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

Ambassador Alfredo Suescum (Panama)
105. Thank you for your contributions. If I recall correctly, and again I am showing my age here, this W document is one that has been set before the TNC, and though I want to keep an open mind about the possibility of elements that can be discussed here, I don't want to prejudge that. Delegations are always free to bring up issues that they feel are relevant to our discussions in the regular TRIPS Council, and I would encourage you and all other delegations to feel free to bring up topics that you feel are appropriate. For today on this side, there have been many expressions of willingness to continue discussions, I want to encourage you to do that. I want then also to say that the Council should take note of all the statements that we have made today, that we should agree to revert to these matters at our next meeting, and I will, in presuming my role as elder statesman, try to chat with the TRIPS Chair, whoever that may be, and update him/her on the situation with whatever insight I might be able to provide for the future.
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