Here is an extract from the Earth Negotiations Bulletin coverage of an
interesting meeting in Geneva.

Full coverage of the WTO Symposium on Issues Confronting Trade, can be
found at:  http://www.iisd.ca/linkages/sd/wto-issues/

I have included the information relating to opening and closing plenary,
and the sessions on:

(i)    agriculture;
(ii)   food safety and the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
(SPS Agreement);
(iii)  the agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property
rights (TRIPS) and access to essential medicines;
(iv)  TRIPS and biotechnology/biodiversity; and
(v)    trade and environment.

Some interesting discussions.
 

Best wishes
 

David Duthie

***********************************************************************************************
Extracted from ENB Volume 55, Number 01 Monday, 23 July, 2001

SUMMARY OF THE WTO SYMPOSIUM ON ISSUES CONFRONTING THE WORLD
TRADING SYSTEM

6-7 JULY 2001

The Symposium on Issues Confronting the World Trading System was
held from 6-7 July 2001 at the World Trade Organization (WTO) in
Geneva, Switzerland. Approximately 450 representatives of non-
governmental organizations (NGOs), governments, industry, academia
and the media attended the Symposium.

The Symposium served as a forum for the exchange of views on
critical issues confronting the world trading system. Participants
met in Plenary and in ten work sessions that focused on:
agriculture; food safety and the Agreement on Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement); the agreement on trade-
related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPS) and access
to essential medicines; TRIPS and biotechnology/biodiversity;
trade and environment; two sessions on trade in services; two on
the WTO and civil society; and one on trade and development.

REPORT OF THE MEETING

The Symposium on Issues Confronting the World Trading System
opened on Friday morning, 6 July. The Symposium was chaired by
Touré Alimata Traore, Minister for Industry, Trade and Transport
(Mali). All participants attended an opening Plenary on Friday
morning, and then met in five parallel work sessions on Friday
afternoon, 6 July and in five work sessions on Saturday morning, 7
July. All participants reconvened in a closing Plenary session on
Saturday afternoon.

OPENING PLENARY: Chair Traore welcomed participants and introduced
the speakers for the opening Plenary. Noting the significance of
the meeting's12 themes to developing countries and least developed
countries (LDCs), and recognizing trade as a motor of economic
growth, she cautioned that developing countries and LDCs are at
risk of being left at the sidelines, failing to benefit from
increases in world trade. She said all stakeholders should be
involved in the debate on the future of the world trading system,
and underscored that NGOs can contribute to a more equitable and
fair system. Regarding trade and development, she called for
better market access for developing countries and LDCs in
particular, as well as for support from developed countries in the
form of technical assistance and capacity building for
participation in the multilateral trading system. She highlighted
regional and sub-regional economic cooperation in Africa, and said
this Symposium should provide recommendations regarding issues
confronting the world trading system in order to pave the way for
a successful outcome at the Fourth Ministerial Conference to be
held in Doha, Qatar in November 2001.

Mike Moore, WTO Director-General, stated that the Symposium should
be made a permanent event. While welcoming increased scrutiny of
the WTO, especially through the debate on globalization, he called
also for greater engagement and dialogue at the national level. He
stressed the need to discuss the mandate of international
organizations, noting that the WTO cannot be expected to cover
everything. He said that as the WTO operates under a system of
consensus, it is accountable to all member governments, some of
whom do not support its engagement with civil society. Rejecting
violent protests against globalization, he called for civilized
discourse between NGOs and the WTO, and suggested a code of
conduct for NGOs. He cited economic arguments in favor of a new
round of trade negotiations, and said development problems could
be addressed through such a round. He stressed that an open world
has its risks, but a "closed tribal world has been lethal in the
past," and although trade alone is not the answer, it represents a
part of it.

Pascal Lamy, EU Commissioner for Trade, described the history of
the relationship between the WTO and NGOs, noting that discussion
of issues related to environmental regulation, labor standards and
consumer protection are not new, and that NGOs should contribute
to the debate. He stressed that transparency starts with domestic
initiatives, and called for a closer relationship between
parliaments and the WTO. He expressed EU support for a new
"development" round of trade negotiations that would improve
market access for developing countries and update WTO rules on the
interface and compatibility between trade and other policies.
Warning against protectionism, he proposed the extension of WTO
rules regarding investment, competition and trade facilitation. He
noted that although the US and the EU could survive without
another round of trade negotiations, he is less certain about
developing countries.

Dean Hirsch, President of World Vision International, emphasized
that alleviating poverty and suffering occurs at two levels: at
the grassroots level and through international institutions such
as the WTO. He said the purpose of trade should be to reduce
poverty and promote human development, that it must be sustainable
and that children require special consideration and protection
when developing trade policy. He described obstacles that
developing countries face in trade negotiations, and highlighted
diminishing ODA levels and the enormous costs of compliance with
WTO agreements. Questioning whether freer trade promotes
development, he pointed to studies indicating that in many cases,
today's strongest economies initially developed through the use of
policies that are now illegal under WTO rules. He posed several
questions for participants' consideration: What does it mean that
trade reform results in net benefits? Is rapid trade reform the
best approach? What are possible safety nets for structural
adjustment programmes? Why do developed countries advocate the
benefits of trade, but keep markets relatively closed to goods
from developing countries? What institutional requirements need to
be in place to ensure that trade promotes development? Is the time
right for a new round of trade negotiations?

