[[transcripts generated automatically by WIPO speech-to-text]]
...
Good morning, everybody, I have been running and I am not fit so I am out of breath, so I hope everybody had a good evening and I must apologise for the
Our late start, we were actually in a meeting, and I did not realize it was so late, so my apologies, this morning, today is the 31 st of me, the end of me, so tomorrow is
That June. That is the wedding month at home. And I am sure in a number of jurisdictions, but we are here at the IGC. Okay. I recall
That I had consulted with the regional coordinators on the working methodology for this session till we are talking about the present session that we are in which is the same.
The same methodology that we have used in previous IGC sessions is what we are going to be having in this session, according to the mandate, this session
Should undertake negotiations on genetic resources with a focus on addressing unresolved issues and considering options for a draft legal instrument
A revised version of document WIPO/GRTKF/IC/43/4, consolidated document related to Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources
A Rev 1 will be prepared and presented by Wednesday morning, that is tomorrow, time will then be given for comments and further suggestions.
Including textual proposals. A Rev 2 will be prepared and presented by Friday morning. And time would be given for general comments, which would be included in the record,
The plenary will be invited to know Rev 2 and transmit it to IGC 47 as it is, subject to corrections of obvious technical errors and omissions.
Work under this agenda item will begin in plenary. You will then be invited to provide comments on the key issues which I will introduce. And the plenary will remain the decision making body
And its discussions will be reported on as usual. I may convene in informals when appropriate as in previous IGC sessions. I know proposed Paul Cork
From Ghana as a facilitator and I will invite Paul in his capacity as a facilitator to join us here at the head table. He will assist the informals by following the discussions closely.
I am keeping track of view, it is position, TAKA, JTIG, GEM, JTIG, GUMBANCA, and GINTEGIN quo, BAA or a way
The PRESIDENT revisions of documents WIPO/GRTKF/IC/43/4.
I now invite the proponents of documents WIPO/GRTKF/IC/43 /
WIPO/GRTKF/IC/43/9 and WIPO/GRTKF/IC/43 /
So first, I invite the Delegation of the United States of America to introduce document 43A United States of America, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madame Chair, United States is pleased to introduce document 43/8 entitled the economic impact of patent delays
And uncertainty US concerns about proposals for new patent disclosure requirements. This document is relevant to disclosure requirements and the IGC's mandate.
To use an evidence based approach in its consideration of national experiences with the Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, this document was first introduced in June
Of 2018 at IGC 36 in a sense been updated to incorporate findings of the report on the economic impact of disclosure requirements in patent applications,
For Genetic Resources based innovation commissioned by IFPMA and crop life international, the report investigated disclosure requirements
In two large emerging economies, it found that these disclosure requirements caused an average period of delay of four years for patent applications in the seed and pharmaceutical
Industries, the US paper analyzes the impact that disclosure of patent requirements would have on research and development in the field of biotechnology and
And pharmaceuticals due to uncertainties they would introduce in to the patent system and it is based on recent peer reviewed economic studies.
As we have previously mentioned, this paper considers the effect of patent review delays on business growth, including employment and sales growth for startups.
Along its findings are that each year of patent review delays would reduce employment growth for startups by an average of 19.3% and sales growth
An average of 28.4% over five years following a first action decision on a patent application, the paper considers
The legal uncertainty introduced by disclosure requirements which might encourage companies to forego patent protection in favor of weaker or non-disclosed
Forms of protection such as trade secrets or worse yet companies may have less incentive to innovate and instead rely on research done by others.
A new disclosure requirement could lead to legal uncertainty in granted patents which can affect a firm's overall market competitiveness in
Including having attacks on licensing, research and development investment and litigation, the United States has significant economic-based
Concerns about proposals for new disclosure requirements that are under consideration by this Committee and we urge Member States to exercise caution
When exploring these proposals we invite the Committee to give careful consideration to this paper thank the Distinguished Delegate from the United States of America.
I now open the floor for comments. I recognize Japan.
The Delegation of Japan would like to express its appreciation to the Distinguished Delegates of the United States for providing the working document the economic impact of patent rights and uncertainty as indicated in the document
The introduction of the mandatory disclosure requirement would result in the delay of the patent grant process and create uncertainty for patent applicants, also the mandatory disclosure requirement might hinder
The healthy growth of industries utilizing GRs in emerging and developing countries, both now and in the future. The Delegation of Japan shares the common concern within the US delegation. We have had
Several consultations with Japanese industry members regarding the introduction of the mandatory disclosure requirements. They felt that they were reluctant to use genetic resources of countries that imposed
Stringent ABS regime and disclosure requirements, as well as to file patent applications for its outcome, this is not a good situation for all the parties concerned, the analysis based on the objective
The data shown in this document is highly useful to advance the work of this Committee. In addition, this document shed rights on the influence of disclosure requirements on startup companies, and
Since supporting set up companies is critical for emerging and developing countries as well as developed countries, this delegation believes that it also offers all Member States variable inside
For that highly important aspect. As clearly stipulated in the IGC mandate, the importance of an evidence-based approach has been recognized by many Member States. Also such evidence-based approach
Might be useful in moving the current statement of the discussion forward. The Delegation of Japan remains committed to contributing to constructive discussions in this Committee in an evidence-based manner, based on
I see no further requests for the
So I now invite the Distinguished Delegate from the United States of America to introduce document 43/8.
