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

94.   Traditional knowledge continues to play crucial roles in economic, social and cultural life and development not only in traditional societies but also in modern societies. Contribution of traditional knowledge to human development especially in food production, crop yields, health care transforms biodiversity into bioresources. Biodiversity and associated traditional knowledge are an integral strength of today's developing countries, particularly in the areas of agriculture, horticulture, as well as health and wellbeing. Traditional medicine has been an integral resource for health for centuries in communities around the world and it is still a mainstay for some with inequities in access to conventional medicine. The sociocultural practices and biodiversity heritages are invaluable resources to evolve inclusive, diverse and sustainable development. However, biopiracy and misappropriation of traditional knowledge remains a grave threat not only for the traditional, local communities but also for the environment and sustainable development. 95.   This speaks to the mutual supportiveness of the two agreements, TRIPS and the CBD, and the need for a linkage. India reiterates its demand of an international enforceable regime to contain misappropriation. Patents should not be granted for existing traditional knowledge and associated genetic resources. Further, where traditional knowledge and associated genetic resources form the basis of scientific development, it is important to have disclosure of source or origin of the resource/knowledge along with disclosure that the access was on mutually agreed terms, thus enhancing transparency about the utilization of genetic resources and/or associated traditional knowledge. 96.   Article 16.5 of the Convention on Biological Diversity clearly recognizes "that patents and other intellectual property rights may have an influence on the implementation of this Convention". It mandates that the Parties "shall cooperate in this regard, subject to national legislation and international law, in order to ensure that such rights are supportive of, and do not run counter to, its objectives." Furthermore, the Doha Ministerial Declaration in paragraph 19 has mandated that the TRIPS Council examine the relationship between TRIPS and the CBD, and the protection of traditional knowledge and folklore. 97.   However, regrettably, the TRIPS Agreement continues to sideline various IPR-related obligations in the CBD despite a vast majority of the WTO membership being the demandeurs of this. Despite several submissions, two of which being TN/C/W/52 submitted in June 2008 with the support of 109 Members, followed by the last submission on this issue TN/C/W/59 in April 2011, as well as several rounds of in-depth discussions, progress on this file remains elusive. Some Members have argued that the TRIPS Council is not an appropriate forum for these discussions as WIPO, where the IGC process has not been able to make much headway since years, is the right forum for this discussion. While the same argument could be extended to – as an example – the climate-related discussions at the WTO, since UNFCCC is the mandated forum for climate discussions, we do see the WTO membership engaging on climate-related issues. Given the enforceability of the TRIPS Agreement and the fact that much of the misappropriation is a consequence of trade, there is both the mandate and the need to build the linkage between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD under the aegis of this Council. 98.   Chair, therefore, considering the mandate from the Doha Ministerial Declaration and the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, targets 2.5 and 15.6, that specifically call for promoting access to and fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge, it is our responsibility to take these discussions forward towards an outcome. India is of the view that a formal briefing by the CBD Secretariat on the latest developments of the Nagoya Protocol will be useful for Members. We also support updating the three factual briefs by the Secretariat on these issues, and India remains committed to constructively engage and build momentum on these important issues.

25. The Council took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to these matters at its next meeting.
21. 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 latest Annual Report on Notifications and other Information Flows circulated by the Secretariat 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). The Chair thus encouraged Members to submit responses to these checklists, and to update their previous submissions if they were out of date.
22. The Chair noted that two long-standing procedural issues had been discussed extensively on the record at every regular meeting of the Council for almost ten years. The first 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.
23. The Chair noted that delegations' positions on these issues were well-known and had already been extensively recorded in the Council's minutes. He therefore suggested that delegations focus their interventions on suggestions on how to resolve the differences and on how make progress on substantive issues.
24. The representatives of India; Bangladesh; Indonesia; Tanzania, on behalf of the African Group; Peru; South Africa; Brazil; Japan; the United States of America; and the World Intellectual Property Organization took the floor.
25. The Council took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to these matters at its next meeting.
IP/C/M/107, IP/C/M/107/Add.1