[A2k] TWN INFO: Concerns over WIPO Secretariat's approach to Development Agenda

[Sangeeta]

WIPO: Concerns over Secretariat's approach to Development Agenda

SUNS #6692 Monday 4 May 2009

Geneva, 30 Apr (Sangeeta Shashikant) -- Many Member States of the World
Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) on Wednesday raised concerns over
the method of work proposed by the WIPO Secretariat concerning the
implementation of the Development Agenda recommendations.

These concerns, voiced at the third session of the Committee on Development
and Intellectual Property (CDIP), bogged down the committee to an extensive
discussion about procedural matters, thus preventing the committee from
moving ahead with substantive discussions on the Development Agenda (DA)
recommendations.

The CDIP, which was established by the WIPO General Assembly in 2007, has
been tasked with developing a work programme for the implementation of the
adopted recommendations -- monitoring, assessing, discussing and reporting
on the implementation of all the recommendations adopted, and for that
purpose, coordinating with the relevant WIPO bodies, and discussing
intellectual property and development-related issues as agreed by the
Committee, as well as those decided by the WIPO General Assembly (GA).

The first session of the CDIP took place from 3-7 March 2008, while the
second CDIP session took place from 7-11 July 2008. The third session is
currently taking place from 27 April-1 May 2009.

The differences were over the "Thematic Project" (CDIP/3/4) approach
presented by the WIPO Secretariat during the CDIP meeting.

According to the WIPO Secretariat, the rationale for the approach includes
concerns about duplication and overlap in the recommendations as well as
delegations requesting for further details on the Secretariat's proposed
activities.

The thematic project approach breaks down the 45 recommendations of the
Development Agenda adopted at the 2007 WIPO General Assembly into principles
and actions. The recommendations identified as actions are further divided
into several projects.

The themes for the projects include "IP and Public Domain", "IP and
Competition", "IP, ICTs and the Digital Divide", "Technology Transfer",
"Patent Information", "Impact Assessment of WIPO Dev. Activities", "IP and
Economic and Social Development", "Open Collaborative Projects", "IP and
Brain Drain".

The Thematic Project document prepared by the Secretariat provides a
description of the project, introduction to the issue/concern, objectives,
delivery strategy, project outputs, project objectives, outcome indicators
etc. Each project has a project manager who is to report to the CDIP on the
implementation of the project.

However, several developing countries voiced concerns with regards to the
Thematic Project approach proposed by the Secretariat.

Among the concerns raised were that: (i) the implementation of the DA should
be member state driven, i.e. that member states should provide inputs for
the preparation of any thematic project; (ii) the project should not be seen
as an end in itself; (iii) the thematic project's attempts to reinterpret or
impose a particular interpretation of the Recommendations; (iv) the
principles were not being considered as actionable; (v) the issues and
objectives of the projects did not reflect the content of the
recommendations.

These concerns led to a protracted discussion on the Thematic Projects and
conditions that should be attached to any discussion on the projects.

Thailand cautioned that the project should reflect all aspects of the
recommendations and that the objectives should be flexible to cater for any
additional requirement. It added that the objectives should be realistic and
the outcome accountable and accomplishable, as well as that the projects
should suit the economic development conditions of each of the countries.

Costa Rica, on behalf of the GRULAC (Latin American and Caribbean)
countries, laid out conditions for discussing the thematic projects, i.e.
there should be no reinterpretation of the Recommendations; the
modifications sought by countries should be reflected in the project
document; if the implementation stage of a project is completed, this does
not mean that the recommendations are concluded; that sufficient budgetary
funds be made available for the thematic projects.

Costa Rica added that the budget of the project should not reflect the costs
of participation of staff that are already working in the organisation. This
was in response to the Secretariat's approach of reflecting personnel costs
for the DA although the personnel were not necessarily fresh personnel.

Nigeria expressed concerns over the differentiation between principles and
actionable recommendations, as this suggests that the principles were not
actionable.

Egypt stressed that in the treatment of the 45 recommendations, there should
be no amendment of the intention of member states. It added that some
recommendations had elements of principles but this did not mean that they
were not actionable.

India stressed that while the project approach contained more information,
member states had to remain conscious that it was a tool and not the goal,
and that the desired goal was the substance of each of the recommendations.
India stressed on the need to focus on individual recommendations. It also
said that principles were actionable and they had to be implemented and
mainstreamed.

Brazil requested that the methodology take into account that the DA is a
member-driven process. It stressed the importance of member states taking
the leadership in the implementation of the recommendations. It added that
if the Secretariat's approach was taken up, then there would need to be
conditions and guidelines that must address the various problems raised by
member states. It also said that recommendations must be discussed before
the project and that member states should not put the cart before the horse.

Argentina echoed some of the concerns raised, in particular, that there
should be no reinterpretation of the recommendations and the modifications
sought by member states should be reflected in the thematic project
documents. It further said that the end of a project does not mean the end
of the recommendations. It sought assurance that sufficient funds be
provided for the implementation of the budgetary fund. It also stressed that
the costs for the project should not reflect existing staff costs.

The various interventions during the CDIP session led the Chair, Ambassador
Trevor Clarke of Barbados, to produce a summary of the conditions for
adopting the thematic approach.

However, the summary was abandoned following numerous interventions seeking
changes in the summary, with the Chair concluding that each recommendation
will be discussed and where the activities are similar, they would be
brought together under a theme. Thereafter, implementation of the
recommendation will be structured in a thematic project approach.

The conditions for the thematic approach presented by the Chair were:

-- In preparing the thematic projects, the Secretariat should maintain the
contents and formulation of the original recommendations, which were adopted
by the General Assembly. The projects should reflect the shared
interpretation of Member states.

-- In the development and implementation of the projects that address the
various recommendations, any modifications made by Member states during the
discussions should be included and the process will remain Member state
driven.

-- The fact that a project comes to an end should not necessarily mean that
the implementation of the relevant recommendations also comes to an end and
will depend upon the consideration by Member states.

-- Where projects only implement part of the relevant recommendations (i.e.
the remaining part is either a principle or implemented through regular
programme activities), additional projects or activities for the
implementation of those recommendations will be formulated to implement
those recommendations in their entirety.

-- Sufficient financial resources should be made available to guarantee full
implementation of the thematic projects. The costs of all human resources
for implementing the projects should be included in the project budget and
in order to maintain full transparency, internal and external costs should
be reflected separately.

-- Recognition that in promoting the objectives of some principles,
activities may be required.

-- There should be flexibility to ensure that Member states may go back to
review a project, if it is felt that it is not appropriately addressing the
concerns behind the recommendation(s).

-- Given the multi-thematic nature of some recommendations, individual
recommendations may be included in more than one project.

The conditions presented by the Chair led to further discussion about the
nature of the document prepared by the Chair and the language that should be
used.
+