[[transcripts generated automatically by WIPO speech-to-text]]
...
Good afternoon, dear colleagues and friends, we may resume our work, well, it seems that there will be
Part of the declaration is not yet in the room. We may anyhow start. We have for the moment six speakers on the list, they are Niger, South Africa,
The floor is not closed, those who are considering taking the floor, I advise you to make that request soon.
So I will give the floor now first to the delegate of Niger.
Mr. Vice Chairman, I thank you for giving me the floor.
Thank the facilitator who has made every effort to reflect the discussion held last Sunday by the experts.
To enrich our discussion, then we
I share the point of view of the African Group coordinator shared by Algeria.
And I join my voice also to the Indonesia and I am seeing group coordinator I would like to
Really stress the fact that the exercise we are currently engaged in.
I am making new numerous additions formulated by all the Delegations which have taken the
Law are only widening the gaps and taking us farther away from
From the mandate given to us, that mandate is to narrow the gaps and to
Finalize an instrument to protect Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and related Traditional Knowledge, by worsening
These differences we are not respecting our mandate and I think we are just
Opening a gulf between our positions I do not think it is in the interest of the negotiations we are engaged in.
That is why the Africa Group had already asked to use the Chair's text which truly did.
Contribute to narrowing the gaps in line with the mandate given to us although that text of course can be.
Better than perfected. Continuing this exercise currently will only wine gaps and
Strengthen opposition, that is what I, as a spokesperson for Niger field, is happening currently. Thank you. Thank you very much, distinguished representative of
With your permission, I now proceed to the closing of the list of speakers, we have the following Delegations, South Africa, Argentina, India, WIPO Foundation, Japan,
The Russian Federation remotely, Paraguay, Egypt, Pakistan, the list is closed by this statement, there is still a
After Pakistan one Republic of Korea, list is closed, South Africa remotely.
Preempted by the intervention by Niger is what I actually wanted to say is
The intervention by the US is now widening the gaps and that is not actually our own mandate, South Africa wants to now bracket all the interventions that made.
Thank you very much, South Africa, point taken, Argentina is the next speaker.
Thank you very much, Mr. Vice Chairman, for giving me the floor, as this is the first time my delegation is taking the floor, we would like to congratulate you and the Chairman on their collection
We would also like to thank the facilitator for his efforts to bring us a Rev 1 version and for providing all of these explanations yesterday.
We have the following comments on which will be limited to the changes introduced in this revision, first, like other Delegations which have spoken before me, we would like to
To raise one concern about the new term defined, materially, or directly based on, which in the Chair's text in its Spanish version is
Based essentially or directly on. In the experts' report, says, as
The question of whether the information should be included for Argentina, genetic resource information is very important and therefore,
We must understand genetic resources in any sense in any form, digital written, et cetera, the implementation of this instrument must be adequate
To strengthen existing tools for benefit-sharing, we must proceed very carefully in defining this term and any clarification of
In the text should aim to avoid various interpretations with the aim of narrowing the gaps we would prefer the term based on.
Without any qualifications which might lead to further discussions in other fora and we also thank Delegations for decreasing for narrowing the gaps.
With regards to IP and patent, and we would like to know whether the extent to which it will be possible to extend this instrument to other IP
IP rights, in line with what others have mentioned, we are not currently in the in a position to accept the bracketed text in the preamble, we
Ask that the new paragraph X be included in brackets, while we continue our consultation. These are the comments that we have for the time being. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much indeed.
And your messages will be conveyed to our facilitator when it comes next speaker will be India.
The PRESIDENT Remote there.
Applause). Thank you.
...
India. Is there a connection? We may move to Debbie, foundation and then
Thank you, Mr. Chair, we would first like to request the textual change, so we will make our request and pause and ask
We would like to request that all references to indigenous and local communities to be converted to the phrase indigenous peoples and local communities throughout the document.
We are confused by some member interventions to this phrase which has been adopted in numerous international treaties that have been negotiated by the same countries that object to its use here.
