52. The representative of Korea said that his delegation believed that there was little possibility for conflict between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD and that these could be implemented in a mutually supportive way. Implementation at the national level was the most important element in ensuring the effective functioning of the two legal instruments. Consideration of the issue in the TRIPS Council should take into account work in other relevant international organizations, such as WIPO, in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of work.
53. Regarding the submission by the group of developing countries in IP/C/W/429/Rev.1, his delegation was not convinced that there was any need to amend the TRIPS Agreement at present to provide for the requirement of disclosure of the source and country of origin of genetic resources or traditional knowledge. Such a requirement would not ensure that the CBD was implemented in an effective way. In many cases inventions that had utilized biological or genetic resources and traditional knowledge were from more than one country of source and it was therefore difficult for patent authorities to verify the authenticity of information provided. Efforts by patent authorities to verify the information would impose a great amount of administrative and financial burden. The TRIPS Agreement already had provisions that allowed Members to take measures in accordance with the CBD and Articles 29 and 62.1 have been mentioned in this context. His delegation supported both the United States and Swiss submissions.
