UFRGS Model United Nations

Commission on Science and Technology for Development

Dear Delegates,

Feel very welcome to the United Nations Commission on Science and Technology for Development, best known as SciTech. Our committee is one of the innovations brought by the third edition of UFRGS Model United Nations as an attempt to deepen discussions on international cooperation for development.

SciTech Staff has been working hard in order to provide you with realistic and qualified information that minors the most challenging topics recently discussed in the UN regarding S&T. Our proposed debate for this year’s conference concerns the conflict between the construction of a favorable policy environment for the application of S&T and the global harmonization of Intellectual Property Rights (Topic A), as well as the necessity of narrowing the digital divide on Information and Communication Technologies, as to ensure a favorable scenario towards development (Topic B). Also, we would like to thank Lisa Jamhoury for her English revision to these Guides.

SciTech is a pluralistic committee, demonstrated even by its staff, which is composed of five determined students with a common passion for international affairs. The Directors, Anne, Carolina and Lucas were all participants in last year’s UFRGSMUN edition as staff members. Anne and Carolina, both currently in their third year of UFRGS Law School, were assistants in the Security Council and in the SPECPOL Committee, after participating in the 7th Americas Model United Nations (AMUN), held in Brasília in 2004. This year, Carolina integrated the UFRGS team for the 12th Willem C. Vis International Arbitration Moot, an international law competition held in Vienna, Austria. Lucas, a senior architecture student, was a delegate at UFRGSMUN 2003 and a member of UFRGSMUN 2004’s ID Team, having a great deal of responsibility for its success. The committee’s Assistants, Christian and Daniel, are students of the second and third year of

1 UFRGS Law School. Christian has recently participated in TEMAS and Daniel participated as a delegate in last year’s UFRGSMUN in the SPECPOL Committee. We are immensely thrilled to meet all of you in November and hope that you will enjoy this unique experience by defending your country’s position on S&T matters, interacting with other delegates and making new, lasting friendships. Most of all, we believe in your contribution to the SciTech’s discussions, in order to reach the best solution to the problems proposed. It must be remembered that these Study Guides are only the starting point of your research and that you have to present your position papers. We also urge you to sign up for UFRGSMUN SciTech’s e-group ([email protected]), so you can be connected with both the staff and your fellow delegates. Also, be reminded to check UFRGSMUN website periodically for latest updates of SciTech.

Have a wonderful time in Porto Alegre, and feel free to contact us whenever you wish!

Yours sincerely, SciTech Staff

Anne Caroline Diesel de Oliveira Carolina Paranhos Coelho [email protected] [email protected] Director Director

Lucas Welter [email protected] Director

Daniel Paulo Caye Christian Perrone de Oliveira Assistant-Director Assistant-Director

2

INTRODUCTION

SciTech’s General Background

The Commission on Science and Technology for Development (SciTech) is one of the nine functional commissions of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). SciTech’s main role is to provide the General Assembly and the ECOSOC with policy recommendations through a broad and appropriate analysis on relevant international issues.

SciTech was established in 1992 as a result of the reformulation of the United Nations: the former Intergovernmental Committee on Science and Technology for Development (IGCSTD) and its subsidiary body, the Advisory Committee on Science and Technology for Development (ACSTD), were disbanded by the General Assembly and replaced by SciTech. Since July 1993, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) Secretariat has been responsible for the Commission, which consists of 33 Member States, elected by ECOSOC for a term of four years.

The annual meetings are held for a period of one week. Experts nominated by their respective governments should possess the necessary qualifications and professional or scientific knowledge to take part in the SciTech’s boards of discussion.

In this context, the Commission acts as a legitimate forum for examining science and technology questions, particularly regarding their implications for countries’ development. The formulation of recommendations and guidelines on matters of science and technology provides a fundamental technical background for the development of common policies and appropriate actions within the United Nations system. Although SciTech’s recommendations are not binding, the Commission creates the necessary conditions for pluralistic debates, in which countries are able to discuss important issues on equal grounds.

In taking part in the SciTech, delegates will have the challenging task of reaching an agreement in which the roles of both public and private sectors, as well as actors of civil society, have to be equally weighed.

3

TOPIC AREA A

Improving the Policy Environment for the Application of Science and Technology: Intellectual Property Rights in Developing Countries.

By Carolina Paranhos Coelho and Daniel Paulo Caye.

“Science maybe the engine of social, economic, military, industrial and intellectual change but the scientist is not in the driving seat”1

1. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

1.1. General Background: The Millennium Development Goals.

The international community is finally gathered to provide a better world for the projected 7 billion people in 2015. In September 2000, a unanimous declaration recognizing collective responsibility to uphold the human dignity, equality and equity at the global level was made by United Nations (UN) member States. The compiled targets for sustainable development became known as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), and were accepted as part of the road map for implementing the Millennium Declaration, setting the ambitious goal of halving the world’s poverty by the year 2015. As an attempt to ensure accountability, precise objectives were set by the MDGs, which have been commonly accepted as a framework for measuring development progress. The first seven goals are mutually reinforcing and are directed towards the reduction of

1 UNCTAD. MANAN, Tuan Haji Aziz bin Abdul and CHEN, S.S. Improving the Policy Environment for the Application of Science and Technology to Development. Available at: http://stdev.unctad.org/unsystem/cstd/manan.doc. Last Accessed: 23/05/04.

4 poverty in all its forms. The last goal - global partnership for development - regards the means to achieve the first seven.2

In essence, goal number eight calls for generous aid from the international community to countries committed to poverty reduction and relief for the debt problems of developing countries. Indeed, global partners may play a major role in ensuring poor peoples’ inclusion in the benefits produced by development. However, countries also need to set their own strategies in order to achieve success on this front, since a favorable national policy environment becomes a vital tool for science and technology diffusion.

1.2. The Patent Treaties

The emergence of global intellectual property protection regime based on agreements such as the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) has been subject to considerable debate concerning its impact on international technology generation and transfers, trade performance and development.

A patent is a legal certificate that gives an inventor the exclusive right to prevent others from producing, using, selling, or importing an invention for a fixed period3. Actions can be legally taken against patent infringements that copy or sell inventions without permission from the patent owner. Unlike traditional forms of tangible property, IP is difficult to control and protect, being neither physical nor tangible. Moreover, because IP represents technological achievement, it has become a contentious issue between developed countries- which own most of the IP, and try to protect it through international treaties -, and least developed countries that need access to this knowledge.

In this sense, the first patent treaty, that provided grounds for all subsequent patent treaties, was the 1884 Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. Still in force, the Paris Convention, which today has 186 signatory countries,4 was the pioneer attempt to set common patent rules among member States. Ranking in importance with the Paris Convention are two other treaties.5 First, the World Intellectual Property Organization or "WIPO", established in 1967, which, in 1970, became a United Nations

2 The World Bank Group Website. Millennium Development Goals. Available at: http://ddp- ext.worldbank.org/ext/MDG/homePages.do. Last accessed: 25 Mai 2005. 3 IPRsonline.org. Guide to Intellectual Property Rights. Available at: http://www.iprsonline.org/guide/index.htm. Last accessed: 23 Mai 2005. 4 ILARDI, Alfredo. Origin and Development of the International Protection of Intellectual Property. Seminar at Oxford’s St. Peter’s College. Available at: http://www.oiprc.ox.ac.uk/EJWP0205.pdf. Last accessed: 13 Mai 2005. 5 MOSSINGHOFF, Honorable Gerald J. Patent Harmonization through the United Nations: International Progress or Deadlock? Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society. January 2004.

5 specialized agency. Second, the 1994 World Trade Organization (WTO) Treaty on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property, commonly referred to as "TRIPS".

