1. Implementing the WIPO Development Agenda: Comparing National Approaches to Promoting Coherence Between Public Policy Objectives and IP Laws ICTSD Roundtable Thursday June 14 th, 2007 Overview 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 1.Scope of IP issues for national attention 2.The WIPO Development Agenda: implications at the national level 3.Recent scholarly and policy literature on challenges 4.Review of diversity of national approaches to the process and organisation of IP policy-making, law- making and decision-making 5.Summary and next steps

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

4. The WIPO Development Agenda: Implications at the National Level Develop and improve national IP institutional capacity and efficiency Develop and improve national IP institutional capacity and efficiency Ensure national IP institutions promote fair balance between IP protection and the public interest 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 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 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 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 The realisation of the WIPO Development Agenda will rely on a range of actions at the national & regional level, including efforts to:

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

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

7. Areas of Variation Examples of Variation in Process and Organisation Public policy framework Variation in existence or absence of a public policy framework and process to IP lawmaking and decision-making Accountability, transparency and stakeholder participation Variation in provisions for accountability, transparency and public participation, including requirements to report to legislatures on activity, procedures for review of proposed laws, processes for stakeholder consultation and input, range of stakeholders consulted in process of IP decision-making Dispute settlement Variation in opportunities for pre-grant opposition of patents and post- grant reviews, choice of specialised IP courts in some countries Relationship between laws Variation in relationship between IP laws and other domestic laws, such as those regulating public health, medicines, agriculture, culture, education, competition Administration of the IP system Variation in range of functions of IP offices, degree of financial autonomy of IP offices, staff numbers, range of staff expertise, choice of combined or separate offices for industry property and copyright, coordination through regional agreements, scope of national patent examination Enforcement of the IP system Variation in degree of inter-agency coordination among agencies, designation of lead agencies, commitment of resources, use of public- private partnerships Implementation of international obligations Variation in the degree of inter-agency coordination and process for stakeholder consultation and expert input International negotiations Variation in composition of delegations, range of ministries that participate and use of advisory committees and experts

8. Summary and Next Steps Process and organisation make a difference to prospects for development-oriented IP laws and policies Process and organisation make a difference to prospects for development-oriented IP laws and policies Need for greater research and dialogue on: Need for greater research and dialogue on: The politics of IP reforms in developing countriesThe politics of IP reforms in developing countries Country and regional experiences, considering distinctive political structuresCountry 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?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 objectivesProcess and organisational options for IP policymaking and lawmaking that responds to and advances the range of relevant public policy objectives Thank you