WIPO Program And Budget Committee Works Through Issues

The World Intellectual Property Organization Program and Budget Committee (PBC) last week took note of WIPO’s mostly positive 2014 progress report, walked through its proposed program and budget for 2016-2017, and addressed issues of investment, governance, new external offices, and development. Many issues will be carried forward to the next PBC meeting in mid-September, just prior to the annual WIPO General Assembly.

One of the main aims of the Program and Budget Committee, which took place from 13-17 July, was to examine the draft proposed program and budget for the 2016/2017 biennium [pdf]. Member states sifted through the proposal by the WIPO secretariat.

The list of decisions is available here. All official meeting documents are available here.

Member states analysed and took note of WIPO’s account of its progress on various programs (Program Performance Review, PPR), for which it said some 71 percent of the targets had been met. Members also discussed WIPO’s proposed program and budget for the next two years.

On the last day of the session, PBC Chair Amb. Gabriel Duque [corrected] of Colombia issued a preliminary document [pdf] listing agreed modifications to the proposed 2016/2017 budget, items to be further considered, and requests to the secretariat.

A second version [pdf] was issued later in the afternoon to reflect further discussions on open items. The second version, which was approved, added two programmes on which modifications were agreed. Members agreed to modifications on the narratives of the following programmes: Program 1 (Patent Law); Program 9 (Africa, Arab, Asia and the Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean Countries, Least Developed Countries); Program 10 (Transition and Developed Countries); Program 11 (The WIPO Academy); Program 13 (Global Databases Service); Program 14 (Services for Access to Information and Knowledge); Program 16 (Economics and statistics); Program 17 (Building Respect For IP); Program 18 (IP and Global Challenges); Program 25 (Information and Communication Technology); Program 28 (Information Assurance, Safety and Security); Program 30 (Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises and Entrepreneurship Support).

Issues to be further discussed include defining development expenditures at the organisation, additional WIPO offices in other countries, and a request that the Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin and their International Registration and the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks be listed as two separate items in the budget of the organisation.

Another key issue is the 2014 United Nations Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) Report [pdf].

There are numerous investment decisions being taken this year, such as how to avoid the impact of the Swiss negative interest rate going into effect by 15 December. A proposal to diversify the WIPO banking gained support.

Further points for consideration at the next session include Program 3 (Copyright and Related Rights), and the establishment of a new international quality assurance standard for collective management organisations, referred to as TAG. In particular, some member states requested that the TAG should involve a full consultation process with WIPO’s member states when defining quality assurance standards.

Another discussion during the week was about making the Intergovernmental Committee on Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC) a standing committee. Many developing countries indicated support, while some such as the UK insisted on not discussing it in the PBC, but rather to leave it to the General Assembly. The secretariat said it did not appear it would add expense to make it a standing committee, as cost is up to the operation of the committee. Nigeria said a proposal would be forthcoming [Note: Nigeria has submitted the proposal, see below].

Development Expenditures

For several years, delegates have been debating in the PBC what constitutes development expenditures in the WIPO budget. For example, some developed countries are of the opinion that fee reductions to the Patent Cooperation Treaty constitute development expenditures, while developing countries have been saying that development expenditures should concern development-oriented activities.

Several draft definitions were circulated during the week. The committee decided to continue discussions at the next session of the PBC, based on the latest draft [pdf], which contains several bracketed texts reflecting differences.

The document states: “expenditure is qualified as ‘development expenditure’ when it is used to finance development-oriented [assistance/activities] provided by WIPO to developing countries and Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and the equivalent expenditure is not provided to developed countries.”

Development activities, according to the document, should enable developing countries “to derive benefits from the IP system, [to reduce the costs of its use], and to better protect [their] inventions and creations around the world.”

Activities listed in the document include the development of national IP strategies, policies and plans in developing countries; building modern state-of-the-art national IP administrative infrastructure, and promoting innovation and creativity, technology transfer and access to knowledge and technologies in developing countries.

Two earlier drafts were issued, here [pdf], and here [pdf].

Brazil was critical of some members for dragging their feet on this issue. “There is no will among some members to develop a new approach to development expenditures in this house,” the delegate said. Proponents are holding out hope for more discussions before the next PBC session in order to get some progress this year. Iran for instance insisted that this agenda item is as much of a priority as any other item on the agenda.

Governance

According to several developing country sources, the issue of governance is linked to the 2014 JIU report. Recommendation 1 of the report states: “The WIPO General Assembly should review the WIPO governance framework as well as current practices with a view to strengthen the capacity of the governing bodies to guide and monitor the work of the organization. In doing so, Member States may wish to consider in their deliberations the options suggested in this report.”

