Bridges Trade BioRes • Volume 3 • Number 17 • 3rd October 2003
Cancun Casts Shadow over WIPO Assemblies
Cancun Casts Shadow over WIPO Assemblies
The effects of the trade talk collapse at the WTO Ministerial meeting in Cancun last month could also be felt at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Assemblies (22 September - 1 October, Geneva, Switzerland), in particular during discussions on the mandate of the Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC), where developed countries appeared much less willing to make concessions than before the Cancun meeting. WIPO members also discussed the controversial Patent Agenda, which continues to attract strong criticism from many developing countries and civil society groups.
IGC mandate extended
The mandate of the IGC was extended for another two years (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 20 December 2002). The Committee was requested to accelerate its work and to focus in particular on the international dimension of intellectual property and genetic resources, traditional knowledge and folklore. Among the most contentious points was the possible outcome of the IGC’s work that should be included in the mandate. Many developed countries, such as the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, continued to resist demands by the African Group for including references to a legally binding instrument. Several members from Asia and Latin America, including Brazil and the Andean and Caribbean states, reiterated their call for joint recommendations as the outcome. In the end, members agreed on vague language saying “no outcome of its work is excluded, including the possible development of an international instrument or instruments”.
In what many developing countries saw as the most important concession, the mandate states that discussions in the ICG should be without prejudice to the work in other forums. One trade source noted that developed countries, such as the US and Canada, had in the past used the existence of the ICG as an excuse for deflecting discussions on these issues in the WTO Council for Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs). The reference to other forums might provide an opening for developing countries to counter this argument and work towards advancing their agenda in the TRIPs Council, which one source said provided a better forum for developing countries, being a much more member-driven body than the “Secretariat-driven” ICG.
One trade source accused the WIPO Secretariat of heavy manipulation during the meeting in an effort to break up developing countries. This, the source speculated, reflected concerns by the Secretariat over a possible impasse in discussions similar to what occurred in Cancun. The effects of the Cancun collapse could also be observed in the hardened position by some developed countries. While these countries had had an interest in strengthening the ICG mandate prior to Cancun, the collapse at Cancun and the almost inevitable delay in the completion of the trade round had reduced the threat of proposals in the TRIPs Council and consequently the need for a strong forum in WIPO, one trade source speculated.
The next meeting of the IGC is currently secluded for March 2003.
WIPO Patent Agenda remains controversial
In the context of discussions on the WIPO Patent agenda, which is aimed at launching worldwide discussions for the purpose of preparing a strategic blueprint for the future evolution of the international patent system (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 10 October 2002), four studies on the impact of the international patent system on developing countries were presented. The studies had been commissioned by WIPO Director-General Kamil Idris at the request of developing countries, which had called for an assessment of the Patent Agenda’s impact on development and how it responded to concerns raised in the report of the UK Commission on Intellectual Property Rights (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 26 September 2002).
Many developing countries strongly criticised the studies for being too one-sided in favour of developing countries supporting the Patent Agenda, and as lacking a multi-disciplinary approach. These countries continue to be wary of the Patent Agenda, which they regard as too heavily weighted towards the interests of transantional corporations as the main users of the patent system. Criticism of the studies was also heard from the EC — which several trade sources noted had presented very balanced views throughout the Assemblies. In its statement on the Patent Agenda, the EC stressed the importance of not only taking account the interests of the users of the patent system, but also those of civil society.
In a report published on 1 October, the non-governmental organisation Genetic Resources Action International (GRAIN) levelled strong criticism at WIPO’s Patent Agenda and in particular at the Substantive Patent Law Treaty (SPLT), which it termed “the most difficult piece of the puzzle for WIPO”. In contrast to the TRIPs Agreement, which sets only minimum standards for intellectual property protection, the SPLT would “raise the floor and add a ceiling” by introducing a maximum standard, GRAIN warned. One of the key issues in this context is the question of whether to ban additional patentability criteria. Such criteria, which are currently allowed under the TRIPs Agreement, could include requirements for the disclosure of the origin of genetic resources and traditional knowledge or evidence of prior informed consent and benefit-sharing, as repeatedly called for by many developing countries (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 26 September 2002, http://www.ictsd.org/biores/02-09-26/story1.htm). Instead of accepting US and EU standards, developing countries should roll the harmonisation agenda back, GRAIN stressed. “Cancun gave a glimpse that this is possible,” they added.
Additional Resources.
“Disclosure requirements concerning genetic resources and traditional knowledge“, 2003, prepared by the WIPO Secretariat at the request of the CBD for COP-7..
“One global patent system? WIPO’s Substantive Patent Law Treaty“, GRAIN, October 2003. ICTSD reporting; “Think there’s trouble at WTO? WIPO’s global patent system could be a lot worse,” GRAIN, 1 October 2003.