[A2k] SUNS: WIPO meeting discusses African and Colombian proposals

[Thiru Balasubramaniam]

Development: WIPO meeting discusses African and Colombian proposals

Geneva, 23 Feb (Sangeeta Shashikant) -- The second day of the meeting of the
WIPO's Provisional Committee on Proposals Related to a Development Agenda
(PCDA) discussed proposals of the Africa Group and Colombia.

Many aspects of the Africa Group proposal were in line with the proposal by 15
developing countries in the Group of Friends of Development (GFOD). It received
strong support from many developing countries. The Colombian proposal also
received strong support.

In informal consultations, the Chair, Ambassador Rigoberto GautoVielman of
Paraguay and the regional coordinators also discussed how to proceed with the
over 50 specific proposals that have been submitted by WIPO Members. One
suggestion was to cluster the proposals into specific categories.

The Africa Group, represented by Nigeria,  presented a new document containing a
summary of its proposals which were structured under 9 categories.

The first category is on Technical Assistance (TA). The Group proposes that TA
should be  development-oriented, demand-driven, targeted, with time-frames for
completion; to develop and improve national institutional capacity through
development of infrastructure; to strengthen national capacity for protection of
local creations; to provide increased assistance to WIPO through donor funding for
more activities in Africa; to develop an effective review and evaluation
mechanism; establish an independent development impact assessment relating to
TA, technology transfer and norm setting on developing countries and LDCs.

Under the second category on technology transfer, the Group proposes: the
development of criteria and methodology to select essential technologies and to
monitor the diffusion of such technologies; the relaxation of patent rules in the
area of technology; the creation of a new body for coordinating and assessing all
transfer of technology policies and strategies; the development and maintenance of
a list of essential technologies and know how, processes and methods for basic
development needs; and to facilitate the implementation of technology- related
provisions of Multilateral Environmental Agreements.

Under the third category "Reforming the Informal Sector in Africa", a study on
obstacles to IP protection in the informal sector is proposed, while under the fourth
category of "Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs)", the formulation of
ways and means for SMEs to use flexibilities in international agreements is
proposed.

Under the fifth category on "Information and Communication Technologies", it is
proposed that WIPO expand the scope of its activities aimed at bridging the digital
divide in accordance with the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information
Society in its future activities.

Under another category "Human Resources Development and Brain Drain", there
is a proposal to assist African countries create an appropriate legal and regulatory
framework in order to reverse the brain drain into brain gain.

Under the seventh category "Use of Flexibilities in International Instruments", it
requests WIPO to examine the flexibilities under the TRIPS Agreement and Doha
Summit decisions, giving practical advice on how to gain access to essential
medicines and food and elaborate a mechanism to facilitate access to knowledge
and technology.

The eighth category is on Norm Setting. The Africa Group proposes the adoption
of an internationally binding instrument on the protection of genetic resources,
traditional knowledge and folklore; elaboration on a mechanism to facilitate access
to knowledge and technology; formulation and adoption of measures designed to
improve the participation by civil society and other stakeholders in WIPO
activities.

The final category is on "Institutional Mandate". The Group proposes the
establishment of a trust fund for technical assistance for LDCs and for WIPO to
intensify its cooperation with all UN agencies.

Members of the GFOD, such as Egypt, saw the Africa Group proposal as
complementary. Other developing countries stressed the importance of some of the
proposals to WIPO under the heading of technical assistance, technology transfer,
the use of flexibilities in international instruments, norm setting and institutional
mandate.

In particular, references were made on the need to establish an independent
development impact assessment of the technical assistance that is being and will
be provided by WIPO; to develop appropriate measures to facilitate technology
transfer, including the relaxation of patent rules; for WIPO to assist developing
and least-developed countries to use the flexibilities available in the international
instrument; to adopt an international instrument to deal with the problem of
bio-piracy and an instrument to facilitate access to knowledge; to improve civil
society participation in WIPO activities; and for WIPO to intensify cooperation
with all UN agencies that deal with development issues.

Argentina Ambassador Alberto Dumont, on behalf of the GFOD, said that
common to both proposals is the view that developing countries need to integrate
the development of IP to ensure that it is not a barrier to the social and economic
policies of these countries.

He added that the African proposal especially acknowledges the proposal of the
GFOD, and he was pleased with the degree of convergence of both proposals
which are complementary and mutually supportive.

Malaysia supported the proposal on the use of flexibilities in international
instruments and the need to intensify cooperation with all UN agencies. It also
supported the proposal on how technical assistance should be delivered.

Austria, on behalf of the EU, supported the first two proposals in the category of
technical assistance. It agreed that WIPO should play a role in the transfer of
technology, so far that it was related to IP and that it should provide advice on
flexibilities in the TRIPS Agreement. It also said that the issue of brain drain goes
beyond IP, but indicated that protecting IP will discourage creators from leaving
the country.

The US supported the call for increased assistance to WIPO by donor countries for
technical assistance as well as bilateral technical assistance in Africa, the request
for foreign patent information and the call to integrate the informal sector into
mainstream economies.

