50. The representative of Indonesia supported the document that had been introduced by Brazil (IP/C/W/442). This submission was a constructive contribution in the efforts to find a satisfactory solution, as mandated by the Ministers in the Doha Declaration. One of the core objectives of the TRIPS agreement was to achieve a balance between rights and obligations and to ensure that the agreement is conducive to social and economic welfare. Indonesia implemented the TRIPS Agreement believing that its various provisions, would safeguard in totality the objectives and principles. However, as proved by the issue of access to medicines and recognized by the Members through the TRIPS and Public Health Declaration, the TRIPS Agreement had not fully met the objectives and principles which were enshrined in Articles 7 and 8. The lack of recognition under the TRIPS Agreement of the disclosure issue undermined the objectives and principles of the Agreement. Moreover, whilst the rights of new inventions were protected, many developing countries continued to lose out as resources and knowledge passed down form generations were exploited in these inventions.
51. He noted that some Members thought that the TRIPS Agreement did not present an obstacle to address the disclosure issue at the national context. He shared the view that the ability of patent offices and other authorities in a national jurisdiction to enforce prior informed consent and benefit-sharing mechanism in one jurisdiction, did not lead to similar actions in respect to patent applications in other countries. He agreed with the need to establish an international framework for disclosure and prior informed consent, as well as for access and benefit-sharing of genetic resources and traditional knowledge. The mandate on this issue clearly required the TRIPS Council to find a satisfactory solution. A balanced outcome of the negotiations was needed to ensure that issues of real concern for developing countries were addressed in this round.
