At the 8 March meeting of the WTO Council for Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), a group of developing countries renewed their efforts to speed up discussions on resolving potential conflicts between the TRIPs Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) by putting forward a checklist of issues for further discussion. While the EC, Norway and Switzerland signalled their willingness to proceed with the debate in the TRIPs Council on the basis of their proposal, the US and Japan opposed further discussions on the points raised in the checklist.

In their submission, the group of countries, including Bolivia, Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador, India, Peru, Thailand, Venezuela and Pakistan, highlight concerns that the TRIPs Agreement allows the granting of patents for inventions that use genetic material and associated knowledge without requiring compliance with the CBD provisions (IP/C/W/420). To address this gap and the resulting problem of bio-piracy, the countries put forward a checklist of three issues and related questions raised in previous proposals, namely disclosure of origin and evidence of prior informed consent and benefit-sharing related to genetic material and traditional knowledge (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 28 November 2003).

While the EC did not necessarily agree with all three points, such as evidence of prior informed consent, it was willing to pursue the discussions along those lines. It also stressed that in order to avoid duplication, the TRIPs Council's work on traditional knowledge should await the outcomes of the WIPO Intergovernmental Commission on Intellectual Property Rights and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore. Switzerland and Norway also signalled their openness to discussions. In contrast, the US opposed the checklist, arguing that there was no conflict between the TRIPs Agreement and the CBD and that the CBD should not be enforced through patent law. The US, along with Japan, called for the discussions to take place in WIPO. In response, the India-led group, supported by other developing countries, insisted that discussions should continue in the TRIPs Council pursuant to the mandate set out in para. 19 of the Doha Declaration.

Also at the meeting, the EC responded to an earlier submission by the African Group on the review of Article 27.3(b) (patentability of life forms) of the TRIPS Agreement (IP/C/W/404; see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 13 June 2003). In general, the EC supported the submission's suggested approach to identify and focus on areas where agreement could be reached. However, the EC noted that the African Group's call for a ban on patenting of life was likely to be opposed by countries with biotechnology industries. Moreover, the EC thought the African proposal to provide indefinite protection for TK was "rather unacceptable", given that so far only names (i.e. trademarks and geographical indications) received lifelong protection while patents were subject to a 20-year time limit.

The special session on the multilateral register for wines and spirits will be held on 7 April. The next TRIPs Council is currently scheduled for 15-17 June. The Chair will hold informal consultations on health and biodiversity in the meantime.

The WIPO Intergovernmental Committee is meeting from 15-19 March in Geneva. BRIDGES Trade BioRes will report on the outcomes of the meeting in the next issue.

Additional Resources

For an account of related discussions at the last meeting of the CBD in Kuala Lumpur (9-20 February), see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 20 February 2004.

For further details on discussions related to TRIPs & health at the Council meeting, see BRIDGES Weekly, 10 March 2004.

ICTSD reporting; "Developing Countries call for focus on bio-piracy in TRIPs/biodiversity talks," WTO REPORTER, 4 March 2004.