[Ip-health] WIPO: Discussion begins on implementing the Development Agenda

[Sangeeta]

WIPO: Discussion begins on implementing the Development Agenda

Published in SUNS #6428 dated 5 March 2008

 Geneva, 4 Mar (Riaz K. Tayob) -- Discussion on defining a work programme
for implementation of the 45 adopted recommendations on the WIPO Development
Agenda began on Monday in the newly-established WIPO Committee on
Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP).

Much of the first day of the CDIP was spent discussing procedural issues
such as the adoption of the rules of procedure of the committee and how
discussions on the work programme should be conducted. Member States,
intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations also made comments on
the work of the CDIP.

Many general statements were also made by developing countries which
proposed ways of improving WIPO's treaty-making and technical assistance
activities. Several NGOs made specific observations about the nature of
WIPO's technical assistance work, and proposed how WIPO should expand the
public-interest and development aspects of IP, such as improving access to
knowledge and expanding the public domain.

The CDIP was established by the last WIPO General Assembly with the mandate
to develop a work programme for implementation of the adopted
recommendations; monitor, assess, discuss and report on the implementation
of all recommendations adopted, and for that purpose it shall coordinate
with relevant WIPO bodies; discuss IP and development-related issues as
agreed by the Committee, as well as those decided by the General Assembly.

A point of contention at the start of the meeting was the method by which
the 45 recommendations should be discussed.

The 45 recommendations on the WIPO Development Agenda are in 6 clusters:
Cluster A - Technical Assistance and Capacity Building; Cluster B - norm
setting, flexibilities, public policy and public domain; Cluster C -
Technology transfer, information and communication technology and access to
knowledge; Cluster D - Assessments, Evaluation and Impact Studies; Cluster E
- Institutional matters including mandate and governance; and Cluster F -
Other Issues.

Before the committee is an initial working document prepared by the Chair of
the previous related Committee (Provisional Committee on Proposals Related
to a WIPO Development Agenda - PCDA - that discussed the Development Agenda
and adopted the 45 recommendations), Ambassador Trevor Clarke of Barbados.

The first part contains a "Preliminary Implementation Report with respect to
the 19 proposals". It has two columns, one on the recommendations, another
on Secretariat's information on activities implemented/planned in respect of
the recommendations.

According to a note, these proposals were identified (out of the 45
proposals) on the basis that WIPO is already implementing related
activities, it was not necessary for a detailed work programme before
implementing the proposal, and it does not require engagement of additional
human and financial resources. The 19 proposals pertain to clusters A, B,
and D.

The second part contains the rest of the proposals and is titled "Initial
Working Document regarding the implementation of 26 agreed proposals". It
contains 3 main columns - on the recommendations, Secretariat's suggestions
on possible activities, and for additional human and financial resources
required.

Suggestions on activities for implementation of the recommendations have
also been made by Central European and Baltic States, the Group of Friends
of Development and the Republic of Korea. These are compiled in another
document.

On the first day of the meeting (3 March), Clarke, who was also elected
chair of CDIP, proposed that the 26 recommendations be discussed first
followed by the 19 recommendations, as the former has human resource and
financial implications and an early discussion would give the Secretariat
time to prepare a document on these implications for the next CDIP meeting.

Many developing countries including Argentina, Brazil, and India stressed
the need for CDIP to discuss and propose activities for all the 45
recommendations. Bangladesh said a holistic approach was required. Brazil
said it was important not to change the nature of the decision of the
General Assembly and that there was no substantive difference between the
sets of recommendations and that the difference was only operational.

Discussion on procedure continued on the second day (4 March). Brazil in
relation to the 19 proposals suggested to avoid extensive comments on
ongoing activities and focus on proposals for the future work programme. It
proposed a new column for suggestions on activities. Chile said the
activities should not be limited to the Chair's initial working documents as
it was just based on the Secretariat's opinion, and members could suggest
changes.

