AT the 2004 General Assembly of the World Intellectual Property Organization, 14 developing countries presented a proposal for the ‘establishment of a development agenda’ for WIPO. The proposal incorporated various measures which WIPO members could take in order to ensure that development is at the heart of all WIPO programmes and activities, and that -WIPO is contributing to the fulfilment of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
Among others, the proposed measures include: the adoption of a high-level declaration on intellectual property and development; amending the WIPO Convention; the inclusion of provisions on technology transfer, competition etc. in treaties under negotiation; establishing technical assistance programmes based on particular principles and objectives; and establishing a working group on the development agenda.
Apart from these specific measures, the proposal also sought to lay a solid basis for crystallising the meaning and content of the development dimension in intellectual property policies.
The WIPO General Assembly welcomed the initiative and decided inter alia to convene inter-sessional inter-governmental meetings (IIM) to have a focused discussion on the proposal as well as any other proposals that may be presented by member states.
The IIM would prepare a report to be considered by the General Assembly at its next session by 30 July 2005. The General Assembly also instructed the WIPO Secretariat to organize with other relevant multilateral organizations, including UNCTAD, WHO, UNIDO and WTO, a joint seminar on intellectual property and development.
The first IIM is scheduled to be held in Geneva from April 11-13, and the seminar on May 2-3, 2005.
During the debate on the proposal at the General Assembly, though there may have been nuances with respect to the details, there was very wide support for the proposal from a majority of developing countries.
On the other hand, most of the industrialised countries, so-called Group B countries in WIPO, argued that WIPO was already incorporating development into its activities. The strongest opposition to the proposal came from the United States.
Its delegation argued that the development agenda proposal “appeared to be premised on the misconception that strong intellectual property protection might be detrimental to global development goals and that WIPO had disregarded development concerns”.
The United States has now presented its own proposal for discussion at the IIM. The proposal essentially proposes the establishment of a partnership programme for technical assistance in WIPO. The United States criticism and its proposal as well as the overall approach of Group B, however, seem to be based either on a misreading of the proposal or on a well calculated plan to trivialise and side step the issues raised in the proposal.
In particular, the misconceived idea that the call for a development focus in WIPO activities means a call for technical assistance is troubling. This approach is reminiscent of the standard approach in many other fora where demands by developing countries for development focused international action are usually met with a promise of technical assistance. The promises of technical assistance are based on the idea that such demands are usually misguided and so technical assistance would make these countries wiser on the issue.
Looking at the way things are shaping up, it appears that the first task for the co-sponsors of the development agenda proposal will be to make it clear that the proposal for the establishment of a development agenda in WIPO is not a call for more technical assistance. The proposal is a call for a fundamental shift in the orientation and functioning of WIPO to bring its action into line with its mandate as a UN agency. Consequently, while improvements in the design, delivery and evaluation of WIPO’s technical assistance may have a role to play in ensuring that the implementation of intellectual property rules is development- sensitive, the proposal is of a cross-cutting nature and addresses many issues including the manner in which subjects for treaty negotiations are identified and how the actual negotiations are conducted.
The second and most important task for the co-sponsors and other supporters of the development agenda will be to set clear benchmarks for determining whether the outcomes of the IIM and future WIPO activities meet the development test.
To pass the test of development, the discussions at the IIM meetings will have to address a number of key questions relating to the mandate of WIPO and participation of public interest groups in WIPO processes, norm-setting activities and priorities, the design, delivery and evaluation of technical assistance and technology transfer issues.—Courtesy South Centre