Thank you, Debbie, for your request.
To the Member States delegations. Japan is the next speaker.
Okay, Debbie, we would like to continue evidently.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, as we said, we had two parts and first we wanted to ask for support for a textual change.
We would also like to say we are concerned with the volume of textual additions made earlier into the Rev 1 consolidated text this amount of new text will take significant amount of time for this committee to work through.
It does not close gaps, particularly disturbing to us is the introduction of an intention to make traditional knowledge as part of the public domain. This seems to directly contradict
The remit of this Committee to protect Traditional Knowledge, the western concept of knowledge is being imposed on Indigenous Peoples for whom their knowledge systems have pre-existed the development
Of modern nation states. Indigenous Peoples knowledge is deeply spiritual, cultural and inextricably linked to identity, lands, territories and waters.
This knowledge is embedded within indigenous peoples, customary laws, protocols, technologies, hereditary materials, and cultural and spiritual practices, it is not
Simply valuable for extractive economic values by those who are outside of Indigenous Peoples laws and customary authority without our free prior and informed consent.
It is deeply offensive to have our rights as contained in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples referred to as merely aspirational.
Carrying no legal way in international and perhaps by implication national law, we have stated repeatedly that references to our knowledge only in the context of the public domain and defensive protection,
It is a red line for us, the public domain is very negative for Indigenous Peoples, positive protections based on affirmation of our legal rights arising outside of the legal Intellectual Property system and
Must also be respected, we have not surrendered our knowledge to the public domain, and if this language is insisted on, it will result in an instrument that will be denounced by Indigenous Peoples and our supporters
Around the world. We are willing to work with all members in this room. We are open to understanding their concerns and issues.
And we tried to work constructively to find mutual accommodations and constructive relationships were possible but effective listening in response has to be a two way street.
We have a mandate to close gaps, not widen them, we have the mandate both from the General Assembly as well as our peoples and our creator and our ancestors to put
Pact traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources, while it is true not all traditional knowledge is associated with genetic resources, we are, in fact, considering another instrument for that,
It is also true that traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources is not in the public domain the committee is not tasked with facilitating the theft of our most sacred gifts and treasures.
To be harmed for the benefit of others who are formed to our traditions and ways of life access must be based on our consent and must not harm us or violate our Indigenous Peoples' rights.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much. Japan will be the next speaker.
Thank you, Vice Chair, the Delegation of Japan would like to express its appreciation to the facilitator for his hard work in preparing the rev 1 document.
We acknowledge that there were fruitful discussions at the Ad Hoc Expert Group, we would like to emphasize that no consensus has been reached with respect to the details of any text
Chair modifications on the text. Therefore, this paragraph and review growth itself should be bracketed at this stage. Also, the preamble section should be made bracketed. And
Regarding sanctions and remedies, Article 8, we would also like to point out that the fee for compliance with the disclosure requirements, namely a maximum standard for sanctions should be established not only for post
Grant sanctions like Article 8.3 but also for pregnant sanctions in order to reduce legal uncertainty and inconsistency among various jurisdictions. In this regard we would like to point out that
The necessity of ensuring compliance with the WTO TRIPS Agreement, particularly with respect to Article 27.1 and 62.1. As you may know, Article 27.1 of the TRIPS Agreement
Says that patents shall be available and patent rights enjoyable without discrimination as to the field of technology, also Article 62.1 says that members may require
As a condition of the acquisition or maintenance of the Intellectual Property rights provided for under section 2 through 6 of Part II, compliance with reasonable procedures and formalities.
Such procedures and formalities shall be consistent with the provisions of this agreement, therefore if additional new requirement imposed heavier unreasonable sanctions for patent applicants seeking protection for inventions if
Specific technical views that use GRs such as biotechnology, that is just among consistency with the TRIPS Agreement. Therefore, we would like to propose to add the phrase in compliance with the TRIPS Agreement at
The end of the first sentence of 8.1, after Article 4, this approach gives enough policy space for each Member States while keeping in mind the 2050.
