H.E. Ambassador Dr Lansana GBERIE

Brazil

4; 5; 6 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

115.   As other delegations, I would like to reaffirm Brazil's statements on these topics. As our position remains the same, I would like to seize this occasion to reaffirm our position on the importance of the predisposal of disclosure and benefit-sharing. We understand, as other delegations that have taken the floor before, that it would be very useful for the discussions that we have here in the TRIPS Council, that we could count on the support and guidance of the CBD Secretariat on the relationship between the IP agenda that we have here and those related to biodiversity. 116.   We also understand that the existence of ongoing negotiations at WIPO should not be understood to preclude discussions on these topics at the TRIPS Council. The mere fact of reading the TRIPS Agreement, that makes reference to several of the topics that we also have at WIPO, means if those topics are in the TRIPS Agreement and they are also at WIPO there is no reason for them not to be also discussed here. 117.   In this connection I would strongly encourage Members to fully engage in the preparatory work for the diplomatic conferences on genetic resources and intellectual property rights that is expected to take place early in the next year. This was a mandate that was given by the Nagoya Protocol and at that time the agreement that all Members had was that those discussions would have been dealt with at WIPO. Therefore, we are really positive on a final result on that at WIPO.

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

21. The Chair proposed to address these three agenda items together. He recalled that one tool for the review under item 4 was the information provided by Members in response to lists of questions on Article 27.3(b). He said that the latest Annual Report on Notifications and other Information Flows circulated by the Secretariat illustrated that responses to that checklist had been rather sparse recently. So far, only 28 Members had responded to the lists of questions on Article 27.3(b). The Chair thus encouraged Members to submit responses to these checklists, and to update their previous submissions if they were out of date.
22. The Chair noted that two long-standing procedural issues had been discussed extensively on the record at every regular meeting of the Council for almost ten years. The first was the suggestion for the Secretariat to update 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. The second was the request to invite the CBD Secretariat to brief the Council on the Nagoya Protocol to the CBD, initially proposed in October 2010.
23. The Chair noted that delegations' positions on these issues were well-known and had already been extensively recorded in the Council's minutes. He therefore suggested that delegations focus their interventions on suggestions on how to resolve the differences and on how make progress on substantive issues.
24. The representatives of India; Bangladesh; Indonesia; Tanzania, on behalf of the African Group; Peru; South Africa; Brazil; Japan; the United States of America; and the World Intellectual Property Organization took the floor.
25. The Council took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to these matters at its next meeting.

IP/C/M/107, IP/C/M/107/Add.1