2020-01-15
78
While we take positive note of the fact that the outcome indicators do not make any specific reference to WIPO dispute resolution mechanisms in the revised MTSP, we see that the narrative on challenges and opportunities contains specific goals on the dispute resolution system. The section on WIPO Arbitration and Media Center, clause (xxiv) in page 22 still refers to expansion of its dispute resolution services to “areas of IP policy where there is likely to be a high volume of international IP transactions, such as transfer of technology agreements in relation to environmentally friendly technologies”. This, would in our view, promote an IP centric approach towards issues of equitable access to green technologies and know-how. Given the differences in substantive laws across nations, resolution of these disputes should continue to be under the national law by appropriate national adjudicating authorities.
In respect of the PCT system, the DAG acknowledges, with thanks, the positive changes made to the document by recognizing the need to enhance the stake and ownership of developing countries in the PCT system.
Strategic Goal 3: Facilitating the Use of IP for Development
DAG is pleased to note that the description of the goal in the revised MTSP takes into account the comments submitted earlier. However, this goal refers narrowly to the technical assistance of WIPO that is limited to increasing the use of IP by developing countries. This goal is not about reforming WIPO or its activities and programs to make it a development-oriented organization, as envisaged by the Development Agenda recommendations. In this regard, the outcome indicators are inconsistent with the strategic outcome of “greater use of IP for development”. In particular, it is out of place that the revised MTSP refers more broadly to the Development Agenda implementation, rather than focusing on WIPO technical assistance, and that it adds as an outcome indicator the “strong focus on development throughout the organization, with effective mainstreaming of the Development Agenda principles and recommendations in the work of all relevant Programs.” Paragraph 4 of page 26 is also at odds in Goal III, and should be moved to the new section we propose on “Implementation of the Development Agenda”.
The strategic outcomes should be significantly modified to include specific indicators about how goal III will be achieved i.e. how WIPO will ensure that its technical assistance is in line with the DA recommendations, including principles to ensure transparency, providing neutral advice, including flexibilities and limitations and exceptions to IPRs etc.
Other outcome indicators focus almost exclusively on technical assistance to developing, least developed and transition countries within the framework of the Development Agenda. These do not spell out WIPO strategic approach to technical assistance in light of the Development Agenda. From this perspective, t he following issues need to be added in the MTSP in strategic goal III (as possible strategic outcomes):
How current WIPO technical assistance is being or will continue to be transformed due to the Development Agenda,
How WIPO will help countries integrate IP policies into national development plans, or how WIPO will ensure that a development-oriented framework is promoted that includes use of flexibilities,
How WIPO will become cross-disciplinary in providing technical assistance while ensuring that the secretariat has the needed new expertise.
Strategic Goal 6: Building Respect for IP
The goal description in the revised MTSP now states that the strategic goal on building respect for IP will be guided by DA recommendation 45, as was suggested by DAG. This is an important improvement that is noted with appreciation. However, this is not reflected in the envisaged strategic outcome (page 38) that refers to developing a “shared understanding and cooperation among Member States to build respect for IP”. To maintain coherence between the narrative and the envisaged outcomes, it is requested that the strategic outcome should be qualified by containing an explicit reference to, or the language of, recommendation 45 of the WIPO DA.
The outcome indicators call for increased international cooperation among Member States, NGOs, IGOs and the private sector, balanced policy dialogue in ACE, and enhanced capacity among member states to address piracy and counterfeiting. There is no outcome indicator to reflect how the WIPO activities within (in ACE) and in its relations to other IGOs, and NGOs and private sector, will be guided by recommendation 45 of the DA. The phrase “taking into account development-oriented concerns” needs to be further elaborated in the text. It is suggested that new outcome indicators be included, or those now in place be modified, to spell out how WIPO is changing its approach from the traditional “more IP enforcement” to a “balanced respect for IP” approach, in line with the DA.
In the section on strategies, there is also no mention of how WIPO has changed its approach to its activities in the area of enforcement in light of the DA and the deeper understanding of the associated development concerns. The strategies must reflect the changing dynamics and discussions in the ACE in light of the DA recommendation 45, mirroring the language included in the Program and Budget 2008-09 and 2009-10 under this goal.
