The World Intellectual Property Organization and the sustainable development agenda: new article

My article "The World Intellectual Property Organization and the sustainable development agenda" is now published.  This paper was developed as a keynote talk for the Intellectual Property and Sustainable Development Conference which took place on September 6, 2018 at the Queensland University of Technology.

Abstract
The UN’s Agenda for Sustainable Development is being taken up throughout the international system, including at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). This article examines WIPO’s approach to the sustainable development agenda in light of its past approaches to development. In the first part of this article, I outline some of the longstanding major critiques of the discourse of sustainability, noting that these critiques anticipated the current lamentable status of a sustainable development agenda for WIPO. Next, I discuss the history of development agendas at WIPO in the context of WIPO’s history and role at the centre of the global intellectual property system. I then ask what role intellectual property has to play in the SDGs. I conclude by suggesting that an adequate agenda for sustainable development is unlikely to be developed at WIPO and must, rather, come from outside.

Read the full article.

Citation: Bannerman, Sara. "The World Intellectual Property Organization and the sustainable development agenda." Futures 122(2020): 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2020.102586

Thanks to Professor Matthew Rimmer and the QUT IP and Innovation Law Research Program for their invitation to the conference. Thanks also to Emmanuel Appiah for his research assistance. This research would not have been possible without the support of, and funding from, McMaster University and the Canada Research Chairs program.

Does IP have a role in sustainable development? Of course it does!

Does intellectual property have a role in sustainable development?  Of course it does!  But the World Intellectual Property Organization, a UN agency, seems uncertain as to whether it has a role to play in implementing the UN's Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

As I note in a draft book chapter, WIPO's preliminary analysis of the ways in which its work supported SDGs viewed most of WIPO’s work as contributing to SDG 9, the building of infrastructure and industrialization, as well as goal 8, that of economic growth.

Surprisingly few of WIPO’s activities were viewed by WIPO as contributing to the SDGs of education, hunger, protecting biodiversity, combating climate change, or ensuring human health.

"Developed" countries argue "that only a few goals apply to the work of WIPO, and others argue that there should be no ‘cherrypicking’ as all the goals in one way or another do apply to WIPO’s work as a UN agency."  The view of the "developed" countries, here, is completely ridiculous; it is clear that intellectual property plays an important role in relation to many SDGs, including those related to food and agriculture, health, innovation, climate change, biodiversity, and technology transfer.

The world intellectual property system, at present, also sometimes works contrary to achievement of the SDGs, by locking up agricultural innovation, inflating drug prices, stalling innovation, rewarding the invention and sale of dirty technologies, locking up biodiversity, and preventing technology transfer. There is no shortage of proposals for reform that would help to address these problems.  (See the work of Peter Drahos, Matthew Rimmer, and Ahmed Abdel-Latif, among  many others.)  Industry players note the important role of intellectual property  in potentially stalling climate-friendly innovation; this is why Tesla has adopted open patent policies to encourage the take-up and spread of electric vehicle technology.

WIPO and its member states should acknowledge the links between intellectual property and both sustainable and unsustainable development.  The UN sustainable development agenda requires WIPO, as a UN agency, and its member states to build and retool world intellectual property institutions for sustainable development. 

Upcoming talk @ Ryerson: International Copyright and Access to Knowledge

Here is the poster for my upcoming talk for students at Ryerson University's School of Creative Industries' CREA T.O. speakers' series about my new book, International Copyright and Access to Knowledge.  Thanks to Ryerson student Daphne Chan, who created this terrific poster!

New Book: International Copyright and Access to Knowledge

My new book, International Copyright and Access to Knowledge,  is now available from Cambridge University Press.

The principle of Access to Knowledge (A2K) has become a common reference point for a diverse set of agendas that all hope to realize technological and human potential by making knowledge more accessible. This book is a history of international copyright focused on principles of A2K and their proponents. Whilst debate and discussion so far has covered the perspectives of major western countries, the author's fresh approach to the topic considers emerging countries and NGOs, who have fought for the principles of A2K that are now fundamental to the system. Written in a clear and accessible style, the book connects copyright history to current problems, issues and events.

