[Ecommerce] IP-Watch on nations clash on WIPO DA

[Manon Ress]

http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=3D42&res=3D1024_ff&print=3D0
11/4/2005
Nations Clash On Future Of WIPO Development Agenda
by William New @ 8:40 pm

Developed and developing countries faced off Monday over whether and how
the U.N. World Intellectual Property Organisation=92s mission should be
transformed to better address the needs of developing countries.

The basis for the three-day discussion ending Wednesday at the
Geneva-based WIPO is a developing country proposal to change WIPO into a
more typical U.N. organisation by raising the profile of development
concerns throughout its mission.

The United States, the United Kingdom and others say there is no need
for a new body within WIPO, but acknowledge that improvements could be
made to the existing system such as through better technical assistance
to developing countries. The United States argued for the creation of a
partnership database to improve developing country capacity to benefit
from intellectual property, and said the issue should be placed into the
existing Permanent Committee on Cooperation for Development Related to
Intellectual Property (PCIPD).

=93We don=92t believe the U.N. needs another development agency,=94 said th=
e
lead U.S. delegate. =93We do not support setting up new bodies.=94 He cited
the U.N. Development Program and the U.N. Conference on Trade and
Development. The developing country proposal specifically argues against
development issues being placed solely under the PCIPD.

The United States also argued that WIPO should focus on intellectual
property protection, a point countered by several countries such as
Egypt that want a broader focus.

The U.S. delegate issued a potential threat to WIPO if it adopts a
stronger development focus. =93We support WIPO. We would not want to WIPO
in a direction that would diminish that support,=94 he said.

The meeting Monday focused on procedural issues and proposals put
forward in recent weeks by several governments. At a February
consultation on patent harmonisation with mostly like-minded WIPO
members held by Director-General Kamil Idris, participants were
encouraged to submit proposals for this week=92s meeting, and three of
them did: Mexico, the United Kingdom and the United States. The U.K. and
Mexican proposals generally argue for the status quo with improvements.

For this week=92s meeting, the so-called Friends of Development (fourteen
developing country co-sponsors of the original development agenda
proposal last fall), submitted an elaboration of their previous proposal.

Guilherme de Aguiar Patriota, the lead Brazilian delegate, characterized
the proposal as an opportunity for a =93substantive discussion=94 on
intellectual property and development. He urged that the discussion
focus widely and not be limited to technical assistance, but said the
proposal was written in =93modular fashion=94 so that decisions could be
taken on a step-by-step basis.

He and others urged that development issues be considered in the setting
of norms and standards for intellectual property. =93Obviously the time
has come to rectify the current situation,=94 the delegate from Argentina
said.

Singapore, speaking on behalf of the Asian countries, welcomed the
Friends of Development proposal and said that intellectual property
protection is =93not one size fits all.=94 The Asia statement called for
balance, respect for national policies, as well as to take into account
the impact of policies on users of intellectual property. But a
statement also read by Singapore on behalf of the smaller Association of
Southeast Asian Nations did not specifically back the Friends of
Development proposal. It did, however, =93welcome incorporating the
development dimension into all aspects of WIPO.=94

The so-called B Group of developed countries, represented by Italy, said
development issues are not new for WIPO, but called for an =93urgent
stocktaking=94 of WIPO=92s activities to see if developing country needs ar=
e
being met and whether there could be better coordination with other
agencies.

The regional group for Latin America, represented by Jamaica, agreed
that discussions should not be limited to technical assistance. The
African countries, represented by Morocco, reiterated their support from
last fall for the Development Agenda proposal.

During the day, India and Pakistan separately suggested that a
negotiating text be prepared.

This meeting, an =93inter-sessional intergovernmental meeting,=94 was agree=
d
to by the WIPO General Assembly in October 2004. Other similar meetings
may follow in the time before a July deadline to issue a report for
consideration by next September=92s General Assembly, diplomatic sources sa=
id.

The first day began with a debate over whether the meeting chair, which
is Paraguay, had the right to determine the future of the development
issue based on the meeting. Argentina and Brazil, who launched the
original Development Agenda proposal, argued that the chair was limited
to a non-binding summary of the meeting. They said the normal practice
for WIPO meetings is for the participants to adopt a draft report by the
secretariat. Brazil=92s proposal to add an agenda item to that effect was
not met with argument publicly, but a government official said that the
topic was reconsidered in a closed meeting later in the day.

Another key difference that arose during the day is whether development
issues should be moved to the PCIPD, which meets on Thursday and Friday
of this week. The United States and the B Group favor the move while
some developing countries have vowed to resist it out of concern that
development cut across all aspects of WIPO activities and not be
relegated to one committee. The U.S. view was that if the PCIPD is not
sufficient, then it should be improved.

Another procedural matter at the meeting was the announcement at the
outset that 17 =93ad hoc=94 (not formally recognized by WIPO)
non-governmental organisations would be allowed to attend the meeting
after all. But the United States said the groups and their
representatives should be carefully scrutinized before being allowed to
attend any future meetings.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License. All of the news
articles and features on Intellectual Property Watch are also subject to
a Creative Commons License which makes them available for widescale,
free, non-commercial reproduction and translation.
William New, the author of this post, may be reached at wnew@ip-watch.org.

--
Manon Anne Ress
manon.ress@cptech.org,
www.cptech.org

Consumer Project on Technology in Washington, DC PO Box 19367,
Washington, DC 20036, USA Tel.:  +1.202.387.8030, fax: +1.202.234.5176

Consumer Project on Technology in Geneva, 1 Route des  Morillons, CP
2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland. Tel: +41 22 791 6727

Consumer Project on Technology in London, 24 Highbury Crescent, London,
N5 1RX, UK. Tel:+44(0)207 226 6663 ex 252. Mob:+44(0)790 386 4642. Fax:
+44(0)207 354 0607