Strong support from South for WIPO development agenda

While the move to introduce a ‘development’ dimension to WIPO activities was warmly welcomed by developing countries, the industrial countries gave the proposal a cool reception.

Martin Khor

THE proposal by a group of developing countries to introduce a development agenda in WIPO received broad-based support from other developing countries at the WIPO General Assembly.

The proposal, which was discussed on 30 September and 1 October at the Assembly, however, received a cool reaction from the major developed countries.

The proposal (document WO/GA/31/11) was orally presented at the Assembly by Brazil and Argentina on 30 September. The other co-signatories to the proposal were Bolivia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Iran, Kenya, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania and Venezuela, most of whom also spoke. (Egypt later announced on 4 October that it was also joining as co-sponsor.)

The proposal received support from the floor by a large number of developing countries, including Egypt (on behalf of the Africa Group) and Sri Lanka (on behalf of the Asia Group).  Other countries that spoke in support of the proposal were India, Pakistan, the Philippines, China, Oman, Senegal, Ethiopia, Benin, Peru, Colombia, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Uruguay, Trinidad and Tobago, and Jamaica.

Development dimension

In introducing the proposal on 30 September, Brazil said that development was recognised including by the UN as a very important principle, and WIPO as a UN agency should be guided by the principles of the UN. Intellectual property was not an end in itself and could not be seen as such by WIPO. If development was the overriding principle, then WIPO should act in support of that goal.

The time had come for WIPO to fully integrate the development dimension in all its work, Brazil said. The development agenda was a positive agenda and not a negative one. The proposal was broad and horizontal in addressing all WIPO’s work and was thus addressed to all its subsidiary bodies.

As part of the agenda, WIPO should also act on issues such as technology transfer and anti-competitive practices. ‘Our aim is to establish WIPO as a UN agency that generates creative activity and innovation,’ Brazil added.

Brazil said it was an agenda that was inclusive and did not exclude, and that served the public interest and assisted people in all countries. It referred to the Geneva Declaration on the Future of WIPO - signed by over 500 members of academia and NGOs - as a powerful expression of the voice and aspirations of the public, including in the developed countries, about the need for a broad development agenda in WIPO.

Core aspect

Argentina said the proposal touched on the very essence of WIPO. Development was a core aspect of the international agenda and could not be avoided by the UN and its specialised agencies. WIPO was a specialised agency of the UN, and the UN in its agreement with WIPO recognised WIPO’s role in promoting creative intellectual activity, enhancing technology transfer and speeding up development.

This was not a symbolic text, Argentina said, and since 1974, WIPO had been subjected to the UN’s goals. The proposal called on WIPO to play its developmental role and members of WIPO had the responsibility to lead the organisation in this direction.

What was surprising was not that the proposal was being made, Argentina added, but that it was only being made now in 2004.

Egypt, on behalf of the Africa Group, said development was Africa’s highest priority and it was only natural for Africa to welcome the proposal to put development at the forefront of WIPO’s activities. It was also only natural for WIPO to build on its existing work for developing countries by integrating development in all its activities so as to ensure that development was addressed in a holistic way.

‘We wish to affirm our support for the main objectives and principles of the document and the wider process to discuss a development agenda for WIPO,’ Egypt said, adding, ‘We hope for quick action on this basis.’

South Africa, speaking in support of the proposal, said that development must be mainstreamed in WIPO. No new WIPO instruments should proceed without being informed by the development dimension.

Sri Lanka, on behalf of the Asia Group, said that the proposal was timely in that it would leverage the aim of reaching the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and complement WIPO’s economic programmes. It added that establishing a working group on the development agenda was a good idea. The Asia Group agreed with some of the proposals in the agenda and would like to further consider some of its other proposals.

India said that with all the damage caused by the WTO’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), there might be a silver lining in that it had raised public consciousness worldwide of the problems associated with intellectual property.

As developing countries moved to fulfil their obligations under the TRIPS Agreement, they faced major challenges and realised that they need policy flexibility, and that global intellectual property regimes need to be flexible. The objective of intellectual property should be to maximise public welfare and policy space should be respected. However, the process of harmonisation of patent laws had the danger of promoting the interests of rent seekers.

India added that for developing countries to benefit, there must be an obligation for industrial countries to transfer technology. In the absence of this, the asymmetrical flow of royalties from the South would be a permanent feature.

Remarking that the TRIPS Agreement was a tribute to the logic of power, not economics or fairness, India stated that a WIPO development agenda would help steer the organisation away from the same course. No longer would developing countries agree that intellectual property will nurture innovation everywhere. Intellectual property existed to serve patent holders, who are mainly in the North, at the expense of public interest.

Each country needed flexibility in intellectual property policy so that it could ensure that the costs outweigh the benefits. India said that it fully supported the objective of the Brazil/Argentina proposal, as the proposal would contribute to integrating the development dimension in WIPO activities.

‘We want the proposal to be translated into action, including the establishment  of a  working  group on the development agenda,’ India said.

The Philippines also supported the proposal and favoured a working group that should report to the General Assembly next year.  Pakistan also spoke in favour of evolving a comprehensive development agenda for WIPO, and for proposals to be developed in a committee.  It suggested a moratorium on new intellectual property norms.

Developed-country reactions

The major developed countries were not as supportive of action on a development agenda in WIPO. They indicated that WIPO had been doing enough for developing countries, and instead of establishing a working group on a development agenda, an assessment should be carried out of WIPO’s work as it relates to development.

Canada, speaking on behalf of Group B (whose members are the developed countries), welcomed the opportunity to discuss the proposal. It said the strategic goals of WIPO were correct and it should build on its core competency and enhance the intellectual property system. Canada noted that WIPO gave developing countries advice and tools to integrate intellectual property in development policy. WIPO coordinated with other UN agencies and each had an important role to play. The Group B view was that WIPO had ensured that the work done did not duplicate that of other UN agencies.

The Netherlands, speaking for the EU, said that WIPO had a role to promote creative intellectual activity and technology transfer, as in its agreement with the UN. WIPO has accomplished important work in which developing countries had participated. It added that strengthening WIPO’s work could only be done if the international intellectual property system was understood and accepted.

The Netherlands said that WIPO should evaluate its contribution to the MDGs including its technical cooperation programme. It asked the International Bureau to assess WIPO’s contribution to the MDGs and report to the appropriate bodies.

The US said that it agreed with the sponsors of the proposal that development was important. However, it noted that the proposal suggested that strong intellectual property levels may be detrimental to the global intellectual property goals and that WIPO had disregarded this premise. The US said that it could not agree with this.

Whilst intellectual property alone would not bring about development, the notion that weakening intellectual property standards could bring about development was flawed, the US added. The notion that WIPO had disregarded development was untenable. WIPO had set as resources for development purposes and WIPO treaties had flexibilities, and developing countries did not have to accede to WIPO treaties if they did not want to. The US welcomed an assessment of WIPO programmes so that they could address the concerns of developing countries.