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

H.E. Ambassador Dr. Lansana GBERIE
4; 5; 6 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
89.   Our country's position is well known by the Membership. However, we nevertheless wish to reiterate the importance of the flexibilities contained in the TRIPS Agreement as elements of further development. In this context we think that the flexibilities contemplated in the Agreement enable each Member with its intellectual property system and in the light of its ethical criteria and public health notions should be taken on board. Consequently, for Chile it is important that these flexibilities be preserved, and that each Member should be able to reconsider its intellectual property model in the light of social, cultural and economic changes particular to it. In connection to the relation between the CBD and the TRIPS Agreement, our delegation, like others, considers that the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD are complementary instruments. Consequently, we believe that there is no need to create amendments to the Agreement to establish consistency between the two agreements. Finally, we should like to support the proposal that the CBD Secretariat make informal presentation in this Council. We believe that a factual presentation can enlighten Members on the subject and feed into a dialogue.
The Council took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to these matters at its next meeting.
20. The Chair proposed to address these three agenda items together. He recalled that one tool for the review under item 4 was the information provided by Members in response to lists of questions on Article 27.3(b). He said that the Annual Report on Notifications and other Information Flows that had been introduced by the Secretariat at the Council's last meeting illustrated that responses to that checklist had been rather sparse recently. So far, only 28 Members had responded to the lists of questions on Article 27.3(b), with Saudi Arabia being the most recent Member to submit responses. The Chair thus encouraged Members to submit responses to these checklists, and to update their previous submissions if they were out of date, noting that the e-TRIPS Submission System provided an easy and convenient online tool for drafting and submitting responses.
21. The Chair indicated two long-standing procedural issues which had been discussed extensively on the record, at every regular meeting of the Council for almost ten years. The first one was the suggestion for the Secretariat to update 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. The second was the request to invite the CBD Secretariat to brief the Council on the Nagoya Protocol to the CBD, initially proposed in October 2010.
22. The Chair noted that the delegations' positions on these issues were well-known and had already extensively recorded in the Council's minutes and therefore suggested that delegations focus their interventions on suggestions on how to resolve differences and make progress on substantive issues.
23. The representatives of India; Tanzania, on behalf of the African Group; Bangladesh; Brazil; South Africa; Indonesia; Sri Lanka; Egypt; Peru; the United States; Canada; China; Japan; and Chile took the floor.
24. The Council took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to these matters at its next meeting.
IP/C/M/105, IP/C/M/105/Add.1, IP/C/M/105/Corr.1