The second session of the the WIPO Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP) is meeting this week in Geneva (July 7-11, 2008). The first meeting of this development committee (March 2008) examined Cluster A (Technical Assistance and Capacity Building) of the 45 approved Development Agenda recommendations. In particular, the March session of the CDIP considered recommendations 1, 2, 5, 8, 9 and 10 of the Development Agenda and requested with respect to recommendation 1 to “furnish a progress report” in time for the July CDIP. With respect to recommendations 2, 5, 8, 9 and 10 the committee “broadly agreed that the proposed activities, as suitably modified following the discussions, would be sent to the Secretariat to assess the human and financial resource requirements before the July 2008 session of the CDIP”. If what you have read so far appears soporific, it would not be an inaccurate reflection of the discussions thus far. However what is really at stake is how the holistic, cross-cutting principles of the Development Agenda will be implemented and the discussions on costing are a proxy debate over whether the Development Agenda morphs into an inert, shadow of itself or whether it transforms into a tangible, dynamic reality.
The following recommendations (1, 2, 5, 8, 9 and 10) are under discussion.
1. WIPO technical assistance shall be, inter alia, development?oriented, demand?driven and transparent, taking into account the priorities and the special needs of developing countries, especially LDCs, as well as the different levels of development of Member States and activities should include time frames for completion. In this regard, design, delivery mechanisms and evaluation processes of technical assistance programs should be country specific.
2. Provide additional assistance to WIPO through donor funding, and establish Trust?Funds or other voluntary funds within WIPO specifically for LDCs, while continuing to accord high priority to finance activities in Africa through budgetary and extra?budgetary resources, to promote, inter alia, the legal, commercial, cultural, and economic exploitation of intellectual property in these countries.
5. WIPO shall display general information on all technical assistance activities on its website, and shall provide, on request from Member States, details of specific activities, with the consent of the Member State(s) and other recipients concerned, for which the activity was implemented.
8. Request WIPO to develop agreements with research institutions and with private enterprises with a view to facilitating the national offices of developing countries, especially LDCs, as well as their regional and sub?regional IP organizations to access specialized databases for the purposes of patent searches.
9. Request WIPO to create, in coordination with Member States, a database to match specific IP?related development needs with available resources, thereby expanding the scope of its technical assistance programs, aimed at bridging the digital divide.
10. To assist Member States to develop and improve national IP institutional capacity through further development of infrastructure and other facilities with a view to making national IP institutions more efficient and promote fair balance between IP protection and the public interest. This technical assistance should also be extended to sub?regional and regional organizations dealing with IP.
Recommendation 2 enjoyed detailed discussions on its implementation. In particular, the Secretariat proposed “10 missions to existing and potential donor countries/institutions, to promote and discuss the establishment of further donor arrangements or the enhancement or current arrangements” which anticipated a cost of 50,000 Swiss francs. In addition, a “Donor Conference (which includes financing the participation of a number of developing country representatives”. This “could be organized in 2008-2009 and represent an opportunity to apprise donors about the adopted recommendations under the WIPO Development Agenda”. The financial implications of this Donor Conference is anticipated at 140, 000 Swiss francs. Although this was welcomed by developing countries, France (on behalf of the European Communities and its Member States) and the United States were reluctant to embrace the Donor Conference. In particular, the United States noted that its reluctance stemmed from the lack of clarity on the methodology on costing the conference. Japan reaffirmed its view that a Donor Conference would be premature.
On recommendation 5 calling upon WIPO to provide information on its website on all technical assistance activities, costing included 150,000 CHF (Swiss francs) for a project coordinator, 150,000 CHF for a business analyst, and 178,000 CHF for a staff “member responsible for the maintaining and updating of the database and dedicated to collecting & packaging information/data”.
With respect to recommendations 8, 9 and 10, there is a lot more detailed human and financial resources requirements data that unfortunately are not available online; hopefully the International Bureau will make this available on a timely basis.
At the onset of the CDIP meeting yesterday, Pakistan, India and Thailand made astute observations on the state of play with respect to the Development Agenda. As coordinator of the Asian Group, Pakistan stressed that the Member States must not be complacent and asserted that development should not be compartmentalized but mainstreamed. The Asian Group expressed its desire that WIPO allocate appropriate financial resources to implement all 45 Development Agenda recommendations and emphasized the need for immediate implementation of the 19 recommendations which would have no financial implications for the International Bureau.
Deputy Permanent Representative Mohinder Singh Grover (India) noted that it was “gratifying to know that WIPO embraced the development dimension, a pillar of the UN system, albeit belatedly.” In India’s view, the cluster dealing with norm-setting recommendations is a set of cross-cutting principles; consequently, the CDIP should not be viewed as a dust bin of “development concerns”.
H.E Sihasak Phuangketkeow (Thailand) noted that
because the Development Agenda is an overarching issue that transcends specific projects and activities, the work plan of the CDIP must, therefore, be developed on the basis of the overall needs in developing the intellectual property system. This should also coincide with the social and economic development policies of each country so as to maximize its impact and flexibility on implementation….[f]rom the revised text, we take note of the human resource and financial requirements for some of the recommendations. Yet we believe it is difficult for us to agree piecemeal to a budget for the recommendations in Cluster A, without knowing first of all whether knowing first of all whether sufficient funds will be available for other clusters.
Lastly, we cannot emphasize enough the importance of mainstreaming the work of the WIPO Development Agenda into the activities of other WIPO committees and avoiding any compartmentalization of our work. As we have witnessed during the Standing Committee on the Law of Patents, the SCP also discussed issues such as public policy objectives and norm-setting activities related to the CDIP. It is apparent that the Development Agenda does not exist in a vacuum, but in reality, it is an integral part of WIPO activities and not confined solely to the discussions here.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, it is clearly recognized that intellectual property no longer involves just rule setting and enforcement management. Rather, it is a vital key to our social and economic development. Therefore, the work that we are undertaking in this forum represents the share aspirations of the majority of Members. For this reason, it is incumbent upon us to ensure that the Development Agenda is embraced fully by all and carried forward, in all its dimensions”.