"Sara Bannerman's thoughtful and compelling book is a must-read for all of those interested in the challenges of increasing access to knowledge. She offers historical perspective on the narrowing of the knowledge commons and identifies opportunities for positive change going forward."
-Susan K. Sell, George Washington University

 International Copyright and Access to Knowledge is available through CUP, Amazon, on Wordery. An excerpt is available here.  Purchases through CUP can make use of 20% discount code Bannerman2015.

Digital Dividends of Intellectual Property

The World Bank's January Digital Dividends report assesses the extent to which information and communication technologies (ICTs) have contributed, over the past decades, to global development.  Its conclusion is that "while digital technologies have been spreading, digital dividends have not" (2).    It suggests two reasons for this: first, nearly 60% of the world is still offline, and, second, rising economic, social, and political inequality, all of which can be exacerbated by networks, stand in the way of full sharing in digital dividends.

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has sometimes suggested that intellectual property is a "power tool" of economic development.  This view has long been challenged by those who note that IP comes with costs as well as benefits.  Costs can include higher prices in drugs and copyright materials, as well as reduced policy flexibility to respond to basic needs.  These costs, noted in a 2004 proposal by developing countries to WIPO, have now been acknowledged in WIPO's own formal Development Agenda.

The World Bank's report makes mention of intellectual property in several contexts.  It mentions:

1. that innovation and growth depend on IP (p. 221, p. 302)
2. that international IP regimes require greater harmonization (p. 62-63; p. 297)
3. that IP needs to be balanced (p. 221) and that “countries can also allow the concept of “fair use” in intellectual property regulations” (p. 303; emphasis added).

The Bank's comments represent an view of IP that lacks nuance and balance, failing to take on board the extensive research done on the relationship between IP and development.  First, the World Bank's report, while noting the complexity of the relationship between ICTs and development, fails to take on board this same complexity when it comes to IP.  While arguing that innovation depends on IP, it fails to note the ways that IP can impede innovation (more on this below).

Second, Digital Dividends does not take adequately into account the ways that international IP regimes have failed to facilitate development and, at times, have stood in the way of development by impeding access to educational materials and pharmaceuticals.  The UK Commission on IP Rights long ago noted that "the interests of developing countries are best served by tailoring their intellectual property regimes to their particular economic and social circumstances" (156).  The Commission also argued that "there are strong arguments for greater flexibility in setting an optimum time to strengthen IP protection, taking into account the nation’s level of economic, social and technological development" (161).  International IP regimes take numerous options off the table when it comes to tailoring IP regimes; they greatly restrict states' flexibility in this regard.  The Commission called on developed countries to "discontinue the practice of using regional/bilateral agreements as a means of creating TRIPS-plus IP regimes in developing countries as a matter of course" (163).  This does not match with the World Bank's emphasis on the urgency of  further harmonization.

Third, the World Bank's report under-emphasizes the need for fair use and other limitations and exceptions to IP.  Here, Digital Dividends  utterly fails to take on board extensive research indicating the potential of such measures to contribute to development of various types, including development in the fields of education, health, innovation, technology, and clean technologies.

Jeremy de Beer and I have noted that the relationship between IP and development are a much more complex matter than the "power tool" view suggests.  Too much protection can be as bad as not having enough, contributing to gridlock (where IP is held by too many different people such that it impedes efficient market transactions) and high costs to the inputs of innovation (77).  (IP protection may also be irrelevant to encouraging innovation, if IP services are not available, as Rutenberg notes.)  Models of IP that emphasize access and openness in intellectual property can, de Beer and I argue, facilitate collaboration, universal participation, and adaptation of products to local communities (80).  Further, we note that IP can facilitate the concentration of wealth in the hands of multinationals (77).  Such inequality is exactly, as the Bank itself notes, what stands in the way of the potential of digital dividends.

