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

H.E. Ambassador Lundeg Purevsuren
3; 4; 5 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

69.   The issues under agenda items 3, 4 and 5 have been on the Council's agenda for a long time. In our previous statements, we have underlined in detail, the need for an international enforceable regime to end the misappropriation of genetic resources and traditional knowledge, happening especially in biodiversity-rich countries. India is a country rich in traditional knowledge associated with biological resources. India is also amongst top 20 identified mega diverse countries in the World. The TRIPS-CBD linkage is important for all countries as it seeks to address biopiracy. We need to move forward on the long-standing issues of the TRIPS-CBD linkage, GI Register and GI Extension on the basis of the modalities contained in document TN/C/W/52. 70.   Some Members, in the previous Council meetings, have stated that WIPO IGC is the appropriate forum for discussions on genetic resources. In our view, WIPO is trying to develop a sui generis system of protection and is examining much more complex issues with a view to address the issue in a more comprehensive manner. The discussions in WIPO and those in the TRIPS Council are two complementary processes and do not conflict in any way. However, given the enforceability of the TRIPS Agreement and the fact that much of the misappropriation is a consequence of trade, there is a need to build the linkage between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD under the aegis of this Council. The Doha Ministerial Declaration had tasked the TRIPS Council to examine the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD, and the protection of traditional knowledge and folklore. It also mandated that while doing so, the Council should be guided by the objectives and principles set out in the TRIPS Agreement and should fully take into account the development dimension. 71.   India is also of the view that a briefing by the CBD Secretariat on the latest developments in the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol would be very useful for the large majority of the Membership of this Council and we support updating the three factual briefs by the Secretariat on these issues.

The Council took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to the matters at its next meeting.
14.   The Chair proposed that, following past practice, agenda items 3, 4 and 5 be addressed together. He noted that, Ukraine had recently submitted its responses to the List of Questions on Article 27.3(b), which had been circulated in document IP/C/W/125/Add.26. He invited Ukraine to introduce its submission.
15.   The representative of Ukraine took the floor.
16.   The Chair encouraged delegations to submit responses to the List of Questions or update their previous responses; as well as notify any relevant changes in legislation.
17.   He noted that two longstanding procedural issues under these items had been discussed extensively on the record, at every regular meeting of the Council for almost nine years:
a. First, the suggestion for the Secretariat to update the three factual notes on the Council's discussions on the TRIPS and CBD and related items; these notes were initially prepared in 2002 and last updated in 2006; and
b. second, the request to invite the CBD Secretariat to brief the Council on the Nagoya Protocol to the CBD, initially proposed in October 2010.
18.   Positions on these issues were well-known and already extensively recorded in the Council minutes. In addressing these procedural questions, he encouraged delegations to focus on suggestions as to how to resolve them.
19.   The representatives of South Africa; Bangladesh; India; Ecuador; Indonesia; the Plurinational State of Bolivia; Zimbabwe; Brazil; Nigeria; Australia; Thailand; Chile; China; Canada; Japan; Switzerland; and the United States of America took the floor.
20.   The Council took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to the matters at its next meeting.
IP/C/M/93, IP/C/M/93/Add.1