Partijos laikraštis

    Archyvai

Trips Agreement And Biodiversity

Gaia and GRAIN Foundation (1998a). „TRIPS vs. CBD. Conflicts between the WTO`s ip system and sustainable biodiversity management. Global Trade and Biodiversity in Conflict, No 1, London/Barcelona, April. URL: www.grain.org/publications/gtbc/issue1.htm Right now, the only way to ensure a fair deal for communities and people in developing countries is to completely eliminate biodiversity from trips. Given that achieving this ambitious target may take longer than the 1999 review allows, the most practical solution is to obtain a five-year suspension from the implementation of Article 27.3 (b) to enable developing countries facing enormous difficulties to find solutions. In any event, developing countries must at least ensure that the TRIPS agreement is not strengthened, as requested by some industrialized countries. It is important to stress that these are not mutually exclusive options and that we must fight at the same time. The basis and consequences of these three options are explained below.

The exploitation or exploitation of traditional knowledge, innovations and practices that are relevant to the use of biodiversity must generate equitable benefits. States should promote the preservation and sustainable use of biodiversity as a common concern of humanity, taking into account all rights to biological resources. It is equally important that the conflict between the recognition and protection of these Community rights and private monopoly rights be recognised and that a clear limit is set to prevent private intellectual property rights from increasingly entering the collective realm of biodiversity and related knowledge. Recognising the collective rights of local communities in developing countries, sources of biodiversity and TK, whose role in conservation is now recognized as fundamental. TRIPS do not allow countries to benefit from some of the benefits of patented biodiversity (there is no provision requiring patent holders to disclose the country of origin of biological materials, so that no claim can actually be invoked in the countries of origin) In order to ensure the achievement of these objectives, the agreement sets out the commitments that Member States must implement and meet. They can be divided into four main areas: the preamble to the ON TRIPS agreement defines intellectual property rights as private rights. Since these rights are governed by the general principle of national treatment in the WTO, the implementation of Article 27.3, point b), the TRIP Agreement on Biodiversity will confer global jurisdiction on the individual`s individual rights. Industrial sectors in developed countries are ensuring that this scenario develops in order to extend their commercial control over biodiversity around the world. It is for this reason alone that developing countries should completely oppose the strengthening of WTO members` trips obligations. Every step of the industrialized countries to introduce UPOV, to limit or remove the sui generis option still open, or even to remove Article 27.3 (b), will only push the South further, cede their rights, to take advantage of the precious biodiversity that their communities still conserve and develop.

Resisting this pressure is a prerequisite for any new TRIPS negotiations, where the real objective is to unravel the biodiversity of the multilateral trading regime. Subject to the same dispute settlement procedures as other WTO agreements: the non-transposition of the provisions of the agreement results in trade retaliation against the country concerned. 4. The collective rights of indigenous and local communities to freely exploit, exchange and develop biodiversity should be recognized as rights in principle and beyond private intellectual property rights.


Komentarai išjungti.