The next speaker will be the Russian Federation remotely.
Applause). Thank you.
... I think my good good, let me now put it on us.
As far as the preamble is concerned, we have no objections, we have a few questions about the definitions, as we said earlier,
We propose adding text from the Chair's text to the definitions, the terms used there.
Are used could be used in this text concerning the person filing in the last
Sentence, it concerns the person filing a request of the application applicant, and we would like to
That replaced by the body of the entity filing the application as concerns just
Closer, Article 4, we agree with the first alternative for one, four, two, four, four, four, two, four, two, four, two,
In the art and the alternative concerning the disclosure requirement, the
We feel that the sanctions and remedies formulation is acceptable and we support eight.
Two, on the other provisions could be further discussed by stakeholders.
In any case, we must take measures and we stand ready to discuss the alternatives on this topic concerning Article X.
We are ready to send a written proposal for this and with the mention from the interpreters that the sound was very difficult for the speaker.
Thank you very much, Russian Federation, next speaker will be Paraguay.
Thank you, Mr. Vice-chair, we thank the facilitator for his work on drafting this document rev 1 that we are currently working on.
Concerning 4.1, the shall/should term we understand that disclosure of origin and it is in effect by the applicant.
On the Genetic Resources or related Traditional Knowledge should be a formal requirement for disclosure when applying the
When applying for a patent, so we propose that shall be removed as with other speakers who have taken the floor, we are concerned by the doubt about a
That is regarding to Article 8.3 which clearly mentions the lack of.
A failure to disclose information, failure to discuss information should also, would that include also the
There are lack of knowledge about the origin and for this reason,
We would like to see in 8.3 the use of expressions such as the
A sworn statement of a no knowledge of related knowledge or traditional knowledge rather than a failure to disclose the information.
And this is in the different to 8.4 with which we are clearly very pleased, thank you. Egypt has the floor.
Thank you, Chair, I took the floor on behalf of the delegation of my country this morning and I had
Indicated that we were getting away from what was laid out in the mandate agreed upon in our committee.
We have to come to an instrument that would protect the three aspects, three elements and to bridge the gaps between
Parties however the amendment proposals and the statements of some Delegations have just underscored this.
What we are seeing has nothing to do with the work and the actions that should be undertaken under RIG C.
Which is in charge of Genetic Resources, nevertheless, this seems as if it is scorched earth being applied.
If looking at what could possibly happen to Indigenous Peoples and communities, we see that there are a number of
Bobby traps in the text which could bring us away from what should be what is our mandate in this IGC.
Departing from the path beaten for this mandate, we are simply
Legalising piracy, those who are trying to take possession of the heritage of
Indigenous Peoples and Developing Countries is this what we are trying to achieve. Thank you very much. Chairman, much for your intervention. Egypt. Pakistan will have the floor now remotely.
Thank you very much, Mr. Vice-President, and please allow me to pay regard to the appreciation for the
Fetfully reflecting the changes in rev 1 while my delegation is ready since this month had to engage constructively in an ongoing debate, but
Our main one is that this is, I mean, what is the outcome of the process that we are currently engaged in, while to Jonas, we would like
A number of changes that have been introduced in rev 1, for instance, we welcome the reference, a general reference to Intellectual Property instead of patents in the preambler or
As that was discussed in the ad hoc expert group meeting, we also welcome the review clause, although we have some reservations on the term
It could be a middle way, but I think my delegation agrees with the Swiss delegations, we will express earlier this morning that
This term may take into account the use of genetic resource but may not be applicable to the situations where the associated ATT may be used.
But the problem here is that even if my delegation is willing to engage on rev 1, it appears that this way forward may not be acceptable into
Some countries, it is unfortunate that every country has the right to propose amendment sisters overnight, but the question is where it is going to lead us
My delegation is of the view that if any document that has the chance to lead IGC to its logical conclusion is the Chair's text, of course it comes to the disclaimer of that.
