95. The representative of Australia said that the TRIPS Agreement provided for a sequence of events to occur and that, in implementing Article 71 and reviews under other provisions, Members should be following that logical sequence. The first step in that process was the implementation of existing TRIPS standards. The second was a review of their implementation at the national level, which had already happened for developed countries and was about to happen for developing countries. The third was the review of the general implementation as a collective exercise. The fourth was a consideration of possible amendments or clarifications. The fifth was a formulation of recommendations from 2002 onwards. She believed that Article 71.1 exemplified this approach in that it limited the general review of the TRIPS Agreement mandated for 2000 to implementation only, and required that the reviews as from 2002 should then develop recommendations for amendments to the Agreement in the light of its implementation. Because many developing countries were still in the process of concluding their implementation of the Agreement, and it was impossible to assess its actual effect, Australia believed that it would be contrary to the interests of all to circumvent this established implementation and review sequence. All Members needed to make the system work, and come to understand how a wide range of Members had given effect to TRIPS standards as they currently existed, before they could consider objectively which elements might benefit from substantive revision. In this regard, she did not agree that there was a mandate for negotiations on any substantive new intellectual property standards in the area of traditional knowledge or in any other field.
