home > wto news > 2008 news > news item

WTO: 2008 NEWS ITEMS

NOTE:
THIS NEWS ITEM IS DESIGNED TO HELP THE PUBLIC UNDERSTAND DEVELOPMENTS IN THE WTO. WHILE EVERY EFFORT HAS BEEN MADE TO ENSURE THE CONTENTS ARE ACCURATE, IT DOES NOT PREJUDICE MEMBER GOVERNMENTS’ POSITIONS. THE OFFICIAL RECORD IS IN THE  MEETING’S MINUTES 
  

> More on geographical indications
> More on TRIPS and biodiversity
> TRIPS news
 

SEE ALSO:
> Press releases
> News archives
> Pascal Lamy’s speeches

The biodiversity issue is officially about the relationship between the WTO’s TRIPS Agreement and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Here advocates of putting some or all of three TRIPS issues into the mix of subjects to be discussed along with “modalities” (blueprints of final agreements in the Doha Round) also lined up to register their continuing enthusiasm for the subjects and to underscore what they see as the weight of the number of countries supporting their position.

Canada, the EU, Japan and the US commended China for its continuing efforts to beef up its intellectual property regime, asked over 80 questions about some of the details, and expressed concern about what they saw as insufficient enforcement to prevent piracy and counterfeiting. China clarified many of the points and asked members to give it time to tighten enforcement further. This came under the seventh of the near-annual reviews of how China is implementing its 2001 membership agreement.

The meeting also heard the latest information on how new provisions on intellectual property and public health are being implemented, and discussed a number of issues on technical cooperation and technology transfer.

‘Triplets’ on patenting, biodiversity, traditional knowledge

This is already a combination of three agenda items, although the TRIPS Council’s focus has recently been on the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD and related proposals for amending the TRIPS Agreement. But as in the last meeting in June, some members took this opportunity to refer also to two other issues not under this heading at all. Countries’ positions remained unchanged.

The one subject that was on the agenda was:

• The TRIPS/CBD relationship: under this heading, a number of developing countries have proposed amending the TRIPS Agreement so that patent applicants are required to disclose the origin of genetic material or traditional knowledge used in their inventions (“Disclosure”, discussed in consultations chaired by Deputy Director-General Rufus Yerxa on behalf of Director-General Pascal Lamy) > More

A number of countries are now pressing for two more subjects to be negotiated together with “disclosure” (TN/C/W/52 and additions):

• The register: the negotiations on a multilateral register for geographical indications for wines and spirits (handled in special negotiating sessions of the TRIPS Council and not these “regular” meetings) > More
  

• “Extension”: eextending the higher level of protection currently given to wines and spirits to other geographical indications (also in Mr Yerxa’s consultations) > More

Countries remained divided on the “disclosure” proposal itself, and on packaging “disclosure” with the two geographical indications issues (“parallelism”).

The “Parallelism” paper’s sponsors are: the African-Caribbean-Pacific (ACP) group, the African Group, Albania, Brazil, China, Colombia, Croatia, Ecuador, the EU, Georgia, Iceland, India, Indonesia, the Kyrgyz Republic, Liechtenstein, FYR of Macedonia, Moldova, Pakistan, Peru, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Thailand and Turkey.

A number of developing countries claimed that with over 80 members backing the “disclosure” proposal, and 110 backing the “parallel” treatment of all three subjects, enough momentum has been built up to justify negotiations as part of the Doha Round.

A few repeated their support for “disclosure” but not for linking this to geographical indications.

Switzerland and the EU, which have their own versions of the “disclosure” proposal, stressed their view that the three issues should be negotiated in order to strike a suitable balance in the Doha Round as a whole.

Another group of countries argues that amending the TRIPS Agreement to require disclosure with patent applications is not the best way to prevent inappropriate patents from being issued or to ensure that the benefits of the research are shared with the relevant local communities.

In this meeting, they repeated their view that the discussion has not developed enough to turn into a negotiation, and some stressed that some developing countries take this view too.

Outside the TRIPS Council, but as part of the director-general’s consultations, these three subjects were discussed together in the “July 2008 Package” talks, which involved some ministers. The consultations were conducted by Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre. He reported that members still had a considerable way to go to find agreement and encapsulate it in a text (see, eg, this 28 July 2008 news item)

Two earlier reports to the membership record the opposing points of view in recent discussions of the three subjects, along with some compromise positions (see this 6 June 2008 news item). The regular TRIPS Council plays no part in decisions on the three subjects, but some members wanted the council to be informed. (Since all those discussions are also open to all members, essentially this meant putting their views on the record in the council’s minutes.)

