|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on Climate Change (Sept12/04) A self-assessment report by the Secretariat of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) on its activities on “Global Challenges and Intellectual Property” has been heavily criticized by developing countries and concerned NGOs. The 3 global challenges identified by WIPO are climate change, public health and food security (see http://www.wipo.int/globalchallenges/en/). At the annual meeting of the Program & Budget Committee on 10-12 September 2012 in Geneva, the Program Performance Report submitted by the Secretariat states that the Program on IP and Global Challenges “finalized implementation of its first full biennium in 2010/2011 contributing to WIPO’s goals by providing support for strong, empirically well-founded policy dialogues between governments, international organizations, civil society actors and the private sector on current and emerging global issues touching on IP”. Developing countries expressed concerns that there is no oversight by WIPO Member States over the activities WIPO conducts under the Program on global challenges or the positions the Secretariat takes on the inter-linkages between IP and public policy issues as it engages in various intergovernmental processes. A strong joint statement was made by the African Group and the WIPO “Development Agenda Group” (includes Algeria, Brazil, Cuba, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippines, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Uruguay and Yemen). On climate change, the Secretariat highlighted a pilot platform known as “WIPO GREEN” that aims to promote accelerated adaptation, adoption and deployment of environmental technologies, particularly in developing countries and emerging economies. According to the WIPO website, this initiative “Serves as a hub connecting various critical partners, with WIPO facilitating policy dialogue and networking” where WIPO positions itself as a broker for “owners of proprietary technologies to make selected technologies and solutions available as packages, including know-how, services and materials”. It offers “credibility” billing itself as “A trustworthy entry - through WIPO and other intergovernmental and non-governmental organization partners - into the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) process, in particular its Technology Centers and Networks.” What this actually means is not clear at the moment. However, WIPO’s technology licensing agreement terms in the area of public health have already been criticized. During the Geneva discussion, the Secretariat highlighted the WIPO “Re:Search” initiative adding that technology transfer agreements have been concluded and a meeting of partners will take place in October. According to WIPO, the Re:Search initiative is a new consortium where public and private sector organizations share valuable IP and expertise with the global health research community to promote development of new drugs, vaccines, and diagnostics to treat neglected tropical diseases, malaria, and tuberculosis. However, the access terms promoted by Re:Search have been criticized by public health groups such as Medecins Sans Frontieres which noted that “… instead of allowing all countries where neglected diseases are prevalent to access the products, the initiative restricts royalty-free licences to least developed countries only, with access for other developing countries negotiable on a case by case basis”, adding that “With its timid approach to licensing terms, WIPO is falling behind in its access policies, when it should be leading”. Since IP is extremely contentious at the UNFCCC, with developed countries refusing to address the issue there, arguing that WIPO is the competent forum and already dealing with IP and climate-friendly technologies, it is important for UNFCCC negotiators and climate policy makers to monitor the actual WIPO developments. After an intense discussion, the Technology Executive Committee at its second meeting in Bangkok (6-8 September) agreed to send a message to the forthcoming 18th meeting of the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties in Doha, Qatar that IP is an area “for which clarity would be needed”. (See TWN Climate Info dated 13 September). Meanwhile, it is clear that at WIPO, the Secretariat is embarking on activities that do not seem to have the mandate of Member States, and developed countries (consistent with their position at the UNFCCC) prefer to leave IP outside the scrutiny of governments. We are pleased to share with you a report of the discussion at the September meeting of the WIPO Program & Budget Committee. With best wishes, Chee
Yoke Ling WIPO: Oversight needed on intellectual property and public policy activities (First published in south-north monitor SUNS#7441 dated 20 September 2012) London, 19 September (Sangeeta Shashikant) – Concerns over the World Intellectual Property Organisation’s (WIPO) engagement with public policy issues, particularly food security, public health and climate change, have heightened concerns among developing countries and NGOs leading to calls for more oversight and information. WIPO’s activities on intellectual property (IP) and public policy issues are undertaken under Program 18 titled “IP and Global Challenges”. This program coordinates with Program 20 (External Offices and Relations) and through this cooperation engages in a range of United Nations and other intergovernmental processes and negotiations on a variety of issues, including those pertaining to public health, food security and climate change. WIPO’s extensive engagement on these issues has created significant unease among developing countries as currently there is no oversight by Member States over the activities WIPO conducts under the Program or the positions it takes on the inter-linkages between IP and public policy issues as it engages in various intergovernmental processes. At the recent Program & Budget Committee (PBC) meeting on 10-14 September 2012, countries reviewed WIPO’s performance in implementing Program 18. The African Group and the Development Agenda Group (DAG) requested for “more frequent reporting by program manager before the proper WIPO committee” such as the Committee on Development and IP (CDIP) and the Standing Committee on Patents (SCP). The African Group and DAG also stressed that a one-time review of the program during the PBC was inadequate “given the important activities conducted by this program”. NGOs have also expressed concerns with regard to the activities of Program 18. In recent months, a group of NGOs have written letters to Mr. Francis Gurry, the Director-General and Mr. Johannes Christian Wichard, the Deputy Director-General, of WIPO raising various concerns with regard to the Secretariat’s approach to food security. In the first letter