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

103. I was hesitating - in fact we have listened carefully - but I think it is very clear, when you look at the patents that we are trying to address and the issue of misappropriation of genetic resources through patents, I think if there is any impairment or nullification of Members rights in the WTO, in terms of a patent, they run to the DSB. And I believe where there is misappropriation you take that instrument of patent, and then you use it to misappropriate genetic resources. Certainly we will want also our voice and complaint to be heard in the DSB, so while we believe that the IGC is important, the solution to misappropriation as we have seen it only lies in the WTO, because we have seen material transfer agreement has not resolved these problems, and we have been talking about these things since the 1990s. So I believe that the only way out is through the WTO. 104. We have put in a proposal - I don't know - does it mean that now there will not be a discussion in this forum of W/59? I think this is the question, because we have put in a proposal, we have asked the Chair to see how we are going to move forward on this proposal. Certainly if there is no right of Members to submit their documents or proposals in this Council, and no discussion takes place, then I don't know, I think this is what we want to hear.

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