Thank you, Madame Chair, United States is pleased to introduce document 43/9 entitled Joint Recommendation on Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge which is cosponsored with the Delegations of Japan
And Norway and the Republic of Korea. We believe that this document could help this Committee to move forward on key issues concerning Genetic Resources and associated
Traditional Knowledge, this proposal would promote the use of opposition systems to allow third parties to dispute the validity of a patent, the development and use
Of voluntary codes of conduct and the exchange of access to databases, among other things, in order to prevent the erroneous granting of patents for inventions based on genetic resources,
With respect to voluntary codes of conduct, we note that a number of pharmaceutical and biotechnology inventions, including life-saving medicines,
Biofuels and agricultural products you will utilize compounds that are derived from nature and some of these include associated traditional knowledge.
We also note that many companies have established guidelines and rules for proper bioprospecting, we would like to continue our discussion on this proposal, this proposed joint recommendation because
We believe it captures key objectives and facilitates the establishment of effective mechanisms for the protection of traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources.
We invite other Delegations to express their views on this proposal and we welcome additional cosponsors we look forward to our continued discussions on this proposal.
I thank the Distinguished Delegate from the United States of America and I know in my comments, I see Japan, the Distinguished Delegate from Japan, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madame Chair, the Delegation of Japan would like to thank the Distinguished Delegate of the United States for their explanation, Japan, as a cosponsor of this proposal, supports
The joint recommendation on Genetic Resources and associated TK, Japan believes that this recommendation can be a good basis for our discussion on the issue regarding Genetic Resources and associated TK.
We acknowledge that there are two divergent approaches in addressing the misappropriation of genetic resources and associated TK, namely so-called defensive measures that are mentioned in the recommendation.
And the disclosure requirements regarding the source or origin of genetic resources and associated TK and there has been disagreement in the necessity of introducing such disclosure requirements on the other hand,
We believe that there is a broad consensus among Member States regarding the usefulness of the defensive measures which in your view do not remit the policy space of each Member States, in other words, it does not prevent each Member State
Days to introduce disclosure requirement in their jurisdiction while respecting the decision of each Member States not to introduce disclosure requirements. Therefore, it might be useful to proceed with this
Discussion on the areas where consensus is likely to be reached. This delegation looks forward to continuing discussion on this joint recommendation. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think that the Distinguished Delegate
And for that intervention, I now invite the Distinguished Delegate from the Republic of Korea.
The Republic of Korea believes that the most effective form of protection of GL and TK HL in the patent system is to prevent erroneously granted patent which can be addressed through the establishment of
In this context, the delegation of the Republic of Korea also would like to support the recommendations 43/9 proposed by the Delegation of the United States of America.
Thank you, Madam Chair, thank the Distinguished Delegate from the Republic of Korea, I now invite the Distinguished Delegate from Nigeria to take the floor.
Thank you, Chair, the Delegation of Nigeria has a question and that is to say after all the deliberations we had yesterday.
There was an issue regarding the Chair's text, and Madam Chair, you have not told us what is your intention with regard to the Chair's text, you have only ruled that you are going with the consolidated text.
That is not in my view a reflection of the opinion of the majority of Member States yesterday, so it will be nice before we start going into the whole process to declare with us.
What you intend to do with the GS text, please, thank you.
I thank you for your intervention, Nigeria. I am going to invite
The Delegation of Japan to introduce document 4/3.
Thank you, Madame Chair, the Delegation of Japan is pleased to offer a brief explanation of document WIPO/GRTKF /
WIPO/GRTKF/IC/43/10. A joint recommendation on the use of database for the defensive protection of genetic resources and TK associated with GRs.
Our recommendation consists of two pillars: first, to encourage the creation of national databases in each Member States; and second, to create the WIPO portal to ring national databases
Regarding the first point, we acknowledge that large number of databases relating to Genetic Resources and associated TK have already been established in
In various countries. They are proof that many Member States recognize the usefulness of such databases. We believe that there is a broad consensus on this recognition in the past IGC discussions. Having said that,
We would like to say that it is up to each Member States to decide whether to create such a national database as well as which information would be registers and accessibility to the databases.
In making such decisions it is essential to consult with indigenous peoples and local communities, the standardized format of the data to be registered, technical standards to enable access
And to deliver between different systems and appropriate safeguards should be discussed by Member States together with the WIPO Secretariat and Indigenous Peoples and local communities. In addition, developing countries that would
There is difficulties in creating such a database should be able to utilize WIPO's technical and/or financial assistance where appropriate.
We would like to briefly respond to the concerns raised by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities and this delegation would like to point out that the national database should contain prior art or defence material concerning genetic resources
And associated non-secret TK while also preventing inappropriate access to its content by unauthorized users; therefore, the leakage of registered TK will not be to the loss of the secrecy of that
Also access to the database could be restricted to the examiners of IP offices and/or authorized users and would thereby not encourage the unalso use of such TK.
Next, regarding the second point, the core part of our recommendation, we would like to explain the benefits of WIPO creating a portal size to connect existing national databases as indicated in this
Document, a centralized one-week database could help to simplify such procedures as well as enable more comprehensive searches by covering the contents towards international databases. We would like to
To emphasize that such an one-quick database will enable patent examiners to make efficient search for relevant prior art among thousands of patent documents and nonpatent
With hope or WIPO CASE could be a good difference for such a portal site. If it is technically possible to achieve such assistance by extending the function of patent scope or WIPO CASE, it will be worth possibly
In addition, if WIPO is to establish its own database or on information system, Member States that are unable to create their own databases could also provide WIPO with information on the
Their genetic resources and associated TK and could register such information directly in WIPO 15. Lastly, Madam Chair, there are several issues to be considered in the future as mentioned in paragraph 18,
And 90 of this document. Japan hopes that further discussions at the IB will help us to take steps towards the realization of this epoch-making proposal. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I thank the Distinguished Delegate from Japan and I see that the Distinguished Delegate from Egypt has requested the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chairman, I should first like to express my
Punishment, and what a difference between today and yesterday, we are referring to studies 3 and 4,
And we seem to be pretending to have made progress what we are here in order to come up with a binding legal instrument.
