H.E. Ambassador Dr Walter Werner

Indonesia

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

118.   As Members are well aware, we have extensively discussed these issues for many years. The relationship between TRIPS Agreement and CBD as well as the protection of traditional knowledge and folklore under the agenda items is utmost our priority to us. Our delegation believes that the TRIPS Agreement should be in line with the purpose and objective of the CBD and the Nagoya Protocol. In particular, the provision of prior informed consent and access and benefit sharing. In accordance with this issue, Indonesia is of the view that Article 27.3(b) needs to be provided with legal obligation to take all necessary measures for fair and equitable sharing benefits as required by the CBD and the Nagoya Protocol. The lack of such legal norm in TRIPS will defeat the purpose and objectives of the CBD and the Nagoya Protocol. 119.   Finally, would like to take this opportunity to express our support to the International Conference on the TRIPS-CBD linkages as put forward in the initiative by India on 7 to 8 June 2018. We have been undertaking measures at national level in order to prevent misappropriation of genetic resources in our associated traditional knowledge. In order to make the measures to be effective there is a legal obligation to establish a mandatory disclosure requirement in patent applications.

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