Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP)
Geneva, November 14 to 18, 2011
adopted by the Committee
1 The eighth session of the CDIP was held from November 14 to 18, 2011.
2 The following States were represented: Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Haiti, Holy See, Honduras, Hungary, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Latvia, Lebanon, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Zambia and Zimbabwe (97).
3 The following intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) took part as observers: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), European Union (EU), African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO), European Patent Office (EPO), Patent Office of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC Patent Office), World Trade Organization (WTO), World Health Organization (WHO), South Centre, African Union (AU), Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and United Nations University (12).
4 Representatives of the following non governmental organizations (NGOs) took part as observers: Association IQSensato, Centre for International Intellectual Property Studies (CEIPI), Civil Society Coalition (CSC), Creative Commons Corporation, CropLife International, Ibero-Latin-American Federation of Performers (FILAIE), Ingénieurs du Monde (IdM), International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD), International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), International Federation of Associations of Film Distributors (FIAD), International Federation of Film Producers Associations (FIAPF), International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Associations (IFPMA), International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), International Publishers Association (IPA), International Trademark Association (INTA), International Video Federation (IVF), Knowledge Ecology International (KEI), Library Copyright Alliance (LCA), Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) and Medicines Patent Pool (19).
5 Ambassador Md. Abdul Hannan, Permanent Representative of Bangladesh chaired the session.
Agenda Item 1: Opening of the Meeting
6 The Chair welcomed all the delegations to the eighth session of the CDIP. He informed the meeting that the Director General, Dr. Francis Gurry, had personally wanted to be present, but due to unavoidable reasons, was unable to attend. Therefore, he would be represented by the Deputy Director General Development Sector, Mr. Geoffrey Onyeama. The Chair expressed appreciation for the continued support and cooperation shown to him during the last CDIP session. He expressed confidence that with the delegations’ continued engagement, the CDIP would maintain the positive momentum in the present session. The Chair called upon the meeting to name a candidate for the position of a second Vice-Chair for the consideration of the Committee. It was noted that, during the 40th Session of the General Assembly of WIPO, Member States had expressed their firm commitment to advance the work of the CDIP. During the session and beyond, Member States should continue to work in an open and constructive manner in order to make further progress. There was a heavy agenda to be covered by the meeting within the time available. All delegates were urged to be brief and focused in their interventions. Members were invited to consider Agenda Item 2, and the adoption of the Draft Agenda contained in document CDIP/8/1/Prov 2.
Agenda Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda 7 The Delegation of the Republic of Korea with regard to Agenda Item 3, “Monitor, assess, discuss, report on implementation of all Development Agenda Recommendations”, proposed that the Secretariat should brief the CDIP on the activities regarding the Development Agenda which utilized extra-budgetary resources when it discussed progress reports on projects implementation under the CDIP. The Delegation noted that at the present time, various projects of Development Agenda had been implemented through the regular budget. In addition, WIPO was carrying out many projects which were closely related to CDIP projects through extra-budgetary resources. For example, at the third session of the CDIP held in April 2009, Korea had proposed two projects namely: Capacity-building in the use of Appropriate Technology and IP, and Product Branding for Business Development in Developing and Least Developing Countries. Those projects proposals were ultimately approved at the fifth session of the CDIP and were being implemented by the Secretariat. In the meantime, given the significance of the Development Agenda and earlier mentioned projects, Korea supported the successful operation of the regular budget-funded projects of the Development Agenda by carrying out extra-budgetary programs, through the Korea Funds-in-Trust at WIPO. One project which fell under those extra-budgetary programs was the appropriate technology competition and workshop under the theme of Innovative solutions for every day life, held in June in Ethiopia and Malaysia. In addition, Korea launched the “One Village, One Brand” project in cooperation with Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) in line with the product branding project that it had initiated with the CDIP. The Delegation was pleased to inform the Member States that those related projects that used extra-budgetary resources were a great success. Many developing countries had shown interest in participating in the projects and had requested more information. Accordingly, it would be most beneficial and useful to share the results of those related projects among Member States whilst discussing the progress of the projects funded through the regular budget as approved by the CDIP. The Delegation further noted that the study on External Review of WIPO’s Technical Assistance in the Area of Cooperation for Development”, document CDIP/8/INF/1, clearly stated in paragraph 2 of the summary that “WIPO should reduce duplication and overlap of activities within the Organization and with other providers to improve efficiency and sustainability”. The Delegation stated that improvement in cost efficiency meant improving the transparency of the cost and the source of allocations associated with WIPO development activities. It fully agreed with overall approach of the study and believed that in order to effectively and transparently implement the Development Agenda, there was the need to coordinate all projects utilizing the regular budget as well as extra-budgetary resources by sharing information on related activities. The Delegation also believed that such practice would be conducive to the success of the Development Agenda projects by raising their visibility amongst Member States. The Secretariat requested to be provided the content and results of extra-budgetary allocations during the discussion on the progress report under Agenda Item 3. It requested the Secretariat to brief, for the first time, in the Committee on Capacity-Building in the Use of Appropriate Technology-Specific Technical and Scientific Information as a Solution for Identified Development Challenges. Finally, the Delegation noted that after having taken that project into consideration as a solid model, the CDIP might consider other similar extra-budgetary projects at its next session. Similarly, the CDIP might discuss the possibility of inviting other relevant bodies like APEC, which was implementing similar projects, to share experiences and best practices.
8 The Delegation of South Africa drew the Committee’s attention to the project proposal by the Delegation of Burkina Faso entitled “Project for Reinforcement and Development of the Audio Visual Sector in Africa”, and requested that that project proposal be discussed under agenda item 4. It noted that the Delegation of Burkina Faso would elaborate further under that Agenda item.
9 The Delegation of Burkina Faso welcomed the untiring efforts of the Chair and the flexibility shown by other delegations in reaching an agreement on South-South cooperation project and concluding the seventh session of the Committee. The Delegation informed that it had sent a Note Verbale to WIPO about a project proposal for the development of the audio visuals sector in Africa with the request that the proposal be distributed as an official document to the eight session of the CDIP. The Delegation thanked the Secretariat for having done that and requested that the proposal be considered under item 4 of the agenda as pointed out by the African Group Coordinator.
10 The Delegation of Japan, referring to the proposal made by the Delegation of the Republic of Korea concerning the presentation by the Secretariat on the implementation of the projects financed by extra-budgetary resource, stated that Japan also was a contributor to the project on IP advantage which was to showcase successful stories of the utilization of intellectual property. In that sense the Delegation shared the idea to have the presentation by the Secretariat on projects funded from extra-budgetary resources. The Delegation was however flexible on the timing of having a presentation as the Committee had a lot to deal with during that particular session.
11 The Chair said that a number of countries contributed to the extra-budgetary activities and there were definitely some success stories but in view of the heavy agenda before the session he invited delegations to consider if the matter should be considered at the present session or at CDIP/9. The Chair then invited a response from the Delegation of the Republic of Korea.
12 The Delegation of the Republic of Korea agreed with the Chair in view of the time that might be required to receive the briefing from the Secretariat.
13 The Chair invited the Committee to comment if the proposal by Burkina Faso which was also presented by South Africa could be considered under agenda item 4.
14 The Delegation of the United States of America (USA) stated that while it was very eager to look at that proposal, in light of the very heavy schedule of activities during that week, it would prefer to consider it at the next session, CDIP/9.
15 The Delegation of Germany proposed that while the Committee could discuss the Burkina Faso proposal in CDIP/9, it should be included in the agenda for the current session so as to have an opportunity to prepare and learn.
16 The Delegation of South Africa stated that it was about to explain why it favored the introduction of the proposal at the eighth session but the Delegation of Germany had done so and that it supported what was said. The main thing was to familiarize the Committee with the project proposal and then consider it at the ninth session.
17 The Chair thanked South Africa who proposed the project proposal and gave the way forward. The Committee could take note of the project proposal and hold detailed discussion at CDIP/9.
18 The Delegation of Burkina Faso confirmed its agreement to what had been said by the African Group Coordinator that the document be distributed at that session and discussed at the next session.