Slovenia, on behalf of the European Communities, expressed concern about
asking the CDIP to agree or to adopt the outcome of discussions during this
session. It asked the chair to consider a different approach such as
"closing the discussion" on a recommendation. The US said that activities
discussed have to be sent to the Secretariat to assess human and financial
implications.

The Chair concluded that what would be adopted is a "cluster by cluster
approach". Within each cluster, the 19 recommendations for immediate
implementation would be dealt with after discussion of the 26
recommendations. He also said that additional columns may be added to the
Chair's initial working papers, and the proposals would be sent to the
Secretariat to assess the human and financial requirements before the July
CDIP session.

The first day also heard general statements by developing countries.

Algerian Ambassador Idriss Jazairy, for the Africa group, said the
implementation phase was more important than the negotiation stage.
Implementation of the recommendations should serve to improve institutional,
scientific and technological capacities, transfer of technology and advance
the meaning of development in international instruments.

Algeria said, firstly, member states must benefit from the preparation of an
IPR strategy along the same lines as a national development plan. Second, in
the area of legislation, Africa must benefit from a review and to integrate
the use of flexibilities and exceptions (in IP law). Developing countries
should benefit from the same flexibilities which developed countries used
when at a comparable state of development. This should incorporate rules of
development to make up for gaps in antitrust (mechanisms) in Africa. Third,
better assistance was needed.

Algeria also added that action on innovation and transfer of technology
should include support to research and development centres for marketing
research and there should be a contribution to capacity in African countries
for access to databases of patents and other information.

Argentina, for the Group of Friends of Development (GFOD), said the spectrum
of issues was too wide to be covered in two formal meetings and that work
should continue between sessions. The DA should be mainstreamed into the
different WIPO bodies.

China said development was the greatest challenge facing developing
countries and is a practical concern that UN agencies must address.
Searching for balanced approaches and comprehensive realisation of
development should be taken seriously by WIPO. Protection of innovation
should also be in unison with transfer of technology and the varied
condition of economies and levels of development should not be ignored.

Thailand said that IPRs and development are two sides of the same coin.
Adequate IPR protection remains as essential as development and the creation
of a level playing field. India said that the development agenda was beyond
the 45 proposals and that the challenge was how to mainstream the
development dimension in WIPO. It said that the issues require efforts and
cooperation of other committees.

South Africa said that the DA is expected to significantly contribute to the
reform of the global IP system; with an expectation that a balance in the IP
system would emerge over time. In relation to the 19 proposals, it said
Members would have to re-orientate and refocus those activities to build
synergies with the view to maximise their development impact.

It said the design, delivery and evaluation of technical assistance and
capacity building programmes should be premised on specific principles,
including transparency and reform of technical assistance should be on an
agreed framework to guide the design, delivery and evaluation of activities.
A clear framework would provide an important platform against which
recipient countries, donor countries, academic researchers, the media, civil
society and other stakeholders would constructively critique and evaluate
WIPO's activities. Enhanced transparency would lead to improved
accountability in terms of efficiency in resource allocation and
utilisation.

According to South Africa, the components of a new development-based
framework for initiating, conducting and evaluating treaty-making and other
norm-setting activities are: (1) a member-driven treaty making process
taking into account different levels of development; (2) transparent and
development sensitive pre-negotiations consultations; and (3) the
preservation of flexibilities contained in international IP agreements.

The pre-negotiation procedures would afford an opportunity for a more robust
debate to clarify the objectives, scope and content of proposed treaties and
thus reduce the incidence of breakdown in treaty-making processes. It added
that the exploration of IP related policies and initiatives are necessary to
promote transfer of technology.

On evaluation and impact assessments, it said that WIPO would be expected to
develop an annual review and evaluation mechanism to assess the development
orientation of all its programmes and activities, including technical
assistance and capacity building. The review and evaluation mechanism would
contain specific benchmarks and indicators. WIPO's capacity to perform
objective assessments of the impact of its activities on development needs
to be strengthened.

Brazil said that the DA is a historic opportunity and that WIPO should
contribute through a carefully crafted programme that follows the agenda's
letter and spirit.

Some developed countries pointed out what in their view were the parameters
of CDIP and that care should be taken on spending WIPO's resources.

The US, which has resisted change in WIPO and tried on several occasions to
dilute the DA, said that the CDIP must take care to implement proposals that
are consistent with the general mandate of WIPO and the specific mandate of
the CDIP. The implementation of proposals should be consistent with the
regular budgetary procedures and information must be provided immediately
for proposals that require additional financial and human resources.

Slovenia, on behalf of the European Communities, said that the CDIP would
not be able to draw hard conclusions from the discussion, as there has not
been enough time to conduct consultations and there was insufficient
material on which to make a decision. It said that details of human and
other resources had not been submitted. It added that with the Chair's
approach, only a draft work programme could be adopted.

Switzerland said that WIPO resources are not unlimited and thus project
proposals should not be over-ambitious.

Several NGOs also spoke on the implementation of the DA. The Electronic
Frontier Foundation (EFF) supported the promotion of norm-setting that is
protective of a robust public domain, and safeguards national sovereignty in
the area of exceptions and limitations.

It said WIPO should deepen analysis on public domain, produce guides for
Member States on how they can protect the public domain and existing
copyright exceptions and limitations against encroachment by overbroad legal
protection for technological protection measures (electronic methods of
protecting access to or use of, works) and conduct a survey of the different
approaches to facilitate access to and use of orphaned copyrighted works.

It supported the call for discussions on how to facilitate access to
knowledge and technology on the IP-related aspects of ICT (information and
communication technologies) for development, and recommended convening an
open forum to analyse current IP-related obstacles to technology innovation,
infrastructure growth and use of ICTs.

It stressed the need for transparency in WIPO's technical assistance and
norm-setting activities. It said WIPO uses a model copyright law that
currently has a number of deficiencies, particularly in relation to
technological protection measures; however, it noted that the model law was
no longer available for review on WIPO's website.

Third World Network (TWN) said that it had found that WIPO, when providing
technical assistance on IP laws, has been proposing about 8 laws on
different categories of IP, patents, trademarks, unfair competition, lay-out
designs and others, all bundled together in one Act. It said that WIPO was
providing this advice also to LDCs, even though LDCs have the flexibility at
least until 2013 before implementing the TRIPS Agreement. This kind of
advice was not in line with the special needs and priorities of developing
countries or LDCs.

TWN also enquired as to the kind of methodology or tools used by WIPO to
identify needs and priorities of developing countries to which it provided
technical assistance. TWN stressed the need for transparency, proposing that
all information pertaining to WIPO's events such as workshops at national,
regional and international level (including the agenda, participants list,
content, and proposed outcomes) and the "templates" it used as a basis for
providing legislative assistance should be made available on WIPO's website.

Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) said that WIPO's mission is not simply
about expanding IP rights but now also includes access to knowledge (A2K),
the implications and benefits of a rich public domain, strategies for
dealing with abuses of rights, and measures to protect the public interest.
It proposed that WIPO organise an open forum on A2K as well as on the
control of anti-competitive practices in both the patent and copyright
fields.

Electronic Information for Libraries said that seminars in the copyright
field should represent the interests of all stakeholders including libraries
and the public interest. Programmes should give equal weight to
flexibilities such as exceptions and limitations, and the value of the
public domain.

It said, for example, if an LDC deems it a priority to increase the number
of trained doctors and nurses to achieve its Millennium Development Goals to
reduce child mortality and to combat HIV/AIDS and malaria, it may need to
boost its education and training. One strand of this policy could include
ensuring that there are appropriate and adequate exceptions and limitations
in national copyright law to support education and libraries. +