resources and patents. Colombia removed the submission on the condition that WIPO would create an international committee to discuss this issue, i.e. the IGC. In 2001 the IGC began negotiations for the creation of an international instrument related to IPRs and access to genetic resources. The negotiations ended in 2013 with a draft of a ‘consolidated document’. Despite the fact that some progress was made in the consolidated document, parties have not reach any compromise in key aspects, such as the nature of genetic resources and disclosure of origin. Furthermore, as the General Assembly of WIPO in 2014 did not make a decision on the work of the IGC, the WIPO agenda for 2015 did not include any IGC sessions. In the case of the WTO and the Council for TRIPs, developing countries were those members of the WTO that campaigned more to relax IPRs’ dispositions in Doha. Although access to medicine was the most noticeable discussion during the Doha negotiations, developing countries rich in biodiversity have also included traditional knowledge and the relationship between the CBD and TRIPs, including definitions of genetic resources and disclosure of origin in patents, in the agenda of negotiations. However, the US (supported by other developed nations such as Japan) has refused to implement any measures that might create binding obligations and amendments in TRIPs, and has maintained the position that a perfect synergy between IPRs and the ABS regime could only occur through national legislation and bilateral agreements that facilitate that users of genetic resources and developing countries could reach MATs. These conflicting views on this issue have led to a stalemate in the negotiations in TRIPs. Indeed, the Director of the WTO issued a report in 2011, which highlights that conflicting views remain from developed countries and developing countries rich in biodiversity on the relationship between the CBD and TRIPs, in particular the implementation of the disclosure of origin. Although the inclusion of provisions related to the ABS regime in negotiations within the WTO and WIPO have led to a stalemate, Helfer, Safrin, Raustiala and Victor consider that the ABS regime has given the opportunity to developing countries, including those rich in biodiversity, to
resources and patents. Colombia removed the submission on the condition that WIPO would create an international committee to discuss this issue, i.e. the IGC. In 2001 the IGC began negotiations for the creation of an international instrument related to IPRs and access to genetic resources. The negotiations ended in 2013 with a draft of a ‘consolidated document’. Despite the fact that some progress was made in the consolidated document, parties have not reach any compromise in key aspects, such as the nature of genetic resources and disclosure of origin. Furthermore, as the General Assembly of WIPO in 2014 did not make a decision on the work of the IGC, the WIPO agenda for 2015 did not include any IGC sessions. In the case of the WTO and the Council for TRIPs, developing countries were those members of the WTO that campaigned more to relax IPRs’ dispositions in Doha. Although access to medicine was the most noticeable discussion during the Doha negotiations, developing countries rich in biodiversity have also included traditional knowledge and the relationship between the CBD and TRIPs, including definitions of genetic resources and disclosure of origin in patents, in the agenda of negotiations. However, the US (supported by other developed nations such as Japan) has refused to implement any measures that might create binding obligations and amendments in TRIPs, and has maintained the position that a perfect synergy between IPRs and the ABS regime could only occur through national legislation and bilateral agreements that facilitate that users of genetic resources and developing countries could reach MATs. These conflicting views on this issue have led to a stalemate in the negotiations in TRIPs. Indeed, the Director of the WTO issued a report in 2011, which highlights that conflicting views remain from developed countries and developing countries rich in biodiversity on the relationship between the CBD and TRIPs, in particular the implementation of the disclosure of origin. Although the inclusion of provisions related to the ABS regime in negotiations within the WTO and WIPO have led to a stalemate, Helfer, Safrin, Raustiala and Victor consider that the ABS regime has given the opportunity to developing countries, including those rich in biodiversity, to
SUPER%20FINAL%20VERSION.docx