<div class="gmail_quote"><h2>
WIPO Development Agenda Implementation: The Ongoing Fight For Development In IP </h2>
<small><a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/05/09/wpo-development-agenda-implementation-the-ongoing-fight-for-development-in-ip/?utm_source=post&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alerts" target="_blank">http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/05/09/wpo-development-agenda-implementation-the-ongoing-fight-for-development-in-ip/?utm_source=post&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alerts</a><br>
<br>Published on 9 May 2012 @ 8:23 am</small>
<p>
<span><span style="display:inline-block;text-decoration:none"><span style="background-image:url("http://w.sharethis.com/images/facebook_counter.png")"></span></span></span><span><br>
</span>
</p>
<p>By <a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/author/william/" title="Posts by William New" rel="author" target="_blank">William New</a>, Intellectual Property Watch</p>
<p>As World Intellectual Property Organization members engage this
week in discussions about the extent of change to the UN agency’s
development orientation, a new substantive proposal for reform has been
put forward based on an external review of WIPO technical assistance. <span></span></p>
<p>The Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP) is <a href="http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=25013" target="_blank">meeting from 7-11 May</a>. The committee exists to implement the 2007 WIPO Development Agenda. </p>
<p>In general, it could be said that developing countries, which
initiated the movement that led to the Development Agenda, are working
to enact a substantive transformation at the organisation, while
developed countries are eager to make improvements without drastically
altering the agency. </p>
<p>The work in the CDIP addresses a full range of WIPO activities. With a
wide range of reports and activities being carried out, a wide range of
WIPO professional staff and consultants are cycling through the
committee. Projects range from databases, to competition policy, to
flexibilities in IP law, to the public domain. Technical assistance is
only one aspect, but it reaches into the core of the organisation’s
orientation. </p>
<p>The breadth of issues was reflected in opening statements, such as by Iran on behalf of the Asian Group, <a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/asian-group-general-statement-in-CDIP-9.doc" target="_blank">available here</a>. </p>
<p>On the first day, an attempt was made again by developing countries
to create a permanent agenda item on “IP and development,” which
developed countries again resisted on the grounds that it is repetitive
with the title of the committee itself. But developing countries’
concern is that broader issues of IP and development do not have a place
in a committee that spends most of its time working through specific
projects. They have raised this issue for several years. </p>
<p>The first day also saw a discussion of the relation of the CIP to
other committees and activities within WIPO, which raises recurrent
issues of how far-reaching the committee’s work is. </p>
<p>The remainder of the week will focus on the WIPO secretariat’s
extensive report on the implementation of the Development Agenda, and
numerous project reports as well as evaluations of past projects. There
are now some 23 projects completed or in the process of being completed,
according to the secretariat. </p>
<p>The timetable for the week (as of 8 May) is <a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/WIPO-CDIP-Timetable-7-11-May-2012-v2.pdf" target="_blank">available here</a> [pdf]. </p>
<p>Deere/Roca Report</p>
<p>A key element of the week’s agenda is to address an external review
of WIPO technical assistance called for by member states and co-authored
by Carolyn Deere and Santiago Roca. The report found numerous areas for
improvement for member states to consider. </p>
<p>Yesterday, the entire day was spent discussing the report, but no
decisions were made on how to proceed. The chair is expected to draft a
summary of this and other activities by week’s end. </p>
<p>The day opened with a presentation to the plenary by Deere, who
outlined a number of key recommendations from the report. These fell
into the areas of transparency and mutual accountability, management and
strategic planning, effectiveness and impact, good governance, and
orientation. </p>
<p>Deere, who is a senior researcher in the Global Economic Governance
Programme at Oxford University, told the plenary that the report
research was completed in August 2011. At the last CDIP in November
2011, the committee set up an ad hoc working group to look at the report
and among other things identify where there might be redundancy in the
report recommendations and help prepare for a committee decision on how
to proceed (<a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/2011/11/18/wipo-development-committee-completes-work-creates-technical-cooperation-review-group/" target="_blank"><i>IPW</i>, WIPO, 18 November 2012</a>). </p>
