WTO Ministerial Section • Volume 2 • Number 19 • 25th May 1998
TRIPS
Several workshops were held on and around the upcoming review of Article 27.3 (b) of the Agreement on Trade-related Intellectual Property Rights. This article allows countries to generally exempt plants and animals other than micro-organisms from patentability, but requires that new plant varieties be protected either by patents or ‘effective sui generis systems’. The Article must be reviewed in 1999.
A workshop organised on 19 May by Genetic Resources Action International (GRAIN) and the GAIA Foundation focused on the development of sui generis systems of plant variety protection in the context of the TRIPs revision. Among the questions examined were the definition of sui generis systems and the role of NGOs in the TRIPs review. Participants felt that NGOs should seek to ensure that the revision does not result in generalised patenting of life. They also stressed that NGOs should keep searching for a form of protection in line with the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD): conservation and sustainable use of biological resources, and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of biological diversity and traditional knowledge. Rather than accept patents on a uniformly commercial and individual basis, NGOs should lobby governments to develop legislation that takes into account the interests of all stakeholders, including those of indigenous communities.
A workshop organised by IUCN-The World Conservation Union on 18 May sought to highlight the links between the Convention on Biological Diversity and the global trade regime–particularly TRIPs–as well as develop guidelines for NGO action. Among possible negative impacts of trade on biodiversity are unsustainable wildlife harvesting, the propagation of alien species, and other consequences of trade and production capacity expansion, including infrastructure and transportation. Feeding the benefits of biodiversity exploitation to local communities offers the main positive potential of the trade and biodiversity interface. NGOs could develop indicators, assessments, models or guidelines on issues such as sustainable production/well- managed harvesting, alien species and genetically modified organisms, sui generis systems and subsidies, as well as a range of cross-cutting issues in order to clarify what can and cannot be done under each regime. Further work is needed to reach a consensus on the potential conflict between the CBD’s requirement to equitably share benefits arising from the use of biodiversity and traditional knowledge and the WTO interpretation of TRIPs. IUCN is currently carrying out case studies on the compatibility of the trade regime and environmental objectives regarding the forestry section in Chile, fisheries in West Africa and intellectual property rights in India.
ICTSD and the Centre for International Environmental Law (CIEL) convened a workshop on 19 May on the interface between TRIPs and sustainable development. An official from the WTO Divion on Intellectual Property served as resouce person during the meeting. Starting with the revision of Article 27.3(b), participants looked at the issue from a wider perspective than biodiversity conservation, including potential impacts of biotechnology patenting and the TRIPs requirement for obligatory patenting of pharmaceutical products. It was mentioned that the latter had vast potential consequences for countries such as India where current IPR legislation excludes pharmaceutical and agricultural products, as well as for countries which maintain a high production of relatively cheap medicine protected by patents in other markets. In this context, participants discussed the effect of patenting in price formation, and the public health implications of the implementation of the TRIPs Agreement. On the whole, they emphasised the need to define the limits and rights between intellectual property rights and the public domain, and to reach a more equitable balance between patent-holders’ rights and obligations. The urgency to further discuss these issues before the 1999 review of article 27.3(b), and to involve governments in these debates, was also stressed.