Update from Geneva WIPO IIM-3: Day 1

The third Inter-Sessional Intergovernmental Meeting on a Development Agenda for WIPO began today in Geneva. This is the third round of negotiations on the Development Agenda, since it was proposed at the last meeting of the General Assembly in September and the last one before the next Assembly meeting. This meeting is especially crucial since the IIM is required to submit a final report with its recommendations, for approval by the Assembly and this is its last opportunity to formulate a coherent plan of action on the Development Agenda.

Brazil seems to have made its intentions for the IIM-3 very clear on the morning of Day 1, when it submitted a proposal on behalf og the Group of Friends of Development, proposing a 'Draft Decision of the IIM'in writing, covering the proposals previously highlighted by the Group. This proposal is likely to be reasonably controversial, and one hopes matters dont come down to a vote, along lines of the 12th SCCR that ended in confusion. All the same, should the Brazilian proposal go through, it would be a major victory for the Friends of Development. Among its six points listed, is one which requires the WIPO to 'immediately initiate a process to consider measures designed to improve the participation of civil society and public interest NGOs in WIPO activities'.

In the post-lunch session, discussions focussed on specific development agenda proposals in clusters. Proposal 1 deals with the amendment of the WIPO Convention to reference the development dimension; 5 on the establishment of the WERO and 6 on enhancing the participation of civil society and public interest groups. A large number of countries spoke of the impracticality of proposal 1 and that 5 involved too much time and expenditure. On 6, while most countries agreed on the need to make WIPO proceedings more participatory in a balanced way, most were also very clear that the WIPO was and should always be a government-based organization and that while outsiders should be allowed to participate, they should not have a role in the actual decision-making. India, in an interesting intervention noted that WIPO had come to view itself as an organization focussing only on the expansion of intellectual property in spite of the language contained in its own Convention and that proposal 1 derived from this unfortunate development. It supported a declaration to the same effect as the amendment, that WIPO's mandate extended well beyond what it currently did. On the WERO issue (proposal 5), India noted that it was 'dismayed' to hear the negative comments of other countries on the issue. Citing the example of IMF, where an independent evaluation body was set up reporting independently to the Board of Directors, it supported the creation of an independent WERO functioning outside the secretariat, reporting to the Coordination Committee or the Assembly, to avoid being a 'ventriloquist's dummy'.

Day 2

The second day of the IIM commenced with countries making further comments on the proposals of the Group of Friends of Development. Prior to the commencement of the session, the delegation of the US distributed its own draft decision for the IIM -- containing three short points -- all of which related to requiring the General Assembly to transfer all the matters currently under discussion at the IIM to the PCIPD, together with a mandate from the Assembly that the PCIPD's mandate was wide enough to cover this and that it would meet twice a year. The objective, it appeared was to propose a direct counter to the draft decision circulated by Brazil on behalf of the Friends of Development.

The morning session of Day 2 saw discussions focus on the PCIPD. The Friends of Development had proposed the creation of a separate Standing Committee to study the issue of technology transfer. The US however opposed this and noted that this was under the competence of the PICPD to handle. A series of interesting exchanges followed between Brazil and the US, with Brazil accusing the US of opposing/rejecting everything being discussed in the body.

Discussions then ended and the chair opened the floor to comments from NGOs and IGOs. The UPD was given the opportunity to take the floor. Several other NGO groups spoke as well -- the EFF, CSC, IPN, BSA, FSFE, IP Justice, MSF and a few others. Some time later, the chair intervended to stop NGO interventions for a while to let discussions between member states continue, and promised to let the remaining NGOs deliver their statements tomorrow. In the discussions that followed, the chair suggested taking up the two competing proposals that had been tabled by Brazil and the USA, as draft decisions for the IIM.

In elaborating on its proposal, Brazil echoed its earlier interventions and also indicated that the points it had indicated there were by no means exhaustive. In explaining its own draft decision, the US delegation was dismissive of the Brazilian one and noted that it had excluded the proposals made by several other member states/groups at the meeting. The US delegation noted that some delegations might consider such an omission 'insulting'. The delegation of Argentina (a member of the Friends of Development Group) expressed its view that such strong language was uncalled for, and that the proposals indicated were not the only ones which could be a part of the decision, but merely reflected what the Group thought were the most easily acceptable ones. The matters appeared to be locked, with neiter side being ready to budge. A few countries spoke in favour of each of the proposals. At one point, the delegate of Morocco stepped in to indicate that the African group (after negotiations with a group led by Bahrain) was also likely to present its own version of the draft decision and that the silence of the African countries was not to be interpreted as a sign of disinterest.

The UK (speaking on behalf of the EU) then intervened to note that it had a compromise decision, where it suggested convening three more IIMs next year, but requiring that these be financed by the money set aside for the PCIPD for the year 2006-07. It also sought to direct the agenda of these meetings, by requiring the body to discuss issues which it deemed 'ripe to harvest', i.e., on which a common consensus seemed to be emerging. The Chair requested the UK to put this proposed decision down in writing and circulate it. The proceedings were then adjourned with the matter to be continued tomorrow morning. It seems unlikely that the US will be able to block the proposal to hold further IIMs (which the Group of Friends of Development and the EU seem to be in favour of) and transfer everything right away to the PCIPD.

By shyam at 21/07/2005 - 19:04 | WIPO