CDIP/2/4

page 2

WIPO / / E
CDIP/2/4
ORIGINAL: English
DATE: April 27, 2009
WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION
GENEVA

COMMITTEE ON development and
intellectual property (cdip)

Second Session
Geneva, July 7 to 11, 2008

Report

adopted by the Committee

The WIPO General Assembly, in its session held in SeptemberOctober2007, adopted the recommendations made by the Provisional Committee on Proposals Related to a WIPO Development Agenda (PCDA). One of the decisions was to establish a Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP) to:

-  develop a workprogram for implementation of the adopted recommendations;

-  monitor, assess, discuss and report on the implementation of all recommendations adopted, and for that purpose it should coordinate with relevant WIPO bodies; and

-  discuss intellectual property (IP) and developmentrelated issues as agreed by the CDIP, as well as those decided by the General Assembly.

It was decided that the Committee will be composed of the Member States of WIPO and open to the participation of all accredited intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). It was also decided that the Committee will have two fiveday sessions annually, with the first one convened in the first half of 2008. As done during the sessions of the PCDA in 2006 and 2007, WIPO would provide financing for the participation of representatives from developing countries, including least developed countries (LDCs), as well as from countries with economies in transition, to attend the meetings of the Committee. Further, for the first meeting of the Committee, the present Chair of the PCDA would prepare initial working documents, including a draft work program, in consultation with MemberStates and the Secretariat. The draft work program should address, interalia, the financial and human resource requirements for inclusion in WIPO’s budgetary planning process. The Committee would report and might make recommendations annually to the GeneralAssembly. The first session of the CDIP was held from March 3 to 7, 2008. The Second Session of the CDIP was held from July 7 to 11, 2008.

The following States were represented: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, GuineaBissau, Haiti, Holy See, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lesotho, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Myanmar, Nepal, Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Paraguay, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, SriLanka, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, UnitedRepublic of Tanzania, United States of America, Uruguay, and Yemen (101).

The following IGOs took part as observers: African Union (AU), European Commission (EC), European Patent Office (EPO), Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (ISESCO), Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), SouthCentre, United Nations (UN), United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), and World Trade Organization (WTO) (9).

Representatives of the following international NGOs took part as observers: Actors, Interpreting Artists Committee (CSAI), Centre for International Environment Law (CIEL), Centre for International Industrial Property Studies (CEIPI), Civil Society Coalition (CSC), CropLife International, IberoLatinAmerican Federation of Performers (FILAIE), Indigenous ICT Taskforce (IITF), Ingénieurs du Monde (IdM), Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI), International Association for the Advancement of Teaching and Research in Intellectual Property (ATRIP), International Bar Association (IBA), International Center for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD), International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), International Environmental Law Research Centre (IELRC), International Federation of Associations of Film Distributors (FIAD), International Federation of Film Producers Associations (FIAPF), International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA), International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Associations (IFPMA), International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), International Literary and Artistic Association (ALAI), International Policy Network (IPN), International Publishers Association (IPA), International Trademark Association (INTA), International Video Federation (IVF), Knowledge Ecology International (KEI), Latin American Association of Pharmaceutical Industries (ALIFAR), Médecins sans frontières (MSF), Public Interest Intellectual Property Advisors (PIIPA), TheFederalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies (the Federalist Society), TheInternational Committee for the Indigenous Peoples of the Americas (INCOMINDIOS) and Third World Network (TWN) (31).

Representatives of the following national NGOs also took part as observers: American BioIndustry Alliance (ABIA), Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Fundaçao Getulio Vargas (FGV), International Hotel and Restaurant Association (IHRA), Library Copyright Alliance (LCA) and Portuguese Author’s Society (Sociedade Portuguesa de Autores (SPA)) (6).

The list of participants is attached to this report.

Agenda Item 1: Opening of the Session

The Chair welcomed everyone to the second session of the CDIP and wished them a productive week. Explaining that the plan of the Committee was to continue developing a work program for the implementation of the adopted recommendations, he also reminded them that some work had already been broadly agreed upon during the first session of the CDIP in March, as well as during the twoday informal session in April. The Chair informed the meeting of his consultations with the Regional Coordinators which had taken place on June30 of that year, where it was suggested that they use the same process used in March for the July meeting. The Chair also said that during the consultations with the Regional Coordinators, he had informed them that he would request Mr. Francis Gurry, Director GeneralElect, to briefly address the Committee that morning on the completion of Agenda Item3.

The Chair recalled that, according to the rules and procedures of the CDIP, it might agree, if it so wished, to have IGOs and NGOs represented in its sessions as adhoc observers, for one year. The Chair informed that one application had been received by the Secretariat in the name of the International Committee for the Indians of America (INCOMINDIOS) based in Switzerland. Seeing no objections to the inclusion of the said Committee, INCOMINDIOS was admitted as an adhoc observer for one year.

Agenda Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda (document CDIP/2/1 Prov.)

The Chair suggested that in view of the large number of issues to be discussed, all the five days should be devoted to discussions on the adopted recommendations. He, therefore, proposed that a Chair’s summary be adopted at the end of the session, instead of a Draft Report. This had also been done for the InterSessional Intergovernmental Meetings on a Development Agenda for WIPO (IIM) and the PCDA. The Chair’s summary would form an integral part of the Draft Report that would eventually be prepared by the Secretariat. The Draft Report which would also contain the interventions made, would then be communicated to the Permanent Missions of Member States and also made available in electronic form on the WIPO website for comments. The revised Draft Report would subsequently be considered for adoption at the beginning of the next Session of the CDIP. Seeing no request for amendments, the agenda was adopted.

Agenda Item 3: Adoption of the draft Report of the First Session of the CDIP (document CDIP/1/4 (Prov.)

