GOVERNMENTS MEET IN GENEVA TO DISCUSS WIPO DEVELOPMENT AGENDA

Members of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) met in Geneva from 11-13 April to discuss whether the organisation is fulfilling its 'development mandate' as a specialised agency of the UN. Discussions centred around four proposals on how WIPO could best address development concerns. This process, a direct response to calls for a 'development agenda' for WIPO, could potentially lead to substantial changes in the organisation's mandate. At the end of the meeting members decided to hold two further sessions of the IIM before the end of July 2005.

The 'development agenda'

In September 2004, fourteen developing countries including Brazil and Argentina made a proposal (WO/GA/31/11) for the 'Establishment of a Development Agenda for WIPO' to the organisation's General Assembly, its main decision-making body. In response, WIPO members decided to hold an 'inter-sessional inter-governmental meeting' (IIM) to discuss the proposal's call for wide-ranging changes to the mandate and functioning of WIPO, as well as related submissions from other member states (see BRIDGES Weekly 8 September 2004; BRIDGES Weekly 6 October 2004). Decisions taken during the IIM are thought likely to be passed by the General Assembly, since the same people tend to attend both. The 11-13 April meeting was the first session of the IIM, and was chaired by Ambassador Rigoberto Gauto Vielman of Paraguay.

Proposals on the table

At the meeting, WIPO members discussed the four proposals tabled subsequent to the original call for the WIPO agenda to be more development-focused. These came from the US (IIM/1/2); Mexico (IIM/1/3); the UK (Observation from the UK); and the 14 original proponents of the WIPO 'development agenda,' now referring to themselves as the 'Friends of Development' (FoD; IIM/1/4).

Friends of development challenge WIPO's underlying philosophy

The FoD's recent submission elaborates on their original proposal, and is structured around four broad concerns. First, it calls for a review of the mandate and governance of WIPO; second, it seeks the promotion of pro-development norm-setting in WIPO; third, it proposes principles and guidelines for the provision and evaluation of WIPO's technical assistance; and fourth, it suggests guidelines for future work on the transfer and dissemination of technology and related competition policies.

The 30-page document emphasises the need to distinguish between the incorporation of a development agenda in all of WIPO's bodies and the mere improvement of technical assistance to developing country members. It calls on WIPO to accept its role as a UN specialised agency and adopt the institution's overall commitment to development, including the principles set out by the Millennium Development Goals. The proposal demands that development concerns be reflected in all of WIPO's activities.

Submissions from the US, Mexico and the UK

Both the US and the Mexican proposals clearly reject any substantive change in WIPO's mandate. They focus instead on a general improvement of the technical assistance provided by WIPO. One of the means proposed by the US is the establishment of a partly web-based Partnership Programme in WIPO. The US proposal focuses on organisational issues, rather than responding directly to the underlying substantive concerns expressed in both of the FoD submissions.

Rather than a concrete proposal, the UK submission was a strategy paper that spelled out observations with respect to intellectual property and development. The UK paper recalls the outcomes of the report by the 2002 UK Commission on Intellectual Property Rights that had already asked the WIPO Secretariat to examine the impact of its work on development. While the UK submission clearly indicates its concern about the developmental impact of WIPO's activities, it does not see any reason for concrete change at this point in time.

Negotiating positions remain largely unchanged

Discussions largely repeated the positions outlined in the proposals. Developed countries such as the US warned against turning WIPO into a development agency, pointing to the existence of other UN bodies such as the UN Development Programme (UNDP) and the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). Supporters of the FoD submissions countered that the call for a 'development agenda' is simply a request for the integration of development concerns into WIPO's ongoing work, not for turning the organisation into a specialised development agency.

The FoD's proposal to establish a WIPO Evaluation and Research Office (WERO) to carry out 'development impact assessments' of all of WIPO's programmes and activities also proved controversial. Switzerland and other developed countries cautioned against the unnecessary creation of new bodies, arguing that the issues could be tackled by improving existing WIPO bodies such as the Permanent Committee on Cooperation for Development Related to Intellectual Property (PCIPD).

Finally, the majority of developing country members, including the groups of African and Asian countries, expressed support for many of the issues raised in the FoD submissions, and stressed the importance of ensuring that the design and implementation of intellectual property rules take into account different countries' respective levels of development -- that one size should not be made to fit all.

Future steps

After a long debate, members agreed that two further sessions of the IIM would be necessary to examine the proposals in further depth. The next session of the IIM was scheduled for 20-22 June; a third three-day gathering will be held in July. These meetings will afford members more time for discussion before the 30 July deadline for agreeing on a final submission on the IIM for the WIPO General Assembly. The Chair invited members to make "operational and actionable" proposals before the June session.

According to the final draft summary circulated on 13 April by the Chair, the final draft report on this session of the IIM has to be finished by May 11. The initial draft report will be made available to members, inter-governmental organisations, and NGOs by April 25, with a 4 May deadline for submitting comments on it to the WIPO Secretariat.

One of the surprises at the outset of the meeting was members' immediate decision to grant ad-hoc observer status to the 17 non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that had asked to attend the gathering. While granting ad-hoc observer status to the NGOs, however, several member states including the US pointed out that the move would not set a precedent for future WIPO meetings, and that NGOs should apply for permanent observer status before the next General Assembly in September 2005. However, the same 17 NGOs will receive ad-hoc observer status for the two upcoming sessions of the IIM, thanks to a last-minute intervention by the Civil Society Coalition, an international federation of public interest groups.

The 14 Friends of Development are Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Iran, Kenya, Peru, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania and Venezuela.

ICTSD reporting.