[A2k] Development Agenda discussions focus on costing of consultants and business analysts

[Thiru Balasubramaniam]

http://www.keionline.org/index.php?option=3Dcom_jd-wp&Itemid=3D39&p=3D125

Thiru, from Geneva | WIPO Development Agenda
Development Agenda discussions focus on costing of consultants and
business analysts
July 8th, 2008 by Thiru Balasubramaniam

The second session of the the WIPO Committee on Development and
Intellectual Property (CDIP) is meeting this week in Geneva (July
7-11, 2008). The first meeting of this development committee (March
2008) examined Cluster A (Technical Assistance and Capacity Building)
of the 45 approved Development Agenda recommendations. In particular,
the March session of the CDIP considered recommendations 1, 2, 5, 8, 9
and 10 of the Development Agenda and requested with respect to
recommendation 1 to =E2=80=9Cfurnish a progress report=E2=80=9D in time for=
 the
July CDIP. With respect to recommendations 2, 5, 8, 9 and 10 the
committee =E2=80=9Cbroadly agreed that the proposed activities, as suitably
modified following the discussions, would be sent to the Secretariat
to assess the human and financial resource requirements before the
July 2008 session of the CDIP=E2=80=9D. If what you have read so far appear=
s
soporific, it would not be an inaccurate reflection of the discussions
thus far. However what is really at stake is how the holistic, cross-
cutting principles of the Development Agenda will be implemented and
the discussions on costing are a proxy debate over whether the
Development Agenda morphs into an inert, shadow of itself or whether
it transforms into a tangible, dynamic reality.

The following recommendations (1, 2, 5, 8, 9 and 10) are under
discussion.

     1. WIPO technical assistance shall be, inter alia,
development=E2=80=91oriented, demand=E2=80=91driven and transparent, taking=
 into
account the priorities and the special needs of developing countries,
especially LDCs, as well as the different levels of development of
Member States and activities should include time frames for
completion. In this regard, design, delivery mechanisms and evaluation
processes of technical assistance programs should be country specific.

     2. Provide additional assistance to WIPO through donor funding,
and establish Trust=E2=80=91Funds or other voluntary funds within WIPO
specifically for LDCs, while continuing to accord high priority to
finance activities in Africa through budgetary and extra=E2=80=91budgetary
resources, to promote, inter alia, the legal, commercial, cultural,
and economic exploitation of intellectual property in these countries.

     5. WIPO shall display general information on all technical
assistance activities on its website, and shall provide, on request
from Member States, details of specific activities, with the consent
of the Member State(s) and other recipients concerned, for which the
activity was implemented.

     8. Request WIPO to develop agreements with research institutions
and with private enterprises with a view to facilitating the national
offices of developing countries, especially LDCs, as well as their
regional and sub=E2=80=91regional IP organizations to access specialized
databases for the purposes of patent searches.

     9. Request WIPO to create, in coordination with Member States, a
database to match specific IP=E2=80=91related development needs with
available resources, thereby expanding the scope of its technical
assistance programs, aimed at bridging the digital divide.

     10. To assist Member States to develop and improve national IP
institutional capacity through further development of infrastructure
and other facilities with a view to making national IP institutions
more efficient and promote fair balance between IP protection and the
public interest. This technical assistance should also be extended to
sub=E2=80=91regional and regional organizations dealing with IP.

Recommendation 2 enjoyed detailed discussions on its implementation.
In particular, the Secretariat proposed =E2=80=9C10 missions to existing an=
d
potential donor countries/institutions, to promote and discuss the
establishment of further donor arrangements or the enhancement or
current arrangements=E2=80=9D which anticipated a cost of 50,000 Swiss
francs. In addition, a =E2=80=9CDonor Conference (which includes financing
the participation of a number of developing country representatives=E2=80=
=9D.
This =E2=80=9Ccould be organized in 2008-2009 and represent an opportunity =
to
apprise donors about the adopted recommendations under the WIPO
Development Agenda=E2=80=9D. The financial implications of this Donor
Conference is anticipated at 140, 000 Swiss francs. Although this was
welcomed by developing countries, France (on behalf of the European
Communities and its Member States) and the United States were
reluctant to embrace the Donor Conference. In particular, the United
States noted that its reluctance stemmed from the lack of clarity on
the methodology on costing the conference. Japan reaffirmed its view
that a Donor Conference would be premature.

On recommendation 5 calling upon WIPO to provide information on its
website on all technical assistance activities, costing included
150,000 CHF (Swiss francs) for a project coordinator, 150,000 CHF for
a business analyst, and 178,000 CHF for a staff =E2=80=9Cmember responsible
for the maintaining and updating of the database and dedicated to
collecting & packaging information/data=E2=80=9D.

With respect to recommendations 8, 9 and 10, there is a lot more
detailed human and financial resources requirements data that
unfortunately are not available online; hopefully the International
Bureau will make this available on a timely basis.

At the onset of the CDIP meeting yesterday, Pakistan, India and
Thailand made astute observations on the state of play with respect to
the Development Agenda. As coordinator of the Asian Group, Pakistan
stressed that the Member States must not be complacent and asserted
that development should not be compartmentalized but mainstreamed. The
Asian Group expressed its desire that WIPO allocate appropriate
financial resources to implement all 45 Development Agenda
recommendations and emphasized the need for immediate implementation
of the 19 recommendations which would have no financial implications
for the International Bureau.

Deputy Permanent Representative Mohinder Singh Grover (India) noted
that it was =E2=80=9Cgratifying to know that WIPO embraced the development
dimension, a pillar of the UN system, albeit belatedly.=E2=80=9D In India=
=E2=80=99s
view, the cluster dealing with norm-setting recommendations is a set
of cross-cutting principles; consequently, the CDIP should not be
viewed as a dust bin of =E2=80=9Cdevelopment concerns=E2=80=9D.

H.E Sihasak Phuangketkeow (Thailand) noted that

     because the Development Agenda is an overarching issue that
transcends specific projects and activities, the work plan of the CDIP
must, therefore, be developed on the basis of the overall needs in
developing the intellectual property system. This should also coincide
with the social and economic development policies of each country so
as to maximize its impact and flexibility on implementation=E2=80=A6.[f]rom
the revised text, we take note of the human resource and financial
requirements for some of the recommendations. Yet we believe it is
difficult for us to agree piecemeal to a budget for the
recommendations in Cluster A, without knowing first of all whether
knowing first of all whether sufficient funds will be available for
other clusters.

     Lastly, we cannot emphasize enough the importance of
mainstreaming the work of the WIPO Development Agenda into the
activities of other WIPO committees and avoiding any
compartmentalization of our work. As we have witnessed during the
Standing Committee on the Law of Patents, the SCP also discussed
issues such as public policy objectives and norm-setting activities
related to the CDIP. It is apparent that the Development Agenda does
not exist in a vacuum, but in reality, it is an integral part of WIPO
activities and not confined solely to the discussions here.

     Finally, Mr. Chairman, it is clearly recognized that intellectual
property no longer involves just rule setting and enforcement
management. Rather, it is a vital key to our social and economic
development. Therefore, the work that we are undertaking in this forum
represents the share aspirations of the majority of Members. For this
reason, it is incumbent upon us to ensure that the Development Agenda
is embraced fully by all and carried forward, in all its dimensions=E2=80=
=9D.



------------------------------------------------------------


Thiru Balasubramaniam
Geneva Representative
Knowledge Ecology International (KEI)
thiru@keionline.org


Tel: +41 22 791 6727
Mobile: +41 76 508 0997