Future of WIPO's Development Agenda

A new article by Jeremy de Beer and I has just been published in the WIPO Journal. A draft version of the article is now available on SSRN. In this paper we present the results of a workshop held in March 2009. Scholars, diplomats, and WIPO staff contributed their thoughts on the future of WIPO's Development Agenda.

Foresight into the Future of Wipo's Development Agenda
The Development Agenda for the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) was proposed in 2004 to reinvigorate the operations of WIPO, given its mandate as a special operating agency of the United Nations (UN).

Foresight into an array of alternative scenarios is not only warranted but necessary in order to cope with possible developments or, even better, to influence the future. Using the foresight research techniques of scenario building and backcasting, an expert working group met in Prangins, Switzerland, in March 2010 to discuss progress of the agenda's implementation, and to identify a range of future possibilities and corresponding strategic actions. This article outlines analysis and insights regarding the Development Agenda accumulated over several years of research and meetings, culminating in that retreat. It highlights a number of priorities and possible research directions, particularly in the context of a transition in strategic focus from short to medium and long-term thinking about the impact of WIPO's Development Agenda on global knowledge governance.

This article outlines, in the first part, the background of the WIPO Development Agenda and where it stands today. In the second part, the authors outline the immediate challenges and opportunities facing the Development Agenda, based on the insights and analyses of the working group, suggesting that the foresighting and backcasting methods used are useful instruments in planning and envisioning the future of the Development Agenda.

Latif on WIPO reform

Ahmed Abdel Latif has an opinion piece in Intellectual Property Watch, following on Lawrence Lessig's recent visit to WIPO. Both ask whether the international intellectual property system is in need of fundamental reform. Lessig called for "an overhaul of the copyright system which he says does not and never will make sense in the digital environment." Latif argues that "Professor Lessig is right. His call for global copyright reform is welcome and timely. However, past WIPO led efforts in this area have rather been unsuccessful."

Past changes to the international copyright system, as embodied in the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886), have mostly resulted in the strengthening of copyright rules to the benefit of rights holders. All attempts to reform it to the benefit of users of copyrighted materials, such as consumers and developing countries, have either failed or been of limited effectiveness such as in the case of the Berne Appendix (1971) which contains special provisions for developing countries.

The recent WIPO reform initiative embodied in the WIPO Development Agenda, he notes, is still underway, and Latif questions whether some current WIPO initiatives conform with the letter and spirit of the Development Agenda. He calls for reform that takes place through "an open, inclusive and participatory consultation process where ‘all of us’ have a say."

New book: Implementing the WIPO Development Agenda

A new book, Implementing the World Intellectual Property Organization's Development Agenda, edited by Jeremy de Beer, has come out. My chapter, which discusses both the optimism and pessimism that surround the development agenda, is available online. For those looking for an introduction to the development agenda and what it is all about, Jeremy de Beer's introduction takes a multi-faceted and insightful look at the agenda.
The book will be launched in Geneva on July 10 as a part of iQsensato's Geneva Seminars on Development.

Obama and the development agenda

With the next meeting of the Committee on Development and Intellectual Property at WIPO coming up in April, what will the new approach of the Obama administration be? US leadership has been influential on the progress of the development agenda; for some time the US was the key opponent of the agenda until, with certain key concessions from the Friends of Development in hand, they allowed the agenda to go forward in a less radical form.

The President of the World bank calls on the new administrtation to provide stimulus, given the current economic crisis, to developing countries. Sisule Musungu highlights some of the opportunities where the Obama administration could provide stimulus and leadership in the arena of global IP in the upcoming year.

