[A2k] South countries upset that new WIPO budget downplays development

[Sangeeta]

TWN Info Service on Intellectual Property Issues (Dec08/02)
9 December 2008
Third World Network
www.twnside.org.sg

WIPO:  South countries upset that new WIPO budget downplays development
SUNS #6606 Tuesday 9 December 2008


Geneva, 5 Dec (Sangeeta Shashikant) A controversy is brewing on the
priorities and future direction of the World Intellectual Property
Organisation, which may emerge in the open at meetings of WIPO on 10 to 12
December.

The controversy is over the immediate two-year budget and programme of the
organization.  The underlying issues are whether resources are being
prioritized to have WIPO operate =B3business as usual=B2 in promoting
intellectual property, or whether priority will be given to operationalisin=
g
the decisions to make WIPO development-oriented, by placing IPR matters in
the context of the public interest, especially the development of developin=
g
countries.

Officials of several developing countries are concerned about the =B3Revise=
d
Program and Budget 2008/2009=B2 (Revised P&B) recently issued by the WIPO
Secretariat. This document will be discussed at the meeting of the WIPO and
Program and Budget Committee (PBC) on 10-11 December, to be followed by an
extraordinary session of the WIPO General Assembly on 12 December.

The officials, as well as independent analysts, are concerned that the
Revised P&B (WIPO document WO/PBC/13/4) pays lip-service to development
issues in particular the implementation of the Development Agenda (DA), a
programme initiated by many developing countries to reform WIPO to be more
development-oriented as well as the significant substantive and budgetary
changes presented in the Revised P&B in relation to the Strategic Goals, th=
e
programs under the goals and the short period within which members are
expected to consider these changes.

A South Centre analysis estimates that the budget share for development
activities is decreased by about 15.5% in the Revised P&B in comparison to
the P&B approved at the WIPO General Assembly in March (GA/44/2). An
independent analyst based in a developing country, who has been following
WIPO developments, after comparing the approved and the revised budgets,
said that the priorities identified by Mr Francis Gurry, the new WIPO
Director General, on the face of it, look impressive.

=B3But if one were to examine these in depth and consider its implications,=
 it
may not be so for the developing countries.  He wants to enhance the
=B3quality and responsiveness of its services=B2 to IP owners; enhance skil=
l
base of the WIPO=B9s patent offices and focus on technical mission for the
benefit of IP owners and engage in policy issues involving IP such as
harmonization of patent laws.=B2

=B3These are indeed the agenda of trilaterals (particularly USA and UK)
promoting interests of IP owners and questioning the push for the
Development Agenda by the developing countries. The revision of the budget
indicates an attempt, in a hurry, to change the WIPO for the benefit of
either developed country member states or IP owners.=B2

One concern is that the Revised P&B does not clearly reflect how resources
will be allocated for the delivery of the five Development Agenda
recommendations that were adopted in the second session of the Committee of
Development and IP (CDIP).  In addition, while the programs in the Revised
P&B make an effort to link to the various DA recommendations, often the
section on expected results, performance indicators and targets makes no
mention of how the implementation of the DA will be achieved and evaluated.

The Revised P&B proposes approaching implementation of DA recommendations o=
n
a =B3project basis=B2 which some delegates and analysts speculate will unde=
rmine
the intent and purpose of the =B3Development agenda=B2 initiative.

Further, Annex V of the Revised P&B suggests significant resources being
allocated to development activities in 20 programs, although the narratives
of the programs indicate a weak link and sometimes no link to development
activities.

=B3Program and Budget=B2 is a critical document as it sets out WIPO=B9s str=
ategic
goals, objectives and budget over a 2-year period (biennium).  The changes
introduced in the Revised P&B goes far beyond what had been agreed by membe=
r
states when approving the transitional P&B at the WIPO General Assembly in
March.

The Revised P&B was supposed to only reflect adjustments required to take
into account adoption of decisions on the agreed proposals relating to WIPO
Development Agenda, amendment of fees under the Patent Cooperation Treaty
and the report on the WIPO Desk-to-Desk assessment. The approved P&B was
agreed to only after months of discussion and negotiation.

Some developing countries had already raised concerns at various informal
consultations and briefings held by Mr. Gurry at the end of October, prior
to the official release of the Revised P&B.  Several diplomats complain tha=
t
many of the concerns raised are not incorporated in the Revised P&B.

Diplomatic sources say that Mr. Gurry, has been busy meeting many
Ambassadors in an attempt to get their agreement to his Revised P&B.  An
Asian delegate termed it as =B3building political momentum and clout=B2 for=
 the
adoption of the budget.

The Revised P&B redefines and reprioritizes WIPO=B9s Strategic Goals. It al=
so
expands the goals by adding several additional Strategic goals and
establishes 3 new areas of program activity and introduces other significan=
t
substantive and budgetary changes to the programs under each Strategic Goal=
.
The rationale for these changes according to the Revised P&B is so as not t=
o
lose time in =B3taking forward the process of organisation change=B2.

