Report of a workshop held at Burnham Beeches

Report of a workshop held at Burnham Beeches, 

15 September – 17 September 2004, and sponsored by 

the Department for International Development 

Workshop report produced by Saana Consulting 

Helsinki, Finland 

31 October 2004

Table of Contents 

1. Workshop report ............................................................................................. 1 

2. Strategic issues for IPR technical assistance to 

developing countries and transition economies ................................... 5 

3. Supporting policymaking, legal reform and 

participation in international standard setting .................................. 11 

4. Modernisation of IPR administration and 

organisational reform in developing countries: 

progress and pitfalls ................................................................................... 26 

5. Promoting innovation and creativity in developing 

countries: an emerging challenge for IPR technical 

assistance ........................................................................................................ 40 

6. The role and perspectives of “non-traditional” 

providers of IPR technical assistance ...................................................... 54 

Annex 1 Workshop agenda .......................................................................................... 74 

Annex 2 Workshop participants ................................................................................. 76 

Annex 3 Further reading & resources ...................................................................... 79

Reflecting on IPR Technical Assistance 

Burnham Beeches Workshop 

1 Workshop report 

Introduction 

Ensuring adequate capacity within a range of 

institutions in developing countries and transition 

economies for handling Intellectual Property Rights 

(IPR) has become increasingly important in recent 

years. The process of reform begun in many 

countries has highlighted the challenges they face in 

designing, implementing, enforcing and regulating 

pro-competitive IPR regimes, tailored to their 

development needs. 

Many developing countries also face serious 

constraints in participating effectively in 

international IPR standard setting at regional and 

multilateral levels. And a further central challenge – 

in the era of globalisation – lies in stimulating local 

innovation, creativity and technology transfer, as well 

as protection of traditional knowledge, using the IPR 

system to contribute to cultural, social and economic 

development. 

These issues underline the importance – perhaps 

more than ever before – of high quality technical 

assistance and capacity building, tailored to meeting 

the varied needs of developing countries and 

transition economies. They also have significant 

implications for the ways in which IPR technical 

assistance and capacity building is planned, coordinated, 

designed, delivered, managed and 

evaluated by the range of international institutions, 

bilateral donors, Non-Governmental Organisations 

(NGOs) and other non-core providers of IPR 

technical assistance who are active in this sector. 

As a contribution to responding to these issues, the 

UK Department for International Development 

(DFID), decided to sponsor a workshop entitled 

“Reflecting on IPR Technical Assistance to 

Developing Countries & Transition Economies”. The 

event was held from the 15 th to 17 th September 2004 

at Burnham Beeches in the United Kingdom. The 

overall goal of the workshop was to promote debate 

amongst a cross-section of donors, providers and 

developing country partners that could form the 

basis for a substantive, purposeful dialogue amongst 

all of the concerned stakeholders. 

Objectives of the workshop 

The specific objectives of the workshop were as 

follows: 

• To share information and knowledge on key 

challenges and strategic issues related to IPR 

technical assistance and capacity building to 

developing countries and transition economies 

within a constructive, informal atmosphere. 

• To initiate discussions on improving the 

effectiveness of IPR technical assistance and 

capacity building delivered by major donors and 

providers from a shared commitment to 

achieving excellence, best value and progress 

with economic and human development goals. 

• To consider a menu of follow-on activities and a 

continuing process of dialogue and knowledgesharing 

between stakeholders actively involved 

in the provision of IPR technical assistance and 

capacity building, with the aim of producing 

tangible deliverables to improve the coordination, 

effectiveness and relevance to 

partner country needs in the future. 

The workshop agenda 

The workshop began with a brief overview by Tom 

Pengelly of the current status of IPR technical 

assistance and capacity building, covering the 

common needs of developing countries; the main 

types of assistance provided; the key donors; and 

their programming and financing modalities. The 

presentation concluded with the identification of 

some strategic issues for the future of IPR technical 

assistance and capacity building. 

The subsequent sessions of the workshop focused 

on the following specific topics related to IPR 

technical assistance and capacity building in 

developing countries and transition economies: 

• Supporting policymaking, legal reform and 

participation in international standard setting. 

• Automation of IPR administration & 

organisational reform in developing countries: 

progress & pitfalls. 

• Promoting innovation & creativity in developing 

countries: an emerging challenge. 

• Role & perspectives of “non-traditional” donors 

and providers. 

1



Specially commissioned Issues Papers were 

presented by the respective authors (David Vivas, 

Mart Leesti, Denis Croze and Geoff Tansey) in each 

of the sessions. Participants then discussed the 

topics, sharing information about the work of their 

own organisations, as well as insights from their 

own experiences and diverse vantage points. Each 

session’s debate was initiated by two discussants 

and facilitated by a guest chairperson, so as to 

enable all of the participants to contribute within the 

time available in each session. All of the workshop 

discussions were conducted under “Chatham 

House” rules. 

At the midway point of the workshop, Bernard 

Wood, the former Director of the OECD-DAC 

Development Directorate, gave the keynote address 

on the topic “Co-ordinating Efforts, Learning 

Lessons – Experiences from Development Cooperation” 

and invited participants from donor 

organisations to measure themselves against a 

simple self-assessment checklist based on the new 

international development paradigm. On the final 

day of the workshop, participants divided into 

smaller working groups to focus on considering a 

positive agenda or menu of possible follow-on 

actions which could be taken forward by IPR 

technical assistance donors together with partners, 

from government and outside, in developing 

countries and transition economies. Each group 

reported back in a plenary session, chaired by 

Bernard Wood. As the plenary session progressed, a 

written distillation of the suggestions and related 

issues raised was transcribed in real-time by the 

Workshop Director. 

Key points from the workshop 

discussions 

The workshop’s discussions were conducted in a 

constructive and informal atmosphere, and 

participants took the opportunity to share 

information and reflect on the IPR technical 

assistance and capacity building work of donor 

organisations, as well as to offer insights from the 

experiences of recipient developing country partners, 

including India, Jamaica, Ghana, Vietnam, Zambia, 

the Philippines and the Andean Community 

countries. A number of key points and cross-cutting 

themes arose during the discussions amongst the 

participants during the workshop and are 

summarised in the remainder of this section. 

Tailoring IPR strategies to development 

needs 

Participants acknowledged that the question of the 

link between economic development and the IPR 

regime is a crucial one. Donors and providers of 

technical assistance explained and described how 

they are working on integrating these concerns in 

their technical assistance policies. The views of IPR 

as a tool of development policy differed, with more 

consensus around the notion that IPRs are not an 

end in themselves. 

Many participants stressed the need to ensure that 

IPR technical assistance and capacity building is 

always fully tailored to the diverse needs and levels 

of development of recipient countries, as well as 

being focused on solving local problems rather than 

simply transferring models from developed 

countries. In answer to this it was mentioned several 

times that IPR technical assistance is mostly 

demand driven already. It was, however, underlined 

by several of the participants that there remains a 

gap between the need as expressed by some 

developing countries and solutions offered to them. 

For instance, it was noted that the main users of 

exceptions to the TRIPS agreements were developed 

countries, despite developing countries expressing 

their desire to be able to use such tools too. 

Broadening the range of stakeholders who 

participate in IPR technical assistance and capacity 

building programmes was also emphasised. 

A number of participants from developing countries 

also highlighted the limitations and practical 

challenges for timely, effective delivery of IPR 

technical assistance (e.g. high staff turnover and 

cumbersome procurement procedures in donor 

organisations). This has meant that some 

developing countries themselves have had to drive 

the modernisation of their own IPR regimes and put 

in place many of the pre-conditions for sustainability. 

Integrating IPRs into a wider process 

A second key theme arising from the discussions 

was the need for IPR technical assistance donors 

and providers to ensure balanced advice for policy, 

legal reform and training in developing countries, 

fully reflecting the likely impacts of different IPRs as 

an economic policy instrument. At the same time, it 

was stressed that developing countries themselves 

need to be pro-active in strengthening and widening 

domestic IPR policymaking processes and coordination 

mechanisms – as opposed to focusing 

simply on compliance with international obligations 

– involving a wider group of stakeholders from 

within national legislatures, government agencies, 

the judiciary, the private sector and civil society. 

2



National universities and regional organisations, in 

particular, were identified by a number of 

participants as having a key role to play in increasing 

awareness, undertaking research and delivering 

training on IPR issues. 

A second dimension to enlarging the policy process 

of IPR capacity building widely acknowledged by 

participants was the need to adopt a holistic 

approach more focused on the need to integrate 

social and economic development objectives, as well 

as competition and access safeguards, into 

international IPR standard setting and national IPR 

regimes in developing countries as these evolved 

post-TRIPS. It was observed that the important 

interfaces between IPR and other areas of domestic 

economic development policy (such as investment, 

science & technology, competition policy) were 

complex, sometimes contested, and not always well 

understood by all development co-operation 

partners. 

Better effectiveness 

A third theme was the increasing importance 

attached by many donors to promoting better 

enforcement of IPRs in developing countries, as well 

as to continued support for modernisation of 

institutions and development of legal frameworks. 

Developing country participants noted that progress 

had been made in these areas but in many IPR 

institutions, modernisation remained at early stage 

and further assistance was essential to sustain the 

process of building an effective IPR regime. 

Examples of past experience of developed and 

developing countries to build up a working IPR 

regime demonstrated clearly that this is a long term 

process that requires sustained investment. 

The challenges to improving effectiveness and 

impact of IPR technical assistance and capacity 

building were a recurring theme during the 

workshop, sharpened by the acknowledgement that 

resource availability was limited and there had been 

an unhelpful perception in the past that ’WIPO 

should do everything’ in the sector. 

There was general support from participants for 

more resources to support greater knowledge 

sharing and dialogue, especially between developing 

countries and providers of technical assistance; 

better impact evaluation; and new ways of working 

amongst donors and providers of all types. In 

particular, participants focused on the value of better 

utilising information technology (to share 

information on programmes and deliver training 

through distance learning packages for example); 

developing common, participatory needs 

assessment tools; and the application of existing 

techniques (such as the Logical Framework) from 

other areas of development co-operation for 

improving planning, monitoring and evaluation of 

IPR technical assistance and capacity building. 

Institutional issues 

Finally, how to better organise the provision of 

technical assistance was discussed. On the theme of 

achieving greater collaboration between IPR 

technical assistance donors and providers the level 

of agreement amongst participants varied. Some 

participants saw great value in, for example, closer 

co-operation between non-governmental 

organisations and the international institutions in 

programming IPR technical assistance and capacity 

building, citing the important lessons which could be 

learnt from existing joint-ventures. At the same time, 

others cautioned against losing the diversity and 

independence of IPR technical assistance providers, 

programmes and approaches currently offered to 

developing countries at this time and argued that 

more examination of the benefits of greater 

collaboration was called for. 

Better information about existing technical 

assistance programmes was recognised as 

important, as it would contribute to increasing 

transparency about providers and donors’ activities 

and would help bridge the gap between the existing 

needs and the demand received by providers. 

Another suggestion was to share countries individual 

experiences in receiving technical assistance (or 

failing to receive it). Policy coherence was also 

recognised as not being well implemented yet, and 

the involvement and experience of non-core donors 

and governments might be needed there. 

Summary of suggested menu of possible 

follow-on actions 

As a result of the discussions by participants in the 

break-out group sessions towards the end of the 

workshop, the following tentative menu of possible 

follow-on actions by donors, providers, developing 

country partners and other interested organisations 

was developed around four major headings. 

• Improving information resources and 

sharing. Using existing resources and 

databases better; making these more usable 

through new applications (e.g. on-line 

handbooks, on-line library); institutionalising or 

regularising dialogue about IPR technical 

assistance and capacity building among 

donors, providers and developing country 

3



partners, initially around sharing of information 

and knowledge, rather than just data exchange. 

• Coming to terms with challenges of 

intellectual property and development. Better 

defining the development and intellectual 

property interface; exploring the extent to which 

existing provision of technical assistance and 

capacity building fulfills needs and addresses 

asymmetry of resources; exploring the potential 

value of greater co-operation and collaboration, 

while ensuring independence and diversity; 

continuing support for research programmes to 

examine the impacts of stronger IPR protection 

for sustainable development; re-orienting 

training on IPR to capture better the 

development dimensions (e.g. legal options for 

different policy goals) and the roles and likely 

impacts of IPR as an economic policy 

instrument. 

• Promoting good practices. Continuing 

informal meetings on specific topics and issues 

(e.g. health sector related IPR technical 

assistance and capacity building); undertaking 

cross country case studies (forms could vary 

and still need to be defined, but could be 

written and/or oral); developing common tools 

for participatory assessment of needs at the 

country level among all interested agencies and 

stakeholders; continuing and broadening 

dialogue, with a view to bring in donor groups, 

recipient groups, other stakeholders, including 

the desirability of a focused conference 

amongst developing country stakeholders to 

discuss needs and assess existing IPR technical 

assistance and capacity building. 

• Strengthen existing systems for impact 

monitoring and evaluation of IPR technical 

assistance and capacity building. There is a 

good base of relevant experience in this type of 

work which can quite readily be shared and 

adapted as required. 

4



2 Strategic issues for IPR technical assistance to developing countries 

and transition economies 

Speaker: Tom Pengelly, 

Saana Consulting 

Slides: 16 

Strategic issues for IPR technical 

assistance to developing countries 

and transition economies 

Tom Pengelly, Saana Consulting 

Strategic issues for IPR 

technical assistance 

Presentation to the Reflecting on IPR Technical Assistance 

to Developing Countries & Transition Economies Workshop 

Tom Pengelly, Burnham Beeches, 16.09.2004 

Slide 2 

Overview 

• Common needs of developing countries for IPR 


• Main types of IPR technical assistance 

• Donors & providers 

• Programming & financing of IPR technical 

assistance 

• Some stragetic issues for the future 

Slide 3 

5



Needs for IPR techincal assistance in 

developing countries 

• Policymaking, legislation development & 

associated dialogue with national stakeholders 

• Participation in international standard setting 

• IPR administration (including automation), 

enforcement & regulation 

• Promoting national innovation & creativity 

Slide 4 

Main types of IPR techincal assistance 

activities and services 

• Training & human resource development 

• Advice on legal & policy reform 

• Institutional development and automation 

• Patent information systems 

• International patent & trademark co-operation 

Slide 5 

Donors and providers of IPR technical 

assistance – who are they? 

International 

institutions 

Bilateral donor 

agencies 

Non-traditional 

donors & providers 

• WIPO/UPOV 

• UNCTAD 

• UNDP/UNIDO 

• World Bank 

• FAO 

• Commonwealth Secretariat 

• Asian Development Bank 

• European Patent Office 

• United States 

• Japan 

• Australia 

• Canada 

• EU member states 

• Switzerland 

• Norway 

• New Zealand 

• European Commission 

• ICTSD 

• South Centre 

• QUNO 

• IDRC 

• OXFAM 

• MSF 

Slide 6 

6



Slide 7 

Programming & financing of IPR techincal 

assistance 

• WTO/OECD database suggests bilateral donors committed 

US $9.3m in 2002, largest being USAID and the EC 

• Certainly an undersestimate as the database doesn’t include 

WIPO, EPO, UNCTAD, World Bank etc 

• Programming varies by scale and scope of assistance 

provided; some donors concentrate on specific regions 

• A key objective has been to support greater compliance with 

international IPR agreements & treaties 

• Non-traditional donors now playing a significant role in niche 

areas of IP technical assistance (eg policy dialogue) 

Slide 8 

Some strategic issues for the future 

• Tailoring IPR technical assistance to development needs 

• Scaling up IPR technical assistance to low income 

countries and LDCs 

• Promoting pro-competitive enforcement & regulation of 

IPRs in developing countries 

• Ensuring balanced advice for policy & legal reform 

• Improving co-ordination of IPR technical assistance 

• Supporting knowledge sharing & better ways of working 

• Improving impact monitoring & evaluation 

Slide 9 

7



Tailoring IPR technical assistance to 

development needs 

• Development of IP systems in developing countries must be 

considered in the development context and needs 

• Developing countries should lead in preparing needs 

assessments and a wide range of stakeholders should be 

involved 

• Donors can assist countries to understand the international 

IPR systems and share their own experiences 

• Delivery of assistance should be tailored around multi-year, 

broad-based strategic plans, not just one-off events 

• Financial sustainability should be a key objective from day one 

Slide 10 

Scaling up IPR technical assistance to low 

income countries & LDCs 

• LDCs have special needs in developing the IP regime and wider 

innovation/technology infrastructure 

• But bulk of donor resources often go to middle income 

developing countries (eg China, Egypt, South Africa) 

• Donors could examine the case for a significant expansion in 

IPR technical assistance and capacity building to LDCs 

• Donors could provide more transparent financial information 

on their commitments to LDCs 

• LDCs could give these issues higher profile within the 

Integrated Framework and international trade/IPR negotiations 

Slide 11 

Promoting pro-competitive enforcement & 

regulation of IPRs 

• A key objective for many donors is improving enforcement 

systems in developing countries to counter commerical piracy 

• Developed countries have introduced stronger IPR protection 

in the context of strong regulation and competition regimes 

• Developing countries need institutions capable of improving 

enforcement in a pro-competitive way ... 

• … particularly in relation to special public interests or to control 

anti-competitive practices 

• These areas could be given higher priority in IPR technical 

assistance programmes in the future 

Slide 12 

8



Ensuring balanced advice for policy & legal 

reform 

• Concerns that donors’ objectives may not be fully consistent 

with need for flexible IPR systems in developing countries 

• For example; some argue that IPR technical assistance donors 

don’t always take into account the flexibilities in TRIPS 

• Difficult to substantiate these claims – many factors and 

circumstances affect any piece of legislation in any country 

• But even if concerns are not as justified as some fear, they 

demonstrate the sensitivity of this area of public policy 

• IPR technical assistance donors should be mindful of the need 

to respond positively to such concerns 

Slide 13 

Improving co-ordination of IPR technical 

assistance 

• Much ad hoc co-operation between donors and some good 

instances of more formalised collaboration 

• But at times, activities have not been well co-ordinated by the 

multiple donors involved or by the national authorities in the 

countries concerned 

• Poor co-ordination of IPR technical assistance is duplication of 

efforts, waste of resources and conflicting advice on important 

policy and investment decisions 

• Donors and developing countries need to find better ways of 

improving co-ordination (using existing mechanisms for 

example) 

Slide 14 

Supporting knowledge sharing & better ways 

of working 

• Problems in obtaining good data about IPR technical 

assistance programmes and lack of evaluation literature 

• Currently little use of mechanisms, at the national/international 

level for sharing information and improving delivery of 

assistance 

• More use could be made of UN Development Assistance 

Frameworks, World Bank Consultative Group meetings and 

project or programme specific websites, for example 

• A work programme on co-ordination and best practices could 

perhaps also be established, based on a series of country and 

regional case studies 

Slide 15 

9



Improving impact monitoring & evaluation 

• Lack of evaluation literature makes it difficult to assess impact 

and effectiveness in specific countries or regions 

• In other sectors of development co-operation, donors and 

countries routinely undertake evaluation exercises – 

individually and collectively 

• Systems for evaluation of IPR technical assistance could be 

strengthend by a series of external impact evaluations 

undertaken and published over the next 2-3 years 

• Experience from other sectors suggests this exercise could pay 

real dividends for countries and donors alike ... 

• ... and help shape a very positive future for IPR technical 

assistance in an increasingly demanding world 

Slide 16 

10



3 Supporting policymaking, legal reform and participation in 

international standard setting 

Issues Paper written by David Vivas and Christophe Bellmann 

Introduction 

Technical assistance for intellectual property (IP) 

gained relevance during the mid-1970s when a 

growing number of developing countries started to 

join treaties administered by the World Intellectual 

Property Organisation (WIPO). After the adoption of 

the Uruguay Round package of agreements and 

more specifically the TRIPS Agreement, developing 

countries’ need for IP-related technical assistance 

increased sharply. The fact that the Agreement 

contained relatively high new minimum standards of 

protection and enforcement – and was subject to the 

Dispute Settlement Understanding of the WTO – 

made policy-makers in the developing world 

understandably concerned about their capacity to 

fulfil obligations once their countries’ transitional 

period for fully implementing TRIPS started to lapse 

in 2000. 

Following the adoption of the TRIPS Agreement, new 

and important resources have been channelled to 

assist developing countries in its implementation. 

These have included assistance from multilateral 

institutions (WTO, WIPO, UNCTAD and UNDP, 

among others), bilateral donors (development cooperation 

agencies and national IP offices), 

philanthropic donors (foundations), as well as nontraditional 

providers, such as think tanks, research 

centres, academia and civil society organisations. 

These actors have delivered technical assistance on 

policy-making, legal reform, intellectual property 

rights (IPRs) administration, regulation and 

enforcement (Leesti & Pengelly, 2002). 

The need for technical assistance has greatly 

expanded in recent years due to the very detailed IP 

chapters included in an ever increasing number of 

regional and bilateral trade agreements involving 

developed and developing countries. These new 

generation agreements contain IP protection 

standards close to – and sometimes higher than – 

those currently applied in some developed countries 

and will bring many implementation challenges for 

the developing countries that decide to follow this 

avenue. 

Various authors (Kostecki and Solignac Lecomte 

2001) have argued that technical assistance provided 

by the main donors so far has only partially helped 

create sustained capacities in developing countries 

to fully assess the technical and political implications 

of complex trade agreements and participate actively 

in international negotiations. Similarly, the UK 

Commission on Intellectual Property Rights (CIPR) 

Report concluded, after analysing the main current 

IPR technical assistance programmes and assessing 

their impact, that the results of those activities were 

neither commensurate with the efforts and resources 

spent so far nor always responsive to actual 

developing country needs (CIPR, 2002). 

This study identifies the main concerns expressed 

over the provision of IPR technical assistance and 

suggests possible ways and means to address them. 

It does not pretend to be exhaustive but rather to 

explore some options to integrate sustainable 

development concerns in the design, delivery and 

assessment of IPR related technical assistance. 

Defining and advancing national 

interests in the field of IPRs: the policymaking 

process 

In order to design IP legislation and regulations that 

adequately reflect their specific development 

objectives and respond to developments at WTO 

and/or WIPO, developing countries must first clearly 

identify their national interests and needs. This will 

be critical in ensuring that economically 

disadvantaged societies make effective use of IP 

policy and participate effectively in international 

policy-making and standard-setting. 

In defining those needs, countries have to bear in 

mind that IP protection is not an end in itself but an 

instrument for achieving specific objectives, which 

can vary and evolve in time according to the 

particular interest of a country and its level of 

development. There is a generally shared 

understanding that IP policies exist to contribute to 

the enrichment of society by promoting the widest 

possible availability of new and useful goods, 

services and technical information that derive from 

11



inventive activity. More specifically IP policy in 

developing countries may aim, inter alia, at: 

• Promoting the disclosure and exploitation of 

innovations. 

• Fostering research and development (R&D) 

activities. 

• Promoting foreign direct investment and the 

importation of foreign technology. 

• Encouraging local manufacturing (e.g. through 

compulsory licensing). 

• Providing incentives for the transfer and 

commercial exploitation of knowledge (such as 

university R&D results and traditional 

knowledge). 

• Protecting investments made (e.g. original 

databases and protection of undisclosed data 

submitted for approval of agrochemical and 

pharmaceutical products). 

Different industrial structures, production models, 

development strategies, and the availability of 

natural and human resources will call for different 

1 

types and extent of IP protection (Correa 2002). 

interests might conflict with developing country 

priorities. However, donors may want to enable, 

facilitate and support effective IP policy-making in 

developing countries. At the end of the day, it is also 

in their interest to negotiate with informed trade 

partners and ultimately to strengthen innovation in 

developing countries. 

Using IP tools to support a country’s sustainable 

development strategy requires not only analytical 

capacity, appropriate legal instruments, efficient 

enforcement and administration mechanisms, but 

also effective innovation systems, learning processes 

and commercialisation of R&D. Coherent and 

effective IP policy-making processes at the national 

level will facilitate the definition of national interests 

in the framework of the country's overall sustainable 

development strategy; the translation of those 

interests into policies and negotiating objectives; 

and the allocation of roles and resources to advance 

those objectives at the national and international 

levels. 

