H.E. Ambassador Lundeg Purevsuren

Chile

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

113.   Our country's position regarding agenda items 3, 4 and 5 is well known, and we would simply like to reiterate the importance of the flexibilities contained in the TRIPS Agreement. In this respect, we understand that the flexibilities provided for in Article 27 of the Agreement enable each Member to take into account its own ethical and public health standards, among other criteria, when developing its intellectual property system. 114.   For Chile, it is important that such flexibility be preserved insofar as it allows each Member to rethink and modify its intellectual property model in the light of its own social, cultural and economic changes. 115.   In Chile's view, intellectual property systems are not an end in themselves, but are tools for promoting innovation and development while also facilitating access to information and health. This vision is reflected in Law No. 19.039 on industrial property, which excludes the patentability of plants and animals. 116.   Chile, like other delegations, considers that the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD are complementary instruments. We therefore believe that there is no need to make any amendments to the Agreement to ensure consistency. 117.   Lastly, we would like to express our support for the proposal that the CBD Secretariat provide a briefing to this Council. We believe that a factual description could shed light on this topic for Members and promote dialogue.

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