TWN Info Service on Intellectual Property Issues (July06/02)

6 July 2006

Uncertainty as Development Agenda talks end without result

The last meeting of the Development Agenda (DA) before the upcoming WIPO General Assembly did not emerge with any concrete outcome or recommendations. Thus uncertainty hangs over the future course of the Development Agenda.

The Chair of the meeting presented a paper on how to move forward with the 111 proposals of that have been submitted by the WIPO Member States. But the paper was rejected by the several developing countries, in particular by the Group of Friends of Development (GFOD) as it did not reflect many of the crucial proposals of the GFOD, which are the initiators of the DA.

However in the final moments of the meeting, Kyrgyz Republic adopted the Chair’s paper and submitted it as its own proposal to be sent to the GA.

The future course of the WIPO Development Agenda now depends on deliberations that will take place during the upcoming General Assembly in September.

Below is a report on that last two days of the week long meeting on the Development Agenda. It was published in SUNS #6061 Wednesday 5 July 2006

With best wishes
Sangeeta Shashikant
Third World Network
Tel: 00 41 (0) 22 908 3550
Fax: 00 41 (0) 22 908 3551

Uncertainty as Development Agenda talks end without result

Geneva, 3 July (Sangeeta Shashikant) -- Uncertainty hangs over the future course of the Development Agenda in WIPO as the latest meeting on this initiative ended last Friday (30 June) without recommendations to be sent to the WIPO General Assembly on how the Agenda should proceed.

Negotiations on how to move forward reached a stalemate early Friday afternoon. The week-long talks took place at the second meeting of the Provisional Committee on Proposals Related to a WIPO Development Agenda (PCDA).

The way forward for the development agenda -- in terms of the process to manage the 111 proposals currently before the PCDA and to determine how to move forward on these proposals -- has now been left to the General Assembly in September to decide.

WIPO Member States could only agree to transmit the official reports of the PCDA meetings and other official documents that have been discussed to the General Assembly.

The other official documents would include Doc. No. PCDA/1/6 Prov. 2 that contains the 111 proposals that have been clustered under the heading of (A) technical assistance and capacity building; (B) norm-setting, flexibilities, public policy and public domain; ( C) technology transfer, ICT and access to knowledge; (D) assessments, evaluation and impact studies; (E) institutional matters including mandate and governance; and (F) other issues, and Doc PCDA 2/2, presented by the Group of Friends of Development (GFOD) containing "Proposal on the Decision of the PCDA on the Establishment of a WIPO Related Agenda"(See SUNS #6055 dated 27 June 2006).

In the final moments before the close of the meeting, the Kyrgyz Republic submitted a "Proposal on the Recommendation to the General Assembly of WIPO" (PCDA/2/3). This document reflects entirely the paper that the PCDA Chairman (Ambassador of Paraguay Rigoberto Gauto Vielman) had presented and that was rejected by many delegations as soon as it had been proposed. Thus, this paper also now forms part of the official documents that will be presented to the General Assembly.

While there are differences on the future process, there is significant convergence on the need for discussions on the development agenda (DA) to continue. Brazil, Argentina, Philippines, South Africa, Egypt and several other delegations spoke in favour of continuing discussions.

Nigeria suggested the setting up of a Standing Committee that meets twice a year. The Asian Group reaffirmed their belief on the need to mainstream the DA into all WIPO's activities.

During the course of the week, several approaches were discussed on how to deal with the 111 proposals that had been consolidated from proposals submitted by Member States in the last DA meetings (Doc. No. PCDA1/6 Prov. 2) and the paper of the GFOD (Doc. No. PCDA/2/2), but there was no agreement on which approach to adopt.

On Thursday, the Chair tabled a paper with his own approach. It turned out to be the "straw that broke the camel's back". There was a storm of protest to this approach.

The Chair's paper listed certain selected proposals under each of the abovementioned clusters. The paper claimed that these proposals "received emerging consensus support during the PCDA process". The paper added that the "future discussions would consider and build upon" these proposals.

The paper said that the list was "without prejudice" to any proposals submitted in the previous DA meetings and that the future discussion would continue to deal with all the other proposals.

According to analyses by several NGOs, the paper mainly reflected proposals supported by the US and the EU, including some elements of the Africa Group's paper, but excluded many of the crucial proposals of the GFOD, which are the main initiators and proponents of the DA.

This method of work had been rejected twice before. The first occasion was during a pre-meeting consultation held by the Chair with the different regional groupings, wherein he floated the idea that the 111 proposals be divided into three baskets i. e. proposals that commanded consensus, proposals on which there was emerging consensus and proposals on which there was no consensus. However, this was rejected by several delegations.

This approach was proposed again on Monday, the first day of the PCDA session, and once again it was rejected by several delegations (See SUNS #6055 dated 27 June 2006).

The Chairman said that he had not included the proposals of the GFOD, in particular those listed in their latest paper, PCDA/2/2, due to insufficient time, but he added that he was open to hearing the views of the GFOD. This flimsy reason was not accepted and led GFOD members such as Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and many other delegations to firmly reject the paper presented by the Chair.