The Chair's text is basically his own reflections but it also takes into account the policy interests of the
Of all the Member States it claims to do that and Member States have every delight to differ but at the same time I think the tier text represents.
A year of experience and it should be given you worded, so Mr Vice-President, we are fully supportive of the overall process, but we want to be sure that
This does not lead to another 15 years of negotiations and not reaching to the logical conclusion that we should at the earliest I thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Vice-chair, for giving me the floor, first of all, we would like to appreciate
All facilitators have the work to prepare rev 1 documents. We want to start with mentioning two minor technical issues. First one is pertaining to the second line of the Article 8.1, APG
13 of the clean version, we found that the world measures is duplicated. The second one is regarding Article 3 and 4 at page 9, and this is related to the terminology
Of traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources in Article 3 and associated TK in Article 4.1A and B We think that those two have the same meaning so associated TK
Would need to be unified as traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources, as regard preamble, we note that patent with bracket was still it, however we have a preference.
For maintaining patent will bracket. Further, we continuously expressed concerns in the previous sessions on paragraph 14 of preamble because it is not consistent with the
Patent examination practice of the Republic of Korea, and it is our understanding that there is currently no international consensus on paragraph 14. Thank you, Mr. Vice-chair.
The facilitator has the floor.
Korea, just had a question you talked about patents and you would like that to be in brackets in the preamble, so you like us to reassert.
And every instance where we had deleted patents because I have not been clearly what we had done, just to substitute Intellectual Property for previous references to patent
You have the floor, please.
...
Thank you very much for that.
We have of the list that I quoted in the beginning, still India, India is now online, so that means that India will get the floor immediately.
Thank you, Mr. Vice-chair.
Thank you, the Indian Delegation greatly appreciates the hard work by the facilitator.
In bringing out the rev 1 document we also thank all the other delegations for their valuable contributions in the expert group and in the plenary to take ahead the work of this committee.
We acknowledge that many changes that are proposed in breadth one that reflect the understanding on the consensus that have emerged in the discussions.
Starting in the preamble we are happy to note that the philosophy of the idians of the preamble are preserved we agree to the changes proposed to the preamble to cover all forms of IP the commitment takes.
Then this instrument to all other relevant IP and the vision to evolve along with the issues arising from new and emerging technologies and developments in interkin-related international
Coming to the definitions, we support the change in definition of country of origin, we also support the definition of source of genetic resources as it is
To cover any source from where the applicant obtained the GR, but we would also like to know that we did not have enough time to consult our experts.
So we wish that all the alternatives in the definitions may remain in the document, regarding Article 4.1, we appreciate the efforts to make the Article much simpler
And to ensure that it serves the intended purpose as indeed we wish to have some changes to the red one.
In Article for point one of red wine we want to retain the words includes utilization of and consul we wonder words is materially.
Are directly to be under bracket in Article 4.1 gay of Rev 1 in the striking line after disclosed the.
Of origin, we wonder words and source to be added, we wish to explain our position as to why we are requesting for addition of words in
One one E as far as the drafting suggestion is concerned we wish to point out that such an option to include the source was available in the text before the revision.
And other intention would alternatively be achieved by removing the new relations but we feel this will complicate the current draft.
As far as I could build for point 1B is concerned, we wish this whole Article to be kept under bracket.
These suggestions are made since we believe that the disclosure of source and origin are important.
The office of the action of Genetic Resources the Indian delegation assets do not have concerns on in reducing articles for point three for line.
And 4.5, but we also prefer that the alternative draft should remain in the document.
Coming to article 8. Now the Article 8 does not have any minimum standard of sanctions.
As for the gotten wording of the original article this is a concern for us because there is no minimum standard of sanctions that is Oh.
That is offered by the new original text. We also prefer that the new Article 8,
Point 3 and 8.5 be kept and bracketed. We also wish that alternate text 8.2 shall continue to remain.
