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

H.E. Ambassador Lundeg Purevsuren
60.   On agenda items 3, 4, and 5, the position of Bangladesh has not changed. We reiterate our position for the sake of record. 61.   On agenda item 3, the issue of the review of the provisions of Article 27.3 (b) of the TRIPS Agreement, Bangladesh does not support the patenting of life forms comprising plants and animals. We call for a review of this Article in order to protect interest of developing countries and LDCs from the negative effects of this provision on the key sectors that affect their livelihood such as agriculture, health, food, and climate change. This could help ensure, inter alia, food security and preserve the integrity of rural and local communities. Patenting of life forms should be prohibited. 62.   On the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD, Bangladesh holds that States have the right and duty to protect their traditional knowledge and genetic resources. There is, therefore, a need to amend the TRIPS Agreement with a view to requiring applicants of patent relating to biological materials to provide information on the source and country of origin of biological resources and traditional knowledge used in the invention. 63.   In addition, applicants must show evidence of prior informed consent from, and benefit sharing arrangements with, the authorities and/or persons under the relevant national regime. This disclosure requirement, which is consistent with the transparency principle established in the multilateral trading system, will help reduce the number of erroneous patents and biopiracy. 64.   Bangladesh believes that traditional knowledge should receive legal recognition because its protection could as well contribute significantly to the achievement of the sustainable development goals.
The Council took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to the matters at its next meeting.
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.
IP/C/M/94, IP/C/M/94/Add.1