1.2.1. The WIPO Framework

As one of the 16 specialized agencies under the UN System, The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) was established in 1967 during the UN Stockholm Convention, being fully implemented in 1970. Currently, WIPO administers the four major IP treaties: the Berne Convention (concerning copyright law), the Paris Convention (concerning patent law), the Madrid Agreement (concerning trademark), and the Rome Convention (concerning protection for performers and broadcasters). In addition, the organization also promotes intergovernmental cooperation in the administration of IP rights, establishes expert commissions, prepares studies, and publishes a monthly journal on IP law and policy.6

The WIPO was built in an attempt to “promote the protection of intellectual property throughout the world through cooperation among States”.7 Nevertheless, the organization's actual responsibility within the UN framework is significantly broader, as the Agreement between the UN and the WIPO8 shows: "promoting creative intellectual activity and [...] facilitating the transfer of technology related to industrial property to the developing countries in order to accelerate economic, social and cultural development."9

The WIPO has an undeniable influence in setting innovation policy worldwide; it has worked hard in order to build consensus among all its members on controversial IP issues, emphasizing the need for countries’ education and intergovernmental cooperation. At the organ’s General Assembly, each Member State has one vote. Therefore, all members are able to have an equal participation regarding decision-making.

However, WIPO's recognized strength can also be its Achilles heel: because of the voting rules, there is a bloc split between developed and least developed countries, with the developing and least developed countries constituting a majority. The consequence of this breakup is that rules requiring unanimous decision-making have made it difficult to enforce IP standards. Likewise, the lengthy negotiation process involved with amending or updating treaties, as well as the lack of an effective dispute resolution mechanism,

6 GINN, Elaine B. International Copyright Law: Beyond the WIPO & TRIPS Debate. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society. October 2004. 7 Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization. Available at: http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/convention/trtdocs_wo029.html#P68_3059. Last accessed: 13 Mai 2005. 8This Agreement between the UN and the WIPO entered into effect on December 17, 1974. Kurt Waldheim, Secretary-General of the United Nations, and Arpad Bogsch, Director General of the World Intellectual Property Organization, signed a Protocol incorporating it on January 21, 1975. 9 Agreement between the United Nations and the World Intellectual Property Organization. Available at: http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/agreement/. Last accessed: 12/05/05.

6 present areas of much needed improvement in WIPO’s available instruments for decision- making10.

1.2.2. The TRIPS Agreement

The World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) was negotiated between the years of 1986-1994 at the Uruguay Round, being the first international instrument to introduce the intellectual property rules into the multilateral trading system. In the Uruguay Round Negotiating Group on TRIPS, developed countries sought to internationalize IPR protection, which traditionally was territorial in its application, with a strong enforcement and dispute settlement mechanism.

One of the main issues surrounding TRIPS is the confrontation between the IP protection for pharmaceutical products and the access to medicines in poor countries. Means to lessen or remove the gap of access between developed and developing countries are increasingly being explored. Among these mechanisms, the two most significant are compulsory licensing and parallel importing.

Compulsory licensing is allowed to be used only under certain special conditions. Through legal intervention, governments may issue compulsory licenses to restrict the exclusive rights of existing patent holders and produce generic drugs. On the other hand, parallel importing consists of purchasing drugs from a third party in another country, rather than directly from the manufacturer, taking advantage of the fact that pharmaceutical companies sometimes charge significantly lower prices in one country than in another. The countries’ laws differ on whether or not they allow parallel importing11, but the mechanism is permitted under Article 31 of TRIPS. On its turn, the TRIPS Agreement simply states that governments cannot bring legal disputes to the WTO on this issue.12

These two flexibilities are commonly used as a means of bargaining. The threat of a compulsory license may encourage a patent holder to reduce prices on important medicines. For instance, in 2001, the Brazilian Government threatened to break the patents of anti-retroviral drugs, resulting in a decrease of the royalty values received by the patent owners.13

The TRIPS Agreement entered into force on the 1st of January 1995. It determines transitional periods, which depend on the level of development of the country concerned,

10 GINN. International Copyright Law… 11 GINN. International Copyright Law… 12 WTO. Trips and Public Health: The Situation Before Cancun. Available at: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/health_background_e.htm. Last accessed: 24 May 2005. 13BARCELLOS, Milton L. L. O Sistema Internacional de Patentes. IOB Thomson. São Paulo, 2004, p.23.

7 so that its demands can be best implemented. The main transition periods are: one year (until 1 January 1996), to developed countries; four years (until 1 January 2000), to developing countries and transition economies; and eleven years (until 1 January 2006), with the possibility of an extension, to the least-developed countries (LDC’s). For pharmaceutical patents, this has been extended to 1 January 2016, under a decision taken at the Fourth Ministerial Conference in November 200114.

Another mechanism allowed by TRIPS is called the TRIPS-Plus, which aims at the increasing of the level of protection for patent right holders, and to reduce the scope of limitations of these rights. Such practices may be adopted at a multilateral, regional, and/or bilateral level,15 and are known to have the effect of reducing the ability of developing countries to protect the public interest. There are several policies that gauge bilateral trade benefits according to developing countries’ willingness to provide greater IPR protection than that required by TRIPS.16

2. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

2.1. The Intellectual Property Linkage to Trade

Nowadays, developing countries, Least Developed Countries (LDCs) in particular, have constantly faced calls from their trading partners to upgrade IP compliance with the enforcement provisions. The United States effort in this direction began with the passage of Section 301 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitive Act of 1988, which requires that the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) annually review the intellectual property regimes of the United States' trading partners and place countries whose regimes are below acceptable standards on a priority watch list,17 what could result in strong unilateral sanctions for the listed country.18 In other words, the US initiated litigation in the US Court of International Trade (USITC) against countries under domestic unfair trade practices’ laws, even though they had violated no international agreement. In doing so, the US began the trend of linking intellectual property protection to international trade.19

14 The transitional periods are contained in Articles 65 and 66 of TRIPS. 15 MUSUNGU, S.F. and DUTFIEL, G. Multilateral agreements and a TRIPS-plus world. Available at: http://www.geneva.quno.info/pdf/WIPO(A4)final0304.pdf. Last accessed: 22 May 2005. p. 04. 16GRAIN. One global patent system? WIPO's Substantive Patent Law Treaty. Available at: http://listbox.wipo.int/wilma/scp-eforum/2003/msg00017/wipo-splt-2003-en.pdf Last accessed: 4 June 2005. P.01 17 PETHERBRIDGE, Lee. Intelligent TRIPS Implementation: A Strategy for Countries on the Cusp of Development. In University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law. Fall 2004. 18 The U.S. filed numerous cases against developing countries, most notably against Brazil, Argentina, India, China, and Taiwan. 19 MERCURIO, Bryan C. TRIPS, Patents, and Access to Life-Saving Drugs in the Developing World. In Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review. Summer 2004.

8 2.1.1. The Treaty on IP and Trade

Perhaps because this method in the IP policies of trading partners has showed itself inefficient, US representatives have decided to put their efforts on the creation of a new international intellectual property law.

However, developing countries, which typically viewed strong intellectual property policies as contrary to their interests, suggested that promulgation of effective international IP standards through the WIPO would probably not be easily achieved.

To overcome this resistance, developed countries engaged the issue of international intellectual property standards at the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) Uruguay Round that opened in 1986.20 Negotiating the issue in the GATT forum allowed a linkage bargaining between international intellectual property standards and trade, which resulted, in 1994, in the creation of TRIPS.

2.1.2. The Doha Declaration and Public Health

The creation of TRIPS, was not well received by all States: many developing countries, for example, did not have the expertise and the instruments to implement strong patent protection as required by the treaty. Also, these countries faced problems regarding cost increases on medicines because of the high royalties demanded by pharmaceutical corporations. Soon, many developing countries and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) actively campaigned for changes within the WTO, since most of them were losing the battle against public health epidemics, such as tuberculosis, malaria, and HIV/AIDS. The process of resolving these key health issues did not solidify until 2001 in the Fourth WTO Ministerial Conference, known as the Doha Round, in which a Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health (Doha Declaration) was adopted. The importance of this Declaration lies on the restatement it makes regarding the right of member States to take measures to protect public health.21 The Declaration also provided assistance to developing countries and LDCs in resolving part of their public health crises.22

Besides all its efforts, the Doha Declaration left one highly contentious issue unresolved: the compulsory licensing exceptions to patent protection for those countries suffering through a public health crisis with insufficient or no manufacturing capabilities, which

20 The WTO was created in 1994 by the World Trade Agreement. See http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/wta.1994/toc.html 21 WTO. /MIN(01)/DEC/1. Adopted on 14 November 2001. 22 MERCURIO. TRIPS, Patents, and Access…

9 was predicted in paragraph 6 of the Declaration. TRIPS, therefore, failed to satisfy the needs of those countries that the exceptions were designed to benefit.23

2.1.3. The Paragraph 6 Mandate of the Doha Declaration

The TRIPS negotiations had yet to reach a consensus on significant areas under the Doha Development Agenda. The debate over the Doha Declaration Paragraph 6 Mandate lasted nearly two years, with both developed and developing countries presenting their positions and compromising in order to reach an agreement. This was one of the main issues discussed at the Fifth WTO Ministerial Conference in Cancun, Mexico, during 10-14 September 2003.24

Finally, Members agreed to make an exception on Article 31(f) of TRIPS to implement the Paragraph 6 Mandate in the Doha Declaration, since it already establishes terms of agreement and conditions for compulsory licensing to ensure a balance in situations in which the use of this tool is permitted even without authorization of the patent owner.