19 The Chair, thanking Burkina Faso for the understanding declared the agenda adopted and informed the Committee that the Secretariat will circulate the revised agenda shortly. In view of the heavy agenda before the session, the Chair urged delegations to be focused and brief. He informed the Committee of his intention to take up the agenda items in sequence as they were mentioned in the agenda. The Chair then gave the floor to the Deputy Director General,
Mr. Geoffrey Onyeama to address the Committee.
Address by the Deputy Director General, Mr. Geoffrey Onyeama 20 The Deputy Director General, Mr. Geoffrey Onyeama welcomed the delegations on behalf of the Director General, Mr. Francis Gurry, who had planned to be present at the opening but as the session did not start as planned, had to leave for another engagement. Mr. Onyeama extended a very warm welcome to the delegations and expressed his satisfaction at the agreement in respect of the seventh session of the Committee which highlighted the importance of consensus building and multilateralism. The Secretariat was particularly happy that it was not felt necessary to go to vote, and thanked all delegations for their flexibility in facilitating that agreement and for enabling that very important Committee to move forward with its agenda. Mr. Onyeama further stated that that session was presented with a number of documents relating to the Development Agenda implementation. There were project completion reports for two projects and progress report on 18 projects and a progress report with regards to the 19 recommendations for immediate implementation. In preparing the above reports, in particular on the implementation of the 19 recommendations, the Secretariat had made an effort to avoid duplication of reporting. Accordingly, appropriate references had been provided to the Organization’s PPR of 2010, in order to avoid reproducing all that information. All the information could be found in the Performance Report for 2010, and hopefully that would not prove to be too inconvenient for delegations. Similarly, references had been provided to the information contained in the technical assistance database which contained all the information with respect to the technical assistance activities that had been carried out. Hence, as compared to the past, the whole list of technical assistance activities in pursuance of the 19 recommendations was not reproduced. The session had also been provided with a number of studies and other outputs of the ongoing Development Agenda projects. Those outputs clearly demonstrated the nature of work undertaken in the implementation of the Development Agenda, and of course any agreed follow-up work might be integrated into the Organization’s activities. The Committee also had before it an external review of WIPO’s technical assistance in the area of cooperation for development which had attracted a lot of attention. The Secretariat looked forward to a meaningful and constructive discussion on that document and also to implement the agreed recommendations in a systematic manner following an engagement within the CDIP. The current session of the CDIP for the first time had also received the report of the various WIPO bodies on the implementation of the Development Agenda. That, of course, was forwarded to it by the WIPO General Assembly in the context of the Coordination Mechanism and Monitoring, Assessing and Reporting modalities. The next session of the CDIP would receive further project completion reports together with evaluation reports for consideration.
Mr. Onyeama concluded by wishing the Committee a successful session.
21 The Chair thanked Mr. Onyeama for his pertinent remarks and insight that would guide the discussion during the week. He then invited the Committee for general statements and requested Delegations to provide a copy of their statement to the Secretariat in written form so that those could be reflected in the report of the Committee.
