[A2k] TWN: Africa Group proposes time frames for binding Traditional knowledge instrument

[Sangeeta]

TWN IP INFO

1st July 2009

Africa Group proposes time frames for binding Traditional knowledge
instrument

Asmeret Asghedom (Geneva): Developing countries meeting at the 14th session
of the Intergovernmental Committee on Genetic Resources, Traditional
Knowledge, Traditional Cultural Expressions and Folklore (IGC) that began o=
n
Monday showed enthusiastic support for Africa Group=B9s proposal that
recommends the renewal of IGC=B9s mandate and calls for text based
negotiations, the establishment of a defined work program and timeframes
including for inter-sessional work sessions and a diplomatic conference to
expedite work on the development and adoption of an international legally
binding instrument for the protection of genetic resources, traditional
knowledge, traditional cultural expressions and folklore (GRTKF).

The IGC has been discussing the possibility of an instrument for the
protection of GRTKF for the last 13 sessions but has little to show in term=
s
of concrete outcomes due to resistance of developed countries to any
text-based negotiations.

Frustration of developing countries was plainly visible during the general
statements made at the start of the meeting.

The 14th session that is meeting from 29th June - 3rd July marks the end of
the IGC=B9s current mandate, and the IGC must decide how to move forward wi=
th
the issue in particular whether to recommend to the General Assembly for a
renewed mandate and if so what would be the elements of the renewed mandate=
.

The Africa Group proposal entitled =B3Elements for the New Mandate=B2 provi=
des
recommended text for the Committee=B9s renewed mandate as follows:

=B3Bearing in mind the Development Agenda recommendations, agreed to recomm=
end
to the WIPO General Assembly that the mandate of the Committee be renewed a=
s
follows, namely that:

=B3The Committee will undertake during the next budgetary biennium (2010/20=
11)
text-based negotiations on genetic resources, traditional knowledge and
traditional cultural expressions.=B2

=B3It will adopt, as set out in the Annex, a clearly defined work program a=
nd
timeframe, including the holding of intersessional work sessions. The focus
of its work, without prejudice to the work pursued in other fora, will buil=
d
on the existing work carried out by the Committee and use WIPO documents
WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/4, WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/5 and WIPO/GRTKF/IC/11/8A (TCE, TK, and
GR) which is to constitute the basis of the Committees=B9 work on text base=
d
negotiations.=B2

[The Annex lists the work programme and timeframes for 6 intersessional
sessions that will take place between 2010 and 2011, with a diplomatic
conference in 2012. It proposes that the intersessional sessions will look
at the following issues in turn: Definitions and object of protection (1st
Intersessional); beneficiaries (2nd Inter-sessional), prior informed
consent, moral and economic rights (3rd inter-sessional); Exceptions,
Limitations and Durations (4th intersessional); Sui generis options for
protection (5th intersessional); other outstanding issues (6th
intersessional).]

=B3The Committee is requested to submit to the 2011 GA a text for an
internationally legally binding instrument/instruments on TCEs, TK and GR
and recommend a date for the Diplomatic Conference as agreed in its work
program.=B2

=B3The General Assembly would further request the International Bureau to
continue to assist the Committee by providing Member States with necessary
expertise, funding of the participation of experts from developing countrie=
s
and LDCs.=B2

Many developing countries vocalized strong support for the Africa Group
proposal and favored including elements of the Africa Group proposal in the
renewed mandate of the IGC.

Many developing countries favored a renewed mandate that explicitly directs
the IGC to begin text-based negotiations with the aim to establish an
international legally binding instrument within the next two years.

However Group B (comprised of developed countries) showed ambivalence towar=
d
the Africa proposal in particular for moving toward text-based negotiations=
.

While Group B were not opposed to renewing IGC=B9s mandate, they insisted t=
hat
solutions should be national based rather have an international dimension,
with some developed expressing preference for a non-binding agreement.

Several developing countries concertedly expressed their disappointment and
frustrations with IGC=B9s inability to generate tangible outcomes over the
last 13 sessions since its establishment in 2000 in the first 2 days of the
14th session

India said that the IGC had produced over 15 documents and reviewed
different options for the protection of GRTKF. Despite the extensive work,
the IGC had still not come up with effective modalities to protect GRTKF
internationally. As a result, there are more than 2,000 cases of
misappropriation each year in Indian medicines alone, India said.

Nigeria echoed India=B9s concerns and stated that reviewing definitions,
objectives and principles are useful only if they are building blocks, but
if they are ends to themselves then the discussions become meaningless.

Egypt said the IGC has proven to be more of a =B3talk shop=B2 instead of
results-oriented.

Several other developing countries took a similar tone.

Thailand described IGC=B9s progress as being limited and at a standstill wh=
ile
Iran, Pakistan, Nigeria, Ghana, Zambia and Zimbabwe all passionately
expressed their frustrations with the continuous impasse that the
delegations often times found themselves in at the end of the sessions.

Zimbabwe attributed the impasse to a lack of political will. It called for
not only a renewal of the mandate, but also a renewed commitment from all
negotiating delegations. Zimbabwe asserted that traditional knowledge
deserves the same international legal protection awarded to business
interests and intellectual property rights.  It is hypocrisy that some
countries support international instruments for the protection of some IP
areas, but do not wish to extend that same protection to traditional
knowledge (TK) and folklore, Zimbabwe added.

Brazil said that although the TRIPS Agreement requires international IP
protection, the protection is monopolized by developed countries. It pointe=
d
out that international legal protection for GRTKF would help to legitimize
IP since it would provide protection for persons in developing countries.
The lack of international legal interest in this area is disproportional to
the extensive piracy of indigenous peoples=B9 knowledge that take place by
companies as this knowledge is not legally documented.

Bolivia pointed out that in their country alone there are over 30 indigenou=
s
groups with cultural practices that have evolved and existed for thousands
of years. These groups have accumulated knowledge about how to use and
manage their resources. Maintaining their right to use these resources
should be priority, Bolivia said. To ensure adequate protection, Bolivia
advocated for developing sue generis protection of tradition knowledge.

Indonesia said that they had gone to many workshops and meetings, explainin=
g
and identifying common definitions, principles and objectives. The
Indonesian delegate joked that they had built so much abundant knowledge on
the topics that it was becoming =B3traditional.=B2 As result, it is time to=
 move
toward text-based negotiations, Indonesia said.