Ambassador Alfredo Suescum (Panama)

Suisse

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

83. My delegation takes the floor in respect of agenda item 5. Let me first revert to the two procedural proposals that have been submitted to the Council earlier and that you reminded the Council of in your introductory remarks. 84. My delegation would like to express its support for the proposal that the CBD Secretariat attend the next TRIPS Council meeting to give a presentation of the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits arising from their Utilization to the CBD. One way to achieve agreement on this proposal in the Council could be to organize such a presentation when the Council meets in an informal mode. 85. We also support Ecuador's proposal for updating the three factual notes by the WTO Secretariat to reflect any new ideas and thinking in the Council's discussion since the factual briefs were last circulated among the Membership. 86. Switzerland is a Member of the W/52 coalition, a group 109 WTO members which are promoting and proposing solutions on the three TRIPS issues in favour of better and more equitable protection for geographical indications and genetic resources, traditional knowledge and folklore under the TRIPS Agreement. This coalition of WTO Members, representing 2/3 of the Membership, proposed relevant modalities solutions on the three TRIPS issues in TN/C/W/52 in July 2008. These are long outstanding implementation issues: they remain of great concern to a large part of the Membership and need to be addressed by the WTO work programme. Our position on TRIPS/CBD is part of this greater whole. Switzerland considers the CBD and the TRIPS Agreement to be mutually supportive. We consider that a non-burdensome requirement to disclose the source of genetic resources or TK in patent applications in the TRIPS Agreement is a useful tool to further enhance this mutual supportiveness of the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD.

TN/C/W/52

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