[Ip-health] Fwd: TWN IP Info: WIPO – Developed countries resist movement on IP and development

K.M. Gopakumar kumargopakm at gmail.com
Thu Jun 5 18:10:22 PDT 2014


*Title :* TWN IP Info: WIPO – Developed countries resist movement on IP and
development
*Date :* 28 May 2014

*Contents:*

TWN Info Service on Intellectual Property Issues (May14/11)
28 May 2014
Third World Network
www.twn.my

*WIPO:  Developed countries resist movement on IP and development*

Geneva, 25 May (Alexandra Bhattacharya) – Discussions at the World
Intellectual Property Organization on integrating development into
intellectual property regimes ended with no agreement.

The thirteenth session of the WIPO Committee on Development and
Intellectual Property (CDIP) witnessed recurring divergence on a number of
key agenda items. Due to the lack of agreement and views, which at times
could be characterized as “poles apart”, decisions on a number of crucial
items were postponed till the next session.

The WIPO CDIP session took place in Geneva from 19 to 23 May, chaired by
Ambassador Mohamed Siad Doualeh of Djibouti.

The  summary by the Chair of the meeting  is available here:
http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/mdocs/en/cdip_13/cdip_13_summary.pdf

The issues where the disagreement was most apparent and decisions could not
be reached included:

(i)  Terms of Reference for the Independent Review of the Implementation of
the Development Agenda Recommendations;
(ii)  WIPO General Assembly Decision on CDIP related matters;
(iii)  The International Conference on Intellectual Property and
Development; and
(iv)  External Review of WIPO TechnicalAssistance in the Area of
Cooperation for Development.

In particular, there was expectation that the session of the CDIP would be
able to finalize the Terms of Reference for the Independent Review of the
Implementation of the Development Agenda Recommendations and this occupied
a significant amount of the committee’s time in the form of informal
consultations.

*Views on the WIPO Development Agenda*

The lack of results led to member states to make closing statements which
were telling evidence as to the difference in opinion with respect to the
role and direction of the Development Agenda inWIPO.

*Egypt *stated that the onset of the Development Agenda (DA) had changed
the course of how the organization functioned. It had transformed from an
“exclusive club of technical nature” to that geared towards development. It
reiterated that the DA was an overall policy orientation of the
organization and could not be “ reduced to the mere provision of technical
assistance”.

It also cautioned that the future of the organization was put into question
when the interests of all the members were not being met.

*South Africa *also noted that some delegations were of the view that the
organization should go back to the pre-development agenda  (pre-2007
period) and itunderlined that “it can never be”. It also underlined that
irrespective of who funded the organization “we don’t answer to anyone
except the public of South Africa”.

In their closing statement, *Group B (comprising several developed
countries), the European Union and the UnitedStates* underlined that that
the mandate of WIPO as found in the WIPO Convention was the promotion of
the protection of intellectual property across the world.

*The United States* also stated that that it was seen lately that “the
Development Agenda is being used to block work in a number of WIPO
Committees”. It further added that it was unfortunate that “the positive
effects of the organization have been impeded by the mischaracterization of
the (DA)”. The US also said that there was a need to “collectively rethink
the function of the DA.”

*Terms of Reference for the Independent Review of the Implementation of the
Development Agenda Recommendations*

The Independent Review of the Implementation of Development Agenda
Recommendations was requested under the Coordination Mechanism Decision
adopted by the General Assembly in 2010.

The Coordination Mechanism states:  “*To request the CDIP to undertake an
independent review of the implementation of the Development Agenda
Recommendations at the end of the 2012-2013 biennium. Upon consideration of
that review, the CDIP may decide on a possible further review. The Terms of
Reference and the selection of independent IP and development experts will
be agreed by the CDIP”.*

Since the 10th CDIP session the DAG and the Africa Group have been pushing
for the Committee tobegin discussion on the Terms of Reference and
selection of experts for theReview. At the 11th CDIP session the DAG and
the Africa Group submitted a Joint Proposal on Terms of Reference and
Methodology for the Independent Review of the implementation of the
Development Agenda Recommendations (CDIP/11/8.

The previous 12thsession of the CDIP was unable to finalize the Terms of
Reference. During the 13th CDIP session, Group B attempted to reopen even
elements of the draft ToR that were agreed to during CDIP 12.