The exception allowed LDCs to import generic copies of patented drugs to combat public health crises. However, the Article 31 solution has been much criticized: only one country (Canada) has ever issued a compulsory license for pharmaceuticals since TRIPS entered into force; in every other case where a country has threatened to issue a compulsory license, the interested parties have negotiated and ended the threat of unilateral action. Thus, even with the Article 31(f) solution implemented, compulsory licensing of pharmaceuticals for export to needy developing countries will rarely, if ever, occur.25

2.2. Developed and developing countries struggle: the duality of IP strong regimes

On the threshold of the 21st century, the development of science and technology and its practical application are high degree determinants to the economic performance and overall wellbeing of society. Also and foremost, scientific and technological development is a major contributor to combating poverty. Despite this premise, an impasse may arise, as goal number eight urges to provide developing countries with their special needs and international treaties seek for harmonization of intellectual property rights (IPR), willing to bend developing countries under its compliments. To deviate from those demands and

23 MERCURIO. TRIPS, Patents, and Access… 24 THITAPHA, Wattanapruttipaisan. Intellectual Property Rights and Enterprise Development: some policy issues and options in ASEAN. Available at: www.unescap.org/pdd/publications/apdj_11_1/wattanap.pdf Last accessed: 29 April 2005. 25 MERCURIO. TRIPS, Patents, and Access…

10 soften IPR regimes could be quite a temptation for States incapable of providing cheap drugs or basic computer technology programs to their population.

Another traditional belief is that higher levels of intellectual property standards stimulate profitability as well as maximize creation. However, according to a recent World Bank estimate, only a handful of developed countries (Australia, France, Germany, Japan, Spain, Switzerland and the US) could expect to benefit from full implementation of the TRIPS Agreement, while developing countries would incur considerable costs in administering IPRs.26 Indeed, TRIPS implementation has been seen by critics as a "polite form of economic imperialism”;27 critics also notice that TRIPS will continue to force those developing countries and LDCs that to do not have the technical infrastructure for market competition to be mere consumers.

Patent laws can also overprotect. When this happens, a particular technology patent may be too easy to obtain, removing too much important information from the public domain. Then, innovation would be harder to move forward, because investors could not be reasonably certain that innovations resulting from their investments would not infringe the patents of another.28

Still others rail against the phenomenon of "biopiracy". This concept embraces the unauthorized use of biological resources and the unauthorized use of traditional communities' knowledge.29 Furthermore, it includes the exploitation by developed countries of developing countries’ and LDCs’ bioresources, securing their property rights to transnational corporations and selling the products and benefits of "pirated" bioresources back to developing nations and LDCs.30

In addition, it must be considered that intellectual property protection has changed over time, responding to economic and technological contexts. Critics have pointed out that "one size does not fit all"31 when it comes to intellectual property policy and developing countries, who themselves are hardly a homogeneous group.

26 UNCTAD. The multilateral trading system after Doha. In: Trade and Development Report, 2002. Geneva: United Nations, 2002, p.33-48. 27 ODDI, Samuel, A. TRIPS - Natural Rights and a "Polite Form of Economic Imperialism, 29 Vand. J. Transnat'l L. 415, 458-60, 1996. 28 GINN. International Copyright Law… 29 http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biopiracy+biopiracy&hl=pt-BR 30 MERCURIO. TRIPS, Patents, and Access… 31 BOYLE, James. A Manifesto on WIPO and the Future of Intellectual Property. Duke Law & Technology Review. September 8, 2004.

11 2.2.1. The problems in high IP regimes implementation

If the decision would be for reforming IPR regimes in accordance to international treaties, policymakers in developing countries have a considerable implementation agenda ahead. A higher protection of intellectual property would require the improvement of policing and judicial institutions, civil and criminal justice systems and the customs authorities. The necessity of structural improvements conflicts with a scenario where many judicial systems do not function well for any area of the law, much less for IP. Similarly, mechanisms put in place to restrict business practices resulting from the misuse of IPRs are weak or non-existent. Complimentary reforms of the domestic regulatory environment may also be required, such as incentives for S&T development and diffusion for national population.

Because of the lack of qualified personnel with technical, analytical and diplomatic skills in analyzing national interests, some developing countries, especially the poorest ones, are currently mere spectators in most of international rule-making negotiations on intellectual property subjects. Therefore, it becomes a growing need to improve developing countries’ preparation, in order to participate more effectively in setting standards for the international IPR regime.32

Therefore, the importance of a favorable policy environment is essential for development. The role of effective government policies has been a mark of the evolution of most developed countries, such as Ireland’s information and communication technology (ICT) sector, which has been driven by the conscious design and implementation of public policy and social partnership33.

3. PAST INTERNATIONAL ACTION

3.1. Indian Patent Regime and Pharmaceutical Industry

One of the most aggravating impacts of the establishment or reinforcement of IPRs in developing countries is the price increases resulting from the access to protected products, particularly by the low-income population. India is a paramount example, since today it is the country most advanced in cheap drugs exports for both developed and developing countries. Indian government had softened its patent laws in order to use domestic

32 ICTSD. Technical Assistance for the Formulation and Implementation of Intellectual Property Policy in Developing Countries and Transition Economies. Helsinki, July 2004. 33 UNCTAD. Improving the Policy Environment …

12 industries to manufacture qualified drugs. Recently, however it has strengthened its IPR enforcement to reach TRIPS requirements.

The development of property rights in India can be divided in two distinct phases. The first phase covers the period 1948-70, when the Patents and Designs Act of 1911 remained in force. Inherited from India’s past colonial regime, this Act provided for a comprehensive patent protection system. However, its negative impact on the indigenous technological development in pharmaceutical industry, and the consequent high drug prices in India, created a growing need for change.

The pressure on Indian government by local industries in the late 1960s provoked the elaboration of a soft patent regime. The Indian Patent Act of 1970, which came into force in 1972, left aside patent protection for products such as food, medicine, drugs and substances produced by chemical process. Moreover, a compulsory license would be provided three years after the date of ratification of a patent, on the grounds that the public’s reasonable requirements regarding the patented product had not been satisfied or that the product was not available within a reasonable price.34

The soft patent regime increased local innovation for new process developments. Following the adoption of Indian Patent Act 1970 along with several pricing policies and exchange regulations, there were remarkable transformations in production, technology and trade. Indian industry had then achieved a near self-sufficiency stage to begin the production from basic stages, indicating significant reduction in the role of foreign firms in Indian pharmaceutical industry.35

However, signs show the changing of this situation: the Indian parliament has recently approved another patent law, which has already been considered controversial. As India’s Commerce Minister Kamal Nath denied allegations that the law would push up the price of drugs, NGO’s and health advocacy groups label the new bill as representing "the beginning of the end of affordable generics."36

The new legislation brings India into TRIPS compliance. A joint press release issued on 22 March by the Affordable Medicines and Treatment Campaign (India), Médecins sans Frontières (MSF), the Lawyers Collective HIV/AIDS Unit, and the Alternative Law Forum said that, as a result of the new law, India would start granting pharmaceutical

34 PRADHAN, Jaya Prakash. Strengthening Intellectual Property Rights Globally: Impact on India’s Pharmaceutical Exports. New Delhi, February 2004. Available at: http://www.geocities.com/pradhanjayaprakash/Pharexpo1.pdf. Last accessed: 24 March 2005. 35 Indian generic drug manufacturers produced low-cost AIDS drugs for 50 percent of the 700,000 HIV patients taking antiretroviral medicines in developing countries. These drugs cost about 5 percent of the price of similar drugs sold by EU and US pharmaceutical firms. 36 ICTSD Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest. v. 9 n. 10. Indian Parliament Approves Controversial Patent Bill. 23 March 2005. p. 1-3. Available at: http://www.ictsd.org/weekly/05-03-23/story1.htm. Last accessed: 13/04/05.

