H.E. Ambassador Dr Walter Werner

Australia

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

102.   Australia considers the World Intellectual Property Organization's Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore is best placed, with appropriate technical expertise, to consider the complex issues relating to intellectual property and genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge and cultural expressions. The WIPO IGC is currently undertaking text-based negotiations with the objective of reaching agreement on an international legal instrument, or instruments, relating to intellectual property, which will ensure the balanced and effective protection of genetic resources, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions. 103.   We look forward to the WIPO ICG meeting in late June and the opportunity to make progress on genetic resources negotiations for the benefit of all Members and Indigenous Peoples. 104.   In relation to TRIPS and the Convention on Biological Diversity, Australia considers the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD are consistent. 105.   Australia fully implements our obligations under both agreements, which we view as mutually supportive. 106.   In relation to the procedural matters, Australia is open to a briefing by the CBD Secretariat on the Nagoya Protocol, and can be flexible in relation to the Secretariat updating the three factual notes.

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