These are the points we have not done regarding the red line, we have a question on the obligations under the proposed agreement.
Delayed the consolidated thanks head all the options though in brackets now we have a cleaner text in respect of certain articles.
We got some interventions read and there was reference to a minimum standard document in this context we wished two clarifications regarding obligations.
For example under Article 4 that is whether Article 4 allows Member States to ask for more information than that is now appearing in Article 4 in respect of disclosure.
In their national legislation under Article 8 we note that the current changes provide for maximum standards without providing for minimum standards.
How is the instrument a minimum standard document in view of Article 8 this is a clarification that we wish we have some.
More seditions so should be vague food the clarification not can can I make can continue with the suggestion.
I think we can attempt to give a response, I mean in terms of the question regarding Article 4, I think
My understanding is your concern about whether there is a policy space for Member States to add other subjects, and I think the answer to that is in the affirmative, it is quite a
It is clear that in 4.2 we make references to national law and the possibility of Member States adding other material including access beneficiary
Mutually agreed terms and so on, so that should provide a degree of court, and then in Article 8, we note your
Are concerned that it does not provide for minimum standards, it is not really clear to us why you have raised that consent because the very first sentence
And 8.1 introduces the notion that Member States can put in place appropriate measures, policy measures and that is really where we think.
The issue about meaningful standards would come in so whatever the Member States chooses to place on the record should be viewed as a minimum standard, we note that the previous
This draft contained references to pre-grant and also to post grant, but that statement in a previous 8.1 was found to be a bit of it.
Apology because if you had, as I have said, 8.1 referring to measures that Member States would put in, that would certainly be in the context of both pre-empted and
Post grant not a post grant we have spent more time on that because of the issues about revocation so
To address the need for the ceiling we crafted 8.4. So in Article 8 we are really more worried about the ceiling as opposed to the
Pre-grant which we did not think posed any problems but to answer a question we think that the issue of the pre grant is properly addressed on 8.1 and if we fully so language that we have in place. Thank you.
Thank you very much, if there is a connection still to India, would they satisfy the Indian delegation, Mr. Vice-chair,
We have some our work and we have some comments on the clarification provided
I would like to thank you for the clarification, what we are concerned about 4.1 is that in 4.1 it is now worded as, first of all, the origin.
And if the origin is not known or not available and not applicable then the source so our concern is whether we can have in other national laws both souls as well as.
Origin as a disclosure requirement. That is an example of the concern which we have raised. And regarding the minimum standards under Article 8,
Ah it only says that Member States may how would in place some are sanctions but a minimum level of sanction is not assured.
How will the disclosure requirement be obligatory for the applicant in all jurisdictions, so that is one concern and regarding the
These Sir in how we are moving forward we have not done some possible suggestions, how the first
Is whether it is possible going forward, can WIPO publish the Rev 2 in a track change more as well along with the clean text of Rev 2?
That will actually provide most stakeholders with patent clarification regarding the changes that are ongoing and another suggestion is can we have different
Of the nations using each of the acts by the citizens, the different sentences that are possible, using different bracketed texts keeping in mind the different interests.
If you understand directly the Distinguished Delegate from Switzerland made a similar suggestion. Thank you, Mr. Vice-chair. Thank you very much, India.
For the sake of inclusiveness, I will now give the floor to four delegations in addition to the list originally declared and closed, Nigeria, South Africa,
Thank you, Chair, my delegation would like to
We would like to lend its support to the proposal made by Thiba Foundation on behalf of Indigenous Caucus to return Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities.
The reason is if we are still talking about this at this stage in our negotiation, it confirms the fact that the consolidated document is leading us to
We know where and Nigeria identifies the intervention earlier by South Africa for putting some interventions in brackets and that would be all for Nigeria.
Thank you very much, Nigeria, South Africa, again, remotely, once to echo
The sentiment just expressed by Nigeria that South Africa would like to support the depth foundation in terms of the definition of indigenous people and local communities.