dated 18 July 2012, the NGOs raised concern with regard to the organization of a workshop in May 2012 on IP and Food Security, stating that the “workshop lacked a balanced range of topics and participants and consequently failed to deliver the full range of perspectives on the role of IP”. In line with the Development Agenda recommendations, the NGOs also requested more information on the workshop. In another letter dated 5 September, the same NGOs, disappointed with WIPO’s “non-committal” response to their letter, reiterated their request for more information on the workshop organized in May and stressed that future meetings should have a balanced representation of participants and perspectives, including critical perspectives of the role of the IP system. In response to the Secretariat’s assertions, including its claim that there was “consensus” from conferences it had organized, “on the enabling role of an effective legal and administrative framework of intellectual property for innovation and agricultural development”, the NGO letter also requests for more information on specific decisions of WIPO’s Member States that has “mandated WIPO to explore the role of IP in increasing agricultural productivity and the conclusions that have been reached on the matter”, adding that WIPO’s policy decisions must be driven by Member States. Concern over activities of the Global Challenges program and the demand for more oversight by developing countries is not new. It has been raised by developing countries on numerous occasions, but has made little headway due to opposition from developed countries. At the 2011 PBC session, South Africa on behalf of the African Group noted that Program18 addressed important issues but the activities were not being discussed by Member States in any platform in WIPO. It recommended that the program activities be discussed in the existing intergovernmental forum that is by the SCP or the CDIP. This recommendation was reiterated and supported by many other developing countries such as the Development Agenda Group, India, Pakistan and Brazil. Brazil also expressed concerns regarding the mandates followed within Program 18 and the need for its activities to be reported to a WIPO body to allow all Member States to have a say on the priorities and the implementation of this Program. However the recommendation faced significant opposition from developed countries as they insisted that discussing Program 18 activities in the SCP or the CDIP would require a change in those committees’ mandates and this they could not support. Developed countries preferred maintaining the status quo that is for the PBC to discuss activities of Program 18. However this was not acceptable to developing countries, that felt substantive guidance had to be given to the Secretariat and this could not be done through the PBC. Developed countries resistance to more oversight over Program 18 persisted at the recent September PBC during discussion on Program Performance Report for the 2010/11 biennium as Member states reviewed the Secretariat’s performance under Program 18. In the Program Performance Report, a self-assessment report, the Secretariat states that the program on IP and Global Challenges “finalized implementation of its first full biennium in 2010/2011 contributing to WIPO’s goals by providing support for strong, empirically well-founded policy dialogues between governments, international organizations, civil society actors and the private sector on current and emerging global issues touching on IP”. During the discussion, the Secretariat highlighted the trilateral cooperation between the World Trade Organization/World Health Organization and WIPO on IP, trade and health, adding that the policy overlaps need to be managed. It also highlighted the WIPO “Re:Search” initiative adding that technology transfer agreements have been concluded and a meeting of partners will take place in October. [According to WIPO the Re:Search initiative is a new consortium where public and private sector organizations share valuable IP and expertise with the global health research community to promote development of new drugs, vaccines, and diagnostics to treat neglected tropical diseases, malaria, and tuberculosis. However the access terms promoted by Re:Search has been criticized by public health groups such as Medecins Sans Frontieres which noted that “… instead of allowing all countries where neglected diseases are prevalent to access the products, the initiative restricts royalty-free licences to least-developed countries only, with access for other developing countries negotiable on a case by case basis”, adding that “With its timid approach to licensing terms, WIPO is falling behind in its access policies, when it should be leading”.] On climate change, the Secretariat highlighted a pilot platform known as “WIPO GREEN” that aims to promote accelerated adaptation, adoption and deployment of environmental technologies, particularly in developing countries and emerging economies. [According to the WIPO website, this initiative “Serves as a hub connecting various critical partners, with WIPO facilitating policy dialogue and networking” where WIPO positions itself as a broker for “owners of proprietary technologies to make selected technologies and solutions available as packages, including know-how, services and materials”. It offers “credibility” billing itself as “A trustworthy entry - through WIPO and other intergovernmental and non-governmental organization partners - into the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) process, in particular its Technology Centers and Networks. Some NGOs who follow the climate negotiations, where IP is extremely contentious, expect similar restrictions as those in the Re:Search initiative.] On food security, the Secretariat said that it was exploring what WIPO can do in the area adding that it had identified East Africa, in particular Tanzania, as a case study on the potential use of IP to improve productivity. In response to the information on Program 18 provided in the Program Performance Report, Egypt on behalf of the African Group and the DAG said that it attached heightened importance to the activities of Program 18 because it deals with key policy issues of significant interest to African and developing countries, especially public health, food security and climate change. (The “Development Agenda Group,” or DAG, is a group of developing committed to mainstreaming the development dimension into all areas of WIPO’s work, using a set of guiding principles that it has drawn up. Its members include Algeria, Brazil, Cuba, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippines, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Uruguay and Yemen. It was launched in 2010 is open to any WIPO Member State who commits to the group’s set of principles.)