According to a WIPO document [pdf]: “The Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) undertook a review of the management and administration of WIPO in 2014, as part of a series of reviews of participating organizations. The report was presented to Member States in 2014.”

According to sources, member states were unable to decide how to implement Recommendation 1 of the JIU this week, and the PBC decided [pdf] that the deliberations on governance at WIPO will continue at the next session of the PBC. It will be on the basis of the proposal of Vice-Chair Xavier Bellmont Roldan of Spain, and a proposal by the Central European and Baltic States Group (CEBS).

The vice chair’s proposal recommends to the General Assembly that nine measures be implemented to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of WIPO governance and WIPO meetings. Those measures include the launch of open-ended informal and targeted consultations, guided by the PBC chair to address governance issues at WIPO in line with Recommendation 1 of the JIU.

The proposal also suggests that meetings be conducted in a timely manner and only in “exceptional cases” be extended but preferably no later than 7 pm. It also suggests that the early nomination of chairs and vice-chairs be increased in a transparent manner and if possible before the opening of the committee session. The proposal also mentions the reduction of shortening WIPO committee meetings, in accordance with the committees’ agendas.

The CEBS Group proposal suggests that the PBC consider “possible deficiencies in WIPO’s governance in line with recommendation number 1 of the 2014 JIU report with a view to identifying remedies if needed and report to the General Assembly.”

External Offices

Another topic of discussion during the week was the plan for managing future decisions on establishing new WIPO external offices (Program 20). This will be discussed further at the next PBC. Issues include whether the WIPO coordination office to the United Nations in New York should be closed after the next biennium, as proposed by the WIPO secretariat. Several western hemisphere countries indicated resistance to this closing. The secretariat was requested to give a clear assessment of the rationale, effect and plan if such a closure occurred.

Meanwhile, it appeared to be agreed that the new China external office will be called the WIPO Office in China (WOC). It had been proposed as the WIPO China Office (WCO) but the acronym was considered to conflict with that of the UN World Customs Organization. Africa during the meeting was particularly insistent on getting agreement to open two offices on the continent during the next biennium. Other regions still in the mix, such as a Spanish-speaking Latin American office to join the one in Brazil.

Lisbon Treaty on GIs

Another issue is Program 6 (Madrid and Lisbon Systems) as some member states have requested that the Madrid and Lisbon systems be split into two separate programmes for budget purposes.

The United States has declared that it will hold up the biennium budget over this issue. The concern is that a subset of WIPO members negotiated a treaty modification (Lisbon revision) that other members say harms their interests and on which they were prevented from voting, and that other WIPO agreements to which they are party have been financially supporting the Lisbon agreement.

The PBC decision document lays out some of the concerns raised about the Lisbon revision.

A separate IP-Watch story on this issue is forthcoming.

Texts of Adopted Changes

A number of textual changes were made in the draft program and budget, including a textual change in Program 3 [pdf] (Copyright and Related Rights) was agreed upon. This refers to the addition of language indicating that advice provided to member states to make their national laws compatible with their international obligations would take into account the existing flexibilities in the multilateral system.

Program 18 (IP and Global Challenges) was also edited [pdf] specifying the purpose of the WIPO Re:Search and WIPO Green projects. It also specifies that the IP and Global Challenges program “will ensure that WIPO, as part of the UN System and as an observer organization to various UN processes, responds in a timely and quality manner to requests for such information from the UN [United Nations], international organizations and Member States.”

Developing countries in the past have been concerned with Program 18 as they found member states should be more involved in the activities carried out by the programme.

Program 1 (Patent Law) was edited [pdf] to include the protection of utility models, which are simplified forms of patents, and layout designs (topographies) of integrated circuits.

Closing statements reflected a general degree of satisfaction with the PBC session. The African Group noted however “the seemingly unwillingness” to advance on the JIU report recommendation 1 [clarified], and underlined the importance of WIPO external offices, repeating a previous request for two external offices in Africa in the next biennium.

Nigeria, speaking for the group, also asked that the Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC) be transformed into a standing committee of the organisation. The IGC could not meet in 2015 due to disagreement on the work programme and its mandate is due for renewal at the October WIPO General Assembly. [Update: the African Group has put forward a proposal that this issue be discussed at the WIPO General Assembly in October (IPW, WIPO, 23 September 2015)]

The Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC) expressed regret that a definite agreement could not be reached on the definition of the development expenditure, underlining its importance for GRULAC, developing countries and WIPO “since it aims at increasing the transparency in the determination of the development share in the program and budget.”

Another concern raised during the week was about the apparent removal of “innovation” from the small and medium-sized enterprises division. The secretariat responded that innovation is in all of the activities that it does.

IP-Watch interns Rishi Dhir and Ani Mamikon contributed to this story.