[Ip-health] TWN Info Service: Continuing differences at WIPO development meeting

[Sangeeta]

=A0
TWN Info Service on Intellectual Property Issues
30 June 2006
Third World Network
www.twnside.org.sg


Continuing differences at WIPO development meeting

The second day of discussions on the WIPO development agenda
witnessed continuing differences between developed and developing countries=
,
with some differences also in approach among developing countries.

Below is a report on Tuesday afternoon's discussions of WIPO's Provisional
Committee that covered the remaining 4 of the 6 negotiation clusters,
namely, (C) Technology Transfer, Information and Communication Technology; =
(
D) Assessments, Evaluation and Impact Studies; (E) Institutional Matters
including Mandate and Governance; and (F) Other Issues. There are 111
proposals in the list of 6 clusters that are under discussion.

It was published in SUNS #6057 Thursday 29 June 2006

With best wishes
Sangeeta Shashikant
Third World Network

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

Continuing differences at WIPO development meeting

Geneva, 28 June (Riaz K. Tayob) -- The second day of discussions on the
World Intellectual Property Organisation's (WIPO) development agenda
witnessed continuing differences between developed and developing countries=
,
with some differences also in approach among developing countries.

Tuesday afternoon's discussions of WIPO's Provisional Committee on the
Development Agenda (PCDA) covered the remaining 4 of the 6 negotiation
clusters, namely, ( C) Technology Transfer, Information and Communication
Technology; ( D) Assessments, Evaluation and Impact Studies; (E)
Institutional Matters including Mandate and Governance; and (F) Other
Issues. There are 111 proposals in a list of 6 clusters that are under
discussion.

PCDA Chair, Ambassador Rigoberto Guato Vielman of Paraguay, indicated that
he would submit a document with elements for the meeting to consider.
Members would need to agree on the recommendations to transmit to the WIPO
General Assembly for its September 2006 session.

The Friends of Development (FOD) group elaborated its proposals on each of
the clusters, indicating also the areas where proposals by other developing
countries were taken into account in their 22 June 2006 paper (PCDA/2/2).
They made reference to their paper as a possible draft text. The US, EU -
and some of its member states - opposed many of the important proposals of
the FOD.

Other developing countries indicated that they would make further
submissions. Tunisia, for the Arab group, supported proposals made on behal=
f
of the Africa group by Nigeria on Monday. Bahrain commended the Africa grou=
p
and Columbia, said there were many topics to review, and indicated that it
would present their review at a later stage.

Developed countries, on the other hand, are withholding support on many
proposals, and agreeing to those proposals that involve mainly cosmetic
changes to WIPO. On a few proposals where a developed country may show
support, this may not be agreed to by another developed country.

During the discussions on the 3rd cluster (on technology), Brazil introduce=
d
the FOD position. They pointed out that paragraphs 14 to 17 in the FOD pape=
r
reflected a synthesis of the proposals on this issue in the Chair's report
of the last meeting. Proposals by the Africa Group on the public domain had
similarly been included in the FOD paper.

Brazil pointed out that Transfer of Technology is a complex issue and
previous efforts to achieve transfers have been limited, requiring new
measures to be put in place. WIPO should focus on enhancing benefits to
developing countries through access to technology and enabling developing
countries to own their own technologies. This was important given the IPR
disparities between developed and developing countries.

Provisions on Technology Transfer were required that were as effective as
the protection of rights, it said. Equalising Technology Transfer and IPR
protection required the creation of a new body within WIPO to promote
transfers.

Brazil added that a mechanism was needed to allow developing countries to
request that action be taken to address anti-competitive practices in their
countries of firms located or headquartered in developed countries.

India agreed on the importance of Transfer of Technology and supported the
establishment of a body for this purpose to address the imbalances in
access. It supported the proposal to encourage developed countries' researc=
h
and scientific institutions to enhance cooperation with developing countrie=
s
but noted that it should be for mutual benefit.

South Africa, a member of the FOD, explained why it was necessary to
"develop criteria and methodology for selecting essential technologies,
monitor and facilitate the transfer and diffusion of technology." South
Africa provided examples of hearing aids and water purification technologie=
s
as examples of essential technologies.

The United States supported some of the proposals listed, but not others
including para 3 (creation of a body for transfer of technology policies an=
d
strategies), para 4 (development of a list of essential technologies,
know-how, processes and methods to meet basic development needs of African
countries), para 10 (adopt development-friendly principles and guidelines o=
n
transfer of technology), para 12 (adopt measures to ensure transfer of
technology to developing countries), para 13 (adoption in IPR treaties and
norms provisions dealing with anti-competitive behaviour or abuse of
monopoly rights by rights holders), para 16 (mechanism through which
countries affected by anti-competitive practices request developed countrie=
s
to take enforcement action against firms located in their jurisdictions) an=
d
para 21 (proposed negotiations on sharing the results of publicly funded
research).

