TREATMENT OF BIODIVERSITY RELATED ISSUES IN THE WTO

The briefing argues that the draft documents for the Doha Ministerial Conference miss the opportunity to harmonize WTO rules with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). It specifically criticizes the draft's failure to establish new mandates for negotiating amendments to the TRIPS Agreement, the dilution of the review of Article 27.3b, and the limited advisory authority granted to the Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE). The authors contend that the current texts prioritize neutral language to avoid new negotiations, thereby undermining the interests of developing countries regarding sovereign rights over genetic resources, benefit sharing, and the protection of traditional knowledge.

• The draft Ministerial Declaration fails to establish sustainable development as the primary objective for new negotiations, merely reaffirming it as stated in the Marrakech Agreement, which the authors argue adds nothing new to existing obligations.
• The proposed language in Paragraph 19 of the Ministerial Declaration risks merging distinct reviews of the TRIPS Agreement, specifically combining the review of Article 27.3b with the Article 71.1 review. This fusion may distract from the focused analysis of patentability exceptions and allow the introduction of new intellectual property standards that could disadvantage developing countries.
• The draft documents call for an 'examination' of the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD rather than 'negotiations,' which the authors argue is insufficient to effect the necessary legal changes to the TRIPS Agreement.
• The Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE) is granted an advisory role to identify needs for clarification in WTO rules, but this mechanism is viewed as an inefficient path to reform because it requires internal consensus and subsequent approval by the General Council before a negotiating mandate can be established.
• The Implementation Decision's list of 'immediate actions' excludes biodiversity issues, while the 'future actions' list contains provisional text regarding patents inconsistent with Article 15 of the CBD that the authors believe should be moved to the immediate action category.
• The authors emphasize that for the implementation text to be effective, the brackets must be removed from the proposed amendments to Article 27.3b and the word 'amendment' must be maintained as a mandatory obligation to ensure the TRIPS Agreement accommodates the CBD and the FAO International Undertaking.

APA

VIVAS, D., & TUERK, E. (2001). TREATMENT OF BIODIVERSITY RELATED ISSUES IN THE WTO. Center for International Environmental Law. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Comments_Trips_Biodiversity.pdf

Chicago

VIVAS, DAVID, and ELISABETH TUERK. TREATMENT OF BIODIVERSITY RELATED ISSUES IN THE WTO. Center for International Environmental Law, 2001. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Comments_Trips_Biodiversity.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=VIVAS |first1=DAVID |last2=TUERK |first2=ELISABETH |title=TREATMENT OF BIODIVERSITY RELATED ISSUES IN THE WTO |publisher=Center for International Environmental Law |date=1 November 2001 |url=https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Comments_Trips_Biodiversity.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{vivas2001treatment, author = {VIVAS, DAVID and TUERK, ELISABETH}, title = {{TREATMENT OF BIODIVERSITY RELATED ISSUES IN THE WTO}}, institution = {Center for International Environmental Law}, year = {2001}, month = nov, url = {https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Comments_Trips_Biodiversity.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }