[Ip-health] TWN INFO: Coordination mechanism discussion takes off at CDIP

[Sangeeta]

Coordination mechanism discussion takes off at CDIP
SUNS #6822 Wednesday 25 November 2009

Geneva, 24 Nov (Sangeeta Shashikant) -- The fourth session of the
Development and IP Committee (CDIP) of the World Intellectual Property
Organization (WIPO) held last week has finally begun negotiations on a
coordination, monitoring, reporting and assessment mechanism in relation to
the implementation of the Development Agenda recommendations.

The negotiations are set to continue at the fifth session of the CDIP in
2010 as the first substantive agenda item.

Developing countries have been calling for a comprehensive and dynamic
coordination mechanism since it formed a core component of the 2007 WIPO
General Assembly (GA) mandate that established the CDIP.

Group B, composed of developed countries, has been resisting this move by
the developing countries.

The 2007 GA mandated the CDIP to "monitor, assess, discuss and report on the
implementation of all recommendations adopted, and for that purpose it shall
coordinate with relevant WIPO bodies".

The pace for the discussions on the coordination mechanism was set at the
third CDIP session (April 2009), which set a deadline of 30 June 2009 for
submissions on the modalities of the mechanism. The Chair's summary of the
third CDIP session also noted that the submissions would be discussed and a
"possible decision" taken on the subject.

The 2009 WIPO GA also "urged the CDIP to endeavour to reach agreement on
coordination mechanism for monitoring, assessing and reporting on the
implementation of recommendations and report to the General Assembly at its
2010 session".

The fourth CDIP session, held on 16-20 November, had before it two proposals
for consideration, i.e. a joint proposal by Algeria, Brazil, Pakistan, and
later co-sponsored by India, and a proposal by Group B.

The joint proposal contains eight elements:

-- establish a standing agenda item in the GA on "Review of the
implementation of the Development Agenda";

-- urge the Director-General (DG) to ensure the coordination,
self-assessment and reporting of all the activities and programs undertaken
by the Secretariat with respect to the DA (Development Agenda) and report to
the GA.

-- to request all WIPO bodies to identify specific ways in which the DA
recommendations would be mainstreamed in their areas of work and urge them
to implement the recommendations, and for this purpose to include
"Implementation of Development Agenda Recommendations" as a standing agenda
item and to prepare a separate report on the item;

-- to instruct all WIPO bodies to ensure that all reports, texts, studies
and documents prepared by the Secretariat or independent consultants are in
consonance with the principles of the DA on norm-setting, in particular,
recommendation No. 22 of the DA;

-- to mandate the CDIP to convene two special sessions annually (preferably
to follow the regular sessions of the CDIP), to receive, discuss, monitor,
and assess the separate reports prepared by all WIPO bodies and to report to
the GA, to invite the chairs of the WIPO bodies to report and discuss the
implementation of the DA recommendations, to invite other persons to
participate in its deliberations, and to request the Secretariat to
facilitate the work of the CDIP special sessions;

-- to request the WIPO Audit Committee to periodically review and assess the
overall implementation of the DA recommendations in all areas of WIPO's work
and submit its report for consideration of the GA.

-- to undertake a regular biennial review and assessment of the overall
implementation of the DA recommendations in all areas of WIPO's work by a
selected group of renowned IP and development experts nominated in
consultations with the member states, to be reported to the GA;

-- to present an annual report on the implementation of the DA
recommendations to the UN General Assembly and the Economic and Social
Council, bearing in mind the Agreement between the UN and WIPO.

Group B proposed the following elements in its submission:

--The DG/Deputy DG in charge of the DA and/or the Chair of the CDIP should
provide regular updates, through written submissions or oral briefings, on
the progress of the implementation of the DA recommendations to the CDIP and
to the GA;

-- The GA should instruct relevant WIPO bodies to work towards mainstreaming
the DA recommendations in their activities in accordance with their specific
mandate as received from the GA;

-- The GA should instruct the Chairs of the relevant WIPO bodies to include
in their annual report to the GA a description of their contribution to the
implementation of the respective recommendations, including an assessment
utilizing the appropriate measures of success;

-- The GA should request the DG or Deputy DG in charge of the DA to
periodically state in their opening remarks to the relevant WIPO bodies and
in WIPO's annual report the importance of effectively implementing and
mainstreaming the DA recommendations throughout WIPO.

