TWN Info Service on Intellectual Property Issues (Dec09/01)
8 December 2009
Third World Network

Coordination mechanism discussion takes off at CDIP
Published in SUNS #6822 dated 25 November 2009 

Geneva, 24 Nov (Sangeeta Shashikant) -- The fourth session of the Development and IP Committee (CDIP) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) held last week has finally begun negotiations on a coordination, monitoring, reporting and assessment mechanism in relation to the implementation of the Development Agenda recommendations.
 
The negotiations are set to continue at the fifth session of the CDIP in 2010 as the first substantive agenda item.
 
Developing countries have been calling for a comprehensive and dynamic coordination mechanism since it formed a core component of the 2007 WIPO General Assembly (GA) mandate that established the CDIP.
 
Group B, composed of developed countries, has been resisting this move by the developing countries.
 
The 2007 GA mandated the CDIP to "monitor, assess, discuss and report on the implementation of all recommendations adopted, and for that purpose it shall coordinate with relevant WIPO bodies".
 
The pace for the discussions on the coordination mechanism was set at the third CDIP session (April 2009), which set a deadline of 30 June 2009 for submissions on the modalities of the mechanism. The Chair's summary of the third CDIP session also noted that the submissions would be discussed and a "possible decision" taken on the subject.
 
The 2009 WIPO GA also "urged the CDIP to endeavour to reach agreement on coordination mechanism for monitoring, assessing and reporting on the implementation of recommendations and report to the General Assembly at its 2010 session".
 
The fourth CDIP session, held on 16-20 November, had before it two proposals for consideration, i. e. a joint proposal by Algeria, Brazil, Pakistan, and later co-sponsored by India, and a proposal by Group B.
 
The joint proposal contains eight elements:
 
-- establish a standing agenda item in the GA on "Review of the implementation of the Development Agenda";
 
-- urge the Director-General (DG) to ensure the coordination, self-assessment and reporting of all the activities and programs undertaken by the Secretariat with respect to the DA (Development Agenda) and report to the GA.
 
-- to request all WIPO bodies to identify specific ways in which the DA recommendations would be mainstreamed in their areas of work and urge them to implement the recommendations, and for this purpose to include "Implementation of Development Agenda Recommendations" as a standing agenda item and to prepare a separate report on the item;
 
-- to instruct all WIPO bodies to ensure that all reports, texts, studies and documents prepared by the Secretariat or independent consultants are in consonance with the principles of the DA on norm-setting, in particular, recommendation No. 22 of the DA;
 
-- to mandate the CDIP to convene two special sessions annually (preferably to follow the regular sessions of the CDIP), to receive, discuss, monitor, and assess the separate reports prepared by all WIPO bodies and to report to the GA, to invite the chairs of the WIPO bodies to report and discuss the implementation of the DA recommendations, to invite other persons to participate in its deliberations, and to request the Secretariat to facilitate the work of the CDIP special sessions;
 
-- to request the WIPO Audit Committee to periodically review and assess the overall implementation of the DA recommendations in all areas of WIPO's work and submit its report for consideration of the GA.
 
-- to undertake a regular biennial review and assessment of the overall implementation of the DA recommendations in all areas of WIPO's work by a selected group of renowned IP and development experts nominated in consultations with the member states, to be reported to the GA;
 
-- to present an annual report on the implementation of the DA recommendations to the UN General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council, bearing in mind the Agreement between the UN and WIPO.
 
Group B proposed the following elements in its submission:
 
--The DG/Deputy DG in charge of the DA and/or the Chair of the CDIP should provide regular updates, through written submissions or oral briefings, on the progress of the implementation of the DA recommendations to the CDIP and to the GA;
 
-- The GA should instruct relevant WIPO bodies to work towards mainstreaming the DA recommendations in their activities in accordance with their specific mandate as received from the GA;
 
-- The GA should instruct the Chairs of the relevant WIPO bodies to include in their annual report to the GA a description of their contribution to the implementation of the respective recommendations, including an assessment utilizing the appropriate measures of success;
 
-- The GA should request the DG or Deputy DG in charge of the DA to periodically state in their opening remarks to the relevant WIPO bodies and in WIPO's annual report the importance of effectively implementing and mainstreaming the DA recommendations throughout WIPO.
 
