H.E. Ambassador Dr Walter Werner

Switzerland

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

97.   Switzerland would like to thank the delegation of India for its update and information on the conference on the TRIPS CBD linkage. 98.   We will participate in the conference with a speaker. In his presentation, the representative of the IP office will also explain how Switzerland implemented in its law a requirement for disclosing the source of genetic resources and traditional knowledge in patent applications. 99.   The topic of the conference this week focuses on one of the three elements of the W/52 proposal. Besides the TRIPS-CBD linkage, the proposal further covers the aspect of a better protection for geographical indications, i.e. the GI-register and the GI-extension. 100.   All three requests are important topics treated in both the WIPO and here in the WTO. They have been on the agenda for a long time and we call upon the WTO to continue working towards a solution. 101.   We believe that an update of the Secretariat's factual notes should contribute to the Council's work, should allow it to take stock of the state of play, and help us identify the way forward.

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