Given the economic downturn, and if the new administration's choice of officials for leadership positions within the Justice Department are any indication, it may be that American international IP policies will change little. So far, as Howard Knopf notes, it's looking like stimulus will be focussed at home. Whereas some fear that scientific and technical assistance programs will be cut as a result of the economic downturn, Harvard University's Calestous Juma argues that the Obama administration will the thinking globally, and looking for ways to continue to support research and development around the world. Such initiatives are often linked to the usual calls for stronger IP protection which may in turn also, as Knopf notes, be linked to new trade policies and under-the-table tradeoffs.

The new administration might stimulate some fresh thinking by examining the opportunities highlighted by Musungu. These may highlight some new ways to "do good" in international IP policy.

WIPO Development agenda implementation plan to be presented to WIPO General Assembly

The WIPO General Assembly will be asked next week to adopt a work plan for implementing the 19 development agenda recommendations that have been identified for immediate implementation. The plan as currently outlined bears little of the spirit that inspired the Friends of Development and the original proposal of a development agenda at WIPO.

First, the plan to implement development agenda recommendation 1 on technical assistance: that recommendation read as follows:

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

The plan outlined in the report seems to consist of two elements: first, to ensure everyone at WIPO is aware of the principles of this recommendation. This is a good thing. Second, the general plan seems to be to increase the bureaucracy of technical assistance: WIPO will "assist" countries in creating national IP plans along the following lines:

project design frameworks will be standardized for WIPO to ensure full project definition and description, quality control and approval processes, objective setting and monitoring activities, risk identification and management, performance and results definition and appraisal. Program evaluation will be undertaken in line with the recently approved WIPO Evaluation Policy.

Some of these things might help to identify true development-related goals. Or, they could just increase bureaucracy.

Also, WIPO will let private partners in to provide technical assistance, through a proposed "partnership database" that would match technical assistance "donors" with developing countries. On this, India made an important comment back in 2005, which has so far gone unheeded:

it was imperative to recognize that private sector partners would have a slight conflict of interest in the sort of advice that they provided: therefore, as the idea of the Delegation of the United States of America [the US originally suggested the partnership database in 2005] was developed further, the meeting could, perhaps, think of balancing or neutralizing the conflict of interest by having a civil society partner as part of a trilateral arrangement. (IIM/2/10 para 129)

Want to keep an eye on all these technical assistance activities? You'll be able to...as long as member states and/or involved partners approve the release of detailed information. Otherwise, you'll just have the general information available on the web site.

Further, a recommendation will be made that WIPO convene a donor conference to get the "bilateral and multilateral donor community (in particular, donor institutions)" involved in the implementation of WIPO's development agenda. This would be a big event soliciting even more private partners.

Remember recommendation 15, that WIPO should "take into consideration the interests and priorities of all WIPO Member States and the viewpoints of other stakeholders" (emphasis added)? Sounds like there is still one stakeholder group that WIPO is especially interested in promoting: in implementing recommendation 4, WIPO will "examine the contribution of the creative sector, as well as underscore its potential as an important constituent in support of policy making." (emphasis added) No mention of the contribution of other sectors. Further to this, WIPO has a plan unrelated to any recommendation contained in the development agenda:

WIPO’s institutional support will be extended not only to national IP offices, but also to other institutions that promote innovative and creative activities such as technology licensing offices in universities, technology promotion institutes, collective management societies and creative industries support institutions. [emphasis added]

Also, following recommendation 3 of the development agenda, there is a big plan to "Raise awareness among all sectors of the society regarding the important role that intellectual property plays in national development."

In summary, the implementation plan for the development agenda so far seems to be:

• increase bureaucracy
• set up private partners to "assist" developing countries
• allow those private partners and member states "assisting" developing countries to operate in relative secrecy if they so desire
• increase support to the creative/cultural industries and collective licensing agencies
• generally highlight the wonders that IP does for development
  

Plans for supporting a robust public domain? Nothing. For further discussing access to knowledge? Not a mention. Promoting the understanding and use of existing IP flexibilities? "Flexibility" does not appear to be in WIPO's lexicon.

Upcoming WIPO meeting of member states

The next meeting of the member states of WIPO will take place soon, from September 22 to 30. Major issues to watch include the appointment of the new Director General of WIPO and the report of the progress so far on implementing the WIPO development agenda.

The appointment of the new Director General is expected to take place on Sept 22. The WIPO Coordination Committee has nominated Francis Gurry of Australia to be the next Director General of WIPO, for a term of six years starting October 1 2008. Gurry has been Deputy Director General at WIPO since 2003 and has worked at WIPO since 1985. Although an insider, IP-Watch reported, upon Gurry's win of a close election in May, that he has "nevertheless crafted a reputation for relative independence from the existing administration". He has an honorary position at the University of Melbourne and sits on the advisory board of the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law at Cambridge.

The report of the Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP) is expected to be presented on Sept 23. The report, available online, asks the General Assembly to adopt a work program and to make available some human and financial resources to go along with it. At this point the work program focuses on the 19 development agenda items that were identified for immediate implementation. My summary of and comments on this plan are here.

Other reports will also be presented:

• Report on the Work of the Advisory Committee on Enforcement (ACE), and the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights
• Progress Report on the Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore
• Report on the Work of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR), Including the Protection of Audivisual Performances and Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations
• Progress Report on the New Construction Project
• A report on Matters Concerning Internet Domain Names
• Summary Annual Report of the Director of the Internal Audit and Oversight Division
• Reports of the Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Meetings of the WIPO Audit Committee
• Report on the Work of the Standing Committee on the Law of Patents

now online: The Development Agenda at WIPO: Where is Canada?

An abridged copy of my paper "The Development Agenda at WIPO: Where is Canada?" is now available on SSRN.

WIPO public domain discussions

Some really interesting discussions about the public domain took place as a part of the development agenda discussions last week at WIPO. It was all part of a discussion on how WIPO could:

promote norm-setting activities related to IP that support a robust public domain in WIPO’s Member States, including the possibility of preparing guidelines which could assist interested Member States in identifying subject matters that have fallen into the public domain within their respective jurisdictions. (Recommendation 20 of the Development Agenda)

An account of the discussions can be found here.

It was noted that there are different definitions of 'the public domain' - that sometimes it is defined to include anything that isn't copyrighted, and that other times it is defined to include anything that is publicly accessable, regardless of its copyright status. However, the two senses of 'the public domain' are linked; the great thing about 'the public domain' (former) is that things in it can be more easily put into 'the public domain' (latter) in old or new ways.

The Canadian Intellectual Property Office uses the former definition in its Guide to Copyrights:

Facts, ideas and news are all considered part of the public domain, that is, they are everyone's property.

Note too, that you cannot hold a copyright for a work that is in the public domain. You can adapt or translate such a work and have a copyright for your adaptation or translation.

Copyright applies to:

• a song
• a novel
• a play
• a magazine article
• a computer program

Copyright does not apply to:

• the title for a song
• the idea for a plot
• a method of staging a play
• Hamlet (a work in the public domain)
• the facts in the article
• the name of the program (this might be protected through a trade-mark registration)

The Government of Canada's Framework for Copyright Reform also uses the former concept:

Copyright protection exists for a limited time, typically the life of the author plus an additional fifty years. After that time elapses, protection ends and the work falls into the "public domain".

While the emphasis in intellectual property policymaking tends to be on the public domain in the former sense, there are many ways that governments do and should encourage the public accessibility of information and works (through use of open source software and Creative Commons licensing, government online policies, policies to make research accessible, etc etc). The connections between these policies and intellectual property policy should be kept in the forefront.

At the WIPO meeting the idea of doing a study: a comparative analysis of countries’ legislation asking the question, “how do Member states define the public domain” was discussed. I think such a study would be extremely helpful and interesting, especially in highlighting the importance of both interrelated senses of the public domain in government policy.

