H.E. Ambassador Dr Pimchanok PITFIELD

Peru

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

101.  Peru's position on these agenda items has not changed. However, we would like to refer specifically to the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity (the CBD). We believe it is necessary to reiterate, as a first point and as a matter of principle, the need to fulfil the mandate we undertook in Doha to examine this issue. 102.  The status quo of the past several years is causing significant harm to many Members. I highlight the case of my own country, which is dealing with misappropriation of its genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge, as reported by our National Commission for the Protection of Access to Peruvian Biological Diversity and to the Collective Knowledge of the Indigenous Peoples, which last year recorded the second highest number of cases since the Commission's inception, clearly reflecting the urgency of addressing this issue. 103.  The solution that Peru and other countries consider most appropriate and that we have proposed here and in other forums is to include the obligation to disclose the origin of the resources and traditional knowledge. Article 29 of the TRIPS Agreement does not suffice, as it does not require patent applicants to disclose the country of origin or provide evidence of compliance with prior informed consent and benefit-sharing. We believe that including the obligation to disclose the source would prevent cross-border misappropriation of our genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge and the issuance of erroneous patents. 104.  Lastly, beyond the fact that the topic is discussed in other forums under other approaches, we believe that the WTO has an important role it should take on. To start, allowing the CBD Secretariat to provide further information on the subject and on how both instruments can be mutually reinforcing and supportive as well as updating the Secretariat's documents in order to progress with these discussions.

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

17. The Chair proposed to address these three agenda items together. She 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). She 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), with Saudi Arabia being the most recent Member to respond in 2021. The Chair thus encouraged Members to submit responses to these checklists, and to update their previous submissions if they were out of date.
18. 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.
19. The Chair noted that delegations' positions on these issues were well-known and had already been extensively recorded in the Council's minutes. She therefore suggested that delegations focus their interventions on suggestions on how to resolve the differences and on how make progress on substantive issues.
20. The representatives of India; Bangladesh; Indonesia; Peru; South Africa; China; Tanzania, on behalf of the African Group; Ecuador; the United States of America; Japan; Nigeria; Thailand; Korea, Republic of; Canada and Brazil took the floor.
21. The Council took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to these matters at its next meeting.

IP/C/M/108, IP/C/M/108/Add.1