Secondly, you will observe that the African Group, we are not making any textual changes, because we find that frivolous and now nonsensical, because we just anymore
Inclusion, any more textual changes to the text is just going to widen the gap, I would
Just want to indicate that whenever a country that is going to make any digital changes to any document, South Africa is going to bracket it, thank you, Chair.
Thank you very much, South Africa, and now international Indian Treaty Council.
I say I will butt the watch to our wash up I am speaking on behalf of the Indigenous Caucus I would like to refer to Article eight point one at IGC Forty two the caucus introduced language which is now.
What is the second sentence part of the second sentence of Article 8.1 in our rev 1. And in that article, we were supported by a state, so that ended up
In Rev 2 at the end of IGC 42, and so we are put in the position because the facilitator changed the language, we are in the position of having to recall
Quest that the language should be restored to where it was at Rev 2 at IGC 42. To be clear, we prefer that it be read as follows: Member
Dates/parties shall develop these measures in conjunction with the Indigenous Peoples and local communities subject to relevant national laws. So our request
Is that we have maintained shall rather than endeavor to, and we did consult with the state who supported us at IG42 and believe that that state will support this proposal to maintain this language.
Thank you very much, International Indian Treaty, the Council, speaking on behalf of the caucus and after the next
Intervention, I will hand over the meeting to our President, a person whose presence in the room I recognize. Mexico has the floor.
Thank you very much, Chair, Vice-Chair, I will be very brief because you are going to hand over the chairmanship to the
Chairperson I would just like to add a request to the request I made in my previous statement, but I just received.
From capital that based on what everyone has said and with this facility to hear what everyone has to say all around the world at any time we
Would like to support the we would like to express our support about the fact that we would like to get rid of
The brackets around Indigenous Peoples and local communities, because this term was internationally agreed upon, and
And in Mexico because this is specifically what the experts in Mexico City asked us for Indigenous Peoples and local communities should be reviewed.
And should be unbracketed bracketed unbracketed in all parts of the text thank you.
There is one more request for the floor, whether this is an intervention to support the
What was suggested earlier by now repeated by the caucus. Yes, indeed, Canada, you have the floor. Thank you, Mr. Vice-chair, and apologies for taking the floor again.
Yes Canada can sponsor as a matter of procedure and without prejudice the reintroduction of language as proposed by the international Indigenous Caucus.
To thank all delegations who took the floor also to the Observers, we have now a rich basis for the preparation of a revised version number two, and
I guess that those interventions that were made during the present early absence of our facilitator those.
The information of those interventions will be handed over to our facilitator in a suitable technical form, now it seems that the discussion feeds its
So we have an interest to come to an end of this session, but we have also on the interest to be inclusive, there are still two new requests for the floor, France,
You have the floor.
There is no international definition of Indigenous Peoples, this is the response, this is the reference of to collective rights which is difficult and
For France for constitutional reasons, indeed the constitutional principle of the indivisibility of the Republic and the unity of the French people and the equality of all citizens
Before the law means that this could only change due to a decision by the Constitutional Council of France, so Indigenous Peoples as a reference
To a legally binding document which means that we would have to change the constitution. This is why we proposed alternative language, namely the use of
I think from your previous intervention it already became clear that you have this constitutional
Problem and that is certainly going to be respected. Morocco has the floor. This is the last intervention definitely. I invite the Chairperson to come to the podium.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, with the brackets and the definitions of local communities, peoples are very important.
The term "peoples" defines who it has rights, and the rights that this peoples has, it is the right to have free and prior informed consent
And if we remove that as the basis for discussions, the argument has no
So this is very problematic, it would be problematic to remove indigenous
Peoples as they are the subject of the rights that we are discussed. Thank you very much. This intervention brought us to the end of this part of the session.
...
...
...
