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

H.E. Ambassador Dr Lansana GBERIE
106.   Peru's position on agenda items 4, 5 and 6 has not changed. We would like to stress, however, that while there are still no substantive discussions in this Council, countries such as Peru continue to experience misappropriation of our genetic resources and traditional knowledge. 107.   According to the National Commission for the Protection of Access to Peruvian Biological Biodiversity and to the Collective Knowledge of Indigenous Peoples, 285 cases of biopiracy related to 42 genetic resources of Peruvian origin have been identified to date. This represents an increase of almost 40 cases since our last meeting in this Council in October. Moreover, 2022 saw the second highest number of biopiracy cases since this Council began its work, reflecting the importance, timeliness and urgency of addressing this issue. 108.   The solution that we have consistently proposed, and believe could address this international issue, is the inclusion of an obligation to disclose the origin of resources. Article 29 of the TRIPS Agreement does not suffice, as it does not require patent applicants to disclose the country of origin or provide evidence of compliance with prior informed consent and benefit-sharing. We are aware of the diverging positions, which is precisely why we believe it is necessary to reinitiate the dialogue and discussions that will enable us to make progress on this matter. We thus reiterate our support for the participation of the CBD Secretariat, so that it can shed more light on the issue and on how both instruments can support and reinforce each other. We also think that it would be worthwhile to update the Secretariat's notes. 109.   Lastly, regarding the position of some Members that WIPO is the best forum for addressing these issues, we believe that those discussions do not preclude discussions from being held in this House, from our own perspective, and see them as complementary.
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