Compte rendu ‒ Conseil des ADPIC ‒ Afficher les détails de l'intervention/la déclaration

Ambassador Eduardo Pérez Motta (Mexico)
E; F; G 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
236. The representative of Australia said that her delegation had on previous occasions clarified the need to address concerns relating to bio-piracy. She recalled that her delegation had clarified in its paper of October 2001, that it would support the examination of options for disclosing information about the source of biological materials used in all patent applications. Her delegation's interest in this discussion reflected its position as one of the only 17 mega-bio-diverse countries in the world. Australia controlled 10% of the world's natural genetic and biochemical resources. Much of that material had yet to be evaluated for its commercial potential and a significant portion of the biodiversity was yet to be described. For these and other reasons, her delegation shared the interest of many developing countries in terms of ensuring a fair return on exploitation of Australia's biological resources and in developing practical, cost-effective measures to discourage unauthorized commercialization of its genetic resources. Her delegation had an interest in continued discussion on these issues and thus held the view that the EC's communication was helpful. She said that the problem of bio-piracy should be addressed first through the implementation of effective systems at the national level for regulating access to genetic resources and benefit-sharing as set out in the CBD. She also said that her delegation had been an active participant in the negotiations of both the CBD and the TRIPS Agreement and that it did not consider that there was a conflict between the two treaties. She believed that legal certainty was important in ensuring sustainable investment in this sector. 237. She noted that the EC had stated that the disclosure requirement should not constitute an additional formal or substantial patentability criterion, but should rather be a self-standing requirement which would apply globally. She said that her delegation supported, in principle, the use of documentation associated with patent application to disclose the source of relevant genetic resources. Her delegation also supported, in principle, the notion that non-disclosure requirements might have legal consequences. In this respect, Members might wish to consider what legal consequences might be appropriate, bearing in mind the broader policy objective. Her delegation was committed to continued and constructive engagement in the discussion of these issues and looked forward to other Members' comments and proposals.
IP/C/M/38