Review Of WIPO Technical Assistance, Four Years After Release, Still Stirs Up Development Committee

Intense negotiations are going on this week at the World Intellectual Property Organization over an external review of how the World Intellectual Property Organization delivers technical assistance on intellectual property to developing and least-developed countries. At stake is how to implement some of the recommendations suggested in the four-year old report.

A number of recommendations have been implemented by WIPO and how to proceed next is at issue, whether to close the discussions, which would be favoured by Group B developed countries, or continue with further recommendations.

Discussions are also ongoing on the coordination mechanism of the WIPO Development Agenda, which is a mechanism through which WIPO committees report on their development-related activities.

The 16^th session of the WIPO Committee on Development and Intellectual Property and (CDIP) is taking place from 9-13 November. Among the documents to be examined by the WIPO member states, is an update [pdf] to the WIPO management response to the external review recommendations.

The external review [pdf] of WIPO Technical Assistance in the Area of Cooperation for Development was issued in 2011, authored by Carolyn Deere Birkbeck and Santiago Roca. The report included a large number of recommendations to the secretariat for improving its technical assistance.

WIPO management delivered a management response [pdf] in 2012, grouping the recommendations contained in the review in three groups: Group A: Recommendations which are already reflected in WIPO activities, or ongoing reform programs; Group B: Recommendations which merit further consideration; and Group C: Recommendations which raise concerns as to implementation.

The update of the management response, requested by the CDIP at its April session, includes new responses to recommendations in Group A and B. But it left Group C unchanged, to the chagrine of developing countries.

Some developing countries would like recommendations contained in Group C to be discussed at the CDIP in the future, which is opposed by Group B developed countries. Some developed countries take the view that WIPO has implemented all the recommendations which were in the frame of its mandate and the matter should now be closed. Some of them underlined the technical assistance provided by their countries, such as the United Kingdom and Germany.

An example of recommendations found in Group C is “the Report recommends that WIPO should explore ways to devote greater attention to advising and informing countries on IP negotiations and treaties, and their potential effects.” Another Group C suggestion was that “WIPO should give greater support to development-oriented advice on the negotiation and implementation of bilateral, regional and South-South IP arrangements, negotiations, dialogue and cooperation.”

The management response, which is unchanged in the updated version, states that, “The Organization takes the position that it should not intervene in the negotiation of IP at the bilateral or regional levels.”

“However, with respect to the implementation of bilateral and regional IP agreements, the Organization continues to provide assistance to Member States,” the document says.

In 2013, countries in the Development Agenda Group and the African Group tabled a joint proposal [pdf] on technical assistance.

Possible Proposals

At the last session of the CDIP in April, Spain tabled a document [pdf] listing possible proposals on technical assistance (IPW, WIPO, 28 April 2015).

A number of developing countries expressed the view this week that discussing the Spanish proposal would be a first step in a gradual process that would enable the CDIP to discuss later on further recommendations. They said the six items of the proposal did address issues that were the least contentious.

Group B developed countries agreed to discuss the Spanish proposal if that would put an end to the discussion on the external review at the CDIP.

Spain commented on the update of the management response and said the response was a self-evaluation by the secretariat and “a bit complacent.” The explanations on how the recommendations listed in Group A and B have been implemented “are too general and repetitive,” the delegate said. This remark was supported by some countries, such as Brazil on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean countries (GRULAC). Certain recommendations need continuous follow-up, Spain added.

CDIP Chair Alberto Pedro d’Alotto of Argentina suggested discussing the six items of the Spanish proposal in order, which was not approved by member states, a number of which asked for informal consultations on the issue.

Time Ripe for Discussion of Assistance?

On behalf of GRULAC, Brazil underlined the importance of technical assistance provided by WIPO “to making intellectual property an effective tool towards development.” The time is ripe “to direct the activities of the committee towards legislative and regulatory assistance provided by WIPO,” he said.

GRULAC requested that WIPO implement an in-depth review of its legislative assistance, including examination of the content of draft laws and comments on draft laws provided by WIPO, as well as of the content of seminars/training events on legislative matters.

It was decided that the CDIP would have informal discussions on 11 November on the issue of the external review on technical assistance and mostly to discuss the Spanish proposal and attempt to revise the language of the proposal so that it can be agreed by all.

The CDIP chair said today that the proposal of Spain was examined in informal consultations this morning and some delegations presented some textual changes to the first three paragraphs of the proposal, but the discussions were brief and more informal consultations were expected to take place this afternoon.

Coordination Issues

Informal discussions are also ongoing on the coordination mechanism of the WIPO Development Agenda and in particular which WIPO committees should report on their development-related activities. Developing countries insist that all WIPO committee fall under the coordination mechanism, and developed countries are of the opinion that the Program and Budget Committee and the Committee on WIPO Standards should be exempted from this reporting.

Discussions are based on a proposal [pdf] tabled by Mexico at the last session of the CDIP, which set out a possible systematisation of the compliance of committees with the coordination mechanism. It was discussed in an informal meeting in April and the result of the informal meeting [pdf] is one of the bases of discussion this week, according to a source.

Also tabled for discussion is a proposal [pdf] from Algeria and Nigeria from the April meeting of the CDIP, listing proposed topics for discussion under IP and Development in the CDIP, which refers to a specific agenda item on IP and Development at the CDIP, which is opposed by developed countries.

According to a developing country source, informal discussion on 9 November did not yield any results and informal discussions yesterday after the plenary session.

This morning, Mexico, which chaired the informal consultations on the coordination mechanism, said positions did not change, although efforts were made to modify the first paragraph of the document, without success. Further consultations were expected to take place this afternoon.