Implementing WIPO Development Agenda: Comparing National Approaches for Coherence in IP Laws

1. Implementing the WIPO Development Agenda: Comparing National Approaches to Promoting Coherence Between Public Policy Objectives and IP LawsICTSD RoundtableThursday June 14th, 2007Overview of Issues and Challenges Dr. Carolyn Deere Resident Scholar, ICTSD Director, Global Trade Governance Project, Global Economic Governance Programme, University of Oxford carolyn.deere@politics.ox.ac.uk

2. Outline • Scope of IP issues for national attention • The WIPO Development Agenda: implications at the national level • Recent scholarly and policy literature on challenges • Review of diversity of national approaches to the process and organisation of IP policy-making, law-making and decision-making • Summary and next steps

3. Broad Scope of IP Issues for National Attention Examples include: • Setting national public policy objectives and a policy framework to guide national IP laws • Passing IP laws and standards • Administering IP laws • Adjudicating IP disputes, such as infringement of rights, patent validity disputes • Raising public awareness of the IP system • Implementing international IP commitments • Participating in multilateral, regional and bilateral negotiations and organisations relevant to IP • Negotiating technical assistance, training and capacity- building

4. The WIPO Development Agenda: Implications at the National Level The realisation of the WIPO Development Agenda will rely on a range of actions at the national & regional level, including efforts to: • Develop and improve national IP institutional capacity and efficiency • Ensure national IP institutions promote fair balance between IP protection and the public interest • Promote coherence between IP laws and public policy goals in areas of innovation, science and technology, health, education, cultural industries, food security, and rural development • Promote development-oriented and demand-driven capacity building at national and regional level • Conduct development impact assessments of proposed IP policies, practices and norm setting activities; of new international obligations; of capacity building/technical assistance needs and performance Progress in these areas will be linked to the political process and organisation of IP decision-making at the national and regional level

5. Process and Organisation (i) • There is considerable variation in national approaches to process and organisation of IP policymaking, lawmaking and decision-making • These variations have implications for development-orientation of IP laws and policies, and for development outcomes

6. Process & Organisation (ii) Recent scholarly and policy studies highlight a range of challenges at the national level, including: • Capacity constraints • Limited coordination and consultation • Dominance of IP offices • Regulatory capture of IP offices • Pressures for compliance-oriented approach to IP laws and policy • Power and influence of donors • Difficulties maintaining oversight of regional IP organisations

8. Summary and Next Steps • Process and organisation make a difference to prospects for development-oriented IP laws and policies • Need for greater research and dialogue on: • The politics of IP reforms in developing countries • Country and regional experiences, considering distinctive political structures • The politics of the process and organisation of IP policymaking, decision-making and law-making – e.g., Who gains? Who loses? Which public priority interests take priority? Which are left behind? Why? What are the implications for the range of development goals? • Process and organisational options for IP policymaking and lawmaking that responds to and advances the range of relevant public policy objectives Thank you