TWN Info Service on Intellectual Property Issues (May13/07)
22 May 2013
Third World Network

WIPO: North resists development orientation of technical assistance
Published in SUNS #7587 dated 21 May 2013

Geneva, 17 May (K. M. Gopakumar*) -- Developed countries are resisting a development orientation in the technical assistance activities of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO).

This issue was discussed at the 11th Session of the Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP) that is taking place on 13-17 May 2013 in Geneva. WIPO's technical assistance activities have been criticised for advocating maximalist IP (intellectual property) protection without considering the development needs of developing countries.

The reform of WIPO's technical assistance in the area of cooperation for development, to orient towards the development needs of developing countries has been on the CDIP agenda since the 8th Session of the CDIP in November 2011.

These reform efforts were triggered by an Independent Review prepared by experts Dr. Carolyn Deere Birbeck (senior researcher, Global Economic Governance Programme, University College, Oxford UK) and Dr. Santiago Roca (Professor of Economics, ESAN University, Graduate School of Business, Peru). This review was carried out as part of the implementation of Recommendation 41 of the WIPO Development Agenda (DA).

[The Development Agenda recommendation 41 mandates the following: "To conduct a review of current WIPO technical assistance activities in the area of cooperation and development. Generally, technical assistance activities are carried out through the regional bureaus of WIPO Secretariat". The external review, known as the Deere-Roca Report, found that the technical assistance activities lacked a development orientation, including a clear understanding of the overall purposes of WIPO's development cooperation activities. Further, the report made a number of recommendations to improve the current delivery of technical assistance. These recommendations are primarily focused on orientation, impact, management, cost efficiency, and internal and external coordination. See SUNS #7259 dated 14 November 2011.]

The current 11th Session of the CDIP considered the following documents on technical assistance external review:

-- Management Response to the External Review of WIPO Technical Assistance in the Area of Cooperation for Development (CDIP/9/14);

-- Report of the Ad Hoc Working Group on an External Review of WIPO Technical Assistance in the Area of Cooperation for Development (CDIP/9/15);

-- Joint Proposal by the Development Agenda Group (of developing countries) and the Africa Group on WIPO's Technical Assistance in the Area of Cooperation for Development (CDIP/9/16);

-- Status of Implementation of Certain Recommendations Extracted from the Report on the External Review of WIPO Technical Assistance in the Field of Cooperation for Development (CDIP/1/4).

However, the discussion was largely focused on the joint proposal.

The resistance of developed countries became explicit while discussing the Joint Proposal by the Development Agenda Group and the Africa Group on WIPO's Technical Assistance in the Area of Cooperation for Development (CDIP/9/16, hereafter "the joint proposal"). The joint proposal consists of several proposals grouped into 13 clusters (A to M). (http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/mdocs/en/cdip_9/cdip_9_16.pdf)

However, the deliberations led to a consensus to direct the Secretariat to work on the recommendations mentioned in the joint proposal and to discuss the rest of the proposal at the next session of the CDIP. The recommendations approved for implementation are: Preparation of a manual on technical assistance (A2a); Revamping of WIPO website to serve as a more effective vehicle for communicating about WIPO's development cooperation activities and as a resource (F1); and redesigning of WIPO technical assistance database (G).

It is also decided that further discussions on technical assistance would take place at the 12th Session of the CDIP. The Secretariat is also to provide a report of implementation of the recommendations.

The Chair's summary reflecting the consensus is still under negotiation. Hence, the exact language of the decision is yet to be known.

Developed countries' resistance to the adoption of the recommendations of the Deere-Roca Report started since its presentation to the 8th session of the CDIP in November 2011. That CDIP session established an Ad hoc Working Group to review the recommendations. However, the Ad hoc Working Group failed to reach any consensus with regard to the implementation of the recommendations of the Deere-Roca Report due to the resistance from developed countries.

During the 9th Session, the WIPO Secretariat, at the request of the CDIP, submitted a Management Response to the External Review of WIPO Technical Assistance in the Area of Cooperation for Development.
(http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/mdocs/en/cdip_9/cdip_9_14.pdf.)

This report categorised the recommendations into three categories: Category A Recommendations which are already reflected in WIPO activities, or ongoing reform programmes; Category B Recommendations which merit further consideration; and Category C Recommendations which raise concerns as to implementation.

Developed countries, led by "Group B", took a position that recommendations in Category A are already implemented or under implementation and therefore no further discussion is required. Similarly, Group B also refused to discuss implementation of Category C recommendations because it requires additional resources. Therefore, Group B resisted any discussion on any recommendations except recommendations that fall within Category B.

As mentioned above, the joint proposal submitted at the 9th Session of the CDIP contains several recommendations in 13 categories, which are aimed at bringing development orientation and transparency in the technical assistance in the area of cooperation for development.

These 13 categories are: (A) relevance and orientation, (B) programme & budget, (C) extra-budgetary resources, (D) human resources, (E) experts and consultants, (F) transparency & communication, (G) technical assistance database, (H) assessing impact, monitoring & evaluation, (I) IP policies & strategies, (J) legislative and regulatory assistance, (K) IP Office Modernisation, Training & Capacity Building, User Support Systems, (L) Coordination, and (M) Follow-up.

Discussions during the 10th session of the CDIP mainly focused on the feasibility of implementation of the recommendations in the joint proposal mainly by seeking information from the Secretariat. Developed countries generally expressed the view that most of the elements in the joint proposal are contained in the Management Response document and stressed the need to discuss Category B in that document.

