WRITTEN QUESTION P-1958/01 by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission. GM Field trials.
Date: 2001-07-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EC Directive, environmental protection, genetically modified organism, market approval, testing

4.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 160 E/7

The Community’s views on the link between biodiversity related issues and the TRIPs Agreement were
recently communicated to the TRIPs council (http://www.cc.cec:8082/comm/trade/pdf/dc_bdtrips.pdf). In
this Communication, the Community underlines the different objectives of the TRIPs Agreement and the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and the fact that they do not deal with the same subject matter,
while acknowledging that there is considerable interaction between the rights referred to in the TRIPs
Agreement and the subject matter of the CBD. Furthermore, the Community declares its readiness to
constructively discuss biodiversity-related issues in the relevant fora, including the WTO, CBD, Food and
Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). In particular, the
Community is open to discussing ways to implement TRIPs and the CBD in a mutually supportive manner,
with a view to better recognising traditional knowledge and its assets, preventing abusive patenting of
traditional knowledge and protecting traditional knowledge and farmer’s rights.

In this regard, the Community has been actively involved in the work of the CBD Panel of Experts on
access to genetic resources and sharing of the benefits arising from their use. The outcome of the work of
this Panel provides the basis upon which a CBD Ad hoc Working Group, meeting in Bonn in October
2001, will try to develop guidelines or other approaches in order to address the issue of access to genetic
resources and benefit-sharing, including related traditional knowledge. The Community is ready to play an
active role in the Ad hoc working group in order to contribute to its success. Furthermore, the issue of
in which the
traditional knowledge is also addressed in the CBD Article 8 j) group,
protection of
Community is also involved.

Moreover, the Commission also refers to the Community’s involvement in the negotiation of a revised
International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture within FAO (which
addresses, inter alia, facilitated access within a Multilateral System, sharing of benefits, intellectual property
rights and farmers’ rights), and in the new Intergovernmental Committee on Access to Genetic Resources,
Traditional Knowledge and Folklore in the World Intellectual Property Organisation.

It is a fact that the TRIPs Agreement is silent on the issue of ‘informal innovation systems’ or traditional
knowledge. The TRIPs Agreement mainly incorporates intellectual property (IP) rights which have already
been regulated under other international agreements, such as those falling under the auspices of the WIPO.
However, the TRIPs Agreement in no way prevents countries from setting up a national regime for
protection of traditional knowledge. The Community has made clear that it is open to developing country
requests to include the relationship of TRIPs and CBD including the issue of traditional knowledge on the
agenda of a new trade round.

Finally, the Commission does not share the Honourable Member’s view that the morality and ordre public
clauses of Article 27.2 of the TRIPs Agreement are very limited and only apply to the commercialisation of
patented inventions.

Article 27.2 allows WTO Members to exclude otherwise patentable inventions from patentability on
grounds of ordre public or morality, including to protect human, animal or plant life or health or to avoid
serious prejudice to the environment. At the same time Article 27.2 provides that one can only exclude
from patentability products for which commercialisation is also prohibited. The rationale is that it would
be absurd to deny patents to certain inventions (for example certain types of weapons) on morality
grounds, while at the same time allowing their commercialisation.

(2002/C 160 E/007)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1958/01

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 July 2001)

Subject: GM Field trials

Under Council Directive 90/220/EEC (1), two separate approval procedures are foreseen under Parts B and
C. At the Community level there has been a de facto moratorium on authorisation for the placing on the

C 160 E/8

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.7.2002

market of new GMOs, under Part C of the Directive. Which Member States, if any, have declared such a
moratorium on the approval of GMOs under Part B of the Directive, i.e. a moratorium on field trials and
other experimental releases?

(1) OJ L 117, 8.5.1990, p. 15.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2001)

The Commission is not aware that any Member State in the Community has declared a moratorium on the
approval of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) under Part B of Council Directive 90/220/EEC of
23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms.

Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the number of notifications for Part B releases in the Community has
decreased over the last three years. However, this decline may be related to many diverse factors and it
would be premature to draw any conclusion from this development at the current time.

(2002/C 160 E/008)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2175/01

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 July 2001)

Subject: Copyright dispute between the US and the EU

The Dispute-Settlement Body (TRIPS) set up as part of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Agreement
provides that all members of the WTO must comply with international norms in relation to copyright
protection which are set out in the Berne Convention.

The WTO Dispute-Settlement Body appointed a panel to investigate US copyright legislation and arbitrate
on this matter and, in due course, ruled that the US was not complying with its international obligations
under the above Agreement and Convention.

Since the deadline for the implementation of the WTO findings expires on 27 July 2001, and since the US
has yet to implement those findings, could the Commission please ensure that it will continue to urge the
US to implement
international obligations in copyright protection and bring the US in line with
international norms?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2001)

The Commission is very concerned about the lack of implementation by the United States of the World
trade organisation (WTO) ruling on Section 110(5) of the American Copyright Act. Consequently, the
Commission is taking every opportunity to remind the United States of its international obligations under
the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. The Commission will continue to
insist that the United States brings its Copyright Act in conformity with the said Agreement.

However, in the interest of ensuring a satisfactory implementation of the WTO ruling for the benefit of
Community righ-holders,
the reasonable period for
the Community has agreed to an extension of
implementation, until end December 2001.