Jaime Serra, President of Serra & Associates International and
former Mexican Minister of Trade, stressed exports as the most
important engine of growth in emerging economies. He highlighted
the relationship between trade and environment and labor
protection, arguing that as income sufficiently increases, so do
environmental standards, and as the volume of exports increases,
so do labor standards and compliance. He stressed that trade
sanctions would end up hurting rather than helping the environment
and labor, and cooperative solutions should be sought instead. He
called attention to the relevance of market access for developing
countries, and said these countries should be made to feel
comfortable with regard to the debate on environmental and labor
standards.

George Soros, Chair of the Soros Fund Management and the Open
Society Institute, noted that although the WTO is in many ways the
most advanced international institution, its detractors have valid
criticisms. He observed that free trade and markets can only
produce private wealth, and are not designed to serve other
objectives such as human rights or environmental protection. He
stated that globalization and capital mobility have made it
difficult for governments to provide public goods, and that
globalization has reinforced inequalities between rich and poor
both within and between countries. Regarding the possible launch
of a "development" round of trade negotiations, he called for
examination of: the relationship between the WTO and other
international rules; intellectual property rights (IPRs); and
trade-related aspects of investment measures (TRIMs).

WORK SESSION ON AGRICULTURE

The work session on agriculture was held on Friday afternoon, 6
July. Pekka Huhtaniemi, Ambassador, Permanent Mission of Finland
in Geneva, functioned as moderator. He provided an overview of the
role of agriculture in the WTO, noting that the results of the
Uruguay Round have not pleased all parties. parties - suggested
change: was the first step in a long-term process. [Keep your
original]On the current negotiations, he said a large number of
WTO members had submitted negotiating proposals and outlined key
positions of various groups of members. He noted that the second
phase had started in March 2001, with members developing proposals
and options for moving forward in more detail with regard to the
many issues on the table, such as: tariffs; the "amber box" of
trade-distorting domestic subsidies; export subsidies; state
trading enterprises; food security; rural development; and special
and differential treatment in favor of developing countries.

PRESENTATIONS: Risto Volanen, European Farmers' Association,
highlighted the tensions experienced by European farmers between
pressures to produce food efficiently and cheaply while also
taking environmental issues into consideration. He stressed the
need to make use of both markets and government policy, and
underscored the multifunctional nature of agriculture. He pointed
out that: agriculture represents a special case in world trade;
economic, social and ecological considerations must be balanced;
and price and market support must remain an essential element of
agricultural policies.

Lyall Howard, National Farmers' Federation (Australia),
highlighted challenges with regard to global poverty alleviation
and the need for agricultural output to double within 50 years
through improved productivity. He said this is achievable if
production is allowed where there is a comparative advantage for
it, and stressed that governments should not intervene with the
functioning of markets, noting a moral imperative for market
liberalization as this would bring food to the starving. On the
involvement of NGOs in the WTO's work, he called for criteria to
be placed on NGOs with regard to good governance to ensure their
legitimacy. Stressing that current rules discriminate against
agriculture and there have been no real cuts in agricultural
protection, he said the stakes are high with regard to achieving
liberalization.

Magdi Farahat, Minister Plenipotentiary (Commercial Affairs),
Permanent Mission of Egypt in Geneva, stressed that while billions
of people in developing countries live in poverty, subsidies worth
US$1 billion per day flow to agriculture in the North. He said
agriculture cannot be considered integrated into the multilateral
trading system, because the Agreement on Agriculture contains more
loopholes than it covers. Stressing that developing countries have
a comparative advantage in this area, he emphasized their need
for: access to markets; lower tariffs; less domestic support;
reductions and removal of quotas; simplification of opaque market
protection systems, including specific duties and variable levies;
more flexibility in terms of developing country tariffs; more
flexibility in green boxes; technology transfer; and capacity
building. On the ongoing negotiations on agriculture, he hoped
they could be completed in three to four years. He said services
and agriculture should not be linked together, and pointed out
that developing countries are at a disadvantage in negotiations as
their resources and capacity are more limited than in developed
countries.

DISCUSSION: Agricultural Reform - Negotiations: Regarding domestic
support, some participants noted that it will continue in Western
democracies. One NGO representative opposed subsidies but
supported a system under which the rich pay for environmental
benefits flowing from agriculture in both developed and developing
countries. Others stated that policies must be more targeted at
social and environmental issues; opposed agricultural dumping and
export support; and said high import tariffs are not the answer.

One participant supported import protection, as this form of
support has the least ancillary effects, takes into account
multifunctionality, and is the only form of support affordable to
developing countries. On multifunctionality, Howard stressed that
there is no strong link between commodity and non-commodity
production. He said payments should be direct and transparent and
deal with multifunctionality alone.