The Chair recalled that the report of the first session was circulated on April21, 2008, and comments requested by May5, 2008. Since no comments were received by the Secretariat, and seeing no objections, the adoption of the report of the First Session was confirmed.

Agenda Item 4: Consideration of Work Program for Implementation of Adopted Recommendations

The Chair then invited the Director GeneralElect, Mr. Francis Gurry to address the Committee. Mr. Gurry thanked the delegations for the opportunity to speak to them briefly, and thanked, in particular, Ambassador Clarke first for allowing him that opportunity. Mr.Gurry also thanked the Ambassador for the wisdom and the pragmatism with which he had steered the Organization to a consensus for the adoption of the Development Agenda and for steering it now to the implementation of that consensus. He repeated his assurance of the importance that he personally attached to the Development Agenda which was a major development for the Organization. He said that it was a major achievement for the Organization to have adopted, with consensus, the Development Agenda, and it was also a major opportunity for the Organization to address the role of IP in development and, in particular, the contribution that IP might make to an amelioration of the knowledge gap and the digital divide. He said that he was of the firm view that the successful implementation of the Development Agenda was vital to a successful future for the Organization and that the most important challenge that they currently faced was the challenge of the implementation of the Development Agenda and the establishment of a work program that would ensure its appropriate implementation. He assured that the future work program of the Organization would fully respect all of the decisions that had already been taken by the MemberStates in the meeting of the Committee that took place in March, as well as to the decisions that would be taken in the course of the current week. Mr. Gurry recalled two matters about which he had spoken over the course of the last several months. The first of those was recommendation8, which dealt with the availability of the technology that was disclosed through the patent system, and the improvement of infrastructure, in particular in the developing countries, to ensure that they might take advantage of the technology that was disclosed through the patent system. He said there were many elements to that broad project, including the digitization of patent collections and their publication, search engines, the availability, ultimately, of the world’s technology through a central portal and, most importantly, appropriate training for the use of the technology disclosed through the patent system in accordance with the economic priorities and resources of developing countries. Related to that recommendation was the very important question of access to scientific literature. Mr. Gurry said that there was an enormous volume of new scientific literature published around the world each year, some 1.3million peerreviewed, science technology and medical articles. In the patents world, this was referred to as nonpatent literature, but an increasing number of inventions cited, as their inspiration or as prior art, scientific literature, as opposed to inventions, particularly in the life sciences, where technology was reaching further back into basic science. He said that a very important element of the work program was finding ways in which access could be given to that extremely rich store of information to developing countries, not just to the offices, but also to research institutions and universities.

Mr. Gurry also referred to recommendation 10, which dealt with a variety of matters relating to the improvement of the infrastructure of offices in developing countries so as to enable a much better participation in the knowledge economy on the part of offices. Mr.Gurry recalled that the Development Agenda was not merely a question of capacity building, but required that the development dimension be taken into account horizontally across the Organization. In that respect, he assured the delegations that he intended to supervise personally the work of the Organization with respect to the Development Agenda, in order not only to give a signal as to the importance which he attached to the Development Agenda, but also to ensure a coordination of all of the activities and programs of the Organization with respect to the Development Agenda. As for the future budgetary process of the Organization, Mr. Gurry reminded the Member States that the Director General, Dr.Kamil Idris, had proposed, in view of the transition, that the meeting of the Program and Budget Committee (PBC), which would ordinarily have been scheduled to take place in September of this year, be postponed until later this year. The proposal by the DirectorGeneral had been transmitted to all the Group Coordinators and discussed by them. Consequently, it was likely that the meeting of the PBC would take place in December of that year for the purpose of considering a revision of the program and budget of the Organization for the year 2009. He assured everyone that the decisions that would be taken with respect to the Development Agenda that week would be reflected fully in the proposals that would come forward from the Secretariat with respect to revision of the program and budget for the year 2009. He also assured delegations that, should any of the decisions made in the course of that week, or that ensued from the meeting held in March, require implementation that year, the appropriate budgetary resources would be made available for that purpose. Mr. Gurry recalled that they were at a crucial stage in trying to find the means to have a practical implementation, at least of the commencement of the Development Agenda, and concluded by expressing his hope that the deliberations of the Committee would be fruitful. He looked forward to following the work of the Committee in the course of the week.

The Delegation of Brazil commented on the observations made by Deputy Director General, Mr.Gurry, regarding the future actions towards the implementation of the Development Agenda. The Delegation welcomed them as very interesting, but stressed that, in its view, the Development Agenda was a much broader concept. The ongoing debates had pointed to the fact that it was not only a technical assistance agenda, but also an agenda which meant changing the culture of an organization and bringing it more in line with the 21stCentury. It was being introduced into an organization that tended to see itself as basically the promoter of greater IP protection for rightholders, as an organization that considered itself in a clearer fashion and inserted itself within the overall goals of the United Nations (UN) system. An organization that promoted also the other components of the IP social contract in promoting social policies, or at least being aware of them and not encroaching upon them, as well as striking an adequate balance between the interests of the private sector and of the governments on one hand, and of the consumers and of the public in general on the other. The Delegation stressed that there were broader issues which could not be resolved only by concrete activity. Although they were very welcome, the activity of creating and improving the disclosure of technology and the system was an item they were considering in the context of the Standing Committee on Patents (SCP), called sufficiency of disclosure, and they were quite happy to see it being discussed there. The Delegation hoped that he would help them implement the Development Agenda. Finally, the Delegation added that for precision, without any undue lack of respect to Mr. Gurry, it would like that in the summary by the Chair, and in the report of the meeting, his current status be reflected as the nominee for appointment by the General Assembly as Director General of the Organization. The Delegation wished him well and said it was sure that he would be around to help them implement the Development Agenda in the future, but he was not yet the DG-elect, as referred to by the Chair.