IPRTA in WIPO’s Development Agenda: A Civil Society Perspective

1. IPRTA in WIPO’s Development Agenda:A Civil Society Perspective Ahmed Abdel Latif International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) IPRTA Forum Mexico 9-11 July 2008

2. Intellectual and policy origins of IPRTA recommendations of WIPO DA • CIPR report (2002) • MSF workshop on technical assistance relating to TRIPS and public health (2002) • Joint UNCTAD-ICTSD project and Bellagio Dialogues • WIPO Development Agenda proposal by Brazil, Argentina and FOD (2004) • WIPO DA discussions (2005-2007) • TRIPS implementation

3. IPRTA recommendations in the WIPO DA:key implications • Ground breaking language on IPRTA • Relevant not only for WIPO but also for other IPRTA providers at the multilateral and bilateral level • Need for increased coordination and mainstreaming in the delivery of IPRTA • Need for increased effectiveness of IPRTA • Making IPRTA more adapted to the needs and socio-economic circumstances of developing countries andmore geared towards strengthening their capacity to take advantage of the flexibilities in international IP instruments → In any case, a departure from a “business as usual” approach in the design and delivery of IPRTA

4. Development, public policy considerations and flexibilities in IPRTA recommendations of the WIPO DA (I) : 1.WIPO technical assistance shall be, inter alia, development oriented, demand driven and transparent, taking into account the priorities and the special needs of developing countries, especially LDCs, as well as the different levels of development of Member States and activities should include time frames for completion. In this regard, design, delivery mechanisms and evaluation processes of technical assistance programs should be country specific. 6. WIPO’s technical assistance staff and consultants shall continue to be neutral and accountable, by paying particular attention to the existing Code of Ethics, and by avoiding potential conflicts of interest. WIPO shall draw up and make widely known to the Member States a roster of consultants for technical assistance available with WIPO. • Promote measures that will help countries deal with IP related anti competitive practices, by providing technical cooperation to developing countries, especially LDCs, at their request, in order to better understand the interface between intellectual property rights and competition policies.

5. Development, public policy considerations and flexibilities in IPRTA recommendations of the WIPO DA (II) : 10. To assist Member States to develop and improve national IP institutional capacity through further development of infrastructure and other facilities with a view to making national IP institutions more efficient and promote a fair balance between IP protection and the public interest. 12. To further mainstream development considerations into WIPO’s substantive and technical assistance activities and debates, in accordance with its mandate 13. WIPO’s legislative assistance shall be, inter alia, development-oriented and demand-driven, taking into consideration the priorities and special needs of developing countries, especially LDCs, as well as the different levels of development of Member States and activities should include time frame for completion. 14. Within framework of the Agreement between WIPO and the WTO, WIPO shall make available advice to developing countries and LDCs, on the implementation and operation of the rights and obligations and the understanding and use of flexibilities contained in the TRIPS Agreement.

6. Discussions on IPRTA at the CDIP • First CDIP Meeting (3-7 March 2008): → Discussion on six IPRTA recommendations: five in the list of 26 ( 2, 5, 8, 9 and 10) and one the list of 19 (1) → Proposed activities by Secretariat, FOD, Korea and Central European States → Proposed activities, as suitably modified following discussions, would be sent to Secretariat to assess the human and financial resources • Second CDIP Meeting (7-11 July 2008) → Discussion on human and financial costs of a number of suggested activities

7. Challenges in the implementation of WIPO DA IPRTA recommendations (I) • The need for a comprehensive and inclusive approach: - Example: 10. To assist Member States to develop and improve national IP institutional capacity through further development of infrastructure and other facilities with a view to making national IP institutions more efficient and promote a fair balance between IP protection and the public interest. → How to ensure that such this recommendation is implemented in all its dimensions?

8. Challenges in the implementation of WIPO DA IPRTA recommendations (II) • From principles to practice and operationalisation: - Example: 1. WIPO technical assistance shall be, inter alia, development oriented, demand driven and transparent, taking into account the priorities and the special needs of developing countries, especially LDCs, as well as the different levels of development of Member States and activities should include time frames for completion. In this regard, design, delivery mechanisms and evaluation processes of technical assistance programs should be country specific → How to operationalise this? Elaboration of guidelines of WIPO IPRTA to reflect these principles ?

9. Challenges in the implementation of WIPO DA IPRTA recommendations (III) • From North-South debate to “creative partnerships” North-South and South-South involving a diversity stakeholders (governments, IGOs, NGOS): - Examples: 1. Making IP institutions more efficient (R.10) 2. Role of IP institutions and other agencies in promoting of innovation and building of scientific and technological capacity (R.11) 3. Addressing the needs of LDCs (R.13) → IPRTA Forum as a catalyst for establishing such partnerships ?

10. Conclusion • Ultimate goal of WIPO DA is the promotion of a more balanced and development friendly IP regime • IPRTA should contribute towards the achievement of this goal in particular by : →reflecting the diversity of views prevailing on IP related issues, including access to knowledge, open collaborative models → fostering a “national expertise” on IP matters that is capable of thinking critically on IP related challenges and engage in global deliberations from the perspectives of national socio-economic circumstances and development objectives → ensuring that IP regimes and laws are supportive of development and public policy objectives.

11. Thank you aabdellatif@ictsd.ch iprsonline.org