WIPO Development Agenda Meeting Report 4

WIPO to hold two more Development Agenda meetings in June, July
Geneva, 14 April 2005: By Martin Khor

The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) will hold two more meetings, in June and July, to further discuss proposals for a Development Agenda for WIPO and prepare a report to the General Assembly on future work on this issue.

This was the main decision made on Wednesday night, at the end of the firstinter-sessional intergovernmental meeting (IIM) on a Development Agenda forWIPO, held here on 11-13 April.

The decision was contained in a Summary of the Chair that had been negotiated bythe WIPO member states. The next meeting will be on 20-22 June and the thirdmeeting at an unspecified date in July.

An earlier draft by the Chairman Ambassador Rigoberto Gauto Vielman of Paraguaystated that there would be just one more session of the IIM (on 20-24 June) before theGeneral Assembly. This was supported by developed countries.

However, many developing countries, led by Egypt, Argentina, Brazil (for the14-member Group of Friends of Development, or FOD) and India, said that onemeeting would not be enough to examine the existing proposals and discuss newones, as well as prepare the report for the 2005 General Assembly. That report is tobe finalised by July, according to a decision by the last General Assembly ofSeptember/October 2004.

After lengthy informal discussions in a small room, it was agreed that two meetingswould be held, and a new draft was produced and adopted after 9.00 pm onWednesday.

The main operational paragraph of the Chair's Summary states: 'Given the need forin-depth examination of the proposals, it was considered that more time would berequired by Member States to examine them. The IIM decided to continuediscussions and consideration of the proposals at the next session of the IIM, whichwould take place from June 20 to 22, and that a third session of three days would beheld in July 2005 on dates which would be communicated by the Secretariat to theMember States as soon as possible.

'Member States may submit in writing to the Secretariat additional proposals on theestablishment of a development agenda for consideration at the next session of theIIM. To facilitate discussions at that next session, the Chairman invited thoseMember States, which had made or would be making proposals, to submit them inoperational and actionable language to the Secretariat in writing.'

The Summary also said that the draft Report of the current meeting (containinginterventions and the Chair's summary) would be made available by the Secretariatby 25 April. Comments should be made by 4 May and the revised report madeavailable by 11 May, and would be considered for adoption at the next IIM session.

The Summary left open the question as to which party would prepare the final reportof the IIM process for submission to the General Assembly. It is expected to containsubstantive points regarding the proposed Development Agenda, andrecommendations on how to take the process further.

Italy (speaking for Group B comprising developed countries) proposed that an earlierdraft Summary be amended to clarify that the Chair would produce a draft report tothe General Assembly that sets out a future work plan. However, this was opposedby Brazil and Argentina which stated that the report to the General Assembly (whichwas not merely a factual report) should be drawn up by member states and not theChair. The final draft of the Summary does not refer to who would draw up thereport.

Behind the lengthy discussions on the number of meetings and the drafting of thefinal report were differences of views on how to take the Development Agendainitiative further. The developing countries backing the initiative want more time setaside for discussion so that some conclusions can be made on the substance of theDevelopment Agenda, and an operational plan to implement it can be made.

They felt that the holding of two more IIM meetings would be better for maintainingthe momentum created at the last General Assembly and the current IIM meeting. The developing-country proponents want a comprehensive Development Agendaplan, which includes changing WIPO's mandate and governance structure (to makeit more member-driven and inclusive), infusing development principles in itsnorm-setting (or treaty-making) activities, changing the way technical assistance iscarried out, and introducing methods or rules to achieve technology transfer.

The developed countries, on the other hand, appeared less keen to give more time tothe IIM process. During the meeting, they strongly indicated that the DevelopmentAgenda could be dealt with by WIPO's permanent committee on cooperation fordevelopment (PCIPD), which deals mainly with technical assistance. This fits withtheir approach, that strengthening the development dimension in WIPO could best beequated with more and better technical assistance.

