TWN Info Service on Intellectual Property Issues (July06/01)

06 July 2006

CONTINUING DIFFERENCES AT WIPO DEVELOPMENT MEETING

The second day of discussions on the WIPO development agenda witnessed continuing differences between developed and developing countries, with some differences also in approach among developing countries.

Below is a report on Tuesday afternoon's discussions of WIPO's Provisional Committee that covered the remaining 4 of the 6 negotiation clusters, namely, (C) Technology Transfer, Information and Communication Technology; (D) Assessments, Evaluation and Impact Studies; (E) Institutional Matters including Mandate and Governance; and (F) Other Issues. There are 111 proposals in the list of 6 clusters that are under discussion.

It was published in SUNS #6057 Thursday 29 June 2006

With best wishes
Sangeeta Shashikant
Third World Network
36 Rue de Lausanne
1201 Geneva
Tel: + 41 (0) 22 908 3550
Fax : + 41 (0) 22 908 3551

CONTINUING DIFFERENCES AT WIPO DEVELOPMENT MEETING

Geneva, 28 June (Riaz K. Tayob) -- The second day of discussions on the World Intellectual Property Organisation's (WIPO) development agenda witnessed continuing differences between developed and developing countries, with some differences also in approach among developing countries.

Tuesday afternoon's discussions of WIPO's Provisional Committee on the Development Agenda (PCDA) covered the remaining 4 of the 6 negotiation clusters, namely, ( C) Technology Transfer, Information and Communication Technology; ( D) Assessments, Evaluation and Impact Studies; (E) Institutional Matters including Mandate and Governance; and (F) Other Issues. There are 111 proposals in a list of 6 clusters that are under discussion.

PCDA Chair, Ambassador Rigoberto Guato Vielman of Paraguay, indicated that he would submit a document with elements for the meeting to consider. Members would need to agree on the recommendations to transmit to the WIPO General Assembly for its September 2006 session.

The Friends of Development (FOD) group elaborated its proposals on each of the clusters, indicating also the areas where proposals by other developing countries were taken into account in their 22 June 2006 paper (PCDA/2/2).  They made reference to their paper as a possible draft text. The US, EU - and some of its member states - opposed many of the important proposals of the FOD.

Other developing countries indicated that they would make further submissions. Tunisia, for the Arab group, supported proposals made on behalf of the Africa group by Nigeria on Monday. Bahrain commended the Africa group and Columbia, said there were many topics to review, and indicated that it would present their review at a later stage.

Developed countries, on the other hand, are withholding support on many proposals, and agreeing to those proposals that involve mainly cosmetic changes to WIPO. On a few proposals where a developed country may show support, this may not be agreed to by another developed country.

During the discussions on the 3rd cluster (on technology), Brazil introduced the FOD position. They pointed out that paragraphs 14 to 17 in the FOD paper reflected a synthesis of the proposals on this issue in the Chair's report of the last meeting. Proposals by the Africa Group on the public domain had similarly been included in the FOD paper.

Brazil pointed out that Transfer of Technology is a complex issue and previous efforts to achieve transfers have been limited, requiring new measures to be put in place. WIPO should focus on enhancing benefits to developing countries through access to technology and enabling developing countries to own their own technologies. This was important given the IPR disparities between developed and developing countries.

Provisions on Technology Transfer were required that were as effective as the protection of rights, it said. Equalising Technology Transfer and IPR protection required the creation of a new body within WIPO to promote transfers.

Brazil added that a mechanism was needed to allow developing countries to request that action be taken to address anti-competitive practices in their countries of firms located or headquartered in developed countries.

India agreed on the importance of Transfer of Technology and supported the establishment of a body for this purpose to address the imbalances in access. It supported the proposal to encourage developed countries' research and scientific institutions to enhance cooperation with developing countries but noted that it should be for mutual benefit.

South Africa, a member of the FOD, explained why it was necessary to "develop criteria and methodology for selecting essential technologies, monitor and facilitate the transfer and diffusion of technology." South Africa provided examples of hearing aids and water purification technologies as examples of essential technologies.

The United States supported some of the proposals listed, but not others including para 3 (creation of a body for transfer of technology policies and strategies), para 4 (development of a list of essential technologies, know-how, processes and methods to meet basic development needs of African countries), para 10 (adopt development-friendly principles and guidelines on transfer of technology), para 12 (adopt measures to ensure transfer of technology to developing countries), para 13 (adoption in IPR treaties and norms provisions dealing with anti-competitive behaviour or abuse of monopoly rights by rights holders), para 16 (mechanism through which countries affected by anti-competitive practices request developed countries to take enforcement action against firms located in their jurisdictions) and para 21 (proposed negotiations on sharing the results of publicly funded research).

