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

  Go back

1. Meeting date

2. Chairperson

H.E. Ambassador Lundeg Purevsuren

3. Intervention by

India

4. Agenda item

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

5. Statement/summary of statement

56.   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. 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. 57.   The Doha Ministerial Declaration, in paragraph 19, had tasked the TRIPS Council to examine the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD, as well as 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. We need to fulfil this mandate. The credibility of the WTO as an institution was being undermined by not implementing a Ministerial Decision for almost 19 years. 58.   As regards the TRIPS Council being the appropriate forum to discuss these matters, when developing countries argued in the late eighties that TRIPS did not belong to GATT as WIPO existed as a functional organization to deal with IP issues, the developed countries refused to accept that argument. Now, when we seek that the TRIPS Agreement be amended to address the concerns of biopiracy, we are being shown the door to WIPO, where the IGC process has not been able to make any headway since years. Given the enforceability of the TRIPS Agreement and the fact that much of the misappropriation is a consequence of trade, there is a need and mandate to build the linkage between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD under the aegis of this Council. 59.   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 Members of this Council and we support updating of three factual briefs by the Secretariat on these issues.

6. Documents referred to in intervention

7. Conclusion

The Council took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to the matters at its next meeting.

8. Summary of the agenda item (if available)

11.   The Chair proposed that, following past practice, agenda items 3, 4 and 5 be addressed together. He recalled that one tool for the review under item 3 was the information provided by Members in response to a list of questions on Article 27.3(b). Last year the Council had received the responses by Ukraine and Mexico. These had been the first responses after 15 years. He encouraged delegations to submit responses to this Checklist or update their previous responses; as well as notify any relevant changes in legislation.
12.   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 several 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.
13.   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.
14.   The representatives of Brazil; India; Bangladesh; Nigeria; China; Indonesia; Kenya; South Africa; Ukraine; the United States of America; Switzerland; Japan; Canada; and Plurinational State of Bolivia took the floor.
15.   The Council took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to the matters at its next meeting.

9. Document symbol and date of distribution

IP/C/M/94, IP/C/M/94/Add.1
  Go back