On competition and anti-trust issues, one participant highlighted
that most subsidies go to agribusiness, a few companies dominate
the market and anti-trust laws are not enforced. One participant
questioned whether notifications on subsidies are made correctly
to the WTO, suggesting "cheating." A representative of the WTO
Secretariat cited technical differences in how numbers are derived
in the WTO and Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD), and said notifications are reviewed by WTO
members.

Developing Country Concerns: A participant from a developing
country NGO noted that rural incomes have decreased rather than
increased since the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT),
and these countries generally have not gained access to new
markets. Another called for attention to food security and
development concerns as well as the low and declining prices of
commodities. One participant stressed parallel commitments under
the WTO and the World Bank/IMF in the form of structural
adjustment policies, noting that in developing countries, not only
is a majority of the population involved in agriculture, but this
sector is also key to repaying debts, and questioned the role
agriculture played in terms of food production and poverty
alleviation under these circumstances. One participant called for
a "Development Box," focusing on support to small-scale farmers
who produce food rather than cash crops. Several participants
supported continuation of special and differential treatment,
technology transfer and other measures to support agriculture in
developing countries.

Non-trade Concerns: On non-trade concerns, a developing country
NGO questioned why animal welfare is high on the agenda when
millions of people are starving. A developed country NGO responded
that non-trade concerns that differ across countries need to be
reconciled, and called for less intensive agriculture. One
participant stressed the specificity of the European market and
consumer demands for maintenance of the local environment and
rural community. Another speaker believed different values deserve
respect, and said they are not intended as protectionism. Farahat
noted as a problem with non-trade concerns that "once you start
there is nowhere to stop." He said that if all non-trade concerns
are taken on board, the Agreement on Agriculture would become too
opaque and difficult to deal with for developing countries. He
said the debate is biased against the three to four billion people
in the world who are simply trying to survive.

WORK SESSION ON FOOD SAFETY AND THE SPS AGREEMENT

The work session on food safety and the WTO Agreement on the
Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement)
convened on Saturday morning, 7 July. Kazuaki Miyagishima,
Associate Professor, School of Medicine, Kyoto University (Japan),
moderated the session. He gave an overview of the issues to be
discussed, noting that the human perception of, and sensitivity
to, factors affecting human health vary depending on the type of
risk. He said people are particularly concerned about novel risks,
while they are less sensitive to, inter alia, hereditary,
voluntary or pharmaceutical health risks. He underscored that a
gap exists between what the public considers to be safe and what
scientists consider to be safe, citing examples from the area of
public health, and said this gap should be narrowed.

PRESENTATIONS: Dominique Taeymans, Confederation des Industries
Agro-Alimentaires de l'UE, spoke on the subject of precaution. He
noted that it was first mentioned in the field of environment, in
the Rio Declaration, and questioned whether it should be extended
into other areas such as food safety. He said the principle had
been codified in the SPS Agreement that requires food safety
measures to be based on scientific evidence and risk analysis, in
accordance with Codex Alimentarius procedures for risk assessment.
However, he said the Agreement allows members to provisionally
adopt protective measures in cases of insufficient evidence, while
seeking additional information within a reasonable period of time.
He said precaution should be considered in terms of risk
management rather than scientific precaution, and noted concerns
voiced by some with regard to its possible abuse for disguised
protectionist measures. He argued that precautionary measures
should be exceptional, provisional, proportional, non-
discriminatory, based on cost-benefit analysis, and allow
consultation with stakeholders. He said risk analysis should
remain the rule and precautionary measures the exception.

Edward Groth, Consumers Union (US), emphasized the
multidimensionality of the debate on genetically modified
organisms (GMOs), which covers scientific, human health,
ecological, and economic issues. On human health risks, he noted
possible allergenic or toxic effects, and cumulative impacts. On
ecological risk, he noted possible gene flow between populations
and gene pollution, and difficulties with assessing consequences.
He emphasized that possible benefits are mostly being developed or
envisioned in the fields of human health and agriculture at this
stage. He stressed the ethical issues associated with distribution
of risks and benefits, of how much risk is justified, the
individual's right to choose, and called for transparent and
participatory decision-making processes. He identified three
critical challenges: benefits will accrue only in the future and
may not flow to developing countries; decision paradigms beyond
risk assessment are needed, including precaution; and new fora for
debate are needed, allowing the discussion of value-based issues
beyond regulatory aspects.

Hélène Coulibaly Fanny, Directrice de l'Alimentation et de la
Qualité (Côte d'Ivoire), focused on developing country issues in
terms of impacts of the SPS Agreement on both the public and
private sectors, and discussed current problem areas. She said
public sector servants had received somewhat more information and
training than private sector players had, but noted that knowledge
was insufficient and trade opportunities were not emerging. While
multinational corporations did have knowledge of the SPS
Agreement, this remained at the headquarters, while small and
medium-sized companies required technical assistance on standards,
and the informal sector needed training and advice in order to
integrate into the formal sector.  She called for improved use of
technical assistance and special and differential treatment, and
for support for LDCs to ensure their participation
internationally.