Developing country diplomats also prefer that the crucial report to the GeneralAssembly be drafted in an inclusive and transparent manner, by the member states,instead of it being the work of the Chairman. 'We have had not so good experiencesat the WTO with Chairman's texts,' said one diplomat who covers both WTO andWIPO. 'It is hard for our views to be reflected in this kind of process, wheneveryone has to negotiate with the Chairman. It is more participatory and transparentwhen member states draft the report themselves.'

For much of the morning and early afternoon of the final day, manynon-governmental organizations and industry groups made presentations. Earlier,some intergovernmental organizations and international agencies also madestatements.

Ambassador Marwa Kisiri, head of the ACP (African, Carribean and Pacific) Group'sGeneva office, said the ACP secretariat fully supports the call for a strengthened rolefor WIPO for articulating and implementing a development agenda. The ACPsecretariat applauded delegations that submitted proposals or spoke up in favour ofa wide-ranging Development Agenda in WIPO, in particular the detailed proposalsof the Group of Friends of Development. He noted that most members of that Groupcome from the ACP Group.

He added that the ACP countries continue to suffer socio-economicunderdevelopment, and they require appropriate integration in the global economicframework. In the context of IPRs and WIPO, it is crucial that this appropriateintegration recognizes the need for IP standards and norms that are suitable for andnot contrary to development needs.

Such a balanced approach would require that ACP and other developing countriesreceive assistance on the full and appropriate use of their rights to flexibilities and theretention of policy space for their development strategies and objectives. This shouldbe reflected in technical assistance programmes, said Ambassador Kisiri. He addedthat WIPO can improve its work by responding to the needs and demands of recipientcountries, including through building their capacity on how to make use ofdevelopment-oriented flexibilities such as in patents and health issues.

Kisiri said that as a member of the UN family, WIPO should now as a matter ofpriority take on the proposals to fully integrate and strengthen development in all itsactivities. Citing the MDGs and the WTO decisions on TRIPS and Public Health, hesaid that WIPO cannot afford to stand aside from the global consensus as this wouldbe tantamount to operating in a vacuum, and to be absent from the UN developmentconsensus.

The World Health Organisation, welcoming the timely and important initiative by theWIPO, gave its views on IPRs and public health. Since 1999, successive resolutionsof the World Health Assembly have requested WHO to ensure that its medicinesstrategy addresses the important issue of impact of international trade agreements onpublic health and access to medicines.

The World Health Assembly in May 2003 expressed 'concerns about the currentpatent protection system, especially as regards access to medicines in developingcountries', and urged Member States to adapt 'national legislation in order to use tothe full the flexibilities contained in the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects ofIntellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)'. Another WHA resolution in May 2004 alsourged Member States to 'encourage that bilateral trade agreements take into accountthe flexibilities contained in the WTO TRIPS Agreement and recognized by the DohaMinisterial Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health'.

The WHO added that two activities were important to contribute to theimplementation of the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health to achieve theobjective of access to medicines for all. First is the need for accurate and up-to-dateinformation on patent status of medicines since in many countries, there isconsiderable uncertainty regarding the existence of patents on particular medicines.Thus, measures should be taken to require or encourage disclosure of patents onmedicines. This task may be initially undertaken by regional or multilateralorganizations or patent offices, where there may be insufficient capacity at thenational level.

Second is the need for encouraging a public health perspective into the patent system. This includes such issues as the development of guidelines on patentability ofmedicines; for example, on matters such as the patentability of new and second uses,dosages and combinations. Such guidelines should be developed by patent examinersin conjunction with public health experts. Developing countries may adapt suchguidelines so as to make them appropriate to their specific needs.

UNCTAD said it recognized the importance of assessing the developmentimplications of IPRs. It then presented details of its work on IPRs and development,including helping developing countries to understand the development implicationsof TRIPS, facilitating their informed participation in IPR related negotiations andhighlighting the flexibilities in TRIPS and other IPR treaties.

Other issues dealt with by UNCTAD included IPRs and domestic innovationdevelopment, open source software and protection of traditional knowledge.UNCTAD followed with interest the WIPO activities and offered to provide technicaladvice on the development implications of IPRs and their relation with trade andtechnology transfer.