In order to protect IP traditional cultural expressions and GR, we are not here to discuss the studies, the studies, the
I am a professor of IP and I can give you the studies but we are not here to produce studies and this is where I would agree
With the delegate from Nigeria because it is unclear what we exactly we are doing, it is nearly eleven o'clock, we have had got three and a half days left it all did.
To fulfill the mandate of this Committee on GR, what we are going to do are we going to come up with a legal instrument or not, thank you.
Thank you, Egypt, I invite the Distinguished Delegate from the United States of America to take the floor. Thank you, Madam Chair. We support the comments made by the delegation
Of Japan regarding document 43/10. As a cosponsor of the proposed joint recommendation on the WIPO portal, we view this proposal as a valuable contribution
To the IGC's work to develop an international legal instrument or instruments for the effective protection of Genetic Resources and associated Traditional Knowledge, our current mandate,
Requires that we use the contributions of Member States as a basis for our work. I think this is especially important in light of the comments that were just made. This proposal, the US proposal
Also carries forward the Committee's work on the documentation of prior art which was started as early as the first IGC. Document 43/6 elaborates on the extensive work
Of the Committee on Genetic Resources and associated Traditional Knowledge databases and their integration since that time. This proposal also helps to address the
The US cosponsor proposal also helps to address the numerous concerns that have been raised in this Committee relating to the erroneous granting of patents, the United States looks forward to discussing and
I thank the Distinguished Delegate of the United States for that info.
Mentioned. I see a number of requests for the floor. But before I take those, I need to address an accurate indulgence to address the intervention, the
By the Distinguished Delegate from Nigeria regarding the Chair's text, the Chair's text forms are part of the working documents of the Intergovernmental Committee, and as such,
It remains a working document, a document that the Chair in this instance and the Chair will continue to hold a pen on in that regard, I invite Member States and groups to share any comments.
And recommendations to me with a copy to the Secretariat at WIPO GRTK at WIPO/GRTKF as these comments and recommendations will be incorporated as necessary.
Sorry. I will just remind all of us that the agreed methodologies that we use the consolidated text.
However, that does not negative view sharing your comments and recommendations regarding the Chair's text with me and the Secretariat for us to incorporate and to use those. So I thank you for noting that. I now invite the distinguished
Delegate from South Africa remotely to take the floor.
Two proposals that is placed on the table from the US and sponsored by Japan and in Korea are totally irrelevant to the discussions on
On the table we are not talking about means, now we are textual changes in terms of negotiations, the first proposal by the US, there is no scientific base or scientific
Analysis on the text regarding the establishment of portals and I would like to bring to the table that what Japan is now proposing is
Is going to put an enormous financial burden on developing countries to develop these goals, thank you, Chair. I thank you, South Africa. I now invite
The Distinguished Delegate from the Republic of Korea to take the floor. Thank you, Madame Chair. We support the recommendation for this is 10, proposed
By the Japanese Delegation we would like to reiterate we believe that the establishment and the use of the database system to prevent erroneously granted patent and the use of the appropriate measures will be an efficient
And form of promoting the protection of the GR and the
From Switzerland to take the floor. Thank you, Madam Chair. The Swiss Delegation would like to thank the Delegation of Japan for reintroducing the joint recommendation on the use of databases for the defensive
Protection of GRs and TK, we would like to use this opportunity to briefly draw the attention to our submission that we made during last IGC session, the submission of WIPO/GRTKF/IC/42 /
12 where actually we see value in having an international gateway or portal which would facilitate patent examiners to the instrument to find relevant
National databases on GRs and TK to verify prior art in our view such an information system could, of course, also serve a second purpose, namely to facilitate the implementation of
Of national patent disclosure requirements. So basically each party to the instrument would then recognize that the information that is provided in our first filing of
A patent office so that this would be recognized also by other parties to this instrument as being sufficient for disclosure, we do not go into details, but I encourage again other Delegations
To read our proposal so that basically it is linking patent disclosure requirements to the information system as well. So it is not mutually exclusive. Thank you. I thank
The Distinguished Delegate from Switzerland, further intervention, I see no more requests for the floor.
We have heard the report yesterday of the Ad Hoc Expert Group, which was quite useful, I would like to invite the delegates to provide
Comments on some key issues, take into account the discussions and suggestions and advice that the Ad Hoc Expert Group provided for
There are two broad approaches incorporated within the working documents, disclosure requirements and information systems in relation to disclosure requirements,
Some Member States support the inclusion of disclosure requirements while some do not, after hearing the report of the expert group, I think the key issues relating to
Disclosure requirements are in addition to patents should the instrument also apply to other Intellectual Property rights, what should trigger disclosure
What should be the content of disclosure, in particular, should it make reference to information regarding compliance with access and benefit-sharing requirements?
Including prior informed consent, what should be the sanctions and remedies should noncompliance affect the validity of a granted patent.
If so, what would the permissible condition for revocation be, especially taking into account that an administrative mechanism is included as
Side from revocation, what other options are there? The floor is now open for comments.
...
...
Thank you,
...
Okay. No comments, so we move on, there also seems to have been a broad view among the Member States that regarding information systems, whatever they approach, a disclosure report
Requirement are not that they have a key role to play in relation to the Intellectual Property and the patent systems and genetic resources. Unfortunately, as you heard yesterday from
At all when he gave the report, the expert group was unable to address the issue due to a lack of time, so now I am going to invite the delegates.
