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

  Go back

1. Meeting date

2. Chairperson

H.E. Ambassador Dr Lansana GBERIE

3. Intervention by

Indonesia

4. Agenda item

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

5. Statement/summary of statement

100.   On this agenda item, we would like to refer to our previous statements on agenda items 4,5 and 6 as our position remains unchanged. Although Article 27.3(b) excludes patentability for animals and plants, our delegation further stresses the need to amend this article. Indeed, we need to prevent misappropriation and misuse of genetic resources and traditional knowledge. The impact of patentability of microorganisms on genetic resources can have both positive and negative effects. At the same time, there is a need to balance the protection of intellectual property rights with the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of genetic resources. 101.   Given the potential for misappropriation and exploitation of traditional knowledge and genetic resources, we need to ensure that the patenting of microorganisms derived from genetic resources should also respect the rights of the countries and communities that provide these resources. This could involve the inclusion of provisions that require the disclosure of the origin of genetic resources used in patent applications, as well as guidelines for the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of genetic resources. 102.   This is also in line with the proposal contained in document TN/C/W/59, in which Indonesia and other like-minded Members, have proposed to add a mandatory disclosure requirement with a view to strengthening the effectiveness of Article 29 of the TRIPS Agreement. In reviewing the TRIPS Agreement, Members should strive to strike a balance between the promotion of innovation and the protection of traditional knowledge and genetic resources, while also facilitating access to technology and knowledge transfer, particularly for developing countries and LDCs. 103.   Indonesia further emphasizes the importance of balancing the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement with the importance of fulfilling the CBD commitments. It would be in our best interest to invite the CBD Secretariat to brief the Council on the Nagoya Protocol and its developments.

6. Documents referred to in intervention

7. Conclusion

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

8. Summary of the agenda item (if available)

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.

9. Document symbol and date of distribution

IP/C/M/107, IP/C/M/107/Add.1
  Go back