Mexico had a general problem with the language (of the cluster) because it was general and was too optimistic. They questioned the selection of essential technologies and indicated that it was moving into UNCTAD's Science and Technology terrain. It was "not prepared to deal with" paragraph 2 on the relaxation of patent rules because it required reform of the Paris Convention. It said the establishment of a body for Technology Transfer required a change in the constitution of WIPO. Dealing with anti-competitive practices was for WTO not WIPO.

During the discussion on the 4th cluster on Assessments, Brazil explained that the FOD paper tried to synthesize different countries' proposals. It emphasised the need for impact assessment studies, It said that the session in the recent WIPO open forum on the Substantive Patent Law Treaty (SPLT) highlighted the need for evidence based discussions and justifications.

Brazil expressed reservations on paragraphs 5 to 8 which refer to collecting data on counterfeiting and piracy, saying this is an issue for all countries and it could "not see why it singled out Developing Countries. China similarly stated reservations on paragraphs 5 and 8.

Brazil also regarded paragraph 5 (WIPO assistance to members for national surveys for economic growth) and paragraph 7 (feasibility of WIPO conducting global economic surveys of the creative and innovative sectors) as outside the mandate of WIPO.

China supported many of the provisions of this cluster (except as stated above) and stated that an effective review and evaluation mechanism was important for WIPO's efficiency. Paraguay supported the Brazilian statement but stated that data on piracy should be collected in a harmonised manner. On paragraph 8, Paraguay stated that "collecting of data must be serious" as the statistics "do not reflect reality and damage our countries."

India supported proposals related to development impact assessments, in particular for WIPO to make "independent, evidence based, empirical and objective" studies "in terms of capacity building, technical assistance, technology transfer and norm setting."

The US supported a number of proposals but did not endorse a few key provisions, including para 2 (establishment of an independent development impact assessment), para 10 (study to evaluate the appropriate levels of intellectual property and identify the links between intellectual property and development), para 11 (to establish an independent Evaluation and Research Office to evaluate all WIPO programs, and assess norm setting and technical cooperation), para 13 (to compile empirical evidence and carry out cost benefit analysis that consider alternatives within and outside the IP system) and para 16 (to establish a mechanism to evaluate the impact and costs of treaties adopted, especially for developing countries).

Discussions then commenced on the fifth cluster on Institutional Matters. Brazil, for the FOD said their paper was in the spirit of synthesizing various proposals. Paragraphs 2 , 18 and 19 of the FOD paper reflect this.

Para 2 intended to strengthen WIPO as a UN agency. Para 18 sought to ensure greater participation of Civil Society in WIPO activities. Brazil said it could accept most of the proposals of the Africa Group and Arab countries with the exception of paragraphs 3 (proposal to reinvigorate the PCIPD), 4 (WIPO partnership office for evaluating member requests for assistance on IPR and development) and 5 (stocktaking of current WIPO development cooperation activities). Brazil expressed two main concerns – greater participation of civil society and "strengthening the charter of WIPO as a UN agency that works for development."

Mexico indicated support for a few proposals including paragraphs 3 and 5, but not to others.

The US announced its support for 5 proposals. It said it had previously expressed reservations on other clauses, including para 6 (amend the WIPO constitution to bring it into line as an UN-specialised agency), para 7 (measures to ensure wider participation of civil society), para 8 (adopt UN system criteria for NGO acceptance and accreditation), and para 10 (to reinforce WIPO's member driven nature as a UN Organisation).

The Swiss delegation differed from the US by not supporting para 1 and raised a query on para 4. Canada and Australia supported paragraphs 2 to 5 while Japan supported paragraphs 3 to 5. Therefore, there seems to be no consensus on any of the expansive proposals in this cluster.

Regarding the last cluster, Other Issues, Brazil reminded on the proposal presented to the 2004 WIPO General Assembly on the need to highlight the link between Intellectual Property and development. They added that paragraph 20 of the FOD paper deals with the follow up procedure. As all the proposals may not be entirely addressed in the session, and may need further consideration, "we will need a renewal the PCDA process."

Tunisia, on behalf of Arab countries, supported the Africa group. Bahrain added that there were many papers available which should be unified into a common paper. They indicated a need to review the many topics.

Nigeria welcomed the comments of Tunisia and Bahrain on the process, supported the process adopted by the Chair and expressed a willingness to adopt specific recommendations. Nigeria placed on record the proposals by Bahrain and Columbia.