TWN Info Service on Intellectual Property Issues (Sept13/02)
30 September 2013
Third World Network

WIPO: Assemblies told Development Agenda Decisions not fully implemented

Geneva, 30 Sep (K.M. Gopakumar & Sangeeta Shashikant*) – Developing countries participating in the WIPO Assemblies exposed WIPO’s continuing failure to fully implement decisions pertaining to the Development Agenda.

The Development Agenda was adopted by the General Assembly, the highest governing body of WIPO, in 2007 to ensure that development considerations form an integral part of the organization’s work.

The WIPO Assemblies is meeting in Geneva from 23 September to 2 October.

During the General Assembly, the Development Agenda Group (DAG), the Africa Group and several other developing countries expressed concerns that certain aspects of the mandate of the Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP) have not fully been implemented.

Of particular concern to the DAG and Africa Group is the non-implementation of the third pillar of the CDIP mandate, which establishes that the Committee should discuss the interface between intellectual property (IP) and development; and the reporting of WIPO relevant bodies on the implementation of the Development Agenda as defined by the approved Coordination Mechanism.

At the ongoing Assemblies, the DAG and Africa Group are seeking a General Assembly Decision to reinforce full implementation of the CDIP mandates.

In further interventions on the agenda item on the CDIP developing countries also highlighted other concerns such as the slow pace of discussions on proposals to reform the WIPO technical assistance submitted by the DAG and Africa Group, the lack of consensus on the Conference on IP and Development, and the need for the WIPO Global Challenges Division to report to the CDIP on its activities.

In 2007 the General Assembly adopted 45 recommendations on the Development Agenda (DA) and established a dedicated committee to implement those recommendations. The decision gave the CDIP three mandates: (1) develop a work-program for implementation of the adopted recommendations; (2) monitor, assess, discuss and report on the implementation of all recommendations adopted, and for that purpose it shall coordinate with relevant WIPO bodies; and (3) discuss intellectual property and development related issues as agreed by the Committee, as well as those decided by the General Assembly.

To implement the second mandate, in 2010 the General Assembly adopted “Coordination Mechanisms and Monitoring, Assessing and Reporting Modalities” (Coordination Mechanism) which require “relevant WIPO bodies” to annually report on their contribution to the implementation of DA Recommendations.

However, implementation of the second mandate has been hampered by the reluctance of Group B (composed of developed countries) to require the Committee on WIPO Standards and the Program and Budget Committee to be considered as “relevant WIPO bodies” for purposes of reporting as required by the Coordination Mechanism.

Developed countries have also opposed implementation of the third mandate of the 2007 General Assembly Decision. In 2010, the DAG submitted a written proposal (CDIP/6/12 Rev.) to include in the CDIP a standing agenda item on “IP and development-related issues”.  In the paper, the DAG said it was open as to what subjects may be discussed under the agenda item. Group B has not only opposed the DAG proposal, but also attempted to remove the proposal from the agenda of the CDIP.

Views on Development Agenda Implementation

Brazil on behalf of the DAG said that after six years, the implementation of the DA has seen good progress but “much remains to be done and more could be expected”. It added that the “full implementation of the Development Agenda depends specially on a cultural change within WIPO as well as in the framing of intellectual property issues”.

Brazil also called on WIPO members “to renew their commitment to the full implementation of the 45 DA recommendations and of the mandates and decisions already approved in that regard”. It noted with concern that neither the mandate of the CDIP nor the mandate of the coordination mechanism, both adopted by the General Assembly, are being fully implemented although they constitute basic tools for the effective mainstreaming of the Development Agenda.

It stressed that the different views of Members on the mandates are clear, but they are not leading us to a satisfactory solution and that the situation “has been impeding the full implementation of decisions taken by the General Assembly, negatively affecting predictability and the confidence among Members and ultimately amounting to an institutional problem”.

Brazil further highlighted that the need to revise WIPO technical cooperation has already been recognized, stressing that concrete results on the review of WIPO’s technical assistance is one of the major contributions the CDIP can give to the implementation of the DA.

[In 2012, the DAG and Africa Group submitted a Joint Proposal to reform WIPO’s technical assistance (CDIP/9/16), taking forward recommendations of an External Review of WIPO’s technical assistance in 2010. However in the CDIP, Group B has hindered adoption of the DAG/Africa Group proposals.]

Brazil also expressed regret over the adjournment of the Conference on IP and Development due to a lack of consensus among Member States but added that it remains a very important initiative to allow Members to thoroughly review the implementation of the Development Agenda.

Algeria, on behalf of the Africa Group, referred to the DA and the CDIP as the greatest achievement of WIPO adding that it is the vision of the international IP system that needs to be adapted. It added that WIPO could do better than the thematic projects being undertaken to implement DA recommendations.

