[A2k] IP-Watch: Reform debate trips up WIPO Development Aid Meeting

[Manon Ress]

15/4/2005
Reform Debate Trips Up WIPO Development Aid Meeting
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=3D45&res=3D1024_ff&print=3D0
by William New @ 9:54 pm

Members of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) on Friday
failed to agree on the proper role for a permanent committee on
technical cooperation that could impact larger efforts by some to reform
WIPO toward development issues.

Debate focused on a proposal by developed countries (drafted by Canada)
to broaden the scope of the existing permanent committee on cooperation
for development related to intellectual property (PCIPD).

The issue of expanding the permanent committee is seen as key to the
fate of a proposal discussed earlier in the week to reform WIPO to
ensure developing countries have the flexibilities and benefits they
need from the international intellectual property system.

=93The whole of preparing a development agenda and making WIPO more
development-friendly is in jeopardy because of the resistance of
developing countries to strengthen the PCIPD,=94 a developed country
official told Intellectual Property Watch toward the end of the meeting.

After maneuvering by governments in and outside the formal meeting, the
chairman declared the meeting suspended. His statement said the purpose
of the suspension is to enable the draft report consisting of all the
government and non-governmental statements made in the two-day meeting
to be prepared by the secretariat and sent to the member countries as
well as posted on the WIPO website by 27 April. Members must comment by
9 May, and a revised version will be available by 19 May.

The statement says the report could be adopted when the meeting resumes
in September with the intent of passing it on to the WIPO General
Assembly, which meets at that time. Brazil opposed this final point but
it was left in, according to a participant.

A number of developed countries speaking as a group and individually
(such as Australia, Japan and the United States) on Thursday and Friday
called for the committee to be =93strengthened and reinvigorated=94 to
address problems cited by developing countries. Most developing
countries, by contrast, devoted their statements in the committee
meeting to discussions of technical cooperation.

Developing countries generally oppose the =93strengthening=94 proposal out
of fear that their broader aims for reform will be relegated to a
committee that lacks direct access to the General Assembly, the
organisation=92s top body which meets once a year in the fall. Currently,
the issue of a so-called development agenda is being addressed in an
inter-sessional intergovernmental meeting, which reports directly to the
General Assembly.

But a developed country delegate said in a midday Friday interview that
the proposal to bolster the permanent committee would not preclude
proposals related to development from being introduced in other WIPO
venues. =93Any member may raise any proposal=94 in any forum, he said.

The first developing country official in a later interview countered
with the concern that if the permanent committee is designated as the
locus for development issues, then proposals raised elsewhere could
still end up being shunted to the permanent committee if it is
strengthened. The official said there are precedents for this happening
in WIPO.

Another developed country official said the development agenda should
not be dealt with exclusively by the PCIPD, but that there is a need for
a body like the PCIPD to be charged with pushing the development
dimension forward in those other forums.

=93We don=92t object to having the development agenda as an agenda item in
another committee=94, such as one dealing with patent cooperation, he
said, adding that the PCIPD could meet more frequently to review
development activities more closely.

The Latin American and Asian country groups came out against the
proposal for strengthening, one official said. According to a developing
country official, Canada put forward the proposal while key opposing
delegations like Argentina and Brazil were out of the room in a regional
meeting. Those delegations likely would have objected to a proposal
reaching beyond the scope of the technical cooperation meeting, the
official said.

The Canadian proposal draws somewhat from the development agenda
proposal, and addresses broad principles and themes related to future
work on development. The proposal, drafted during the IIM but not tabled
until the second meeting, proposes work to enhance innovation and
economic growth, the development of national policies and capabilities,
and the role of WIPO.

Also dropped from the meeting was a draft meeting summary by the chair.
Developing countries said they objected to the summary on the grounds
that it is not legally binding and could be used to circumvent WIPO
procedure requiring a report agreed to by all participants.

More Debate To Come

The IIM met Monday to Wednesday this week, reaching agreement to discuss
four existing proposals plus any new ones in two more meetings. The next
meeting is 20 to 22 June, followed by an unspecified three-day meeting
in July. The IIM report to the General Assembly is due by the end of
July. Focus will now turn to making proposals =93operational and
actionable.=94 Officials indicated afterward that existing proposals may
be modified to emphasize areas where there appears to be support, and
possibly adding new elements.

The IIM chairman said in a press briefing Thursday that the goal of the
July meeting would be to finalize the report. But he said it was unclear
whether the meeting must reach consensus on the report before it is sent
to the General Assembly.

On a broader scale, the philosophical debate is about whether WIPO needs
to be reformed to help intellectual property better drive development.
Government and non-governmental groups addressed this in their formal
floor statements. Attending both meetings were seventeen
non-governmental groups that were permitted to attend on an =93ad hoc=94
basis after weeks of raising concern about not being allowed to come. A
number of groups made floor statements during the meeting.

India=92s statement was cited by several representatives as significant in
characterizing the developing country perspective. India=92s
representative said in the statement that the proposal for a development
agenda =93constitutes an excellent starting point for establishing a
=91development agenda=92 in WIPO.=94

The proposal would strengthen WIPO by making it more inclusive,
transparent and member-driven, and would move it beyond defining
development in terms of a country=92s ability to provide protection to
intellectual property rights owners.

It also would reduce the legal monopoly granted to rights holders, a
practice it called =93an exceptional departure from the general principle
of competitive markets as the best guarantee for securing the interest
of society.=94

If the only justification for the granting of a monopoly is a
contractual obligation, such as the World Trade Organization Agreement
on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), then
the logic of weaker countries assuming greater obligations than they are
contractually bound to accept disappears, it said.

India added, =93The message of the development agenda is clear: no longer
are developing countries prepared to accept this approach, or
continuation of the status quo.=94

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License. All of the news
articles and features on Intellectual Property Watch are also subject to
a Creative Commons License which makes them available for widescale,
free, non-commercial reproduction and translation.
William New, the author of this post, may be reached at wnew@ip-watch.org.
--
Manon Anne Ress
manon.ress@cptech.org,
www.cptech.org

Consumer Project on Technology in Washington, DC PO Box 19367,
Washington, DC 20036, USA Tel.:  +1.202.387.8030, fax: +1.202.234.5176

Consumer Project on Technology in Geneva, 1 Route des  Morillons, CP
2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland. Tel: +41 22 791 6727

Consumer Project on Technology in London, 24 Highbury Crescent, London,
N5 1RX, UK. Tel:+44(0)207 226 6663 ex 252. Mob:+44(0)790 386 4642. Fax:
+44(0)207 354 0607