RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE WT/CTE/W/65
29September 1997
ORGANIZATION(97-4051)
Original: English Committee onTrade andEnvironment
ITEM 8:THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TRIPS AGREEMENT
AND THE CONVENTION ONBIODIVERSITY
Communication from India
I. BACKGROUND
1. In1995,theCommitteeonTradeandEnvironment(CTE)hadoutlinedtheissuestobediscussed
under agenda Item8,asstated inthework programme oftheCTE asfollows:
- therelationship oftheTRIPS Agreement toaccess andtransfer oftechnology andthe
development ofenvironmentally-sound technology;
- therelationship between theTRIPS Agreement andMEAs which contain IPR-related
obligations. (WT/CTE/W/17, page7)
2. Thispaper seeks toaddress thesecond issue, withparticular reference totheConvention on
Biological Diversity (CBD) which contains several IPR-related obligations. Thepaper keeps inview
theconclusions andrecommendations oftheCommittee inits1996 Report (WT/CTE/1) tothefirst
Ministerial Conference, particularly those contained inparagraph 208,viz.
"Further work isrequired tohelpdevelop acommon appreciation oftherelationship ofthe
relevant provisions oftheTRIPS Agreement totheprotection oftheenvironment andthepromotion
ofsustainable development, andwhether andhow,in comparison tootherfactors, theseprovisions relate,
inparticular, tothefollowing issues ...(d)thecreation ofincentives fortheconservation ofbiological
diversity, thesustainable useofitscomponents, andthefairandequitable sharing ofthebenefits arising
outoftheutilization ofgenetic resources, including theprotection ofknowledge, innovations and
practicesofindigenousandlocalcommunitiesembodyingtraditionallifestylesrelevanttotheconservation
andsustainable useofbiodiversity".
II. INTRODUCTION
3. Thepreamble oftheTRIPS Agreement recognizes intellectual property rights (IPRs) tobe
private rights. Article 27.3incorporates specific obligations ontheissue ofpatenting lifeforms to
theextent thatitobliges Members toprovide product patents formicro-organisms andfornon-biological
andmicrobiological processes. Inaddition, Article 27.3(b) stipulates thatallMembers shallprovide
fortheprotection ofplant varieties, either bypatents orbyaneffective suigeneris system orbyany
combination thereof.
4. CBDontheotherhand, initsPreamble categorically reaffirms thatnation-states havesovereign
rights overtheirownbiological resources, recognizes thedesirability ofsharing equitably thebenefits
arisingfromtheuseoftheseresourcesaswellastraditionalknowledge,innovationsandpracticesrelevant
totheconservation ofbiological diversity anditssustainable use,andacknowledges thatspecial
provisions arerequired tomeettheneeds ofdeveloping countries.WT/CTE/W/65
Page2
5. These twointernational agreements are,inourview, intrinsically linked withoneanother.
India would propose therefore thattheCTE, under itsterms ofreference, should discuss:
(a) therelationship between theprovisions oftheCBDandthose oftheTRIPS Agreement;
(b) suggestions onreconciliation ofanycontradictions therein, inlinewiththeCBD
provisions orwithin thesameoverall objective ofconservation ofbiological resources
withsustainable development.
III. PROVISIONS OFTHE CBD AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TOTHOSE INTRIPS
6. TilltheCBDcameintoforce, genetic resources wereconsidered acommon heritage ofmankind
thatshould beavailable freely foranyone whowants toaccess them. Through theCBD, forthefirst
timeaninternational agreement confirmed thesovereign rights ofnation states overthese resources,
andcalled fortheequitable sharing ofbenefits withprior informed consent andonmutually agreed
terms. Itfurther provided forspecial treatment forcountries oforigin andfordeveloping countries.
Most importantly, theCBD upheld theroleofindigenous communities inconservation andprotection
ofgenetic resources andstated thatthere should beafairandequitable sharing ofbenefits arising out
oftheutilization ofknowledge system ofsuchcommunities.
