[A2k] TWN Info: North countries oppose Development Agenda coordination mechanism

[Sangeeta]

North countries oppose Development Agenda coordination mechanism

SUNS #6693 Tuesday 5 May 2009

Geneva, 4 May (Sangeeta Shashikant) -- Developed countries, at a meeting of
WIPO's Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP) on 1 May,
protested against the creation of any coordination mechanism, despite a
straightforward mandate from the WIPO General Assembly of 2007 for the CDIP
to coordinate with other WIPO committees.

On the other hand, developing countries, in particular, the African Group,
the Regional Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries (GRULAC group)
and Pakistan submitted proposals on mechanisms for coordination, monitoring
and evaluation.

The CDIP held its third session here from 27 April to 1 May 2009.

Even as discussion on the matter was deferred to the next meeting of the
CDIP in November, Group B (developed countries), including the United
States, could not accept any suggestion that the November session would take
a decision on this matter.

The CDIP was established by the WIPO General Assembly in 2007 with the task
of developing a work programme for the implementation of the 45 adopted
recommendations in respect of the Development Agenda (DA).

It has also been mandated by the General Assembly (GA) to "monitor, assess,
discuss and report on the implementation of all recommendations adopted, and
for that purpose, it shall coordinate with relevant WIPO bodies".

Thus, several developing countries stressed that to comply with the mandate
of the GA, there was a need to establish mechanisms for coordination,
reporting, monitoring, and evaluation.

Pakistan presented a mechanism for coordination. It proposed that the CDIP's
Chairman's summary include recommendations to the GA that all WIPO
committees will mainstream all DA recommendations in their work.

It further proposed that the WIPO Director-General make opening remarks at
the start of the forthcoming WIPO committees' meetings -- the Patents
Committee (SCP), the Copyright Committee (SCCR), the Genetic Resources and
Traditional Knowledge Committee (IGC on GRTKF), the Programme and Budget
Committee (PBC), the Trademarks Committee (SCT), the Enforcement Committee
(ACE), and the Information Technologies Committee (SCIT) -- and at the
Assemblies.

The Director-General would stress on adherence to and implementation of the
DA recommendations by the respective bodies.

Pakistan added that all reports/studies/documents/negotiating texts prepared
by the Secretariat (or the consultants) should be in accordance with the DA
recommendations on norm-setting, in particular, recommendation 22 of the DA.

It further proposed that the Chairs/Presidents of the SCP, SCCR, IGC on
GRTKF, PBC, SCT, ACE, SCIT and the Assemblies would in their report to the
GA, include how their respective bodies have implemented the DA
recommendations. During the GA, Member states may give guidance to the
Chair/Presidents of the different bodies for effective implementation of the
DA recommendations, it added.

Pakistan also proposed that "Review of implementation of development
recommendations" be included as an agenda item on the Agenda of the GA.

The African Group proposed the setting up of a Working Group for the
Coordination, Monitoring and Evaluation of the Implementation
of the DA. The Working Group would be responsible for the coordination of
the implementation of the DA recommendations amongst all WIPO committees,
and monitoring and evaluating the implementation.

Costa Rica, on behalf of GRULAC, suggested that the Director-General should
prepare an annual report on the implementation of the DA.

Germany, on behalf of Group B, outlined its bottom line on the issue -- that
rules and procedures had to be adhered to; that all committees were to be
treated on an equal footing, with no hierarchy or supremacy; and red tape
and functionalities should not be introduced, nor should reporting lines be
duplicated.

It further said that coordination should also be of a "pragmatic nature" and
carried out in a resource-neutral way. It added that there is an issue of
accountability and prudent use of financial resources when we consider
ourselves in times of scarce financial resources.

The Czech Republic, on behalf of the EU, stressed on the GA being the main
body of coordination. It also said that it was difficult to accept any new
mechanism.

In response, Pakistan said that in its proposal, there was no need for
additional financial resources and that the GA continues to be the main body
for coordination.

Several African countries pressed for the Chair to set a date within which
Member States could submit proposals, which thereafter would be compiled by
the Secretariat and presented to Member States for discussion.

Pakistan raised concerns over delaying the matter, as the next session of
the CDIP was only in November, which meant that the GA would only be able to
consider the matter in 2010. It emphasized the need for the work of all the
committees implementing the recommendations of the DA to start from
instruction to the GA in 2009.

