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

H.E. Ambassador Dr Lansana GBERIE

110.   We would like to recall our previous statements on these items. As indicated previously, in this discussion we often lose the relative importance of the individual components making up the 'Triplets'. The Doha Ministerial Declaration instructed the TRIPS Council as part of its work programme to review Article 27.3(b) as well as examine the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the protection of traditional knowledge and folklore. These are important mandated issues which remain an integral part of the Doha round single undertaking. 111.   Biopiracy remains a pervasive problem and in the absence of a multilateral solution, as applicable under the TRIPS Agreement, national disclosure requirements will remain inadequate. It is encouraging that WIPO is making progress in the area of genetic resources, and we would urge that the WTO does not make this another area of interest to developing countries, where we adopt a siloed and non-responsive approach. 112.   Discussions in this forum and those under the auspices of the IGC at WIPO are complimentary and not mutually exclusive. In this regard, we welcome the progress made at the recent WIPO General Assembly where consensus was reached on a diplomatic conference dealing with genetic resources. The WTO membership should certainly take note of such developments. As indicated previously, our delegation would welcome a briefing from WIPO in this regard. Similarly, it would be useful for the CBD Secretariat to brief the TRIPS Council on the CBD and other implementation issues under the Nagoya Protocol as well as any new developments. 113.   We also wish to raise once more the issue of the update of the three technical notes contained in documents IP/C/W/368/Rev.1, IP/C/W/369/Rev.1 and IP/C/W/370/Rev.1. It would be appropriate for the Secretariat to update the information contained in these notes in a neutral manner to further facilitate discussions among Members. 114.   Finally, we are concerned about the lack of progress on issues of interest to developing countries due to the blockage of discussions by a few Members. This does not augur well for a system that is balanced and is expected to address the interests of all. We would like to suggest that we revive our discussions by encouraging Members to share experiences on how they regulate R&D on genetic resources, what measures they have put in place to incentivize benefit-sharing between the providers and the user prior to access, mechanisms that have been put in place to strengthen the ability of indigenous people and local communities to benefit from the use of traditional knowledge, and measures implemented to promote technology transfer and cooperation to build research and innovation capacity in developing countries, among others.

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