IGC is short for “The WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore. The IGC
was established by the WIPO General Assembly in October 2000 (document WO/GA/26/6) as an international forum for debate and dialogue concerning the interplay between intellectual property (IP), and traditional knowledge (TK), genetic resources, and traditional cultural expressions (TCEs)/(folklore).
The following is the statement read by the U.S. on the topic of the renewal of the IGC Mandate:
Agenda Item 28 – IGC – US General Statement
Thank you Mr. Chairman. The United States first would like to thank the Ambassador of Paraguay for his strenuous efforts in chairing the IGC.
We also would like to thank those delegations that have submitted proposals for the renewal of the IGC mandate.
Like other WIPO members, the United States was deeply disappointed that the WIPO Member States were unable to reach agreement at the last session of the IFC on the terms of a renewal of its mandate.
Mr. Chairman, the United States shares with other WIPO members a strong preference for the renewal of the mandate of the IGC.
To facilitate our discussions, the U.S. has submitted a proposal for renewal of the ITC mandate.
In the view of the United States, it is very important for the IGC to complete its unfinished work from the current biennium.
The U.S. believes that the IGC should work toward consensus in the next two years on the draft objectives and principles, the definitions and the possible gaps in the international framework for the protection of TK, folklore and genetic resources.
Working toward consensus on the basis of the existing IGC mandate is, we believe, consistent with the elements of the EU proposal. For example, reaching consensus on the draft policies and principles, in the view of the U.S., is an important first step that could lead to an international instrument, such as a declaration or recommendation.
We also think that any renewed IGC mandate should include benchmarks for achieving these goals, along with reporting requirements to the General Assembly.
In fact, we see some positive elements in all 4 proposals submitted for renewal of the IGC mandate and before the General Assembly for consideration, and we hope that a solution can be found that is suitable to all Member States.
With regard to a possible way forward, in the view of the United States, the IGC mandate SHOULD CONTAIN a number of elements:
First, the IGC mandate should reflect the need to accelerate the substantive work for the next budgetary biennium, focusing on the uncompleted work under its previous mandate.
That is, the IGC mandate should include a commitment to work toward consensus on the draft objectives and principles, definitions and the possible gaps in the international framework for TCEs and TK.
In addition, the IGC mandate should reflect an agreement to work on TCEs, TK, and GR on an equal basis and a commitment to work towards consensus on concrete, achievable international outcomes.
Furthermore, the IGC mandate should include a requirement to present a progress report and appropriate recommendations on its substantive work to the 2010 GA and a progress report and appropriate recommendations on proposed international outcomes to the GA 2011.
In the view of the United States, the IGC mandate SHOULD NOT contain certain elements:
First, the IGC mandate should not incorporate commitments to start text-based negotiations without first reaching agreement on the content, nature, format and status of the text.
Second, the IGC mandate should not prejudge any international outcome.
Third, the IGC mandate should not contain commitments for a work program that exceeds available WIPO resources available for the IGC. With an agreed work plan in advance, the IGC should be able to make substantial progress in two one-week sessions per year, as is the norm for other WIPO committees.
Mr. Chairman, work on several difficult subjects has been underway for many, many years, indeed decades, and continues in WIPO, such as the rights of audio-visual performers, substantive patent law harmonization and the rights of broadcasters.
We should, therefor, temper expectations as we carefully examine such difficult issues as those under consideration in the IGC.
Mr. Chairman, the U.S. stands ready to constructively engage with you and other delegations to find a way forward that is acceptable to all. Thank you.