DISCUSSION: Precaution: On precaution, one participant noted that
the SPS Agreement and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety differ
with respect to the burden of proof, with the former placing it on
the importing country and the latter on the exporter. Groth
emphasized that food safety decisions are political rather than
scientific in nature. One participant called for an international
agreement on food safety, under the auspices of the WHO, to make
food safety, rather than trade, the objective.

GMOs: On GMOs, one participant stressed the need for labeling to
ensure consumers' right to choose.  Another participant said risk
assessments of GMOs are a political process and that based on his
experience of 15 years of risk assessments on GMOs, he had never
seen more risks from GMOs than with conventional hybrids.

On the cost of research and labeling, Groth indicated that they
were passed on to consumers, and that labeling costs varied
notably. Taeymans highlighted concerns that traceability could
have significant costs, which would be passed on to consumers.

Developing Country Concerns: On developing country concerns,
Coulibaly called for the responsible application of the
precautionary principle, especially when it has implications for
trade with developing countries. One speaker noted that developing
countries did not have adequate access to GMO technology and said
ethical issues should be addressed now in order to prepare for
their introduction. Coulibaly said that when novel issues related
to food safety led to crises in developed countries, the
information soon reached developing countries, where it tended to
divert attention from more important traditional concerns. Several
speakers noted the need for developing countries to participate
more effectively in negotiations at the international level, and
called for technical and financial assistance to implement the
systems required to comply with the SPS Agreement. One participant
noted increased participation, but said it was not yet effective,
and remarked that the UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO)
and the World Health Organization (WHO) are considering the
establishment of trust funds to support developing country
participation in international standard setting activities.

WORK SESSION ON TRIPS - ACCESS TO ESSENTIAL MEDICINES

This work session took place on Friday, 6 July. Adrian Otten,
Director of the WTO Intellectual Property Division, served as
moderator. He stated that the core issues of trade-related
intellectual property rights (TRIPS) and access to essential
medicines are how to meet the public health goals of providing
incentives for research and development into new drugs, while
maximizing access to existing drugs, especially in the poorest
countries. He outlined recent developments in the WTO regarding
the question of the TRIPS Agreement and access to medicines -
including a meeting to clarify TRIPS Agreement provisions such as
parallel imports and compulsory licensing - that provide
flexibility in meeting public health needs. He said there was a
widespread view among WTO members that this matter should be
addressed in the Ministerial Declaration to be issued at Doha.

PRESENTATIONS: Carlos Correa, University of Buenos Aires
(Argentina), outlined the evolution of IPR regulations,
highlighting the universalization of pharmaceutical drug patents
that leads to the strengthening of IPR. He explained that patents
are intended as a mechanism for firms to recover the costs of
research and development and they have contributed to higher
prices of essential drugs, and that although price is an important
factor in determining access to medicines, other factors include
distribution systems, pharmacies, and education of the population.

He emphasized that: although some TRIPS Agreement provisions can
constrain revenue from the sale of drugs, the pharmaceutical
industry has remained one of the most profitable industries; the
industry's calculation of research and development costs has been
challenged and, in some cases, such costs have been supplemented
by public funds; the current patent system is not working as
intended, in that it is not rewarding "novel or innovative
inventions;" research and development carried out for prevalent
diseases in developing countries is limited, so these countries do
not benefit as much from patent systems; and because health is a
human right, access to medicine should be facilitated. He stressed
that the fundamental issue is the degree of power held by patent-
holders, and how far the protection system should be expanded.

Jeffrey Kushan, Powell, Goldstein, Frazer and Murphy (US),
underscored that the TRIPS Agreement was not designed to solve all
the problems of public health but merely to strengthen incentives
for research and development into new drugs. The flexibility in
the TRIPS Agreement is there to remedy the improper use of patents
and this should be exercised rarely and not routinely without
attaching it to any specific problem. He described two dimensions
of competition in the pharmaceutical industry: product competition
or the development of new products to compete with older ones; and
price competition or the production and sale of inexpensive
generic products after the expiry of patents. He discussed the
pharmaceutical industry, including the process by which new drugs
are brought to the market, and explained that market exclusivity -
the right for a firm to market a drug exclusively for a certain
amount of time - is essential as an incentive for product
development and to capture revenues. He said compulsory licensing
and parallel import provisions can reduce exclusivity during the
patent term and could have adverse effects on product competition.
The public sector may sometimes identify the drug candidates but
market exclusivity is needed to develop and commercialize them.

DISCUSSION: Compulsory Licensing: One participant outlined the
various provisions of the TRIPS Agreement that might allow a WTO
member to issue a compulsory license in another country on grounds
of public health. Correa cited a study that indicated that
granting of compulsory licenses does not have a negative impact on
the development of future products.  One participant questioned
the assumption that the entry of copy-cat drugs always reduced
prices, citing the example of Argentina where such prices can be
equal or higher than the originator's prices. Correa explained
that there were factors other than patents that affected prices.

