61. The representative of Ecuador said that there were a number of reasons for preserving and protecting Ecuador's biological wealth and associated knowledge, one of them being the fact that Ecuador was one of the world's 12 mega-diverse countries. Despite being the smallest of the 12 countries, Ecuador was home to more species and plants than countries 30 times its size. In short, Ecuador had the highest density of species diversity in the world. In addition to environmental aspects and the spiritual and cultural value of preserving biodiversity and associated elements, economic assessments carried out in Ecuador had estimated that in the west of the country, the value of a square kilometer of land as a provider of potential new medicines could be US$9,177. It would therefore seem, according to those studies, that that region was one of the most valuable for bio prospecting in relation to 18 other world biodiversity hotspots. Furthermore, recent scientific studies showed that more than 35 per cent of the new medicines marketed in the last 20 years derived from natural products. Such scientific studies had determined, for example, that 74 per cent of the 135 species of microscopic fungi and bacteria living in the plants and tropical forests of the Amazon region shared by Ecuador and Peru were bioactive, i.e. of potential use to human beings. For example, fifteen years ago a new alkaloid called epibatidine had been extracted from the skin of tiny poisonous frogs (species Epipedobates) living in the tropical forests of Ecuador. That molecule was found to have painkilling properties 200 times more effective than morphine, despite being far less addictive. The same studies showed that more than 100 traces of alkaloids had been detected in frog skin extracts, the utility of which remained to be established.
62. All of those aspects made it clear why developing countries were so keen to promote sustainability and legitimate access to biodiversity and associated traditional knowledge by ensuring adequate protection at multilateral level in the field of IP. In that context, it was essential to bear in mind document TN/C/W/59 of 19 April 2011, which contained the minimum legal elements to be incorporated into the TRIPS Agreement. It would ensure legal protection for legitimate and fair access to biodiversity resources and associated traditional knowledge, i.e. (i) disclosure of the source and country of origin in accordance with the CBD; (ii) presentation of a copy of an internationally recognized certificate of compliance of prior informed consent and fair and equitable benefit sharing, or, where that was not applicable in the providing country, provision of relevant information regarding compliance with prior informed consent and fair and equitable benefit sharing; (iii) adoption of appropriate, effective and proportionate measures so as to permit effective action against non-compliance with the obligations set out in points (i) and (ii); (iv) non-processing of patent applications that did not comply with the disclosure obligations listed above; (v) adoption of measures establishing administrative sanctions, criminal sanctions, fines and adequate compensation for damages in cases where non-compliance with points (i) and (ii) was discovered after the approval of a patent application; and (vi) adoption of measures which made it possible to determine other types of sanctions, including revocation of the patent due to non-compliance with points (i) and (ii).
63. In conclusion, he emphasized that while progress had been made in other multilateral negotiating forums, e.g. the Nagoya Protocol and the recently concluded 20th session of the IGC, which had resulted in the drafting of a document containing legal texts on that subject, part of the multilateral work was the contribution that WTO Members could make to ensuring adequate protection. It was therefore important for the Council to make progress in that respect.