But several developing countries are alarmed by the changes presented in th=
e
Revised P&B. An African delegate following this issue closely said it was
unacceptable that Gurry had given members less than a month to consider suc=
h
significant changes.

He felt that Gurry could have introduced these changes next year, when the
program and budget would be prepared for 2010/2011, giving members more tim=
e
to discuss and analyse his proposals for what Gurry calls =B3strategic
realignment=B2 of WIPO.

One particular area of dissatisfaction among developing countries is the
expanded, redefined, re-prioritized Strategic goals. These goals set out ho=
w
WIPO sees itself achieving its mission and will form the core of a Medium
Term Strategic Plan for 2010-2015, which will be developed in parallel with
the 2010/11 program and budget.

The Revised P&B lists 9 Strategic Goals: Balanced Evolution of Internationa=
l
Normative Framework for IP (Goal 1); provision of Premier Global IP Service=
s
(Goal 2); Facilitating the Use of IP for Sustainable Development (Goal 3);
Coordination and Development of Global IP Infrastructure (Goal 4); World
Reference Source of IP Information and Analysis (Goal 5); International
Cooperation of Building Respect for IP (Goal 6); Addressing IP in Relation
to Global Policy Issues (Goal 7); Responsive Communication Interface betwee=
n
WIPO, its Member States and All stakeholders (Goal 8) and Efficient
Administrative and Financial Support Structure to Enable WIPO to Deliver it=
s
Programs (Goal 9). Goals 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 are the newly added goals.

The 9 goals subsume the previous 5 goals in the approved P&B i.e. Promoting
a Balanced IP system and Realizing its Development Potential (Goal 1);
Strengthening of IP infrastructure, institutions and Human resources (Goal
2); Progressive Development of International IP Law (Goal 3); delivery of
quality service in Global IP protection (goal 4) and Greater efficiency of
management and administrative support processes (Goal 5).

It is noteworthy that Gurry has re-prioritised =B3norm-setting=B2 (which wa=
s
Goal 3 in the transitional approved P&B) as the first goal of the
organization, with WIPO as the provider of =B3premier global IP services=B2=
 as
the second goal.

A positive element in the elaboration on goal 1 related to =B3norm-setting=
=B2 is
that it states =B3All programs and activities conducted under this Goal wil=
l
be guided by the recommendations adopted in Cluster B of the Development
Agenda=B2. Cluster B of the Development Agenda pertains =B3Norm-setting,
flexibilities, public policy and public domain=B2.

The revised P&B has also introduced a specific goal on enforcement of IPRs,
which is a major priority of developed countries.  This is couched as
=B3International Cooperation on Building Respect for IP=B2, an indication t=
hat
WIPO will be aggressively following up with the G8 agenda on IP enforcement=
.
This issue was merely a program called =B3enforcement of IPR=B2 under Goal =
2 of
the transitional approved P&B.

The elaboration of the goal =B3Facilitating the use of IP for sustainable
development=B2 seems to indicate that thinking about WIPO=B9s mission has
essentially not changed. It states that as a member of the UN family,  =B3W=
IPO
is committed to ensuring that all countries are able to benefit from the us=
e
of intellectual property for economic, cultural and social development=B2 a=
nd
it speaks of =B3using IP to contribute to the realization of the Millennium
Development Goals=B2.

It makes assumptions about the value of IP and fails to appreciate the
often-heard arguments of the proponents of =B3Development Agenda=B2 that wh=
ile
IP protection may in particular circumstances promote creativity and
innovation it is neither the only way nor necessarily the most appropriate
means for doing so, especially for developing countries.

Further it does not appreciate that WIPO should consider alternative
non-intellectual property-type systems for fostering creativity, innovation
and the transfer of technology, while recognizing the benefits and costs of
each system including the economic and social costs that IP protection may
impose on developing and least developed countries, as well as on consumers
of knowledge and technology in both the North and the South.

The elaboration also misrepresents the agreement between UN and WIPO as to
WIPO=B9s responsibility as a specialized agency as being focused on IP, whe=
n
in actual fact, the mandate is broader ie. =B3for promoting creative
intellectual activity and for facilitating the transfer of  technology
related to industrial property to the developing countries in order to
accelerate economic, social and cultural development, subject to the
competence and responsibilities of the United Nations and its organs.=B2.

The choice of the term =B3sustainable development=B2 in the new goal is als=
o
surprising, leading an expert to say that it is also sometimes used to set
limits or conditions on the developing world.

While the Revised P&B claims to have a =B3strong focus on development,
including the mainstreaming of the development dimension throughout the
substantive programs=B2, analysis reveals that it merely pays =B3lip-servic=
e=B2 to
incorporating the development dimension in its programs.

Although the Revised P&B adds that =B3the successful implementation of the
Development Agenda is a top priority for the new Administration=B2, it fail=
s
to elaborate on how financial and human resources will be made available to
implement the 5 DA recommendations agreed in the Committee on Development
and IP (WO/GA/36/A Rev. Annex II).  The Revised P&B only presents a matrix
that indicates under which programs the 5 recommendations will be
implemented, adding that the issue of how resources are to be allocated wil=
l
be made available to Member states prior to the PBC.