Following Solignac Lecomte’s methodology and 

ICTSD’s mapping of stakeholders, 2 Figure I (next 

page) provides a simplified illustration of the various 

stages of this process. Technical assistance 

providers should not intervene in the definition of 

national interests and the establishment of an IP 

strategy as donor countries’ trade-related IP policy 

1 According to Linsu Kim, it is only after countries have 

accumulated sufficient local capabilities with extensive 

science and technology infrastructure to undertake creative 

imitation that IPR protection becomes an important 

element in technology transfer and industrial activities 

(Kim, 2003). 

2 

See Table 2 on page 17. 

12



Figure 1: Toward an effective IP policy-making process 

Technical assistance providers may intervene at six 

different but closely inter-related levels: 

1. Analysis. Policy-makers and influencers 

need to fully understand the concepts, 

issues and different options at stake, as well 

as the benefits and costs associated with 

IPR protection in order to make informed 

decisions. 

2. Policy formulation . This refers to the need 

to establish efficient formal and informal 

processes for the identification of national 

interest and the definition of an IP strategy 

to advance them at the national, regional 

and multilateral levels. 

3. Negotiation. This includes the need to 

ensure active participation of developing 

countries in international rule-making and 

standard-setting bodies at the bilateral, 

regional and multilateral levels. 

4. Legal and regulatory reform. This refers to 

assistance needs in the field of 

implementation of binding commitments 

and legal reforms. 

13



5. IPR admini stration , enforcement. This 

refers to staffing and human resource 

issues, registrar services, operating 

procedures and automation models. 

6. Strengthening national innovation 

systems. This refers to technical assistance 

needs in creating and promoting national 

innovation systems, learning processes, 

improvement of technological absorptive 

capacities and the commercialisation of the 

results of research and development. 

The following section reviews very briefly the type of 

assistance provided by the major providers at the six 

levels identified above. It also highlights some of the 

concerns that have been raised in the design, 

implementation and assessment of technical 

assistance programmes. 

Main concerns related to IPR technical 

assistance programmes 

In practice, most of the technical assistance 

provided by major donors addresses capacitybuilding 

needs that fall under the fourth and fifth 

category identified above, namely: legal advice in the 

preparation of draft laws; support for modernising 

IPR administration offices; access to registrar 

services; or exchange of information among 

lawmakers, judges and enforcement. In contrast, as 

illustrated in Table 1 below, very little attention has 

been paid to addressing the needs under levels: 2, 3 

and 6. This is largely due to the fact that most of the 

main donors and providers of technical assistance 

such as WIPO and the WTO tend to have a fairly 

narrow mandate. From a sustainable development 

perspective it would, however, be desirable to 

redirect some of the assistance provided for 

implementation and IP administration to the 

facilitation of policy formulation processes and the 

creation of strong local analytical capacities. With 

respect to the orientation, content and process 

under which technical assistance programmes are 

designed, implemented and assessed, a number of 

experts and stakeholders have raised, among others, 

the following concerns: 

• There is an excessive focus on IP as the 

solution to innovation concerns. Broad issues 

such as development, trade and industrial 

policy, science and technology, access to 

technological goods and enhanced competition 

have been addressed in a very limited manner 

and, in some cases, not addressed at all. 

• IPR technical assistance appears too often to be 

planned and delivered in isolation from 

development goals (CIPR, 2002). It is often 

considered as an end in itself and not as an 

instrument for achieving innovation or 

technological and developmental goals. Little 

attention has been given to different levels of 

development or cultural differences (one-sizefits-all 

solutions). 

• There has been a tendency to over-emphasise 

the benefits of IP while giving very little 

attention to costs. 

• Assistance has mostly focused on the 

implementation of obligations and not on the 

use of rights and flexibilities (Musungu, 2003). 

• Technical assistance is essentially provided to a 

limited group of beneficiaries (mostly IP offices 

and certain business groups). Researchers, 

consumers, and civil society actors are rarely 

involved in policy-making and legal reform. 

• Solutions are sometimes identified and 

designed by the providers and not by the 

beneficiaries of the assistance. Local capacities 

to find solutions are not being created. In some 

cases, this has resulted in biased technical 

assistance. 3 

• Emphasis has been put on ad hoc events 

instead of building durable relationships and 

capacities. Evaluation of the assistance 

delivered and of the results achieved by 

providers and beneficiaries remains 

insufficient. 

• Most of the financial resources are 

concentrated on a limited number of providers. 

There might be a case for a more diverse supply 

of technical assistance to allow beneficiaries to 

choose among different providers. 4 Such 

‘competition’ might help improve the quality of 

technical assistance and ensure that the 

services provided effectively respond to the 

beneficiaries’ specific needs (Kostecki, 2001). 

3 

Solignac Lecomte identifies two main types of bias, namely 

negative and positive discrimination. Negative discrimination 

implies a reluctance to give technical assistance in areas 

perceived as detrimental to the donor’s or provider’s interests, 

such as the use of compulsory licensing. Positive discrimination 

refers to providing assistance to areas, which generate benefits for 

the donor’s or provider’s own economy/constituency. An example 

would be providing assistance to UPOV-like plant variety 

protection and not for sui generis systems. 

4 This presupposes the beneficiaries' ability to make actual 

choices and highlights the importance of effective policy 

formulation in developing countries. 

14



Table 1 

Type of technical assistance 

Main providers 

provided 

Level 1 Analysis • Intergovernmental Organisations: UNCTAD, UNDP, WHO, OECD, 

World Bank, UNESCO, WIPO, CBD, South Centre. 

• NGOs: ICTSD, Quakers, CPTech, MSF, Oxfam, CIEL, Third World 

Network. 

Level 2 Policy 

formulation 

• NGOs: ICTSD, CPTech, MSF, Third World Network, SEATINI. 

• Intergovernmental Organisations: UNCTAD. 

Level 3 Negotiation • Intergovernmental Organisations: South Centre, ACWL, AITIC 

• NGOs: ICTSD, Quakers, CPTech, MSF, Oxfam, CIEL, Third World 

Network, SEATINI. 

Level 4 Legal reform and 

regulation 

• Intergovernmental Organisations: WIPO, WTO, UPOV, UNCTAD, 

WHO, EPO, South Centre, the World Bank (Global HIV-AIDS 

Program, providing concrete recommendations and model laws for 

the implementation of the Doha Decision on Para.6). 

• Bilateral Donors, e.g. USPTO, USAID, DFID, SIDA, CIDA. 

• NGOs: ICTSD, MSF, CIEL, CPTech. 

Level 5 Implementation 

and IP 

administration 

• Intergovernmental Organisations: WTO, WIPO, UPOV, EPO, OAPI, 

ARIPO, World Bank. 

• Bilateral Donors, e.g. USPTO, USAID, DFID, SIDA, CIDA. 

• Business and Lawyer Associations: American Bar Association 

(ABA), the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA), 

the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers 

Associations (IFPMA) and the International Association for the 

Protection of Industrial Property (AIPPI). 

Level 6 

Strengthening 

national 

innovation 

systems 

• Intergovernmental Organisations: UNCTAD, UNESCO, UNDP, 

WIPO, ITC. 

• Philanthropic organisations: Rockefeller Foundation, Ford 

Foundation, etc. 

• Academia: national academies of science and technology. 

• NGOs: ICTSD, IP light years, etc. 

Towards development-oriented technical 

assistance in intellectual property policy 

Ensuring that the limited resources allocated to IPrelated 

capacity-building effectively respond to the 

expectations of society will require a constructive 

multi-stakeholder debate highlighting the strengths 

and weaknesses of current programmes and 

exploring ways to improve them from a sustainable 

development perspective. This is beyond the scope 

of the present paper. Instead, this section suggests 

some elements for a development-oriented approach 

to IPR technical assistance at the six levels identified 

above and in light of Millennium Development Goals 

(MDGs). It does not pretend to be exhaustive or to 

cover all technical assistance needs in developing 

countries. Taking into account the criticism 

highlighted above, it rather tries to identify specific 

gaps or needs, which are not properly addressed by 

the main providers of IPR technical assistance and 

where current assistance might be redirected. 

Strengthening analytical capacities 

Enhancing understanding of concepts, issues 

and implications 

One of the main gaps in technical assistance 

identified by various authors (Musungu, Dutfield, 

Leesti & Pengelly, 2002 and 2003) is the 

understanding of the concepts, issues and 

implications surrounding the IP system and scientific 

and innovation policies. Most of the experience in IP 

and other policy instruments comes from developed 

countries and, in many cases, the solution is simply 

transferred while the discussion and experience in 

interpreting or applying those standards are not. 

Understanding the concepts and issues, as well as 

their implications, may also vary according to the 

legal system (i.e. common law vs. continental law) or 

15



in light of national/regional laws and jurisprudence. 

Full understanding is necessary before engaging in 

negotiations or before implementing international 

standards. 

The need for systematic cost/benefit analysis 

A solid understanding of the costs and benefits of 

strengthened IP protection together with the possible 

options to advance MDGs and public policy 

objectives, such as health, food security, education, 

the environment and innovation policies, is a sine 

qua non condition for informed decision-making. 

Empirical evidence on the role of IP protection in 

promoting innovation and sustainable development 

in developing countries remains limited and 

inconclusive. 5 In practice, however, there is a 

tendency to overstate the benefits and avoid 

discussion on costs. In this respect, there is a need 

for IPR technical assistance to more explicitly 

recognise that there are both benefits and costs from 

IP protection (CIPR, 2002). Assessment of costs 

should not only include administrative reform and 

implementation; it should also address the effects on 

the national economy and other social and 

environmental costs when relevant (i.e. impact of 

monopoly rights on prices and access). While certain 

economic indicators of the relative importance of 

IPRs in developing countries have been identified 

(Lall, 2003), no effort has been made to design 

methodologies for assessing the impacts of 

introducing new IP standards in developing 

countries. UNCTAD and the World Bank could be the 

most suitable organisations for undertaking the 

design of such a methodology. 

Strengthening national and regional centres of 

excellence 

Most of the analysis produced in the field of IPRs is 

generated in developed countries, while only limited 

capacities exist in developing countries to monitor 

ongoing developments at the international level and 

undertake applied research at home. Most existing 

technical assistance programmes are still conceived 

as a transfer of knowledge and solutions from the 

North to the South: IP experts come to lecture 

developing country officials or train IP offices staff. 

This is not sufficient. Effective policy-making can only 

happen in the long run where there is a critical mass 

5 

What evidence exists suggests that appropriate levels of 

protection will vary widely. For example; developing countries that 

are relatively advanced in economic and technological terms have 

greater opportunities to benefit from IPRs than Least Developed 

Countries, for which the implementation of international IP rules 

represents a net short-term financial loss that is unlikely to be 

offset by economic and social gains for a long time. 

of actors able to understand the different options, 

define their interests and pursue them at the national 

and international levels. Building sustainable 

backstopping analytical capacity in developing 

countries is therefore a priority. Such an endeavour 

requires strengthening centres of excellence 

(universities, think tanks) that look at IPRs in the 

broader context of sustainable development at the 

national or regional levels, and which can provide 

informed inputs into the policy-making process. 

These capacities need to be built in institutions, 

which work closely with governments but remain 

independent. Experience has shown that such 

institutions tend to be more durable and less 

sensitive to changes in government, while at the 

same time maintaining close contacts with policymakers. 

Donors also need to be aware of the risks 

associated with favouring individual capacity-building 

over institutional development. Technical assistance 

programmes targeted at individuals all too often 

result in those people leaving the civil service for 

more lucrative positions in the private sector once 

they have accumulated some expertise. The creation 

of specific academic curricula addressing the issue of 

IPRs in the broader context of development in 

developing countries’ universities might contribute 

to filling this important gap. 

Enhancing the IP policy formulation process 

Promoting participation 

IPR regulations affect a broad scope of stakeholders 

concerned with multiple agendas, such as the 

protection of traditional knowledge, the right of 

farmers to save and exchange seeds, patentability 

criteria for living organisms, access to medicines and 

technology transfer. This cross-cutting nature of IPRs 

makes it difficult for governments to understand the 

complex web of interests and concerns surrounding 

IP policy, which are only partially – and sometimes 

inconsistently – addressed by a variety of 

international instruments such as TRIPS, the CBD, 

the FAO International Treaty on Plant Genetic 

Resources and UPOV. 

While governments should maintain their role as 

decision makers and arbitrators between different 

national interests, inclusiveness and participation in 

policy-making and standard setting are fundamental 

for assuring legitimacy and acceptable results for the 

society at large. Article 7 of the TRIPS Agreement 

clearly indicates that, “protection and enforcement of 

intellectual property rights should contribute to the 

mutual advantage of producers and users of 

technological knowledge.” At the international level, 

intergovernmental organisations dealing with IP will 

16



also greatly benefit from integrating a wider group of 

constituencies with an interest in the IP system into 

policy-making process, such as consumers, public 

interest civil society groups, and small and medium 

enterprises (CIPR, 2002). 

Traditionally, the conception of stakeholders or 

constituencies in the IP field has been narrow, 

including primarily IP offices, ministries of trade and 

the main users of the IP system, such as business 

associations and practitioners. The users of 

technology and creations have usually been underrepresented 

in IP policy-making and generally receive 

scant attention from the main providers of technical 

assistance. Table 2 (next page) provides a nonexhaustive 

list of stakeholders who should be 

involved more actively in policy-making from a 

sustainable development perspective. 

Table 2 

Map of relevant stakeholders in IP policy-making (ICTSD, 2001) 

Stakeholder Groups 

Relevant Institutions 

1. Government: Executive 

Ministries of Trade, Industry, Environment, Agriculture, Health, 

Education and Intellectual Property/Patent Offices 

2. The Judiciary Members of the Judiciary 

3. The Legislature Parliamentary Associations, National Parliaments 

Universities, Research Management Associations, Science and 

4. Innovation Communities Technology Institutes, Database Organisers, Venture Capitalists, 

Science Councils, Associations of Creators and Artists 

5. Scientists Academies of Sciences, International Councils on Science 

6. Academic/Research 

Organisations 

Universities, Think Tanks, Research Networks, Law, Business and 

Engineering Schools 

7. Civil Society Organisations 

(CSOs) 

Consumer Organisations, Development and Environment CSOs, 

Community-based Organisations, Indigenous Peoples 

8. Industry and Industry 

Associations 

Farmers Organisations, Biotech Industry, Pharmaceutical and 

Generic Industry, Practitioners, Chambers of Commerce 

9. Media Press Agencies, Leading Newspapers 

Institutionalising the policy-making process 

The active participation of relevant and wellinformed 

stakeholders is not sufficient in itself. It is 

equally important to put in place a number of formal 

(inter-ministerial committees and public-private 

dialogue platforms) and informal (lobbying) 

mechanisms where interaction can take place 

(Solignac Lecomte, 2002). Developing countries 

have devised very few formal and informal 

mechanisms to encourage the participation of a wide 

range of society in policy-making for intellectual 

property reform (Leesti and Pengelly, 2002). There 

are concerns among those who have established 

such co-ordination mechanisms that they might 

remain ‘empty shells’ due to lack of political 

leadership or a low level of understanding of IP 

policy issues among the different bodies 

participating in such committees. 

Donors could play a role in facilitating the 

strengthening of inter-agency governmental 

committees to address IP policy issues, including 

bilateral, regional and international negotiations, 

with the participation of relevant ministries, the 

private sector, the research community and civil 

society. In this context, Reichman has proposed the 

establishment of permanent Advisory Councils for 

Trade Related Innovations Policies (ACTRIPS). These 

councils would be the focal point for inter-agency coordination 

and the integration of IP-related policies 

into the domestic legislation and evolving 

international legal standards, as well as their relation 

with national innovation systems (Reichman, 2003). 

Negotiations in international rule making 

and standard setting bodies 

Building strategic alliances 

The need for active developing country participation 

in rule-making and standard-setting bodies such as 

WIPO and the WTO must not be disregarded. From 

a developing country standpoint, the Doha 

Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health is probably 

17



one of the most successful negotiating outcomes. 

During this process, developing countries benefited 

from ‘technical assistance’ of a broad coalition of 

IGOs, civil society organisations and IP experts. This 

group of non-traditional providers of technical 

assistance was particularly successful in helping 

developing countries translate their specific public 

policy concerns into coherent and concrete 

negotiating positions, as well as putting developed 

countries under considerable pressure through 

highly visible public relations campaigns. This is a 

prime example of how the support of non-traditional 

providers – through assisting counties in bringing 

out the development perspective and articulating 

their own proposals – can promote the achievement 

of results in international negotiations that 

strengthen the multilateral system. 

Managing multilevel negotiations 

A major concern in this area is that most activities 

aimed at supporting negotiating capacity have so far 

focused on the WTO (and to some extent on WIPO), 

but very little attention has been paid to IPR chapters 

in bilateral free trade agreements, which increasingly 

contain ‘TRIPS-plus’ provisions. As developing 

countries engage in such negotiations, technical 

assistance is increasingly needed to help them 

identify clear negotiating strategies and weigh the 

pros and cons of improving market access at the 

cost of accepting tightened intellectual property 

protection standards, as well as limiting other 

spaces for sustainable development policies. Such 

assistance is particularly needed since developing 

countries remain in a weaker position when 

negotiating bilateral deals, as opposed to 

multilateral negotiations, where bargaining power 

can be substantially increased through coalitionbuilding. 

Legal reform and regulation 

Promoting coherence among international 

instruments and organisations 

IP treaties cannot be applied regardless of other 

international commitments. In 2000, all nations of 

the world forged the Millennium Development Goals 

(MDGs) to, among others things, eradicate extreme 

poverty and hunger, achieve universal education, 

promote gender equality, reduce child mortality, 

improve health, combat HIV/AIDS and other 

diseases, ensure environmental sustainability and 

create global partnerships for development. These 

goals are the basic guidance for all UN Agencies in 

implementing their respective mandates and for 

Members of the international community when 

designing national development goals. 

IPR technical assistance should incorporate in its 

design and content the guidance of the MDGs, as 

well as obligations under human rights conventions 

and multilateral environmental agreements, 

especially in areas where IP could have an important 

impact on policy goals. While there have been efforts 

to create synergies at the international level among 

UN agencies and with the WTO and World Bank; 

(e.g. joint rule-making under the Rome Convention, 

the co-operation agreement between the WIPO and 

the WTO, the MoU between the WIPO and the CBD, 

etc.), there are few cases of provision of technical 

assistance under common collaborative frameworks 

and under a broad international law perspective (e.g. 

joint design of technical assistance activities by 

various UN agencies, co-ordinated legal advice 

taking into account various international 

commitments, joint training courses, exchange of 

experts among secretariats, etc.). In that sense, there 

is still plenty of room for improving donor and 

provider co-ordination and delivery of IP-related 

technical assistance. The example of the Integrated 

Framework for Trade-related Technical Assistance 6 

for Least-Developed Countries has been proposed as 

a potential alternative for improving the delivery of 

IPR technical assistance (CIPR, 2002 and Pengelly, 

2003). 

Achieving balanced legal reforms: the inclusion 

of rights and obligations 

When advising on the design and undertaking of 

legal reforms at the national level, providers of 

technical assistance need to look at all rights and 

obligations derived from international agreements. It 

is obvious that advice should cover what countries 

have to do nationally to fulfil their international 

obligations, but emphasis should be also placed in 

the use of the rights conferred by international 

agreements, including exceptions (e.g. patentability 

of plants and patent holder rights), legal options 

(e.g. UPOV-type or sui generis protection), 

flexibilities (e.g. use of preamble language and 

compulsory licensing; national discretion to define 

IPR key terms such as patentability criteria), special 

and differential treatment clauses (e.g. periods of 

implementation) and technology transfer clauses. 

The advice also needs to look at various possible 

interpretations of obligations so as to allow the 

implementing countries to maximise the potential 

benefits derived from IP agreements and to frame 

their obligations in light of development objectives. 

Finally, most developing countries have an interest 

6 First mandated by the WTO Singapore Ministerial Conference in 

1996. Participating agencies are the IMF, ITC, UNCTAD, UNDP, 

the World Bank and the WTO. 

18



in designing an IP system that is not limited to 

facilitating registration of foreign IPRs, but also 

encourages domestic innovation and creativity. In 

this context, technical assistance providers might 

want to help developing countries design systems 

that are open to alternative models of protection, 

such as liability regimes and utility models. 

An example of an effort to promote deeper 

understanding of the rights and obligations of the 

TRIPS Agreement is; Resource Book on IPRs and 

Development (2004) 7 prepared by UNCTAD and 

ICTSD with the support of DFID. 

The need for a pro-competitive approach to 

IPRs 

Apprehensions over potential anti-competitive 

effects of strengthened IP protection are common to 

both developed and developing countries. All 

countries, despite economic disparities, share the 

common interest in preserving an appropriate 

balance between public and private interests. While a 

degree of “privatisation” stimulates new investment 

in research and development, the tendency to 

multiply and strengthen intellectual property rights 

beyond what is necessary raises the cost of 

innovation and impedes follow-up applications. In 

particular, inappropriately stringent IPRs foster 

refusal to deal, barriers to entry and thickets of 

rights, which discourage firms in developing 

countries from undertaking adaptations and 

improvements tailored to local interests (Reichman, 

2003). In this line of ideas, the US Federal Trade 

Commission (FTC) report on Proper Balance of 

Competition And Patent Law and Policy, has 

expressed preoccupation with regard to the 

necessary balance between competition policy and 

patent law in the United States (Federal Trade 

Commission, 2003). According to the FTC, although 

the patent system works well, some modifications 

are needed to maintain a proper balance between 

competition and patent law and policy. Among the 

problematic areas identified by the FTC were the lack 

of patent quality examination, overly wide 

patentability standards (non-obviousness), excessive 

defensive patenting and burdensome and 

complicated licensing. 

IPR technical assistance should be expanded to 

cover competition law and policy. Presently, only 

about one-third of developing countries have 

competition laws and very few have the institutional 

capacity to implement such policies (UNCTAD, 

7 

See 

http://www.iprsonline.org/unctadictsd/ResourceBookIndex.htm 

2003). Technical assistance programmers should 

look at the relationship between IP and competition 

policy and promote pro-competitive regimes 

designed and implemented at the national level. 

Such activities would be perfectly in line with Articles 

6, 8 and 40 of the TRIPS Agreement. Donors and 

providers of IP-related technical assistance and 

competition policy co-operation could undertake a 

common effort to create more synergies among 

current programmes. Co-ordination among the 

World Bank, the OECD, UNCTAD, WIPO and the 

WTO could be of great help in this area. 

IPR administration and enforcement 

Shifting the emphasis 

A large, perhaps disproportionate, portion of IPR 

technical assistance resources are currently allocated 

to IPR administration and enforcement. This 

includes institutional capacity, such as 

organisational and management arrangements; 

training, staffing and human resource issues; and 

operating procedures and automation models. 

However, some authors (Pengelly, 2004) have 

convincingly argued that in small or very low-income 

countries with few patenting and trademark 

applications, it might not be technically feasible nor 

economically viable to establish and sustain an IP 

system comparable to developed countries in terms 

of capacity for administration, enforcement and 

regulation of IPRs. This probably applies to most 

LDCs. In those cases, donors might want to redirect 

some of the assistance provided in this field to other 

areas. One such area could be strengthening their 

technological base, as suggested in TRIPS Article 

66.2, and thus increasing the possibilities of reaping 

of benefits from incentives and the IPR regime and 

other innovation policies. 

Strengthening national innovation systems 

The neglected issue of innovation and creativity 

As mentioned earlier, IP policy should be designed 

as an important component of scientific, innovation 

and cultural policies. Those policies are exactly the 

ones required to create or improve the technological 

and knowledge base needed for taking advantage of 

potential IP benefits under TRIPS Articles 7, 8, 66.2 

and 67. Innovation and creative policies tend to 

include, among other issues, the following: 

• The role of foreign direct investment in 

technology-intensive sectors. 

• Scientific and technological performance and 

capacity. 

19



• The national R&D and cultural development 

budget. 

• Prioritisation of lines for public research. 

• The structure and functioning of the national 

innovation systems (national research and 

industry linkages). 

• Industrial structures and private investment in 

R&D. 

• Education-related policies and supply of 

educational materials. 

• Incentives and economic instruments to 

promote research and innovation (subsidies, 

prizes, innovation shows, alternative R&D and 

creativity models, etc.). 

