99. The representative of Bolivia informed the Council that, on 21 October 2008, the Bolivian Parliament had approved a draft of the new constitution, which would be ratified at the beginning of 2009. She said that, according to Article 255 II/7 of the draft constitution, "negotiations, subscriptions and ratifications of international treaties should be governed by the principles of harmony with nature, defence of biodiversity and the banning of private appropriation of plants, animals, micro-organisms and any living matter for exclusive use and exploitation". She said that Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS Agreement should be revised according to paragraphs 19 and 12 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration, the objectives and principles set out in Articles 7 and 8 of the TRIPS Agreement, as well as several proposals in which the regional groups and Bolivia had requested that Article 27.3(b) be amended or clarified to prohibit the patentability of all living forms, including patents on plants, animals, micro-organisms and all other living organisms and their parts, as well as to prohibit patenting of all natural processes, including essentially biological and microbiological processes for the production of plants, animals and other living organisms.
100. She said that firstly, the patenting of living forms was contrary to a large number of countries' morality and culture, and it was absolutely unacceptable for these countries to grant private rights over basic elements of life itself, such as genetic resources, plants, etc. The patenting of life forms signified the privatization of life and associated traditional knowledge, while life was considered as collective by the large majority of cultures in the world. Secondly, current international regimes, including the TRIPS Agreement, granted monopoly rights to private parties, but did not recognize the collective rights of indigenous peoples to their traditional knowledge and genetic resources. Thirdly, the TRIPS Agreement did not protect genetic resources and traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples, and did not recognize or protect their contribution in the upstream part of the innovation value chain. Fourthly, the TRIPS Agreement was inconsistent with the latest international developments in FAO, CBD and UNESCO, and in particular with the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples adopted by the UN General Assembly through resolution 61/295 of September 2007. Fifthly, life forms and processes that existed in nature could not be subject to patents because they were not inventions, and there was no scientific or technical rationale for the distinction made under Article 27.3(b) between life forms and processes that were patentable and those that were not. Sixthly, the patentability of plants allowed by Article 27.3(b) had rendered possible misappropriation and concentration of genetic resources belonging to developing countries in the hands of transnational companies of developed countries. In conclusion, she urged the Council to amend Article 27.3(b) so as to prohibit the patentability of life forms and associated knowledge.
