Ambassador Alfredo Suescum (Panama)

Nigéria au nom de African Group

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

98. I have listened carefully to the explanation by the delegation of the United States, saying that these issues are already in the minutes of the TRIPS Council meetings. But I think there is a need for sympathy. Some of us have one person covering WTO, UNCTAD, WIPO and perhaps the Human Rights Council, and I think it is humanly impossible for a delegation to digest the minutes here and there. I believe that such an item, once it is done, will assist us to get a handy document in a summary form that could help us, at least those of us from poor nations. I think it would be good if we could be helped, because the capacity is not there. We have one delegate, or Ambassador plus one, so it is a difficult thing and I think it is a humanitarian issue. There is a need for us to begin to be realistic, because blocking A and then blocking B, now the goal on this issue has been blocked, and we have listened, and the underlying reason, at least coming from the Africa Group is not convincing, rather it is adding more work on our side. 99. When we move to the non-violation and situation complaints, there will be another tit-for-tat, so I think we are not helping ourselves, we are not telling the outside world that we are willing move, so I don't know where we are heading to, but we are appealing at least, on behalf of the African Group to assist us to have this compilation so that we will be able to decipher these things in good time.

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