13 product patents "without the necessary procedures in place to safeguard against wholesale hiking of medicine prices."37 MSF studies indicate that generic competition plays an important role in lowering the price of drugs and that the procedures in the new Indian legislation are far from adequate.

Differently, the Indian government believes that because of the country's qualified pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, stronger patent rules will help India to become a global center on this front. This is also the position of drug companies—which had lobbied hard for the amendment—as well as some Indian firms. An executive at the Indian subsidiary of Swiss pharmaceutical company Novartis said that the law would encourage innovation and investment in research and development38.

On the other hand, Yusuf Hamied, a senior executive at Cipla, an Indian company known for making affordable AIDS drugs, expressed the concern that India would follow in Italy’s steps, which, as a result of its 1984 institution of drug patents went from being a major drug producer and exporter to a medicines importer.

4. BLOC POSITIONS

The international community as a whole has positively recognized the importance of intellectual property protection of science and technology as fundamental to economic and social development. Overall, there have been evidences of cooperation of countries in a domestic scenario in order to comply with the TRIPS Agreement towards its full implementation, although there have been certain restraints shown against some of the treaty’s clauses. For instance, the Chinese government has amended recently all major areas of the Chinese law in order to comply with the TRIPS Agreement. Internally, however, IP is generally viewed as a system for protecting the western world and its products, and not as being particularly helpful to Chinese people. On the other hand, once research and development (R&D) is progressing to a more advanced stage, as also happens in Japan, the Chinese Government is likely to view IP as an important factor for the development of its own economy.39

The Russian Federation also believes in S&T development and considers it the highest national priority. The country’s policies regarding science and technology are at pace with the principles contained in Agenda 21 and the Millennium Declaration of the United

37ICTSD. Indian Parliament Approves… 38 ICTSD. Indian Parliament Approves… 39TAPLIN, Ruth. Managing Intellectual Property in the Far East: China. Available at: http://scientific.thomson.com/news/newsletter/2005-04/8272848/. Last accessed: 21 April 2005.

14 Nations. However, the country stresses that tendencies toward integration of the world community do not mean the disappearance of national interests.40

WIPO and the League of Arab States (LAS) have been working together on activities, which aim at reinforcing the IP systems of countries in the Arab world and at promoting greater public awareness about the benefits of IP protection.41

The Andean Community has developed a Common Intellectual Property System, in force since 1st December, 2000. This new legal instrument brings the Andean Community IP system into line with the stipulations of the TRIPS Agreement, sending a "positive signal" to national and foreign investors.42

Taking the same steps are countries such as Romania, Iran and the Philippines, which have been developing national S&T plans. Particularly, the Philippines have invested in the promotion of partnerships with the local private sector, mainly small and medium- sized enterprises, which will be the basis for the building of capabilities in the S&T field43.

The Brazilian Government continues to develop strategies for increasing access to medicines with a view to make it truly universal in scope. Nevertheless, the country will be facing risks of sustainability if the pressure on the Health Ministry’s budget is not diminished. Therefore, the Brazilian Government is determined to use TRIPS flexibilities, including compulsory licenses, to defend the strict executing of Doha Declaration in order to protect public health and grant human rights.44

This position is not shared by the United Kingdom that, along with Germany, hosts major pharmaceutical companies. The country opposes the developing countries’ proposal for clarification of the public health safeguards in TRIPS, which would allow measures to ensure access to medicines. Notwithstanding, the majority of EU Member States are prepared to agree with some of the developing countries’ proposals. In practice, UK is aligned with the US policy of pursuing high levels of patent protection.45

40 Commission on Science and Technology for Development. Country Reports. E/CN.16/2004/CRP.2. Science and Technology Policy Review, 17 May 2004. 41 WTO. Special activities for the least developed countries. Available at: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/devel_e/teccop_e/reg_org_e/league_arab_e.htm. Last accessed at: 25 May 2005. 42 ANDEAN COMMUNITY. Intellectual Property. Available at: www.comunidadandina.org/ingles/politics/intelec.htm Last accessed at: 28 May 2005. 43 Commission on Science and Technology for Development. Country Reports. E/CN.16/2004/CRP.2. Science and Technology Policy Review, 17 May 2004. 44 Brazilian Ministry of Health. Fórum Econômico Mundial. Available at: www.saude.gov.br. Last accessed: 26 May 2005. 45 OXFAM GB. The UK position on the content of the WTO draft declaration on TRIPS and Public Health. Available at: http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what_we_do/issues/health/ukgovt_trips.htm. Last accessed: 06 May 2005.

15 Europe, Australia and the US are also active proponents of bilateral IPR agreements on a TRIPS-Plus format – with either LDC’s that have weak functional IPR systems (Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam) or developing countries such as China.46 The US Government, in terms of economy and national security, stresses the importance of IP protection to American businesses. The reduction of IP counterfeiting and piracy is one of the top priorities for the US.47 The SACU Member States, however, consider that most of TRIPS- Plus agreements could block and delay generic competition, thus hindering access to medicine.48

The approach of Member States of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) on IP regimes is strict, as it does not allow the patenting of plants, animals, microorganisms or any parts thereof, as well as traditional and indigenous knowledge. It is a consensus among these States that indigenous peoples and local communities shall be recognized as legitimate users and custodians of biological and genetic resources, establishing legal processes to ensure fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of such knowledge and resources.49

5. QUESTIONS TO PONDER

Considering the importance as well as the controversial matters of IPR regimes nowadays, there are several issues that should be approached by a SciTech’s resolution, such as:

A. How might the international framework of rules and agreements in intellectual property be ameliorated in an attempt to best suit the special needs of developing countries?

B. How can developing and least-developed countries best implement IP international regimes, without compromising the Millennium Development Goals targets?

C. Would it be possible to diffuse the benefits of intellectual property harmonization to a broader group of countries? If so, how can it be achieved?

46 GRAIN. "TRIPS-plus" through the back door - How bilateral treaties impose much stronger rules for IPRs on life than the WTO. July 2001. Available at http://www.grain.org/publications/trips-plus-en.cfm. Last accessed: 12 May 2005. 47 DUDAS, Jon W. Statement of Jon W. Dudas (Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Acting Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office) before the Committee on Judiciary United States Senate March 23, 2004. Available at: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/speeches/2004mar23.htm. Last accessed: 18 May 2005. 48 ICTSD.Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest. v. 9 n. 8 – 9 March 2005. Southern African Countries Reject 'TRIPS-Plus’ Demands in FTA Negotiation. Available at: www.ictsd.org/weekly/05-03-09/story3.htm. Last accessed: 14 April 2005. 49ASEAN. The ASEAN Framework Agreement on Access to biological and Genetic Resources. Available at: www.grain.org/brl_files/asean-access-2000-en.pdf. Last accessed: 20 May 2005.

16 D. What are the best means for a country to achieve a favorable policy environment for technology diffusion?

6. REFERENCES

ANDEAN COMMUNITY. Intellectual Property. Available at: www.comunidadandina.org/ingles/politics/intelec.htm Last accessed at: 28 May 2005.

ASEAN. The ASEAN Framework Agreement on Access to biological and Genetic Resources. Available at: www.grain.org/brl_files/asean-access-2000-en.pdf. Last accessed: 20 May 2005.

BARCELLOS, Milton L. L. O Sistema Internacional de Patentes. IOB Thomson. São Paulo, 2004, p.23.