Algeria also said that discussions on development issues are not as they were. They are long way from the enthusiasm expressed from the earlier years, Algeria added. “We are losing momentum. The consensus on the projects is becoming difficult and it is difficult to exert real activities”, it said, further adding, “We don't think that development should be assigned to secondary importance”.

It stressed on the need for a “real forum” to discuss the IP and development linkage, referring to the 3rd mandate of the CDIP; for WIPO members to be more involved in activities of the WIPO Division on Global Challenges and for effective implementation of the coordination mechanism. 

[The WIPO Global Challenges Division operates without any substantive oversight or input by Member States over its activities in relation to the interface of IP with food, climate change and public health.]

India said it supported the adoption of African Group/DAG proposals on technical assistance.
Iran said it attached great importance to the mainstreaming of DA. It stressed that technical assistance should not be interpreted narrowly as merely promoting the IP system, adding that the idea is to reconcile the cause of development with that of IP protection and identify areas of potential contradiction. It added that the rationale of the DA necessitates the finding of policies that aim to implement the right to development, including promoting access to knowledge, reducing the knowledge gap, enlarging public domain and preventing misappropriation of genetic resources, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions.
Egypt stressed that the completion of DA projects should not be seen as the end of the DA recommendations.  It also noted that the Committee on WIPO Standards and the Program and Budget Committee, two major committees had not submitted their reports on the “Description of the Contribution of the Relevant WIPO Bodies to the Implementation of the Respective Development Agenda Recommendations”.  It called on the Secretariat to improve the reporting by Committees on their contribution on the DA, stressing that merely reproducing the statements of Member States is not enough.
Egypt also called for the inclusion of a standing agenda item on IP and development in CDIP; implementation of the recommendations of the proposals on technical assistance; and for CDIP oversight of the activities of the Global Challenges Division of WIPO.
Belgium, on behalf of Group B, spoke of its commitment to the development agenda adding that the 45 DA recommendations should be gradually implemented in an appropriate, balanced and consensual driven manner.

On technical assistance, it said that the recommendations of the External Review on technical assistance had already been implemented or were in the process of implementation, stressing on “maximizing efficiency”, improving internal and external coordination, “lessons learnt and best practices” as the way forward.

On the issue of “ relevant bodies” for the purposes of assessing contribution to the DA implementation, Group B said that the WIPO bodies themselves should deem whether they are relevant adding that neither the Committee on WIPO Standards and the Program and Budget Committee are relevant as the former deals with non-binding technical standards while the latter deals with the financial underpinnings of WIPO, and “thus neither have relation to development”.

According to a developing country delegate, in the CDIP sessions, Group B had created obstacles to adoption of proposals contained in the DAG/Africa Group paper on technical assistance to improve the transparency and accountability of WIPO’s technical assistance.  The delegate also explained that the IP and Development Conference was postponed as no agreement could be reach on the list of speakers.

A representative from Djibouti read a statement from Ambassador Mohamed Siad Doualeh in his capacity as the chair of the CDIP. The ambassador said that there was no doubt that the DA was among the most important issue discussed in WIPO, adding that while there had been progress, “on many occasions the issue tends to draw diverse positions”. The statement referred to the Conference on IP and Development which was supposed to be held before the CDIP session in November but was postponed due to differences among delegations.

The Ambassador’s statement added that the DA “while once perceived by some as an unnecessary destruction will in fact be the vehicle for lasting change in IP system where countries hold a shared vision of the IP system”. 

The statement stressed that the next session of the CDIP will be discussing important issues such as the external review of implementation of the WIPO DA and the convening of the IP and development conference.

Third World Network (TWN), an NGO observer, said the development agenda is the result of a Member Sates-driven process, with recommendations adopted on the basis of consensus, adding that implementation however is slow and often projected as a stand alone program.

It said that although revamping WIPO’s technical assistance program to address the development concerns is an important pillar of the DA recommendations, there is no notable improvement in this regard. For instance, the technical assistance of WIPO to draw up national IP strategies in developing countries ignores key development concerns and often advocates for IP aximalist positions, it added.

TWN called for the approval of the proposals contained in the DAG/Africa Group paper on technical assistance, to develop systems of accountability and transparency in the implementation of technical assistance.

It also cautioned the WIPO Secretariat against using innovation and intellectual property as interchangeable concepts to promote the idea that IP is necessary for innovation. The TWN representative stressed that innovation often takes place in the absence of intellectual property protection.

TWN also urged that the review of the implementation of the DA recommendations, which is due at the end of this year should be carried out by a panel of independent experts specializing in IP and development issues and urged WIPO Member States to finalize the Terms of Reference and independent experts in the upcoming CDIP meeting in November in order to carry out the review in timely manner.

*With inputs from Alexandra Bhattacharya