In addition, =B3in order to ensure that sufficient resources are made
available to achieve the results expected=B2 in relation to DA, the
Secretariat proposes in the Revised P&B adopting a =B3project-based
methodology to the implementation of the adopted Development Agenda
recommendations=B2.

Many delegations are worried about the implications of such an approach.
Once a project is completed, it would be hailed as the successful
implementation of DA. This  undermines the broader objective of the DA, tha=
t
WIPO should re-orient its activities in the context of the broader
development-oriented mandate of the UN, moving away from the current cultur=
e
of =B3IP promotion=B2 that prevails within the organization. Such a reform =
would
need a vision of implementation that goes beyond a =B3project=B2 approach.

Another approach for the successful implementation of the Development Agend=
a
according to the Revised P&B is =B3mainstreaming development-related
activities into the substantive programs of the Organization=B2, a call oft=
en
made by developing countries.

In Annex V of the Revised P&B, details of resources allocated to developmen=
t
activities are presented. The Annex implies that resources for development
activities have been allocated in 20 programs of WIPO, totaling 116.5
million Swiss francs.

However a closer analysis of the Annex V and the programs=B9 narratives
reveals a different picture.

For example, in Annex V, 2.9 million swiss francs is set aside for =B3Build=
ing
respect for IP=B2 as a =B3Development Activity=B2. The narrative on this pr=
ogram
is largely focused IP enforcement matters, with performance targets that
include formulation of IP enforcement strategies and new or updated
legislative framework for effective IP enforcement, more efficient
enforcement actions in member states with improved right holder
participation and strengthened strategic partnerships (with the World
Customs Organization (WCO), Interpol, the World Health Organisation, OECD
and the WTO). Nowhere does it state that its work will be within the
confines of the TRIPS Agreement.

At a time when developing countries are resisting the expansion of IP
enforcement measures (particularly those that go beyond the TRIPS), in the
WCO, WHO, WTO, it is incredible how the WIPO Secretariat presents resources
for =B3Building respect for IP=B2 as resources allocated for  =B3developmen=
t
activity=B2.

Annex V also presents the new program on =B3Economic Studies, Statistics an=
d
Analysis=B2, allocated 1.58 million swiss francs, as a =B3Development Activ=
ity=B2.
The programme will include collection of statistical indicators for the WIP=
O
Database and for its reports. It is difficult to justify classifying
collecting statistics as a =B3development activity=B2.

The South Centre=B9s analysis says it is not clear how most of the figures
mentioned in Annex V were arrived at and that the expected results and
performance indicators of the 20 programs are weak with respect to the
claimed development activities. In some cases a program (as seen in the cas=
e
of =B3Building respect for IP=B2), has no link to development.

The Centre estimated that the budget share for development activities is
decreased by about 15.5% in the Revised P&B in comparison to the approved
P&B (without accounting for resources allocated in the approved P&B to othe=
r
programs bearing budget costs for participation of developing country and
economies in transition to Committee meetings).

The Revised P&B makes significant changes to the programs. They include (1)
eliminating the programme on =B3Use of IP for Development=B2, (2) establish=
ing 3
new programs (Development Agenda coordination; economic studies and
statistics and IP and Global Challenges); (3) regrouping copyright-related
programs under a single expanded Copyright and Related Rights program; (4)
expanding patent law program to cover patents, innovation promotion and
technology transfer and (5) significantly reducing resources for the WIPO
academy.

One major criticism is that the elaboration of the programs focuses mainly
on promoting intellectual property norms and related capacity building and
infrastructure, with little on addressing =B3development concerns=B2.

For example, in relation to the program on =B3Patents, Innovation Promotion
and Technology Transfer=B2, the objective is =B3Progressive development of
international patent law and practice=B2, although it adds that =B3balances=
 the
interests of Member states, users and society as a whole=B2.

The expected results, performance indicators and targets revolve around
developing the international patent system including by increasing
membership to patent related WIPO administered treaties, greater awareness
of the patent system and its role in economic development, reduction of
redundant functionalities in the patent system and enhancing capacity of
member states for national patent strategies and to acquire and manage
patent assets.

However it does not show clearly in the expected performance indicators or
targets how it intends to ensure a patent system that is balanced. It also
uncritically accepts that the increase in worldwide patent applications
shows the success of the patent system and implies benefits of the patent
system in delivering transfer of technology and innovation for developing
countries, a notion challenged by many experts.

The South Centre analysis found that while mention is made to specific
Development Agenda recommendations, the expected result, performance
indicators and target of many of the programs do not indicate measures that
will be taken to implement the recommendations nor is a mechanism provided
in the programs to evaluate whether a program at the end of the biennium ha=
s
actually been implemented according to the DA recommendation.




------ End of Forwarded Message