Compte rendu ‒ Conseil des ADPIC ‒ Afficher les détails de l'intervention/la déclaration

Ambassador Carlos Pérez del Castillo (Uruguay)
Afrique du Sud
79. The representative of South Africa said that his delegation supported the submissions by India and by Kenya, made on behalf of the African group, which reflected a convergence of views. First, in the view of his delegation, this review was one of the substance of the provisions of Article 27.3(b). The review should clarify the criteria and rationale for what could and could not be excluded from patentability. The review should also clarify the discretion for Members to decide what constituted effective protection for plant varieties. Members were seeking to find a suitable balance between patents and other rights. He had listened with interest to the example of turmeric. Many developing country Members were concerned that their products and processes might not be capable of industrial application, as required by Article 27.1, because they were based on traditional knowledge. They therefore needed to find alternative forms of protection. South Africa was a member of UPOV and had a highly developed agricultural sector. It therefore sought to use some of the options provided by UPOV, but did not exclude the possibility of using other instruments, such as the CBD. In response to suggestions by other Members, his delegation objected to any attempt to incorporate UPOV in Article 27.3(b).