• Home
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Subscribe
    • Privacy Policy
  • Advertise
    • Advertise On IP Watch
    • Editorial Calendar
  • Videos
  • Links
  • Help

Intellectual Property Watch

Original news and analysis on international IP policy

  • Copyright
  • Patents
  • Trademarks
  • Opinions
  • People News
  • Venues
    • Bilateral/Regional Negotiations
    • ITU/ICANN
    • United Nations – other
    • WHO
    • WIPO
    • WTO/TRIPS
    • Africa
    • Asia/Pacific
    • Europe
    • Latin America/Caribbean
    • North America
  • Themes
    • Access to Knowledge/ Open Innovation & Science
    • Food Security/ Agriculture/ Genetic Resources
    • Finance
    • Health & IP
    • Human Rights
    • Internet Governance/ Digital Economy/ Cyberspace
    • Lobbying
    • Technical Cooperation/ Technology Transfer
  • Health Policy Watch

India, Brazil, Peru Set To Propose TRIPS Amendment On Biodiversity

05/05/2006 by Tove Iren S. Gerhardsen for Intellectual Property Watch 1 Comment

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)

A group of countries led by Brazil, India and Peru has indicated that it intends to present a text relating to the discussions at the World Trade Organization (WTO) on biodiversity “in days, not weeks” suggesting an amendment to current trade law, sources say.

Brazil, India and Peru confirmed that they informed the WTO Trade Negotiations Committee on 1 May about their plans for the paper, which would amend the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).

An Indian official said it was premature to discuss the content of the paper but said the group was “trying to take into account the questions and concerns of members as available in their papers and interventions on the issue in the TRIPS Council and in the dedicated consultations.” It is not yet clear who will cosponsor the paper, the official said.

The group had worked with the WTO overall trade talks 30 April deadline for establishing modalities in agriculture and non-agriculture market access in mind, but as this deadline had been missed, they had had more time to prepare the text, an official from the group said.

The text could potentially move the WTO consultations on biodiversity and traditional knowledge forward to “text-based” negotiations, which a number of countries, especially developed countries, have taken issue with, saying that the biodiversity discussions at the WTO are not supposed to be text-based.

This is linked to the argument of some member countries that this is not a negotiation issue or even part of the current WTO trade liberalisation talks (known as the Doha Development round), according to several sources. Some countries also argue that moving to a text would be premature, sources said.

After consultations in March, one Indian delegate told Intellectual Property Watch: “We need to start text-based discussions by April. If not, they need to come tell us why there is no negotiation” (IPW, WTO/TRIPS, 24 March, 2006).

A TRIPS amendment would only be the second time in history that the agreement has been changed. The first change to the 1994 TRIPS agreement was made in December 2005 when members made permanent a temporary waiver from 2003 that allowed countries to export generic medicines under compulsory license to countries without adequate manufacturing capacities (IPW, WTO/TRIPS, 6 December 2005).

Consultations on the relationship between the Convention on Biodiversity and the TRIPS agreement are being carried out by the WTO Deputy Director General Rufus Yerxa.

But judging from the lack of progress made at a 4 May consultation at which the parties did not appear to narrow their differences, agreement seems to be far off despite the rapidly approaching 31 July deadline. By this date, “the [TRIPS] council shall review progress and take any appropriate action,” according to the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration paragraph 39 under “implementation.”

On 4 May, the consultations focused on two main questions, namely “preventing the granting of erroneous patents and ensuring compliance with access and benefit sharing agreements,” with several sub points, one developed country participant said. But there were no agreements reached, sources said.

Kenya referred to a recent report on biopiracy in Africa called “Out of Africa: Mysteries of Access and Benefit Sharing,” published by the US not-for-profit organisation called the Edmonds Institute, one source said.

Countries such as Brazil, India and Peru would like to see full disclosure in patent applications, including information about the origin of the genetic material, evidence of prior informed consent as well as benefit sharing regimes between the providers and user of the resources, a source said.

Another source said that the text would reflect these arguments.

Norway is the only developed country that has expressed openness toward discussing disclosure of origin, one source said.

The Yerxa consultations will resume “after the Brazil/India paper comes out in a few days,” the developed country source said.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)

Related

Creative Commons License"India, Brazil, Peru Set To Propose TRIPS Amendment On Biodiversity" by Intellectual Property Watch is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Filed Under: News, Biodiversity/Genetic Resources/Biotech, English, WTO/TRIPS

Comments

  1. Tim Roberts says

    12/05/2006 at 3:40 pm

    It is not true that Norway is the only developed country open to discussing disclosure of origin. It is the only such country that currently has a law. But Switzerland and the EU have both made proposals for obliging source of materials to be disclosed.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • Vimeo
My Tweets

IPW News Briefs

Saudis Seek Alternative Energy Partners Through WIPO Green Program

Chinese IP Officials Complete Study Of UK, European IP Law

Perspectives on the US

In US, No Remedies For Growing IP Infringements

US IP Law – Big Developments On The Horizon In 2019

More perspectives on the US...

Supported Series: Civil Society And TRIPS Flexibilities

Civil Society And TRIPS Flexibilities Series – Translations Now Available

The Myth Of IP Incentives For All Nations – Q&A With Carlos Correa

Read the TRIPS flexibilities series...

Paid Content

Interview With Peter Vanderheyden, CEO Of Article One Partners

More paid content...

IP Delegates in Geneva

  • IP Delegates in Geneva
  • Guide to Geneva-based Public Health and IP Organisations

All Story Categories

Other Languages

  • Français
  • Español
  • 中文
  • اللغة العربية

Archives

  • Archives
  • Monthly Reporter

Staff Access

  • Writers

Sign up for free news alerts

This site uses cookies to help give you the best experience on our website. Cookies enable us to collect information that helps us personalise your experience and improve the functionality and performance of our site. By continuing to read our website, we assume you agree to this, otherwise you can adjust your browser settings. Please read our cookie and Privacy Policy. Our Cookies and Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2021 · Global Policy Reporting

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.