A number of IP issues should be taken fully into 

account – and structured according to the level of 

development of the country – when designing 

scientific and innovation policies. These issues 

include the maintenance of, and access to, patent 

databases; the scope of research exceptions in 

patent laws; exceptions in copyrights laws; quality of 

patent examinations; the relationship of the IP 

offices with the private and public research sectors; 

possible limitations to follow-up innovations that 

might arise from overbroad protection; and 

alternative IP schemes such as utility models. 

Conclusions 

Policy and lawmakers in developing countries have a 

formidable agenda in intellectual property reform 

(Leesti and Pengelly, 2002) at all levels. This agenda 

includes the finalisation of the implementation of the 

TRIPS Agreement, accession processes for new 

members of the WTO, signature and ratification of 

WIPO treaties by developing countries, and the 

negotiation of ‘new generation’ bilateral and regional 

trade agreements with IP chapters. Nevertheless, the 

implementation of international IP commitments is 

not the end of the story. 

All countries must implement their IP commitments 

in a manner supportive of other international 

obligations, including the Millennium Development 

Goals, human rights treaties, multilateral 

environmental agreements and scientific cooperation 

treaties. Developing countries also need to 

frame IP policy and legal reform according to their 

own national development agenda, including 

scientific and technological policies in a manner that 

promotes competition among all economic actors. 

There is a great deal of scope for improving the 

delivery and co-ordination of assistance in the IP 

field (CIPR, 2002). First and foremost, the provision 

of technical assistance should be demand-driven and 

integrated into national development policies 

instead of planned and delivered by donors in 

isolation from development goals. The Second 

Bellagio Dialogue 8 in 2003 stressed the need for 

broad participation in the design and 

implementation of technical assistance in order to 

ensure that it was appropriate to the development 

needs of recipient countries. This would require a 

much more comprehensive approach from donors 

and traditional technical assistance providers. 

Policy-making at the national level needs effective coordination 

and participatory processes according to 

national priorities; and the ability of developing 

countries to co-ordinate policies across the 

government is crucial (CIPR, 2002). In addition to 

the relevant ministries, key national stakeholders 

should be involved. Technical assistance should 

allow the creation and development of co-ordinating 

mechanisms, as well as centres of excellence that 

would facilitate the generation of solid IP policies 

that reflect the entire range of national development 

interests. 

Finally, the evaluation of IP-related technical 

assistance requirements should be based on 

developing country needs rather than on what a 

donor might want or is able to provide (Pengelly, 

2004). Surveys by donors and providers could allow 

them to target more precisely the type of 

requirements for reforming IP-related policies. The 

result of these surveys should be reflected in the 

strategic plans and budgets of donors. 

8 

The Bellagio Dialogues involve a diverse group of specialists, 

government experts and members of international and nongovernmental 

organisations who meet in their personal capacity 

to assess current international trends on intellectual property and 

development. Through strategic discussions, the Dialogues aim to 

identify concrete recommendations that could contribute to the 

formulation of development-oriented IP policies. See: 

http://www.iprsonline.org/unctadictsd/bellagio/dialogue2003/bel 

l2_description.htm 

20



Bibliography and recommended readings 

Abbott, Frederick (2002) “The Futue of IPRs in the 

Multilateral Trading System: Responding to 

Council for TRIPS Activities, the Doha 

Development Agenda, and the Evolving 

WTO Jurisprudence on TRIPS”, ICTSD- 

UNCTAD. Paper presented at the first 

Bellagio Series of Dialogues, Bellagio, Italy 

on 30 Oct.-2 Nov. 02 

Commission on Intellectual Property Rights (2002) 

“Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and 

Development Policy”, Final Report, UK 

Commission on Intellectual Property Rights: 

London. 

Correa, Carlos (2002) “Formulating effective pro 

development national intellectual property 

policies”. ICTSD-UNCTAD. Paper presented 

at the first Bellagio Series of Dialogues, 

Bellagio, Italy on 30 Oct.-2 Nov. 02 

Drahos, P. (2001), “Developing Countries and 

International Intellectual Property Standard- 

Setting”, Study Paper 8, UK Commission on 

Intellectual Property Rights: London. 

Dutfield, G. & Musungu, S.F. (2003), “Multilateral 

agreements and a TRIPS-plus world: The 

World Intellectual Property Organisation”, 

Quaker UN Office: Geneva. 

European Commission (2003), “Guidelines for 

European Commission Trade Related 

Assistance”, EC: Brussels. 

Institute for Economic Research (1996), “Study on 

the Financial and Other Implications of the 

Implementation of the TRIPS Agreement for 

Developing Countries”, WIPO: Geneva. 

International Centre for Trade and Sustainable 

Development and United Nations 

Conference on Trade and Development 

(2003), “Intellectual property rights: 

implications for development”. Policy 

Discussion Paper. 

Kostecki, Michel (2001)”, “Technical Assistance 

Services in Trade Policy: A contribution to 

the discussion on capacity building in the 

WTO”, ICTSD Resource Paper No 2, ICTSD: 

Geneva 

Lecomte, Henri Bernard (2001), “Building capacity 

to trade: A road map for development 

partners”. ECDPM Discussion Paper 

Number 33. 

Leesti, M. & Pengelly, T. (2002), “Institutional Issues 

for Developing Countries in Intellectual 

Property Policymaking, Administration & 

Enforcement”, Study Paper 9, Commission 

on Intellectual Property Rights: London. 

Lehman, B.A. (2000b), “World Intellectual Property 

Organisation: Dawn of a New Century”, 

International Intellectual Property Institute: 

Washington. 

Musungu, S. (2003), “Designing Developmentoriented 

Intellectual Property Technical 

Assistance Programmes”. ICTSD-UNCTAD. 

Paper prepared at the Second Bellagio 

Series of Dialogues, Bellagio, 18-21 

September 2003. 

Pengelly, T. (2003), “Technical assistance on IPRs 

for developing countries: some strategic 

policy issues and recommendations for 

future priorities for donors and developing 

countries”. ICTSD-UNCTAD. Paper 

prepared at the Second Bellagio Series of 

Dialogues, Bellagio, 18-21 September 2003 

Reichman, Jerome, (2003), “Managing the Challenge 

of a globalised intellectual property regime”. 

ICTSD-UNCTAD. Paper prepared at the 

Second Bellagio Series of Dialogues, 

Bellagio, 18-21 September 2003 

Vivas-Eugui, David (2002) “Inventory of relevant 

international negotiations, activities and 

processes on Intellectual Property”. 

UNCTAD/ICTSD: Geneva. 

UNCTAD (1996), “The TRIPS Agreement and the 

Developing Countries”, UNCTAD: Geneva. 

WIPO (1997), “Revised Draft Program and Budget 

1998-1999”, WIPO: Geneva. 

WIPO (1999), “Revised Draft Program and Budget 

2000-2001”, WIPO: Geneva. 

WIPO (2001a), “WIPO’s Legal and Technical 

Assistance to Developing Countries For the 

21



Implementation of the TRIPS Agreement 

From January 1, 1996, To December 31 

2000”, WIPO: Geneva. 

WIPO (2001b), “Revised Draft Program and Budget 

2002-2003”, WIPO: Geneva. 

WIPO (2003a), “Medium Term Plan for WIPO 

Program Activities – Vision and Strategic 

Direction of WIPO”, WIPO: Geneva 

WIPO (2003b), “Programme Performance Report 

For 2002”, WIPO: Geneva 

World Bank (2002), “Intellectual Property: Balancing 

Incentives with Competitive Access”, in 

Global Economic Prospects and the 

Developing Countries 2002, World Bank: 

Washington. 

United States Federal Trade Commission (2003), 

Report entitled “To promote innovation: the 

proper balance of competition and patent 

law and policy”. 

22



Slidepack 

Speaker: David Vivas, 

ICTSD 

Slides: 9 

Supporting policymaking, legal 

reform and participation in 


David Vivas, ICTSD 

Toward a development oriented technical 

assistance in IP policy making 

Slide 2 

David Vivas-Eugui 

International Centre for Trade and 

Sustainable Development, 2004 

Road Map 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction 

Defining and advancing national interests in the IPR field 

The six levels of technical assistance - where is the 

emphasis? 

Concerns regarding the delivery of technical assistance 

Toward development oriented technical assistance 

Conclusions 

Slide 3 

23



Defining and advancing national interests 

Slide 4 

• IP is often considered an end in itself 

rather than an instrument for achieving 

innovation, technological and 

development goals 

• Development objectives vary and 

evolve according to levels of 

development 

• The type and extent of IP protection 

should depend of industrial structure, 

production models, human capital and 

technological absorption capacity 

• There is a need for strong national 

policy making processes that can create 

stable policies and transfer national 

interest to the international level 

(bottom – up) 

• Donors basic functions should 

include: strengthening the right 

processes, and generation of adequate 

results that actually support innovation 

TYPE OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 

PROVIDED 

The six levels of technical assistance 

MAIN PROVIDERS 

LEVEL 1 ANALYSIS • INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS: UNCTAD, UNDP, WHO, OECD, WORLD BANK, 

UNESCO, WIPO CBD, SOUTH CENTRE. 

NGOS: ICTSD, QUAKERS, CPTECH, MSF, OXFAM, CIEL, THIRD WORLD NETWORK. 

LEVEL 2 

POLICY 

FORMULATION 

• INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS: UNCTAD, WIPO 

NGOS: ICTSD, CPTECH, MSF, THIRD WORLD NETWORK, SEATINI. 

LEVEL 3 NEGOTIATION · INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS: SOUTH CENTRE, ACWL, AITIC 

· NGOS: ICTSD, QUAKERS, CPTECH, MSF, OXFAM, CIEL, THIRD WORLD NETWORK, 

SEATINI. 

LEVEL 4 

LEGAL REFORM 

AND REGULATION 

• INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS: WIPO, WTO, UPOV, UNCTAD, WHO, EPO, 

SOUTH CENTRE, THE WORLD BANK 

· BILATERAL DONORS AND PROVIDERS, E.G. USPTO, USAID, EPO, DFID, SIDA, CIDA 

· NGOS: ICTSD, MSF, CIEL, CPTECH 

LEVEL 5 

IMPLEMENTATION 

AND IP 

ADMINISTRATION 

• INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS: WTO, WIPO, UPOV, EPO, OAPI, ARIPO, UNDP, 

WORLD BANK. 

· BILATERAL DONORS, E.G. USPTO, USAID, DFID, SIDA, CIDA 

· BUSINESS AND LAWYER ASSOCIATIONS: AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION (ABA), THE 

AMERICAN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW ASSOCIATION (AIPLA), THE INTERNATIONAL 

FEDERATION OF PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATIONS (IFPMA) AND 

THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE PROTECTION OF INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY 

Slide 5 

LEVEL 6 

STRENGTHENING 

NATIONAL 

INNOVATION 

SYSTEMS 

• INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS: UNCTAD, UNESCO, UNIDO, WIPO 

· PHILANTHROPIC ORGANISATIONS: ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION, FORD FOUNDATION, 

ETC. 

· ACADEMIA: NATIONAL ACADEMIES OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY. 

· NGOS:ICTSD, CPTECH IP LIGHT YEARS, ETC. 

Concerns regarding the delivery of 

IP related technical assistance 

Slide 6 

• There is an excessive focus on IP as the solution to innovation as well as investment 

concerns 

• IP-related technical assistance too often appears to be planned and delivered in isolation 

from development goals 

• Broad issues such as development, trade and industrial policy and science and technology, 

are addressed in a limited manner. 

• There has been a tendency to over-emphasise the benefits while paying little attention to 

costs. 

• Most TA has focused on the implementation of obligations and not of rights and 

flexibilities. 

• Technical assistance is essentially provided to a limited group of beneficiaries 

• Solutions are sometimes identified and designed by TA providers 

• Little attention has been given to different levels of development as well as cultural 

differences. 

• Emphasis has been placed on ad hoc events rather than building durable relationships. 

• Evaluation remains insufficient. 

• Most of the financial resources are concentrated on a limited number of providers. 

24



Toward development oriented 

technical assistance (1) 

Slide 7 

• Strengthening analytical capacity 

• Enhance understanding of concepts and implications 

• Need for informed actors 

• Undertake systemic cost/benefits analysis 

• Strengthen national regional centers of excellence 

• Enhancing IP policy formulation 

• Promote participation: users and producers 

• Institutionalize IP policy making processes 

• Government, judiciary, legislatures, innovation communities, science, academia, 

CSOs, industry, media, etc. 

• Managing negotiations 

• Build strategic alliances 

• Promote role of “non traditional” providers. 

• Promote synergies between CSOs and developed and developing countries 

• Manage multilevel negotiations 

• Promote coherence: multilateral, regional and bilateral 

Slide 8 

Toward development oriented 

technical assistance (2) 

• Promoting adequate legal reform and regulation 

• Promote coherence among international instruments and organizations 

• MDG and Non IP relevant treaties 

• Achieve balanced legal reforms: the inclusion of rights and obligations 

• The need for a pro competitive approach 

• IP administration and enforcement 

• Shift the emphasis to other levels of TA 

• Strengthening national innovation systems 

• Promoting innovation policies 

• The role of FDI 

• Scientific and innovative performance capacities 

• Investment in R&D and priorities for public research 

• Industrial structure and absorptive capacity 

• Creation of national innovation systems 

• Education related policies 

• Other economic incentives: subsidies, tax breaks, alternative models for R&D, 

innovation shows 

Conclusions 

Slide 9 

• Countries have a formidable agenda for IP reform 

• TA should promote the implementation of IP commitments according to the 

Millennium Development Goals 

• Innovation and creativity should be a central part of the TA efforts 

• TA should be demand driven and based on actual needs 

• IP policy and legal reform should be framed in light of national development 

goals 

• There is a great deal of space for improving orientation, coordination, delivery 

and evaluation of TA 

• Rights and obligations are fully part of the IP system 

• TA should not be concentrated in certain providers - competition and alternate 

approaches should be permitted 

• There should be an expansion of actors and recipients to include a broad range 

of stakeholders 

25



4 Modernisation of IPR administration and organisational reform in 

developing countries: progress and pitfalls 

Issues Paper written by Mart Leesti 

Introduction 

This paper draws on some of the outputs and 

publications resulting from the work on institutional 

capacity and technical assistance issues for 

developing countries in Intellectual Property 

administration, regulation and policymaking, carried 

out by the Commission on Intellectual Property 

Rights (CIPR) 9 between June 2001 and September 

2002. Given the scarcity of published material 

relating to modernization of IP administrations in 

developing countries, the paper draws heavily on the 

experiences of the author in this field and attempts 

to highlight some key messages based on observed 

past and current practice in the area of automation 

of IPR administration and organizational reform. The 

paper briefly reviews the current situation regarding 

IPR technical assistance and then identifies some 

key issues and options relating to modernization for 

further exploration by participants at the Sussex 

Workshop. 

Background 

Developing countries are, in general, at a stage in 

the implementation of WTO agreements where 

many have passed TRIPS-compliant laws and are 

now faced with the challenges of implementing 

them. In order that the national IP regime may 

function “as intended”, this last phase requires 

countries to design and operate: 

• Regulations subordinate to IP laws. 

• Relevant directives and operating procedures. 

• Appropriate administrative infrastructure. 

As more developing countries, particularly the LDCs, 

move into this implementation phase, they face a 

number of significant new challenges and hurdles. 

9 Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy, 

Report of the Commission on Intellectual Property Rights (CIPR), 

London, September 2002. See page 149. See also Leesti, M. & 

Pengelly, T. (2002) “Institutional Issues for Developing Countries 

in Intellectual Property Policymaking, Administration and 

Enforcement”, Commission Background Paper 9, London. 

While government officials charged with meeting 

these challenges clearly value the technical 

assistance provided by both bilateral donors and by 

international organizations, there is growing concern 

among experts about the nature and sustainability of 

such assistance and whether it is always 

appropriately targeted to the broader needs of the 

developing country. The argument is made that the 

advice and assistance provided by donors does not 

always take into account all of the possible options 

and flexibilities afforded by TRIPS to address the 

specific public policy objectives of the recipient 

developing country. 10 This concern appears to stem, 

at least in part, from the fact that the main IPR 

technical assistance providers, and their executing 

agencies (primarily developed country and regional 

IP offices), are seen largely as promoters of the 

interests of IP rights-holders, and that their efforts 

do not adequately address the broader socioeconomic 

development concerns of recipient 

countries. 

Such concerns notwithstanding, it is clear that 

important and effective IPR technical assistance has 

been, and continues to be provided by numerous 

donors, key among them being WIPO and EPO, with 

the latter doing so on a bilateral basis as well as 

being the primary executing agency for EC-funded 

projects. Over the past two decades, the EPO has 

carried out projects costing approximately 54 million 

euros. In the 2004-2005 biennium, WIPO forecasts 

total expenditures for Main Program 8: Cooperation 

with developing Countries, in the order of 55 million 

Swiss Francs. 11 

In response to the CIPR Report, the UK government 

agreed that it would be appropriate to “review what 

more could be done to ensure the highest quality 

and effectiveness of IPR-TA.” In that context, this 

paper attempts to highlight some issues as they 

10 See CIPR, page 160. 

11 See: 

http://www.wipo.int/documents/en/document/govbody/budget/ 

2004_05/pdf/wo_pbc_7_2_program08.pdf 

26



relate to enhancing the effectiveness of TA for 

organizational reform and computerization. We will 

use the term “modernization” to cover the 

continuum of activities from the preparation and 

promulgation of enabling IP regulations, directives 

and procedures, through to the establishment of an 

effective IP administration, 12 including 

computerization. “Effective” is intended to mean 

that the IP administration is able to actively 

contribute to the achievement of the countries socioeconomic 

development goals by administering the 

IP system in a manner that supports these. The 

following are generally recognized as important 

factors for successful modernization of IP regimes in 

developing countries: 

• Donor co-ordination and information exchange. 

• Needs assessment. 

• Project design, funding and delivery. 

• Project planning, management and impact 

assessment. 

We will briefly highlight some issues; examples of 

interventions that appear to have worked well; 

lessons that can be learned; and some challenges 

remaining with respect to each. 

Factors for success 

Donor coordination and information 

Exchange 

Insufficient coordination of donor efforts to assist 

developing countries to implement TRIPS-compliant 

IP administration can have serious negative impacts 

on IPR technical assistance. The coordination 

problem can manifest itself in inefficiencies, delays, 

overlaps and gaps in the development and delivery 

of technical assistance activities. 

Lack of a suitable mechanism for effective 

coordination of IPR-technical assistance in 

the broader context of economic 

development. 

The identification or establishment of suitable 

mechanisms for IPR technical assistance 

coordination would be an important step towards 

rationalizing the design, delivery and evaluation of 

IPR technical assistance in the broader context of 

economic development. 

Firstly, it would encourage and assist in the 

clarification of linkages between the administration 

of IP by national institutions and broad national 

economic development goals. This could, in turn, 

broaden the focus of IP institutions to address the 

needs of IP users who are not owners of IPRs. For 

example, for SMEs the most “appropriate” 

technology is often disclosed in patents that have 

expired. Similarly, national research and 

development organizations can benefit from the 

scientific and technical information disclosed in 

patent literature from around the world. How should 

an IP administration be designed so that SMEs, 

researchers and academics would be able to obtain 

ready access to such technology? Secondly, it could 

lead to the development of a certain “standard” for 

technical assistance documentation that could, with 

necessary approvals, be exchanged among donors or 

even published. Thirdly, the existence of such a 

coordination mechanism would provide a level of 

protection from breaks in “corporate memory” (both 

donor and recipient) and ensure greater continuity in 

project management, both for donors and recipients. 

Finally, better donor coordination should reduce the 

significant workload for recipient organizations that 

results from the necessity to interface 

simultaneously with multiple IPR technical 

assistance donors. 13 

It may be that the most effective environment for 

addressing non-owner IP issues would be in a forum 

where IP is viewed as a component of broader 

economic development and trade issues, not 

primarily from an IPR-owner perspective. As noted 

by CIPR, 14 the formal participation of WIPO and EPO 

in the Integrated Framework for Trade Related 

Technical Assistance to LDCs would provide an 

opportunity to improve donor coordination and to 

integrate IPR assistance programs better within 

national development strategies. 

Proposal 1: Donors should explore options for 

establishing a suitable mechanism for coordination 

of technical assistance aimed at the modernization 

of IP administration. This should involve major 

donors, including WIPO and the EPO, as well as 

representatives of developing country recipients, 

including LDCs. 

12 This may be the creation of an IP administration for the first 

time, or the reform of an existing organization. 

13 In one S.E. Asian LDC the following are simultaneously 

providing independent IPR technical assistance in support of the 

modernization of the national IP regime: Japan, EC, Switzerland, 

US, Australia, Sweden, WIPO and the WTO. 

14 See CIPR, page 151. 

27



Lack of information about current and past 

IPR technical assistance activities due to 

reluctance among donors to exchange 

information 

Often there exists little documentation to reflect the 

overall context of IPR technical assistance in a 

country. In many instances, the goals for automation 

and organizational reform activities are stated simply 

as being to: 

“advise on options for creating an appropriate, 

modern office to administer national intellectual 

property laws”, or to 

“advise on options for modernization of the patent 

and trademarks office”, 

both in the context of new TRIPS-compliant laws that 

are being adopted. Invariably the word “modern” 

and “modernization” are intended to include 

automation within their scope. 

Such modernization activities are generally carried 

out as short-term assignments (1 to 2 weeks being 

common) by experts who are either employees of the 

donor or consultants retained by the donor. 15 The 

experts generally prepare summary work plans and 

project plans, carry out their assignment (often 

starting with a needs assessment) and upon 

completion, prepare their reports and 

recommendations. These reports may contain 

sensitive institution-specific information that is 

treated confidentially by both donors and recipients. 

The concern appears to be that recipients’ officials 

may not be prepared to provide candid information if 

they believed that details of the weaknesses of their 

institutions could become public. Donor 

representatives are well aware of this and, in order to 

maintain good working relationships with recipients, 

are reluctant to reflect critical observations and 

institutionally sensitive matters in project 

documentation that may be widely circulated or 

published. 16 

The net effect is that information exchange among 

donors is very limited and largely requires each 

donor to conduct its own independent assessment 

15 The donor may, in fact, be one step further back in the chain 

and may be providing funding for a project that is being 

implemented by an “executing agency”. In this paper the term 

“donor” is intended to cover both. 

16 To some extent this problem has been exacerbated in recent 

years with greater use of the Internet to store and publish 

documentation. 

of needs and to duplicate the assessment and 

evaluation of the current state of IP administration in 

the recipient country. This obviously increases 

human resource costs, direct process costs and 

opportunity costs, for both donors and recipients. 

The provision of technical assistance could be 

improved if the quality of documented project 

information were to be enhanced and if such 

information could be exchanged among donors. 

Organizations such as the International Monetary 

Fund (IMF) are addressing similar concerns 17 and it 

is probable that IPR technical assistance would 

benefit from the Fund’s experiences. 

Proposal 2: IPR technical assistance donors 

should establish a pilot project to identify and 

overcome obstacles to enhancing and sharing 

documented technical assistance information. Such 

a pilot could involve a major donor such as WIPO or 

the EPO, one major bilateral donor, and one 

development partner. The objective would be to 

identify a standard format for IPR technical 

assistance needs assessment, planning, 

implementation and impact evaluation reports tha t 

would resul t in the delivery of higher qualit 

y technical 

assistance. 

Needs assessment 

The absence of an effective diagnostic instrument 

combined with the afore-mentioned lack of countryspecific 

IPR technical assistance documentation and 

insufficient information sharing among donors can 

lead to duplication of efforts to accurately identify 

the needs of technical assistance recipients. 

Most IPR technical assistance activities are “demand 

driven”. These activities are normally designed in 

consultation with the recipient country after an initial 

“needs assessment” and reflect the needs expressed 

by the recipient. Where there are multiple donor 

organizations providing technical assistance, each 

generally performs their own independent needs 

assessment. To the extent that input is sought and 

obtained from others, this may be by way of informal 

consultation, “on the ground”, in the recipient 

country itself, and will often depend on the personal 

working relationships that exist between individuals. 

Sharing of plans and reviews of results among 

donors is not common and is largely attributable to 

the above-described concerns about sensitivity of 

institution-specific information. 

