35. The representative of Bolivia said that her delegation was in favour of protecting genetic resources, their derivative products and traditional knowledge, but neither agreed nor believed that this should be done through the patent system. She said that patent systems were private intellectual property mechanisms which should not be applied to genetic resources or to the collective traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples who, in many cases, were spread across different countries and regions. The new draft political constitution of Bolivia sought to reflect this reality by referring to collective intellectual property rights. In the view of indigenous peoples, life could not be patented. Biodiversity resources, genetic resources, their derivative products, and traditional knowledge should not be patented, as they do not constitute inventions, but discoveries of nature or the fruit of accumulated ancestral knowledge. No one could claim ownership over seeds, plants, animals, and human, animal and plant genes, or the micro-organisms which were a fundamental component of life. She said that her delegation recognized that access to genetic resources, their derivative products and traditional knowledge must be regulated to prevent biopiracy, and agreed that procedures for accessing genetic resources and traditional knowledge for the purpose of developing genuine inventions must ensure that sources were disclosed and that benefits were shared with the States and peoples holding such resources or knowledge. However, in practice, patents would result in genetic resources, derivative products and traditional knowledge being appropriated by a few large multinationals, since the patent system had been designed precisely to satisfy the private and business interests of such companies. Therefore, her delegation believed it was necessary to consider other creative non-patent-based solutions to the collective intellectual property issue.
36. She said that, in relation to biodiversity and intellectual property, Article 256/II/7 of the new draft political constitution, which was in the chapter on international relations, stated that the negotiation, signing and ratification of international agreements must be governed by the principles of harmony with nature, the protection of biodiversity and the prohibition of forms of private appropriation for the use and exclusive exploitation of plants, animals, micro-organisms and any living matter. In this connection, it was the Bolivian people themselves who must decide, in a sovereign and democratic manner, through a referendum, whether or not they approve of this new constitution – the first to include indigenous peoples since the founding of the Bolivian State. A change in the conceptual approach to intellectual property could not be imposed by a multilateral organization such as the WTO.
37. She said that given that this issue was a highly sensitive issue for her country and one with implications for the survival of indigenous peoples, the only protection currently recognized by Bolivia was that afforded by Andean Community Decision No. 391 which governed requests for access to their resources. She reserved the right to put forward a paper that reflected her delegation's position, and reiterated the request that her delegation's position be reflected in any reports to be submitted on this matter. In conclusion, she said that her delegation was open to dialogue in order to find solutions that were satisfactory to all the developing countries, provided that these included the two components Bolivia considered vital: the non-patenting of life and alternative protection for collective resources.
