Ambassador Alfredo Suescum (Panama)

Canada

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

89. Canada continues to firmly believe that the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD are mutually supportive, and that there is therefore no need to amend the TRIPS Agreement in this regard. 90. At the same time, and without prejudice to Canada's position on substantive matters, Canada is not opposed from a procedural standpoint to a briefing from the CBD Secretariat to the TRIPS Council, should there be sufficient interest from other Members on this matter. Similarly, Canada could support the compilation of the three factual notes on the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD by the Secretariat. We remain of the understanding that this would remain a purely factual collating exercise. In both cases, this is without prejudice to national positions on these issues. 91. Canada would also like to note its continued support for the important work of the WIPO IGC, particularly the discussions underway this week at WIPO. Canada continues to believe that WIPO, and particularly the IGC, is the best and most appropriate forum for multilateral and expert engagement on these complex issues. Canada remains an active and committed participant in this important work, and welcomes both the concrete discussions and exchanges of national experiences at WIPO on these issues. Canada believes that the expert discussions and exchanges that are so integral to the IGC's work are key to accurately pinpointing the issues at hand, and to identifying evidence-based balanced, appropriate, and mutually beneficial approaches to addressing these complex issues. 92. Canada would also wish to reiterate our view that matters relating to Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS Agreement are an implementation issue as outlined in the Doha Ministerial Declaration, as is also the case with respect to the relationship between TRIPS and the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the protection of traditional knowledge and folklore. Canada continues to support an approach that provides for national flexibility on these matters.

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