Group B also prescribed several principles that it considered important in
establishing the coordination mechanism, i.e. that all WIPO Committees stand
on an equal footing and report to the GA; where practical existing
governance structures and procedures should be used; and CDIP's coordination
with other relevant WIPO bodies should be flexible, efficient, effective,
transparent and pragmatic and should be underpinned by appropriate DA
success criteria to support effective monitoring, reporting and review.

It also said that the coordination should be resource-neutral and not create
new financial obligations for member states.

These principles also formed the basis of its objection to the joint
proposal, although the latter received strong support from developing
countries such as the African Group, Iran, Egypt, Bolivia, Sri Lanka etc.

In introducing the joint proposal, Algeria said that many of Group B's
proposals were already incorporated into the joint proposal. It also said
that the co-sponsors had ensured that there was no new structure or body
established.

Brazil highlighted the challenge of meeting the mandate set by the 2007 GA
without upsetting the balance of the bodies, and stressed the need for
members to have ownership of the process and to guarantee that the necessary
dynamism remains in the work of the committee.

Iran stressed that without a tangible mechanism and framework, the DA would
not be effective.

Nigeria said that care must be taken to not overburden the Secretariat and
WIPO bodies.

South Africa insisted that based on the principle of equal footing,
budgetary matters should be left to the Program and Budget Committee (PBC).

Egypt said that there was a need to ensure the success of the DA, adding
that if it is properly implemented, it will take WIPO into "greener
pastures". It said that the Group B proposal was "essential but not
sufficient", whereas the joint proposal was sufficient.

Several of the Group B members raised objections with regards to the joint
proposal, stating that it was against the principle of equal footing of all
committees, beyond the terms of reference of the WIPO Audit Committee and
that there was no precedent of presenting a report to the UN General
Assembly.

They also insisted that the project on Results Based Management (RBM) of
WIPO was sufficient to do the job mandated by the WIPO GA.

Algeria, responding to the objections voiced by Group B, emphasized that
there were common elements between the Group B proposal and the joint
proposal. It added that the joint proposal takes off where Group B left off,
by adding elements.

It pointed out that the RBM project has to do with specific recommendations
whereas the mechanism was much broader in scope, as it pertains to all the
recommendations.

It added that the mandate for the coordination mechanism comes from the 2007
GA. It referred to the Secretariat's previous comments that the RBM and the
coordination mechanisms were separate mechanisms.

It stressed that the joint proposal treated the committees on an equal
footing, particularly since the CDIP would report to the GA.  On the issue
of the mandate of the Audit Committee, it said that the Committee had a
mandate since its terms of reference pertained to " effective internal
control".

It added that it had also contacted a member of the Audit Committee, who
confirmed that it was doable for the Audit Committee.

It also pointed out that Article 6 of the 1974 Agreement between WIPO and
the UN supports the joint proposal's point on reporting to the UN General
Assembly. Article 6 (b) states that the "Organization shall submit to the
United Nations an annual report on its activities."

[WIPO's legal counsel also clarified that WIPO was not in compliance with
its obligation to report to the UN under Article 6 of the 1974 UN-WIPO
Agreement.]

Algeria also said that it did not foresee the joint proposal requiring major
financial resources. In any event, it pointed out that an amount of 2.2
million Swiss Francs had been earmarked for future CDIP activities. It
further added that the whole debate on budgetary resources comes under the
PBC.

Informal consultations were held on 19 and 20 November in an attempt to
bridge the differences between the co-sponsors and supporters of the joint
proposal and Group B.

Following the consultations, the Secretariat emerged with a document
containing a compilation of proposals made by Group B and the co-sponsors of
the joint proposal.

The co-sponsors of the joint proposal appear to have dropped the idea of a
special session of the CDIP and replaced it with a permanent agenda item in
the ordinary sessions of the CDIP.

In view of Group B's objection to WIPO's Audit Committee being given a
specific role in the mechanism, the joint proposal's co-sponsors proposed to
substitute that element with the following: "To request the PBC Working
Group on the working methods of the Audit Committee to consider the
contribution that the Audit Committee can make in ensuring an effective
evaluation of the implementation of the Development Agenda".

Group B also appears to have in principle accepted the idea of a standing
agenda item in the CDIP, although differences persist on the time to be
allocated for discussion, an independent review of the implementation of
WIPO's Development Agenda recommendations, and to include in the WIPO annual
report to the UN, a report on the implementation of the DA.
+