DUDAS, Jon W. Statement of Jon W. Dudas (Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Acting Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office) before the Committee on Judiciary United States Senate March 23, 2004. Available at: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/speeches/2004mar23.htm. Last accessed: 18 May 2005.

GINN, Elaine B. International Copyright Law: Beyond the WIPO & TRIPS Debate. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society. October 2004.

IPRsonline.org. Guide to Intellectual Property Rights. Available at: http://www.iprsonline.org/guide/index.htm. Last accessed: 23 May 2005.

GRAIN. "TRIPS-plus" through the back door - How bilateral treaties impose much stronger rules for IPRs on life than the WTO. July 2001. Available at http://www.grain.org/publications/trips-plus-en.cfm. Last accessed: 12 May 2005.

GRAIN. One global patent system? WIPO's Substantive Patent Law Treaty. Available at: http://listbox.wipo.int/wilma/scp-eforum/2003/msg00017/wipo-splt-2003-en.pdf Last accessed: 4 June 2005. P.01

ICTSD.Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest. v. 9 n. 8 – 9 March 2005. Southern African Countries Reject 'TRIPS-Plus’ Demands in FTA Negotiation. Available at: www.ictsd.org/weekly/05-03-09/story3.htm. Last accessed: 14 April 2005.

ICTSD Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest. v. 9 n. 10. Indian Parliament Approves Controversial Patent Bill. 23 March 2005. p. 1-3. Available at: http://www.ictsd.org/weekly/05-03-23/story1.htm. Last accessed: 13 April 2005.

ILARDI, Alfredo. Origin and Development of the International Protection of Intellectual Property. Seminar at Oxford’s St. Peter’s College. Available at: http://www.oiprc.ox.ac.uk/EJWP0205.pdf. Last accessed: 13 Mai 2005.

17

MERCURIO, Bryan C. TRIPS, Patents, and Access to Life-Saving Drugs in the Developing World. In Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review. Summer 2004.

MOSSINGHOFF, Honorable Gerald J. Patent Harmonization through the United Nations: International Progress or Deadlock? Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society. January 2004.

MUSUNGU, S.F. and DUTFIEL, G. Multilateral agreements and a TRIPS-plus world. Available at: http://www.geneva.quno.info/pdf/WIPO(A4)final0304.pdf. Last accessed: 22 May 2005. p. 04.

PETHERBRIDGE, Lee. Intelligent TRIPS Implementation: A Strategy for Countries on the Cusp of Development. In University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law. Fall 2004.

PRADHAN, Jaya Prakash. Strengthening Intellectual Property Rights Globally: Impact on India’s Pharmaceutical Exports. New Delhi, February 2004. Available at: http://www.geocities.com/pradhanjayaprakash/Pharexpo1.pdf. Last accessed: 24 March 2005.

SCITECH. Commission on Science and Technology for Development. Country Reports. E/CN.16/2004/CRP.2. Science and Technology Policy Review, 17 May 2004.

TAPLIN, Ruth. Managing Intellectual Property in the Far East: China. Available at: http://scientific.thomson.com/news/newsletter/2005-04/8272848/. Last accessed: 21 April 2005.

THITAPHA, Wattanapruttipaisan. Intellectual Property Rights and Enterprise Development: some policy issues and options in ASEAN. Available at: www.unescap.org/pdd/publications/apdj_11_1/wattanap.pdf Last accessed: 29 April 2005.

UNCTAD. MANAN, Tuan Haji Aziz bin Abdul and CHEN, S.S. Improving the Policy Environment for the Application of Science and Technology to Development. Available at: http://stdev.unctad.org/unsystem/cstd/manan.doc. Last Accessed: 23/05/04.

WTO. Special activities for the least developed countries. Available at: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/devel_e/teccop_e/reg_org_e/league_arab_e.htm. Last accessed at: 25 May 2005.

18

TOPIC AREA B

Information and Communication Technologies – Narrowing the Digital Gap.

By Anne Diesel, Lucas Welter and Christian Perrone.

1. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Throughout the world, information and communication technologies (ICTs) have quickened the transfer of information.50 Internet, mobile and wireless technologies now connect people across the globe, and small changes in ICTs have resulted in major changes in how this technology is used.51 The adoption of html, http, and e-mail have simplified document sharing, while an increase in the telecommunication spectrum has made communication less expensive.52

Despite these attempts to bring the world closer together, the technology has widened the gap between the globe’s richest and poorest citizens as some 90% of worldwide Internet subscribers currently live in urban States, making up only 15% of the world’s total population.53 A large portion of the world’s population does not have the opportunity to experience the benefits of ICTs, hindering, therefore, the development process and perpetuating the idea of the “digital divide.”

50 Author Unknown. Canyon or mirage? Available at: http://www.economist.com. The Economist. 24 January 2004. Last accessed 20 May 2005. 51 GAGE, John. Some Thoughts on How ICTs Could Really Change the World. In: KIRKMAN, Geoffrey (ed.), The Global Information Technology Report 2001-2002: Readiness for the Networked World. London, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2002, p. 6. 52 GAGE, John. Some Thoughts on How ICTs Could Really Change the World. p. 6. 53 DASGUPTA, SUSMITA, LALL, SOMIK, & WHEELER, DAVID. Policy Reform, Economic Growth, and the Digital Divide: An Econometric Analysis. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Development Research Group, 2001, p.1.

19 Giving people access to ICTs means bringing them knowledge, which is the only road towards social and financial independence.54 Through efforts to include the developing world in the Information Society, all people may yet reap the benefits of the technological age in which we are living.

The Commission on Science and Technology for Development has made improving access to ICTs a significant part of its agenda. The focus is on the growing scale of the digital divide, as well as on its main causes.55 While the path to success on this front has not been the same among all countries, basic elements are shown as vital to its diminishment: private sector partnerships, education and adoption of new technologies.56

2. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

2.1. The Digital Gap

The “digital gap” or "digital divide" is the differentiation or separation between those with access to the essential tools of the information society and those without such access. It is the gap between those with contact to the infrastructure of the networked society or economy (the tech-haves) and those who lack contact (the tech have-nots). Surveys measure the depth of the "digital gap" by comparing access to computers, phones, cable, and other Internet-related technologies.57

The term digital gap is used to describe two main ideas: inequality of access to ICTs across States and also within States (i.e., on an urban-rural comparative basis). In the African continent, for instance, with a population of more than 700 million, there are less than 15 million telephone lines.58 In fact, there are fewer telephone lines in the entire African continent than in New York City or Tokyo alone. Capital investment in technology development and deployment also is slanted towards developed nations: member States of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) spend eleven times the amount per capita that is spent by Sub-Saharan Africa on information infrastructure.59

54 Author Unknown. Canyon or mirage? 55 WORLD SUMMIT ON INFORMATION SOCIETY (WSIS). Proposed Themes for the Summit and Possible Outcomes. WSIS/PC1/DOC/4-E, 31 May 2002. 56 Proposed Themes for the Summit and Possible Outcomes. 57 NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION (NTIA) Falling Through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide. Available at: http:// www.ntia.doc.gov/ ntiahome/fttn99/contents.html. Last accessed: 20 May 2005, introduction. The NTIA plays a key role in collecting and disseminating information about the gap and the threat it poses. 58 THE WORLD BANK GROUP. Global Information and Communication Technologies Department. The Networking Revolution: Opportunities and Challenges for Developing Countries. Washington, D.C.: World Bank, June 2004, p. 14. 59 The Networking Revolution: Opportunities and Challenges for Developing Countries, p. 16.

20

It is now widely accepted that access and use of ICTs are both factors leading to greater productivity, as well as a key component of the development process; the divide between “haves” and “have-nots,” however, remains: while developed States have control over ICTs and their use, it follows that productivity in these countries will far outstrip productivity in the developing world.60

Recently, the Center for International Development (CID) at Harvard University created an index in an effort to clarify States’ capacity to harness the opportunities presented by ICTs. The Networked Readiness Index (NRI), ranking 75 States, has the short-term goal of enhancing business leaders and policymakers to “understand the factors contributing to ICT advancement, so that business practice and public policy can be shaped in the most informed manner possible”. Over the long-term, the hope is that the information will be used to extend benefits to organizations and communities worldwide. Networked Readiness is defined as “a community’s potential to participate in the Networked World in the future.”

