[Ecommerce] FromGeneva: Day 1 of WIPO PCDA meeting

Tue Feb 21 06:23:00 2006

http://fromgeneva.blogspot.com/2006/02/day-1-of-wipo-pcda-meeting_20.html

      Day 1 of WIPO PCDA meeting

Monday, 20 February 2006
Thiru Balasubramaniam

The first meeting of the WIPO Provisional Committee for Proposals
Related to a Development Agenda (PCDA) meets from 20 February to 24
February. The morning session commenced at 12:43 PM and broke up at
12:57 PM. The reason for the abbrievated morning session was intense
pre-meeting negotiations on electing a Chair for the PCDA. One candidate
favored by the Group B countries (mainly industrialized Members) was the
Ambassador of Romania. The candidate favored by many developing
countries was Ambassador Rigoberto Gauto Vielman. Finally, after much
deliberation, the candidate from Romania withdrew from the race. When
the morning session convened, Nigeria on behalf of the African Group
formally nominated Ambassador Gauto (Paraguay) as Chair and the
Ambassador of Kyrgyzstan as Vice-Chair. Thailand, on behalf of the Asian
Group seconded the nominations; Ambassador Gauto and the Kyrgyz
Ambassador were elected unanimously to their respective posts.
Ambassador Gauto noted that he was
"[c]ommitted to working in a very open-minded way" He noted that the
PCDA would resume at 3PM with "presentation of new proposals put
forward, then invite substantive discussion of proposals". The
importance placed to the Development Agenda discussions was evidenced by
the presence of several Ambassadors (Argentina, Chile Morocco, Nigeria
and Paraguay to name a few).

Most of the afternoon session was devoted to countries making general
statements and introducing their respective proposals.

Austria, on behalf of the European Communities and its 25 Member States
and the acceding states of Bulgaria and Romania, asserted that it shared
the premise that development related issues could be integrated into
WIPO within existing the WIPO Convention and 1974 agreement with United
Nations, recognizing WIPO's mandate to facilitate development.

The Austrian delegate emphasized the need to make concrete proposals by
concentrating on proposals that were "ripe for harvest". According to
Austria, this would help engender trust and cooperation and would ensure
that this resulted in an international IPR regime that increased
encouragement for foreign direct investment, stimulates economic growth
and provide benefits to all.

Thailand, on behalf of the Asian Group noted the importance of public
policy objectives in the Millennium Development Goals, e.g. public
health, biodiversity, access to medicines, and access to educational
material. Thailand stressed that WIPO needed to ensure that its
norm-setting activities were consistent with public policy objectives
recognized by group. It noted its support for the mainstreaming of the
development agenda into WIPO norm-setting activities

Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, presented its proposal for the
Development Agenda. Ambassador Joseph U Ayalogu stated that "[t]echnical
assistance should be development-oriented and demand driven. With
respect to transfer of technology, the African Group echoed the
conclusions of the Report of the UK Commission in Intellectual Property
Rights which asserted that

    the critical issue in respect of IP is not whether it promotes trade
    or foreign investment, but how it helps or hinders developing
    countries gain access to technologies that are required for their
    development.

Ambassador Ayalogu stressed that the African Group was not against IP
protection per se. However, he noted that the Group was of the opinion
that any meaningful discussions of IP and development take into account
the following:

    1. There must be a clear and consistent rational for IP protection

    2. There must be an assessment of the costs and benefits of IP
    protection.

    3. IP protection must not be divorced from the aspirations not be
    divorced from the aspirations of developing and least developed
    countries for economic growth and development, the acquisition of
    technological know how, etc.

    5. Public interest concerns such as access to knowledge, health and
    nutrition, agriculture and so forth must be protected.

Pakistan made an intervention on behalf of the Group 77 (G-77) and
China. Ambassador Massood Khan noted that the G-77 and China were of the
view that the "Development Agenda discussions in WIPO form[ed] an in
important milestone". He noted that WIPO, as part of the UN family, had
an obligation to prioritize the mainstreaming of development dimension
into the core of its program and operational activities. Ambassador Khan
reiterated the Doha Declaration adopted at the Second South Summit in
2005 which emphasized that

    while developing countries are committed to undertaking their
    international obligations, these undertakings may impose high costs,
    and that given the differences in development and the ability of
    countries to assume obligations, it is imperative that identical
    obligations are not forced on unequal participants.

Ambassador Khan highlighted the IIM discussions last year which cited
the need to make the "affordability and accessibility of essential
products like pharmaceuticals, text books and educational software" as
"primary examples of areas where such flexibilities need to be either
created or made operable, with regard to the IP system."

Ambassador Dumont of Argentina made the intervention on behalf of the
Friends of Development (FOD). As mentioned in the FOD proposal
<http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/mdocs/en/pcda_1/pcda_1_5.pdf>, the FOD
identified 6 common threads among the 50 specific proposals presented
since 2004. The FOD proposal noted this 6 common themes as a means of
producing tangible outcomes and recommendations to the General Assembly
in 2006. Among the common threads identified was how to

    "facilitate access to knowledge generally around the world and
    specifically in developing countries for example by means of a Treaty
    on Access to Knowledge" given the [g]rowing importance of access to
    knowledge of protecting and promoting access to the cultural
    heritage and need to maintain robust public domain through
    exceptions and limitations.

The Chilean Ambassador outlined his delegation's proposal
<http://fromgeneva.blogspot.com/2006/02/%3Cbr%20/%3Ehttp://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/mdocs/en/pcda_1/pcda_1_2.pdf>.
He stressed that a public domain was an important source of creativity
and a key factor for growth. He cautioned that the public domain could
be unnecessarily affected through technological protection measures
(TPMs). He warned of a global trend towards increasing exclusive rights
and restricting material in public domain. In his elaboration of the
importance of complementary systems to and in intellectual property the
Chilean Ambassador noted current discussions on an a2k treaty and a
treaty on medical research and development
<http://www.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/EB117/B117_R13-en.pdf> (being
discussed at the WHO).

The United States made an elaboration on its proposal for a WIPO
Partnership Program.

Please see Georg Greve's blog
<http://www.fsfe.org/fellows/greve/freedom_bits/%28tag%29/WIPO> for
additional insights.

Thanks to Gwen Hinze and Teresa Hackett for inputs