A/HRC/33/40 three specialised agencies, this program has drawn widely on diverse policy perspectives and practical experiences, to build a solid foundation of policy insights and empirical data so as to illuminate the pathway to more coherent outcomes and to build capacity in developing countries to take informed policy choices according to national needs and circumstances. This policy dialogue and technical assistance has long been consciously planned and implemented to include a wide spectrum of voices from civil society, the not for profit and philanthropic sector, diverse industry players, competition authorities, and experts from the United Nations system including UNCTAD, UNAIDS and UNDP. • With respect to food security, there seem to be numerous concerns about the right to food and intellectual property. The fear is that farmers will get increasingly dependent on new plant varieties that are protected by IPRs and that in time this would lead to a reduction in agro-biodiversity. To the extent they concern IP protection, the TRIPS Agreement already accommodates them in significant respects through the policy space it leaves to countries. Under Article 27.3 (b) countries are not required to provide patent protection for inventions of (i) plants and animals and (ii) essentially biological processes for their production. Where Members do not provide patent protection for new plant varieties, they are required to protect plant varieties through an effective sui generis system (i.e. a system created especially for this purpose). Members also have the option of using a combination of both systems of protection, namely TRIPS provisions on patents and a sui generis system. There is no further explicit guidance in the TRIPS Agreement as to what is to be considered an effective sui generis system. These provisions have been discussed in the TRIPS Council. For, example, when the delegation of the US put forward what it considered to be an ‘effective’ system, this was countered by the Indian delegation. There was also a vigorous debate on whether or not TRIPS requires Members to comply with UPOV 1991, with no conclusion drawn. (See Summary prepared by the WTO Secretariat in WTO document IP/C/W/369/Rev.1, 9 March 2006, 16-20 and 20-24.) Further, Article 27.2 allows WTO Members to exclude from patentability inventions whose commercial exploitation they find necessary to prevent to protect human, animal or plant life or health or to avoid serious prejudice to the environment. This provision could be used, for example, to exclude GM crops, provided the member also prevents the commercial exploitation of such products in its territory. Question 6 • The Nairobi Ministerial Declaration was adopted by consensus and incorporates a number of decisions such as on Agriculture (Export Competition, Special Safeguard Mechanism for Developing Country Members; Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes), Cotton and LDC issues (Preferential Rules of Origin for Least developed countries; Implementation of Preferential Treatment in Favour of Services and Service Suppliers of Least Developed Countries and Increasing LDC Participation in Services Trade). • It reiterates the importance of LDCs, Small and Vulnerable Economies (SVEs) and Art. 12 Members … and pledges to work towards keeping Development at the heart of the negotiations. • Part III of the Declaration clearly reflects the different views that WTO Members have on the way forward for the organization. 32 GE.16-11938