The GFOD was unwilling to negotiate on a paper that it thought undermines the DA. They indicated their preference to bring the battle of the future of the DA to the General Assembly. It is their hope to obtain an outcome that better reflects the core components of their DA proposals presented in previous DA meetings (Doc. No WO/GA/31/11, IIM/1/4, PCDA/1/5) and most recently in PCDA/2/2, rather than to accept an approach that omits most of their proposals.

Brazil, one of the GFOD leaders, in its final statement on Friday said it would like to continue discussion in as inclusive a way as possible. It said that it did not want to go through the proposals mechanically, adding that it was important to understand the reasoning behind the proposals, and this takes more time.

It also said that the issues will take time to mature. Responding to comments particularly by the developed countries, that significant time and financial resources had been spent on the DA, Brazil said that in WIPO, some processes had taken more than 10 years and the outcome has been less than satisfactory. Thus, if a process takes a long time, then it takes a long time, but that does not mean that the process has to be abandoned.

Rome was not built in one day, the Brazil delegate added. It is for these reasons that it could not accept the proposals being categorized on the basis of whether there is or is not any "consensus". If that is the filter, the DA would be scaled down while the original DA would be lost.

Several times in the last two days of the PCDA meeting, Nigeria tried to reconcile differences by proposing a separate approach, including a suggestion to divide the proposals into categories of the short, medium and long term. It also proposed criteria that could be used to divide the proposals into these categories. However, this proposal did not go very far.

In any case, it is not clear whether Group B (comprising developed countries) would have endorsed any other approach, as it repeatedly supported basing discussions on the paper prepared by the Chair. As the Chair's paper is now embodied in the proposal by Kyrgyz Republic, that is to be sent to the General Assembly, it is probable that Group B will support the Kyrgyz Republic paper during the Assembly.

Once the Chair presented his paper on Thursday, it was clear that there would be no agreement at the PCDA meeting. The Chairman, as he presented the paper, said that he would need to work with the Group of FOD, to see how their proposals in their latest document (PCDA/2/2) can be incorporated into his text.

However, as soon as he finished saying that he wished to hold informal meetings with the regional coordinators to consider his document, Brazil raised its flag, and said that "We do not agree on this way of working and the draft is not acceptable to us". It added that the document was not drafted within the agreed parameters and that it would prefer to have no document at all.

Argentina said the Chair's paper represented an approach rejected by WIPO members, and that what had been agreed to initially was being reversed . Other countries that rejected the proposal include Iran, South Africa and Cuba.

Bolivia, supporting delegations that rejected the Chair's paper, said that under the norm-setting cluster in the Chair's paper, about 10 or 12 items from the original list had been deleted.

Unsurprisingly, the Swiss delegation on behalf of Group B said that it was prepared to consider the Chair's paper. Kyrgyzstan and Mexico took a similar position.

Even on hearing the various rejections of his paper, the Chairman still insisted that Members meet informally to hold further discussions. He explained that due to the limited time available he was not able to incorporate elements in the paper presented by the Group of FOD (referring to PCDA 2/2).

That suggestion was met with immediate opposition from Brazil that said that it would not agree to discuss anything informally as whatever that was agreed to informally, was not respected in formal sessions.

While the Chairman made his final plea that there should be informal consultations on how to proceed, most delegations indicated that they needed to consult in their regional groupings and the meeting broke up. Even when they reconvened, positions remained the same, with several countries rejecting the Chairman's paper, while some others considering it as a good basis for discussions.

Delegations that took the latter positions were Croatia on behalf of the Central European and Baltic States, Kyrgyzstan, Austria on behalf of the European Community, and Switzerland on behalf of Group B.

Brazil reiterated that there was no point in continuing as the Chair's proposal had excluded the views of the GFOD. It should not be just the agenda of developed countries, it added. It had instructions not to continue the process, and it wanted instead that a report be submitted to the GA that makes clear that its proposals are contained in four sets of documents that have been submitted from the start of the DA process (i. e. documents WO/GA/31/11, IIM/1/4, PCDA/1/5 and PCDA/2/2) and that they remain on the floor as GFOD proposals, and that there is no agreement in this committee on how to proceed.

Argentina also supported Brazil's position. South Africa said that the paper does not reflect a balance of interest of all the delegations and hoped for an outcome that would accommodate all the interests.

Iran said that in the two years of discussions, the GFOD has shown flexibility by discussing the other proposals of Member States cooperatively but it should not be assumed that the proposals of the GFOD that detailed the components of the DA could be ignored, adding that it could not support the Chair's paper.

Nigeria on behalf of the African Group said that it wanted to see the continuation of the process until a desired outcome is reached. On the Chair's paper, the Africa Group said that it could form the basis of work in principle without endorsing it as it stands at present.

Bahrain and the Asian Group said that they would go along with the consensus.

India felt that the Chair's paper was "lop-sided" and did not adequately reflect the list of proposals identified as enjoying emerging consensus. It added that there was inadequate parity for what is put as short term and what was put to the future and that there was no listing of issues for consideration in the medium term. It said that it was not in a position to accept the paper as it currently stands.

Chile said that perhaps the best thing is to take the Chair's proposal off the table, and explore new ways of looking at the problem.