TWN Info Service on Intellectual Property Issues (Sept08/02)
22 September 2008
Third World Network

WIPO: General Assembly to discuss Development Agenda work-plan
Published in SUNS #6552dated 22 September 2008

Geneva, 19 Sep (Sangeeta Shashikant) -- The WIPO General Assembly, starting this Monday, will be considering the progress of the WIPO Development Agenda when discussing the outcome of the Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP).
 
The CDIP, which met twice this year (in March and July), discussed several of the 45 adopted WIPO Development Agenda recommendations in its meetings and according to CDIP Chair's conclusions, agreed to some activities being implemented.
 
The Development Agenda is an initiative of many developing countries aimed at making WIPO and its norms and activities more development-oriented so that IPR policy is placed within the context of economic and social development and the public interest.
 
The CDIP was established by the 2007 WIPO General Assembly and tasked with developing a work-program for implementing the Development Agenda. Its job includes monitoring, assessing discussing and reporting on the implementation of all the recommendations adopted, and for that purpose coordinating with relevant WIPO bodies as well to discussing intellectual property and development related issues.
 
Before the WIPO General Assembly is a Report prepared by the Secretariat (WO/GA/36/4 Rev.) on the CDIP sessions containing the conclusions of the Chair and 2 Annexes.
 
Annex 1 relates to discussed recommendations 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 11 from the list of 19 adopted recommendations (that were agreed for immediate implementation) and information by the Secretariat on its activities on those recommendations. Annex II pertains to discussed recommendations 2, 5, 8, 9, 10 from the list of 26 adopted recommendations (for which a work-plan has to be developed) and a list of proposed activities as well as an estimate of human and financial resources needed.
 
WIPO Secretariat has also put in a "Proposal to convene a Donor Conference" (WO/GA/36/11). The activities in Annex II as well as Secretariat's proposal for a donor conference are before the WIPO GA for approval.
 
While activities in Annex II were agreed at the CDIP, and some developing country delegates say the activities are likely to be approved by the upcoming GA, the reaction of developed countries to these activities during the WIPO GA remains uncertain.
 
This is because some developed countries attempted at the last CDIP session to limit the scope of application of the DA principles to the CDIP, with the apparent aim that other WIPO bodies would not have to come under some mechanism to ensure they apply the recommendations. They also wanted CDIP's work to be coordinated through the Program and Budget Committee (PBC) in order to agree with the budget presented by the Secretariat before approving CDIP recommendations at the GA, with the implication that the Program and Budget Committee (PBC) could revisit substantive issues discussed at the CDIP.
 
Developed countries also gave a lukewarm response to the idea of a donor conference at the last CDIP session. Japan called the idea of a donor conference "premature". France was also not convinced with the objectives of the donor conference.
 
The Secretariat's proposal outlines the objectives of the donor conference as: (i) to mobilize additional resources to WIPO through donor funding, by encouraging funds for LDCs and Africa, to promote the exploitation of intellectual property; (ii) to strengthen extra budgetary resources at WIPO.
 
It proposes that if a conference was approved, the Secretariat would conduct a consultation process aimed at gauging the level of current support from the donor community, as well as the views of the potential beneficiaries and based on that feedback determine the appropriate timing for scheduling the conference.
 
The GA is asked to take note of the information contained in the Secretariat's proposal and to approve the convening of a donor conference. However, noting developed countries' response to the idea of a donor conference, it is uncertain whether the GA will approve this proposal.
 
In any case, there are several issues that developing countries should consider and clarify prior to approving the convening of the donor conference.
 
One of the objectives of the conference should be to apprise donors about the adopted recommendations under the WIPO Development Agenda. While this was stated as an objective in CDIP/2/INF/2, the Secretariat's proposal (WO/GA/36/11) does not make any reference to this objective.
 
It is also not clear who are the "potential beneficiary countries" and what is the criteria for identifying beneficiary countries; who are the donors that are being referred to and on what terms are the donors willing to provide funds. At CDIP I, the Group of Friends of Development mentioned that the use of funds should not be "discriminatory".
 
Other issues are how funds should be administered, on rules and principles for managing the fund, the modalities of a monitoring system as well as the consultation mechanism. Any donor conference convened also has to be "inclusive", open not only to member states but also observers (NGOs and IGOs).
 
