WIPO NATIONAL SEMINAR ON INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY AND ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TRIPS OBLIGATIONS IN THE PURSUANCE OF NATIONAL PUBLIC POLICIES AND GOALS Damascus, May 28 and 29, 2008 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OWNERS AT WIPO: CURRENT DEBATES AND CHALLENGES WIPO Secretariat

2 1. The “Agenda for Development”

3 Argentina and Brazil proposed to WIPO General Assembly of 2004 the establishment of a “Development Agenda for WIPO” (WO/GA/31/11 1 ) 1 This proposal was later expanded (document IIM/1/4, of April 6, 2005, submitted by a group of 14 countries self-designated as “Group of Friends of Development”: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Iran, Kenia, Peru, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania and Venezuela).

4 The basic proposal was: “to integrate the ‘development dimension’ into policy making on intellectual property protection” This basic proposal was developed around four major clusters

5 1st cluster: The development dimension and intellectual property norm-setting: safeguarding public interest flexibilities 2nd cluster: The development dimension and the transfer of technology

6 3rd cluster: The development dimension and intellectual property enforcement 4th cluster: Promoting ‘development oriented’ technical cooperation and assistance

7 In a nutshell, the main objective of the proposed “Agenda for Development” was to impregnate all other WIPO negotiating processes (namely, the SCP, the IGC and the SCR)

8 Discussions were first held in the IIM (Inter-sessional Intergovernmental Meeting), which had three sessions in 2005

9 The IIM discussed proposals submitted by: - the GFD; - the United States (on the establishment of a partnership program – an Internet-based tool); - Mexico (insertion of IP in a program of good governance); - the United Kingdom (to rejuvenate the PCIPD); - Bahrain (leading a group of 14 Arab countries) (a very broad proposal on the role of WIPO in setting a new economic vision, on the establishment of a voluntary fund for training and with recommendations addressed to other Member States)

10 The 2005 WIPO General Assembly decided: 1. To establish a “Provisional Committee on proposals Related to a WIPO Development Agenda” (PCDA) which should complete the discussions initiated in the IIM and report to the General Assembly, in To discontinue the PCIPD.

11 1st session of the PCDA – February of 2006 The PCDA discussed proposals submitted by - Morocco on behalf of the African Group (a very broad proposal); - Chile (a proposal with suggestions of some concrete studies); - Colombia (on the establishment of databases for patent searches); - the US (on the partnership); and - the GFD (suggesting a list of concrete outcomes for the PCDA).

12 2nd session of the PCDA – June of 2006 Discussion on 111 proposals (the “Manalo document”), which were arranged under 6 clusters The group of 14 submitted a proposal of a final resolution but it was rejected The group of central Asian countries, led by Kyrgysztan, submitted a proposal on a consensual agenda of discussions, but it was also rejected

13 The 2006 WIPO General Assembly decided that the PCDA would continue its work, by discussing the 111 proposals: 40 were consensual; 70 had still to be analyzed

14 In the 2 sessions of the PCDA in 2007, the 111 proposals were streamlined to 45 recommendations (19 of which for immediate implementation), and organized under 6 clusters: (a) Technical assistance and capacity building (14); (b) Norm-setting, flexibilities, public policy and public domain (9);

15 (c) Technology transfer, information and communication technologies (ICT) and access to knowledge (9); (d) Assessment, evaluation and impact studies (6); (e) Institutional matters including mandate and governance (6); (f) other issues (enforcement) (1).

16 The 2007 WIPO General Assembly established a new committee – the Commitee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP) The CDIP had its first session in February 2008; five recommendations of Cluster A were discussed. Now, the Chair is holding informal consultations to examine how work should move forward

17 2. Main hurdles of the “Agenda for Development” and the foreseeable future

18 The hurdles:. It was proposed by countries that do not use technology related-IP intensively. It was proposed by IP policy takers, not by IP policy makers. It was proposed by countries that, in 1994, exchanged IP-related concessions for trade- related concessions (IP as a tool for primarily obtaining market access). Therefore, without the active engagement of developed countries in matters of substance, the Agenda for Development lacks content

19 The foreseeable future:. Negotiating processes in WIPO will wait for developments in the CDIP. In the meantime, bilateral processes will continue (at some point, in the context of the CDIP, a number of developing countries could eventually seek a moratorium in those bilateral processes). If the active engament of developed countries in the CDIP is not obtained, sometime in the future, negotiations will be held in another multilateral forum, as it happened in 1986* * Or negotiations will be held in bilateral processes, as it is happening with SPLT issues. The results of those bilateral negotiations will naturally impact the multilateral process because of the operation of the mfn treatment principle.

20 Thank you! If you have questions concerning this presentations do not hesitate to send them to