[A2k] TWN Statement at 3rd WIPO IIM

[Thiru Balasubramaniam]

*STATEMENT BY THIRD WORLD NETWORK*

*THIRD INTERSESSIONAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL MEETING*

*22 JULY 2005*

Thank you Mr. Chairman for allowing TWN to take the floor

The US delegation in its statement yesterday said that while they were
willing to engage in the Development Agenda discussion, it disagreed
with the proposals by the Friends of the Development because of the
premise on which it is based that is WIPO has not addressed =93development=
=94

In response we would like to recall the many calls to date by developing
country governments and public interest NGOs to reform WIPO and take
into account development considerations.

Last November 500 renowned economists, nobel laureates, legal experts,
academics, scientists and public citizen groups adopted a Geneva
Declaration on the =93Future of the World Intellectual Property
Organization=94 and urged WIPO to embrace a more balanced agenda for
promoting creativity and technology transfer in line with public interest.

The Declaration called for moratorium on new treaties and harmonization
of standards that expand and strengthen monopolies, strangle policy
space and further restrict access to knowledge. It asked WIPO to
consider the creation of bodies to systematically address the control of
anticompetitive practices, endorsed the creation of Working Groups on
technology transfer and devt, supported the Treaty on Access to
Knolwedge, called for a fundamental reform of WIPO=92s technical
assistance programmes and amendment of the WIPO convention

At an NGO meeting called the =93Future of WIPO=94 organized by a forum
called the TransAtlantic Consumer Dialogue that represents 65 consumer
organizations from the US and EU, prior to the launch of the Geneva
Declaration, concerns were raised that WIPO activities are disseminating
a dysfunctional IP system to the developing world through the WIPO
treaties.

More recently, the Group of 77 developing countries at the recent second
South Summit has called for =93WIPO, as a UN Agency, to include in all its
future plans and activities the development dimension=94

And two days ago 112 public interest NGOs from the North and South
released a statement, endorsing many principles in the Friends of
Development proposal and recommending WIPO Member States to:

First - Amend the WIPO Convention to expressly incorporate A Development
Dimension consistent with WIPO obligations as a UN Agency

Second - consider the Elaboration of a Treaty on Access to Knowledge and
Technology

Third - establish an Independent WIPO Evaluation and Research Office

Fourth - adopt Principles and Guidelines for the Technical Assistance
Programme

Finally - to reform WIPO Norms and practices by adopting a work plan

to formulate and adopt principles and guidelines for norm-setting
activities in WIPO,

to undertake independent, evidence-based =93development impact
assessments=94 and

to ensure wider participation of public interest NGOs at WIPO, in
particular by establishing a system of holding public hearings prior to
the initiation of norm setting activities.

Even in the various WIPO Committees, these calls have been heard.

There is nothing novel in the FOD proposal, it merely concretizes the
numerous varied calls of governments and public interest NGOs into
specific action oriented proposals that should be taken by the General
Assembly.

All these events are also evidence of the unequivocal support for the
proposals put forward by the Friends of Development and strengthens the
premise on which it is based. These calls cannot simply be marginalized
or ignored by the developed countries.

A group under the guise of being a public interest NGO has said that IP
rights have been recognized at human rights but this is a misreading of
the existing international conventions.

The international Covenant on eco social and cultural right does
recognise rewarding intellectual contribution but does not specifically
mention =93IP rights=94. In fact it prioritizes the protection of public
domain by stating that =93everyone has the right to enjoy the benefits of
scieitific progress and to take part in cultural life=94. And we have
heard from the international libraries association that these rights are
being hampered by increasing IP rights.

This statement by the group in misreading international conventions and
the mandate of WIPO, evidences a deep lack of understanding the purpose
for which we are gathered here for and we think reinforces the urgent
and immediate need to adopt a declaration incorporating the development
dimension to guide WIPO in its work.

The EC and its 25 Member States have identified proposals that are =93ripe
for harvest=94. Of the proposals identified, they mostly relate to
technical assistance and the wider participation of civil society.

While at first sight, the proposal appears to be a step forward, we are
concerned that by limiting the discussion in the IIM process to only a
limited set of issues, other issues of equal or more importance will be
marginalized/sidelined and not given the immediate attention it deserves.

We are quite perplexed as to why there is resistance and in some cases
outright rejection of truly legitimate proposals put forward without any
substantive reason, such as proposals on the formation of WERO (which is
designed to increase transparency and enhance effectiveness of WIPO);
adoption of principles and guidelines for norm setting activities,
(which will ensure that NS exercises are consistent with the development
needs of countries and in the interest of public), adoption of a
declaration to reaffirm that WIPO=92s mandate includes development and
proposals on development impact assessments.

A developed country delegation even rejected a treaty on =93Access to
Knowledge and Technology=94 and we find such outright rejection to be
detestable.

We must stress that failure by Member States to move forward on these
proposals would mean that they have rejected legitimate objectives to
increase transparency within WIPO, make it more member-driven, increase
access to knowledge, improve and adopt assessment mechanisms, inject
principles of neutrality and balance in WIPO=92s activities and cultivate
a =93development culture=94 within WIPO