H.E. Ambassador Dr Walter Werner

Canada

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

109.   Canada continues to firmly believe that the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity are complementary, and that there is therefore no need to amend the TRIPS Agreement in this regard. 110.   Canada welcomes the ongoing work of the WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC). Canada continues to believe that the IGC is the best and most appropriate forum for discussion on these complex issues, providing an important venue to bring together expert views, to discuss their IP-related dimensions in order to identify evidence-based, balanced, appropriate and mutually-beneficial approaches. Canada has been, and continued to be, an active and committed participant to this important work, and welcomes the concrete discussions and exchanges of national experiences at the IGC, which are so important to accurately pinpointing the issues at hand. In this regard, Canada looks forward to the two upcoming sessions of the IGC this summer, to be held June 24-29 and August 27-31, respectively. 111.   Similar to our positions at the IGC, Canada also continues to welcome presentations by any interested Members containing the latest information on the operation and functioning of their national IP regimes concerning genetic resources and traditional knowledge, to inform other Members in this Council. Canada notes the valuable and factual exchanges that have taken place on other issues at recent meetings of the TRIPS Council, such as on “IP and Innovation” and “IP and the Public Interest”, and would welcome presentations on national regimes regarding genetic resources and traditional knowledge at future meetings of the Council, with a view to informing the TRIPS Council Membership in this regard. This suggestion remains without prejudice to our position that the IGC remains the most appropriate forum for negotiations in this area. 112.   With respect to procedural matters at TRIPS Council, as Canada has previously noted, and without prejudice to our position on substantive matters, Canada is not opposed from a procedural standpoint to a briefing from the CBD Secretariat to the TRIPS Council, should there be sufficient interest from other Members on the matter. Canada could also support the compilation of the update to the three factual notes on the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD (documents IP/C/W/368, IP/C/W/369, and IP/C/W/370) by the WTO Secretariat. Canada remains of the understanding that this would remain a purely factual collating exercise, and in both cases, this is without prejudice to national positions on these issues.

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