To provide comments on the establishment and functioning of information systems such as minimum interoperability standards and structures of information systems content.
The principles and modalities related to the sharing of relevant information related to genetic resources and associated TK.
The type of legal or technical protection, if any, afforded to the information included in the system, the responsibility for establishing and maintaining such information systems
The involvement of various stakeholders in the establishment and maintenance of genetic resources information systems, its interoperability with other information systems, both
Nationally and internationally and the management of rights pertaining to the information systems so I open the floor for any comments on the information system.
...
...
I invite the Distinguished Delegate from Mexico to take the floor.
As to information systems and databases, we believe the next delegation believes that that
This is an important issue since they must be compatible with information systems we may be designing in the
Regions and in Member States, in order to ensure that they cover the needs of patent offices,
To resolve a particular case, but we also need to take in consideration the needs of indigenous groups and
Rights holders in the design of such systems. I believe there are a number of
In as much as they were not resolved in the experts group that they would lead us to believe that it would be useful work
A technical or highly qualified technical group be established to determine how we can achieve the goals of interconnection between the system so we can have a single harmonized
System, and which would take into consideration the views of rights holders, and
And of patent offices thank you I thank the delegate from Mexico, I invite South Africa remotely to speak.
...
In this regard the Chair takes but now all of a sudden we are discussing elements of the
Chair states that is the first issue the second issue on information systems are the position of South Africa very clear that introducing a provision on information system is going to
Is going to have transactual burden on Member States in Africa. I will share our coming back to the procedural issue. I think this is now becoming a futile and fruitless
Exercise, I think I think the discussions must now be now whether we be moving towards a consolidated text or the text, because I am
It seems it seems Member States are now in a country as to as to which text you are referring to you you are dispensing the consolidated text but yet you are introducing.
Are provisions of the just take so in a meaningful way up a bit in a quagmire as to as to where this process is going thank you.
Thank you for your intervention, South Africa, the consolidated text deals with the issues that have been raised and as I articulated earlier, the Chair's text is a working document.
Of the IGC, so information in the Chair's text can be dealt with, but the consolidated document is the consolidated text is the agreed working document as
Outlined in the mandate of the IGC that does negative persons having comments or recommendations or suggestions as it relates to the Chair's text which will be considered and taken on board.
However that does not negative or discussing and you will recall that a consolidated text deal with the issues that were raised and placed earlier for discussion.
By the plenary. So I am not quite sure the nature of the comment because we have opened the floor for discussions on matters that were raised at the expert group
Which form information in the consolidated text and which also are included in the jurisprudence.
...
Applause). Thank you.
South Africa, you have the floor. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And the colleagues I think the basis of the comment made by South Africa is based on the comments that emanated out of your studies deliberations where do we.
Delegations who insisted on bringing back the consolidated text and I think the relevance of today's question is based on the clarity that we need to know which text
We are negotiating on the Chair's text, are we negotiating on the consolidated text because we cannot negotiate on both.
Thank you for your comment, South Africa, as I mentioned earlier, we are working within a framework and as with Article
Circulated on yesterday in my opening remarks. There is some rules on procedure which guide the operations of the IGC. So we adhere to those rules and procedure. The
There are several working documents for the IGC included among those are the Chair's text and the consolidated text, the consolidated text as agreed by the General Assembly where we would look to narrow the gaps.
In that document that is a document that we work with as the consolidated text. However, as I mentioned earlier, that does not negative or having a discussion on the Chair's text.
And as I indicated, any comments or recommendations as it relates to the Chair's text I will take on board and I ask that you copy those comments or recommendations also to the Secretariat so that we can make the necessary
Every changes and amendments to the Chair's text, but the consolidated text is a document that we are working on as the agreed text of the IGC, but that does not negative.
The fact that the Chair will still work on the Chair's text and that is a working document and it is the intention to have both documents that we operate in until we have full consensus, thank you.
Yeah.
Thank you, Madam Chair, I will make these comments on behalf of Taba.
I guess, again, part of the quandary as we seem to be now asked to make comments on kind of thematic issues which we have covered quite a bit and we are not actually.
Have the text in front of us that we are going to be negotiating on. I mean, we have some very big concerns, even the title of the joint recommendation on the use of databases contains the word defensive protection, and
And we have consistently from the Indigenous Caucus and from Tebtebba and others argued that we believe that we need to consider positive protections as well, and so the title of the document
Presupposing the nature of these information systems and the information contained in them, which we think is a core issue of this Committee, it is why we have come together here in the first place why the mandate was created.
So, you know, by saying defensive protection is opposed to leaving it open ended as to whether it is defensive or positive is a real deep problem for us, the other thing we need to understand is in this new
In this process, on forging our suggestions, are we to understand that the Indigenous Caucus and others can submit text to the Chair's text to the Chair directly
If so, how do it need the support of a party in order to remember to go forward or is that something as a Chair's text, something that can be informal, evolving and cooperating ideas, and
Again, if we are doing that outside of plenary, that also creates these procedural issues, thank you, thank you for that intervention regarding the Chair's text.
Submissions can be made directly to the Chair and I would encourage persons who are making suggestions to also copy the Secretariat. So you can make suggestions.
I now give the floor to India remotely thank you thank you Madam Chair.
The Indian delegation would like to inform that the information systems are crucial to all the IP protection systems in the case of all forms of Intellectual Property we have.
Let it evolve in terms of the technology in board, we are continually enlarging the coverage of data in such IP information systems, hence we are of the view that
Any information system in the context of the protection of GR shall also follow the seeing process it can evolve in due course the process of creation of databases need not delay.
