Ambassador Alfredo Suescum (Panama)

Egipto

4; 5; 6 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

68. We would like to make reference to our statements as delivered during the previous meeting of the TRIPS Council. The protection of biological resources, traditional knowledge and folklore presents an important developmental issue for Egypt. In view of the importance of this issue, we continue to support engagement in full negotiations on the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD, which is a critical part of the implementation-related issues and concerns, as contained in the Doha Work Programme. Therefore, we urge all Members to engage in this issue of high importance to both developing countries and LDCs. 69. We believe that the TRIPS Agreement should be amended in order to provide that Members shall require a patent applicant using biological materials or associated traditional knowledge in the invention to disclose the source and the country of origin of the biological resources and associated traditional knowledge. Furthermore, the applicant shall also provide evidence of prior consent and evidence of fair and equitable benefit sharing under the relevant national regime. 70. Finally, we also support inviting the CBD Secretariat to provide us with a briefing on the Nagoya Protocol and all the progress and the developments in this area.

The Council took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to the matters at its next meeting.

31. The Chairman recalled that, at the Council's meeting in November 2016, Members had exchanged views under these agenda items. The discussions had covered substantive issues, such as the suggested inclusion of a mandatory disclosure requirement in TRIPS, as well as the patentability of life forms. Discussions had also covered two pending procedural proposals – whether the CBD Secretariat should be invited to debrief the Council on the Nagoya Protocol, and whether the WTO Secretariat should update the three factual notes that had been prepared and last updated ten years ago.

32. Since Members had remained divided both on the substantive and procedural issues, no progress could, however, be made. There had also been no unanimous support for a proposal made by some delegations that the CBD Secretariat be asked to debrief the Council when it was meeting in informal mode.

33. He recalled that there had been no more responses or updates to the Illustrative List of Questions on Article 27.3(b), and no notifications or reports of domestic mechanisms to protect genetic resources and traditional knowledge. Despite the importance attached to the Article 27.3(b) review, which had been on the Council's agenda since 1998, the last response or update on the questions had been submitted in 2003, some 14 years ago, and material had been received from fewer than one in six Members. He therefore reminded delegations that the Article 27.3(b) review was an integral part of the TRIPS Agreement. The information provided to the Council clearly did not cover the important developments that many WTO Members had seen in this area over the last decade. Regarding the CBD Secretariat briefing and the updating of the Secretariat notes, there was no substantive signs of evolution towards an outcome.

34. The representatives of Brazil; the Plurinational State of Bolivia; Bangladesh on behalf of the LDC Group; India, Ecuador; Egypt; Indonesia; China; Nigeria on behalf of the African Group; Australia; the United States; Switzerland; the Republic of Korea; Japan; Canada and the European Union and the Chairman took the floor.

35. The Council took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to the matters at its next meeting.

IP/C/M/85, IP/C/M/85/Add.1