17 International Monetary Fund, Review of Technical Assistance 

Policy and Experience, Prepared by the Office of Technical 

Assistance Management, June 12, 2002. See page 47. 

28



Generally the assessment of technical assistance 

needs for creating or modernizing a TRIPScompliant 

IP administration is carried out by a 

technical expert, frequently a patent or trademark 

specialist from a developed country IP office. The 

assessment is carried out in the recipient country 

and, if it addresses computerization, that aspect of 

the assessment is usually covered by a systems 

analyst from the same donor or IP institution. 

In the area of enforcement and education/awareness 

activities, numerous donors, including developed 

country IPOs, WIPO, EPO, WTO, World Customs 

Organization (WCO), etc. appear to be effectively 

identifying human resources developmental needs of 

developing countries. The WIPO Academy, for 

example, with its distance learning and in-house 

training programs is regarded as an important and 

cost-effective mechanism to provide IP training to a 

broad range of developing country administrative, 

judicial and enforcement authorities. Bilateral 

arrangements by donors enable study tours and 

developmental opportunities for judges, lawyers, 

academics, enforcement authorities and IP 

administrators. 

Often, particularly in the case of LDCs, the recipient 

country may not have sufficient specialized 

knowledge and relevant expertise among its officials 

to enable it to participate effectively in this needs 

definition process. Additionally, the establishment of 

an intellectual property rights system is sometimes 

not considered to be of high trade policy priority by 

LDCs’ governments themselves or by the Integrated 

Framework. 18 

These factors often combine and result in the setting 

up of administrative activities and institutions for 

establishment and enforcement IPRs based largely 

on developed country models rather than on clearly 

defined recipient needs. There is a potentially greater 

risk for this in developing countries that already have 

IP examination and registration operations in place. 

In such instances the country’s old legislation may 

have been based on a developed country model and 

many professional staff have received training in 

those developed country offices. 

Under such circumstances, it is not uncommon to 

find that the professional staff of a developing 

country’s IP office identify with their counterparts in 

developed country offices to such a degree as cause 

resistance to changes that are necessary to establish 

18 See Diagnostic Trade Integration Studies. 

http://www.integratedframework.org/ifcountries.htm 

a modern, relevant IP institution in their own 

country. An example is the persistence of patent 

examiners in some developing countries in 

conducting patent search and examination that has 

already been carried out in a major International 

Searching Authority, or to “benchmark” patent 

examiner productivity against organizations such as 

the EPO or the US Patent and Trademark Office. The 

real gains for a developing country may instead lie in 

exploiting the intellectual effort already expended by 

a major foreign patent authority in establishing the 

TRIPS criteria for patentability, including novelty, 

inventiveness and industrial applicability, and 

focusing their own scarce technical resources on 

activities that offer greater payback. These might 

include activities such as helping domestic SMEs to 

access and exploit appropriate technology disclosed 

in patent documentation. 

Proposal 3: Donors should explore the viability 

of developing and adopting a comprehensive IPR 

technical assistance “diagnostic” methodology tha t 

would lead to more accurate needs assessment, a 

more sustainable technical assistance effort and 

better results. Such diagnostic should better enable 

the recipient country to participate effectively in the 

definition of needs and the evaluation of results. 

Project design, funding and delivery 

As IPR technical assistance needs continue to evolve 

from TRIPS awareness building towards TRIPS 

implementation, including institution building and 

reform, the project design, funding and delivery 

criteria of the past decade warrant review. 

Technical assistance requirements for the 

development of human resources tend to be familiar 

and well understood. However, the requirements for 

planning, design, funding and implementation of 

multi-year institution-building projects are quite 

different. Such projects require a comprehensive 

approach to addressing all the factors involved (e.g. 

policy, legislation, workflows, human resources, 

computerization, financial regime, etc.) from 

beginning to end. The nature and scope of these 

projects requires the maintenance of a broad 

planning and implementation horizon (typically 3 to 

5 years) that, in turn, calls for greater and more 

stable IPR technical assistance funding. Failure to 

ensure continuity and predictability of technical 

assistance risks loss of momentum and ultimate 

failure of major modernization projects. 

There is no single, widely accepted approach or 

model for designing and funding IPR technical 

assistance projects, or for delivering or assessing the 

impact of such activities. The international 

29



cooperation programs of major donors, including 

WIPO and the EPO, focus on designing and 

implementing national and regional projects tailored 

to the particular strategic or support needs of 

technical assistance recipients. Nevertheless, the 

funding levels and delivery modalities ultimately 

reflect the missions and objectives of donor 

organizations themselves. 

The main objective of the current WIPO Medium- 

Term Plan is “maintenance and further development 

of the respect for intellectual property throughout 

the world.” 19 The mission of the EPO is “to support 

innovation, competitiveness and economic growth 

for the benefit of the citizens of Europe.” 20 The 

International Cooperation Division of the EPO notes 

that “the EPO has the mandate to deliver technical 

assistance, to promote technology transfer and to 

co-operate on a global level in order to harmonise 

patent practices and procedures.” 21 Similar 

“establishment of rights” orientations are to be 

found in the mission statements of most developed 

country IP offices that normally act as the executing 

agencies for bilateral technical assistance for those 

countries. 

Project design 

Both WIPO and the EPO design and deliver so-called 

“vertical” programs that address a range of 

recipients needs across the spectrum of the IPR 

regime, including training and development of IP 

administrators, judges, enforcement authorities, 

etc., structural assistance (e.g. institution and 

process design) and public awareness and 

education. Both WIPO and the EPO also maintain 

“horizontal” training programs (e.g. academies) that 

offer courses on IP-related subjects aimed chiefly at 

the staff of national authorities and organizations 

(patent and trade mark offices, courts, police forces 

and customs authorities) and at IP specialists 

(patent and trade mark attorneys) in industry, trade, 

research, science and culture. 

Experience shows that where the recipients already 

have national IP regimes in place, technical 

assistance projects aim primarily at modernizing and 

upgrading specific national IP institutions, including 

the IP registries, the enforcement authorities (e.g. 

19 See: http://www.wipo.int/aboutwipo/en/dgo/pub487.htm#vision 

20 See: http://www.european-patentoffice.org/epo/pubs/brochure/general/e/mission_e.htm 

21 See: http://int-coop.european-patent-office.org/ 

customs) and the courts, to what are perceived as 

“international” standards. Those standards are 

generally established by benchmarking against the 

performance of similar institutions in Europe, the 

United States and Japan. 

Where the recipients do not have existing national IP 

institutions in place, there is a strong tendency to 

create such institutions on the basis of developed 

country (i.e. donor) models, although with a focus 

on outsourcing the search and examination work of 

establishing entitlement to rights. This is not 

surprising, since most recipients in this category are 

LDCs that have adopted WIPO’s model IP laws to 

meet TRIPS requirements. There appear to be 

relatively few instances among these where technical 

assistance projects have been designed “from the 

ground up”, specifically to assist LDCs to integrate 

the administration of IP with overall national 

economic development strategies and goals. Some 

LDC officials have expressed the view that, since the 

country may already have adopted TRIPS-compliant 

IP law based on an international model, it may be 

too late to revisit domestic IP administration options 

in any fundamental way. 

Proposal 4: Donors should adopt a more 

strategic approach to the design of IPR technical 

assistance. Donors should ensure that technical 

asssistance projects are designed so as to enable 

developing countries to better administer IP laws to 

pro-actively support national economic development 

goals while ensuring an appropriate balance of 

private and public interests. Such projects should be 

designed “from the ground up”, based on effective 

diagnosis of the country’s needs, and taking into 

consideration all of the flexibilities afforded under 

TRIPS. 

Funding 

A significant obstacle to the design and delivery of 

effective IPR technical assistance is inadequate 

funding. The cost of providing experts missions is 

significant and growing. In this environment a 

needless duplication of technical assistance-funded 

activities is costly and wasteful. Improved long-range 

planning should lead to the more effective allocation 

of technical assistance funding and more costeffective 

design of relevant and sustainable national 

IP regimes. 

A significant issue with respect to increasing the 

funding of IPR technical assistance may be 

reluctance on the part of IPR holders to agree to 

what they characterize as a “diversion” of the fees 

that they pay for services from WIPO, the EPO and 

national offices of developed countries, towards 

30



development cooperation activities by these 

organizations. A common view is that the fees paid 

by IP rights holders should be used by these 

organizations to improve enforcement activities and 

levels of service, including turn-around times, for 

those who pay the fees. Further, there are 

expectations that WIPO and national and regional IP 

administrations should reduce user fees to reflect 

what are seen as “savings” resulting from increased 

use of information technology and automated 

systems. 

The combined effect of these pressures would 

appear to mitigate against the availability of 

significant IPR technical assistance funding 

increases from traditional user fee sources. At the 

same time, it is recognized that significant funding is 

being provided by developed countries to the WTO 

(Doha Development Agenda Global Trust Fund) for 

developing countries and the Integrated Framework 

Trust Fund. It is suggested that, in combination with 

a more strategic approach to the planning and 

design of projects, more effective utilization of 

existing resources together with additional new 

resources from non-traditional sources could lead to 

significant enhancements in the quality and 

sustainability of IPR technical assistance. 

Proposal 5: Donors should explore options for 

focusing an increased portion of general economic 

development co-operation funding towards IPR 

technical assistance. A model for costing the design 

and delivery of comprehensive multi-year projects 

aimed at automation and organizational reform 

should also be developed. 

Delivery 

The EPO web site notes that in 2004 it plans 30 

international cooperation projects, involving 

approximately 130 experts being sent to 45 countries 

for a total of 642 man days. 22 This suggests that, on 

average, each expert mission will be of approximately 

five days duration. Similar activity durations are 

common for WIPO and other donors. This appears 

to be adequate, if it is assumed that the activities are 

under projects that these organizations already have 

under way, most of which relate to the training and 

development of human resources. 

On the other hand, experience suggests that for 

major modernization projects that include a broad 

range of activities including human resources 

development, work-flow and organizational redesign, 

infrastructure modernization and 

computerization, greater continuity, longer and more 

frequent advisory missions may be warranted. IPRtechnical 

assistance activities in a number of 

countries have demonstrated positive results from 

the adoption of a long-term perspective in the design 

and delivery of modernization assistance. The 

experiences of India (WIPO), the Philippines (EPO), 

Vietnam (Switzerland, EPO and others), and Brazil, 

Mexico, and Indonesia (World Bank) warrant closer 

examination to identify IPR technical assistance 

lessons to be learned by all parties. At the same 

time, it is noted that organizations such as the IMF 

are apparently finding that, “in general, technical 

assistance provided by staff missions appears more 

likely to be successful than that provided by longterm 

experts.” 23 The implications of this should be 

examined in the context of IPR technical assistance. 

Finally, the increased availability and reduced costs 

of information and communications technologies 

should be more effectively exploited for the delivery 

of technical assistance. As the costs of expert 

missions continue to increase, affordable access to 

IT and modern telecommunications continues to 

improve. This is particularly in the case of IP 

administrations of developing countries where WIPO 

and other donors have provided computers and 

access to the internet, including WIPONET. The 

design, funding and delivery of IPR technical 

assistance should take this into account. Significant 

benefits should accrue to modernization projects in 

terms of reduced mission costs and improved 

access to experts and technical advisors through 

greater exploitation of IT and modern 

telecommunications. 

Proposal 6: Donors should examine the 

benefits and costs of enhancing the quality and 

sustainability of modernization activities through 

greater exploitation of information and 

telecommunications technology. 

Project planning, management and impact 

assessment 

IPR technical assistance programs are often funded 

by organizations that are familiar with the provision 

of technical assistance for economic development. 

These organizations are generally less familiar with 

specifics of IPR technical assistance and rely on 

national, regional or international IP organizations to 

22 See: http://int-coop.european-patentoffice.org/int_coop/directorate/ 

23 See: Issues Paper for an Evaluation of Technical Assistance 

Provided by the IMF, Independent Evaluation Office (IEO), 

International Monetary Fund, November 5, 2003. Available at: 

http://www.imf.org/external/np/ieo/2003/tas/tasip.htm page 5. 

31



act as executing agencies (EAs) for program delivery 

in this area. 

Planning and management 

Organizations such as WIPO and the EPO may act 

as both donors and executing agencies of IPR 

technical assistance programmes. WIPO prepares 

and implements Nationally Focused Action Plans 

(NFAPs) that set out, in broad terms, the 

developmental activities that will be undertaken in a 

country, including the scheduling and cost of 

activities. These are reviewed and updated annually. 

The EPO manages its own program of bilateral IPRtechnical 

assistance, delivering a broad range of 

specific support activities, and also serves as the 

executing agency for EC-funded IPR technical 

assistance projects. This paper focuses on planning 

and management of IPR technical assistance 

modernization projects as a subset of broader 

economic development technical assistance. Two 

examples of successful modernization projects that 

are being implemented using an integrated or a total 

“planning-management-impact assessment” 

approach are described. 

A major multi-year project aimed at automation and 

reform of the Indian intellectual property regime is a 

useful example of true project planning and 

management methodology that was successfully 

adapted to address unique circumstances. 24 The 

modernization is being funded and executed by the 

Government of India 25 with the assistance of WIPOfunded 

technical advice. The Government of 

Australia also provided technical assistance in 

relation to the modernization of trademark 

processes and the EPO has provided training for 

patent examiners. The responsibility for 

implementation of the modernization project rests 

with the head of IP India, the Controller General of 

Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, while a senior 

level Advisory Committee, Chaired by a Joint 

Secretary and comprising representatives of key 

government stakeholders, provides overall advice, 

guidance and support to the project. WIPO 

continues to provide ongoing technical assistance as 

the project is implemented, particularly with respect 

to reviewing progress and identifying options for 

corrective actions, as warranted. 

24 See: http://www.ipindia.nic.in/ipr/patent/ip_ini_status.htm 

25 Patent Office modernization was allocated funding equivalent to 

approximately USD 20 million in 1998. See: 

http://dipp.nic.in/ipr.htm 

A Swiss-funded project in Vietnam represents a 

second interesting model for effective project 

planning and management. This multi-year project, 

initiated in 2001, is being executed jointly by the 

Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (IPI) 

and Vietnam’s National Office of Intellectual 

Property (NOIP), and is aimed at assisting Vietnam 

to reform its IP regime as part of its WTO accession 

process. The project was implemented with a Swiss 

“Local Partner” to work closely, on site in Hanoi, 

with the Vietnamese project partners. Detailed 

project implementation, direction and control are 

exercised through a joint management coordination 

group, while overall accountability for the project 

rests with a Joint Committee that meets annually and 

that comprises senior level representatives of both 

governments. 

Both of the above activities were designed from 

inception as projects and are managed using project 

management techniques and discipline rather than 

the more traditional and familiar program 

management methodology. In both examples, the 

donors and executing agencies are program-oriented 

operations but are managing successful IPR 

technical assistance projects. 

Proposal 7: Donors should undertake a 

cooperative project to identify lessons to be learned 

from a small number of IPR technical assistance 

projects tha t may afford useful learning 

opportunities. 

The WIPO-supported project for the automation and 

reform of the Indian intellectual property 

administration and the Swiss-funded project in 

Vietnam are specific examples of project planning, 

management and evaluation that have been adapted 

to address the and unique circumstances of each 

country. 

Impact assessment 

The overall quality and sustainability of IPR technical 

assistance could be strengthened by evaluating the 

implementation and results of activities, 

substantively and objectively, and by sharing the 

lessons learned. Donor organizations are generally 

subject to performance reviews and audits as part of 

their governance and accountability regimes. 

Nevertheless, documentation that reflects the results 

of IPR technical assistance impact assessment is 

scarce. Since impact assessments are normally 

carried out directly by the technical assistance 

partners themselves, it may be reasonably assumed 

that the sensitivities inhibiting information exchange 

with third parties, as discussed earlier in the paper, 

are even more prevalent here. Candid assessments 

32



that could have negative implications for future 

technical assistance are not likely to be forthcoming 

if these might be widely circulated or published. 

The challenge therefore, is to find ways that will 

identify and permit such obstacles to be overcome. 

Major technical assistance donors such as the IMF 

are increasing activities to standardize surveillance 

and evaluation activities across their organizations 

and programs. 26 IPR technical assistance would 

clearly benefit from monitoring these efforts by 

permitting a clearer understanding of what works, 

what does not work, and why, thereby allowing the 

adoption of relevant best practices. 

Proposal 8: Donors should monitor the IMF, 

the World Bank and other major donors, with 

respect to their ongoing efforts to evaluate technical 

assistance activities in order to enhance the 

contribution of these activities to their overall 

mandates. 

26 See: Issues Paper for an Evaluation of Technical Assistance 

Provided by the IMF, Independent Evaluation Office (IEO), 

International Monetary Fund, November 5, 2003. Available at: 

http://www.imf.org/external/np/ieo/2003/tas/tasip.htm 

33



Slidepack 

Speaker: Mart Leesti, 

Independent Consultant 

Slides: 16 

Automation of IPR administration & 

organisational reform in developing 

countries: progress & pitfalls 

Mart Leesti, Independent Consultant 

Modernization of IP Regimes in 

Developing Countries 

Burnham Beeches, U.K. 

September 2004 

Mart Leesti 

Slide 2 

Topics Covered 

 

 

 

 

Donor co-ordination and information 

exchange 


Project design, funding and delivery 

Project planning, management and impact 

assessment 

Slide 3 

34



Donor co-ordination and information 

exchange 

Slide 4 

Coordination - Proposal 1: 

• Donors should explore options for 

establishing a suitable mechanism for 

coordination of TA aimed at the 

modernization of IP administration. This 

should involve major donors, including WIPO 

and the EPO, as well as representatives of 

developing country recipients, including 

LDCs. 

Slide 5 

Information - Proposal 2: 

• IPR-TA donors should establish a pilot 

project to identify and overcome obstacles to 

enhancing and sharing documented TA 

information. Such a pilot could involve a 

major donor such as WIPO or the EPO, one 

major bilateral donor, and one development 

partner. 

Slide 6 

35



Information - Proposal 2 (cont’d) 

• The objective would be to identify a standard 

format for IPR-TA needs assessment, 

planning, implementation and impact 

evaluation reports that would result in the 

delivery of higher quality TA. 

Slide 7 


Slide 8 

Proposal 3: 

• Donors should explore the viability of 

developing and adopting a comprehensive 

IPR-TA “diagnostic” methodology that would 

lead to more accurate needs assessment, a 

more sustainable TA effort and better results. 

Such diagnostic should better enable the 

recipient country to participate effectively in 

the definition of needs and the evaluation of 

results. 

Slide 9 

36



Project design, funding and 

delivery 

Slide 10 

Design - Proposal 4: 

• Donors should adopt a more strategic approach to the 

design of IPR-TA. Donors should ensure that TA 

projects are designed so as to enable developing 

countries to better administer IP laws to pro-actively 

support national economic development goals while 

ensuring an appropriate balance of private and public 

interests. Such projects should be designed “from the 

ground up”, based on effective diagnosis of the 

country’s needs, and taking into consideration all of the 

flexibilities afforded under TRIPS. 

Slide 11 

Funding - Proposal 5: 

• Donors should explore options for focusing 

an increased portion of general economic 

development TA funding towards IPR-TA. A 

model for costing the design and delivery of 

comprehensive multi-year projects aimed at 

automation and organizational reform should 

also be developed. 

Slide 12 

37



Delivery - Proposal 6: 

• Donors should examine the benefits and 

costs of enhancing the quality and 

sustainability of modernization activities 

through greater exploitation of information 

and telecommunications technology. 

Slide 13 

Project planning, management 

and assessment 

Slide 14 

Planning and management - Proposal 

7: 

• Donors should undertake a cooperative project to 

identify lessons to be learned from a small number of 

IPR-TA projects that may afford useful learning 

opportunities. The WIPO-supported project for the 

automation and reform of the Indian intellectual 

property administration and the Swiss-funded project 

in Vietnam are specific examples of project planning, 

management and evaluation that have been adapted 

to address the unique circumstances of each 

country. 

Slide 15 

38



Impact assessment - Proposal 8: 

• Donors should monitor the IMF, the World 

Bank and other major donors, with respect to 

their ongoing efforts to evaluate TA activities 

in order to enhance the contribution of these 

activities to their overall mandates. 

Slide 16 

39



5 Promoting innovation and creativity in developing countries: an 

emerging challenge for IPR technical assistance 

Issues Paper written by Denis Croze 

Introduction 

For a number of years, WIPO’s cooperation for 

development activities have concentrated, through 

the WIPO demystification campaign, on clarifying 

and underscoring the central role of IP as an 

important tool for social development, economic 

growth and wealth creation. This was achieved by 

providing legal and technical assistance to countries 

with a view to complying with international norms 

and obligations in the field of IP, and by assisting 

developing countries and LDCs in the establishment 

and modernization of their systems for the 

administration and enforcement of IP rights, 

including through automation. 

Today, developing countries have started to 

strategically use IP as an economic tool and are 

increasingly requesting WIPO to assist them in 

deriving value from their adoption of IP systems, 

especially in the area of protecting and valorising 

their national and regional inventions and creative 

works in such a way as to promote economic, social 

and cultural development objectives. This new 

parameter demonstrates that the intensive technical 

assistance delivered by WIPO and others 

organizations since the adoption of the TRIPS 

Agreement, largely contributed to a better 

understanding and mastering of IP concepts by 

developing countries, beyond the strict creation of a 

legal and administrative infrastructure for IP 

protection. Without such an initial input from WIPO, 

IP would not now be today so much at the centre of 

the international debate and one of the developing 

countries’ most important preoccupations. 

WIPO’s approach towards economic development 

lies within the framework of the United Nations 

Millennium Declaration and its eight “millennium 

development goals”, aiming at creating an 

environment which is conducive to development and 

the elimination of poverty. Based on the 

understanding of the challenges relating to IP issues 

of emerging concern currently facing by developing 

and least developed countries and their need for a 

comprehensive, holistic, and cohesive strategic plan 

to facilitate the integration of IP rights issues into 

their development policies, Main Program 08 of the 

WIPO Program and Budget for 2004/2005 provides, 

as its main objective, to support developing and 

least developed 27 countries (LDCs) in their initiatives 

to maximize the use and effectiveness of IP as a tool 

for economic, social and cultural development. 28 In 

other words, to enhance the conciliation of the 

promotion of intellectual property and the 

development interests of developing countries which 

requires flexibility and safeguards as well as a 

stronger focus on technology transfer and IP assets 

management. 

Indeed, the relevance of IP rights in encouraging 

foreign direct investment and the transfer of 

technology and in providing a stable business 

environment is attracting increasing attention. 

Although efficient and creative use of the IP system 

cannot be said to automatically trigger and drive 

forward economic development, it has functioned in 

this way in many countries, when certain essential 

prerequisites are present. These include a sound 

legal IP infrastructure, sufficient levels of human and 

financial resources to support and encourage 

entrepreneurship in a business-friendly IP-aware 

environment, and efficient enforcement 

mechanisms. It is therefore vital for governments to 

take a proactive approach to using the IP system as a 

tool to turn invention and creativity into economic 

growth. WIPO contributes to this approach on the 

basis of specific demands formulated by the 

countries themselves within the context of their 

national IP strategy. 

It has to be noted that, in the global market, 

economic success is not linked only to high 

technology. It is also derived from innovative activity 

related to “conventional” technologies or based on 

traditional knowledge or flowing from the unique 

character of expressions of cultural heritage. A 

growing number of corporate strategies of individual 

firms in developing countries that have used IP to 

enhance their competitiveness in the global market 

27 n:\orgddgeds\shared\croze\missions\dfid-issue paper.doc 

28 

See Revised Proposal for Program and Budget 2004-2005 (July 

31, 2003), WIPO Document N° WO/PBC/7/2 

40



provide useful examples of the catalytic role it can 

have in generating economic success. 

The WIPO Sector of Cooperation for Development 

has been renamed in 2004 as the Economic 

Development Sector to reflect the emphasis put on 

the economic and development dimension of 

intellectual property. This newly named sector is 

therefore meant to transcribe the economic 

development objectives into reality in order to 

ensure that developing countries and LDCs benefit 

from modern scientific and technological advances 

in health, environment, communication, technology 

and food and nutrition among others. 

