VZCZCXYZ0000
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHGV #0012/01 0081206
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 081206Z JAN 10
FM USMISSION GENEVA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 1157
RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHINGTON DC

UNCLAS GENEVA 000012 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR EEB/IPC, IO/GS, OES/ENRC 
COMMERCE FOR USPTO 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ECON KIPR WIPO
SUBJECT: WIPO on Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and 
Folklore, December 7-11, 2009 
 
¶1. SUMMARY:  The 15th session of the World Intellectual Property 
Organization's Intergovernmental Committee (IGC) on Intellectual 
Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore 
(GRTKF) had successful discussions on substantive issues, but 
delegations remained far apart on procedural issues related to 
intersessional meetings intended to speed the IGC's work.  With no 
agreement on the terms of reference for the intersessional working 
group (IWG), the IWG will not meet in March 2010 as planned, and the 
full IGC committee will meet in March instead to try to agree on 
process.  END SUMMARY. 
 
¶2. The Fifteenth Session of the IGC was held from December 7 to 
December 11, 2009.  In addition to the participation of Member 
States, over 200 NGOs are accredited to the IGC, many representing 
indigenous and local communities.  U.S. delegation members were 
Karin Ferriter, Attorney Advisor, Office of Intellectual Property 
Policy and Enforcement, US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) 
(co-head of delegation); Susan Anthony, Attorney Advisor USPTO 
(co-head of delegation); Peggy Bulger, Director of American Folklife 
Center Library of Congress; Sezaneh Seymour, Foreign Affairs 
Officer, State Department; Nancy Weiss, Nancy E. Weiss, General 
Counsel, U.S. Institute of Museum and Library Services, and Deborah 
Lashley-Johnson, IP Attache for Economic and Science Affairs, U.S. 
Mission, Geneva. 
 
IGC Resumes Substantive Work 
---------------------------- 
¶2. Under a new mandate agreed to at the September 2009 WIPO General 
Assemblies, the IGC is to move to "text-based negotiations" to 
ensure the effective protection of TK, GRs and TCEs with the 
objective of developing an international legal instrument (or 
instruments) to be submitted to the WIPO General Assembly in 
September 2011. 
 
¶3. With this new mandate and after several years of 
stalemate concerning what type of legal form of GRTKF protection 
should the IGC pursue, the IGC's substantive work resumed at the 
15th session.  Delegations proposed initial modifications to a 
number of key, earlier documents, including working documents for 
the protection of TCEs and TK.  Unlike with TCEs and TK, GR did not 
have a draft text upon which the Committee could focus its work. 
Instead, the document discussed referenced listed options for 
further work.  Although some delegations expressed a preference to 
discuss a second cluster of options, which is related to the 
disclosure requirement, there was general support for continuing 
work on each of the three clusters identified in the document. 
 
¶4. In particular, Member States posed questions and 
answers on issues such as what constitutes a traditional cultural 
expression and what type of protection against the misappropriation 
of TK should be given.  Before the next IGC meeting, the Secretariat 
will prepare new revised working documents on TCEs and TK reflecting 
the proposed modifications and comments to the earlier documents. 
The documents will be available by January for Member State comment. 
 As for GR, the Chair also provided an opportunity to the submission 
of written comments, with a deadline of mid-February, 2010. 
 
¶5. Nonetheless, delegations appeared to have different 
interpretations on the status of the revised working documents on 
TCEs and TK.  Many developing countries viewed the working documents 
as the only basis for the negotiations to achieve an internationally 
legally binding treaty immediately.  However, Members of the Group B 
developed countries view the working documents as one of many 
documents the IGC should use in developing a legal instrument. 
Moreover, Group B noted that while the new mandate of the IGC refers 
to three specific documents concerning TCEs, TK, and GR, the mandate 
also notes that all the Committee's other documents, should 
"constitute the basis of the Committee's work on text-based 
negotiations". 
 
 
Procedural Questions Remain 
--------------------------- 
¶6.  Under the new mandate, a full program of IGC meetings and 
intersessional work between now and September 2011 is stipulated. 
IGC 15 was supposed to develop terms of reference for the 
intersessionals, however, agreement failed to be reached on who will 
attend the IWG, what its mandate will be (negotiating group or 
technical group), and what order will the issues be discussed.  An 
African Group proposal from early 2009 calls for a limited group of 
technical experts (27 experts) to speed up the mandated work of the 
IGC.  Though the proposal is unclear, based on numerous 
interventions, the proponents of the proposal think the mandate of 
the IWG is to negotiate the drafting of the legal text.  In 
contrast, Group B was generally willing to not oppose a limited 
group if the mandate was of a technical nature where questions are 
posed at the IGC and are then referred to the IWG.  However, Group B 
could not support a limited expert group with negotiating authority, 
 
because that would eliminate the role of Member States. 
 
¶7.  Regarding the issue concerning the way the IWG 
discussions will be organized, the African proposal suggested 
focusing each of the three scheduled intersessional meetings on one 
of the three IGC issues, beginning with TCEs in February or March 
2010, TK at the October 2010 intersessional, and discussion on GR at 
the intersessional planned for February or March 2011.  The U.S. and 
other developed countries are concerned that the proposed timeline 
for GR (2011) would fail to effectively influence negotiations at 
the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), where negotiations 
on an international regime on access and benefit-sharing for genetic 
resources (which will include details on handling IP) are moving 
quickly, with a deadline for completion in July 2010.  While 
developing countries seek to have the outcomes at the CBD influence 
the IGC's work, the U.S. and other Group B countries view issues 
concerning IP to be under WIPO's mandate and therefore should be 
discussed at the IGC first. 
 
¶8.  To formalize concerns, Group B tabled a proposal 
outlining its views on the IWG.  While a Chair's text was released 
to bridge gaps, positions remain unchanged.  The next IGC now 
scheduled for March 2010 in place of the IWG will focus on this 
issue, and may also address who will chair future IGCs and IWGs. 
 
GRIFFITHS# 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1