Good afternoon, everyone, I would like to put on record my thanks to the Vice -
Chairman, for his work that he did in the previous session, and also to acknowledge and thank the facilitator for his work and it
The future work that you will take part in putting in the Rev 2 document which would reflect your comments and interventions. I wanted to
As I indicated when I left in this session earlier that I was going to have in bilateral meetings with different groups and Member States which is why I was not in the room.
For the previous session, but for those who have been to IGC sessions before, in a number of cases, the Vice Chairman or Vice -
President, would normally have custody of the discussion when it speaks to the Rev. I just wanted to use this opportunity to remind the membership
That the next three sessions of the IGC will be focusing on traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions.
Seeking to present to you a possibility of some of the decisions that would emanate from this session of the IGC.
The fact that there are going to be sessions on TK and TCEs is information on those of you who have custody and have seen the mandate you would have seen the listing of the future meetings of the IGC.
One of the first decisions from this session would be the transmission of Rev 2 to IGC 47, which would be the IGC that was
Session that would be held prior to the General Assembly in 2023 and the General Assembly that is going to be held in 2023 would be focusing on the renewal of the mandate that would be on the table and
That time excuse me. I would also like to mention that I have been, as I said at the start, here I have been having informal conversations with
Several of the Member States and it has been brought to my attention that a number of the Member States are basically looking forward to having some virtual expert meetings
On information systems and also on disclosure requirements, and those would be virtual sessions that would virtual meetings, virtual expert meetings that would be held,
In between our meetings our formal face-to-face meetings and those would focus on information systems and disclosure requirements and the information that
Gathered at those meetings on information systems and disclosure requirements would be transmitted to the IGC by the Secretariat. So
Basically these would be secretarial led activities and they would be held virtually, so it would not be a face to face. It would be all virtual meetings of experts on those sub
Take matters. I have also received requests from a number of Member States for a revision of the Chair's text for presentation at the next IGC's
Session on Genetic Resources, so that would be IGC 47. So the other decision that could be contemplated by this session of the IGC,
Would be the preparation of a factual report to the assembly that would include Rev 2 and the Chair's text which is 43/5.
I am very old fashioned hence the sound of the paper I apologize that it is not the screen, okay, there's also been our request.
And this has come from a number of groups for a decision from this IGC that would reflect the divergent views that the committee has.
These divergent views are as it relates to the Chair's text and the consolidated text and I do not think we need to rehearse that discussion because I think we have we have dealt with it
Extensively and there are divergent views so there has been a request for that also to be reflected in the decisions of this IGC. I crave your indulgence and I am requesting that you this
Because these points that I have raised here this afternoon in your groups, as it is my intention to meet with the group coordinators tomorrow morning, and
So it is my intention for us to be able to have a full some discussion on this matter with the group coordinators tomorrow, so I am going to invite you to meet in your groups and to discuss and flesh it out so that when we need
Tomorrow myself, the Secretariat and the group coordinators, we could have a full some discussion on it. So that is my recommendations for how we proceed
For the rest of this afternoon and so I am going to now adjourn the plenary and we will resume tomorrow morning at 10. So thank you so much.
I am guided, so I was just guided that I should ask for comments, so I am asking for comments.
Thank you. I keep forgetting or if there are any announcements from the group coordinators or comments or announcements, please, thank
Applause). Thank you.
The European Union, you have the
Thank you, Madam Chair, you referred to a meeting they plan to have with the Regional Coordinators, I
In the plenary even rev 2 would normally be introduced and then we could have some time to look into that. Could you suggest the timing of this meeting with
We new and the regional coordinators so that I can plan with my colleagues, other group coordinators, the timing of coordination meetings. Thank you. Thank you so much. My apologies, the group
Coordinators meeting with the Chair would be at 10: 00, my apology, and then we will reconvene the plenary at 11. That is the
Thank you very much for the clarification, I am afraid I am lost as to if we have the
Meeting with you and the coordinators at 10: 00 would it be to discuss what end and how would I have the opportunity to previously concite my group if you could please clarify
I will meet with the group coordinators tomorrow morning at 10 to discuss the possible decisions that would emanate from this IGC.