To meet these objectives, the Economic 

Development Sector (EDS) relies on the existing 

units, who’s functions remain unchanged: the four 

Economic Development Regional Bureaus (Africa, 

Arab Countries, Asia and the Pacific, Latin America 

and the Caribbean), the LDCs Division, the 

Intellectual Property Law Department and the 

Collective Management Division. 

In addition two newly established constituentspecific 

units were created to, among others, reply to 

the challenge of promoting innovation and creativity 

in developing countries. 

The IP and Economic Development Department’s 

role is to define and focus the economic agenda of 

WIPO towards targeted results. This Department is 

therefore acting as an in-house coordinator for all 

the activities and studies related to IP and economic 

development: maintaining an inventory of studies 

and reports with an economic component, a roster 

of experts, drafting a bulletin on ongoing projects, 

activities and studies, collecting and analyzing IP 

data and statistical information to better assess the 

IP impact on economic performance, 

commissioning research papers and publications, 

etc. 

The IP Assets Management Division has activities 

which involve analytical and research work in 

support of effective IP policies and strategies in 

developing countries. This includes awareness 

raising of the importance and economic impact of IP 

pro-active policies and strategies on a regional and 

national level, providing expert services to 

governmental policy makers in the field of 

Intellectual Assets Management (IAM) and in 

development of strategic IP policies, conducting 

studies and developing training materials in key 

areas that will have an impact on IP asset 

management such as IP/R&D Networks, licensing, 

patent professional training and valuation and IP 

based financing. 

Promotion of invention and innovation 

A number of activities concerning the promotion of 

invention and innovation are carried out by WIPO’s 

Division for Infrastructure Services and Innovation 

Promotion 

(DISIP) 

(http://www.wipo.int/innovation). 

WIPO’s Award program is one of them. It comprises 

the WIPO Awards for Inventors, the WIPO Creativity 

Awards and the WIPO Trophy for Innovative 

Enterprises. These Awards are designed to offer 

recognition to inventors, innovators, designers, 

creators and innovative companies and aim at 

stimulating inventive and innovative activity around 

the world, as well as to improve the image of 

inventors through recognition of their roles as 

creators of substantive input to national wealth and 

development. They also represent a cost-effective 

means of promoting a wider knowledge and 

understanding of the intellectual property system 

among potential uses in industry and commerce, in 

culture and academia, in the digital and information 

technology industries, as well as among the general 

public all over the world. Since the creation of the 

WIPO Award scheme for inventors in 1979, 850 

awards were offered to inventors from 97 countries 

of which 59 were developing countries. 

WIPO Patent Information Services (WPIS). 

Considering that providing access to and use of 

technological information contained in patent 

documents would greatly contribute to accelerate the 

economic, social and cultural development in 

developing countries, WIPO has set-up and has 

being operating since 1975, the unique WPIS for 

handling individual requests for patent information. 

Under this program, WIPO has assisted and 

provided relevant IP information in response to 

requests from national industries and the R&D 

community and business sector of developing 

countries. Furthermore, WIPO has assisted a 

number of developing countries and countries in 

transition in establishing their national industrial 

property information system by providing expert 

assistance, training, collections of patent 

documents, etc. The WPIS represents a contribution 

to development and its success is proven by the 

large number of requests received from users in 

developing countries asking for technical 

information contained in patent literature. Services 

under WPIS are offered free-of-charge on the basis of 

voluntary, free-of-charge, contributions made in the 

main part by some 18 industrial property offices 

worldwide. Some online searches are also 

undertaken by WIPO. 

41



The WPIS services include the provision of: 

• Reports on searches and investigations carried 

out in patent document collections and online 

databases to establish the state-of-the-art in a 

specific technology. 

• Search and examination reports of applications 

for patent applications filed with the African 

Regional Industrial Property Organization 

(ARIPO) under the Harare Protocol. 

• Search and examination reports for 

applications for patents under the International 

Cooperation in the Search and Examination of 

Inventions (ICSEI). 

• Information on equivalent patent documents 

and patent literature cited in earlier 

examination procedures or identified in 

documentary searches carried out by other 

patent offices. 

• Copies of individual patent documents. 

Since the start of the program in 1975, until the end 

of the year 2003, almost 17,000 search reports were 

established and transmitted free-of-charge to the 

requestors from over 107 developing countries and 

countries with economies in transition, and 

14 intergovernmental organizations. Last year (2003) 

1,212 search requests (including ICSEI) were received 

from 30 developing countries, countries with 

economies in transition to market economies and 

intergovernmental organizations. As a result, the 

WIPO free-of-charge services could be valued at 

around US 17 Million dollars that had been made 

available for the benefit of developing countries. 

The WIPO University Initiative program (see 

http://www.wipo.int/uipc/en/index.html) aims at 

developing a greater awareness of IP matters at the 

university level through the creation of “IP 

Coordinators” which act as the contact person or 

unit where management, researchers, academic staff 

and students can inquire and receive information 

and advice on IP matters and have access to 

technological information contained in IP 

documents, in support of their teaching or research 

and development (R&D) activities. It is expected that 

this project will lead to enhanced use of the IP 

system and contribute to the transfer of technology 

and innovation from universities and R&D 

organizations to industry and in particular: 

• Improve access to the wealth of technological 

information contained in patent documents 

and improve the capacity of the users 

(researchers and inventors at R&D 

organizations, universities, etc.) to analyze and 

use such information. 

• Encourage the establishment of IP policies in 

universities. 

• Enhance universities/R&D organizations’ 

capacity to identify their IP assets with a view to 

generating benefits and income. 

• Improve the IP protection of research results 

and inventions generated by universities and 

R&D organizations, as a first step towards 

successful commercialization. 

Another tool designed by WIPO and published on 

the Internet and which is regularly updated is the 

Directory of Innovation Centers (ICs) (see 

http://www.wipo.int/icdir/) which provides fact 

sheets with details of the main objectives and 

activities of innovation centers, technopoles and/or 

technology transfer centers located throughout the 

world, which devote at least part of their work to 

inventive and innovative activities/projects, 

including use of the intellectual property (IP) system 

by inventors, innovators, researchers and private 

companies. The directory enables ICs and related 

services to create new contacts and facilitate 

networking and information access, to advance in 

their own activities by learning from others and to 

serve as a source of inspiration for future ICs and 

related services worldwide. 

Helping developing countries and LDCs 

to develop national IP strategies and 

related action plans 

As a consequence of the significant differences in 

developing countries and LDCs, the diversity of their 

economic, legal, cultural and technological 

backgrounds, and the different requirements and 

priorities specified in their cooperation with WIPO, 

WIPO activities are tailored to meet the specific 

needs of developing countries and LDCs. In other 

words, there is no "one-size-fits-all model." Such an 

approach covers a wide range of activities from the 

demystification of IP, the promotion of a better 

understanding of the policy options the IP system 

offers and building capacity in the form of an 

essential IP infrastructure on the one hand, to 

enforcement, promotion of productive investments, 

etc. on the other. 

In assisting its Member States to identify and 

customize the IP assets they need in their national 

strategies and policies, WIPO works in close 

contacts with its Member States and its dialogue is 

shaped by various tools such as Nationally (or 

Regionally) focused Actions Plans (NFAPs) and 

other consultative processes. 

42



A number of countries have enacted legislation and 

established policies to encourage the development 

of IP assets, and to provide rewards for those 

involved in their creation. A few examples: 

• Indonesia has created a network for R&D 

centers supported by IP outreach offices 

throughout the nation. Some of these centers 

have become self-supporting due in part to the 

revenues generated by their IP assets. 

• Cuba has implemented policies to promote IP 

development in research centers, including 

outreach programs and funding for researchers 

who use the IP system to protect their research 

results. 

• India’s Council for Scientific and Industrial 

Research (CSIR) funds and promotes the 

development and IP protection of Indian 

technologies in key areas, sustaining a network 

of 40 laboratories and 22,000 research 

personnel and providing training, grants and 

awards. 

Some countries are adopting written IP assetstrategic 

plans. Eight sub-components have been 

identified for a strategic IP planning: 29 IP auditing, 

strategic IP plans, the identification of “clusters” or 

target areas for IP asset development, human capital 

development, incentives, policies addressing brain 

drain, measures to make IP ownership realistically 

affordable to SMEs and non-profit research 

institutions, including public-private venture funds, 

and regional cooperation and markets. A strategic IP 

policy incorporating all of these components is a 

first essential step in stimulating economic growth 

through IP asset development and management. 

Such plans may also include goal-setting and 

measurement, funding of research and development 

and “harvesting” of resulting IP, coordination of 

education and economic policies with IP policies and 

planning, tax and other financial incentives for IP 

development, and patent application funds. 

A few examples of proactive policies to stimulate IP 

asset development and management being 

undertaken by WIPO Member States follow: 

• In 2001, Singapore established an Economic 

Review Committee to conduct a thorough 

analysis of Singapore’s areas of comparative 

advantage and to work out a comprehensive 

development package to include IP assets. 

Singapore has focused on building up the 

capabilities of SMEs and investing selectively in 

29 See “IP Assets Development and Management: A Key Strategy 

for Economic Growth”, WIPO Publication N° 896 

priority areas, such as information technology 

(IT), biotechnology, and life sciences research. 

The government also emphasizes the education 

of its work force to upgrade skills and 

knowledge. These measures were intended to 

reduce the economy’s vulnerability to external 

shocks related to electronics exports and to 

continue its transformation from a 

manufacturing to a knowledge- and skillsintensive 

economy. 

• Malaysia has created several venture capital 

funds for technology development, including 

The Technology Acquisition Fund (TAF), The 

Commercialization of R&D Fund (CRDF) and 

the Malaysia Venture Capital Management 

Fund. The last of these focuses on 

“spearheading the country’s change towards a 

complete knowledge-based economy before 

2020.” 

• The Organisation Africaine pour la Propriété 

Intellectuelle (OAPI), created a venture fund in 

2002 to stimulate development of IP based 

enterprises, the Fonds d’Aide à la Promotion de 

l’invention et de l’innovation (FAPI). 

At WIPO, public and private IP strategies are also 

discussed with a view to encouraging different 

partners in policy and decision making circles to 

systematically integrate IP in national economic 

development strategies as well as advising private 

entrepreneurs on the issue. To respond more 

effectively to the requests arising from national 

policy makers looking for practical answers to 

strategic questions about how IP functions as a 

policy tool for economic, social and cultural 

development, WIPO is developing networks 

involving a wider variety of stakeholders in 

developing countries to build synergistic 

relationships among those sectors of the civil society 

and government that are acknowledged as catalysts 

for developing and sustaining intellectual asset 

development and management on a national scale. 

Complementary to unveiling the potential of IPRs in 

fostering national economic growth, emphasis is 

systematically given in WIPO technical assistance 

activities to practical cases, success stories and 

empirical evidence such as the national or local 

experience in a specific sector (pharmaceutical, 

information technology, etc). 

WIPO also contributes to strengthening inter and 

intra regional cooperation –South-South cooperation 

–using WIPOnet as a tool for South-South 

knowledge transfer and resource sharing. Support is 

given to IP Offices in using WIPONET to its 

maximum, developing a collection of relevant 

43



material, preparation of a database for the South- 

South Learning Network and organizing an 

electronic forum for sharing best practices in the use 

of IP by governments, enterprises and universities in 

developing countries and LDCs. 

Linking deliverables to economic 

performance indicators: conducting IP 

audits and IP assets management 

WIPO also develops practical tools for assessing and 

exploiting IP assets such as case studies, national 

surveys, indicators and guidelines, in collaboration 

with local consultants and local institutions. 

One example is the assessment of the benefits of the 

intellectual property system to Africa. This activity 

conducted by the Africa Bureau, aims at promoting 

the generation and commercial use of IP assets in 

developing countries. The information collected on 

the basis of a methodology and standards 

questionnaires will assist in devising methods to 

promote the creation, ascertain ownership, and 

commercial use of IPRs by various actors in the 

relevant countries or region. Therefore the primary 

aim of the survey is to gather information that will 

facilitate the analysis of the management of IP assets 

in developing countries. Three questionnaires seek 

to elicit information on potential and actual assets 

owned by business enterprises; universities, non 

university academic institutions, public research 

institutions, specialized/autonomous R&D 

institutions; intellectual property offices and 

government agencies. The survey will examine the 

type of IP assets owned or generated by the 

abovementioned categories, their actual and 

potential commercial utility, contracts related to 

IPRs, and the content of agreements involving IPRs 

which they reach with third parties. It will also seek 

to identify/ascertain the types of industries that 

generate IPRs and the types of IPRs generated by 

those industries. 

Another example is the Study on the Use of IP as a 

tool for economic growth in the Association of South 

East Asian Nations (ASEAN) region, prepared by the 

ASPAC Bureau. 30 Its findings and recommendations 

constitute a good model for other regions and 

require to be developed in more details. 

ASEAN member states were increasingly seeking 

more information on the practical means of using IP 

to enhance economic growth and WIPO was asked, 

at the seventh ASEAN Consultation meeting held in 

30 WIPO Publication N° 914 

May 2001, to translate those ideas into concrete and 

practical steps that would enable ASEAN countries, 

individually and collectively, to benefit from the use 

of their intellectual property system. The study found 

that many of the ASEAN countries are already in the 

process of developing and using IP as a tool for 

economic development, and that those countries are 

implementing a myriad of government and private 

sector policies that support the development 

accumulation and use of IP as economic assets. The 

study shows that these policies are designed to 

promote the development of human capital and 

associated intellectual property as an economic 

asset integrated in the economic life of the ASEAN 

countries. They share the common characteristic of 

being “pro-active”, that is premised on the 

conviction that government policies and 

public/private partnerships have a legitimate role in 

stimulating and facilitating economic growth in a 

market economy, and in particular in promoting the 

indigenous development of technologies and 

manufacture of products. 

The key theme is a sharp focus on human capital 

development in relation to R&D in targeted areas of 

economic importance. This is perceived as a form of 

national competence-building, leading to national 

empowerment and regional economic integration. In 

addition to the focus on human capital development, 

the Study observed a commitment to proactive 

government IP policies supporting private sector 

technology initiatives, use of funding and incentives 

to promote IP asset development, support for strong 

and proactive IP offices, professional education in IP 

and related disciplines, and alignment/integration of 

IP policy and administration with economic and 

education policy and administration. 

The study concludes with recommendations for 

further work. The areas where continued work is 

recommended are not identified as shortcomings, 

but rather as areas where the work that is already 

under way can be intensified or carried to its logical 

conclusion. Those areas include: 

• Adoption of written national IP Strategic Plans 

or alternatively written IP components in 

economic development and human resource 

development plans. Such strategic plans should 

emphasize the importance of IP asset 

development and management in the context 

of economic development, identify obstacles 

that inhibit indigenous IP asset development 

and set out concrete steps, milestones, 

incentives, objectives and responsibilities. An 

essential aspect of strategic planning is more 

explicit alignment of policies in furtherance of 

the IP Strategic Plan with policies in related 

44



areas, including economic development, 

education, health, including economic 

development, education, health, trade and 

science and technology. 

• Creation of better means of measurement and 

data collection related to IP asset development 

and management, including tools for assessing 

progress in indigenous development of IP, local 

utilization of the IP systems, licensing-in and 

licensing-out and other types of commercial 

use of IP. 

• Recognizing and rewarding IP harvesting in 

ongoing technology development and technical 

assistance projects where intellectual property 

assets are being created, but sometimes not 

formally recognized or legally protected. 

• Promoting financing initiatives for technology 

and cultural R&D, including financial support 

for SMEs and other enterprises to support their 

development and legal protection of inventions 

and works thereby adding value and the 

potential for greater return on investment. 

• Interdisciplinary training of professionals so as 

to create cadres of persons who have the 

requisite skills for handling practical IP issues 

as they relate to education, trade, business, 

health care, science, the arts and other key 

fields. There appears to be a need for training 

of IP professionals, particularly patent agents 

and licensing experts, who will be competent to 

secure legal protection for inventions and 

works and to negotiate license agreements and 

other IP-based commercial transactions. 

• Promotion of licensing and commercialization 

of IP. 

• Outreach programs and active IP offices. 

• Exploration of an ASEAN regional R&D network 

to promote and support research facilities in 

their development, accumulation and 

management of inventions and works, to share 

resources, to leverage costs and to create and 

license significant IP portfolios. 

The WIPO Guide on Surveying the Economic 

Contribution of the Copyright-Based Industries 31 

(music, film, book publishing and software) is 

another example of WIPO’s activity in collecting and 

analyzing data related to economic use of IP. The 

copyright-based industries constitute a great 

potential for promoting the economic development 

of countries, also contributing indirectly to 

31 WIPO Publication N° 893 

safeguarding national cultural traditions and 

preserving national cultural identities. 

The Guide is designed to provide practical guidance 

to all countries wishing to survey and measure the 

size of their creative and information sector. 

Developing countries, countries in transition and 

LDCs may find useful guidelines and references in 

this regard. It is hoped that this Guide would 

facilitate national and international research and 

comparison among studies, lead to new level of 

research and possibly to a new level of awareness of 

the economic significance of copyright protection. 

Hence this would assist governments in crafting 

appropriate strategies in support of creative work 

through the establishment of an enabling 

environment and infrastructure. 

The scope of the Guide is confined to surveying the 

economic contribution of the copyright-based 

industries and providing quantifiable characteristics 

of this contribution. They address three main 

indicators of the size of these industries – the value 

added generated by them, their share in employment 

and their contribution to foreign trade. Projects on 

the contribution of copyright-based industries 

elaborated on the basis of the Guide are currently 

being developed in pilot countries (Singapore, 

Canada, Latvia), and envisaged in others regions 

(Africa and Arab countries). 

A fourth example is the R&D Networks Project 

elaborated by the WIPO IP Asset Management 

Division of a Model for Supporting Developing 

Country Researchers in Creating, Owning and 

Exploiting Health Research Results. The Project will 

entail interdisciplinary research teams in order to 

develop, test, and evaluate a Network and IP Hub 

model for developing country R&D institutions in the 

health field. The work will focus on two selected 

developing country sites, the sub-region of French 

Speaking Central Africa (Cameroon, Chad, Central 

African Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon and 

Republic of Congo) and Colombia. Academic, 

governmental and non-governmental partners from 

Switzerland, Central Africa and Colombia will 

participate in the Project through their experts, 

professors and researchers in the form of 

interdisciplinary teams for the research, test and 

evaluation that will be undertaken regarding the 

model proposed by the Project. 

Furthermore, in supporting requests for assistance 

in creating or upgrading innovation 

promotion/support structures and services, WIPO, 

through its Division for Infrastructure Services and 

Innovation Promotion (DISIP) is running special 

training programs on innovation and technology 

45



management with the support and financing of 

German and Swiss counterpart cooperating 

institutions. 

These few examples, among many others in WIPO 

technical assistance activities, illustrate that the 

promotion of innovation and creativity in developing 

countries includes a wide range of policies and 

practices. They can be enumerated as follows: 

creation of strategic IP plans, incorporation of IP 

components in economic plans, coordination of 

national economic, education and 

science/technology policies with IP policies, public 

funding for IP creators, private venture funding for 

IP-rich businesses, financial taxation incentives and 

awards for IP creators, institutional measures to 

strengthen and expand the role of IP offices, use of 

organizational development principles to coordinate 

and align IP office functions with those of other 

ministries, use of appropriate information 

technology to facilitate IP administration, reform of 

laws to make the IP system affordable and easy to 

use, support for university-based research and 

development centers, regional schemes to leverage 

the cost and resources for technology education, 

incubation centers, technology licensing offices and 

IP outreach offices to promote local development of 

IP, interdisciplinary training for IP professionals to 

integrate traditional legal education with education 

in trade, technology policy, education, management 

and other related disciplines, supporting IP assets 

management programs for enterprises and small 

and medium size enterprises, providing information 

and counselling for business on how to market and 

commercialize IP-rich products, promotion of 

technology licensing “in” and “out”, support for 

interregional and interregional joint ventures in 

R&D, manufacturing and distribution, incentives for 

high-value foreign direct investment and programs 

to “harvest” IP from traditional knowledge, technical 

assistance projects, and other ongoing technological 

programs. 

given activities: experts missions, interactive 

seminars, symposia, small group workshops, policy 

consultations, written guides, training programs, 

case studies and best practices, and interactive 

training programs in impact areas. As always, 

activities will be identified in consultation with 

Member State governments, IP Offices, the relevant 

cooperating institutions and organizations, and the 

intended beneficiaries. As always, experts, 

consultants, lecturers and other resources from the 

developing countries and relevant development and 

financing institutions will continue to be utilized to 

the maximum extent possible. 

It is obvious that the promotion of innovation and 

creativity in developing countries constitutes an 

emerging challenge for IP technical assistance. But 

WIPO and its Member States have already taken the 

measure of this challenge. Planning for the Program 

of action of the Economic Development Sector for 

the years 2004-2005 has been drafted on the basis of 

the discussions at the Permanent Committee on 

Cooperation for Development Related to Intellectual 

Property (PCIPD) and at the Forum on Strategic 

Issues for the Future, held under the auspices of that 

Committee in October 2002. It has duly taken into 

account in its workplan this new economic 

dimension. It will be implemented by using the most 

effective modalities for economic development for 

46



Slidepack 

Speaker: Denis Croze, 

WIPO 

Slides: 19 

Promoting innovation & creativity 

in developing countries: 

an emerging challenge 

Denis Croze, WIPO 

Promoting 

Innovation and Creativity in 

Developing Countries : 

an Emerging Challenge 

for IP Technical Assistance 

DFID Workshop 

September 16 - 17, 2004 

Slide 2 

Our Customers 

181 Member States 

Slide 3 

174 

NGOs 

49 LDCs 

135 Developing 

Countries 

47



The Service Provider: The 

Economic Development Sector 

Slide 4 

• Economic Development Regional Bureaus: 

(Africa, Arab Countries, Asia and the Pacific, 

Latin America and the Caribbean) 

• LDCs Division 

• IP Law Department 

• Copyright Collective Management Division 

• IP and Economic Development Department 

• IP Assets Management Division 

IP and Economic Development 

Department 

Slide 5 

• To define and focus the WIPO economic 

agenda towards targeted results 

• In house coordinator for all activities and 

studies on IP and economic development: 

– gathering documentary evidence on how IP may 

contribute to economic growth 

– help countries to assess and exploit their IP assets 

– commission research papers and publications 

– collect and analyse IP data and statistical 

information 

IP Assets Management Division 

• Analytical and research work in support of 

effective IP policies and strategies: 

– Awareness raising of the importance and economic 

impact of IP pro-active policies and strategies 

– assistance in developing national and regional 

strategies 

– Support for the development of R&D networks, 

empowerment with licensing skills and valuation 

activities 

Slide 6 

48



Others 

• WIPO Worldwide Academy (WWA) 

• Division for Cooperation with certain Countries in 

Europe and Asia 

• SMEs Division 

• IT Services (IP Office Automation Division) 

• Division for Infrastructure Services and 

Innovation Promotion (DISIP) 

Slide 7 

Division for Infrastructure Services 

and Innovation Promotion (DISIP) 

Slide 8 

• WIPO Patent Information Services for Developing 

Countries (WIPS) : Since 1975, has provided access to 

and use of technological information contained in patent 

documents in order to accelerate the economic, social and 

cultural development in developing countries. 

• WIPO Awards Program 

• Innovation Promotion 

• WIPO University Initiative 

• WIPO Directory of Innovation Centers 

The Support 

Slide 9 

• WIPO’s Mission 

• To promote the protection of IPRs worldwide 

• To Help extend the reach of the benefits of the international 

IP system to all WIPO member States 

• Program (08) and Budget 2004-2005 

• PCIPD + Forum on Strategic Issues for 

the Future (Oct. 2002) 

• Participation to Committees 

• Geographical Representation (94 nationalities) 

49



EDS Objectives 

• Develop Proactive Policies Beyond the Creation 

of the IP Legal and Administrative 

Infrastructure 

• Support Countries in Maximizing the Use of IP 

as a Tool for Economic, Social and Cultural 

Development 

• Integrate Development Objectives in the 

Formulation and Implementation of IP Policy 

Slide 10 

Why a new Approach? 

