INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS @ CANCUN

Discussions on intellectual property rights (IPRs) in the lead-up to Cancun were clearly dominated by the last-minute deal reached on IPRs and public health in the WTO. Geographical indications (GI) are most likely the IPR-issue which will receive most attention at the WTO Ministerial meeting in Cancun, in particular the extension of additional GI protection for products other than wines and spirits, which the EC is expected to push in the context of the agriculture negotiations. In contrast, discussions on issues related to biodiversity and traditional knowledge are unlikely to be high on the Cancun agenda unless developing countries make a renewed effort at the meeting to advance the debate.

Last-minute deal on TRIPs & health

After a flurry of eleventh hour negotiations, WTO Members on 30 August adopted the 16 December Decision on paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on the Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) and Public Health together with a statement by the TRIPs Council Chair Ambassador Vanu Gopala Menon of Singapore. The Decision spells out the conditions under which countries without pharmaceutical manufacturing capacity can import generic versions of drugs still under patent. Earlier attempts to adopt the Decision had foundered due to US opposition arising from pharmaceutical companies' fears that it could be abused (see BRIDGES Weekly, 20 December 2002). Civil society groups expressed disappointment with the final deal, describing it as "a new model for explicitly endorsing protectionism," according to James Love of Consumer Project on Technology. Nevertheless, they applauded developing countries for not compromising on the coverage of diseases, as called for by the US.

For further details on the TRIPs & health deal, see BRIDGES Weekly, 28 August 2003. The final Decision and the Chair's statement are available at http://www.iprsonline.org/index.htm.

EC likely to push for GI extension

Geographical indications found three mentions in the draft Cancun Ministerial text. Two key outstanding issues which remain to be resolved, include "legal effect" -- whether Members should be required to protect registered terms -- and "participation" -- whether those who do not register a term are nevertheless obliged to protect registered terms.

Least-controversial among the three GI issues are negotiations on a multilateral register for GIs for wines and spirits, which were set to be finalised by the Cancun meeting, but will continue post-Cancun until a date to be agreed upon at the meeting.

The controversial question whether to extend the additional protection already provided for wines and spirits to other products (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 6 December 2001) is likely to come up in the agriculture negotiations and in discussions on outstanding implementation issues. The discussions on GI extension had effectively blocked progress on other implementation issues under Article 12(b) of the Ministerial Declaration. In contrast to other implementation issues, which have been put forward by developing country Members, GI extensions have also found strong backing from the EC and Switzerland which, along with a number of developing countries including India, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Kenya, have been calling for negotiations on this issue. Their call is strongly opposed by the US, Australia and other Members mainly from the Americas, all of which are bulk exporters of agricultural products. Ahead of Cancun, the EC has finalised a list of 41 products for which it will seek additional protection in Cancun. The EC is planning to negotiate the list in the context of the ongoing agriculture talks.

Geographical indications, as defined in the WTO TRIPs Agreement, are identifications of the country or region where the quality, reputation or other characteristic of a product is essentially attributable to the geographical region. Additional protection of GIs already exists for wines and spirits (e.g. Champagne, Bordeaux and Cognac), and some countries (mainly Asia, Europe and Africa) are calling for this protection to be extended to other products (e.g. Basmati rice, Darjeeling tea or Camembert cheese). Some believe that by giving value to localised natural products and associated know-how, GIs can provide an incentive to preserve native varieties, the environment in which the respective resources are grown, and the traditional knowledge associated with them. Others, however, are concerned that GIs will only bring new obligations for developing countries while the benefits will mainly go to developed countries that are better prepared at the national level to take advantage of GI extensions and that might use GIs as a trade barrier against developing countries' exports.

Biodiversity and TK: Non-issues in Cancun?

While momentum has been building recently on discussions related to the review of Article 27.3(b) (patentability of life forms), traditional knowledge and biodiversity following submissions by Switzerland, the African Group and India on behalf of Brazil, Bolivia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Thailand, Peru and Venezuela at the last June TRIPS Council meeting (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 13 June 2003), the issues are not expected to be high on the Cancun agenda and are not mentioned in the draft Ministerial text. It will be up to developing countries as the key demandeurs to raise the issue in Cancun. However, even if no significant progress can be made in Cancun due to the many other negotiating issues up for discussion, developing countries remain confident that there will be further room for debate and agreement at a later stage in the Doha round.

Additional Resources

For a detailed account of IPR-related discussions at the WTO, see the ICTSD-IISD Doha Round Brief No. 5, Intellectual Property Rights, http://www.ictsd.org/pubs/dohabriefings/cancun_updates/V2_05_IPRs.pdf.

EC list of GIs: http://www.ictsd.org/ministerial/cancun/docs/EC_GIs.pdf.

ICTSD reporting.