Report on the 6th Ministerial Conference of WTO - AIPPI

contemplated in Article 24 of TRIPS. It has been argued that the Doha mandate does not extend to
this latter issue. The Doha Declaration indicated that this extension matter would be handled as part
of the implementation issues, and the correctness of this approach has been contested.
In paragraph 39 of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration the instruction is reiterated that appropriate
solutions are to be found for implementation-related issues; one of these issues which is expressly
referred to in paragraph 39 is the extension of the protection of geographical indications to other
products. The Director-General is requested to intensify his consultative process in order to find a
solution. The General Council shall review progress and take appropriate action by 31 July 2006.
Members are deeply divided on the issue of extension of the higher level of protection to other
products, and no agreement appears to be in sight.
7. TRIPS AND PLANT AND ANIMAL PATENTS, BIODIVERSITY AND TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE
In paragraph 44 of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration note is taken of the work by the TRIPS
Council pursuant to paragraph 19 of the Doha Declaration. It is agreed that this work should
continue; the General Council will report on this work at its next session.
In paragraph 19 of the Doha Declaration the TRIPS Council was instructed, as part of its review work
of Article 27.3(b) on the patentability of animals and plants and processes for their production, to
examine also the relationship between TRIPS and the CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity), the
protection of traditional knowledge and folklore, and “other relevant new developments raised by
Members pursuant to Article 71.1” (ie developments which might warrant modification or amendment
of TRIPS).
This review process takes place not in the “negotiating sessions” but in the regular TRIPS Council
meetings and by way of special consultations under the Deputy Director-General. One issue that has
been raised by Members in this regard, and which derives from the provisions of the CBD, is the
issue of “disclosure”: should patent applicants be required to disclose (in the patent application) the
country of origin of genetic and biological resources and of traditional knowledge used in inventions;
should patent applicants be required to show that “prior informed consent” had been obtained to use
such resources and/or knowledge; and should applicants be required to provide evidence of “fair and
equitable” benefit-sharing with the owners of biological/genetic resources and traditional knowledge.
The debates around this issue have elicited a number of diverse proposals on whether or not such a
disclosure requirement should be enforced, and whether such disclosure should take place as part of
the patent application; and if so, in what manner should disclosure be enforced (ie by amending
12