Actas - Consejo de los ADPIC - Ver detalles de la intervención/declaración

Ambassador C. Trevor Clarke (Barbados)
C; D; E 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
131. The representative of Australia could not share the conclusion reached by India that the Australian model contract was not effective in addressing the misappropriation of genetic resources and traditional knowledge. He said that Australia had long experience in relation to access and benefit sharing on copyright issues, such as the collective management of copyright in relation to indigenous images. The images created by Australia's indigenous population were popular both in Australia and overseas. Initially, Australia had encountered the problem of not only commercial misuse and inequitable distribution of rewards stemming from the commercial use of such images, but also of a deeply religious and spiritual sentiment of abuse of the indigenous communities as a result of unregulated access to the images. In that context, Australia had worked very closely with a range of stakeholders, including primarily the indigenous communities. Based on international best practices, Australia had developed a range of model contracts, which had been successful in empowering indigenous control and access and benefit sharing in relation to copyright issues, and, in particular control over indigenous images. He agreed with the delegation of India that the model contract alone might not be enough to address the problem. Hence, Australia had invested heavily in a wide ranging education programme with the indigenous communities to make them aware of their rights and the dangers of uncontrolled access to their images. This had led to a dramatic increase in the confidence of these indigenous groups in dealing with people who wished to use their images. As a result, Australia's indigenous groups were quite competent negotiators, and drove a hard bargain. In relation to copyright management, there was a good framework for identifying what appropriate bargains might look like. The indigenous groups were confident and aware of the issues compared to the former situation where often they had refused to negotiate at all. They objected to broader distribution of these images on spiritual or religious grounds as they were inappropriate for such purposes. This had been a good practical solution to the access and benefit sharing issue. He further said that the exchange of national experiences might help Members introduce good model access and benefit-sharing regimes.
IP/C/M/51