Pence on Procedure of Development Agenda

Eliot Pence has just put out a paper on process and procedure at the WIPO Committee on Development and IP. He has some suggestions for re-structuring the discussions away from the cluster approach currently in use. More interesting, in my view, are his observations about the importance of procedure in the CDIP debates and the role of the WIPO secretariat. He argues that what is sometimes referred to as 'procedural wrangling' is actually highly important and political; that under current procedures the committee chair may be placing too much emphasis on speed over a thorough process; that the involvement of the secretariat can have a moderating effect on debate because of its natural middle-of -the-road approach, and that the standard procedures used at WIPO committees are important to the way WIPO does its business and to how it implements the development agenda in the long term.

CDIP discusses IP & competition

This week's meetings of the Committee on Development and Intellectual Property wrap up at WIPO today. While the first two days focussed on financial and human resources aspects of implementing the development agenda, Wednesday focussed on the interface between IP and competition policy. The development agenda includes recommendation no. 7, that WIPO should

"[p]romote 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."

There are calls for a workshop on the issue to be held in Geneva and for WIPO to develop a nuanced approach to the interface between competition policy and IP.

IP and competition policy is an area of the development agenda in which Canada has shown a particular interest, having hosted a workshop on that issue last summer at WIPO as a side-event to the development agenda discussions. It would make sense, therefore, if Canada were to be in the loop as positions continue to be developed at WIPO.

New article: “The Development Agenda at WIPO: Where is Canada?"

My paper, “The Development Agenda at WIPO: Where is Canada?", has just been published as Chapter 10 in Innovation, Science and Environment: Canadian Policies and Performance 2008-2009 (Edited by Glen Toner. Montreal: Published for the School of Public Policy and Administration, Carleton University by McGill-Queen's University Press, 2008:190-208). It looks at Canada's role at the WIPO development agenda discussions in the past few years.

Love on WIPO

James Love has some interesting commentary on the goings-on at WIPO in the past year. He argues that "WIPO is emerging as forum for real debates over global intellectual property policy."

WIPO Development Agenda: concrete proposals

The WIPO Committee on Development and Intellectual Property has issued a working document (CDIP/2/2) that sets out a number of concrete proposals for the implementation of the development agenda. They include:

1. Instructions to WIPO staff and consultants. It is proposed that the principles set out in the WIPO development agenda on technical assistance (that "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.") will be:
1. sent out to all staff and consultants with instructions that these general principles be followed
2. included in short, medium, and long-term policy documents
3. included in any new guide or manual on technical assistance
4. included in other WIPO publications
2. Papers to be written.
1. a paper on Trust and voluntary funds - existing and proposed - for least-developed countries to help them exploit intellectual property
2. a study on patent search tools that could be used by least-developed countries and how those might be made available
   
3. Pilot projects.
1. Pilot projects to establish IP info centres in scientific and research institutions
   
4. IT projects
   
1. WIPO proposes to expand upon the information provided on their web site on technical assistance programs, both the part available to the public, and an additional part that will only be available to member countries.
   
2. A database "to match specific IP-related development needs with available resources."
   
5. Training and Other Resources.
1. It is proposed that WIPO continue to provide training and efficiency improvements to IP institutions, including national IP offices and collective management organizations. Awareness-raising is proposed to be conducted with a broader range of organizations, such as technology licensing bodies at universities and business support organizations (such as chambers of commerce, professional associations etc).
6. Staff and consultants.
1. consultants and staff are proposed for these various projects: the paper writing, the IT projects, and the training and gallivanting. By my count, 5 consultants, 10 professionals, 8 general service staff, and one IT professional are proposed.
   