Research and Development: One speaker stated that statistics
regarding the research and development costs of the pharmaceutical
industry are based upon independently audited accounts, and that
there is considerable research being conducted to develop drugs
that address tropical diseases. Another participant asked what
means, other than patents, are available to recover research and
development costs. Correa pointed out that the struggle over
patents indicate their importance to cost recovery, and suggested
that royalties from licensing would be an option. Kushan also
responded that patents are not a cost-recovery device but a means
of providing the ex ante incentive needed to increase research and
development investment. It was also pointed out that the patent
system was not sufficient to provide incentives for research and
development investments into neglected diseases of the poor.

Patent Protection: Many participants agreed that the issue is not
the use of patents, but their flexibility. One participant
inquired as to the necessity of a 20-year patent protection
period. In response, another participant pointed out that the
protection period is shortened because of the time it takes to
market a drug. In response to a comment that the African market
represents only 1% of global pharmaceutical sales, a participant
stated that in certain countries, some HIV/AIDS drugs are not
under patent and are therefore more freely available. Another
participant replied that in one of the countries with the highest
prevalence of AIDS, South Africa, all HIV/AIDS drugs are patented.
A participant said that many patents are being granted to products
that are trivial inventions and not truly novel and innovative.
Such patents sometimes resulted in the virtual extension of patent
term or the "evergreening" of patents. Another pointed out that to
the patent system plays an important role in encouraging
disclosure and thus the dissemination, of inventions that may
otherwise be kept secret.

Access Issues: One speaker suggested that access issues might not
be based solely on price, but also on financing, infrastructure,
and the social stigma of certain diseases. Other speakers added
that there were problems of access even for the cheapest generic
drugs, and that even if infrastructure were available, in some
countries access would still be impossible on account of high
prices.

Other Comments: A participant asked who should provide guidance to
countries regarding use of the flexibility measures in the TRIPS
Agreement, especially vis-à-vis access to medicines. He also
questioned how certainty might be achieved regarding the issue of
compulsory licensing since the pharmaceutical industry withdrew
from both the South Africa and Brazil cases, resulting in no court
ruling. One participant observed that traditional products are not
given effective recognition under the current IPRs system.
Similarly, another noted that just as generic drug companies
"copy" from pioneering companies, these companies "copy" from
traditional sources. A participant said that pharmaceutical
companies have more leverage in trade negotiations than poor
countries, who in some cases do not even have representatives at
the WTO. Some participants noted that the TRIPS Agreement provided
for the extension of transition period for LDCs on a case-by-case
basis. In closing, Otten summed up that the discussion had focused
on the extent to which the balance between providing incentives
for the generation of new drugs and ensuring access to existing
drugs can been found in the TRIPS Agreement, including in regard
to the discussion on the extent to which the patent system is
delivering on its objective of promoting research and development
into new drugs, the effect of the patent system on access to
existing drugs and the flexibility in the TRIPS Agreement in
regard to access.

WORK SESSION ON TRIPS - BIOTECHNOLOGY/BIODIVERSITY

This work session was held on Saturday, 7 July. Thomas Cottier,
Professor, Institute of European and International Economic Law,
University of Berne (Switzerland), functioned as moderator. He
said that since the adoption of the TRIPS Agreement, the issues of
biotechnology and biodiversity have been under discussion by a
number of WTO bodies (TRIPS Council, General Council and the
Committee on Trade and Environment). He questioned the extent to
which the sharing of benefits can be promoted if all biological
resources are in the public domain.

PRESENTATIONS: Suman Sahai, Gene Campaign (India), stated that
genetic resources should remain in the public domain, and
emphasized the importance of acknowledgement and economic gain
from indigenous knowledge. Describing potential methods of
protection of indigenous knowledge, she suggested certification
marks and geographical indications. She said the greatest
challenge would be to create sui generis systems with features
such as prior informed consent, benefit sharing and technology
transfer. She noted that the TRIPS Agreement hinders access to
bio-resources, prevents equitable sharing of benefits, and enables
bio-piracy by not providing for an obligation to disclose the
source of the genetic resources. Stressing the importance of
farmers' rights, she called for harmonization of the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD), the International Undertaking on Plant
Genetic Resources and the TRIPS Agreement.  She called for the
removal of protection of life forms from the TRIPS Agreement. She
said that patents on life forms do not serve the public interest
(e.g. in food security).  She called for the right to use the
flexibility contained in the expression "effective sui generis
system," and said the review under Article 71.1 should contain a
sustainability threshold. She warned against TRIPS interfering
with implementation of CBD commitments in a WTO dispute settlement
case, and with human rights to health and food.