<p>Also at the last CDIP meeting, the WIPO secretariat was asked to
respond to the Deere/Roca report. The WIPO management response was
completed in March and reflects a number of improvements, including many
in the past few months, leading to a debate over which Deere/Roca
recommendations had already been addressed or whether and how the WIPO
secretariat’s claims need to be confirmed. </p>
<p>The secretariat clustered the Deere/Roca recommendations into three
categories. Cluster A are those which are “already reflected in WIPO
activities, or ongoing reform programs.” Cluster B is made up of those
which “merit further consideration.” And Cluster C represents those
which “raise concerns as to implementation.” </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=199874" target="_blank">management response is here</a>. </p>
<p>Some developing country members said that some recommendations listed
as completed in Cluster A may need to be confirmed. Co-author Deere
took a similar view on this, suggesting the regularisation of a
monitoring mechanism would be helpful. Concern was also raised on the
criteria used to place recommendations into Cluster C. </p>
<p>The Group B developed countries generally accepted the secretariat
response and moved right into discussing items in Cluster B. But Group B
appears to be looking to slow down the work of the committee. </p>
<p>The <i>ad hoc</i> working group only began meeting in March, and
was crippled in part by a lack of translation services. After a series
of five meetings ending two weeks ago, the group could not reach
agreement and left off its work. </p>
<p>The minutes of the <i>ad hoc</i> group meetings are <a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/WIPO-Minutes-of-Ad-Hoc-WG-on-Ext-Rvw-CDIP_-May-20121.pdf" target="_blank">here</a> [pdf], and the report of the group is <a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/WIPO-Rpt-of-Ad-Hoc-WG-on-External-Rvw-CDIP_-May-20121.pdf" target="_blank">here</a> [pdf]. </p>
<p>New DAG/African Group Proposal</p>
<p>The African Group and the Development Agenda Group (which includes
countries from other regions) issued a large, new proposal today on ways
to take forward the Deere/Roca report. The new document includes a
variety of specific proposals “aimed at improving WIPO’s development
cooperation activities.” </p>
<p>The DAG/African joint proposal is <a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/WIPO-CDIP-DAG-Propl-8-May-2012.pdf" target="_blank">available here</a> [pdf].</p>
<p>Under “relevance and orientation,” the groups proposed experts to
develop guidelines with details on how to plan and implement more
development-oriented assistance. They also call for the secretariat to
develop a comprehensive manual on delivery of technical assistance. </p>
<p>The 17-page document also includes proposals for the WIPO program and
budget, including moving “funds-in-trust” – targeted funding from
governments intended for specific activities – into the regular WIPO
budget, programming and reporting processes. </p>
<p>Other proposals lay out steps for addressing: extra-budgetary
resources; human resources; expert/consultants; transparency and
communication; redesigning the technical assistance database; assessing
impact, monitoring and evaluation; IP policies and strategies in
countries; provision of legislative and regulatory assistance; IP office
modernization, training and capacity building; coordination; and
follow-up. </p>
<p>The joint proposal also includes a 25-point appendix of guidance for
WIPO, such as ensuring development cooperation assistance is more than
just responding to requests, but also a dialogue with appropriate
assistance. </p>
<p>A presentation on the new set of proposals was made by Algeria on
behalf of the DAG, but it could not be agreed by the committee how to
proceed on it. Developed countries suggested they would need time to
review the proposal. </p>
<p>Protection and Development</p>
<p>The WIPO Development Agenda’s 45 recommendations reach well beyond
technical assistance and development cooperation, but there continues to
be disagreement on how far they should go in the organisation’s
activities. Last week, for instance, there was disagreement over whether
it relates to the WIPO Committee on Standards. </p>
<p>The discussion is reaching into the original purpose of the
organisation, as the United States and Japan today raised Article 3 of
the original WIPO Convention, noting that it does not mention
development but does emphasise IP protection. The United States said a
shift from an “IP-centric” to development-oriented WIPO would contravene
Article 3. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/convention/trtdocs_wo029.html#P68_3059" target="_blank">Article 3 states</a>: </p>
<p><i>The objectives of the Organization are:</i></p><i>
<p>(i) to promote the protection of intellectual property throughout the
world through cooperation among States and, where appropriate, in
collaboration with any other international organization,</p>
<p>(ii) to ensure administrative cooperation among the Unions. </p>
</i>
</div><br>