• Adapt to the changing global IPR Environment 

• Respond to new development expectations and 

strategic needs of developing countries 

• Capitalize on technical and legal assistance 

rendered and achieve more economic, social 

and cultural deliverables 

• Respond to challenges posed by others 

providers of IP technical assistance 

Slide 11 

Slide 12 

Designing Development-Oriented 

IP Programmes 

• Tailoring WIPO assistance to meet each country 

needs (NFAP): No "one-size-fits-all model" 

• Providing pro-active technical assistance and 

monitoring follow up (demand driven assistance) 

• Addressing public policy objectives in developing 

strategies; proposing options and flexibilities 

• Assisting Member States in identifying and 

customizing the IP assets they need in their 

national strategies and policies 

50



IP and Public Policy 

- Public Health Issues (Access to Essential 

Medicines) 

Slide 13 

- Compulsory Licensing 

- Education and R&D 

- Technology and Know-how Transfer 

- Parallel Importation and Pricing 

- FTAs and Bilateral Agreements 

- Competition 

Helping to Develop National IP 

Strategies and Action Plans 

• IP Asset Strategic Plans ⇒ 8 sub-components: 

• IP Auditing 

• Strategic IP Plans 

• Identification of clusters or target areas for IP asset development 

• Human capital development 

• Incentives (tax and others financial incentives) 

• Policies addressing brain drain 

• Measures for SMEs and R&D institutions 

• Regional cooperation 

• Also goal-setting and measurement, funding of R&D, “harvesting” of 

resulting IP, coordination of education and economic policies with IP 

policies and planning, patent application funds 

Slide 14 

Integrating IP into National and Sectoral 

Policies, Strategies and Action Plans 

Slide 15 

1. National IP Audit; also by Sector 

2. Innovation Promotion 

3. Science and Technology Development 

4. Cultural Support and Preservation 

5. Cultural Industries Development 

6. Industrial Development 

7. International Trade Relations and Expert Promotion 

8. Education, Especially Technical Education 

9. Overall Economic Development 

10. Public Interest 

51



Linking Capacity Building 

to IP Policy Dialogue 

Slide 16 

• Engaging a wider variety of stakeholders in 

developing countries 

• Developing practical tools for assessing and 

exploiting IP assets (case studies, success stories, 

national surveys, indicators and guidelines ..) 

• Strengthening inter and intra regional cooperation 

using WIPOnet as a tool for knowledge transfer 

(information-sharing, exchange of data related to economic 

use of IP etc.) 

Some Examples 

Slide 17 

• Assessment of the benefits of the IP system to 

Africa 

• Study on the use of IP as a tool for economic 

growth in the ASEAN region 

• WIPO guide on surveying the economic 

contribution of the copyright-based industries 

• Model for supporting developing country 

researchers in creating, owning and exploiting 

health research results 

Replying to the Challenge 

• Strengthening coordination (within Member 

States, between IGOs, with NGOs etc.) 

• Building a constructive dialogue 

• Developing partnerships 

• Depassionating the debate 

Slide 18 

52



Thank you! 

• For more information please 

consult the EDS website at 

www.wipo.int/cfd/en/index.html 

• or contact Denis.Croze@wipo.int 

Slide 19 

53



6 The role and perspectives of “non-traditional” providers of IPR 


Issues Paper written by Geoff Tansey 

Introduction 

The aim of this short paper is to broaden the 

understanding of IPR technical assistance by 

drawing in the perspectives, experience and 

concerns of “non-traditional” IPR technical 

assistance providers. 32 This paper draws on informal 

consultations with a limited selection of providers, 

as well as examples of specific cases drawn from the 

author's experience and reports from others of 

theirs. 33 A working draft was circulated for discussion 

with these providers, and this was revised in the light 

of their feedback, and comments on this sought at 

several meetings. 

The paper reviews the terminology suggested and 

finds it to be inappropriate, briefly outlines the work 

of a sample of nine development-centred providers 

and finds they approach their work with a different 

focus and world view from the IP-centred providers. 

Then it briefly examines the problems and 

constraints faced by the sample, the lessons learned, 

funding and resource issues, challenges and 

successes. It concludes with final remarks about the 

need for such development centred work. 

Box 1 

Meeting development needs? 

A key conclusion of the Commission on Intellectual Property 

Rights (CIPR) was that “the interests of developing countries are 

best served by tailoring their intellectual property regimes to their 

particular economic and social circumstances” (p 155). They 

argued that their “conclusions place a responsibility on the 

32 The author is grateful for the time and input from staff at the 

various organisations referred to as well as individual academics 

working in this area but is responsible for any views, errors or 

omissions in the paper. The author is also grateful for all 

comments received prior to the final submission of this paper. 

33 A similar set of questions was put to each respondent based on 

the following scheme: How do you define ‘non-traditional IP-TA 

providers’, who are they and do you find this term useful or 

appropriate? What does it mean in relation to development? What 

types of IP technical assistance do you provide, why and to 

whom? Is there a case study that illustrates your work that you 

wish to highlight? What works well? What and where are the 

problems and constraints? Are there key factors affecting success? 

What lessons can be learned? What challenges are there for the 

future – for the organisation, interagency work and for funding? 

international community to assess whether the mechanisms in 

place for negotiating intellectual property standards, both 

multilaterally and bilaterally, take sufficient account of the 

interests of developing countries and poor people…. the 

institutional framework is not optimally suited to this task and 

needs to display considerably greater sensitivity to these issues” 

(p155). 

The Commission placed importance on “a wide-ranging 

consultative process in the development and evolution of each 

country’s IP legislation” (p161). They were also concerned that 

within developed countries keen to support development 

objectives in their policy making “it would be unwise to let IP 

policy be influenced principally by domestic industrial and 

commercial interest groups in developed countries, whose view of 

what is appropriate for developing countries is very much 

coloured by their perception of their own interest” (p 163). They 

also implied that the same was true for international bodies 

providing IPR technical assistance. 

The Commission found that “NGOs have made, and can continue 

to make in the future, a positive contribution to the promotion of 

the concerns of developing countries. Campaigns to raise 

awareness by development and health NGOs were important 

factors in supporting developing countries in the negotiations of 

the Ministerial Declaration at Doha. In the fields of agriculture, 

genetic resources and traditional knowledge, certain NGO groups 

play an important role in highlighting and analysing issues of 

concern to developing countries” (p 165). 

The Commission also found that “NGOs have helped to raise the 

profile of IP issues, and that some have access to more expertise 

in this field than many officials in developing countries” (p 166). 

Moreover, “it is important that developing countries are enabled 

and assisted to identify and put forward their own interests” and 

“that developing countries will be best served by having a diversity 

of resources on which they can draw to assist them in making IP 

policy and participating in negotiations”(p 166). 

The commission argued that “NGOs are certainly one source of 

such assistance, but the role they currently fulfill reflects the fact 

that they are to some extent filling a gap.” It also said, “it is 

imperative that other sources of such assistance, particularly the 

concerned international institutions, such as WHO or FAO, 

recognize how they might make their policy advice and technical 

assistance more attuned to the needs of developing countries in 

the IP area. But at the same time, a more constructive role for 

NGOs, along with other civil society groups, might be achieved by 

giving them greater opportunities to participate in proceedings” 

(p166). 

What do we mean by “non-traditional” 

IPR technical assistance providers? 

The title given for this paper talked of “nontraditional” 

IPR technical assistance providers. The 

54



phrase itself is problematic, as several respondents 

pointed out. It is not a term in common use nor 

necessarily the best term for what is discussed in the 

paper. Technical assistance is also not a problemfree 

term (Box 2). 

Respondents see their work as technical assistance 

only if that term is defined broadly - to facilitate an 

understanding of IP issues among the groups they 

work with and so enable them to engage in the 

process of setting policy and influencing the IP rules 

to meet particular development needs. The aim is to 

ensure the rules agreed reflect development needs 

for different sectors and poor people, and help 

broaden the range of people (or stakeholders) able 

to engage in an informed and effective manner in the 

rule making processes, nationally and 

internationally. They do not see themselves as being 

engaged in technical assistance in the narrower 

sense of implementing existing rules and assisting in 

the effective running of the institutions needed to 

operate patent, trade mark, enforcement and other 

aspects of IP regimes. 

None of the groups interviewed thought of 

themselves as “non-traditional” providers of IPR 

technical assistance but could see that the term 

might be used in an ad hoc way to help identify a set 

of activities in which they engage. There was no 

enthusiasm for it becoming the accepted term, 

however. Broadly speaking, these activities aim to 

help develop the capacity of a wide range of stakeholders 

to take a more informed, active part in rule 

making on IP so that the rules reflect and take 

account of development concerns. Indeed, some 

suggested “pro-development IPR technical 

assistance” as a more appropriate term as opposed 

to “pro-IPR technical assistance providers”. Others 

suggested a negative definition – technical 

assistance that does not represent rights owners or 

their interests. 

Box 2 

Technical assistance and capacity building 

There has been considerable debate about the meaning of 

technical assistance and capacity building in the trade field. 

Consideration of this is also useful for IPR technical assistance. 

The Canadian International Development Agency in a draft paper 34 

on “CIDA’s Strategic Approach to Trade Related Capacity Building 

(TRCB)” discussed this: 

“The terms “trade related technical assistance” (TRTA) and “trade 

related capacity building” are sometimes used interchangeably. 

34 Economic Policies Division, Policy Branch, Canadian 

International Development Agency “CIDA’s Strategic Approach to 

Trade Related Capacity Building (TRCB)”, Draft of August 15, 2003 

However, the terms contain differences of meaning upon which 

there is little common agreement...To CIDA, the important 

element is the sustainable acquisition of technical skills and 

capacities as well as enhanced ownership by partners in 

developing countries and countries in transition of all the 

elements that make trade happen. “Capacity building” contains 

the notion that lasting transformation and change result from the 

activity. It is a people-centred, learn-by-doing approach, one that 

implies a consciously participatory methodology. 

Technical assistance is an activity where technical knowledge is 

shared or exchanged. It may contribute to built capacity, but does 

not necessarily seek this result. Technical assistance activities are 

often discreet and one-off in nature, whereas human capacity 

needs to be built over time with a number of (continuous or 

mutually supportive) interventions. This does not preclude the 

use of TRTA designed especially with capacity building in mind. In 

the case of trade, technical assistance has been used most notably 

in support of on-going trade negotiations and to assist developing 

countries to understand WTO rules. 

The CIDA draft paper developed the following definition of TRCB: 

“Activities that create the necessary skills and capacities among 

governmen t , private sector and civil society actors to enable them 

to work together to analyze, formulate and implement trade 

policy; to build trade related institutions; to engage in trade and to 

supply international markets; to negotiate and implement trade 

agreements; and to address the need for transitional adjustment 

measures for sectors and groups of people affected by trade 

reform.” 

This approach, while not wholly transferable to IPR technical 

assistance and perhaps too positivist in tone, reflects the kind of 

responses on technical assistance found among the respondents. 

What perspective do they bring? 

Raising this question brought up the question of 

who are the “traditional” providers and how are they 

different from the “non-traditional”, if using such a 

categorisation. Briefly, the answer seems to be that 

the former were seen as those that operate from 

within a relatively narrow, epistemic community 35 

with an internalist IP-paradigm – seeing IP as the key 

issue and committed to its promotion and 

development. The latter group, however, operate 

from a different paradigm or world view – having 

concerns about sustainable human development, 

health, food security, biodiversity, indigenous 

knowledge, justice and other issues. They are 

concerned about the IP system in so far as it affects 

these and whether or not it might be useful in 

furthering development, health and other goals. They 

35 Such communities are “composed of professionals (usually 

recruited from several disciplines) who share a commitment to a 

common causal model and a common set of political values. They 

are united by a belief in the truth of their model and by a 

commitment to translate this truth into public policy, in the 

conviction that human welfare will be enhanced as a result." See E 

B Haas, When Knowledge is Power: Three Models of Change in 

International Organisations, University of California Press, 

Berkeley and LA, 1990 pp 40-41. 

55



bring a more externalist approach reflecting views of 

different stakeholders from those in the internalist 

approach, where the interests tend to be those of IP 

title holders. In other words, the focus and world 

view are different. 

There has been some work to characterise the 

different types of IPR technical assistance providers. 

Musungu identified seven broad groups of IPR 

technical assistance providers: 36 

a 

b 

c 

d 

e 

f 

g 

International organisations that administer 

IP treaties. 

United Nations agencies and other 

intergovernmental organisations. 

Developed country development agencies 

and patent offices. 

Civil society groups. 

Business and lawyers associations. 

Philanthropic foundations. 

Organisations and entities that do not 

neatly fall into any of the above groups such 

as universities and research institutions, IP 

teaching associations etc. 

Thus, in this classification the ‘traditional IPR 

technical assistance providers’ would fall mainly in 

groups a, c, e, and some in g, while the ‘nontraditional’ 

into b (e.g. FAO and CBD), d, f and some 

in g and c. In this paper, I can only touch briefly on a 

few of these providers, particularly focussing on 

those that work in Geneva. The roles and 

perspectives and issues identified here come from a 

relatively small sample and should not be taken to 

represent the whole range of such providers. 

Role and activities of a sample of 

providers 

In general, respondents identified three broad of 

roles for IPR technical assistance: 

36 Sisule F. Musungu, “Designing Development-Oriented 

Intellectual Property Technical Assistance Programmes” paper 

presented at the ICTSD-UNCTAD Dialogue, 2nd Bellagio Series 

on Development and Intellectual Property, 18-21 September 2003. 

Available on 

http://www.iprsonline.org/unctadictsd/bellagio/dialogue2003/bel 

l2_docs.htm. He also found four main gaps in IPR technical 

assistance: understanding the concepts, issues, benefits and 

risks, e.g. in GIs and SPLT negotiations; implementing and 

complying with binding commitments, e.g. with Dispute 

settlement, PLT, ITPGRFA, FTAA etc; managing and influencing 

on-going negotiations on further commitments, e.g. in regional 

and bilateral negotiations, SPLT etc; and, gaps in developing 

strategies and setting the agenda for the future, e.g. in traditional 

knowledge, review under 71.1 in TRIPS 

1. Assisting with implementation of IP treaties 

and agreements and running of national IP 

systems. 

2. Raising awareness among different 

stakeholders of the role and importance of 

IP issues in affecting development, either in 

general or in specific sectors such as health. 

3. Assisting with negotiations or seeking 

improvements in negotiating processes. 

The first role was not seen to be fulfilled by the kind 

of providers being discussed here; rather they 

focussed on some aspects of the second and third 

approaches. 

South Centre 

The South Centre has 46 member countries and is 

based in Geneva. It is; 

“an intergovernmental organization of the 

developing countries and as such an 

instrument of South-South co-operation. 

The Centre undertakes policy-oriented 

analytical work on issues of common 

interest to the countries and peoples of the 

South, within the broad areas of 

development, international economic 

relations and aspects of North-South 

relations especially concerning the 

management and governance of the 

evolving global system.” 37 

The Centre’s work on IPR technical assistance spans 

two programmes. Some work relates to issues and 

challenges that arise in on-going negotiations mostly 

in WTO and WIPO and is part of its Trade and 

Development Programme (TADP). It includes 

demand driven work with negotiators from 

developing countries in Geneva dealing with IP and 

other trade issues in relevant Geneva-based 

organisation such as the WTO and WIPO. Other 

work relates to policy research on systemic 

intellectual property policy issues. This is carried out 

under the programme of work on development, 

innovation and intellectual property policy. The 

primary way they identify what to work on is through 

consultation with delegates from developing 

countries through planning and strategy sessions. 

When undertaking these consultations the South 

Centre holds open discussions on its limitations in 

providing assistance both in terms of resource 

37 

Taken from description of the South Centre’s activities on 

http://www.southcentre.org where its publications can also be 

found. 

56



constraints as well as political limitations. In that 

sense the recipients of the technical assistance 

provided are fully aware of these limitations and 

have a say in what is needed and what is efficient 

and appropriate for the South Centre to do. 

The Centre’s primary focus is on providing support 

to developing country negotiators in Geneva, and to 

a lesser extent in capitals through the materials it 

produces and circulates. A secondary effect of their 

materials production is also to support civil society 

and academics concerned about IP and development 

and help in awareness building about these issues. 

Recent work has been on non-violation, WIPO and 

public health. 

A case in point – WIPO 

Although the Centre began working on IP through 

the TRIPS Agreement in WTO, about two years ago it 

was clear that this work should be extended to cover 

WIPO. Two factors informed this decision. One was 

forum shifting to WIPO by the USA as part of its 

expansionist TRIPS-plus 38 agenda. The other was 

internal to WIPO as it sought to expand IP 

provisions to maintain its relevance post TRIPS. 

Delegations felt they were not as well prepared to 

deal with the development aspects in WIPO as they 

had become in TRIPS. After consulting with 

delegations and others working on a prodevelopment 

IP agenda in Geneva and in capitals 

the South Centre decided it should also work on 

WIPO, again with the delegations. They identified an 

unfulfilled need for delegations dealing with IP in 

WTO and WIPO to interact, share information and 

coordinate and began work to promote such 

interchange. Also, given the technical nature of 

much WIPO work and the use of capital based 

people in the meetings, the Centre held meetings 

when these people were in Geneva to allow that 

interchange. 

The plethora of issues on WIPO’s agenda also meant 

the Centre could not cover them all and had to 

prioritise its activities. This led them to focus on the 

patent agenda and Intergovernmental Committee on 

Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and 

38 TRIPS-plus refers to commitments that go beyond what is 

already included or consolidated in the TRIPS Agreement. TRIPSplus 

agreements or commitments can imply: inclusion of a new 

area of IPRs; implementation of a more extensive standard; and, 

elimination of an option for Members under the TRIPS 

Agreement. See David Vivas-Eugui, Regional and Bilateral 

Agreements and a TRIPS-plus world: the Free Trade Area of the 

Americas (FTAA), TRIPS Issues Papers 1, QUNO/QIAP/ICTSD, 

Geneva, 2003 p 4, 2003, available on 

http://geneva.quno.info/main/publication.php?pid=113 

Folklore. The Centre’s staff also had to take steps to 

ensure they could produce background papers that 

were technically sound. The broad agenda also 

meant seeking to cooperate with others doing 

similar work in Geneva to optimise the available 

capacities to work in the pro-development IP area. 

This has led to a formal collaboration with the Centre 

for International Environmental Law (CIEL) 

discussed below. 

Centre for International Environmental Law 

The Centre for International Environmental Law 

(CIEL) was founded in 1989 as a public interest, notfor-profit 

environmental law firm. It has offices in 

Washington DC and Geneva. It aims; 

“to solve environmental problems and 

promote sustainable societies through the 

use of law, to incorporate fundamental 

principles of ecology and justice into 

international law, to strengthen national 

environmental law systems and support 

public interest movements around the 

world, and to educate and train publicinterest-minded 

environmental 

39 

lawyers.” 

It does this by seeking “to strengthen international 

and comparative environmental law and policy 

around the world.” CIEL’s work on IP is part of its 

Trade and Sustainable Development programme 

and it works “with developing country governments 

and non-governmental organizations to include 

sustainable development concerns in current 

multilateral rules on intellectual property.” It also 

works with other NGOs so they are better informed 

about the issues. This sometimes involves providing 

informal advice over the phone, sometimes via their 

publications. 

South Centre and CIEL project on IP 

A joint project with the South Centre is the 

centrepiece of CIEL's work on intellectual property. 

This involves proving legal advice in meetings at the 

South Centre, producing briefing papers, which are 

also made available to embassies in Washington DC, 

and most recently producing, with the South Centre, 

a quarterly update on development in IP 

negotiations across the international arena. 40 For 

this, both organisations track “the development of 

39 See http://www.ciel.org for details about its programmes 

and materials on IP. 

40 

Available on 

http://www.southcentre.org/info/sccielipquarterly/index.ht 

m. 

57



intellectual property rules in selected regional and 

bilateral processes to ensure evolving intellectual 

property standards appropriately balance private and 

public interests” as well as retain the necessary 

flexibility for countries to pursue development 

objectives. 

Quaker United National Office (QUNO), 

Geneva 

The Quaker United Nations Offices in Geneva and in 

New York work at the international level to support 

Quaker efforts and concerns to abolish war and 

promote peaceful resolution of conflicts, human 

rights, economic justice and good governance. They 

represent Quakers (otherwise known as members of 

the Religious Society of Friends) through Friends 

World Committee for Consultation (FWCC), which 

links Quakers around the world, and has had 

consultative status with the United Nations’ 

Economic and Social Council as an international 

non-governmental organization since 1948. 

QUNO Geneva has worked on IP and development 

issues, primarily around the WTO TRIPS Agreement, 

since the late 1990s. The aim of the QUNO work is; 

“to help prevent and defuse conflict as well 

as seeking greater justice for all in the 

negotiations. The experience of Friends has 

often shown that conflict can arise when 

very unequal parties make agreements in 

which the strong dominate the weak.” 41 

QUNO works to enable negotiators in Geneva, 

particularly those from developing countries, dealing 

with IP issues to be fully informed and able to take 

into account the various development needs and to 

redress the imbalances between rich and poor 

countries. 

QUNO provides an informal space for negotiators to 

meet and interact with each other and a range of 

stakeholders so they may be better able to 

participate in the negotiations on IP and take into 

account the needs of the poor and disadvantaged. 

Its prime mode of operation is through off-therecord 

lunchtime, evening and occasional residential 

meetings sometimes just for developing country 

negotiators, sometimes for developed and 

developing country negotiators, often with expert or 

stakeholder speakers to allow informal exchanges to 

take place. It also publishes a range of material – 

some to encourage discussion of specific topics, 

some to highlight important issues, some to provide 

unattributed reports on seminars and some based 

on expert contributions to meetings. Its work is 

closely focussed on the Geneva-based negotiators 

and its agenda is driven by their concerns. 

On occasions when it works beyond Geneva, QUNO 

cooperates with other NGOs and seeks to enable the 

experience of Geneva negotiators to be heard 

elsewhere and bring concerns from the field into 

Geneva. Within Geneva, it also cooperates with other 

pro-development IPR technical assistance providers 

to minimise demands placed on negotiators time 

and make best use of limited resources. QUNO itself 

does not espouse any particular position or stance 

for negotiators to adopt on any of the IP issues it 

deals with. It does base its work on the need for 

more just and equitable processes in rule-making 

and sees its activities as helping to address that 

concern. 

Article 27.3(b) and beyond 

QUNO began work on IPR technical assistance in 

connection with the review of article 27.3(b) of TRIPS 

and a concern about its impact on food and 

biodiversity. A scoping exercise revealed a widely 

acknowledged lack of preparedness for the review. In 

response, and with funding from DFID and support 

from British Quakers, it prepared a discussion paper 

laying out the issues around the review. 42 This was 

widely distributed and followed up with a series of 

informal lunchtime meetings during 1999 and, 

unexpectedly, into 2000. Two residential seminars 

were also held at which a range of negotiators, 

experts, capital based officials and stakeholders with 

different perspectives and experience where able to 

exchange views. 

Feedback from this work suggested that it had been 

valuable in helping missions gain confidence in 

dealing with the review and in developing their 

thinking on appropriate proposals, interactions with 

capitals and more specific interventions from other 

parties. As QUNO was planning to lay down this 

work both developing country and some developed 

country missions urged QUNO to continue its 

activities, scope out what else was needed and seek 

outside funding to carry on. This led to a second 

programme of work broadening the activities around 

27.3(b). This was interrupted by further requests to 

41 

From “Patents and Quaker Action”, available, along with 

all QUNO publications on IP and development, on 

http://www.geneva.quno.info. 

42 Geoff Tansey, Trade, Intellectual Property, Food and 

Biodiversity: Key issues and options for the 1999 review of Article 

27.3(b) of the TRIPS Agreement, Quaker Peace & Service in 

association with QUNO, London, Feb 1999 

58



do a similar exercise for TRIPS and public health in 

April 2001 – on the basis that the approach taken 

towards Article 27.3(b) had been helpful and should 

be repeated for this new topic area. A third phase 

was subsequently developed again based on 

requests from missions. 

