TRIPS

Interpreted as a dialectical process the biotech controversy is seen to be developing incrementally in directions that none of its participants can necessarily be said to have intended. The 'final' shape and content of the regulatory settlement is likely to be the outcome of an explicit or implicit social compromise and cannot yet be predicted. This paper suggests that the regulatory regime already in place in India is only an initial attempt to impose a narrow, elite framing of the issues reflecting the interests of powerful economic forces.

While the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement of the Uruguay Round has been controversial, Article 27 (3) (b) of this agreement is more so. It pertains to patenting of biotechnology inventions. The origin of this article may be traced to conventions in European countries, and also discuss the biotechnology patenting question under the 1970 Patent Act in India.

.

In developing our future negotiating positions, we need to think far more systematically than we have done so far. At least three strategic conclusions can be drawn from the Uruguay Round and Doha experiences. First, we need to consider the direct benefits to us of any demand we put forward in the negotiations. Second, diplomacy requires that we define our negotiating position positively rather than negatively. Finally, and most importantly, prior to defining our negotiating position, we must think hard about the end-game. By repeatedly staking a position that is far from what we eventually accept, as has been the case in the UR Agreement and the Doha Declaration, we lose credibility in future negotiations and risk being isolated. This risk has now increased manifold with the entry of China into WTO.

India has been singularly successful in achieving its objectives in Doha - in securing primacy for implementation problems, in bringing the anti-dumping agreement to the negotiating table, in getting a waiver from the agreement on TRIPS in times of public health emergencies and creating the opportunity for protection of geographical indications and traditional knowledge, in ensuring exemption for integrated textile products from anti-dumping action and the negotiation of textile tariff peaks, in keeping core labour standards out of the purview of WTO and in postponing negotiations on the four Singapore issues. The only area where it had to compromise to some extent was in respect of trade and environment.