Micro Consensus on WIPO Technical Assistance; Prickly Issues Left Open 17/05/2013 by Catherine Saez, Intellectual Property Watch 1 Comment Share this:Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)One of the key discussions of the World Intellectual Property Organization Committee on Development and IP (CDIP) this week was the improvement of WIPO technical assistance in the area of cooperation and development. Discussions trailed on for two days as countries were unable to agree on recommendations to be implemented, and if there should be any adoption by the committee. Shy of concrete consensus, the committee agreed on three modest actions. The 11th session of the CDIP is meeting from 13-17 May. At the outset of the discussion, methodology problems arose in particular on the documents to be discussed and the order in which they should be considered. On the second morning, countries seemed to have agreed on a methodology but confusion overtook the assembly as countries appeared to have interpreted the agreement in different ways. On the table were five documents: the External Review of WIPO Technical Assistance in the Area of Cooperation for Development; a report of an Ad Hoc Working Group on the External Review; a WIPO management response to the external review; a joint proposal submitted by the Development Agenda Group and the African Group and co-sponsored by Bolivia; and a document issued by WIPO for the 11th session presenting a status of the implementation of certain recommendations. The external review was first presented to the CDIP at its 8th session, in November 2011 (IPW, WIPO, 18 November 2013). It included a number of recommendation aimed at improving WIPO’s technical assistance. At the same session, the CDIP established an ad hoc working group on the external review, which provided a report at the 9th session. At the 9th session of the CDIP from 7-11 May 2012 WIPO issued a Management Response [pdf] to the External Review. In this response, the WIPO secretariat classified the recommendations of the external review in three categories: Category A (recommendations already reflected in WIPO’s activities or ongoing reform programmes); Category B (recommendations which merit further consideration); and Category C (recommendation which raise concern as to implementation). Still at the 9th session of the CDIP, the DAG and the African Group submitted a Joint Proposal [pdf] on WIPO’s Technical Assistance in the Area of Cooperation for Development co-sponsored by Bolivia. The joint proposal included a set of specific proposals from the external review “aimed at improving WIPO’s development cooperation activities.” At the 10th session of the CDIP, the WIPO secretariat was asked to provide information on the implementation of some recommendations from the external review, which was provided by WIPO at the 11th session, as a Status of Implementation [pdf] of Certain Recommendations Extracted from the Report on the External Review of WIPO Technical Assistance in the Field of Cooperation for Development. Group B Focused on Best Practices This week, the Group B developed countries indicated that at the previous meeting they had asked for an information-sharing session on the best practices and lessons learned on IP technical assistance and capacity building provided by Group B countries. Some countries such as Sweden, Australia and Spain proceeded to present their experiences, meeting reactions from some developing countries who said that was straying from the debate and fell short of the demand-driven nature of technical assistance. Group B countries also favoured a discussion on all documents on the table, while the DAG and the African Group said the only document by member states was the joint proposal and should thus be primarily discussed. The European Union was in favour of developing a compilation of best practices and lessons learned. Group B countries were also of the opinion that most of the recommendations laid out in the joint proposal had been addressed or were in the process of being addressed by the WIPO secretariat. Developing countries, recognising that WIPO had acted on the implementation, still found that more work needed to be done and insisted that the committee approve some recommendations. US Proposal Offers Truce The United States said the country could envisage discussion on three specific recommendations from the joint proposal: the establishment of a manual on the delivery of technical assistance, the upgrade of the WIPO’s website on WIPO’s development cooperation activities, and the upgrade of WIPO technical assistance database. This proposal offered a bridge for discussion between antagonists. The DAG and the African Group agreed to discuss on those three specific recommendations, but also provided a streamlined list [pdf] of other recommendations from the joint recommendation to be considered, which were later circulated by the secretariat. The European Union also came up with a set of three recommendations,[pdf] also circulated. On the morning of 16 May, delegations were asked by CDIP Chair Mohamed Siad Doualeh, the ambassador of Djibouti, to discuss the different recommendations now on the table. Developing Countries Seek Clear Guidance for Secretariat Disagreements persisted on what the committee should consider adopting as developed countries held fast to their consideration that most of the work on the recommendations had either been completed or was in the process of implementation by the secretariat, and thus no recommendations should be adopted by the CDIP. The DAG and the African Group remained of the opinion that the committee should adopt recommendations to provide clear guidance to the secretariat on the implementation of the recommendations. Group B countries said they trust the secretariat to carry out the implementation. The DAG and the African Group also had some concern with the European proposal, which proposed in its first point that the WIPO secretariat presents a compilation of best practices of WIPO and non-WIPO technical assistance. The groups said non-WIPO technical assistance should not be assessed or evaluated by the CDIP, which should remain focussed on WIPO activities. This was supported by South Africa, Angola, and Egypt. Bolivia proposed that the CDIP give clear guidance to WIPO on the three recommendations proposed by the US , which met the agreement of the committee, without adopting recommendations. The delegate added that further discussions should be carried out to address the EU and the joint proposal. Prickly Issues Pushed to Further Discussions The United States remarked that in the streamlined list provided by the joint proposal authors, paragraph J1, which states that the secretariat should create a system enabling interested member states to upload and make available voluntarily the content of WIPO’s legislative or regulatory advice to those member states, was not appropriate. WIPO should not host a website on which appear consultative and confidential provisions of WIPO’s legislative advice, the delegate said. “Member states may feel pressured to reveal sensitive information and be less confident in their ability to securely consult with WIPO on a confidential basis,” she said. Another sore point in the shortlist recommendations from the joint proposal was paragraph F4, which asks that the secretariat should take appropriate steps to ensure that all development cooperation activities are routed through permanent missions in Geneva, and for those mission to serve as focal point for liaising with WIPO on the details of assistance including in communicating national needs and priorities. Georgia said that for small missions in Geneva this could be impractical, and was unsupportive of F4, joined by Vietnam, Mexico, and Trinidad and Tobago. Developed countries also raised issues about this recommendation, arguing that the committee should not restrict how individual member states communicate with WIPO. A number of developing countries, such as Iran, Pakistan and Angola, supported F4, some of them because of their own national legislations, such as South Africa. Others, such as India, said that sometimes permanent missions in Geneva are not aware of technical assistance being provided by WIPO to their country. The delegate suggested that WIPO send copies of all communication between WIPO and the national IP offices to the respective permanent missions. “The elephant in the room we are all not talking about,” said Pakistan, is that many times WIPO provides or conducts activities specifically with IP offices, with a narrow focus on IP, without a balanced approach. The problem is that in most countries the IP office is the implementing agency, the delegate said. The IP offices however, often are not able to come to regular WIPO meetings and are represented by permanent missions, and at times, there is a lack of communication between the three entities, he said. There should be no objection to copying material to missions in Geneva, he added, seconded by India on behalf of the Asian Group. At the end of the morning of the fourth day of the CDIP session, the committee finally agreed that the chair will include in his report the three areas of consensus and advise that some further consultations be conducted on the other recommendations in both the EU and the joint proposal, so that discussion could continue at the next session. Share this:Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window) Related Catherine Saez may be reached at csaez@ip-watch.ch."Micro Consensus on WIPO Technical Assistance; Prickly Issues Left Open" by Intellectual Property Watch is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
[…] The external review is at the heart of the discussions on technical assistance in the CDIP, with developing countries requesting decisions on the implementation of the recommendations of the external review, while developed countries find that a high number of these recommendations have been, or are in the process of being implemented by the WIPO secretariat (IPW, WIPO, 16 May 2013). http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/05/17/micro-consensus-on-wipo-technical-assistance-prickly-issues-left-… […] Reply