At the end of the 13th CDIP session, after 5 informal consultations, the
facilitator (Ms Ekaterine Egutia from Georgia) stated that despite
“excellent progress”, “there was just one word which was the subject of
disagreement” in the draft terms of reference (ToR).  This was relating to
the use of the word “practical” with respect to the experience of the group
of experts to be selected for undertaking the review.

According to the Chair, Group B was in favor of using the word “practical”
whereas the Development Agenda Group (DAG) and the African Group were of
the opinion that this was not an important requirement.

According to a developing country delegate attending the informal
consultations, there was a general impression that Group B saw the review
of Development Agenda only as an issue of reviewing specific projects
undertaken in developing countries and thus being largely about technical
assistance to developing countries.  In reality Development Agenda concerns
a much broader agenda, and with the mandate of the review being much
broader in scope and purpose.

The current draft of the ToR lists the following headings: (i) Purpose and
scope of the review,(ii) Key questions to be addressed;(iii)
Methodology;(iv) The Review Team;(v) Deliverables; (vi) Budget,(vii)
Monitoring and (viii) Timeline.

According to sources Group B attempted to limit the Review exercise not
only in terms of scope but also in terms of budget.

With respect to the scope of the Review, a particularly controversial issue
was whether the Review should relate to the WIPO’s “activities” or “work”
in relation to the implementation of the Development Agenda Recommendations
for the period from 2008 to 2013. According to sources, Group B insisted
that the purpose and scope of the Review should be limited to WIPO’s
“activities”. Limiting the scope of the Review to WIPO’s activities would
have narrowed the scope of the Independent Review, as the focus of the
Review would only have been on the specific activities undertaken by WIPO
to implement DA. The Review would not have assessed implementation of the
45 DA recommendations in its entirety.

However, there is now conditional agreement from Group B to the use of  “
WIPO’s work”, but this is dependent on how it will be defined in the ToR.

Additionally, in terms of deliverables, Group B has been insisting on a
“concise” document of no more than “10 to 15 thousand words”. Several
delegates were of the view that such a condition is extremely limiting and
unreasonable considering that anevaluation report for a single CDIP project
can contain about 45 pages (14709 words) e.g. the Evaluation Report on
South-South Cooperation (CDIP/13/49).

In terms of the Key questions to be addressed in the Review, according to a
developing country delegate attending the informal consultations, there is
general consensus on this part of the text, although again dependent on
thedefinition of “WIPO’s Work.” One of the latest drafts of the ToR lists
the key questions to be addressed as the following:

Relevance: [According to sources, there has been general consensus on this
amended text based on thefollowing proposal from Chile]:to what extent
WIPO’s work and the results of its activities for the implementation of the
Development Agenda Recommendations serve the needs of Member States,
stakeholders and other intended beneficiaries?

Impact: what is the impact of WIPO’s work in the implementation of the
Development Agenda Recommendations? To this end, the Review must address
the actual impact of WIPO’s work in the implementation of the Development
Agenda Recommendations at various levels and across WIPO’s bodies and
programs.

Effectiveness: to what extent is WIPO’s work effective in the
implementation of the Development Agenda Recommendations? To this end, the
Review must address whether WIPO’s work has been effective in achieving the
outcomes in line with the Development Agenda Recommendations and also,
whether the project-based approach has been effective.

Efficiency: how efficiently has WIPO used the human and financial resources
in its work directed at the implementation of the Development Agenda
Recommendations?

Sustainability: to what extent are the results of WIPO’s work sustainable
in the long term? To this end, the Review must also identify the best
practices and the lessons learned from the WIPO’s work in the
implementation of the Development Agenda Recommendations with the view to
achieving sustainable outcomes in future.

In terms of financial resourcing for the Review, the proposed budget for
the Review stands at CHF  161,460 for an estimated ten month Review process
which will include 2 experts and one lead evaluator. This was seen by some
developing country delegates as being insufficient to conduct an in depth
quality evaluation. Further, the included CHF 40,000 for 5 field visits was
also seen as insufficient as CDIP projects have been implemented in more
than 17 countries.

