WIPO Program And Budget Committee Works Through Revisions On Key Issues

In-depth discussions and revisions of programmes did not speed up the decision-taking of World Intellectual Property Organization delegates trying to approve the programmes and budget of the organisation this week. Heading into the final day, consensus was elusive on some items such as the establishment of external offices, or a reporting mechanism for the programme on intellectual property and global challenges.

The 21st session of the WIPO Program and Budget Committee (PBC) is taking place from 9-13 September. The results of this week’s meeting will be passed on to the annual WIPO General Assembly, being held from 23 September to 2 October.

Revised versions of draft programmes and budget were released on 11 and 12 September by the WIPO secretariat with track-marked changes suggested by member states earlier in the week and on which agreement is yet to be found before the end of the week. Some decisions might be left to the General Assembly.

A revised version [pdf] of non-personnel expenditures of the financial overview contained in the proposed 2014-2015 Program and Budget was released with the deletion of specific mention of potential diplomatic conferences that might take place in the upcoming biennium. Concerns had been voiced by Group B (developed countries) as to provisions made for a potential diplomatic conference following the discussions in the WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IPW, WIPO, 12 September 2013).

Other revised versions were released on Program 1 (Patent law) here [pdf] with the inclusion of a reference to the WIPO Development Agenda recommendations, and on Program 3 (Copyright and related rights) here [pdf] with additional language on the implementation of the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled proposed [pdf] by the Development Agenda Group.

Other revisions were produced for Program 8 (Development Agenda coordination) here [pdf] with new language on the implementation strategies of the programme, and for Program 9 (Africa, Arab, Asia and the Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean Countries, Least Developed Countries) here [pdf], to exclude references and provisions for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which were switched back to Program 30 (Small and medium-sized enterprises) here [pdf].

Program 10 (Cooperation with certain countries in Europe and Asia), which was previously considered with programmes 9 and 30, was left as it was, while resources on SMEs were injected back into programme 30 from Program 9 in order to satisfy request by a number of member states.

SMEs, Innovation

Program 30 on SMEs was not included in the first version of the proposed Program and Budget presented to the PBC in July but reinstated after a number of member states asked that it was put back in the Program and Budget for 2014/2015. The new version of Program 30 also includes stronger measurement tools such as surveys to measure capacity building satisfaction of SME support institutions.

Some countries, such as the United States and South Korea, were still not satisfied with Program 30 and insisted upon the reestablishment of the innovation division in Program 30, stressing the fact that the secretariat had taken upon itself to remove said division without member state approval or consultation. The secretariat said the problem with the innovation division was its lack of results and that choices are guided by performance.

Switzerland said it was satisfied with the first version of the draft Program and Budget as it was presented by the WIPO secretariat, but was equally satisfied with the compromised solution now reached for Program 30, which in the past biennium had not been operating well.

Part of the innovation activities had been moved by the secretariat in the proposed Budget and Program to Program 16 (Economics and Statistics) under the management of WIPO Chief Economist Carsten Fink.

Fink was invited to describe the objective of the programme and said it was providing empirical analysis to support policymakers in their deliberations on how IP policy choices affect economic performance. The ultimate objective, he said, is to work with data and see how different IP policies work in different countries and how IP choices affect innovation.

IP and Global Challenges

Program 18 (IP and global challenges) also was the subject of a revision [pdf] with new language on the implementation strategies.

Discussions on Program 18 were stoked, as developing countries continue to ask that the programme reports on its activities in a WIPO committee, with a preference for the Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP).

Brazil, on behalf of the DAG and supported by the African Group, suggested adding a new paragraph (18.4) which would say: “Due to the nature and objectives of Program 18, discussions related to its mandate and work program will be held in the CDIP. The activities to be undertaken under Program 18 during the biennium 2014/2015 will be subject to Member States approval and will be reported during the sessions of CDIP.”

This was opposed by Group B developed countries which said they found that the adequate committee to report on Program 18 is the PBC. In particular, they said some programmes did not report to WIPO specific committees and the PBC should not start a precedent of having each and every activity report to committees, which would amount to an attempt to micro-manage WIPO.

France suggested enhanced reporting from the programme. Switzerland said regular briefings were organised by the secretariat on the activities of the programme and invited concerned member states to attend those meetings.

But for developing countries, there is a concern with transparency, in particular because Program 18 deals with issues such as health, food security and climate change, and they stressed the need to discuss on a regular basis what is being done in the programme.

Egypt said all WIPO programmes on substance have a committee to report to, and asked that Program 18 be established on the same equal footing. It is not an issue of micro-management, but asking for more transparency and more engagement from member states, the delegate said. The country is not opposed to regular briefings, he said, but not during lunchtime, referring to events organised by the programme on the side of other WIPO committees.

External Offices, in High Demand

On Program 20 (External relations, partnerships and external offices), PBC Chair Hisham Badr of Egypt had made a suggestion for the consideration of member states, which was to set up a working group with a chairperson, to work from the secretariat-proposed programme and deliver a proposal to the upcoming WIPO General Assembly.

The Latin American and Caribbean Group continued to formulate an express request that the group be included in the proposed list of new WIPO external offices (the list currently includes China, Russia, the United States, and two in Africa). India also asked that the country be added to the list of new WIPO external offices to be established in the new biennium.

Group B, which earlier in the week submitted a statement [pdf] on a strategy for WIPO external offices, said a budget should be allocated for external offices but without specific locations or number, and that a general rule be developed for all candidates. The group agreed with informal consultations but asked that the chair be from a country that is not a candidate for an external office, and that there is regular reporting on the informal consultations.

Difficulties to breach differences in a number of areas raised concerns about the ability of the PCB to approve the proposed Program and Budget. If that would happen, the Program and Budget would have to be approved by the General Assembly.