In the 2001-2002 report, the United States stood at the top of the index to be considered the most networked ready nation with the most potential to utilize network capacity. Within the top one-third of the rankings, 14 States were from Western Europe, 7 from Asia and Oceania, 2 from North America, 1 from the Middle East, and 1 from Central and Eastern Europe. At the same time, the bottom 25 States included 10 in Latin America, 7 in Asia, 4 in Eastern Europe, 3 in Sub-Saharan Africa, and 1 in the Middle East.61

Within States, both developed and developing Nations face the divide between “haves” and “have-nots.” The inequalities include those based on income, education, location, race, gender, and age. Evidence shows that all factors play a role in determining how wide the digital gap really is. Regarding the income factor for instance, in Uganda, one month of Internet access costs more than most families earn in the same period of time. Differently, in the United States, the cost of equivalent Internet access is less than 1% of most families’ monthly income.62 Also, access speed becomes a problem in many States where telephone access is charged by the minute. Furthermore, studies also show that urban populations are more likely to benefit from higher rates of ICT penetration.63 Many new technologies have appeared to be the solution to restrict the digital gap and make peoples’ lives easier. The emergence of wireless technology has provided an opportunity to reach those populations that traditionally had limited access to ICTs. This

60 Author Unknown. Canyon or mirage? 61 KIRKMAN, Geoffrey, OSORIO, Carlos A., & SACHS, Jeffrey D. The Networked Readiness Index: Measuring the Preparedness of Nations for the Networked World, p. 12. 62 YONGXIANG, Lu. (2001, May 24). Sharing Information Resources Through Narrowing the Digital Divide. 63 DASGUPTA, SUSMITA, LALL, SOMIK, & WHEELER, DAVID. Policy Reform, Economic Growth, and the Digital Divide: An Econometric Analysis, p. 9.

21 technology is relatively cheap, due to the minimal equipment and infrastructure required to support it.64

Likewise, mobile technology is one way to reach rural, impoverished areas. In Africa, mobile telephone subscribers increased by over 1000% between 1998 and 2003 according to International Telecommunication Union (ITU). With 51.8 million users, mobile technology has become much more popular than fixed line, of which there were only 25.1 million users in 2003. While these numbers may seem high, actual diffusion to the population is still low. Mobile penetration is higher, reaching 6.2% of the population, while fixed line penetration lags behind with 3% of adherence. With mobile technology use already on the rise in the region, this may possibly be the best way to provide ICT access to the people of Africa, where there is normally a lack of infrastructure to fixed line installments.

The digital divide has the tendency to be widened, as the tech-haves leave the have-nots behind. The Internet itself plays a central role in this scenario, since many see it as having the "power to increase or decrease the gap between rich and poor worldwide."

Nevertheless, as Lou Gerstner observed, the Internet may possibly contribute to a widening of the digital gap, but such an outcome is not "inevitable". 65 There, mobile technology can play a central role, since it allows not only cellular phone usage, but also Internet access in regions formerly unreachable. The most well known form of this technology is WiFi, which offers high-speed connectivity over a range of 50 km2.66 This allows the use of “portable” Internet, which can be accessed by devices such as computers, cellular phones, and personal digital assistants (PDAs).67

2.1.1. The Gender Divide Issue

The digital divide exists not only between rich and poor, but also between men and women. Women are far less likely than men to have access to ICTs and are also less likely to have the necessary education to make use of ICT benefits, due to some countries’ ancient history on patriarchal societies still having much force on today’s culture.68

64 Africa: The World’s Fastest Growing Mobile Market. Does mobile technology hold the key to widening access to ICTs in Africa? 65 See Client Perspectives, Champion of Change, IFC Publications, at http:// www.ifc.org/ifc/publications/pubs/impact/impsp99/s9clientibm/s9clientibm.html. Last accessed 20 May 2005. Lou Gerstner is Chief Executive Officer of IBM. 66 Africa: The World’s Fastest … 67 For new types of wireless technology see REINHARDT, Andy, Business Week, 19 January 2004. The Next Big Thing For Wireless? Available at: http://www.keepmedia.com. Last accessed 20 May 2005. 68 YONGXIANG, Lu. (2001, May 24). Sharing Information Resources Through Narrowing the Digital Divide.

22 The ICT field is largely dominated by and generally linked to professions and knowledge historically belonging to men. Women are not only marginalized by this inherent imbalance, but also by the gender inequality that exists in many societies. Greater marginalization occurs in developing States, where women face higher rates of poverty and illiteracy than the male population.69 A study conducted by the International Development and Research Center (IDRC) clearly demonstrates by numbers that men outnumber women as ICT users by at least two-to-one in developing regions.70 In Uganda and in Senegal, only around 30% of ICT users are women.71

The importance of ICT diffusion to women is fundamental: it can be used not only on areas such as basic education, but also allows access to subjects regarding knowledge on childcare, economy and politics. The impact of ICTs can best summed up by one girl’s statement: “we get our freedom from the Internet, since in our society girls are not allowed to go wherever we want…the Internet takes us out to other people, places and realities…it is our way of escaping from our closed society. It is vital to us, it gives us 72 liberty.” Discussions on the gender divide, nevertheless, should follow a pluralistic approach in which the cultural aspects inherent to the peoples are taken into account.

2.2. Perspectives on the Issue

ICTs, as being part of the tools towards development processes, need to be visualized not only by themselves, but as connected with many other aspects of society, specifically economic ones. Therefore, actions aiming to bridge the ICT digital gap are expected to confront aspects such as: “Infrastructure – deploying a core ICT network infrastructure, achieving relative ubiquity of access, and investing in strategically-focused capacity to support development priorities. Human Capacity – building a critical mass of knowledge workers, increasing technical skills among users, and strengthening local entrepreneurial and managerial capabilities. Policy – supporting a transparent and inclusive policy process, promoting fair and open competition, and strengthening institutional capacity to implement and enforce policies. Enterprise – improving access to financial capital, facilitating access to global and local markets, enforcing appropriate tax and property rights regimes, enabling efficient business processes, and stimulating domestic demand for ICT.

69 Africa News 30 August 2002. Closing the gender gap in an era of digital divide. Available at: http://www.allAfrica.com. Last accessed 20 May 2005. 70 RATHGABER, Eva M. Women, Men, and ICTs in Africa: Why Gender Is an Issue. In RATHGABER , Eva M. & ADERA, Edith Ofwona (eds.). Gender and the Information Revolution in Africa. Ottawa, Canada: IDRC, 2002. 71 RATHGABER, Eva M. Gender and the Information Revolution in Africa. 72 HAWKINS, Robert J. Ten Lessons from ICT and Education in the Developing World. In: KIRKMAN, Geoffrey (ed.), The Global Information Technology Report 2001-2002: Readiness for the Networked World. London, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2002, p. 42.

23 Content and Applications – providing demand-driven information which is relevant to the needs and conditions experienced by local people.”73

In order to fully appreciate those aspects of ICT, it is important to understand how the majority of the countries have been organized. A 2001 project called the Digital Opportunity Initiative (DOI) has established two main political ways to treat ICTs: “as a production sector” and “as an enabler of socio-economic development”.74 Those can be explained as being only other products that increase welfare, or as objects that can increase social advancement.

Brazil (from the 1970s to the 1990s) and Costa Rica, for instance, have visualized ICTs as just another part of their existing industry pool, due to these countries’ main objectives of social inclusion and poverty reduction through economic growth and employment, taking for granted the repercussions of ICT technology in peoples’ abilities or capacities.

Japan and Jamaica, on the other hand, have conceived ICTs as being able to capacitate and qualify people’s work. Therefore, technology diffusion was implemented through raising educational levels and making people evolve from time to time. The burdens of such policies are the necessity of solving urgent labor problems and the constant requirements for major funding systems—a result of the generally high costs of these programmes.