China’s transitional review

The 80–90 questions asked in this latest review came from Canada (IP/C/W/524), the EU (IP/C/W/521), Japan (IP/C/W/518) and the US (IP/C/W/520). They expressed satisfaction with the high-level commitment China has made to intellectual property protection, with a number of reforms underway, but also had some concerns.

Broadly the questions were about copyright and the distribution of royalties, trademark registration, patents and confidential information, enforcement and other issues. In some cases these dealt with the way provincial governments are applying intellectual property protection. The US and EU said that the vast majority of counterfeit products seized at their borders come from China. They and Japan said counterfeit trade is becoming more complex, including over the Internet.

Canada, which is hosting the Winter Olympics in 2010, asked China to share its experience in protecting intellectual property related to this year’s Summer Olympics in Beijing.

China supplied a written paper (IP/C/W/525) and replied orally at some length. Some questions it declined to answer, arguing that they come under a current dispute (DS362). The questioners sought further information and in some cases said some of their questions were not answered.

China denied that its request for more time to further tighten enforcement meant it was seeking a transition period for applying the TRIPS Agreement. It said it had applied the TRIPS Agreement from the moment it joined the WTO, as promised. But, it went on, enforcement and dealing with piracy and counterfeiting are global problems, and Internet piracy is worse in Western countries. It urged members to take into account China’s low per capita income, level of development and comparatively recent (30 years ago) introduction to intellectual property protection.

China underscored that intellectual property protection is important for its own creators.

The transitional reviews are required annually for the first eight years under China’s membership agreement, and once more after about 10 years. The TRIPS Council’s reports can be found here

TRIPS and public health

This agenda item involves WTO members reviewing how their 2003 decision on TRIPS and public health is implemented. The decision involved legal changes designed to make it easier for poorer countries to import cheaper generics made under compulsory licensing if they are unable to manufacture the medicines themselves.

Canada recently informed WTO members (IP/C/W/526) about the first shipment of a generic medicine produced in Canada under compulsory licence and exported to Rwanda to treat HIV/AIDS — the first ever shipment under the 2003 WTO rules.

Switzerland and the EU said their legislation is in place, so eligible importing countries can seek supplies under the new rules from them as well.

Switzerland observed that only a few WTO members have accepted the TRIPS Agreement amendment agreed in 2005, leaving just over a year for the number of accepting members to reach the required two thirds.  > More

Technical cooperation and technology transfer

These were discussed under several agenda items:

• Least-developed countries and donor developed countries said they had benefited from a workshop held the previous day, on how developed countries report on the incentives they provide to the private sector and other organizations for technology transfer to the least-developed countries. The least-developed countries said they understood the reports better and described what would be needed to make the reports more informative and more uniform. The developed countries said they had learnt how to improve their reporting, but several stressed that providing incentives is not enough to ensure technology transfer. The receiving countries’ investment and intellectual property framework and their ability to absorb the technology is also important, the donors said.

• Sierra Leone and Uganda have identified their priority needs for technical and financial assistance. Sierra Leone has translated its needs assessment into a project (IP/C/W/523), which it will discuss with donors on 29 October. The US and EU said they have found this approach useful for working with the two applicants, and the EU said it has already agreed funding for Uganda.
   
  The assessments are part of an effort to help these least-developed countries meet the obligations they will face when they apply the TRIPS Agreement, under a 2005 decision which postponed the deadline for least-developed countries to apply TRIPS to 1 July 2013 > More.

• Brazil (IP/C/W/513), supported by some developing countries, said when members consider technical cooperation (an obligation under Article 67 of the TRIPS Agreement), they should take into account the cluster of 14 proposals on the subject of World Intellectual Property Organization’s Committee on Development and Intellectual Property. Some members said they felt that these proposals were specific to the activities of WIPO and could not be applied to their own activities.

Observers

Members continued to disagree on whether the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity should be an observer in the council, even if invited ad hoc meeting by meeting. The chairperson agreed to hold consultations. But without consensus, the situation is unchanged.
  

Chairperson: Ambassador Denis Francis of Trinidad and Tobago
(elected at the start of this meeting because Ambassador Gail Marie Mathurin has returned to Jamaica)

Next meetings

In 2009 (could change):

Tuesday-Wednesday 3–4 March
Tuesday-Wednesday 8–9 June
Tuesday-Wednesday 27–28 October

> Problems viewing this page?
Please contact webmaster@wto.org giving details of the operating system and web browser you are using.