Regarding the instructions to staff and consultants, Feedback, and Training.
The dissemination of instructions to staff and consultants could be a very important foundation of the development agenda at WIPO, integrating it into the culture of the organization. Such instructions, however, if they are to generate real challenge and engagement, must emphasize openness to the various types of ideas and demands - to various ideas of what 'development-oriented' IP might be - that might be brought by recipients of technical assistance. There is a danger that this feedback might be compromised if the training provided by WIPO to the very officials in developing countries who make such demands does not include and allow for an open discussion and a varied set of ideas about what 'development-oriented' IP might be like.
I wonder if it would not be wise, as has been suggested during the development agenda discussions, for a roster of consultants who perform technical assistance to be made available and/or for recipient countries to be able to select from this list and, importantly, to nominate their additional own consultants who might be hired by WIPO to perform these duties. This might increase the independence and diversity of ideas circulating in the area.

Regarding the IT projects.
While much of the information regarding technical assistance is to be made available not publicly but only to member states, it is encouraging to note the statement that "the project will be guided by the principle of transparency and donors and recipients will be encouraged to authorize WIPO to provide as much information as possible on technical assistance activities." Release of information will nevertheless depend on the authorization of involved member states.

Regarding the partnership database (above in 4(2)), the comment of India at the IIM2 must be kept in mind:

“it was imperative to recognize that private sector partners would have a slight conflict of interest in the sort of advice that they provided: therefore, as the idea of the Delegation of the United States of America was developed further, the meeting could, perhaps, think of balancing or neutralizing the conflict of interest by having a civil society partner as part of a trilateral arrangement.” (IIM/2/10 para 129)

Regarding Training.
It is noted that the working paper proposes that, "In future, WIPO activities in this area shall pay greater heed to the need to take into account the interests of the general public."

Proposal for the implementation of development agenda recommendation online

Some of the preparatory documents for the next WIPO Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP) are now online. The Information Document Related to Adopted Recommendation 10 focuses on the implementation of the development agenda recommendation 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 fair balance between IP protection and the public interest. This technical assistance should also be extended to sub-regional and regional organizations dealing with IP.

It outlines various programs of technical assistance "that have been, are being or could be implemented by WIPO in the future."

While the overwhelming focus of these programs is on "training" government officials in intellectual property, strengthening collective management organizations and intellectual property offices, and encouraging the private sector in the exploitation of intellectual property, there are also a few points that stand out. The document proposes:

• "Increased emphasis in [training] sessions on how to develop a balanced IP system,"
• that legal assistance include "Advice with regard to accession to, and implementation of, international treaties, including regional agreements, taking into account the development priorities and objectives and available flexibilities." (emphasis added)
• "Support for regional and sub-regional initiatives to develop regional and sub-regional legislation in the areas of IP, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions (for example in OAPI and ARIPO),"
• "Organization of strategic seminars or fora for policy makers and senior IP administrators to discuss and share their views on emerging IP issues such as traditional knowledge, copyright in the digital environment, the role of IP in economic development, flexibilities in IP system, IP and Public Health, strategic use of patent information, evolving role of IP administrations in national development, etc.," and the "Inclusion in such fora of more topics relating to IP protection, public policy objectives and public interest," (emphasis added)

The document also notes, in its proposals with regard to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), that:

SMEs are not only creators but also users of IP. Thus the program assists them not only to better protect, manage and exploit their innovations and creativity but also to make it accessible to others.

Interesting also are the documents' various references to the 'user community', which at times seems to refer to the users of IP offices and at other times the users of IP.

Given the general emphasis within the document on the usual style of WIPO technical assistance, with the emphasis on promoting the protection of IP and strengthening collective management organizations, which generally serve to export funds to rich countries, the proposals contained in this document cannot be seen as an indication of a sea change at WIPO. Rather, the document contains a few small but potentially important steps in recognizing the complexity of interests in the international IP system.

Development agenda agenda

WIPO has posted the agenda for the first meeting of the Committee on Development and Intellectual Property, March 3-7 2008, online. On the agenda:

Opening of the meeting

Election of Officers

Adoption of the Agenda

Adoption of Rules of Procedure of CDIP

Consideration of Work Program for Implementation of Adopted Proposals

Future work

Summary by the Chair

Closing of the session