119. The representative of Australia opposed the artificial parallelism in linking the three TRIPS issues and said that these three issues should be dealt with separately on their own merits and in their appropriate forums according to their separate mandates. On the TRIPS/CBD issue, he said that there were common objectives, and therefore Members could work towards them in appropriate forums. He urged the proponents to keep their demands realistic and to have a practical and focused approach. He said that, as a mega-biodiverse country with a unique indigenous culture, his delegation had as strong an interest in equitable access to genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge as any other developed or developing country Member. Australia considered that the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD were consistent and could be implemented in a mutually supportive manner. As a party to the CBD, his delegation shared its relevant objectives, including to facilitate access to genetic resources with prior informed consent and mutually agreed terms and to take measures aimed at equitable sharing of benefits and utilization of genetic resources, and to respect, preserve and maintain traditional knowledge. As Australia took all these issues seriously, it called for full consideration of the assertion that the patent disclosure requirement was the best mechanism for achieving the shared objectives. He said that his delegation supported continuing fact-based discussions, particularly in WIPO which was the place to consider many of the technical implications of the different proposals. He said that Australia's national experience indicated that effective benefit-sharing regimes could be implemented outside of the patent system. Australia had implemented legitimate systems and contracts to that effect. He reiterated his delegation's concerns over the mandatory disclosure requirements which had not been adequately addressed by the proponents, namely its implications for the integrity of the patent system and the administrative capacity of patent offices. Accordingly, he said that his delegation preferred to consider the efficacy in designing the patent disclosure requirement in more detail before commencing discussions on any proposed TRIPS amendment.
