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

H.E. Ambassador Dr Walter Werner
93.   Regarding this agenda, we have already discussed for a long time at a series of meetings of the TRIPS Council. The delegation of Japan, therefore, believes that our position is well-known among Members, so this time we would like to focus on some major points in our intervention. 94.   This delegation would like to reiterate our position that the convention on biological diversity is by nature not relevant with the intellectual property system and it is necessary to seek appropriate ways to deal with the misappropriation of genetic resources. This means 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. 95.   This delegation is firmly convinced that the disclosure requirement would discourage industries from conducting research and development activities on biological materials outside their own countries. This is the very consequence of the disclosure requirement that Japan has been concerned about. Therefore, Japan believes that the disclosure requirement is not an appropriate means for dealing with such misappropriation, so therefore, we have to make sure not to include it in the intellectual property system. 96.   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. Based on the mandate which is renewed in the last WIPO General Assembly, the 36th Session of IGC will be held this month and deal with the issues regarding to genetic resources, using evidence-based approach.
16.   The Chair said that, as had already been noted during previous meetings, WTO Members had seen important developments in this area over the last decade. However, they had not shared information on those developments with the TRIPS Council. He believed that such information would enrich discussions. The Council had agreed on an Illustrative List of Questions (IP/C/W/122), which served as the basis for the review of on Article 27.3(b). However, only a minority of Members had provided responses; and there had been no response or updates since 2003. Similar gaps were also apparent with regard to Members' obligations under Article 63.2, as important legislative developments had not been notified to the TRIPS Council. He encouraged delegations to submit or update responses and to notify relevant laws and regulations to the TRIPS Council.
17.   The Chair noted that there were also two long-standing procedural issues which have been discussed for many years:
a. The suggestion made in November 2012 that the Secretariat update the three factual notes on the Council's previous 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 that the CBD Secretariat be invited to brief the Council on the Nagoya Protocol to the CBD, initially proposed in October 2010.
18.   The Chair reported that there had been no developments on these procedural issues, during the informal consultation that had taken place the previous week. He invited delegations to share their suggestions on how to make progress.
19.   The representatives of India; Ecuador; South Africa; Brazil; Benin, on behalf of the LDC Group; the United States; Bangladesh; Japan; Switzerland; Australia; the Republic of Korea; Canada; China; and Indonesia took the floor.
20.   The Chair encouraged Members to have further discussions to resolve the outstanding procedural issues, and said that he stood ready to assist in the consultations.
21.   The Council took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to the matters at its next meeting.
IP/C/M/89, IP/C/M/89/Add.1