The finalization of the treaty itself. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, the delegate from India for that intervention. I would just like to make another point here.
In terms of comments or recommendations on the matters on the table, no, any comment or recommendation that is made as regards the consolidated text, Poland, its role as facilitator will take those
On board, any comments or recommendations as it relates to the Chair's text, I will take those on board and incorporate them as necessary, so we are working in parallel streams, but we are working
On the same issues. So I would encourage persons with any recommendations or comments to make them and you can indicate whether it is specific to the consolidated text or if it is to the Chair's
So thank you for that, I recognize the Distinguished Delegate from Canada.
Thank you, Madam Chair and good morning, everyone, just for the sake of transparency, because we can send these comments as well to the Chair, just wanted to understand better
The notion of an information system, the question for everyone is is there anything beyond databases, we are trying to understand the scope of what an information system is something that
It needs to be clarified, I think, because an information system, what is the mechanism beyond creating a database, I am recognizing and appreciating the discussion earlier where
We spoke about having access through authorized users, et cetera, but in terms of the nature, when we speak about information systems, are we just talking about the databases?
Thank you for your intervention and Canada for the purpose and I appreciate that question I would remind delegates
Perhaps when we have the coffee break, it would be a convenient time, but document 43/6 does speak to information systems, so we could look at that duck
You mean, which would bring back to main what the information systems are. I know in some jurisdictions they have, for example, memory banks where information is available and accessible. In other things,
Instances, there are registries that retain the information. So they take different formats depending on the jurisdiction in which you are present. But we could also refresh our members by looking at document
Main 436. Thank you.
I see no other requests for the floor and I think it is up, yeah, there is Switzerland, right under it
Thank you, Madam Chair, just briefly appreciate the question posed by the Distinguished Colleague from Canada, indeed I think these are some really conceptual questions that we need to discuss and in
From our perspective and we raise this point also in the expert group, we need to look on whether we are talking about what can be done on an international level for an information system, so what will be the function and role of WIPO in
On an international level and then how do we address databases at national levels, so what are the national database, what is the role and function on that? That one point that we raised also in the expert group, the other one is that also
So probably there is a difference when we talk about databases that contain information related to traditional knowledge and databases which contains information related to Genetic Resources.
In particular, if these databases will also be used to verify prior art, so we see some value in having that information related to TK while noting, of course, all the concerns expressed
By the Indigenous Caucus on that. So there needs to be sufficiently safeguard and there needs to be an involvement of Indigenous Peoples and local communities when establishing such TK databases or
On the other hand, on the GR databases, there is still to us not so clear how this would actually be helpful in the work we are doing here, but we are happy to hear from other Delegations how that would work, thank you.
I thank you Switzerland for that intervention. Okay. So I think it is a convenient time for us
Have the coffee break, so I would oh, okay, South Africa reportedly.
In your coffee break, I think I think the discussions and negotiations of being very circular as the
Distinguished Delegate from the EU mentioned yesterday I think from the South African perspective we are very clear and in terms of the Chair's text is that it is now matured.
Or we should now be talking about where the Diplomatic Conferences is going to be held on South Africa we are prepared to host the Diplomatic Conference, thank you, Chair.
I thank the delegate from South Africa for that intervention, is that somebody in the room?
Press their button to request the floor if you could raise your card so that we could identify, okay.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair, I am speaking on behalf of the caucus of Indigenous Peoples in this
IGC 43 the Indigenous Peoples present in this Committee formulated in our initial statement that we would recommend that the Committee create a working group.
On information systems and databases in order to create recommendations for this committee for the full and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples we agree that the data basis can be useful.
As complimentary measures but without safeguards adequate safeguards they would be a threat to indigenous peoples during IGC 42 we sit.
Just three guiding principles for developing safeguards for databases and information systems; one, free and prior informed consent; two, do not cause injury; three, right to acts
This elimination and correction of information to add traditional knowledge that are not unpublished on databases, the information system should have the
FPIC of informed of Indigenous Peoples Madam Chairman the Indigenous Peoples will said to you this document with our contributions.
To give you to give you our written contribution showing the purposes and objectives of this committee, thank you for that intervention I see Nigeria as a roof.
Thank you, Madam Chair, my delegation would like to identify with
The observation made by the South African delegation remotely, and Madam Chair, my delegation appreciates that you are trying to build upon the work
Work of the ad hoc technical expert group report that was presented yesterday, but there is still a fog of whether you
Want to move that work in the direction of the Chair's text. Madam Chair, it is clear that the Chair's text has by the decision of this Committee.
We made a working document in parallel with the consolidated text, and if I am not mistaken, the impression yesterday was a convergence of understanding and
That the consolidated text is taking us to know where. This is the last GR meeting under this our mandate. And South Africa has restated its
Interest in hosting a diplomatic conference based on this document so Madam Chair it will be really nice for all of us to have a clarity as to where we are going.
Because I do not think we have sufficiently resolved the issue of methodology to the satisfaction of the greater majority of delegates in this meeting, thank you very much.
Thank you, Nigeria for your intervention, I am going to give the floor to the Secretariat.
Thank you so much, Madam Chair, just two announcements before the coffee break, one is we would like to inform you that
So today that exists where the lobby is blocked for some event, so you cannot go out of the building and reenter the building through the external entrance which is on the ground floor.
The second announcement is please sit, you know, the cease which you are assigned to sit because we are having difficulty to identify who is requesting the floor, because we have the number, but please
It in front of your country or the observer NGO named place so that we can know who are requesting the floor. If you wish to request the floor, please press the red button in front of you so that we know that you are requesting the floor. Thank you.
Thank you for that intervention, FAIM.