Group B also prescribed several principles that it considered important in establishing the coordination mechanism, i. e. that all WIPO Committees stand on an equal footing and report to the GA; where practical existing governance structures and procedures should be used; and CDIP's coordination with other relevant WIPO bodies should be flexible, efficient, effective, transparent and pragmatic and should be underpinned by appropriate DA success criteria to support effective monitoring, reporting and review.
 
It also said that the coordination should be resource-neutral and not create new financial obligations for member states.
 
These principles also formed the basis of its objection to the joint proposal, although the latter received strong support from developing countries such as the African Group, Iran, Egypt, Bolivia, Sri Lanka etc.
 
In introducing the joint proposal, Algeria said that many of Group B's proposals were already incorporated into the joint proposal. It also said that the co-sponsors had ensured that there was no new structure or body established.
 
Brazil highlighted the challenge of meeting the mandate set by the 2007 GA without upsetting the balance of the bodies, and stressed the need for members to have ownership of the process and to guarantee that the necessary dynamism remains in the work of the committee.
 
Iran stressed that without a tangible mechanism and framework, the DA would not be effective.
 
Nigeria said that care must be taken to not overburden the Secretariat and WIPO bodies.
 
South Africa insisted that based on the principle of equal footing, budgetary matters should be left to the Program and Budget Committee (PBC).
 
Egypt said that there was a need to ensure the success of the DA, adding that if it is properly implemented, it will take WIPO into "greener pastures". It said that the Group B proposal was "essential but not sufficient", whereas the joint proposal was sufficient.
 
Several of the Group B members raised objections with regards to the joint proposal, stating that it was against the principle of equal footing of all committees, beyond the terms of reference of the WIPO Audit Committee and that there was no precedent of presenting a report to the UN General Assembly.
 
They also insisted that the project on Results Based Management (RBM) of WIPO was sufficient to do the job mandated by the WIPO GA.
 
Algeria, responding to the objections voiced by Group B, emphasized that there were common elements between the Group B proposal and the joint proposal. It added that the joint proposal takes off where Group B left off, by adding elements.
 
It pointed out that the RBM project has to do with specific recommendations whereas the mechanism was much broader in scope, as it pertains to all the recommendations.
 
It added that the mandate for the coordination mechanism comes from the 2007 GA. It referred to the Secretariat's previous comments that the RBM and the coordination mechanisms were separate mechanisms.
 
It stressed that the joint proposal treated the committees on an equal footing, particularly since the CDIP would report to the GA. On the issue of the mandate of the Audit Committee, it said that the Committee had a mandate since its terms of reference pertained to " effective internal control".
 
It added that it had also contacted a member of the Audit Committee, who confirmed that it was doable for the Audit Committee.
 
It also pointed out that Article 6 of the 1974 Agreement between WIPO and the UN supports the joint proposal's point on reporting to the UN General Assembly. Article 6 (b) states that the "Organization shall submit to the United Nations an annual report on its activities."
 
[WIPO's legal counsel also clarified that WIPO was not in compliance with its obligation to report to the UN under Article 6 of the 1974 UN-WIPO Agreement.]
 
Algeria also said that it did not foresee the joint proposal requiring major financial resources. In any event, it pointed out that an amount of 2.2 million Swiss Francs had been earmarked for future CDIP activities. It further added that the whole debate on budgetary resources comes under the PBC.
 
Informal consultations were held on 19 and 20 November in an attempt to bridge the differences between the co-sponsors and supporters of the joint proposal and Group B.
 
Following the consultations, the Secretariat emerged with a document containing a compilation of proposals made by Group B and the co-sponsors of the joint proposal.
 
The co-sponsors of the joint proposal appear to have dropped the idea of a special session of the CDIP and replaced it with a permanent agenda item in the ordinary sessions of the CDIP.
 
In view of Group B's objection to WIPO's Audit Committee being given a specific role in the mechanism, the joint proposal's co-sponsors proposed to substitute that element with the following: "To request the PBC Working Group on the working methods of the Audit Committee to consider the contribution that the Audit Committee can make in ensuring an effective evaluation of the implementation of the Development Agenda".
 
Group B also appears to have in principle accepted the idea of a standing agenda item in the CDIP, although differences persist on the time to be allocated for discussion, an independent review of the implementation of WIPO's Development Agenda recommendations, and to include in the WIPO annual report to the UN, a report on the implementation of the DA. +