I recognize Slovakia on behalf of CEBS.
Thank you, Madam Chair, just for the clarification and when we can expect the Rev 2 of the document because we have to coordinate also on this second revision, so please could you,
We hope to have the Rev 2 available by 11. So we would have the plenary open to present
The Rev 2 at 11. I recognize Algeria on behalf of the Africa Group.
Thank you, thank you, Madam Chair, for stating the outcome of the consultations with the different parties, I think that our understanding is that this
Decision paragraph, there would be a reference to the reviewing of the methodology at the next session, but also we think it is important to make a
The reference to the intercessional work on the Chair's text because we think that intersessional work on our information sessions on disclosure and information systems
It is with the purview of the common understanding that we are seeking, but that is also the need to move forward with the Chair's text, so which is just that we discuss the
The proposal from two groups on the need to have an intercessional work on the Chair's text as well as the intercession
As well as the work on the methodology and reviewing the methodology at the next sessions, and to discuss this among our groups, before taking it tomorrow to the plenary, I thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you for that intervention, Algeria, just to say and I can be and I stand to be guided by the Secretariat, the work on the methodology can continue even if it is
It is not a decision, a formal decision of the IGC at this time.
Okay. I see no more requests for the floor, so Germany on behalf of Group B, thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chairman, just I am trying to be brief and just briefly like to clarify the
The possible decisions, you are intending to discuss with group coordinators tomorrow at 10. I noted three possible decisions but just to enable me to properly coordinate with
In the group it would be appreciated to get the clarity on this, thank you.
Okay. Thank you for that intervention, again, so the first we will transmit rev 2 to the IGC.
We have also had a request for virtual expert meetings on information systems and the disclosure requirements.
And I indicated that those would be virtual and they would be Secretariat-led activities, also the revision of the Chair's
Text for presentation at the next IGC session on Genetic Resources, the preparation of a factual report to the Assembly with the Rev 2 and the Chair's text that would be 43,
And the recognition that there are divergent views of the IGC as a body as it relates to the Chair's text
Thank you, South Africa remotely.
I am just trying to get a sense of what is going to be the purpose of Rev 2 because South Africa we have bracketed all the interventions made by the US.
Korea and Japan, so we are just worried as to what is the purpose of Rev 2, is Rev 2 could be transferred to the General Assembly, because I
As you know from the African position we are quite clear that the Chair's text is quite mature and we can now move to a Diplomatic Conference and South Africa has consistently
Indicated that it will or set up a will will host the Diplomatic Conference thank you Chair.
Thanks for the intervention of South Africa, just to say that the Rev 2 is a reflection of the meeting and therefore will follow the established methodology rules which is
The rev 1 Rev 2 and then the transmission, so it is just followed the established rules, I now recognize the Dominican Republic representing GRULAC.
Thank you, Madam Chair, just a request, could we have in writing the proposed decisions so that we could
Better work on them in our group consultations. Thank you.
I can do what I can make and your promises I mean I am in writing, but when we meet tomorrow morning, prior to 10: 00, I will do it then, okay.
Thank you so much.
I recognize the European Union.
Thank you, Madam Chair, this is just an announcement that there will be an EU coordination meeting, right after the closure of these
Session in the room that will be announced shortly, thank you so much, Germany on behalf of Group B Thank you,
Madam Chair, there would be a Group B meeting as well, I intend to have it at 4: 30, but we might need to exchange views with the colleagues from the European Union, thank you.
Algeria on behalf of the African Group.
African Group will meet tomorrow in the morning, but the
Time and the link will be sent by email to the group members. Thank you.
There is a request for the floor, but I am not sure from room, is it from the Indigenous Caucus?
The caucus will meet after the plenary.
Tomorrow morning at 9: 00 am also thank you.
Thank you so much, the meeting is now adjourned until tomorrow.
...
[[powered by WIPO S2T]]