International Centre for Trade and 

Sustainable Development (ICTSD) 

ICTSD is an independent non-profit and nongovernmental 

organisation that “facilitates 

interaction between policy-makers and those outside 

the system to help trade policy become more 

supportive of sustainable development.” 43 Since its 

establishment in Geneva in September 1996, it has 

developed a wide network of governmental, nongovernmental 

and inter-governmental partners. By 

helping parties increase capacity and become better 

informed about each other, ICTSD seeks to build 

bridges between groups with seemingly disparate 

agendas. It systematically provides regular nonpartisan 

information via email, on the Internet and in 

print about trade, intellectual property and 

sustainable development, supports networking, 

dialogue, well-targeted research, and capacity 

building, to influence the international trade system 

such that it advances the goal of sustainable 

development. 

While traditional technical assistance has mainly 

focussed on governments, ICTSD works with a wide 

variety of stakeholders. It operates globally in 

partnership with local organisations in various 

countries with which it organises dialogue on policy 

issues including IP. Although it operates in a nonpartisan 

way, it starts from the position that IP 

should support sustainable development objectives 

but recognises there are many ways that may happen 

and seeks to facilitate dialogue about these, but does 

not come with the answer. It aims to give a voice to 

those who do not usually have a voice in such 

discussions. What it does generates capacity in 

developing countries to understand issues among 

different stakeholders so they are better able to 

define their own interests – and in that sense it helps 

build analytical capacity, not just in government but 

outside. 

ICTSD/UNCTAD Capacity Building Project on 

Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) and 

Sustainable Development 

ICTSD is implementing this project jointly with 

UNCTAD. The project was initiated by DFID and is 

financed by them and other donors. It began in 2001 

and aims to provide insight into development issues 

around IP through: 

• Specific research on topics of concern from a 

development perspective. 

• Creation of resources to support those having 

to implement the TRIPS Agreement and deal 

with future IP negotiations, in particular 

through development of an exhaustive resource 

book on TRIPS involving extensive 

consultation. 

• Support the development of networks of 

officials, academics and other stakeholders in 

developing countries more able to deal with the 

complexities of pro-development IP systems. 

• Raise awareness of the issues among policy 

makers and a wider public and increase 

participation in the rule making processes. 

The project marries the flexibilities, communication 

channels and networks available to an NGO with the 

experience an intergovernmental organisation 

geared to considering trade and development issues 

and which has also been a non-traditional provider 

of IPR technical assistance. The institutions involved 

have ideas but no vested interest in this area – which 

is important for the credibility of the products. 

Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) 

Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) (or Doctors 

Without Borders) brings practical medical experience 

and a passionate concern about health and the 

effects of the IP rules on access to medicines. It is; 

“an international humanitarian aid 

organisation that provides emergency 

medical assistance to populations in danger 

in more than 80 countri es . … In carrying out 

humanitarian assistance, MSF seeks also to 

44 

raise awareness of crisis situations”…. 

“As a medical humanitarian organization, it 

is fundamentally unacceptable to MSF tha t 

access to essential medicines is increasingly 

impossible, particularly for the most 

common global infectious diseases. Since 

1999, MSF has been campaigning 

internationally to find long-term, sustainable 

solutions to this crisis. The Campaign is 

pushing to lower the prices of existing 

43 See http://www.ictsd.org/ for information about all of ICTSD’s 

activities including its IP work. 

44 From http://www.accessmed-msf.org/campaign/about.shtm 

59



medicines, to bring abandoned drugs back 

into production, to stimulate research and 

development for diseases tha t primarily 

affect the poor, and to overcome other 

45 

barriers to access.” 

It takes a clear position in its work and argues for full 

use of the flexibilities in the IP system and specific 

changes in the rules, where necessary, to meet 

health needs: 

“The emerging global trade system, which 

sets the rules for how products are sold 

within and between countries, treats 

medicines like all other products. This is 

unacceptable. The patenting of medicines 

confers a market monopoly to 

pharmaceutical companies who often 

charge the same high price world-wide. The 

result is that people in the developing world 

cannot afford the medicines that could 

extend, improve, or save their lives. Access 

to essential medicines is a political issue 

tha t will take public involvement and change 

of government policy to solve.” 

Access to medicines campaign 

Its work on IPR technical assistance has been largely 

carried out under a specific ‘access to medicines’ 

campaign. It is designed to inform governments 

about steps they can take to improve public health 

and it produces materials designed to help health 

professionals do so as well as gain support for 

change. Its approach is to: 46 

• “Provide evidence of the detrimental effects of 

overly strong patent protection on medicines in 

poor countries. Raise awareness on all levels of 

the fact that some patented drugs are more 

expensive in poor countries than in Europe and 

North America. 

• Organise events that bring together advocacy 

groups, industry, international organisations, 

and government representatives to help poor 

countries use legal measures available to them, 

such as compulsory licensing and parallel 

imports. 

• Provide information and evidence to influence 

EU and US policy regarding interpretation of 

trade agreements and their impact on access to 

essential medicines.” 

45 From http://www.accessmedmsf.org/campaign/campaign.shtm 

46 From http://www.accessmed-msf.org/campaign/pillars.shtm#1 

MSF has done field research on specific patents and 

registration situations across various countries, as 

well as on pricing, which has provided a factual basis 

for discussion. 47 It has also worked with some 

governments to help them understand the issues 

and approaches to IP and public health and 

cooperated with other NGOs dealing with health. 

Oxfam 

There are 12 different national Oxfams, linked 

through Oxfam International, all working on propoor 

development. Sometimes, they work nationally 

on specific issues, at other times through the 

international body 

“to find lasting solutions to poverty, 

suffering and injustice. 

With many of the causes of poverty global in 

nature, members of Oxfam International 

believe they can achieve greater impact in 

addressing issues of poverty by their 

collective efforts. 

To achieve the maximum impact on 

poverty, Oxfams link up their work on 

development programs, humanitarian 

response, lobbying for policy changes at 

national and global level.” 

Their primary work on IP has been in raising public 

awareness about issues. They use popular 

campaigns and communications work to mobilise 

public opinion for change and have done high profile 

work around IP and public health and 

development. 48 They also produce materials of use to 

more specialist audiences and facilitate debate and 

discussion among and between policy makers, 

academics and others on matter of concern. 49 

ActionAid 

ActionAid is a development NGO that works in more 

than 40 countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America and 

the Caribbean. It works “with poor and marginalised 

people to eradicate poverty by overcoming the 

injustice and inequity that cause it.” Their work on IP 

has been mainly under the Food Rights Campaign 

47 MSF, Drug patents under the spotlight: Sharing knowledge 

about pharmaceutical patents, May 2003 

48 See 

http://www.maketradefair.com/en/index.php?file=0509200314055 

0.htm 

49 

For example, Peter Drahos and Ruth Mayne, eds, Global 

Intellectual Property Rights Knowledge, Access and Development, 

Oxfam, Oxford, 2002. 

60



and has focussed on the effects of the IP regime on 

food and agriculture and poor farmers. 

ActionAid is campaigning in 18 countries to 

persuade governments and international 

organisations to change unfair rules on agriculture 

and trade that threaten the rights and livelihoods of 

communities living in poor countries. The campaign 

operates from the village to the international level. It 

works in partnership with local communities, lobbies 

national governments in capital cities, and pushes 

for change at international fora including the Seattle, 

Doha and Cancun WTO Ministerial meetings. Part of 

its work is campaigning to ensure that patenting of 

genetic resources and knowledge for food and 

agriculture is not allowed. 

ActionAid has supported challenges by developing 

country governments and communities to stop 

biopiracy and theft of their knowledge and genetic 

resources, for example, the case of the basmatirelated 

patent by US-based RiceTec. It supported 

Ghulam Madina, a women farmer from Pakistan, to 

go to Geneva to speak with WTO negotiators on the 

threat that biopiracy and patenting of crops 

represented to the livelihoods of the poor. It has also 

worked in national coalitions in developing countries 

to help draft the national IP laws and it has 

supported developing country governments, 

especially the Africa Group in their call for “no 

patents on life.” In addition to its work with 

developing country governments, it has also 

invested a lot in influencing the UK government and 

European Commission on farmers rights and food 

security issues. 

In the UK, ActionAid developed its own salted potato 

chip and filed an application at the UK Patent Office. 

In 2002, over 9,000 ActionAid supporters inundated 

Prime Minister Tony Blair with petitions demanding 

tougher action against the unfair use of patents on 

staple crops. ActionAid along with other groups 

lobbied for the UK Commission on IPRs to be set up, 

it influenced the commission through 

briefings/submissions and presentations to the 

Commissioners on the implications of intellectual 

property on food security. In addition to lobbying the 

UK government and the European commission 

directly, ActionAid mobilised thousands of 

supporters to write to the officials both in the UK, EC 

and other powerful nations. 

Consumer Project on Technology (CPTech) 

The Consumer Project on Technology is a public 

interest research and advocacy organisation, started 

by Ralph Nader in 1995, with offices in Washington 

DC and Geneva. Its “work is documented extensively 

on the CPTech web page. Currently CPTech is 

focusing on intellectual property rights and health 

care, electronic commerce (very broadly defined) and 

competition policy.” 50 

CPTech is an advocate for change in IP, based on the 

interests of the public, consumers and maintaining 

access to knowledge. It likes to develop thinking ”out 

of the box.” This includes trying to be proactive and 

develop alternatives to the current IP paradigm. 51 

CPTech does not target work on particular countries 

but on the basis of what it can do. Much of this is on 

its own initiative but some is based on what it is 

asked to do. It works for change within the USA, the 

international framework and with developing 

countries. 

When countries come to it for advice, CPTech 

believes countries know its position and that is why 

it is being asked for help. It provides direct advice to 

countries on practical matters, such as how to do 

compulsory licensing, by request, mostly voluntarily, 

sometimes on commission. It also provides IPR 

technical assistance via other NGOs. A major activity 

is to facilitate information exchange and knowledge 

sharing about developments from all perspectives 

through several listservers and on its website. The 

listservers are subscribed to by hundreds of people 

worldwide from a wide range of organisations. 

Academics 

There are a relatively small number of academics, 

mostly outside IP departments, in effect providing 

“non-traditional” IPR technical assistance; i.e. they 

do not approach IP from the point of view of the title 

holders, increasing levels of protection or 

enforcement but from different conceptual 

frameworks. Some undertake comprehensives 

studies on legislation and implications in particular 

sectors for particular countries. Some respond to 

formal requests for advice from governments or 

informal requests from individual government 

officials and also from NGOs, which in turn provide 

advice and assistance to governments, users, 

hospitals etc. So some of their work is informal, 

some formal and, usually, it is demand driven. 

Some academics – as well as NGOs – work on 

solutions to well-targeted problems that are clearly 

identified. They also work on empirically-based 

50 See http://www.cptech.org for details of its activities and 

reports. 

51 For Example, James Love and Tim Hubbard, “Make Drugs 

Affordable: Replace TRIPs-plus with R&D-plus”, Bridges, June 

2004, pp 3-4 

61



studies and reports but such work is expensive and 

time consuming. It can, however, be an important 

element in making persuasive cases in the IP area. 

Reflections on experience 

Respondents were asked to reflect on the various 

problems, constraints and challenges they faced as 

well as what was successful and lessons they drew 

from their experience. Their replies are drawn 

together in a series of bullet points under a number 

of headings in Appendix 1 and should be read in 

conjunction with the brief discussion below. Not all 

comments apply to every organisation but together 

they reflect their collective views. Here I have 

abstracted from these to draw out some specific 

points, using the same headings. 

Problems and constraints 

One set of problems relate to the scale and 

complexity of the issues involved and sectors 

affected in relation to the size and capacity of the 

providers. Another is the unequal power and 

capacity of the different interests in IP as well as the 

nature of the rule making process. This results in 

having too few people with too much to do and can 

make gaining access to government processes 

difficult. The availability of informed specialists is 

also very limited. Even those providers focused on 

narrow constituencies in Geneva find problems 

reaching across the international agencies involved. 

The far reaching impact of IP and the development 

focus of the providers, along with their concerns to 

increase broad-ranging stakeholder involvement, 

contrast sharply with their ability to reach them, 

especially in producing materials in more than one 

language and through local languages. Providers 

providing advice to key stakeholders beyond the IP 

community sometimes find those receiving the 

advice may lack the ability and understanding to use 

it effectively. 

Lessons 

One key lesson is that working collaboratively and 

cooperatively with other providers can help use the 

limited resources available more efficiently and 

effectively. Cooperation also needs to extend across 

ministries in governments and across stakeholders 

too. The ability to respond quickly to changes is also 

vital as well as being clear about the target audience 

and activities. Understanding the limitations of each 

provider is also important. 

Networking around specific topics and issues is very 

useful and effective. So too is providing 

opportunities for different stakeholders to meet, 

nationally and internationally. To get a more broadly 

based development-centred approach requires being 

more proactive and thinking beyond the existing 

paradigm. Having an adequately-resourced 

authoritative institution that gives due legitimacy to 

development centred concerns would be of major 

value. 

Funding/resources 

Longer-term funding that is flexible, predictable and 

without strings is needed. A variety of sources is also 

valuable but funders can change direction with 

changes of personnel as well as lose their 

institutional memory. There is also concern that as 

development-centred technical assistance with key 

groups such as negotiators or health officials leads 

to greater capacity to deal with IP issues, 

development ministries funding such work will come 

under pressure from other ministries, trade 

personnel in Geneva missions and private interests 

to reduce or constrain funding in this area. 

Staff turnover in NGOs can also reduce capacity. 

Much of the work in collaboration, cooperation and 

networking costs a lot in time and money and is not 

so easily fundable. Core funding to support staff 

development and other similar kinds of activities 

need to have as much attention as funding for 

discrete events or products. There is also a need for 

independence from funders to maintain credibility 

with the users. 

Challenges 

Some challenges concern the existing framework. 

One is for trade negotiators in all fora to stop simply 

seeing IP as a bargaining chip and to understand 

better its affects on development objectives. In part 

this is also a challenge to get a greater variety of 

actors involved in shaping policy, which also relates 

to the need for much greater public awareness. 

Another is to balance better the range of IPR 

technical assistance available. For some respondents 

this means engaging more with the existing 

institutions but for others to have alternative, equally 

effective and well-funded institutions providing 

development-centred assistance in this area. 

Whatever route is chosen more people need to be 

involved, and to keep focused on development 

needs. For those involved in both advocacy and 

policy support they face challenges in separating the 

two and being seen to do so. 

The other major challenge is to go beyond the 

existing framework or paradigm and develop more 

proactive approaches to pro-poor development 

models that produce the good and services people 

62



need but not necessarily within the existing IP 

framework. This requires some of those who 

currently see their interests as being tied to 

maintaining the existing regime, seeing benefits 

from a changed approach. 

Successes 

The improved capacity of negotiators to deal with IP 

matters in the WTO was seen as a success, as was 

the greater public interest in the impact of IP upon 

development. So too was the production of a 

growing range of materials that provide practical 

guides, policy input and informal and formal 

collaborations. While the effectiveness of the work 

depends upon the actions of others using it, there 

was a sense that from a range of feedback it was 

clear it had been useful to a wide range of 

stakeholders and negotiators. It had helped in their 

understanding the development concerns around 

the IP regime and how to use the flexibilities within 

it. Having clarity about the users, listening to their 

needs and working within the constraints of the 

organisation also appear to be significant factors in 

any successes. 

Final remarks 

This whole discussion is a post-TRIPS phenomenon, 

as it was this agreement that thrust IP into the 

political limelight as a global issue linked to trade 

interests. It required developing countries to adopt 

enforceable minimum standards for the first time 

and it was unwanted by them. As the consequences 

and costs of that have become more widely 

appreciated it has generated a greater interest in IP 

and the role of IP in affecting development 

objectives. Without TRIPS and the subsequent 

pressures to extend IP into new areas and increase 

minimum IP standards, it seems unlikely we would 

be discussing this issue now. TRIPS has also thrust 

IP into the heart of debates about the political 

economy of wealth creation and distribution globally. 

It has made IP political in a way not seen for over 

100 years. 

Neither the existing institutions nor their approaches 

to IPR technical assistance appear to have caught up 

with these implications nor incorporated 

development concerns into their work in ways that 

meet the needs of this broad range of stakeholders. 

Had they done so, the “non-traditional” providers 

would probably not exist. Key questions are whether 

to welcome and expand the range of IPR technical 

assistance providers, so that different perspectives 

might be heard and capacities built in a broader 

range of stakeholders, – as is suggested by the IPRs 

Commission (Box 1) - or not. Can, or indeed should, 

the existing traditional providers seek to do what the 

non-traditional providers do, by changing or 

expanding their remits, or is it better to have a 

plurality of sources for IPR technical assistance with 

different expertise and approaches, and funding? 

Then, there would be a clearer recognition of the 

interests and paradigms different providers come 

from, their limitations and the contributions they can 

make. Given the very different interests it may not be 

possible to meet them in one organisation, or 

organisations whose focus is only on IP, rather than 

development, health, and so on. 

Given the forum shifting practised by the proponents 

of ever stronger IP rules, an understanding of the 

implications, costs and benefits and greater 

negotiating capacities are needed. Clearly, the nontraditional 

providers already do interagency work 

among themselves, through various formal and 

informal arrangements. This is partly to maximise 

their efficiency and effectiveness, partly from a 

commitment to work cooperatively. Some providers 

see a need to extend this to the traditional providers; 

others find it difficult to see how they could do so 

without a shift in worldview on IP. This requires a 

willingness to go beyond the narrow interests of title 

holders to focus on the public interest and balancing 

public and private interests. A situation in which, 

through attempts at rationalisation, or as a result of 

funding availability and direction, IPR technical 

assistance is only available from either a monopoly 

provider or set of providers with an internalist, IP 

paradigm is neither desirable nor sustainable from a 

development perspective. 

There is interest, however, in encouraging and 

supporting the traditional providers to do work that 

assists countries to use things such as compulsory 

licenses and parallel importation, even though 

powerful title holder interests oppose such activity, 

for example, through collaboration with and support 

of the public health community. 52 

Finally, the term IPR technical assistance is not really 

appropriate for all this activity and should not be 

used. Development-centred or pro-development 

capacity building on IP would be more appropriate, 

perhaps, but still does not seem to be totally 

adequate. Moreover, although this paper has 

focused on a small group of such providers, largely 

52 

Ellen F. M. ‘T Hoen, “TRIPS, Pharmaceutical Patents and 

Access to Essential Medicines: Seattle, Doha and Beyond” in 

Economics of AIDS and Access to HIV/AIDS Care in Developing 

Countries. Issues and Challenges, ANRS (National Agency for 

AIDS Research), Collection Sciences Sociales et Sida, p 39-67 

63



from NGOs, a number of very large, UN and 

multilateral agencies dealing with different aspects 

of development, from WHO and FAO to UNDP and 

the World Bank, also do development centred IP 

work related to their mandates. 

The key issue, though, is not the terminology used 

but the continuation and expansion of the activities 

discussed here. This in turn may throw up 

challenges for development donors to consider more 

coordinated actions and longer-term funding in 

support of this type of technical assistance to 

increase its impact. 

64



Appendix 1 

Interviewees’ responses 

The responses have been condensed into short 

bullet points but not ranked in any way. 


• Scale – the problems are huge, what providers 

can do is modest, and resources in the nontraditional 

IPR technical assistance field are 

scarce – a tiny fraction of traditional IP-TA 

providers. It is also an area where powerful 

institutions and interests play a major role. 

• Those working in Geneva with negotiators find 

constraints arise because of the differences 

between WIPO and the WTO. In WIPO the 

work is based more around people from 

capitals where the debate on IP and 

development that has taken place in WTO has 

largely not happened yet. Also, while missions 

worry about other governments in TRIPS 

Council, within WIPO they are concerned both 

about the actions of developed countries and 

the activities of the WIPO secretariat and their 

reactions to developing country prodevelopment 

proposals. 

• Difficulty of access to governmental and 

intergovernmental processes. 

• Complexity of issues involved, lack of 

knowledge and the difficulty of engaging 

stakeholders directly affected by these issues in 

light of the complexity. 

• The policy knowledge community that deals 

with this is terribly limited, so the pool of 

resources to draw on is very small. 

• Language –translation costs are a major issue, 

not just into the main UN languages but also 

into the vernacular. Much more needs to be 

done. 

• There can be tensions in coalitions, for example 

in 'no patents on life' NGO coalition, between 

those who do not want to engage in the WTO 

and those who want to make sure that the 

TRIPS agreement does not become worse or 

who want to improve it. 

• Those requesting assistance not got complete 

picture, not trained in this area, sometimes 

difficult for them to make the case based on the 

arguments you provide. 

• NGOs can face a frequent turnover of staff as 

there is no career path, and this can make it 

difficult to retain any institutional memory, 

putting them at a disadvantage alongside some 

government institutions. 

• In some cases people in developing countries 

need not just knowledge but the authority of an 

institution that can give support to a particular 

approach or view. There may be good people in 

a country but they are not trusted or do not 

have sufficient influence or power to make their 

point. That is why developing countries need an 

institution or expert to give advice in the field 

and why a lot of invitations come to the few 

academics working here. WTO and WIPO have 

the authority and their view may be presented 

as legitimate – there is no institution that may 

provide similar weight. 

• For the academics involved a key constraint is 

time and availability. Mainly working on prodevelopment 

IPR technical assistance is a side 

activity done as voluntary action, unless they 

get formal commissions. 

• It is quite difficult for public interest groups to 

be involved over long periods of time on a 

technical issue which is not progressing at the 

international level, and whose impact is not yet 

fully felt in developing countries. 

• Hard to know if successful or not. 

• Given the many pressing problems facing 

farming communities in developing countries, 

it is difficult for them to take action, even when 

farmers were outraged that seed could belong 

to someone else 

• A coherent approach can be a problem if it is 

the wrong approach. Interagency approach may 

not be the right one, depends on the principles 

you follow – it is not an aim in itself. 

Lessons 

• By developing work plans through a 

consultative process, in which the 

organisation’s resource constraints are made 

clear, activities can be developed which fit these 

constraints (although more resources would be 

better). 

• Changing something requires a lot more work 

over a longer period of time and working with 

65



many other collaborators / actors. This is a key 

challenge in promoting a more balanced, 

development-friendly IP regime and requires a 

lot of work from organisations, academics, 

participation by developing country negotiators, 

and forming coalitions that emerge around the 

inside and outside organisations, north and 

south, NGOs and academics. 

• Some see a need to engage with existing 

processes and include traditional providers of 

IPR technical assistance in design and 

implementation of their initiatives; others are 

more skeptical and see a continued need for 

independent advice. 

• Need to deploy resources and act more rapidly 

and efficiently because of the highly dynamic, 

international and inter-governmental agenda on 

IP. 

• Important for non-traditional IPR technical 

assistance providers to be very strategic in their 

approach as facing huge interests and 

resources. Traditional IPR technical assistance 

does not allow questioning of the paradigm. 

The key question for non-traditional IP-TA is: 

are they relevant or not? The evidence they are 

is in the uptake of what they do. 

• Need to be clear who we are targeting with 

activities or publications. 

• A need for pro-development IPR technical 

assistance providers to work together (as some 

do in Geneva), then they can be more efficient 

and relevant. 

• Meetings and dialogues can be important in 

enabling actors from different countries, and 

even within same one, to interact. 

• Look at problems of current system and the 

policy tools to address those problems. 

• Networks are important. One of strong points 

of our IPR technical assistance work in Geneva 

is that we meet, talk and discuss and this helps 

overcome limited capacity. We can use each 

other’s networks to send out information, use 

each others contacts. Civil society coalitions 

work well. 

• It was not easy for developing countries to be 

comfortable with NGOs, but things changed 

after IP and health. 

• Often interacting with the same group of 

people, but constantly learning. It’s very hard, 

complex and you cannot be complacent. 

• In working with countries find a disconnect 

between health and trade ministries – needs to 

be more synergy between different ministries. 

Patent offices usually have a very different 

perspective from health, welfare, nutrition 

ministries. 

• NGOs need to increase their internal 

observation/reflection. Make sure they don’t 

make the same mistake as see others doing, 

have a clear idea of what is the best outcome. 

• Sometimes don’t go to source of problem but 

try to get round it in other places e.g. WHO. 

• Despite problem of forum shifting for NGOs 

with few staff having the same people follow IP 

issues in several different fora they can have a 

broader perspective than some governments 

where different ministries are represented in 

different fora. 

• Any single group cannot go it alone to make 

fundamental changes on these important 

issues; people have to meet together as a 

community, not in an ideological way but in a 

collaborative way, from all over the world. 

