Ambassador Alfredo Suescum (Panama)

Équateur

4; 5; 6 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

64. My country's position has been expressed repeatedly in this Council. We believe that it should be possible to review Article 27.3(b) so as to enable the Council to examine the patentability of all life forms or parts thereof. Ecuador's view is that this type of patent should be prohibited, since life or parts thereof should not be considered a tradeable good subject to inventions or patents. 65. We have also said that we consider that there is a close relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD, and we therefore reiterate the need for multilateral legal instruments that can improve the use of genetic resources, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, and give them effective and adequate protection. In this regard, Ecuador believes there is a need to establish legal mechanisms to allow disclosure of the source of origin, prior informed consent, and access to, and the equitable sharing of, benefits in order to protect genetic resources and traditional knowledge. 66. We reiterate our support for the proposal that the CBD Secretariat inform this Council of the negotiations conducted in the framework of the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization. The information provided will help to enhance our judgement, thus improving the quality of our discussions. 67. Lastly, several years ago, Ecuador suggested that the Secretariat prepare an update of the factual notes on previous topics, since the last compilation of the ideas discussed was produced in 2006. We believe that updated versions of documents IP/C/W/368/Rev.1, IP/C/W/369/Rev.1 and IP/C/W/370/Rev.1 would provide us with a clearer idea of what was already discussed a number of years ago, the aim being for Members to have an updated picture that could contribute to informing the debate on these issues, thus enabling us to move forward in our discussions. We will see if we were right or not and if this updating actually takes place, but we must be given the opportunity to conduct discussions on the basis of more detailed information that could be presented by the Secretariat in a neutral manner without compromising any of the Members' positions.

IP/C/W/368/Rev.1; IP/C/W/369/Rev.1; IP/C/W/370/Rev.1

The Council took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to the matters at its next meeting.

31. The Chairman recalled that, at the Council's meeting in November 2016, Members had exchanged views under these agenda items. The discussions had covered substantive issues, such as the suggested inclusion of a mandatory disclosure requirement in TRIPS, as well as the patentability of life forms. Discussions had also covered two pending procedural proposals – whether the CBD Secretariat should be invited to debrief the Council on the Nagoya Protocol, and whether the WTO Secretariat should update the three factual notes that had been prepared and last updated ten years ago.

32. Since Members had remained divided both on the substantive and procedural issues, no progress could, however, be made. There had also been no unanimous support for a proposal made by some delegations that the CBD Secretariat be asked to debrief the Council when it was meeting in informal mode.

33. He recalled that there had been no more responses or updates to the Illustrative List of Questions on Article 27.3(b), and no notifications or reports of domestic mechanisms to protect genetic resources and traditional knowledge. Despite the importance attached to the Article 27.3(b) review, which had been on the Council's agenda since 1998, the last response or update on the questions had been submitted in 2003, some 14 years ago, and material had been received from fewer than one in six Members. He therefore reminded delegations that the Article 27.3(b) review was an integral part of the TRIPS Agreement. The information provided to the Council clearly did not cover the important developments that many WTO Members had seen in this area over the last decade. Regarding the CBD Secretariat briefing and the updating of the Secretariat notes, there was no substantive signs of evolution towards an outcome.

34. The representatives of Brazil; the Plurinational State of Bolivia; Bangladesh on behalf of the LDC Group; India, Ecuador; Egypt; Indonesia; China; Nigeria on behalf of the African Group; Australia; the United States; Switzerland; the Republic of Korea; Japan; Canada and the European Union and the Chairman took the floor.

35. The Council took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to the matters at its next meeting.

IP/C/M/85, IP/C/M/85/Add.1