Pakistan's concerns were echoed by Thailand.

Egypt said that the GA decision that established the CDIP gave it a mandate
and in order for the GA decision to be implemented, mechanisms have to be
put in place. It pointed out that there were two aspects that needed to be
discussed -- one was the coordination mechanism, while the second was the
monitoring and evaluation mechanism.

Egypt also said that implementing a mandate of coordination includes
procedural and institutional modifications and completing this mandate may
need that. It stressed that this was a member-driven exercise and thus
beyond the Secretariat's mandate.

It supported proposals by several African countries on establishing a
deadline by which proposals on both aspects are presented. With regard to
the issue of coordination, proposals should be made by Member States only.
However, on the issue of evaluation, proposals should be from interested
stakeholders. Thereafter, the proposals should be compiled, and there needs
to be engagement on the proposals.

Egypt emphasized the principle of independence and that there should be
experts on intellectual property and development that can monitor and
appraise the work on development.

Algeria, responding to Group B, said that the coordination mechanism really
has no financial impact and it is important that the financial crisis does
not block the implementation of the recommendations.

It referred to the Secretariat's reassurance that the financial crisis has
no repercussions for the organisation. It added that if there were effects,
suitable remedies could be found. It also said that WIPO was one of the
wealthier UN agencies and so its role on development should in no way be
reduced.

On the issue of hierarchy, Algeria underlined that there were people that
tried to put the CDIP in an inferior position in the hierarchy. Noting that
this was rejected, it said that it also rejects any move for a hierarchy.

Morocco said that the CDIP has a clear and precise mandate. The problem is
how it is implemented. It also stressed that the mechanism for coordination
should have access to all sources of information to be able to fulfill the
mandate.

Brazil stressed on the broad, cross-cutting nature of the DA. Thus,
implementation cannot be confined to the CDIP. It said that dynamic
interaction is important for the effective implementation of the DA. The
CDIP has to find out modalities for coordination, monitoring and evaluation.

Brazil said that one important aspect of the mechanism was to reach out to
civil society, adding that outreach modalities have to be discussed. It said
that the CDIP should not set aside any proposal, and should move forward to
see how members can work between now and the November session of the CDIP.

The US said that it was premature to reach an agreement on this at this CDIP
session. It did not support inter-sessional work where the voices of all
Member States cannot necessarily be heard with clarity which the important
issue deserves.

The United Kingdom also protested, stating that there was no need for
further coordination bodies to impose their will on the CDIP.

India said that what was being proposed was something mandated by the GA and
enshrined in the DA recommendations. With regard to financial resources, it
said that even if members had to spend a little money on the implementation
of the recommendations, "I don't think we should say no to that".

The Chairman of the CDIP, Ambassador Trevor Clarke of Barbados, summed up
the discussion, stating that the Director-General is prepared to provide
reports and the project managers could report on the implementation of the
DA.

He said that coordination with other WIPO bodies remained the main
challenge. The  Chair added that mandates given to bodies frequently neglect
to say how it is to be implemented, and that members need to hone this
mandate.

He stressed on the need for a mechanism. Boundaries needed to be respected,
he said, adding that "We are not inferior nor are we superior".

The reluctance of developed countries to address coordination, monitoring
and evaluation mechanisms also emerged during the discussion on the Chair's
summary.

The Chair's summary had a paragraph stating: "The Committee decided that
interested Member states may submit their proposals to the Secretariat by
September 30, 2009. These submissions in addition to the ideas offered in
the discussions during the present session, will be compiled and presented
to the fourth session of the CDIP for further discussion on this subject."

India suggested the inclusion of the word "and decision" after the word
"discussion". This proposal received the support of several other developing
countries.

Egypt proposed changing the date for submission of proposals to June 30, as
the Assemblies was also an opportunity to advance discussion on the issue.

The Chair said that the proposal to mention Assemblies was impossible,
although members could bring it up at the Assemblies. The Chair added that
he expected some Member States to raise the issue at the GA, and that there
was nothing that the Chair or the CDIP can do. "Let's leave it as member
states can and will do", he said.

Germany intervened to add the term "possible" before the word "decision" as
a possible way forward but stressed that "it would only reflect that it is
wishful thinking".+