• To change the agenda need to be pro-active, for 

example work on compulsory licensing led to 

industry response. 

• Although NGOs might never achieve certain 

positions, e.g., 'no patents on life', they can get 

agreement in the mainstream that there are 

problems, both by academics and developed 

country negotiations (EC/UK). This can enable 

developing countries to develop their policies 

according to their needs making use of the 

maximum flexibility available. 

• Need to establish an institution with the 

reputation and resources to provide prodevelopment 

IPR technical assistance that 

carries the weight other traditional suppliers 

have. Or to strengthen one of existing nontraditional 

suppliers – or transform a traditional 

supplier but that is much more difficult to do. 

Alternatives do exist but it is not happening. 

Funding and resources 

• Longer-term funding and commitments are 

very important – five years at least not one to 

three. funders seem willing to fund meetings 

and public events which may be useful, but that 

depends upon which institutions are doing 

what. However, you also need people working 

away over time. It is harder for donors to fund 

people than to fund a workshop, e.g., they give 

you $100,000 for a workshop but not $50,000 

66



for a person for a year. If funding is for five 

years can get good people, train them, and this 

gives better results than simply funding 

discrete events. 

• Funding needs to be non-conditional, on a 

longer-term basis, predictable, and provided 

with more flexibility so that funding cycles do 

not render useless capacities providers have in 

relation to developments that require an 

immediate response. 

• Are concerns that development focused donors 

are coming under pressure from within their 

own countries which may undermine funding 

for pro-development IPR technical assistance. It 

can be seen as threatening to some vested 

interest or commerce, trade or industry 

departments. 

• It is undesirable that funding in this area has to 

be approved by trade people in Geneva 

missions because there is a potential conflict of 

interest. Those who negotiate on behalf of their 

country are being asked to take a view on 

funding to support those who may be on the 

opposite side of the negotiating table. 

• Most funding is project based which gives little 

flexibility, e.g. for a quick response. 

• Important for a variety in sources of funding 

and providers to be maintained. 

• Change in personnel and policy in funders may 

reduce funding. 

• Lack of independence from funding agencies – 

each has their own agenda and restrictions. 

• It is difficult to find resources to support work 

in this area when problem is at least partly that 

of government and very powerful industries. 

• Management of the relations between people 

and groups, of the processes non-traditional 

providers are engaged in is terribly expensive in 

resources and time of people as they deal with 

different cultures and approaches to IP issues. 

Challenges 

• All the problems and constraints are also 

challenges. 

• When sectoral interests become concerned 

about the impact of IP in their sectors, e.g. 

health, and wish to influence national policy 

making on IP, other ministries, such a trade or 

commerce can be resistant. The can see this as 

undermining their bargaining capacity, i.e. their 

ability to make concession on IP for 

concessions in other areas. Trade negotiators 

tend to see IP as bargaining chip and that the 

resistance of USA in particular is so hard that it 

is a waste of time to fight. 

• To get other intergovernmental organisations 

to be more active as non-traditional IPR 

technical assistance providers in relation to 

their area of concern – health, food, 

biodiversity, human rights, etc - because the IP 

issue is not balanced. 

• To engage traditional IPR technical assistance 

providers, intergovernmental system and 

current users of IP system in the reform 

process – so they see the system might work 

for them – to address the imbalances, abuses 

of system, and mercantilism. Need to 

differentiate between ‘good’ and ’bad’ users of 

the system. Need to isolate those with 

mercantilist view of IP system from those who 

benefit themselves and society from IP system. 

Pro-development approaches are not a threat to 

those who use the system to develop public 

goods in the public interest. 

• To resist the wrong kind of money / 

conditionalities, not be pushed into doing 

things in traditional way. 

• Forum shifting – US is good at forum shifting – 

there is a need to adapt. 

• With forum shifting it is difficult to keep track 

of the issues in different negotiating bodies. 

• Keeping a clear focus and really listening to 

needs of developing countries. 

• Whether, in response to development 

concerns, existing traditional IPR technical 

assistance providers really change to address 

them or only appear to but in fact becomes not 

so open, change their language but not their 

practice. 

• Raising public awareness is very important. 

• To bring IP alive for the general public, through 

imaginative activities and examples. 

• Need to monitor process, care a lot about how 

decisions are made. 

• To respond to very specific needs. 

• For small organisations there is a question of to 

what and to whom they devote their limited 

time –must be those serious about doing 

something, not just talking. 

• To produce more ‘how to’ publications, e.g. on 

compulsory licensing. 

67



• Not enough people are involved. 

• For those involved in advocacy and support 

work issue of balancing role as advocate for 

specific positions within different fora, which 

can produce conflicts with others, and as 

facilitator of information exchange and 

knowledge sharing. 

• Need to see change in basic paradigm –an 

entirely different way of getting things done and 

not just respond to title owners’ paradigm. 

Harder to move people to a positive social 

agenda that seeks to balance all the legitimate 

interests than a negative, reactive one against 

particular vested interests. 

• Biggest problem in IP area is to get beyond the 

issues of who gets access to business models 

etc, to who pays for IP product in the first place 

and what is wrong with model that excludes the 

poor. The question is who pays for public 

goods, i.e. how reorganise private markets to 

provide public goods. 

• Don’t entirely trust government – need to be 

able to criticise them and be independent of 

them. 

• To create the sources of technical assistance 

either by strengthening institutions or changing 

existing ones is needed for TA across the broad 

range of stakeholders. Main challenge is to 

increase technical assistance with nontraditional, 

pro-development approach, have a 

team of people to do this and the funding. 

• A few years ago capacity was lacking among 

negotiators on IP in WTO in Geneva, this is no 

longer the case. The problems lie in capitals 

and free trade agreements including IP. In 

capitals they may not have the IP concerns as 

mainstream issues. 

• The publications, web pages and list serves are 

good for people. List serves helps build a 

community of interest, allows sharing of 

information. Growing use of the published 

materials is also a sign of success. 

• Collaborative relationships with others are a 

positive thing. 

Successes 

• In a field like this it is hard to measure success 

directly as change is brought about not by any 

of the organisations involved but by those with 

whom they work. In so far as the nontraditional 

IPR technical assistance providers 

carry out the programmes and activities for 

which they received funding efficiently they can 

be said to be successful – and donors usually 

monitor them for that. On the broader question 

of whether the particular groups they work with 

have become better able to understand and 

participate in the IP rule making processes that 

is almost impossible to measure directly. Each 

organisation is only one small player in a bigger 

drama. If the negotiators on IP and people 

outside the IP system whose interests are 

affected by it - in agriculture, health, education 

and so on - become more able to debate its 

nature, use the flexibilities within it, and shape 

it in the interests of development that is a sign 

of success. 

68



Slidepack 

Speaker: Geoff Tansey, 

Independent Consultant 

Slides: 13 

Role & perspectives of 

“non-traditional” donors 

and providers 

Geoff Tansey, Independent Consultant 

Intellectual Property- 

Technical Assistance 

Another view 

Another focus 

A better balance 

Slide 2 

Societal capacity building 

Slide 3 

• Positive 

• pro or development centred 

• Negative 

• not right holders or their interests 

• Effects and appropriate use 

• health, food, biodiversity, education, 

indigenous knowledge, justice, 

sustainability 

69



Roles 

• Implementation of IP treaties and 

agreements and running of IP systems 

• Raising general or sectoral awareness 

among different stakeholders 

• Assisting with negotiations or negotiating 

processes 

Slide 4 

Sample survey 

• South Centre 

• Cente for International Environmental 

Law (CIEL) 

• Joint SC & CEIL project 

• Quaker United Nations Office (QUNO) 

Slide 5 

Sample survey 

• International Centre for Trade and 

Sustainable Development (ICTSD) 

• Joint ICTSD/UNCTAD project 

• Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) 

• Access to medicines 

Slide 6 

70



Sample survey 

• Oxfam 

• ActionAid 

• Consumer project on Technology 

(CPTech) 

• Academics 

Slide 7 


• Scale and complexity 

• Unequal power and capacity 

• Nature of rule making processes 

• Absorptive capacity 

Slide 8 

Lessons 

Slide 9 

• Collective and collaborative work 

• Quick response 

• Clarity on audience 

• Understanding limitations 

• Networking and stakeholder meetings 

• Going beyond the paradigm 

• New institution 

71



Funding / resources 

• Flexibility 

• Predictability 

• Untied, no strings 

• Domestic conflicts of interest in donors 

• Core funding 

• Independence 

Slide 10 

Challenges 

• Beyond the bargaining chip 

• Expand involvement 

• Better balance 

• Development focus 

• Create new paradigm and approaches 

Slide 11 

Successes 

• Increased IP negotiating capacity in WTO 

• Resource materials production 

• Growing interest in broadening range of 

stakeholders 

• Responding to needs 

Slide 12 

72



Reflections 

• Post TRIPS response 

• Initial terminology not appropriate 

• Support diversity 

• Clarify and separate different interests 

• Reorient rights holder based IPTA 

• Donor action 

Slide 13 

73



Annex 1 

Workshop agenda 

DAY ONE 

WEDNESDAY 15 SEPTEMBER 

16:00 – 18:00 Arrival of participants at Burnham Beeches Hotel and Registration 

19:00 – 21:00 Evening Drinks & Dinner 

DAY TWO 

THURSDAY 16 SEPTEMBER 

09:00 – 10:00 Welcome and Introductions by participants 

Session 1 10:00 – 10:15 Objectives and programme for the Workshop 

Lead Speakers: Jean-Christophe Maur & Tom Pengelly 

Session 2 10:15 – 11:00 Strategic Issues for IPR Technical Assistance to Developing 

Countries and Transition Economies 

Lead Speaker: 

Tom Pengelly 

11:00 – 11:30 Morning Coffee 

Session 3 11:30 – 13:00 Supporting policymaking, legal reform and participation in 


Lead Speaker: 

Discussants: 

Chair: 

David Vivas 

Mónica Rosell & Michael L. Smith 

Anderson Zikonda 

13:00 – 14:30 Buffet Lunch 

Session 4 14:30 – 16:00 Automation of IPR administration & organisational reform in 

developing countries: progress & pitfalls 

Lead Speaker: 

Discussants: 

Chair: 

Mart Leesti 

Rajeev Ranjan & Dianne Daley 

Tran Viet Hung 

16:00 – 16:30 Afternoon Tea 

16:30 – 17:00 Wrap-up of Day 1 

17:00 – 19:00 Free session 

19:00 – 21:00 Dinner & Keynote Address: Coordinating Efforts, Learning Lessons – 

Experiences from Development Co-operation 

Guest Speaker: 

Bernard Wood 

74



DAY THREE 

FRIDAY 17 SEPTEMBER 

Session 5 09:00 – 10:30 Promoting innovation & creativity in developing countries: an 

emerging challenge 

Lead Speaker: 

Discussants: 

Chair: 

Denis Croze 

Emma Francisco & James Zhan 

Anne Simmons-Benton 

10:30 – 11:00 Morning Coffee 

Session 6 11:00 – 12:30 Role & perspectives of “non-traditional” donors and providers 

Lead Speaker: 

Discussants: 

Chair: 

Geoff Tansey 

Sisule Musungu & Jacob Werksman 

Andrew Jenner 

12:30 – 14:00 Buffet Lunch 

Session 7 14:00 – 15:00 Towards Some Possible Elements in an Follow-on Work Programme 

on IPR Technical Assistance 

Facilitators: 

Breakout Groups Session 

Tom Pengelly & Bernard Wood 

15:00 – 15:30 Afternoon Tea 

Session 8 15:30 – 16:30 Towards Some Possible Elements in an Follow-on Work Programme 

on IPR Technical Assistance 

Facilitator: 

Reports From Breakout Groups & Plenary Discussion 

Bernard Wood 

16:30 – 17:00 Closing Remarks 

Lead speaker: 

Jean-Christophe Maur 

17:00 End of Workshop and departure of participants 

75



Annex 2 

Workshop participants 

Alessandro Martinozzi 

Project Officer, EU-Ukraine 

Co-operation on IPR 

European Patent Office 

Department 511, 

International Co-operation 

Erhardtstr. 27 

80331 Munich, Germany 

Tel: + 49 89 2399 5954 

Fax: + 49 89 2399 5285 

Email: amartinozzi@epo.org 

Anderson Zikonda 

High Court Judge 

High Court of Zambia 

Independence Avenue 

P.O. Box 50067, Lusaka 

Zambia 

Tel: +260 1 254858 

Fax: +260 1 251743 

Email: zikondar@zamtel.zm 

Andrew Jenner 

Policy Advisor 

UK Patent Office 

Concept House 

Cardiff Road 

Newport NP10 8QQ 

United Kingdom 

Tel: +44 1633 813736 

Fax: +44 1633 814922 

Email: andrew.jenner@patent.gov.uk 

Anne F. Simmons-Benton 

Senior Trade Advisor, USAID 

7 Mespil Road 

Ballsbridge 

Dublin 4, Ireland 

Tel: +353 1 660 5227 

Fax: 

Email: ASimmons-Benton@usaid.gov 

Bernard Wood 

President 

Bernard Wood & Associates 

84 Delong Drive 

Ottawa K1J 7E1 

Canada 

Tel: +1 613 749 4738 

Fax: +1 613 749 6945 

Email: bwood@magma.ca 

David Vivas 

Programme Manager on Intellectual Property, 

Technology and Services 

International Centre for Trade and Sustainable 

Development (ICTSD) 

7, ch. de Balexert 

1219 Geneva 

Switzerland 

Tel: +41-22 917-8663 

Fax: +4122 917-8093 

Email: dvivas@ictsd.ch 

Denis Croze 

Head, Planning Section 

Economic Development Sector 

World Intellectual Property Organisation 

34, Chemin des colombettes 

1211 Genève 20 

Switzerland 

Tel: +4122 338 9464 

Fax: +4122 338 8810 

Email: denis.croze@wipo.int 

Dianne A. Daley 

Intellectual Property Partner 

FOGA, DALEY & CO. 

Attorneys-at-Law 

7 Stanton Terrace 

Kingston 6 

Jamaica 

Tel: +876 927 4371-3 

Fax: +876 927 5081 

Email: daley@fogadaley.com 

Emma C. Francisco 

Director General 

Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines 

IPO Bldg. 351 Sen. Gil Puyat Avenue 

Makati City, 1200 

Philippines 

Tel: +63 2 890 4942 or 890 4863 

Fax: +63 2 890 4862 

Email: emma.francisco@ipophil.gov.ph 

Geoffrey Tansey 

Consultant 

Royd House, Hebden Bridge 

West Yorkshire, HX7 8BA 


Tel: +44 1422 842752 

Fax:+ 44 1422 843917 

Email. geoff@tansey.org.uk 

76



Gilles Forte 

Drug Action Programme 

Essential Drugs & Medicines Policy 

World Health Organisation 

20 Avenue Appia 

CH-1211 Geneva 27 

Switzerland 

Tel: +41 22 791 1547 

Fax: +41 22 791 4167 

Email: forteg@who.int 

Jacob Werksman 

Senior Advisor 

Global Inclusion 

Rockefeller Foundation 

420 Fifth Avenue 

New York, NY 10018-2702 USA 

Tel: +1 212 852 8212 

Fax: +1 212 852 8461 

Email: jwerksman@rockfound.org 

James X. Zhan 

Chief, International Arrangements 

(Investment, Technology & Intellectual 

Property) 

UNCTAD, E-9088, Geneva 

Switzerland 

Tel: +41 22 9075797 

Fax: +41 22 9070498 

Email: James.Zhan@unctad.org 

Jean-Christophe Maur 

International Trade Department 

International Division 

Department for International 

Development 

1 Palace Street 

London, SW1E 5HE 


Tel: +44 (0)207 023 1732 

Fax: +44 (0)207 023 0470 

Email: jc-maur@dfid.gov.uk 

Mart Leesti 

Consultant 

14 Aberfeldy Street 

Nepean, Ontario 

K2H 6H5 

Canada 

Tel: +1 613 829 2717 

Fax: +1 613 829 1472 

Email: mleesti@scantime.net 

Martin Watson 

Representative - Global Economic Issues 

Quaker United Nations Office 

Avenue ou Mervelet 13 

CH-1209 Geneva 

Switzerland 

Tel: +41 22 748 4810 

Fax: +41 22 748 4819 

Email: mwatson@quno.ch 

Michael Smith 

Attorney - Advisor 

Office of Enforcement, 

US Patent & Trademark Office 

2121 Crystal Drive, Suite 902 

Crystal Park 2 

Arlington, VA 22202 

United States of America 

Tel: +1 103 306 2979 

Fax: +1 103 305 8885 

Email: michael.smith@uspto.gov 

Mónica Rosell 

Legal Advisor 

IPRs Programme Coordinator 

General Secretariat 

Andean Community 

Lima 27 

Peru 

Tel: + 511- 4111400 

Fax: +511- 2213329 

Email: mrosell@comunidadandina.org 

Patrick Ravillard 

Administrator 

New Technology, Intellectual Property & Public 

Procurement 

Directorate-General Trade 

European Commission 

Rue de la Loi 200 

Charlemagne Building 8/216 

1040 Brussels 

Belgium 

Tel: +32 2 295 9868 

Fax: +32 2 299 0586 

Email: patrick.ravillard@cec.eu.int 

77



Rajeev Ranjan 

Director 

Department of Industrial Policy & 

Promotion 

Ministry of Commerce & Industry 

Room No.255, Udyog Bhavan, 

New Delhi 

India 

Pin Code:110011 

Tel: +91-11-23010688 

Fax: +91-11-23019919 

Email: rajeevranjan@ub.nic.in 

Rowan Lemley 

Junior Consultant 

Saana Consulting Ltd (Oy) 

Fredrikinkatu 25 A 25 

00120 Helsinki 

Finland 

Tel: +358 40 707 8716 

Fax: +358 9587 1054 

Email: rowan@saanaconsulting.fi 

Sisule F. Musungu 

Team Leader 

Intellectual Property, Investment and 

Technology Transfer 

Programme on International Trade & 

Development 

South Centre 

Ch. du Champ d'Anier 17, POB 228, 

1211 Geneva 19 

Switzerland 

Tel: +41 22 791 81 65 

Fax: + 41 22 798 85 31 

E-mail: Musungu@Southcentre.org 

Thu-Lang Tran Wasescha 

Counsellor 

Intellectual Property Division 

WTO 

Centre William Rappard 

Rue de Lausanne 154 

CH-1211 Geneve 21 

Switzerland 

Tel: +41 22 739 5705 

Fax: +41 22 739 5790 

Email: 

thu-lang.transwasescha@wto.org 

Tom Pengelly 

Partner 

Saana Consulting Ltd (Oy) 

Fredrikinkatu 25 A 25 

00120 Helsinki 

Finland 

Tel: +358 967 7741 

Fax: +358 9587 1054 

Email: tom@saanaconsulting.fi 

Tran Viet Hung 

Deputy Director General 

National Office of Industrial Property (NOIP) 

384-386 Nguyen Trai Street 

Thanh Xuan District 

PO Box 432 

Hanoi, Vietnam 

Tel: +844 858 3069 

Fax: +844 858 4002 

Ulf Jansson 

Director 

Swedish Patent and Registration Office 

P.O. Box 5055 

102 42 Stockholm 

Tel: +46 8 782 2650 

Fax: +46 8 666 0286 

Email: ulf.jansson@prv.se 

Vera Bampo-Addo 

Senior State Attorney 

Registrar-General's Department 

P.O. Box 118, Accra 

Ghana 

Tel: +233 21 666469 

Fax: +233 21 666081 

Email: vbamps@hotmail.com 

78



Annex 3 

Further reading & resources 

Commission on Intellectual Property Rights (2002) “Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development 

Policy”, Final Report, UK Commission on Intellectual Property Rights: London. 

Correa, C.M. (2000) “Intellectual Property Rights, the WTO and Developing Countries: the TRIPS Agreement 

and Policy Options”, Zed Books: New York and Third World Network: Malaysia. 

Drahos, P. (2001) “Developing Countries and International Intellectual Property Standard-Setting”, Study 

Paper 8, UK Commission on Intellectual Property Rights: London. 

Dutfield, G. & Musungu, S.F. (2003) “Multilateral agreements and a TRIPS-plus world: The World Intellectual 

Property Organisation”, Quaker UN Office: Geneva. 

European Commission (2003), “Guidelines for European Commission Trade Related Assistance”, EC: 

Brussels. 

European Patent Office (2003), “Worldwide co-operation: The European Patent Office and its programme for 

international co-operation”, EPO: Munich 

Goans, J.W. (2003) “Intellectual Property and Developing Countries: An Overview”, Briefing Paper, Nathan 

Associates Inc: Washington 

Institute for Economic Research (1996) “Study on the Financial and Other Implications of the 

Implementation of the TRIPS Agreement for Developing Countries”, WIPO: Geneva. 

Karachalios, K. (2002) “Current situation of regional organisations in the IPR field and future challenges”, 

paper submitted to the UK Commission on Intellectual Property Rights on behalf of the European 

Patent Office: Munich 

Leesti, M. & Pengelly, T. (2002) “Institutional Issues for Developing Countries in Intellectual Property 

Policymaking, Administration & Enforcement”, Study Paper 9, Commission on Intellectual Property 

Rights: London. 

Lehman, B.A. (2000) “Modernizing Jamaica’s Intellectual Property System”, International Intellectual 

Property Institute: Washington DC. 

Lehman, B.A. (2000) “World Intellectual Property Organisation: Dawn of a New Century”, International 

Intellectual Property Institute: Washington. 

Medicines Sans Frontiers (2003) “Doha Derailed: A Progress Report on TRIPS and Access to Medicines”; 

Briefing for the 5 th WTO Ministerial Conference, Cancun 2003, available at www.msf.org 

Musungu, S. (2003) “Designing Development-oriented Intellectual Property Technical Assistance 

Programmes”, paper prepared at the Second Bellagio Series of Dialogues, Bellagio, 18-21 September 

2003 

Oman, R. (2001) “Copyright: engine of development”, UNESCO: Paris. 

Pengelly, T. (2003) “Technical Assistance on IPRs for developing countries: some strategic issues and 

recommendations for future priorities”, paper prepared at the Second Bellagio Series of Dialogues, 

Bellagio, 18-21 September 2003 

Sherwood, R.M. (1996) “Study on the Financial and Other Implications of the Implementation of the TRIPS 

Agreement for Developing Countries”, WIPO: Geneva. 

79



UNCTAD (1996) “The TRIPS Agreement and the Developing Countries”, UNCTAD: Geneva. 

USAID (2003) “US Contributions to Trade Capacity Building: Improving Lives through Trade and Aid”, 

USAID: Washington DC. 

WIPO (2001) “WIPO’s Legal and Technical Assistance to Developing Countries For the Implementation of 

the TRIPS Agreement From January 1, 1996, To December 31 2000”, WIPO: Geneva. 

WIPO (2001) “Revised Draft Program and Budget 2002-2003”, WIPO: Geneva. 

WIPO (2003) “Medium Term Plan for WIPO Program Activities – Vision and Strategic Direction of WIPO”, 

WIPO: Geneva 

WIPO (2003) “Programme Performance Report For 2002”, WIPO: Geneva 

World Bank (2002) “Intellectual Property: Balancing Incentives with Competitive Access”, in Global Economic 

Prospects and the Developing Countries 2002, World Bank: Washington. 

Internet resources and websites 

Intellectual Property Rights Online (IPRSonline) – http://www.iprsonline.org 

World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) – http://www.wipo.int 

European Patent Office (EPO) – http://www.european-patent-office.org 

EC-ASEAN Intellectual Property Rights Co-operation Program (ECAP project) http://www.ecapproject.org/ecap/site/en 

United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Trade Capacity Building Database – 

http://qesdb.cdie.org/tcb/index.html 

World Trade Organisation/Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (WTO/OECD) Trade 

Capacity Building Database – http://tcbdb.wto.org/index.asp?lang=ENG 

Commission on Intellectual Property Rights (IPRC) – http://www.iprcommission.org 

80

Report of a workshop held at Burnham Beeches - IPRsonline.org

Transform your PDFs into Flipbooks and boost your revenue!

Report of a workshop held at Burnham Beeches - IPRsonline.org

Transform your PDFs into Flipbooks and boost your revenue!

Delete template?

Save as template ?