Brazil had suggested at the CDIP that should the donor conference be considered a "premature idea", consideration should be given to holding a broader forum or event "which would deal not only with financing and donor activities, but also with the broader technical assistance and capacity-building activities which had developed in WIPO".
 
The two CDIP meetings also discussed other WIPO DA recommendations.
 
Of the 19 recommendations identified for immediate implementation, the meetings discussed recommendations 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 11, while out of the 26 proposals (for which a work-programme had to be identified) the meetings discussed and assessed the human and financial implications of recommendations 2, 5, 8, 9, 10.
 
Recommendations 20, 22 and 23 were discussed at the second CDIP meeting, and further consideration of these proposals will be made at the third session of the CDIP, following an assessment of the human and financial resource implications of these proposals.
 
The Secretariat's report on the CDIP sessions (WO/GA/36/4 Rev.) before the WIPO GA contains Conclusions of the Chair from CDIP II, and 2 Annexes.
 
Annex 1 (relates to the 19 adopted recommendations) contains two columns, one column referring to discussed recommendations 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 11 and another column containing information on Secretariat activities on those recommendations. The Report mentions that the CDIP has agreed to the proposed activities.
 
Information provided by the Secretariat on the activities reveals the prevailing thinking which tends to be IP centric rather than Development centric.
 
A delegate told SUNS that the activities mentioned in Annex I were "more or less status quo", i. e. activities in WIPO continuing with little change.
 
Annex 2 (relating to the 26 adopted recommendations), contains 4 columns on the recommendations, the proposed activities, additional human resources needed and additional financial resources needed.
 
Activities proposed with regard to the recommendations 2, 5, 8, 9, 10 include a donor conference (discussed above); designing and developing a database to display information on technical assistance activities; to conduct a study to implement recommendation 8 which requests WIPO to develop agreements with research institutions and with private enterprises so that IP offices of developing countries can access specialized databases for the purposes of patent searches. Various initiatives are also proposed to enhance and develop approaches for spreading the use of IP information.
 
The WIPO GA is asked to approve the CDIP recommendations, in particular: (a) on the work programme; (b) to make resources available; and ( c) to encourage all member states, the secretariat and other relevant WIPO bodies to effectively implement the adopted recommendations.
 
The CDIP meetings saw disagreements amongst member states, with developing countries sometimes pitted against the industrialized countries and even against the Secretariat on some issues. There were two key areas of disagreement between developed and developing countries. Developed countries wished to limit the scope of application of the DA principles to the CDIP. On the other hand, developing countries advocated mainstreaming DA in the various WIPO bodies.
 
On this issue, the Chair's conclusions of CDIP II noted "that there was a need to discuss the necessary mechanisms for its coordination with other relevant WIPO bodies in implementing the adopted recommendations, and also the modalities for monitoring, assessing and reporting on the implementation of recommendations. It was thus decided that the third session of CDIP would discuss these issues and report to the 2009 WIPO GA".
 
Developed countries also wanted CDIP's work to be coordinated through the Program and Budget Committee (PBC) in order to agree with the budget presented by the Secretariat before approving CDIP recommendations at the GA, with the implication that the PBC could revisit substantive issues discussed at the CDIP.
 
Unusually, WIPO's Programme and Budget Committee (PBC) will only meet in December, thus financial issues linked to the Development Agenda will only be discussed subsequent to the General Assembly. Normally, the PBC meets before the Assembly and sends its report to the Assembly for approval.
 
Developing countries insisted that CDIP had a clear mandate to report and make recommendations annually to the General Assembly.
 
Developing countries during the GA are expected to stress that DA must be mainstreamed into the various WIPO bodies and the mechanism for doing so should not be cumbersome, and to reiterate that resources must be made available for the implementation of the adopted recommendations.
 
On substantive issues, there were also differences between some developing countries and the WIPO Secretariat. The exchanges were especially on the Secretariat's insistence that IPRs are inherently pro-competitive and that "flexibilities" include disciplines that exceed the policy flexibility granted in TRIPS and other agreements (i. e. that the ability to adopt TRIPS-plus rules should also be considered as "flexibilities").
 
The differences evident at the CDIP may re-emerge at the General Assembly. +