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

H.E. Ambassador Dr. Walter Werner

45.   The relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD is an important issue in this Council. Over the years, Members have conducted a lot of useful discussion on this issue. China attaches great importance to the issue of TRIPS-CBD and hopes that Members could constructively involve in this discussion. As a large country for genetic resources, China attaches great importance to these issues. China joined the CBD as early as 1983 and joined the Nagoya Protocol in 2016. At the same time, China makes efforts to improve domestic legislation. The Patent Law stipulates the disclosure of genetic resources, requiring that the direct and original resource should be illustrated when inventions and creations are based on genetic resources. 46.   Regarding the substantial issues, China notes that the majority of Members support to amend the TRIPS Agreement to ensure the mutual supportiveness between the TRIPS Agreement, the CBD and the Nagoya Protocol. As to the issue of disclosure, China has provided detailed suggestions on negotiation modes, improving the transparency on genetic resources utilization, preventing misappropriation of genetic resources and traditional knowledge, and preventing the grant of erroneous patents in documents TN/C/W/52 and TN/C/W/59 co-sponsored by China and other Members. China also believes that setting up a reasonable system for prior informed consent and benefit sharing could make better protection of genetic resources. 47.   As regard to the procedure, China supports to invite the CBD Secretariat to brief on the Nagoya Protocol and hopes that the Secretariat could revise three factual notes(IP/C/W/368/Rev.1, IP/C/W/369/Rev.1 and IP/C/W/370/Rev.1) which can contribute greatly to our discussion. China believes that discussion and negotiation in WIPO IGC could not hinder Members from finding solutions in the WTO as the Ministers have given the Council the mandate to examine the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD. The WTO and WIPO are different platforms for discussion and research. Discussions in both platforms are conducive to solution-finding.

The Council took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to the matters at its next meeting.
14.   The Chair proposed that, following past practice, agenda items 3, 4 and 5 would be addressed together. He noted that there had been important developments in these areas in many WTO Members. However, these developments had not been shared with the Council. Particularly, there had been no response or update to the Illustrative List of Questions on Article 27.3(b) (IP/C/W/122) since 2003; and only 25 Members had responded at all. Likewise, there had been no notifications to the TRIPS Council of domestic laws that related to the protection of genetic resources and traditional knowledge. He encouraged delegations to submit responses to the Checklist or update their previous responses; as well as to notify any relevant changes in legislation. At the previous meeting, delegations had continued their discussion on two long-standing procedural issues, namely the suggestion first made in November 2012 that the Secretariat update the three factual notes on the Council's previous discussions on TRIPS/CBD and related items; and the proposal initially submitted in October 2010 that the CBD Secretariat be invited to brief the Council on the Nagoya Protocol to the CBD. He said that he had no new developments to report in this regard.
15.   The representatives of India, South Africa, Ecuador, China, the Plurinational State of Bolivia, the United States of America, Japan, Brazil, Canada, Switzerland, Australia, Indonesia and Chile took the floor.
16.   The Council took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to the matters at its next meeting.
IP/C/M/91, IP/C/M/91/Add.1, IP/C/M/91/Corr.1