TWN Info Service on Intellectual Property Issues (May09/02)
6 May 2009
Third World Network

Please find below a news report on the meeting of the WIPO Development Agenda that took place last week. This news report was first produced in SUNS and is reproduced here with permission.

Regards
Sangeeta Shashikant
Third World Network

WIPO: Concerns over Secretariat's approach to Development Agenda
SUNS #6692 Monday 4 May 2009

Geneva, 30 Apr (Sangeeta Shashikant) -- Many Member States of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) on Wednesday raised concerns over the method of work proposed by the WIPO Secretariat concerning the implementation of the Development Agenda recommendations.

These concerns, voiced at the third session of the Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP), bogged down the committee to an extensive discussion about procedural matters, thus preventing the committee from moving ahead with substantive discussions on the Development Agenda (DA) recommendations.

The CDIP, which was established by the WIPO General Assembly in 2007, has been tasked with developing a work programme for the implementation of the adopted recommendations -- monitoring, assessing, discussing and reporting on the implementation of all the recommendations adopted, and for that purpose, coordinating with the relevant WIPO bodies, and discussing intellectual property and development-related issues as agreed by the Committee, as well as those decided by the WIPO General Assembly (GA).

The first session of the CDIP took place from 3-7 March 2008, while the second CDIP session took place from 7-11 July 2008. The third session is currently taking place from 27 April-1 May 2009.

The differences were over the "Thematic Project" (CDIP/3/4) approach presented by the WIPO Secretariat during the CDIP meeting.

According to the WIPO Secretariat, the rationale for the approach includes concerns about duplication and overlap in the recommendations as well as delegations requesting for further details on the Secretariat's proposed activities.

The thematic project approach breaks down the 45 recommendations of the Development Agenda adopted at the 2007 WIPO General Assembly into principles and actions. The recommendations identified as actions are further divided into several projects.
The themes for the projects include "IP and Public Domain", "IP and Competition", "IP, ICTs and the Digital Divide", "Technology Transfer", "Patent Information", "Impact Assessment of WIPO Dev. Activities", "IP and Economic and Social Development", "Open Collaborative Projects", "IP and Brain Drain".

The Thematic Project document prepared by the Secretariat provides a description of the project, introduction to the issue/concern, objectives, delivery strategy, project outputs, project objectives, outcome indicators etc. Each project has a project manager who is to report to the CDIP on the implementation of the project.

However, several developing countries voiced concerns with regards to the Thematic Project approach proposed by the Secretariat.

Among the concerns raised were that: (i) the implementation of the DA should be member state driven, i.e. that member states should provide inputs for the preparation of any thematic project; (ii) the project should not be seen as an end in itself; (iii) the thematic project's attempts to reinterpret or impose a particular interpretation of the Recommendations; (iv) the principles were not being considered as actionable; (v) the issues and objectives of the projects did not reflect the content of the recommendations.

These concerns led to a protracted discussion on the Thematic Projects and conditions that should be attached to any discussion on the projects.

Thailand cautioned that the project should reflect all aspects of the recommendations and that the objectives should be flexible to cater for any additional requirement. It added that the objectives should be realistic and the outcome accountable and accomplishable, as well as that the projects should suit the economic development conditions of each of the countries.

Costa Rica, on behalf of the GRULAC (Latin American and Caribbean) countries, laid out conditions for discussing the thematic projects, i.e. there should be no reinterpretation of the Recommendations; the modifications sought by countries should be reflected in the project document; if the implementation stage of a project is completed, this does not mean that the recommendations are concluded; that sufficient budgetary funds be made available for the thematic projects.

Costa Rica added that the budget of the project should not reflect the costs of participation of staff that are already working in the organisation. This was in response to the Secretariat's approach of reflecting personnel costs for the DA although the personnel were not necessarily fresh personnel.

Nigeria expressed concerns over the differentiation between principles and actionable recommendations, as this suggests that the principles were not actionable.

Egypt stressed that in the treatment of the 45 recommendations, there should be no amendment of the intention of member states. It added that some recommendations had elements of principles but this did not mean that they were not actionable.

India stressed that while the project approach contained more information, member states had to remain conscious that it was a tool and not the goal, and that the desired goal was the substance of each of the recommendations. India stressed on the need to focus on individual recommendations. It also said that principles were actionable and they had to be implemented and mainstreamed.

Brazil requested that the methodology take into account that the DA is a member-driven process. It stressed the importance of member states taking the leadership in the implementation of the recommendations. It added that if the Secretariat's approach was taken up, then there would need to be conditions and guidelines that must address the various problems raised by member states. It also said that recommendations must be discussed before the project and that member states should not put the cart before the horse.

Argentina echoed some of the concerns raised, in particular, that there should be no reinterpretation of the recommendations and the modifications sought by member states should be reflected in the thematic project documents. It further said that the end of a project does not mean the end of the recommendations. It sought assurance that sufficient funds be provided for the implementation of the budgetary fund. It also stressed that the costs for the project should not reflect existing staff costs.

The various interventions during the CDIP session led the Chair, Ambassador Trevor Clarke of Barbados, to produce a summary of the conditions for adopting the thematic approach.

However, the summary was abandoned following numerous interventions seeking changes in the summary, with the Chair concluding that each recommendation will be discussed and where the activities are similar, they would be brought together under a theme. Thereafter, implementation of the recommendation will be structured in a thematic project approach.

The conditions for the thematic approach presented by the Chair were:

-- In preparing the thematic projects, the Secretariat should maintain the contents and formulation of the original recommendations, which were adopted by the General Assembly. The projects should reflect the shared interpretation of Member states.

-- In the development and implementation of the projects that address the various recommendations, any modifications made by Member states during the discussions should be included and the process will remain Member state driven.

-- The fact that a project comes to an end should not necessarily mean that the implementation of the relevant recommendations also comes to an end and will depend upon the consideration by Member states.

-- Where projects only implement part of the relevant recommendations (i.e. the remaining part is either a principle or implemented through regular programme activities), additional projects or activities for the implementation of those recommendations will be formulated to implement those recommendations in their entirety.

-- Sufficient financial resources should be made available to guarantee full implementation of the thematic projects. The costs of all human resources for implementing the projects should be included in the project budget and in order to maintain full transparency, internal and external costs should be reflected separately.

-- Recognition that in promoting the objectives of some principles, activities may be required.

-- There should be flexibility to ensure that Member states may go back to review a project, if it is felt that it is not appropriately addressing the concerns behind the recommendation(s).

-- Given the multi-thematic nature of some recommendations, individual recommendations may be included in more than one project.

The conditions presented by the Chair led to further discussion about the nature of the document prepared by the Chair and the language that should be used. +