H.E. Ambassador Dr Lansana GBERIE

United States of America

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

120.   The position of the United States is well-known from our previous statements, so I will be brief. Regarding genetic resources, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, we continue to believe that WIPO is the best forum to address these issues under the IGC current mandate. The WIPO IGC is tasked with addressing unresolved issues and working on a common understanding of core issues based on an evidence-based approach and examples of national experiences. While the 2022 General Assembly of WIPO took a decision to convene a diplomatic conference to conclude an international legal instrument related to intellectual property, genetic resources and traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources no later than 2024, significant gaps in views, positions and scope of the subject matter remain. The United States will continue to engage constructively in technical discussions at WIPO's IGC. With respect to the various requests made today, the United States is not in a position to support these requests, but remains open to discussions, including bilaterally with delegations, in-between, and at the margins of the TRIPS Council meetings.

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thus encouraged Members to submit responses to these checklists, and to update their previous submissions if they were out of date.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