesia believes that it is timely for the Council to give simultaneous and adequate attention to address the issue towards a common goal to ensure that GRTKF are protected in an appropriate manner.
The Council took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to the matters at its next meeting.
22.   The Chair proposed that, following past practice, agenda items 5, 6 and 7 be addressed together. She recalled that there had been important developments in this area in many WTO Members that have not been shared with this Council. So far, only 27 Members had responded to the List of Questions on Article 27.3(b), with Mexico and Ukraine being the most recent submissions. Two longstanding procedural issues under these items had been discussed extensively on the record, at every regular meeting of the Council for almost ten years now:
a. 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 had been initially prepared in 2002 and last updated in 2006; and
b. the request to invite the CBD Secretariat to brief the Council on the Nagoya Protocol to the CBD, initially proposed in October 2010.
23.   Delegations' positions on these issues were well known and already extensively recorded in the Council's minutes. Considering that the agenda was particularly full for the present one-day meeting, she strongly suggested that delegations focus their interventions on suggestions on how to resolve the differences and make progress on the substantive issues. Existing positions were very well known and were very clearly on the record, so there was no need to reiterate them.
24.   The representatives of Brazil; Tanzania, on behalf of the African Group; Bangladesh; South Africa; Zimbabwe; China; India; Nigeria; Kenya; Switzerland; Indonesia; Canada; the United States of America; the European Union; and Japan took the floor
25.   The Council took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to the matters at its next meeting.
IP/C/M/95, IP/C/M/95/Add.1