[A2k] IP-Watch: WIPO Committee Reaches Breakthrough Agreements On Development Agenda

[Thiru Balasubramaniam]

http://ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-trackback.php?p=3D655

15 June 2007

WIPO Committee Reaches Breakthrough Agreements On Development Agenda



By William New with Tove Iren S. Gerhardsen

A World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) committee negotiating
proposals this week for a stronger development focus at WIPO appeared
to be on track to finishing work by meeting=92s end Friday, though some
hurdles remained. At press time, breakthrough agreements had been
reached on contentious issues such as open collaborative projects,
intellectual property protection, and development impact assessments.

There have been six clusters of proposals, labelled A to F, under
discussion in the 11-15 Permanent Committee on Proposals for a WIPO
Development Agenda (PCDA). As of Friday afternoon, five were completed
and only one, on future work, was left under intensive negotiation. The
outcome of this meeting will be submitted as recommendations to the
annual WIPO General Assembly in September.

The final cluster, F, which addresses the next steps for the proposals
and the future of the PCDA after this year, was generating significant
debate and was expected to change, officials said. The meeting chair,
Barbados Ambassador Trevor Clarke, on Thursday drafted very preliminary
recommendations based on a brief discussion with members, he said. The
draft contained six items, including that there is agreement on the
proposals from this meeting and the previous PCDA meeting held in
February (IPW, WIPO, 23 February).

The draft chair=92s paper also recommended the establishment of a WIPO
Committee on Development for discussing IP and development issues and
to oversee implementation of the agreed proposals. The draft also
called for the PCDA mandate to be extended by one year in order to
initiate the work of the Development Committee. The PCDA would hold two
five-day meetings in 2008 and come up with a draft implementation plan,
including for financing and human resources.

The creation of such a committee would be understood to mean the end of
an existing committee, the Permanent Committee on Cooperation for
Development Related to Intellectual Property (PCIPD). The Group B
developed countries have sought to put the development issues in that
committee, while proponents of the Development Agenda have resisted out
of fear that the issues would wither there. A early non-paper from the
Friends of Development Group proposed to renew the mandate of the PCDA
for two years.

Open Collaborative Projects, But Not Open Source

Cluster D, on =93assessments, evaluation and impact studies,=94 was
completed by Friday morning. It states:

=931. To exchange experiences on open collaborative projects such as the
Human Genome Project as well as on IP models.

2. Upon request and as directed by Member States, WIPO may conduct
studies on the protection of intellectual property, to identify the
possible links and impacts between IP and development.

3. To strengthen WIPO=92s capacity to perform objective assessments of
the impact of the organization=92s activities on development.=94

The proposal on open collaborative projects had been moved from an
earlier cluster, and originally stated, =93To exchange experiences on
open collaborative projects for the development of public goods such as
the Human Genome Project and Open Source Software.=94 The reference to
public goods and open source software were removed under opposition,
apparently from Group B, and the broader and potentially more
=93balanced=94 reference to =93IP models=94 was added, sources said.

The proposal on studies on IP protection, also moved from an earlier
cluster, originated as, =93Study to evaluate the appropriate levels of
protection of intellectual property, to identify the links between IP
and development.=94

Another protection-related proposal was withdrawn by the Group B
developed countries after staunch opposition, sources said. It stated,
=93Increasing understanding of the adverse effect of counterfeiting and
piracy on economic development: Through the WIPO Advisory Committee on
Enforcement (ACE), conduct analyses of the relationship between high
rates of counterfeiting and intellectual property piracy and technology
transfer, foreign direct investment and economic growth.=94

The third agreed cluster D proposal, on impact assessments, appears to
reflect the dropping of an earlier proposal that would have taken steps
toward the creation of a WIPO Evaluation and Research Office to conduct
=93development impact assessments,=94 and a proposal encouraging the
=93continuous objective evaluation=94 of impact and costs of WIPO treaties,
especially for developing countries.

Also gone from cluster D was a proposal to help countries conduct
baseline surveys for economic growth.

Clusters C and E were finished late on Friday, according to sources.
Cluster C is on =93technology transfer, information and communication
technology and access to knowledge.=94 As of early Friday only a few
brackets (reflecting lack of agreement) were left in the cluster,
mainly on a proposal relating to collaboration with other
intergovernmental organisations on technologies to meet basic
development needs of developing countries =93aimed at protecting the
environment, health, promoting education and improving food security.=94

The agreed four paragraphs in this cluster now read:

=93To include discussions on IP-related technology transfer issues within
the mandate of an appropriate WIPO body,=94

=93WIPO should cooperate with other intergovernmental organisations to
provide to developing countries, including LDCs [least developed
countries], upon request, advice on how to gain access to and make use
of IP-related information on technology, particularly in areas of
special interest to the requesting parties,=94

=93To undertake initiatives agreed by member states which contribute to
transfer of technology to developing countries, such as requesting WIPO
to facilitate better access to publicly available patent information,=94
and

=93To have within WIPO opportunity for exchange of national and regional
experiences and information on the links between IP rights and
competition policies.=94

In cluster E, on =93institutional matters including mandate and
governance,=94 a proposal to establish a WIPO =93Partnership Office=94 for
evaluating technical assistance requests from members is no longer
included. Members also acted to keep negotiating meetings primarily in
Geneva. The agreed text in cluster E now reads:

=93To consider how to improve WIPO=92s role in finding partners to fund and
execute projects for IP-related assistance in a transparent and
member-driven process and without prejudice to ongoing WIPO
activities,=94

=93In accordance with WIPO=92s member-driven nature as a United Nations
Specialised Agency, formal and informal meetings or consultations
relating to norm-setting activities in WIPO; organised by the
International Bureau, upon request of member states, should be held
primarily in Geneva, in a manner open and transparent to all members.
Where such meetings are to take place outside of Geneva, member states
shall be informed through official channels, well in advance, and
consulted on the draft agenda and program.=94

In recent years, there has been concern about informal regional
meetings being held, with WIPO=92s involvement, that advanced
negotiations without the involvement of all members and outside of
Geneva, where countries have focused their resources for negotiations.

William New may be reached at wnew@ip-watch.ch.

---------------------------------
Thiru Balasubramaniam
Geneva Representative
Knowledge Ecology International (KEI)
voice +41.22.791.6727
fax +41.22.723.2988
mobile +41 76 508 0997
thiru@keionline.org