Just to let you know we are going to break for coffee break now and after the coffee break, the Vice-Chair, you will be chairing this session, thank you so much.
...
...
Good morning, still morning almost welcome back to the meeting room, as the Chair promised, the rest of the morning will be spent.
By continuing the discussion that was started, we will have on the table under our noses, the two texts, the consolidated text and the Chair's text, you may comment
On each of them, and there is no need for any specific order, that we are not talking about the consolidated external and then about the Chair's text because
Because the Secretariat, the facilitator and the Chair will sort out the comment, I invite you to indicate on what text your comments are based, whether on consolidated text
Or on the Chair's text. And of course, this is justified in many sense, because we have had quite some discussion about the nature of the consolidated text, how it is maintained, and also the Chair's text, text
And its role as a working paper of the Committee. So they are both on the table now. And Paul is a
Acting as his task is, as possible data, he is collecting any comments and suggestions made to the consolidated text and then myself, the Secretariat and
All also will assist the Chair to collect any comments to the Chair's text for the moment when our President will take a look at the text in the light of
The comments made. I propose that we would at least have some systematic element in this discussion. We could start Article by Article
Law element by element, the treaties or the texts of international instrument, international instruments, we could start from Article 4, this
Closer requirement in the consolidated text, Article 3 in the Chair's text, I submit these two elements and items for your consideration, the floor is open.
And then when we see that we have emptied the need to comment, these elements we will step on to the next item to be commended.
Thank you, we have one procedural question, we know in the past our manner
Of working was the former Chair, Mr. Ian Goss separated out the text into blocks, so we had alternative A, B, and C, and so on, in order to
Highlight the differences in approaches and he was trying to cluster the different approaches. I am wondering are we going to maintain that manner of work or we now if we are truly going to consolidate the text or are we going to
I will try to move back to the former way of working, which is to work on a single text, and can we comment on other members' text, thank you very much, very much.
And question, it is rather evident that it is not easy to take a step to make to a clean text or a single text, so so far we have
To operate with at least with the consolidated text with its options and alternatives and the Chair's text which is a clean text. And this makes me the
The reason to invite you to indicate as clearly as possible the text you are referring to, and the element in the consolidated text you are referring to when you take the floor, the Laureate
Before giving the floor to further delegates, I invite Paul to expert.
I was just going to note as the Chair has introduced the disclosure requirement, it helps to be built
To build on the conclusions of the work by the expert group on Sunday, and I thought it might be useful before we look at the specific provisions in the
Consulting the text and, of course, refers well to the relevant parts of the Chair's text to at least highlight areas in which I would say consensus was
Developed last Sunday and also to point out certain gaps that we need to narrow and to the extent that the social work to do present that accordingly.
So that is let us now go through perhaps line by line in different Articles and then see if we could easily agree on parts where there is convergence and then take the rest accordingly so it is not
Very that I wanted to have been talking about the disclosure requirement to begin by noting that if you look at Article 4, it talks about the disclosure requirement, but it incorporates a little bit
Something that we had talked about in relation to subject matter, subject matter simply meaning do we go with Genetic Resources or Traditional Knowledge associated with Genetic Resources,
And as I noted in my report yesterday there was agreement that indeed we should have the instrument deal both with Genetic Resources and also Traditional Knowledge associated
So that is one clear point that we should note reading Article 4. However, in connection with even that definition issue, the proposal
Proposal was made to provide some clarification as it relates to the definition of Traditional Knowledge, so why that is important is because if you look at Article 4.1, there is some reference to subject matter, I really want to put
That in context so we know what we are talking about. The second point in terms of the disclosure requirement deals with the reference to
Patent on the one hand and then to Intellectual Property on the other we said that there was no disagreement at all when it comes to use in patents then when it came to Intellectual Property rights.
There clearly is an interest in providing space for the application of copyrights, trademarks, designs, plant varieties, and so on, the question is
How then to create a bridge, those who strongly feel of patents exclusively were quite uncomfortable with dealing with
Other subject matter, but in the sense that we gathered in the room was that those same parties were not opposed to working with Intellectual Property rights, other Intellectual Property. So long as
We have what is referred to us a review cross a review cross in the instrument which would allow us to continue discussing in depth of our current and future work.
Extending the scope of the instrument to these other Intellectual Property rights and then with the concession of those who are to say are proponents of the singular
Reference to patents to at least allow adjustments in the preamble so that in a preamble where we previously had highlighted patents only make reference to those Intellectual Property rights so they are not forming part of this
Substantive part of the instrument, but this would represent some type of recognition that the instrument would have relevance to these other Intellectual Property rights. So that is one way we dis@@
Cast in our meeting as a way of bridging the divide, and we should note that it also reflects some compromise on a part of those who favor a clear reference to Intellectual Property rights.
Because they are quite worried about how a similar structure has been treated in the context of the World Trade Organization, in particular Article 273 when it talked about a review.
A provision where WTO members would visit or review the TRIPS Agreement with the possibility of making changes, you have seen that since the review across was
Introduced nothing has happened so far, so they thought the same thing what happened here so clearly there is a risk would go with that proposal, so we should note that it is not one that
Satisfies everybody the third part in terms of the subject matter that I would like to highlight is that there was some interest in making sure that
There is a reference to derivatives but it is very broad ten so we have to think along the lines as we discuss the disclosure requirement to ensure that it captures derivatives but not
So brought a manner that is not workable, so I thought I should highlight that too, as part of the introduction to the several issues that we should be talking about, and
Shortly I would like also to talk about content because when you look at Article 4 it addresses not only the subject matter but also the content and by content I mean when you say disclosing what are you this
Closely. So there is clear agreement that it should relate to source country of origin, providing country, indigenous peoples,
And where even the materials collected in C2, we should refer to that, but I want to point out a submission that was made, we need to be reflected even though it did not Ghana.