General Statements 22 The Delegation of Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the Asian Group, expressed its pleasure to see the Chair to continuing presiding over the Committee. The Asian Group was pleased and encouraged to note that concrete progress was being made in the work of the Committee, the efforts to ensure greater development orientation in WIPO’s work and the concrete progress being made towards meaningful and genuine mainstreaming of the Development Agenda. The Group commended the Director General and his team for laying the foundation of a sustained and meaningful organizational transformation where developmental considerations automatically became an integral part of WIPO’s work. The Group appreciated the several important steps taken by WIPO Member States, the Director General and his team to ensure greater developmental orientation in WIPO’s work through development-friendly norm-setting and other initiatives in WIPO’s substantive committees, including the establishment of linkages between the Development Agenda recommendations and various WIPO programs in the Program and Budget and the Program Performance Reports, the integration of Development Agenda projects and activities in WIPO’s Results-Based Management Framework, and the integration of the Development Agenda in the WIPO Academy’s training modules. In the Group’s view, those positive efforts would go a long way in shaping the development orientation of the Organization. While the Asian Group was greatly encouraged by those positive developments, there would always be more that needed to be done to realize a vision as large as that of the Development Agenda on which all WIPO Member States had agreed. The Group was happy to note that during the last session of the CDIP, discussions had advanced on some issues, especially the project proposal on IP and Brain Drain, and the second part of the study on flexibilities, and looked forward to a substantive progress during that session on all the agenda items. The Asian Group thanked the Secretariat for the well-prepared and updated documents for that session, and was particularly interested in the external review of WIPO technical assistance in the area of cooperation for development. That study needed to be given its due importance and the Committee needed to look into its recommendations to improve the Organization’s technical assistance in the area of cooperation for development. It was the first time that such a review had been undertaken, and hence the Committee should make sure that sufficient time was allocated to discuss the report thoroughly and see how to advance the recommendations that were made in the report. Another important document was the future work program on flexibilities in the intellectual property system. Determining how IP related flexibilities could be fully and effectively used in accordance with the development and public policy objectives was a key challenge faced by most developing countries and LDCs. That key challenge must be addressed by WIPO in accordance with the Development Agenda recommendations. The Asian Group believed that the current work in that area was insufficient and Member States must advance a work plan on IP flexibilities. For the better progress of the IP system, a balance was pivotal and that balance lied in understanding the available flexibilities. All IP policies and work hinged on that balance. The work program on that issue should build upon the conceptual understanding of various already available IP flexibilities and examining how those flexibilities were actually implemented in practice in key areas of public policy. The Delegation added that the legal, institutional and administrative constraints in making full use of the flexibilities and how to build a facilitative environment for making full use of the flexibilities to promote development and public policy objectives should also be addressed. The work program could lead to the development of a technical the legislative assistance toolkit which could address the challenges faced by countries in making full use of the flexibilities and means of overcoming those challenges. The Group was hopeful that that session would see an agreement in that critical area. The Asian Group noted with satisfaction that most of the ongoing projects were proceeding apace and appreciated the contribution being made by those projects. A number of projects were expected to be completed in 2012. However, some projects might not be completed during the planned period. The delayed projects needed to be expedited with adequate financial and human resources allocated to them in a timely manner. While noting that some of the projects were reaching completion, the Group wished to reiterate that the termination of a project did not translate into implementation of specific Development Agenda recommendations. As agreed earlier while adopting the project based approach, the Development Agenda was a long-term work-in-progress and Member States should be free to propose new or additional projects for consideration of the Committee if considered necessary. Currently, various Development Agenda projects were being implemented through the regular budget. Apart from those, WIPO was also carrying out several projects which were closely related to the CDIP projects through extra-budgetary resources. The Group believed that it would be most beneficial to share the results of those related projects which utilized extra-budgetary resources among Member States while addressing the progress of the regular budget projects approved by the CDIP. Another important document in front of the Committee was the description of the contribution of the relevant WIPO bodies to the implementation of the respective Development Agenda recommendations. Since that was the first time that such a document had been forwarded by the General Assembly to the CDIP, it would be important to look into that description and to see what improvements could be made and how the Committee could ameliorate the implementation of the Development Agenda Recommendations in the work of the various WIPO committees. The members of the Asian Group also hoped that a new agenda item which allowed for discussions on the important linkages between IP and development would be inscribed in the future CDIP agenda. The Group noted that out of the three elements of the mandate given to the CDIP by the WIPO General Assembly in 2007, two of the elements were currently reflected in the CDIP’s agenda. However, the third element that was “to discuss IP and development-related issues” was yet to be addressed in the Committee, even though it had been mandated to do so by the General Assembly. In the Asian Groups’ view, the Committee would be amiss in complying with the Assembly’s mandate if it did not address the key issue of IP and development. Finally, the members of the Asian Group expressed their sincere appreciation to the Director General and the Secretariat for the well-prepared, useful and encouraging documentation and their work. The Group believed that all should be proud of what had been collectively achieved in implementing the Development Agenda in the last few years and looked forward to a continuing commitment and political will in consolidating and building further on what had been achieved. The Group, for its part, remained committed to engaging constructively in the forthcoming discussions in the Committee and looked forward to a rejuvenated and substantive progress.