Jeffrey Kushan, Powell, Goldstein, Frazer and Murphy (US),
explained the nature of biotechnology, particularly as it relates
to patenting and genetic resources. He distinguished between
material in its natural state, and that which has been made or
modified by human intervention. He described the International
Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) system
of plant protection, in particular the conditions for obtaining
protection and the exceptions to the right holder's rights
(breeder's exemption and farmer's privilege). He discussed the CBD
protection provisions, and emphasized that they protect genetic
resources, while the TRIPS Agreement protects inventions.
Regarding benefit-sharing, which can cover technology transfer and
commercial benefits, he stated that if there is no potential for
commercialization, there will be no interest in a genetic
resource, and therefore little likelihood of benefits. Research
and development projects based on genetic resources require
cooperation and certainty.  He indicated that industry is not
opposed to benefit sharing and gave examples of its actions in
this context. He stressed that patenting is not bio-piracy, and
called on patent offices to be more vigilant in granting patents.
He said access regimes, which are systems set up to manage how
entities come into countries to use genetic resources, require
cooperative efforts.

DISCUSSION: Biotechnology:  Upon the request of one participant,
others outlined examples of bio-piracy, including cases related to
quinoa, neem and turmeric. One participant maintained that bio-
piracy should be referred to as "invalid patents." A speaker
emphasized that most holders of traditional knowledge do not take
issue with sharing knowledge, but rather with the inequities of
the patent system. Kushan reminded participants that at many
negotiations, all stakeholders were in agreement that benefit
sharing was necessary because everyone stood to gain from
cooperation. Noting that within a two-year period a major
agricultural firm had gained control of 60% of the Indian corn
seed market, one participant expressed concern that patenting is
changing agricultural systems, especially through consolidation.
Emphasizing that the original philosophy of the patent system was
to balance private gain with public good, Sahai pointed out that
there are many other forms of IPR protection than patents, which
are not the most appropriate for biological resources. She
stressed that commercialization, as opposed to IPRs, will provide
revenue and benefits. Kushan maintained that the patent system has
absorbed the IPR-related needs of biotechnology.

A participant advised that a growing proportion of goods and
services in global trade will be subject to IPRs, and that
developing countries and LDCs will continue to be the holders of
an increasingly small proportion of IPRs. He inquired about the
TRIPS Agreement provision on anti-competitive uses of IPRs and the
small number of countries with competition regimes. Other
participants referred to the inability of many countries to
enforce both their IPRs and competition regimes.

Article 27 (Patentable Subject Matter): Participants posed
questions regarding whether or not DNA and cells constitute micro-
organisms, and their patentability applications if so. Kushan
explained that nucleic acid, as a chemical compound, falls under
Article 27.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. Continued cooperation was
called for, especially with regard to work by the World
Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), on precisely defining
protection criteria such as novelty and inventive step, in order
to ensure better legal security and to have a common
understanding. Sahai maintained that, although nucleic acid and
DNA are chemical compounds, once there has been genetic
expression, it is not patentable.  The point was made that the
flexibility of the TRIPS Agreement should be maintained to give
all countries the opportunity to maximize its use. Responding to a
question regarding the future of Article 27.3(b) (Exclusions from
Patentability), one speaker observed that many NGOs oppose the
patenting of life-forms, and support the inclusion of a
requirement on disclosure of the origin of the genetic resource.
She expressed concern with the growing number of "TRIPS plus"
bilateral treaties.

Traditional Knowledge:  A range of issues was discussed, including
its definition, the role of prior informed consent, material
transfer arrangements, benefit sharing, customary law and other
forms of sui generis systems, and the impact of the difference
between collective and individual rights. More particularly, it
was pointed out that there is a lack of conceptual clarity on what
traditional or indigenous knowledge is, and that using
geographical indications is one way to protect it.  Sahai
distinguished between traditional or indigenous knowledge and
"laboratory-generated" knowledge, which is finite, its inventors
known, and develops over a shorter span of time. She suggested
definition of traditional or indigenous knowledge could be a
"local" effort (i.e. of a community or a region, etc.). Others
emphasized that the TRIPS Agreement has been unable to address
different types of knowledge systems, pointed out that genetic
resources and indigenous knowledge are the same thing in many
developing countries, and called for expansion of geographic
indications provisions.

TRIPS and the CBD: Several participants raised questions regarding
the possibility of benefit-sharing in the public domain, in the
absence of IPRs. Regarding input into the TRIPS process,
participants emphasized: the importance of NGO engagement; access
by the CBD Secretariat  to the TRIPS Council; and the continued
use of amicus briefs in dispute resolution. One participant
suggested including provisions for disclosure and prior informed
consent in patent applications as a way to reconcile Article
27.3(b) and the CBD. Several participants also called for further
investigation into IPR protection systems other than patents. One
participant urged that the basic premise of any action regarding
the CBD and the TRIPS Agreement should be sustainable development,
as well as increasing the self-reliance of communities. Another
participant emphasized the importance of consumer welfare as the
objective of economic activity.