Egypt stressed the need for more frequent reporting by the program manager before the proper WIPO committee, given the fact that PBC reviews the Program Performance Report once a year, and the important activities conducted by this program. “In this context, we would like to suggest that given the fact that the program was engaged in the implementation and preparation of four development agenda projects on technology transfer, open collaborative and IP based models and IP competition policy, then it would be appropriate to make the required additional reporting of program 18 before the Committee on Development and Intellectual Property. In addition, it could be also presented before the Standing Committee on Patents because of the integral substantive relationship between the program activities and the international patent system, and national experts and officials on patent issues will be present to make use of these several activities”, Egypt added. South Africa said that it would appreciate a written report on what WIPO was doing and the challenges it was facing, adding that there was a need to discuss the issues in the SCP or in CDIP. It also sought clarification on how WIPO defined “green technology” and whether WIPO had an “indicative list” of such technologies. Brazil and Pakistan also supported the call for the Secretariat to provide more written information on its activities. The United States questioned the value added from extra reporting to the SCP and the CDIP while Switzerland said that there was no need for further reports apart from what was in the Program Performance Report, adding, “We have the necessary detail. We don't need to go beyond that”. It also claimed that there was agreement that the PBC was the right forum to discuss these issues. Egypt responding to the US’ question stressed that there was indeed value in additional reporting, stressing that the Program 18 was presented as part of PPR once a year. It added that CDIP was relevant because the report on Program 18 itself had a clear statement that the Program was engaged in preparation of a number of CDIP projects while the SCP was relevant because it related to the patent system, further stating that there were no experts on public health, food security or climate change in the PBC. South Africa, supporting Egypt’s response, countered the Swiss statement, pointing out that it was inaccurate to say that countries had agreed at the last PBC not to have additional reporting. It stressed that it was not advisable for Member States to simply rely on the Program Performance Report and the oral information presented by the Secretariat. “We feel that we can add value by giving additional direction to WIPO,” South Africa said. China also concurred that it was important to discuss issues of Program 18 in other committees including the CDIP. No specific decision was taken on the matter. However, developing countries insisted that they preferred “to note” rather than approve the Program Performance Report. Developed countries opposed this approach. The final decision reached states: “The Program and Budget Committee (PBC) having reviewed the Program Performance Report (PPR) and recognizing its nature as a self-assessment of the Secretariat, recommended its approval to the General Assembly, subject to the comments, concerns and suggestions for improvement raised by Member States and reflected in the report of the PBC as well as annexed to the PPR (document WO/PBC/19/2)”. NGO concerns on WIPO’s engagement on food security In recent months a group of NGOs concerned with WIPO’s activities on IP and food security in Africa have also written repeated letters to the Director-General and the Deputy Director-General highlighting their issues and concerns and requesting WIPO for more information on its activities. WIPO organized a workshop on Intellectual Property, Innovation and Food Security on Sustainable Wheat Production in East Africa, that took place in Geneva on 10-11 May 2012. Following the workshop seven NGOs and NGO networks raised concerns in a letter to WIPO dated 18 July 2012. The letter was signed by the Tanzania Alliance for Biodiversity, an alliance of many NGOs; the African Centre for Biosafety, South Africa; the Eastern & Southern Africa Small Scale Farmers forum (ESAFF); Surplus People Project; Swissaid Tanzania; Tanzania Organic Agriculture Movement (TAOM); and the Tanzania Organic Certification Association (TANCERT). The letter expressed concern that participation in the workshop was dominated by representatives from the private sector and the biggest and most powerful multinational corporations (e.g. BASF, Bayer CropScience, Dow Agro Sciences, DuPont, Monsanto, and Syngenta) adding that there was hardly any representation of civil society organizations that champion farmers’ rights or even of key national farmers’ organizations. The
letter further states that the workshop programme largely took a one-sided
approach, that is of promoting the IP system as a mechanism for food
security without exploring alternative or different perspectives on
the subject, adding that the approach was clearly tilted in favor
of industry interests, in particular multinational corporations. The
letter also expressed concern that representatives of corporations
seem to have played a central role in several sessions of the workshop.