7. More specifically, theobjectives oftheCBD asstated inArticle Iaretheconservation of
biological diversity, thesustainable useofitscomponents andthefairandequitable sharing ofthe
benefits arising outoftheutilization ofgenetic resources. Genetic resources aredefined intheCBD
asanymaterial ofplant, microbial orother origin containing functional unitsofheredity, which has
actual orpotential value. Inaddition, Article 15specifically obliges Parties totakenecessary measures
toshare inafairandequitable waytheresults ofresearch anddevelopment andthebenefits arising
fromthecommercial andother utilization ofgenetic resources withtheParty providing suchresources,
onmutually agreed terms. However, thefairandequitable sharing ofbenefits arising outofthepatenting
andcommercial exploitation ofgenetic resources isnotdealtwithatallintheTRIPS Agreement.
8. Article 3oftheCBD laysdown theprinciple ofthesovereign righttoexploit suchresources.
Further, inArticle 15itisunambiguously stated thattheauthority todetermine access togenetic
resources restswithnational governments andissubject tonational legislation andthataccess, where
granted, shallbeonmutually agreed terms andshallbesubject totheprior informed consent ofthe
Contracting Party providing suchresources.
9. Again Article 18thatrefers to"Technical andScientific co-operation" provides that"the
Conference oftheParties, attheirfirstmeeting shall determine howtoestablish aclearing-house
mechanism topromote andfacilitate" suchcooperation. Theprovisions ofArticle 19state"each
Contracting Party shalltakelegislative, administrative orpolicy measures asappropriate, toprovide
fortheeffective participation inbiotechnological research activities bythose Contracting Parties,
especially developing countries, which provide thegenetic resources".
10. Article 8(j)oftheCBDenjoins Contracting Parties torespect, preserve andmaintain knowledge,
innovations andpractices ofindigenous andlocalcommunities andencourages theequitable sharing
ofbenefits arising from theirutilization.
11. Article 16.5oftheCBD callsupon Parties tocooperate inorder toensure thatintellectual
property rights aresupportive ofanddonotruncounter toitsobjectives. Thisprovision hasbeen
addressed intheWTO Secretariat Paper WT/CTE/W/8 anddiscussed inapreliminary manner inthe
Committee in1996. ItisourviewthattheCommittee needs todevote more timetoexamine thisissue,WT/CTE/W/65
Page3
especially since itappears tobeaCBD provision thatParties shalltakemeasures aiming attheprivate
sector tofacilitate access tojointdevelopment andtransfer oftechnology.
12. Therefore, TRIPS andCBD represent twosignificantly separate multilateral approaches to
theutilization ofliving resources. While TRIPS seeks topromote andfoster technological innovation
byensuring thecertainty ofintellectual property protection andofworld markets foratleastsome
biotechnological inventions, itsprovisions aresilent onhowthisprotection canachieve theobjective
ofsustainable development, especially indeveloping countries. TheCBD seeks tofacilitate access
toliving resources, while focusing onconservation andsustainable use,aswellastheequitable sharing
ofthebenefits ofsuchuse.Initseffort tocreate astake fordeveloping countries inconservation and
sustainable use,aswellastheequitable sharing ofbenefits ofsuchusetheCBD emphasizes theneed
toshare withthem benefits which include theneed toshare inthedevelopment andtransfer of
technology.
IV. SUGGESTIONS FOR RECONCILIATION OFTHE PROVISIONS OFTHE TRIPS
AGREEMENT WITH THE CBD
13. Thefirstimportant contradiction between theTRIPS Agreement andtheCBD isthelackof
anyconditions onpatent application (inArticle 29oftheTRIPS Agreement) tomention theorigin
ofbiological/genetic resources andindigenous/traditional knowledge usedinthebiotechnological
invention. Thepresent mandatory conditions areconfined todisclosure oftheinvention inamanner
sufficiently clearandcomplete forinventions tobecarried outbyaperson skilled intheart.Inaddition
Members mayrequire theapplicant toindicate thebestmode ofcarrying outtheinventions known
totheinventor atthefiling date. These conditions were developed inthepatent lawsofdifferent
countries basically withrespect tomechanical andchemical inventions. Biotechnological inventions
needtobegoverned byasetofadditional specification requirements. Itcould beconsidered whether
theobjectives oftheCBDcould beincorporated through inclusion inArticle 29ofprovisions requiring
aclearmention ofthebiological source material byindigenous communities inthecountry oforigin.