The Chair’s conclusion on this matter states: “The Committee discussed the
Terms of Reference for the Independent Review of the Implementation of the
Development Agenda Recommendations. Following a brief presentation by the
Facilitator and former Vice-Chair of the Committee, Mrs. Ekaterine EGUTIA,
the Committee decided to hold one informal consultation meeting before the
next session of the CDIP to allow an agreement on the outstanding issues.
The Committee will discuss this matter at its next session”.

This lack of a decision on the ToR during CDIP13 means that the Independent
Review will be even further delayed. According to the 2010 WIPO General
Assembly Decision on the Coordination Mechanism, the independent review
should have begun at the end of the 2012-2013 biennium.

*WIPO General Assembly Decision on CDIP related matters*

The Chair’s summary on this agenda item, which pertains to the
implementation of the mandate of the CDIP, stated that:

“The Committee discussed the WIPO General Assembly Decision on CDIP related
matters (document CDIP/12/5). The Committee could not reach an agreement on
these matters. Accordingly, the Committee requests the General Assembly to
allow it to continue the discussion during its fourteenth and fifteenth
sessions and to report back and make recommendations on the two matters to
the General Assembly in 2015.”

For a background to this issue, see:
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/intellectual_property/info.service/2014/ip140509.htm

During the discussion on thechair’s summary, the African Group consistently
stated that there was a need to include clear actions to the General
Assembly 2014 in order to ensure the successful fulfillment of the mandate
handed down by the General Assembly in 2013.

Group B, on the other hand, stated that there was a need to ensure that no
unresolved issues were forwarded to the already heavily burdened General
Assembly.

[The General Assembly, in its decision (reproduced in CDIP/12/5),
instructed theCDIP to discuss the issueduring the 12th and 13th sessions of
the CDIP and to“make recommendations on the two matters to the General
Assembly in 2014".]

*The International Conference on Intellectual Property and Development*

The CDIP also decided to postpone the discussion on the convening of an
International Conference on Intellectual Property and Development to the
future session of the CDIP. The issue of divergence relates to the list of
speakers for the Conference and the amount of input Member States could
have with respect to the list of speakers.

The Chair’s summary of the discussion states that: “The Committee discussed
the matter of the InternationalConference on Intellectual Property and
Development. The Committee did not reach agreement on the list of speakers
for the Conference. It was decided to continue discussion on this issue at
the next session.”

The idea to convene this Conference has been under discussion since the
10th session of the CDIP when it was agreed to organize such a conference
in Geneva in the second half of 2013.

However, following the 11th session due to the lack of consensus on the
list of speakers prepared by the Secretariat and endorsed by the Group
Coordinators, the Conference has been postponed. The 12th session of the
CDIP also did not have time to consider the issue.

The African Group and DAG during the CDIP expressed the need for Member
States to have input in the selection of experts in order to ensure a
balanced approach on the content of the themes as well as in the selection
of speakers and panelists. This had been rejected by Group B who was of the
opinion that the Secretariat should maintain full control of the list of
speakers and to avoid member states from “micro managing” the Secretariat.

In order to bridge a middle ground, the Group of Latin American and
Caribbean Countries (GRULAC)submitted a proposal, which stated that:

*“Under Agenda Item 7, the Committee discussed the matter of the
International Conference on IP and Development.*

*The Committee agreed to hold it [prior/at the CDIP 14][on xx/xx/xxxx]*

*The Secretariat was requested to check the availability of the experts
proposed as speakers in the list contained in document
WIPO/IPDA/GE/13/INF/1 Prov.*

*Members [and Groups, if so agreed] are invited to submit a list of
speakers before [June 15th] to be considered by the Secretariat when
finalizing the list of speakers [and in the event the need to fill the
vacancies arises][with a view to replace the unavailable speakers with the
new nominees].”*

Despite an appeal from GRULAC for flexibility and the assurance that its
proposal was merely to enable the opportunity for Member States to suggest
additional names, Group B countries did not support it. In this context,
GRULAC withdrew its proposal.

*External Review of WIPO Technical Assistance in the Area of Cooperation
for Development*

No substantive way forward could also be reached with respect to taking
forward recommendations stemming from the External Review on WIPO’s
Technical Assistance in the Area of Cooperation for Development.

As seen in previous sessions, Group B was reluctant to engage in a
substantive discussion on the basis of the DAG andAfrican Group Joint
proposal (CDIP/9/16) which identified recommendations of the External
Review that should be taken forward and implemented.