For instance according to the programme, Dr. Michael Kock, the Global
Head of Intellectual Property, Seed and Biotechnology for Syngenta
International AG was the main and only contributor for the session
titled “Brainstorm Initial Thoughts on Next Steps – How to Build Areas
of Future Focus”. The letter also said that the programme and participants were heavily tilted in favor of the interests of the private sector, particularly multinational corporations, stressing that the strategies of many of the corporations represented was basically to use intellectual property laws to commodify the world seed supply, control plant germplasm and maximize company profits by eliminating farmers’ rights, in particular their right to save, use, exchange and sell seeds. In the letter, the NGOs requested, in line with Recommendation 5 of the WIPO Development Agenda, that WIPO make available publicly and to the signatories full information about the workshop, including presentations, report of the proceedings of the workshop, expected and actual outcomes of the workshop and information on any follow-up that is expected to take place. It also requested that for future similar workshops, WIPO ensure balanced representation of participants and perspectives. In particular, the workshop should also discuss critical perspectives of the role of the IP system and ensure adequate participation of civil society groups and farmer groups that do not represent commercial interests but rather champion farmers’ rights and the conservation of agricultural biodiversity for livelihood security and food sovereignty. The signatories also expressed willingness to participate in future discussion involving African countries, provided travel assistance is made available. In its response dated 23 July 2012, the WIPO Deputy Director-General said that many organizations including the FAO, the UNDP and the UN Committee on World Food Security (CFS) have identified increasing agricultural productivity as a key component in the fight against food insecurity, adding that “Member States have tasked WIPO to explore what the proper role and contribution of intellectual property might be to this struggle”. Within the framework of that programme, WIPO held the workshop to explore possibilities for a case study on the role of IP protection for sustainable wheat production in Tanzania, WIPO further added. It also said that “present or otherwise associated” were government officials and scientists from Tanzania, professors from Sokoine University in Tanzania, representatives from the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), the Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT), FAO and UPOV, the Tanzania based private breeding and seed sector, representatives of companies operating globally in wheat related innovation, the International Seed Federation (ISF) and “with a view to a possible future cooperation, potential donors”. The response further adds that the various public conferences on the topic found “there was a consensus on the enabling role of an effective legal and administrative framework of intellectual property protection for innovation and agricultural development”. The response further states: “…we are still very much at a preliminary stage of this work” and “Depending on the progress made, the intention is clearly to associate further partners that may be able to contribute to the balanced and appropriate use of intellectual property in creating an enabling environment for increasing agricultural productivity at an appropriate moment”. The NGOs (the same signatories) in yet another letter sent in September 2012 reiterated their concerns and request for more information on the workshop held as WIPO had failed to provide the information requested. The letter also states that it found WIPO’s response “disappointing, as it is non-committal about ensuring that future meetings have a balance representation of participants and perspective” adding that it found WIPO’s current approach to IP and food security, “totally unacceptable”. The letter also sought information on “which specific decision of WIPO’s Member States has mandated WIPO to explore the role of IP in increasing agricultural productivity and the conclusions that have been reached on the matter”. It also adds that being an intergovernmental agency, WIPO’s policy decisions have to be taken by Member States and that it was inappropriate for WIPO to take the position that there is consensus on the matter on the basis on “public conferences”. The letter also highlights the findings of the report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food that illuminated the several adverse impacts of the IP system, including neglect of the needs of poor farmers in developing countries, unaffordable agriculture inputs, jeopardizing of farmer’s seed systems and threatening agro-biodiversity. The letter stresses that WIPO, being a UN agency “needs to acknowledge and incorporate (not disregard) these considerations in its work on IP, innovation and agriculture”. [To the knowledge of the author, no further information or response has been received from WIPO at the time of writing.]
|
||