Significant support, and that is an expert at our meeting, suggested that it should also refer to where the material is collected. So that could, as we noted referred to
To material collected from a chemical store, I can say that that provision, there was some more position to it, but in the context that we are negotiating this text, it is possible
Would create space for that proposal as well in terms of source. So those are the areas when it comes to source, what we should disclose. But then this is
I can part, we deal with supplementary matter that one may characterize us relevant to the status of the disclosure, this is the part that deals with
Prior informed consent mutually agreed terms compliance with access and benefit sharing arrangements you note that when it comes to these matters.
The reinforced and are supplementary, they complement clearly the disclosure requirement, but we have detected a bit of discomfort from other jurisdictions with respect to the explicit included
Inclusion of that as part of the content. The discussion went along the full lines. Yes, we should perhaps capture us the very first part of the article.
In terms of source the matters that listed but it creates space for Member States that are sadly interested in taking those matters on board to make that part of the air.
Law and so there should be some type of language to recognize the fact that Member States in their discretion could make references to
Access beneficiary prior from consent metrilagritab so that could come in as subparagraph two and so what I must say subparagraph one takes on board.
The direct references to country of origin and so on, and should also note in some form the reference made by a Member State to include source as related to word materials corrected, then subparagraph 2 will now give
That flexibility and option to Member States to take on board the issues regarding access and benefit-sharing and so on, so that should, that was part of our discussion
Discussion and then the third part which I would like to address just because when you read the consolidated text, looking at Alt 2,
You have a list of do not what a part in the office is supposed to do what is not supposed to do I think there was a sense in our discussion that these type of matters while relevant.
Ought not to be taken up in what is viewed as a minimum standards instrument so we should really leave all those other issues to be taken up under the national authorities as
Did deem fit so it should not be necessary for example to say the disclosure requirement does not impose an obligation on patent offices to do X-i, C So that is what I really wanted to
Bring up at this stage to put the disclosure requirement in context, let you know where in terms of what the experts had done, where we thought there were areas of convergence and where we
We still have some gaps, so if I am to summarize, there is still a gap in terms of when you are referring to TK associated with Genetic Resources, what we may take, but I think that probably should be a very easy matter to
To address because we can cut and paste the relevant parts of what we currently have in the draft instrument on TCEs and TK, so Chair, thanks for your indulgence but I just wanted to bring everybody on board just to express
In what we have done so far. Thank you very much. Thanks for drawing the attention of the Delegations to some of the key items in the context of the disclosure. The floor is now open. The
First, to take the floor.
Draw your attention to a very procedural issue, before we start having any discussion on the text, I would like to pay your indulgence into which takes are we
Are we discussing because procedural we cannot discuss too, to take us simultaneously, my colleague from South Africa will present the South African statement in terms of the preference of
Thank you very much, I was, when I invited you to take the floor, I invited you to take the floor on the consolidated text.
Or on the Chair's text without making a distinction, the distinction will be made by the facilitator by myself and then later by the Chair and this is
Any relation to have flexibility in mind in this respect, and you should indicate the text to which you refer when you take the floor and make your comments or possible suggestions
South Africa would probably want to continue South Africa.
Yes, I think somehow who has has managed to address some of the questions that we had is
South Africa because what has been brought to the table is that we are negotiating on the basis of two documents, namely the Chair's text and the Consolidated Truje.
The first question that South Africa wanted to ask is what then happens to the report that was ably presented yesterday from the expert group, so
Now we have some kind of clarity from PONE in terms of how these three instead of two how these three tests are going to be negotiated however it is still this.
Of the South African delegation that we are noting with concern that deliberate intention from some delegations to render the negotiations
Unbearable and therefore rendering the IGJIP the IGC process irrelevant because the suggestion to consider the consolidated document as a basis for negotiation.
Is a blatant strategy to delay the process a delegation who have an interest in the consolidated document know very well how bracketed that document is and therefore.
It would take another 20 years to negotiate those brackets out a Chair the South African delegation strongly believed that using the Chair's text as a basis for negotiation.
Will narrow the existing gaps in line with their mandates of this session and it is the wish of the South African Delegation to take the process to the diplomatic conference without any further delay.
Thank you very much, Distinguished Representative of South Africa, yes, indeed, this was a continuation to yesterday afternoon's discussion where that point enforcement
For the moment there is no possibility to take the step and start looking at only one text, the next
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving me the LMCs the floor, and I also thank the facilitators for the thorough explanation.
Into some of the key items on disclosure. In this opportunity, Mr. Chair, we would like to reemphasize some of the views that were previously made in this morning's sessions by members of our group, particularly pertaining to the convergence of under
Standing on the importance for clarity with regards to the Chair's text as also mentioned by the South African Delegation just now. I think over the 15 years of discussions this Committee has now come to a
As we heard from the majority of Delegations there is a positive momentum to consider the Chair's text to go forward to a Diplomatic Conference and there is also a mention to consider intercessional work to
So Mr. Chair, while respecting the procedures of this Committee, as a group, at this stage, we see little merit of opening up discussions on the text to be
Counted at this moment. In this regard, Mr. Chair, with your indulgence, we would like to call to during the meeting to consult further among our group on the different issues at hand.