It did not believe that relaxation of patent rules will promote innovation. It agreed
that WIPO should assist to set up a regulatory framework to reduce the brain drain.
It favoured the WIPO Committee on Genetic Resources to continue its work, with
no outcome excluded. It also did not favour impact assessments for norm-setting.

Colombia said that it had great expectations that the Africa Group might be able to
link the Digital Solidarity Fund to WIPO activities. On brain drain, it stated that
although the issues go beyond the scope of WIPO, WIPO could contribute to the
reduction of this trend.

Brazil said it identified many of the ideas of the Africa Group proposal with many
elements in the GFOD document, adding that the proposal contains many items of
profound relevance to the Development Agenda.

On technical assistance, it said there was room for improving and fine-tuning of
the kind of assistance provided by WIPO to countries. Developing countries'
policy space has been reduced more than the space in developed countries, due to
international obligations.

Raising international IP protection with a one-size-fits-all approach has led to
inversion of logic to the Development Agenda. Stronger patents are being granted
in developing countries and weaker patents in developed countries. This needs to
be addressed in WIPO's norm-setting activities and not as a technical assistance
issue.

It said that conditions are not the same in developing countries, adding that
competition regulation is not the same, the consolidation of monopoly in
developing countries has broader consequences, and the levels of production of
science and its translation into marketable products does not happen in developing
countries. Thus, IP cannot be applied as if developing countries had the same
conditions as developed countries, Brazil said.

It expressed concern on the relationship between IPRs, their enforcement, and
human rights and said that this relationship should be a guiding principle of the
organizations. If agreements take away policy space, then developing countries
cannot take responsibility for putting in place solutions and laws that meet their
domestic needs. Brazil stressed that guidelines should be adopted for technical
assistance, which should also be demand-driven and include impact assessments.

Regarding technology transfer, it said that one of the means is facilitating access to
patent information. Relaxation of patent rules would be useful as norm-setting has
a major impact in developing countries. It agreed with the Africa Group proposal
of the need to address bio-piracy. This is a norm-setting agenda that developing
countries want, thus, the issue of disclosure of origin, benefit sharing, and prior
informed consent are relevant and should be dealt in a way that deals with IP here
in WIPO and in the WTO.

It also agreed with the Africa Group proposal on using flexibilities in international
instruments, adding that this should be part of WIPO's TA programme, as it is a
loss to developing countries that these flexibilities are not being made use of. On
norm-setting, it supported the concrete proposals on facilitating access to
knowledge which could also diversify WIPO's agenda.

India welcomed the efforts in clustering the proposals, stating that it is useful for
moving forward. It supported the proposal for an international binding instrument
on misappropriation. It also added that a technology transfer body could look into
making essential technology available to developing countries.

Pakistan called the Africa Group proposal "a comprehensive proposal in terms of
form and substance". It added that the proposal is in the true spirit of the DA,
containing specific suggestions on how to fill the gaps contained in the current IP
system.

On technical assistance, it supported the idea of independent development impact
assessments. On technology transfer, it said that it should be at affordable cost. It
was important to identify the flexibilities with regard to the IP system and make
them operable.

On the structure of the synopsis, Pakistan said that it lends an insight on how to
further the discussion. It said that Members need a structured approach, as they
have to deliver on a time-frame. Thus, what should be looked at is a first
assignment on what decisions could be taken early. It added that the approach
taken by the Africa Group is result-oriented, which can help in the adoption of an
approach in a larger discussion.

Colombia, in presenting its proposal, explained that it was aimed at facilitating the
basic work carried out by national patent offices which had limited resources for
assessing the "novelty" of the patent applications, so they need to be aided by other
resources such as private sector databases.

It said that commercially-owned databases can offer more benefit when searches
are being carried out in the national offices, as they are well structured, organised,
specific and efficient. It said that access to these databases would make it easier to
carry out the searches for "prior art".

It proposed that WIPO explore options to sign agreements with these companies to
enable developing countries to have access for a limited time amount each month
and at no costs. Alternatively, it proposed that WIPO could negotiate a reduced
tariff through a group/ bulk subscription for developing countries.

The proposal of Colombia was in principle supported by many countries, including
El Salvador, Panama, Chile, Azerbaijan, Peru and Kenya.

Austria, on behalf of the EU, welcomed the proposal and said that it underlines the
importance of patent search to grant high quality patents and that innovations must
be sufficiently inventive to merit the award of a patent. It requested Colombia to
elaborate on their proposal.

The US said that the financial implications of the proposal should be looked at. It
said that it supported all efforts to improve patent quality and that is why it was
supporting the process of harmonizing of patents standards taking place in the
discussion on the draft Substantive Patent Law Treaty.

Brazil called attention to the quality of patent examinations and the facilities of
national patent offices, which was one of the factors that led to the proposal to
establish a Development Agenda. It added that the proposal has some convergence
with the concerns put forward by the GFOD, including the concern of the quality
of patent examination which should be improved by widening the access to
information in the patent system. It encouraged Colombia to widen its proposal
and devise a study on the quality of information in the patent system.

Nigeria welcomed the Colombian proposal. It said that entering into bilateral
negotiations with private institutions is rather costly and so it was important to
bring it up here for consideration and implementation. It also said that it would be
more cost-effective for WIPO to establish such arrangements.
+