Mexico had a general problem with the language (of the cluster) because it
was general and was too optimistic. They questioned the selection of
essential technologies and indicated that it was moving into UNCTAD's
Science and Technology terrain. It was "not prepared to deal with" paragrap=
h
2 on the relaxation of patent rules because it required reform of the Paris
Convention. It said the establishment of a body for Technology Transfer
required a change in the constitution of WIPO. Dealing with anti-competitiv=
e
practices was for WTO not WIPO.

During the discussion on the 4th cluster on Assessments, Brazil explained
that the FOD paper tried to synthesize different countries' proposals. It
emphasised the need for impact assessment studies, It said that the session
in the recent WIPO open forum on the Substantive Patent Law Treaty (SPLT)
highlighted the need for evidence based discussions and justifications.

Brazil expressed reservations on paragraphs 5 to 8 which refer to collectin=
g
data on counterfeiting and piracy, saying this is an issue for all countrie=
s
and it could "not see why it singled out Developing Countries. China
similarly stated reservations on paragraphs 5 and 8.

Brazil also regarded paragraph 5 (WIPO assistance to members for national
surveys for economic growth) and paragraph 7 (feasibility of WIPO conductin=
g
global economic surveys of the creative and innovative sectors) as outside
the mandate of WIPO.

China supported many of the provisions of this cluster (except as stated
above) and stated that an effective review and evaluation mechanism was
important for WIPO's efficiency. Paraguay supported the Brazilian statement
but stated that data on piracy should be collected in a harmonised manner.
On paragraph 8, Paraguay stated that "collecting of data must be serious" a=
s
the statistics "do not reflect reality and damage our countries."

India supported proposals related to development impact assessments, in
particular for WIPO to make "independent, evidence based, empirical and
objective" studies "in terms of capacity building, technical assistance,
technology transfer and norm setting."

The US supported a number of proposals but did not endorse a few key
provisions, including para 2 (establishment of an independent development
impact assessment), para 10 (study to evaluate the appropriate levels of
intellectual property and identify the links between intellectual property
and development), para 11 (to establish an independent Evaluation and
Research Office to evaluate all WIPO programs, and assess norm setting and
technical cooperation), para 13 (to compile empirical evidence and carry ou=
t
cost benefit analysis that consider alternatives within and outside the IP
system) and para 16 (to establish a mechanism to evaluate the impact and
costs of treaties adopted, especially for developing countries).

Discussions then commenced on the fifth cluster on Institutional Matters.
Brazil, for the FOD said their paper was in the spirit of synthesising
various proposals. Paragraphs 2 , 18 and 19 of the FOD paper reflect this.

Para 2 intended to strengthen WIPO as a UN agency. Para 18 sought to ensure
greater participation of Civil Society in WIPO activities. Brazil said it
could accept most of the proposals of the Africa Group and Arab countries
with the exception of paragraphs 3 (proposal to reinvigorate the PCIPD), 4
(WIPO partnership office for evaluating member requests for assistance on
IPR and development) and 5 (stocktaking of current WIPO development
cooperation activities). Brazil expressed two main concerns -- greater
participation of civil society and "strengthening the charter of WIPO as a
UN agency that works for development."

Mexico indicated support for a few proposals including paragraphs 3 and 5,
but not to others.

The US announced its support for 5 proposals. It said it had previously
expressed reservations on other clauses, including para 6 (amend the WIPO
constitution to bring it into line as an UN-specialised agency), para 7
(measures to ensure wider participation of civil society), para 8 (adopt UN
system criteria for NGO acceptance and accreditation), and para 10 (to
reinforce WIPO's member driven nature as a UN Organisation).

The Swiss delegation differed from the US by not supporting para 1 and
raised a query on para 4. Canada and Australia supported paragraphs 2 to 5
while Japan supported paragraphs 3 to 5. Therefore, there seems to be no
consensus on any of the expansive proposals in this cluster.

Regarding the last cluster, Other Issues, Brazil reminded on the proposal
presented to the 2004 WIPO General Assembly on the need to highlight the
link between Intellectual Property and development. They added that
paragraph 20 of the FOD paper deals with the follow up procedure. As all th=
e
proposals may not be entirely addressed in the session, and may need furthe=
r
consideration, "we will need a renewal the PCDA process."

Tunisia, on behalf of Arab countries, supported the Africa group. Bahrain
added that there were many papers available which should be unified into a
common paper. They indicated a need to review the many topics.

Nigeria welcomed the comments of Tunisia and Bahrain on the process,
supported the process adopted by the Chair and expressed a willingness to
adopt specific recommendations. Nigeria placed on record the proposals by
Bahrain and Columbia. +