WORK SESSION ON TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT

The work session on trade and environment was held on Friday, 6
July. Moderator David Runnalls, President of the International
Institute for Sustainable Development (Canada), welcomed
participants and described past WTO symposia on environment. He
explained that work on trade and environment was still necessary
after many years of research and work because: there is still
debate over whether or not environment belongs on the WTO agenda;
there is a strong suspicion among developing countries that
developed countries will use environmental concerns as "green"
protectionism; there are two different agendas in operation in all
international discussions of sustainable development - the
developed country agenda of, inter alia, deforestation and climate
change and the developing country agenda of, inter alia, debt
relief, market access and ODA; suspicion regarding accessibility
and transparency of the WTO and its "real intentions;" and the
lack of a useful and positive agenda on trade and environment.

PRESENTATIONS: Sitanon Jesdapipat, Chulalongkorn University
(Thailand), described issues relating to multilateral
environmental agreements (MEAs) and the WTO, stating that the main
problem is the use of environment-related unilateral measures that
end up going to the dispute settlement body. He noted that
environmental concerns have been brought into the WTO because,
inter alia, MEAs and the multilateral trade system are compatible,
treating environment and trade as a package reduces transaction
costs, and the WTO has experience in solving disputes in a
structured way. He suggested that the WTO Committee on Trade and
Environment could promote the compatibility of trade and
environment agendas by: amending GATT Article XX (General
Exceptions); establishing case-by-case waivers; producing a list
of criteria for acceptance of MEA trade measures; and promoting a
process of policy convergence between MEAs and WTO rules. He
stated that a dispute could be brought to the WTO based on
developed countries' refusal to internalize the environmental
costs of climate change. He identified the following future
challenges: exclusions that might result in fungibility of
flexible measures under the Kyoto Protocol; free riders, such as
the US under the Kyoto Protocol; and the need for the WTO to
conduct a self-evaluation to assess its capacity to address every
issue directed to it.

Laurence Boisson de Chazournes, University of Geneva
(Switzerland), distinguished between the two different types of
process and production methods (PPMs): product-related PPMs, which
are generally not a controversial trade issue; and non-product-
related PPMs, which refer to the environmental aspects of process
and production. She noted that there is uncertainty regarding
discrimination based on non-product-related PPMs and trade rules,
and it is unclear as to who should address the issue. She
identified labeling as a way to accommodate PPMs, noting that
while some voluntary labeling schemes do not give rise to
problems, others have economic and trade consequences. Regarding
GMOs, she said the Biosafety Protocol's wording on labeling is
vague.

David Schorr, Sustainable Commerce Programme, WWF (US), pointed
out that eco-labeling, "green" government procurement, and recent
challenges under the NAFTA Investor-State Provision (Chapter 11)
have highlighted the tensions between trade and the environment.
Stressing the importance of "win-win-win" solutions to trade and
environment issues, he described environmental problems caused by
the heavy subsidization of the fisheries sector worldwide. He said
that despite the requirement for countries to notify the WTO of
any subsidies, 90% of fishing subsidies have not been notified,
and he called for enforcement of this regulation and multilateral
disarmament of the subsidies.

DISCUSSION: Subsidies: One participant noted the predicted food
supply shortage, and called for, inter alia, the establishment of
sustainable fisheries based on management programmes with domestic
production as a basis. Supporting this statement, another
participant pointed to countries that have sustainable fishing
industries that do not rely on subsidies for production or
management. One speaker stated that the FAO is better equipped to
address fisheries and has already started examining the various
aspects of fisheries subsidies.

Sanctions: Several participants questioned the use of sanctions as
enforcement mechanism. One stated that international trade rules
should encourage efforts toward sustainable forest management, and
that the agenda for the Doha Ministerial should include market
access issues. Schorr explained that there are two types of
sanctions: those that are used to enforce treaties, and those that
are retaliatory. He expressed concern regarding the use of tariffs
toward environmental management objectives, pointing out the
danger of "green" protectionism. He said that fines could be an
alternative to sanctions if they are enforceable. Jesdapitat
expressed support for banning all unilateral action taken against
countries for environmental purposes, and suggested establishing
an intergovernmental negotiating forum to converge MEA trade
measures with WTO regulations.

Other Comments: Participants questioned the relationship between
the Biosafety Protocol, PPMs and labeling, the provision of
financial and technical assistance to help address sanctions, and
the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities for
environmental standards. Boisson de Chazournes said there is
uncertainty regarding the scope of application of the Biosafety
Protocol. One participant noted that compliance costs for food
safety are "crippling" for the American food industry, and that
there is no definable hazard related to foods derived through
biotechnology. Participants discussed the meaning of the
precautionary principle, and one pointed out the need to
distinguish between the definition of the principle and the
definition of application of the principle. Another participant
inquired about factors that would encourage the political
commitment necessary to resolve trade and environment issues at
the Doha Ministerial.

In closing, Runnalls emphasized the idea of internalizing the
environmental costs of climate change. He suggested that if MEAs
are to be effective, they should contain measures toward capacity
building and for technical and financial assistance. He also noted
that the issue of fisheries subsidies is an example of a win-win-
win situation and stressed the opportunity to find common ground
between those interested in trade and those interested in
environment.