Another situation to consider can be seen by the comparison of the four countries exemplified herein. It seems that after making the choice between the views of ICTs as “a production sector” or as “an enabler of socio-economic development,” there is a “second- level strategic choice”: to have a more internal perspective, related to the national market, or a more external market which is linked to the global market.

Therefore, if seen as the first option, the “policies can focus of leveraging ICT for export opportunities [Costa Rica] or they can emphasize building national capacity for domestic market development [Brazil]”. As concerned to the second possibility, ICTs can influence in improving “the country’s global competitive position [Japan] or to use ICT directly to target a range of specific development objectives [Jamaica]”.

We must bear in mind that these alternatives are not extensive, which means that they do not mutually exclude one another; however, there are some that cannot harmonize with each other.75 An example of the way in which these policies can compliment each other is

73 DESAI, Kartkeya N. and PADBANABAM, Anant R.. Evaluating National ICT Strategies: Export versus Domestic Market Focus The Comparative Experiences of Costa Rica and Brazil. Available at: http://www.foreignaid.com/services/ICTDandGlobalizationKD.pdf. Last accessed: 3 June 2004 74 DESAI and PADBANABAM. Evaluating National ICT Strategies… 75 DESAI and PADBANABAM. Evaluating National ICT Strategies…

24 Brazil nowadays, which has an aggressive policy of exportation connected with the traditional importation substitution system.

3. PAST INTERNATIONAL ACTION

3.1. Public-Private Sector Partnerships and Alliances

To bridge the global digital divide, many developing countries are forming partnerships with corporations and countries from the developed world, as well as with governmental and nongovernmental organizations. They have been recognizing that strategic partnerships for mutual profit are potentially more rewarding than the confrontational models symbolized by demands, however legitimate, for new orders and the North-South diatribes.

“Solutions should be realistic, flexible and sensitive to local conditions, and should be backed by strong public and private institutional support.”76 This was a principle finding of the Digital Opportunity Initiative (DOI), a public-private partnership among Accenture, the Markle Foundation and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), which was launched at the G-8 Okinawa Summit held in 2000.77 The aim of the partnership is to identify roles that ICTs can play in fostering sustainable economic development and enhancing social equity. Lasting partnerships, which are required in order to have a chance of meeting success in the development field, need to identify or engineer “win- win” situations. This requires a “clear vision and direction, defined roles and responsibilities for all partners, adequate funding, sufficient technical and administrative means, and integration with existing local institutions.”78

An example of successful public-private partnership has happened between the institution NIIT, a leading software and education provider, and the Indian government. This company formed a partnership with private companies and the government79 at the State level to offer student loans aimed at those who studied Internet or computer-based courses. In exchange for the services NIIT provided, the company was allowed to use the facilities after hours to deliver private classes to the community. There were unexpected positive spillover effects from this partnership as some 1400 trainers were hired from

76 ACCENTURE, Markle Foundation, & United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Creating a Development Dynamic: Final Report of the Digital Opportunity Initiative. New York: Author, 2001 p. 5. 77 DOI Framework. Digital Opportunity Initiative: Creating a Development Dynamic. Available at: http://www.opt-init.org/framework.html. Last accessed 20 May 2005. 78 Creating a Development Dynamic: Final Report of the Digital Opportunity Initiative. 79 Creating a Development Dynamic: Final Report of the Digital Opportunity Initiative.

25 local communities and the entire community was involved in helping to set up the computer labs.80

Public-private partnerships also need to leverage themselves off of the synergies gained by the alignment of ICT interventions. Costa Rica, beginning in 1996, established a long- term relationship with the leading technology company Intel. Since the economy had previously been focused on primary sectors (agriculture, specifically the coffee industry), a decline in world coffee prices led the government to rationalize the need to change its development strategy.81 Thus, Costa Rica, a State situated close to both the North and South American market with a long-standing democracy and peaceful political environment, found itself in an ideal location to promote itself as a potential hub for Intel. Costa Rica is now Intel’s second largest final assembly plant and testing facility, and one- third of all computer microprocessors produced by Intel come from Costa Rica.82 As a result of the foreign direct investment (FDI) development strategy adopted by the government and the success seen by Intel, more than one hundred software development companies now work in Costa Rica.83 This has generated significant employment within the State, and places Costa Rica in the “high development” category according to the 2004 UNDP Human Development Report.84

3.2. Access to Education

Getting ICTs into schools and classrooms is a crucial first step towards developing computer-related literacy.85 Electronic learning, or e-learning, provides an opportunity for people to receive an education in areas where distance has traditionally prevented them from attending classes at an educational institution. While distance learning is a common practice in developed States, its use is only beginning to become commonplace in other parts of the world.86

Beginning in 1997 the World Bank launched an initiative called the World Links program “in response to developing countries demands for strategies to prepare their youth to compete in a world increasingly driven by information, technology, and knowledge.”87 World Links is a grant-based program designed to “provide developing country schools and ministries of education with sustainable solutions for mobilizing the necessary technologies, skills, and educational resources to prepare students and teachers to enter

80 HAWKINS, Robert J. Ten Lessons from ICT and Education in the Developing World, p. 41. 81 Creating a Development Dynamic: Final Report of the Digital Opportunity Initiative. 82 Creating a Development Dynamic: Final Report of the Digital Opportunity Initiative. 83 Creating a Development Dynamic: Final Report of the Digital Opportunity Initiative. 84 United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Human Development Report 2004. New York, NY: Author, 2004, p.139. The other Latin American and Caribbean States ahead of Costa Rica (ranked 45) are: Barbados (29), Argentina (34), Saint Kitts and Nevis (39), and Chile (43). 85 The Networking Revolution: Opportunities and Challenges for Developing Countries, p. 15. 86 HAWKINS, Ten Lessons from ICT… p. 41. 87 HAWKINS, Ten Lessons from ICT… p. 41.

26 the Networked World.”88 In 2000 the program became independent from the World Bank to form a separate non-governmental organization (NGO) in order to give continuation to the mandate of the World Bank program beyond its pilot program life that ended in 2002.

The program specifically brings together more than 200,000 students and educators from around the world for collaborative learning initiatives. In addition, it links ministries of education together to learn from the implementation of Networked Learning.89 One of the most recent specific projects was the launch of Yemen’s e-learning project on September 16, 2004.90 Through this project, 20 teachers and six administrators were trained for several weeks on using student-centered instructional methods in their classrooms and on basic computer and Internet skills.91 These teachers and administrators will now, on their turn, train other teachers in their schools to facilitate the dissemination of the technology vis-à-vis education.

3.3. Privatization, Liberalization and Free Trade

Some nations believe that the governments should privatize and open their markets – especially their telecommunications sectors – to foreign investors in order to fully implement the benefits of new technologies. They believe that the trend towards privatization and liberalization is not only desirable; it is both necessary and timely so that they can bridge the digital gap with the help of new technologies.

Throughout the developing world, but especially in Latin America, there is a "wave of liberalization" that is spurring a "dual boom" in mobile communications and in the "uptake of the Internet". 92 While Chile and Colombia attempted immediate deregulation, significant entry barriers were placed in the case of the latter "thus reducing the number of operators interested in gaining a market foothold."93

Meanwhile, Brazil, which kicked off "Latin America's biggest-ever privatization with three fixed-line operators, eight cellular companies, and the international long-distance carrier being sold to the highest bidders," remains a "hybrid of other Latin American models.”94 In addition, it appears that several African countries are also preparing to enter the digital age economy. A report presented at the conference on "Global Connectivity for Africa" concluded that "many African countries have already come to accept that users

88 HAWKINS, Ten Lessons from ICT… p. 41. 89 HAWKINS, Ten Lessons from ICT… p. 41. 90 World Links. 2004, September 16. E-Learning launched in Yemen. Available at: http://www.worldlinks.org/modules.php.Last Accessed 20 May 2005. 91 World Links. E-Learning launched in Yemen. 92 ITU Telecom Americas 2000. 15 April 2000 Region's Mobile and Internet Boom Set to Continue, ITU Newsroom Press Release, available at http://www.itu.int/newsroom. Last accessed 20 May 2005. 93 SPECTAR, J.M. Bridging the global digital divide: frameworks for access and the world wireless web. 94 SPECTAR. Bridging the global digital divide…

