1. How can the WTO better integrate the poorest countries into the international IP system? Arno Hold Research Fellow, NCCR Trade Regulation World Trade Institute, University of Bern WTO Public Forum 2013

2. Overview LDCs and the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement Lessons from the priority needs assessment process (2005-2013) Status quo after the second extension of the transition period for LDCs (2013-2021) Suggestions for a better integration of LDCs into the international IP system 2

3. Concluded in 1994, the TRIPS Agreement sets out an international minimum standards for the protection of intellectual property rights (IPR) Most LDCs had neither a comprehensive domestic framework for IP protection nor much experience in negotiating international IP conventions Concerns among LDCs to miss out on technology transfer and future capacity to attract FDI LDCs accepted TRIPS as part of a package deal with sectoral trade-offs 3 LDCs & TRIPS

4. TRIPS contained many provisions that recognize the concerns and needs of LDCs –Promises of technology transfer as well as technical and financial assistance (Art. 66 and 67 TRIPS) –Transition period of 10 years till 2005 for LDCs  no direct action required  no immediate economic cost By 2005, most LDCs had not made substantial progress in implementing the Agreement TRIPS Council extended the transition period for another 7½ years till 1 July 2013 4

5. Establishment of a priority needs assessment process LDCs should submit individual priority needs assessments for technical and financial assistance Developed countries should then provide technical and financial assistance to LDCs to address the identified priority needs effectively WTO Secretariat should increase its cooperation with WIPO and other relevant IOs 5

6. Lessons from the priority needs assessment process (2005-2013) Only 8 of 34 LDC WTO Members have so far participated in this stocktaking exercise Did not trigger substantial technical and financial assistance Standards of assessment? Scope and Focus? Funding? Cooperation mechanisms? Alignment with other development cooperation activities? Failure of priority needs assessment process provided a convenient excuse to both LDCs and developed countries for not engaging in the process 6

7. 2 nd extension of the transition period (2013 - 2021) LDCs requested an unconditional extension with an unlimited time frame Developed country widely supported a further extension, but raised concerns about an open-ended time frame TRIPS Council meeting of 11–12 June 2013: –LDCs received a second transition period extension for another 8 years till 2021 –No reference to the priority needs assessment process or to the provision of technical and financial assistance 7

8. Potential downsides of the latest transition period extension for LDCs (2013 - 2021) So far, neither the industrialized countries nor LDCs have considered LDCs’ TRIPS implementation as a priority A pragmatic and convenient way for all WTO Members to buy time and to avoid conflicts in the TRIPS Council Extensions alone do not lead to improvements Lack of incentives to actively participate in the priority needs assessment process Negative impact on technology transfer as well as on technical and financial assistance? 8

9. Suggestions for a better integration of LDCs into the international IP system 9 Need for a more coherent and comprehensive priority need assessment process that eventually leads to technical and financial assistance Creating additional incentives for LDCs and developed countries to cooperate more actively towards LDCs’ integration in the global IP system A more gradual and development-oriented concept of TRIPS-implementation for LDCs that allows for an adequate sequencing

10. A gradual and development-oriented concept of TRIPS-implementation for LDCs 10 LDCs’ IP system reform should focus on those areas… –that are highly relevant to strengthen their national economy, –that support a better integration into the global knowledge economy, –that do not cost a lot, and –that can be managed with limited resources.

11. 11 Relevance for LDCs’ socio-economic development RelevantIrrelevantDetrimental Imple mentation cost for LDCs Minor Basic national trademark system Basic registered designs system Basic mechanisms for collecting and disbursing royalties for domestic artists Specific requirements for maintenance of IPR Notification requirements of TRIPS Moderate Simplified priority needs assessment Formulation of a national IP policy and strategy Utility model system Local enforcement system within existing institutions of law A simple and manageable patent system High Competition law relating to abuse of IPRs Strengthen the ability of the national IP institutions Public awareness on IP A sophisticated patent examining system Complex IP enforcement system

12. Thanks a lot for your attention 谢 谢 Gracias Merci Obrigado Спасибо धन्यवाद شكراً 12 arno.hold@wti.org