Bridges Trade BioRes • Volume 4 • Number 18 • 8th October 2004
WIPO TAKES UP ‘DEVELOPMENT AGENDA’, MOVES ON DISCLOSURE
WIPO TAKES UP ‘DEVELOPMENT AGENDA’, MOVES ON DISCLOSURE
In response to a proposal put forward by Brazil and Argentina, the World Intellectual Property Organization’s (WIPO) General Assembly (GA), taking place from 29 September to 5 October in Geneva, adopted a decision to move forward the discussions on a ‘development agenda’ in WIPO. The Assembly also set up a framework to respond to a request for information by the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) on the interrelation of access to genetic resources and disclosure requirements in intellectual property applications
Moving forward the ‘development agenda’ in WIPO
The WIPO Assembly decided to initiate a series of inter-sessional meetings to examine the proposal put forward by Brazil and Argentina — supported by Bolivia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Iran, Kenya, Peru, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania and Venezuela — on integrating a development agenda into all bodies of WIPO (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 10 September 2004). The inter-sessional meetings, which will be open to member states, intergovernmental organisations and accredited NGOs, will also address additional proposals by WIPO member states, including a request the EU made during the GA to analyse the impact of WIPO’s work on the Millennium Development Goals. A report will be produced by 30 July 2005 for submission to the next WIPO General Assembly in September 2005. WIPO also committed itself to organising joint international seminars on intellectual property and development with other multilateral organisations, such as UNCTAD, UNIDO, WHO and the WTO.
When presenting the proposal at the meeting, Brazil stressed that the aim was not "to reverse WIPO’s work" or "to criticise WIPO’s work on technical cooperation". Rather, the main purpose of the proposal was to "re-establish WIPO’s central mission", namely to "promote creative intellectual activity" and the "transfer of technology to developing countries". "This debate is necessary for the sake of WIPO, for its legitimacy and credibility as an institution", Brazil stressed. By integrating the development dimension into its activities, WIPO would join similar development-oriented efforts in other fora addressing intellectual property matters, including the WTO’s decision on access to medicines, as well as related discussions at the WHO, the UN Human Rights Committee and UNCTAD XI.
Even though Brazil and Argentina had originally suggested the establishment of a specific Working Group, the decision on the inter-sessional meeting series was seen as a success for continuing the debate on the issue. Industrialised countries had initially reacted warily to the proposal, arguing that WIPO already dealt with development issues through its technical assistance activities. Developing countries, however, stressed that the development focus would need to be applied more broadly. "A WIPO development agenda would obviously need to take into account any possible negative impact on the users of intellectual property, on consumers at large, or on the public policy in general, not just the promotion of the interest of intellectual property owners," the Indian delegate pointed out.
Civil society groups hailed the decision as a "change in culture and direction" in WIPO. "For years, WIPO has pushed to expand the scope and level of intellectual property rights and told developing countries that his would help their development", said James Love of the Consumer Project on Technology. "Today WIPO supported an entirely different approach," he added. Anna Fielder of Consumers International welcomed the "willingness to look at increasing access to knowledge and technology in developing countries". This move, she said, would benefit both creators and consumers. The groups had recently stepped up efforts to push for a more balanced approach to intellectual property at WIPO, culminating in the adoption of the "Geneva Declaration on the Future of WIPO" which stressed the importance of striking a balance between public domain and property rights (BRIDGES Weekly, 29 September 2004).
WIPO addresses CBD request on disclosure of origin
The Assembly also established a framework to respond to the invitation of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the CBD — made at the 7th meeting of the COP in February (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 20 February 2004, http://www.ictsd.org/biores/04-02-20/story1.htm) — to examine and, where appropriate, address the interrelation of access to genetic resources and disclosure requirements in intellectual property rights applications. During the discussions, WIPO members were divided over whether the response should be prepared by the WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Traditional Knowledge, Genetic Resources and Folklore (IGC), the Standing Committee on Patents (SCP) or the Working Group on the PCT Reform (WGPCT). While most developed countries wanted the process to be carried out by the IGC, developing countries insisted that the process should also include other relevant WIPO bodies, such as the SCP and the WGPCT.
The final framework creates a new process that will be led by the Director-General of WIPO and will include comments and reactions of different WIPO bodies, as well as observers to WIPO. Member states are invited to submit proposals by 15 December, to be compiled in a draft report by the end of January 2005. The deadline for comments by members and observers on the draft report is the end of March 2005. A one-day ad hoc intergovernmental meeting will be held in May 2005 to consider and discuss a revised version of the draft.
ICTSD reporting; "Development: South Gains Ground in Intellectual Property Debate," IPS, 5 October 2004; "Member States Agree to Further Examine Proposal on Development," WIPO, 4 October 2004; "WIPO to Convene Meetings on Development Agenda," SUNS, 5 October 2004; "Strong Support from South for WIPO ‘Development Agenda’," SUNS, 4 October 2004.