The Chair’s summary of the discussion states that: “The Committee discussed
the External Review of WIPO Technical Assistance in the Area of Cooperation
for Development (documents CDIP/8/INF/1, CDIP/9/14, CDIP/9/15, CDIP/9/16
and CDIP/11/4). The Committee could not reach an agreement and decided to
consider the issue at its next session”:

[The External Review on WIPO’s Technical Assistance in the Area of
Cooperation for Development (CDIP/8/INF/1) undertaken by two experts was
presented at the 8th CDIP session in November 2011.  This Review for the
first time provided an in-depth analysis of WIPO’s technical assistance
activities and attempted to shed light on the effectiveness, impact,
efficiency and relevance of those activities.

The Review in particular, found that WIPO’s staff and its activities lacked
a development orientation, including a clear understanding of the over all
purposes of WIPO’s cooperation activities. It also highlighted the lack of
detailed information, transparency and appropriate accountability
mechanisms over those technical assistance activities.

During the 9th session, the DAG and African Group submitted a Joint
proposal (CDIP/9/16) which identified recommendations of the External
Review that should be taken forward.]

During the brief discussion on this issue during CDIP 13, the African Group
reiterated the need for the discussion to be based on the DAG and African
Group joint proposal, as it was currently the only official proposal on the
issue. It called for engagement on A3, C2, D2, and E2 from the Joint
proposal and for the Secretariat to provide an update onC1, D2 and E3.

However, this was resisted by Group B who stated that the recommendations
of the External Review were made by external experts and the CDIP was under
no obligation to implement them.  Group B was unwilling to engage on any
substantive discussion based on the African Group and DAG Joint
proposal.Group B further noted that the best way forward would be the
compilation of best practices in the area of technical assistance.

*CDIP Projects*

The only new project approved by the CDIP was Phase II of the Project on
Capacity Building in the Use of Appropriate Technology – Specific Technical
and ScientificInformation as a Solution for Identified Development
Challenges (CDIP/13/9).

The project aims to improve the national capacity of LDCs with respect to
the management, administration and utilization of technical and scientific
information with a view to building their appropriate technologybase and
meeting national growth and development goals.  The project will be
implemented in three LDC countries.

The CDIP also agreed to extend the CDIP project on Enhancing South-South
Cooperation on IP and Development Among Developing Countries and Least
Developed Countries “for one year, allowing the completion of the
outstanding activities within the remaining project budget”.

The project document CDIP/13/8 For Intellectual Property and Tourism:
Supporting Development Objectives and Protecting Cultural Heritage in Egypt
and Other Developing Countries which was based on a project proposal by
Egypt during CDIP 12 was welcomed by around 20 member states including
Kenya, Thailand, Rwanda, Tanzania and Senegal.

The project aims at analyzing, supporting and promoting awareness of the
role of the IP system in tourism-related economic activity, including
activity related to the IP protection, safeguarding and preservation of
cultural heritage.

However, approval for the project during the session could not be garnered
from Group B including the EU and the US who objected to the reference to
“IP norms and principles related to traditional knowledge and traditional
cultural expression” stating that these issues were currently being
considered by the WIPO IGC and should not be included as part of the
project.

It was decided that the project would be further discussed during the next
session. The US objected to any idea of inter sessional work on this topic
prior to the next CDIP.

The CDIP also agreed that a “document, based upon factual compilation with
no recommendations whatsoever, on two new patent-related flexibilities be
prepared for discussion at a future session of the CDIP, namely, the
flexibility to apply or not, criminal sanctions in patent enforcement
(TRIPS Art. 61) and measures related to security which might result in a
limitation of patent rights (so-called “security exception”) (TRIPS Art.
73).” This is with respect to the agenda item on Future Work on
Patent-Related Flexibilities in the Multilateral Legal Framework
(CDIP/10/11)

The next session of the CDIP is expected in November, 2014.




----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright Third World Network - www.twnnews.net All Rights Reserved
To unsubscribe, please CLICK HERE!
<twnkl at twnetwork.org?subject=unsubscribe+from+this+group&body=Name:+Mr+Martin+Khor+%0ATitle:+TWN+IP+Info:+WIPO+–+Developed+countries+resist+movement+on+IP+and+development%0ADate:+28+May+2014%0A%0A--+End+of+Email+-->



More information about the Ip-health mailing list