86. The representative of Venezuela, like the representative of Paraguay, referred to the joint proposal on traditional knowledge made by Cuba, Honduras, Paraguay and Venezuela to the General Council (document WT/GC/W/329 of 20 September 1999). This proposal was completely compatible with the joint proposal made by Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Peru and his delegation could share all the concepts that it contained. He wished to avoid confusion between access to genetic resources and the protection of traditional knowledge. Access to genetic resources was more linked to biodiversity, the CBD, and the preservation of the environment. The legal or illegal acquisition of genetic resources was also an important issue, for which perhaps the method of identifying the source material for patents was especially useful. This was also related to databases of genetic material which had been studied in the FAO. However, the issue of traditional knowledge was fundamentally different because it concerned added value, which could be recognized as an intellectual property right, as had been in some countries, although not in the majority of countries. It had added value with particular characteristics, which could affect novelty, whether something was in the public domain, and whether something was considered an invention or a mere discovery. Secondly, there could be inventions with a handicraft application, but not a true industrial application, and this was important for many developing countries. His delegation believed that a sui generis system was necessary for various reasons: first, traditional knowledge had certain characteristics that were peculiar to it. The holders were typically collectives, not individuals, whilst existing intellectual property regimes were basically directed toward natural or legal persons. Moreover, these groups usually had no legal personality, although they acted collectively. The subject-matter was very broad, and could involve medicinal practices, construction techniques, folklore, literature, music, dance, design, etc. Many countries had begun to protect this subject-matter by first compiling inventories for registers reflecting this knowledge and its diversity, trying to specify and determine them. Another reason why current intellectual property systems, such as the patent system, were inapplicable, was that traditional communities often did not have scientific methods, but rather tradition and trial and error over time. He quoted the joint proposal made by Bolivia and others: "Over time, the scope of intellectual property has been expanded by recognizing new subject matter of protection. This broadening has taken place by the inclusion of special (sui generis) systems of protection or through the widening of the traditional categories of protection so as to cover new subjects. In recent decades, the laws of WTO Members as well as international instruments have recognized as new subject matter of protection, for instance, plant varieties (1950s and 1960s), biological material, plants and animals (1970s and 1980s), layout-designs (topographies) of integrated circuits (1980s), software (1980s and 1990s) and databases and compilations of data (1980s and 1990s)." The creation of a new system was therefore nothing extraordinary. It was necessary to protect the traditional knowledge of local and indigenous communities. Many countries, including Venezuela, were currently having constitutional problems, but they had cultural diversity which should be respected, conserved and maintained. The intellectual property system could deliver results which, although they might not be magic or marvellous, would be useful and appropriate to this need.
