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

Ambassador Vanu Gopala Menon (Singapore)
D; E; F 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
117. The representative of Australia questioned whether some Members' concerns, such as those related to the implementation of the CBD obligations, could largely be addressed by strengthening legal and administrative regimes outside the field of intellectual property. She felt that more analysis needed to be undertaken to determine the most effective way of ensuring that access to materials, that were subsequently the subject of a patent application, was sourced in compliance with the CBD. There was a need for improved documentation and information-sharing procedures in that respect. 118. She said that, as a mega bio-diverse nation, Australia's own experience in dealing with these issues indicated that there was no conflict between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD. Efforts needed to be concentrated on examining compatible implementation of both conventions at the national level before taking the major step of amending one of these conventions. The work of the IGC could and should make a substantial contribution to the debate on these issues. She expected that further comments would be made on the Swiss proposal at the Working Group on Reform of the PCT later in the week at WIPO and that a further opportunity to continue discussions would be provided at the forthcoming meeting of the CBD Working Group on Access and Benefit Sharing in Montreal in December 2003 on the basis of a report provided by WIPO.
IP/C/M/42