CLOSING PLENARY

A closing Plenary was held on Saturday afternoon, 7 July. Chair
Traore emphasized that the objective of the sessions had been to
express different points of view to government representatives at
the WTO rather than to iron out differences. On the subject of the
potential launch of a new round of trade negotiations, she said
the issue has not been cleared, and stressed that the Africans
believe that an assessment of the impacts of the Uruguay
Agreements needs to be carried out first. She noted that some
topics of interest, such as implementation, had not been addressed
at the Symposium, which could not cover everything. However, she
hoped the meeting had led to a better understanding of different
perspectives.

Moderators of the working sessions then reported on the
discussions that had taken place in their sessions.

AGRICULTURE: Pekka Huhtaniemi, moderator of the work session on
agriculture, briefly summarized the presentations and discussions
at the session. He stressed the wide range of views expressed by
participants, which he noted represent the same spectrum of views
as those held by various parties at the agriculture negotiations
at the WTO. He said participants had noted that developing
countries have a comparative advantage in agriculture but cannot
take advantage of it because wealthy countries are allowed to
maintain significant barriers to market access and domestic
subsidies. Some had identified this as an imbalance of the
Agreement on Agriculture. On the issue of support measures, the
need to link tariff reductions in poorer countries to subsidy
reduction in wealthier countries was supported by some, and the
situation of small subsistence farmers in developing countries was
considered during the discussions. Differing views were expressed
with regard to multifunctionality and non-trade concerns, with
some participants stressing the importance of these issues and
others maintaining that they need to be addressed though specific
tools without negative effects on trade with other countries. The
speakers had also considered competition policy and how large
transnational corporations have distorted markets.

FOOD SAFETY AND THE SPS AGREEMENT: Kazuaki Miyagishima, moderator
of the work session on food safety and the SPS Agreement, briefly
summarized the presentations and discussions at the session. He
said that speakers had stressed different understandings of the
concept of precaution and its application. With regard to GMOs,
participants had noted different opinions with regard to the
perception of distribution of benefits and risks, and in terms of
who was assuming the costs. They had addressed developing country
concerns such as lack of effective participation in standard-
setting bodies and the high costs involved in implementing the SPS
Agreement.

TRIPS AND ACCESS TO ESSENTIAL MEDICINES: Adrian Otten, moderator
of the work session on TRIPS and access to essential medicines,
briefly summarized the discussions. He said they had touched on
how the TRIPS Agreement had taken into account the need to find a
balance between incentives for the generation of new drugs and to
ensure access to existing drugs, especially in poor countries. The
effectiveness of the patent system had been debated in this
context, and it had been noted that the system may need to be
complemented in some instances with measures to ensure sufficient
research and development into the diseases of the poor. Some had
stated that the system may pose a problem with access to existing
drugs, though impacts may need to be evaluated on case-by-case
basis. Participants had also considered the scope and confidence
of countries with regard to the use of the flexibility in the
TRIPS Agreement, and expressed views with regard to compulsory
licensing and parallel imports.

TRIPS AND BIOTECHNOLOGY/BIODIVERSITY: Moderator Thomas Cottier
stated that this working session had had a constructive and useful
exchange of views, with the active engagement of participants from
a wide spectrum of civil society, including NGOs, industry,
professional associations and academia. He explained that the
group had discussed the criteria for patentability in
biotechnology, traditional knowledge, and the relationship between
the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD. Important points included:

   the extent to which genetic materials should be kept in the
   publicdomain and how property rights might be provided;

   basic criteria for patentability, such as novelty, disclosure
   and basic step;

   the need to avoid bio-piracy; and
   the value of sui generis systems, and factors such as prior
   informed consent, material transfer arrangements, benefit-sharing
   and geographic indications

   TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT: Moderator David Runnalls expressed concern
   regarding the similarity between the agenda of the 1994 Symposium
   on Trade and Environment and this event. On MEAs and WTO rules, he
   highlighted key points made during this working session's
   discussions, including:

   the potential for "free riders" on the Kyoto and other
   protocols;

   the importance of capacity building and financial and
   technical assistance in MEAs; and

   issues regarding compliance with and enforcement of MEAs,
   such as the use of sanctions.

   On PPMs, GMOs and labeling, he highlighted participants' comments
   on, inter alia:

   the controversial use of life-cycle analysis in eco-labeling
   schemes;

   the role of scientific uncertainty and precaution in decision
   making; and

   the question of who sets international standards.

   Regarding market access, he presented key points, including the
   detrimental effects of subsidies, such as overfishing, and how
   they may be remedied through "win-win-win" solutions.
 

BIOPLAN is an electronic list server established by the UNDP-UNEP implemented
 Biodiversity Planning Support Programmme and maintained by UNDP-GEF to serve the
 global community involved in planning for national implementation of the Convention on
 Biological Diversity. To unsubscribe (remove yourself) from this list send a message to:
 majordomo@undp.org with the subject line BLANK and the following text in the body of
 the message: UNSUBSCRIBE  BIOPLAN followed by your e-mail address,
or go to http://stone/undpweb/bpsp/bioplan.cfm
 

BACK TO LISTINGS  HOME