The discussion at the current 11th session shows that the developed countries do not want to give any normative value to the recommendations and therefore oppose the adoption of the recommendations contained in the joint proposal. Instead of formal adoption of the recommendations, developed countries prefer the implementation of the recommendations by the Secretariat as a purely management response.

There was a concerted attempt by developed countries to divert the discussion by stating that most of the recommendations are already implemented and therefore they wanted to discuss only category B of the Management Response. Developed countries resisted the attempt by developing countries to examine and evaluate the Secretariat claim of implementation of the recommendations of the Deere-Roca Report.

The Group B of developed countries also refused to engage in discussion on each category contained in the joint proposal. Further, the first round of deliberation on
14 May also witnessed the sharing of country experiences of technical assistance especially with the active participation of Group B Member States to divert the discussion from the joint proposal recommendations.

Developed countries showed their dislike of the Deere-Roca Report many times. For instance, the United States termed the report as a report by external academics and stated that the CDIP should not discuss the recommendations. Group B termed the Deere-Roca Report as an outdated report and stressed the need to move forward.

Apart from the abovementioned three recommendations, the Development Agenda Group and Africa Group also proposed discussion on the following recommendations from the joint proposal:

-- E3: on experts & consultants especially on regular updating of the online Roster of Consultants, as well as upgrading/redesigning the Roster,

-- F1: the upgrading of the WIPO website to serve as a more effective vehicle for communicating about WIPO's development cooperation activities and as a resource,

-- F4: routing of all development cooperation activities through Geneva-based missions, and such missions to serve as the focal point for liaising with WIPO on the details of assistance including in communicating national needs and priorities,

-- I3: the Secretariat to make publicly available tools, methodologies and other relevant documentation used to inform the development of IP strategies,

-- J1: the Secretariat to create a system on the WIPO website that enables interested Member States to upload and make available voluntarily the content of WIPO's legislative or regulatory advice,

-- K3: the Secretariat to make available the Terms of Reference of WIPO-commissioned external review of the WIPO Academy, and to make the outcomes of the external review publicly available,

-- L1: the Secretariat to regularly update/provide information on: the outcomes of the WIPO Director-General's consultation on the policy related to WIPO's External Office; measures to increase transparency, coordination and communication within WIPO on country activities; roles and responsibilities of WIPO's Sectors and their sub-divisions in the implementation of WIPO's programmes, including the roles and responsibilities of the Regional bureaus and desk officers. The Secretariat should improve the quality of its collaboration with the UN family, and update CDIP on activities undertaken with the UN family as well as the development orientation and development impact of the activities.

The Development Agenda Group and Africa group initiated discussion on recommendation F4 in the joint proposal. Recommendation F4 states: "The Secretariat should take appropriate steps to ensure that all development cooperation activities are routed through Geneva based missions and such missions shall serve as the focal point for liaising with WIPO on the details of assistance including in communicating national needs and priorities".

The WIPO Secretariat often communicates directly with the national IP offices without informing the respective missions in Geneva. Bolivia, South Africa, Iran and Egypt expressed the need to channel the communication through the Geneva missions. South Africa stated that the rules of the South African government do not permit the direct communication with national IP offices.

Group B and the US opposed this by stating that the CDIP cannot prescribe the mode of communication and it is up to each country to decide on the focal point of communication.

In response to that, Pakistan, India and Bolivia suggested that while recognising the fact that each Member State has the option to choose its communication focal point, it is important to copy the communication to the Geneva mission. India even asked the Secretariat to explain the sensitivities that prevent them from copying the communication to Geneva missions.

On recommendation I3, i. e. making publicly available the tools, methodologies and other relevant documentation used to inform the development of IP strategies, Bolivia stressed the need to take a decision to invite comments from Member States. However, Group B objected to that, stating that the agenda on technical assistance would be discussed further in the next session, and therefore there is no need for such a decision.

On recommendation K3, i. e. making publicly available the Terms of Reference and outcomes of the external review of the WIPO Academy, Bolivia cited the meeting notes from the 10th session of the CDIP and said that the Secretariat is to share these documents with Member States. However, the Secretariat responded that the review is carried out for internal purposes and refused to answer the question of Bolivia directly.

Further, Group B and the European Union attempted to use the opportunity to bring about coordination between WIPO and non-WIPO technical assistance, the technical assistance provided by the IP offices and trade ministries of developed countries in the area of IP such as the US Patent and Trademark Office, the European Patent Office and the US Trade Representative Office: Towards this end, one of the three proposals made by the EU states: "the WIPO Secretariat presents to this Committee a compilation of best practices of WIPO and non-WIPO technical assistance, in order to help with the implementation of those Recommendations which merit further consideration. (This corresponds to Recommendation B3 in the Management Response and A3 in the joint proposal)".

The Development Agenda Group, Africa Group, GRULAC, Bolivia, India, Pakistan and Iran made it clear that the CDIP is the forum to discuss the technical assistance activities of WIPO and not the technical assistance activities carried out by non-WIPO actors. In addition, Brazil also clarified that the reference to A3 is not linked to the best practices mentioned in the EU proposal.

Recommendation A3 in the joint proposal states: "The Secretariat in consultation with Member States develop a draft policy on how WIPO should plan and organise training activities and its events including conferences, meetings, workshops, seminars etc. The policy will contain guidelines inter alia on the holding of joint events; to improve the development orientation of WIPO's training activities and events and the balance and diversity of speakers; to address WIPO's engagement with public interest groups and entities having and representing commercial interests as well as to address issues of conflicts of interest including disclosure of conflicts of interest."

(* With inputs from Alexanda Bhattachary.)