|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on Intellectual Property Issues (May14/09) WIPO: Deadlock continues on development and IP integration Geneva, 22 May (Alexandra Bhattacharya) – The integration of development considerations into the work of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) continues to be contentious. Positions in the WIPO Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP) remained fundamentally unchanged on two paramount issues under the agenda item “WIPO General Assembly Decision on CDIP related matters”. These issues go to the heart of the implementation of the three pillars of the mandate of the CDIP, which was created to ensure that development considerations formed an integral part of WIPO’s work. The thirteenth session of the WIPO CDIP is taking place in Geneva from 19 to 23 May 2014. [In 2007 the WIPO General Assembly adopted 45 recommendations on the Development Agenda and also established the CDIP which was tasked with developing a work-program for implementing the Development Agenda. The Development Agenda is an initiative of a number of developing countries first discussed in 2004 based on a proposal which aimed at making WIPO and its norms and activities more development-oriented and to ensure that intellectual property rights policy was placed within the context of economic and social development and public interest considerations.] The
CDIP was established by the General Assembly in 2008 with a mandate
to: Additionally, to implement the second pillar of the CDIP 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 pillar of the mandate has been hampered by the reluctance of the group of developed countries (Group B) 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. This is one of the issues under consideration during the current session of the CDIP. The second issue relates to the third pillar of the CDIP mandate. In 2010, the Development Agenda Group (comprising several developing countries that initiated the Development Agenda) submitted a written proposal (CDIP/6/12 Rev.) to include in the CDIP a standing agenda item on “IP and development-related issues” and also submitted a revised proposal (CDIP/12/11) during the 12th session of the CDIP. This has also been resisted by a number of developed countries. Thus during the 2013 WIPO General Assembly, the DAG, the African Group and several other developing countries expressed concerns that certain aspects of the CDIP mandate had not fully been implemented. In particular they sought a General Assembly Decision to reinforce full implementation of all three pillars of the CDIP mandate including the Coordination Mechanism. The General Assembly in its decision (reproduced in CDIP/12/5) instructed the CDIP to discuss the issue during the 12th and 13th sessions of the CDIP and to “to make recommendations on the two matters to the General Assembly in 2014”. The 12th session of the CDIP was unable to reach consensus. Countries Reiterate Unchanged Positions Kenya, on behalf of the African Group, stated that it was clear that the Committee on WIPO Standards (CWS) had a contribution to make with respect to the Development Agenda (DA) implementation as the narrative of Program 12 as found in the Program and Budget for the 2014/2015 biennium states that the CWS contributed to DA Recommendations 30 and 31. It emphasized the need for mainstreaming the 45 DA Recommendation through all the WIPO committees and no committee should be exempt. Kenya reiterated that the DA Recommendations were not purely about technical assistance activities but also about norm setting and therefore the CWS which deals with the setting of standards was a key body. It added that every committee should report to the General Assembly with respect to its contribution to the implementation of the DA Recommendations. Kenya underlined that the DA was a process, and one which took time, and in this respect, it could not be said that development was achieved. Kenya urged member states to “participate in good faith” in the discussion and charting a way forward. It reiterated the need to ensure that “ IP works for everyone at all levels”. [It is to be noted that the 4th session of the CWS which was held last week (12 - 16 May) failed to adopt its agenda. The African Group and DAG had proposed an agenda item on the contribution of the CWS to the implementation of the DA which did not garner agreement from Group B.] Egypt, on behalf of the Development Agenda Group (DAG), stated that there was a need to go back to the General Assembly with a recommendation on the issue and that “failure after failure” to find a solution could render the organization as dysfunctional. It stated that norm setting was one of the clusters of the DA and in this respect the CWS was relevant. Bangladesh, on behalf of the Asia and Pacific Group, stated that although the Group did not have a unified position under this issue, most members of the Group considered the CWS and the Program and Budget Committee as “relevant” committees for reporting under the Coordination Mechanism. Brazil also emphasized that the DA was more than “just one or two activities” and rather it was meant to change the “mindset” with respect to the way WIPO worked. The European Union stated that the core objective of the CDIP was the discussion on intellectual property and development and it considered that the committee had fully delivered on this mandate. Iran stated that the DA should be the core of all development activities and strongly believed that the DA recommendations should be an integral part of all WIPO bodies including the CWS and the Program and Budget Committee. South Africa stated that it was clear that the General Assembly had made a decision on the Coordination Mechanism and there was a need for that decision to be fully implemented. It added that this discussion was not only about the CWS but that the Coordination Mechanism was only being implemented on an “ad hoc” basis. It said further that this was also about member states respecting the decisions of the General Assembly and there was a need to go back to the Assembly with a recommendation. It also underlined that a recommendation for “no further action” to the General Assembly as proposed by Group B was not an acceptable solution. Japan on behalf of Group B stated that there was no new development with respect to its position. With respect to the first issue at hand, it stated that it was clear that “all relevant bodies” as stated in the Coordination Mechanism were not “all” WIPO bodies and therefore did not include the CWS and the Program and Budget Committee. It also added that the overall role of the CDIP was to discuss intellectual property and development and the Group was not convinced regarding the need for a standing agenda item on intellectual property and development related issues. Czech Republic, on behalf of the Group of Central Europe and Baltic States (CEBs), also echoed that a number of issues related to intellectual property and development had been discussed in the CDIP already and that member states were free to table agenda items covered by the CDIP mandate on an ad hoc basis. It also agreed with Group B that WIPO bodies should be able to decide if they were relevant or not for the purposes of reporting on the Development Agenda implementation. Chile expressed concerns regarding the discussion noting that it had been actively participating in the Development Agenda process. It said that it had spent four years listening to the exact same positions on the subject and there were only rigid positions. Chile stated that there was a need to “focus on the substance rather than the editorial” and in its view it did not see substantive discussion on development in the CWS. It added that the effects of the ongoing discussion would “permeate the whole organization and not just this committee.” The same view was expressed by Uruguay on behalf of the group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries (GRULAC), who also raised concern regarding the “poor dialogue” and that the repetition of “well known positions” could lead to the paralysis of the organization. It also called for substantive discussion and not just on political issues. These views were also reiterated by Venezuela. It is not clear at the time of writing as to what the recommendation to the General Assembly by the CDIP will be on this issue as the discussion was suspended. Similar forms of impasse are currently being witnessed in the CDIP with relation to the discussion on the Terms of Reference for the Independent Review of the Implementation of the Development Agenda Recommendations, and on implementing recommendations stemming from External Review of WIPO Technical Assistance in the Area of Cooperation for Development. During his opening speech to the CDIP, Director General Francis Gurry had also referred to the “cycle of disagreement” which had lately characterized a number of WIPO Committees. The agenda of the 13th session of the CDIP can be found here: http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/mdocs/en/cdip_13/cdip_13_1_prov_3.pdf
|
||
