H.E. Ambassador Lundeg Purevsuren

Nigeria

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

98.   We wish to thank the Chair and the Secretariat for organizing this meeting. 99.   The need for the mutual supportiveness of the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity cannot be overemphasized. Enhancing cooperation with other relevant international organizations and international instruments remains a basic principle of the TRIPS Agreement. 100.   Traditional communities are greatly impacted as a result of the illegal use of biological resources or associated traditional knowledge, and over 80% of earth's biodiversity comes from developing countries, but yet they do not own many patents. Biodiversity has evolved to be a trade issue. Therefore, in order to develop a sound and viable technological base in developing countries and LDCs, any utilization of genetic resources from these regions must involve their sustainable use in other to conserve biological diversity, as well as show evidence of a fair and equitable sharing of benefits as are the principles of the CBD. 101.   My delegation has mentioned in previous TRIPS Council's meetings that Article 29 of the TRIPS Agreement is not sufficient in fulfilling adequately the requirement for disclosure prior to a patent grant. Therefore, we support proposals requiring traceability and a prior informed consent from the source in respect of any product made from the utilization of genetic components or traditional knowledge and folklore, in other words, full disclosure of the origin and source of any genetic resource or associated traditional knowledge. 102.   A full disclosure requirement will not only be beneficial to Nigeria, but it will also improve the quality of our substantive patent examination, which will in turn ensure the validity of patent grants in our country.

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