Thank you very much, Indonesia, let's see what will be the message of other Delegations, the next
We would like to thank the facilitators for their hard work and the expertise they provide to the Committee
We also echo what the LMCs group has already said about the need to get more clarity on which text the Committee will be working, if the mandate of the IGC
Is to narrow divergences. We believe that it is more appropriate to decide on the Chair's text status, given that it is more in line with the mandate aimed at bridging the divide and reaching consensus. Our concern
CERN is that the work on both texts will derail the Committee from its objective and could widen the gaps. It is a matter of fact that the discussions on the consolidated text in recent years were considerably
Slow down because of new inputs that go against the intended objective of reducing the discrepancies between Member States. So we think that it is important to sort out this issue to allow the Committee
Thank you very much, Algeria, speaking on behalf of the African Group.
The floor is still open.
Brazil has the floor.
Thank you, Chair, Brazil would like to second the views and comments expressed by South Africa by Indonesia on behalf of the LMC group.
And by Algeria on behalf of the African Group we understand that there is no future in the negotiation of the consolidated document and we would then stress the request of
Indonesia on behalf of the LMCs for this meeting to be adjourned so that we can discuss among our group the way forward for this discussion and we would also like to express our support
Work for the suggestion also made by South Africa and by Indonesia to use the Chair's text as the basis for a Diplomatic Conference that will lead us to
I understand South Africa is asking for the floor again.
South Africa just wants to support the comments just made by Brazil and LMC that the meeting be adjourned.
So we can be involved in further consultation, thank you very much, South Africa, Zimbabwe.
Thank you, Chair, afternoon, thank you very much for giving us the floor, as this is the first time for the floor, we wish to congratulate the Chair
And wish her all the best in her new position with all the confidence and will support her in these deliberations chair on the subject at hand we wish to align ourselves to this statement just live.
On behalf of the African Group and Indonesia on behalf of the LMCs on the use of the Chair's text, the Delegation of Zimbabwe will use that we need a concise, focused and narrowed text
Which would facilitate our discussions we therefore in that vein supports are the proposals just made for an adjournment of the meeting for further consultations thank you very much.
Thank you, Vice Chair, the Delegation of Nigeria would like to identify
Fire with the statements made by Indonesia on behalf of the LMCs and by Algeria on behalf of the Africa Group and also to identify with the statement made by South Africa and
The Delegation of Nigeria will be inclined for an adjustment of this meeting for further consultation as requested by LMCs and the Africa Group, Vice -
Chair. It is important to put into context, and that is what we felt we do yesterday. The basis for the Chair's text, this Committee had come to what could be
Called convergence of views that radically narrowed all the gaps earlier on before a Member State decides to decide to put a rock of our feet warranting the Chair to serve over a
Case as it stands has been admitted as a document of this Committee, and if a convergence of Member States are inclined to
Who was using the Chair's text to move us forward to a Diplomatic Conference, I believe Vice-Chair that there is a merit in that demand because other options do not seem in the opinion of my delegation
Delegation, to commit us to negotiation in good faith. Thank you very much.
Nigeria? Nigeria?
You have the floor.
I should make clear that my intention is to
To decide about the adjustment soon in order to provide time for consultation, as was suggested, and that may be taken into account by the delegations who have still asked the floor, if you
If you join to that request, then you may already know that the intention is to adjourn the meeting for further consultation and then reconvene a
The meeting again at 3 o'clock and to check the situation, the following speakers on the list, Uganda, Mexico, Pakistan, Egypt, Uganda is the first.
Thank you, Chair, for allowing the Delegation of Uganda to say something about the situation currently in the house, Uganda would like to associate
Yet itself with the comments by Nigeria and the request by the RMCs to adjourn and consult further. Thank you. Thank you very much for the concise.
Thank you, Chairman, we, too, support
A resumption at 3: 00 this afternoon, so you consult at now, that is all for now. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mexico, Pakistan.
Thank you very much, Mr. Vice-chair, and I would like to add my voice to what has just been said by LMC's African Group and a number of other Delegations.
We are ready to engage on the text on the table, but it appears that seeking textual suggestions on two parallels text might be at the CP4 disaster in the future as a delegation we believe this is a watershed moment
Whatever the thing we take today in this IGC in terms of which text to prefer will have long-term consequences and as a delegation we believe that the Chair's text has more chances to
Bring IGC to its logical conclusion. Thank you very much. Egypt has the
Thank you, Chairman, I, of course, subscribe to the statement made by Indonesia.
By Algeria and all those countries who have requested the adjournment of this meeting, what is important when we are negotiating on two
Text, there is a lack of logic to that and it is indeed contrary to practice and runs counter to the mandate of this Committee,
Which seeks to eliminate diverse views and
Find agreement which is why I believe that we should indeed attend the meeting. Thank you very much, Egypt, for your position which is also clear. So we decided
Adjourned the meeting in order to reconvene the committee again at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, and now there may be a need to make some announcements about consultations during the break
Which is now a bit longer due to the circumstances, announcements on group consultations
Thank you, time, this is a new situation in
The Committee's work. Dominican Republic has the floor.
I would like to invite GRULAC to meet for consultations on this issue and instead of the red room, I
We will be meeting in the Bilger Room at the same level as the Red Room but closer to the lifts, are we to read immediately or perhaps at 2 o'clock?
Perhaps 2 o'clock might be more convenient. Thank you very much. GRULAC will meet at 2: 00 in the afternoon in the Bilger Room. Other group coordinator
None at this stage, so the meeting is adjourned.
Yes, just to make an announcement that the LMC's group will meet at 2: 00 at NB107. Thank you.
Thank you very much, INTA has the floor, please.
Thank you, Chairman, our caucus will meet at 2: 00 in the Red Room. Thank you very much.
It is still the last check, no further requests for the floor, thank you very much, the meeting is adjourned.
...
[[powered by WIPO S2T]]