[A2k] Bridges Weekly: WIPO Development Agenda Meeting Breaks down over Chair's text

[Thiru Balasubramaniam]

Volume 10
Number 24
5 July 2006

http://www.ictsd.org/weekly/06-07-05/story1.htm

WIPO DEVELOPMENT AGENDA MEETING BREAKS DOWN OVER CHAIR'S TEXT

Members of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) have
failed to agree on how to proceed with embedding a 'Development Agenda'
in the functioning of the global intellectual property body. A draft set
of recommendations, prepared by the chair of the WIPO committee mandated
with carrying the process forward, upset several developing countries
during last week's discussions, and left the membership divided. This
means that WIPO's General Assembly, the organisation's top
decision-making body, will determine the future of the Development
Agenda when it meets in September.

The Provisional Committee on Proposals Related to a WIPO Development
Agenda (PCDA) had been mandated to come up with recommendations for the
General Assembly, based on the hundred-plus submissions members have
made. Members are divided both on the content of these proposals and the
process for addressing them, which contributed to the early end to the
26-30 June session.

During the meeting, PCDA Chair Ambassador Rigoberto Gauto Vielman
(Paraguay) put forward a controversial draft recommendations text
containing a "selection of proposals" on which he deemed consensus
possible. However, several developing country delegations rejected the
chair's text, arguing that it disproportionately reflected submissions
supported by developed countries. They argued that the paper constituted
a move to dilute the Development Agenda process.

The Development Agenda negotiations started in September 2004, and have
been pushed by the 'friends of development' (FoD)*, a group of fifteen
developing countries calling for considerations about the impact of
intellectual property on developing economies to be incorporated into
every aspect of WIPO's activities (see BRIDGES Weekly, 5 October 2005,
http://www.ictsd.org/weekly/05-10-05/story2.htm; and BRIDGES Weekly, 13
April 2005, http://www.ictsd.org/weekly/05-04-13/story1.htm). The FoD
were among the most vocal critics of Gauto Vielman's draft text.

PCDA got off to uneasy start

In the run-up to last week's PCDA, Gauto Vielman and individual member
states proposed various approaches for how to move the Development
Agenda proposals forward.

As no consensus could be found on how to proceed, the FoD prepared a
summary of their proposals and suggestions on how the PCDA could arrive
at concrete recommendations for action (PCDA/2/2, 23 June 2006). Their
proposals dealt with issues including the establishment of
pro-development rule-making principles; the reaffirmation of WIPO
members' commitment to UN objectives and principles (including
development-related ones); the adoption of guidelines for the provision
of technical assistance; the functioning of the WIPO Secretariat; the
promotion of alternative innovation models; the protection of the public
domain and access to knowledge; and the incorporation of competition
rules in the IP system.

The PCDA proved unable to find a solution for addressing existing
proposals. From the outset of the session, the FoD's summary of
proposals was opposed by developed 'Group B' countries as well as
Central European members, which argued that it added new issues to an
already complicated discussion. FoD countered that it was simply a
factual summary of existing proposals made in order to facilitate
comments by other members.

Chair's text as the center of controversy

After the rejection of the FoD proposal, countries began addressing
different proposals. Most countries just indicated those proposals on
which they felt some consensus could be found, either at once, or with
some clarification or discussion. It was not immediately clear where
this process was leading, or what would happen to the proposals that
were not mentioned.

The previous PCDA meeting had seen a basic difference on how to address
controversial proposals. Developed countries wanted such proposals not
to be discussed. Developing countries generally disagreed, arguing that
the entire purpose of the exercise was to discuss all of the proposals
in an attempt to build consensus on them (see BRIDGES Weekly, 1 March
2006, http://www.ictsd.org/weekly/06-03-01/story2.htm)

On the fourth day of the meeting, Gauto Vielman decided to put forward a
text that only included the proposals that enjoyed a high level of
consensus. The chair's text organized proposals into the following
categories: a) technical assistance and capacity building; b)
norm-setting and flexibilities; c) public policy and public domain,
technology transfer; d) information and communication technology, and
access to knowledge; and, e) assessment, evaluation and impact studies.
Notably, by only including proposals that enjoyed a high level of
consensus, the text effectively filtered out the more controversial
proposals likely to lead to substantial reform at WIPO, for example,
those calling for the organisation's rule-making role to be separated
from its technical assistance functions.

Members' reactions to the chair's text were both mixed and heated.
Industrialised countries, in which the bulk of the world's intellectual
property assets are held, broadly expressed support for it. Switzerland
on behalf of Group B, Austria for the European Commission, and Croatia
on behalf of Central European countries said that the chair's text could
be a good basis for continuing work on the Development Agenda.
Switzerland also mentioned that the PCDA had already cost over 1 million
Swiss francs without providing results, a remark that most developing
countries found unwelcome and inappropriate.

In contrast, FoD leaders Brazil and Argentina described the chair's text
as biased and unbalanced. They pointed out that the proposals reflected
primarily those which were supported by Group B developed countries, and
argued that the text was therefore effectively transforming the
Development Agenda into an agenda of developed countries rather than
developing ones. They added that the text was an example of precisely
the kind of behaviour the proponents of the Development Agenda were
trying to move away from with their call for a decision-making process
that is not primarily driven by the interests of developed countries.
Therefore, they said, it ought not to be the basis for any work in the
PCDA.

Negotiators from both Brazil and Argentina indicated that they had
explicit instructions from their capitals to not continue the process on
the basis of the chair's text. In light of the deadlock in the PCDA,
they requested that all of the country proposals related to the
Development Agenda be sent directly to the September General Assembly.
Fellow FoD member South Africa also indicated its disappointment with
the way the process was going, and said that it could not continue
discussions on the basis of the chair's proposal. Some Arab and African
developing countries, however, felt that Brazil and Argentina were
overreacting to the chair's text, and could have been more flexible.

The African Group and the Asian Group did not support the chairman's
text and called for exploring different options and continuing the work.
Individual comments by India, Iran, and Chile indicated that the lack of
balance in the text was important. They called for a more inclusive
process and a better attitude toward different proposals, in particular
those from developing countries.

Efforts to broker an agreement proved unsuccessful. In concluding
remarks about the collapse of the PCDA, countries continued to differ
over the future of Gauto Vielman's text and whether it should be passed,
along with members' proposals, to the General Assembly.

In a surprise move, the Kyrgyz Republic, whose ambassador had been
co-chairing the meeting, submitted a last-minute proposal (PCDA/2/3, 30
June 2006) that simply reproduced the chair's text word-for-word. Given
the lack of time remaining, Gauto Vielman announced that this proposal
-- now an official country submission -- could not be further discussed
and that it would go, along with the other documents, to the General
Assembly.

Some civil society actors felt that the Kyrgyz proposal would deepen the
existing divide, and was an example of the need to reform policymaking
processes at WIPO to ensure that all countries' concerns are taken into
account.

*Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt,
Iran, Kenya, Peru, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania, Uruguay and
Venezuela.

ICTSD reporting; "WIPO Development Agenda Talks End With No Agreement
For Now," INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY WATCH, 30 June 2006.