178. The representative of Australia emphasised that Australia shared the overall policy objectives of many delegations on the issues that had been raised under the Article 27.3(b) review. Those objectives had already been set out and endorsed in the TRIPS Agreement itself and complementary instruments such as the CBD. In response to the question raised by India as to why her delegation regarded Article 71.1 to provide a better basis for the consideration of those issues, she pointed out that many of the issues that had been raised in the review under Article 27.3(b) raised questions that concerned other provisions of the TRIPS Agreement, for example Article 27.1 as regards the criteria of novelty, inventive step, industrial applicability in the biotechnology domain; Article 27.2 and 27.3(a) as regards other public policy exceptions to patentability such as for ethical, environmental or public health reasons; and Article 29 as regards the patentee's disclosure obligation. Further, the issue of traditional knowledge raised questions concerning geographical indications, collective marks and copyright. In Australia's view, to suggest that all of those interlocking issues should be dealt in the review under Article 27.3(b), which was a narrow provision relating to exceptions to patentability and sui generis plant variety protection, had the effect of artificially constraining the range of available policy responses to those that could be argued to relate somehow to the scope of patentable technology. With regard to India's request for clarification as to what issues delegations were willing to discuss under Article 27.3(b), Australia was of the view that it was necessary to first better understand the approach that had been taken in the various national systems on key definitional and policy issues that were related to Article 27.3(b). That was why Australia had been encouraging, along with some other Members, countries that had not yet submitted information on their implementation of Article 27.3(b) to come forward with that information. Thus, the Council would have the opportunity to come to a better overall and collective understanding of the provisions of Article 27.3(b), for example on issues such as the interpretation of terms used in the TRIPS Agreement such as "microorganism" and "effective sui generis system for plant variety protection". Australia welcomed the first meeting of the WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Access to Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore, which would be held at the end of April 2001. That body represented a useful forum where experts could address the technical interlinked issues. Australia's desire was that the process be used to make substantive progress on charting the parameters and salient points concerning the various issues.