Thispartofthepatent application should beopen tofullpublic scrutiny immediately afterfiling of
theapplication. Suchareconciliation would permit countries withpossible opposition claims toexamine
theapplication andstake theirclaims wellintime.
14. Thenextcontradiction isthelackofprovisions intheTRIPS Agreement onprior informed
consent ofthecountry oforigin andtheknowledge-holder ofthebiological rawmaterial meant for
usage inapatentable invention. Thisneeds tobereconciled withArticle 15.5oftheCBD. Thus,
ifanyinventor wants todevelop suchbiological materials forcommercial purpose, heorshewould
havetogettheprior informed consent ofthecountry aswellasoftheowner and,ifrequired bysuch
owner, enter intoagreements withthecountry oforigin.
15. AMaterial Transfer Agreement (MTA) would benecessary where theinventor wishes touse
biologicalmaterialandanTransferofInformationAgreement(TIA),wheretheinventorisbasinghimself
orherself onindigenous ortraditional knowledge. Indiafeelsthatanobligation intheTRIPS Agreement
toshare benefits inthismanner andthrough MTA/TIA should beconsidered asaneffective toolto
ensure thatthebenefits reach theclaimant. Since individual beneficiaries cannot beexpected tonegotiate
withlargemultinational companies, itwould bethegovernment ofthecountry oforigin which would
benegotiating onbehalf oftheactual claimants.
16. IndiafeelsthattheTRIPSAgreementcouldincorporateanobligationonpatentownerstoexecute
TIAs foranytraditional orindigenous knowledge, which isalready inthepublic domain orisapart
oftherecorded orotherwise publicly accessible knowledge, tobeincorporated asaspecific form of
intellectual property intheAgreement. Thiswillgiveaconcrete shape tothelaudable objective ofWT/CTE/W/65
Page4
suchbenefit sharing incorporated intheCBD. TheCTEcanalsoexamine theprosandconsofevolving
asystem forpatenting ofindigenous knowledge andlocal, contemporary innovations oftraditional
folk.
17. ThreedocumentspresentedtotheCTE,viz.WT/CTE/W/8,WT/CTE/W/44andWT/CTE/W/50
giveanoverview ofsimilar concerns expressed inthedrafting ofprovisions oftheCBD aswellas
itslaterConferences oftheParties. Asmentioned indocument WT/CTE/W/50 inparagraph 4,the
CBD Conference oftheParties recognizes theneedforfurther work, interalia,onthesustainable
useofbiological diversity andthefairandequitable sharing ofbenefits arising outoftheuseofgenetic
resources, including theprotection ofknowledge, innovations andpractices ofindigenous andlocal
communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant fortheconservation andsustainable useof
biological diversity. CBD document UNEP/CBD/COP/3/22, inter alia,states thatoptions for
accommodating traditional knowledge within existing IPRregimes maybeexplored. TheCTE, on
itspart,maydiscuss theneedforexploring suchoptions within theTRIPS Agreement. Thispaper,
inparagraphs 12-14, proposes toassist suchdiscussions.
18. TheCBD document UNEP/CBD/COP/3/23 titled "The Convention onBiological Diversity
andtheAgreement onTrade-Related Aspects ofIntellectual Property Rights (TRIPS): relationships
andsynergies" mayalsobeconsidered bytheCTE. TheCTEmayensure thecontinuing process of
consultations andcooperation withtheSecretariat oftheCBD, aimed atpromoting theharmonious
implementation oftheTRIPS Agreement andtheCBD. Also, theCTE mayliketoconsider the
proposition thatenvironmentally-sound technologies andprocesses (EST&Ps) should notbemade
obligatory untiltheyarefreely available.