27 would benefit from permitting private interests to offer public telecommunications services, at least to the extent of limiting the scope of the incumbent operator's monopoly."95

Those governments have restricted and, in the future, others may restrict telecommunications monopolies in order to encourage competition. Markets around the world have opened to new network operators and Internet service providers. The World Trade Organization took a step towards more open access with a general agreement on basic telecommunications. Now it is up to individual countries to step up and implement their commitments and to conceive ways to implement better telecommunications infrastructures, for some it might liberalize their economy.96

The results of privatization and liberalization have been noteworthy. In 1999, the number of Internet hosts more than doubled in Latin America; this represented the fastest growth in the world that year. Mobile subscribers grew from 3.5 million in 1995 to 38 million in 1999. Eight years following Chile's transformation from a monopolistic to a competitive system (1988-96), the number of phone lines increased more than four-fold, from 500,000 to 2,200,000, and the growth rate spiraled from 5% to about 20%.97

3.4. The Role of Non-Governmental Organizations and Civil Society

NGOs and civil society have an equally important role as the private sector in working to close the digital divide. Efforts must include all citizens in a grassroots effort involving community volunteers, charitable organizations, and NGOs from local to global levels.

NGOs often have the ability to serve as a link between private companies and local communities as they are functioning at the grassroots levels in most communities, which could be impacted by ICT partnerships. The World Bank has served as a significant player in the ICT sector dating back to the 1960s when it began financing physical infrastructure projects. One of the most visible World Bank-sponsored initiatives is the Information for Development Program (infoDev), which is a “multi-donor grant facility…with the objective of promoting innovative projects that use ICTs for economic and social development with a special emphasis on the needs of the poor in developing economies.”98

95 Global Connectivity for Africa: Key Issues for Decision Makers, Available at http://www.worldbank.org/infodev/projects/bmpe.pdf. Last accessed 20 May 2005. 96 See Client Perspectives, Champion of Change, IFC Publications, at http:// www.ifc.org/ifc/publications/pubs/impact/impsp99/s9clientibm/s9clientibm.html. Last accessed 20 May 2005. 97 SPECTAR, Bridging the global digital divide… 98 THE WORLD BANK GROUP. Global Information and Communication Technologies Department. The Networking Revolution: Opportunities and Challenges for Developing Countries, p. A-1

28 Since 1995, more than 200 projects operating in more than 100 States have received infoDev funding, where the focus has been on distance and ICT-based learning initiatives. In 2004 the focus of infoDev shifted towards how “ICTs can substantially advance progress toward the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).”99

4. BLOC POSITIONS

Thus, it is common sense that the exchange of all types of technology is of great importance and relevance to all countries, especially from the developed to the developing ones. Since ICTs are the new catalyst of working improvement, no country should be excluded from the substantive development brought by them. Due to that, most States agree, on some basis, on the necessity of equitable access for all, without the major difference between the “haves” and “have-nots.”

The European Union’s position regarding ICTs is clearly stated with the Plan of Action named “eEurope”,100 set in 2002, in order to enhance the process of transition to information society. The new members of the EU are part of another Action Plan, called eEurope+.101 This is a group of bonding goals that lead them to the same path as the other EU countries. Romania102 is a very good example, having a policy of its own. Other countries like Turkey103 – which are in the waiting line to become part of the EU – are also adopting policies towards eEurope+.

Asia has structured many different plans to act in this matter, bearing in mind the huge gap among the regions of the continent.104 India, for example, has several policies on development. Though ICTs are seen only as trading products, they have received much attention from the government, which has made its policy through organs and agencies. CSIR – Council for Scientific and Industrial Research – is of the most important ones, because it organizes the companies and aids them when necessary. Interesting to remark is that the Council is proud to be financed not only by the public sector, but also by the private sector. Regardless of the constant quarrels concerning international affairs,

99 The Information for Development Program. (2004). About Us. Available at: http://www.infodev.org/html/about.html. Last accessed 20 May 2005. 100 Europe’s Information Society Website. Available at: http://europa.eu.int/information_society/index_ en.htm Last accessed 3 June 2005. 101 Europe’s Information Society Website. 102 Ministry of Communications and Information Technology. Available at: http://www.mcti.ro/ index.php?KTURL=page&page=2155&PHPSESSID=c9dd71d73667c6c549eab2fae9e4c14d. Last accessed in 3 June 2005. 103 T.R. Prime Ministry State Planning Organization Website http://europa.eu.int/information_ society/eeurope/2005/index_en.htm. Last Accessed 1 June 2005. 104 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. Technology Selection, acquisition and Negotiation. Papers of a seminar organized by Islamic Development Bank and UNCTAD. Geneva 1991. Pg.19

29 Pakistan has a position that follows the Indian policy, concerning privatization and liberalization of the market.105 Bangladesh usually follows the same path.

China has a very severe position towards ICTs. Despite having strong international participation in the inside industrial park, the liberal ideology has not penetrated its environment, causing the necessity of governmental action in every major transformation.106

Iran, as well as Jordan, has its own policy plan. In Iran after 1977, with a major crisis in the oil’s revenue, the country has determined a new development organization, since it could not depend any more on the international experts and technology. Now, however, ICTs are not a priority; oil related technologies have prior effect.107

The African countries also defend the necessity of overcoming the divisions between those who have and the ones who do not have the ICTs. Ghana has an important “ICT for Accelerated Development Policy”108 that is followed by many other countries in Africa. As an example, Lesotho109 has a “Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP)” based on the same ideal. Despite the implemented policies, most Sub-Saharan African countries face enormous problems in critical areas, such as policy formulation, implementation of the institutions, and diffusion of information.110 Therefore, this deficiency is a barrier to the necessary development of those countries international support for the Fund of Development of Africa, and technical assistance to establish their proper plans of action is needed.111

Latin America and Caribbean have many different views on this matter. However, they agree on international support for development. The disparity is related with the amount of participation of the government in the evolution process. Brazil, for instance, defends full international help, since developing countries have major urgent needs to deal with, not being possible to devote their limited resources to ICTs.112 Jamaica, on the other hand, has invested in several plans to make people more used to technology. Its case is considered a remarkable success and a possible model to be followed.113

106 International Telecommunication Union Website http://www.itu.int/plenipotentiary/ policystatements/texts/china.html. Last accessed 30 May 2005.

108 Ministry of Communication Ghana ICT Poly and Plan development Committee Website http://www.ict.gov.gh/html/briefing%20document%20on%20the%ct%20process.htm. Accessed June 2005.

110 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. p. 32. 111 International Conference on Financing for Development Website http://esa.un.org/ffd/policydb/ PolicyTexts/eca-3.htm#CHAPTER%20II. Last accessed 30 May 2005. 112 UN Non-Governmental Liaison Service Website. http://www.un-ngls.org/documents /text/go.between /gb92c.htm#High. Last Accessed 2 June 2005. 113 TOURÉ, K. Mustafa CARICOM Small Island Developing States (SIDS) Information Technology Training & Capacity-Building: Priorities for Sustainable Development Decision-Making Final Report For The “Information for Decision-making on Sustainable Development (IDSD) Project” Available at: http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinf o/indicators/idsd/pdf/training_needs.pdf. Last accessed June 2005.

30 5. QUESTIONS TO PONDER

Bearing in mind the relevance of the Information and Communication Technologies’ issue nowadays, there are several questions that should be addressed by a SciTech’s resolution, such as:

A. How can we ensure that ICTs will not increase the social contrasts inside our world, instead of enhance the global welfare?

B. How can new forms of ICTs change the relationship between individuals and States?

C. How can the prices of Internet access be reduced so that ICTs do not continue to only benefit the “haves”?

D. How can education and learning systems be improved to more effectively incorporate ICTs?

E. What defines quality education in today’s information-based economy?

F. How can we minimize the gap between genders?

G. What is the best way to develop ICTs? What is the best policy?

H. What is the role of privatization in the ICTs context?

6. REFERENCES

ACCENTURE, Markle Foundation, & United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Creating a Development Dynamic: Final Report of the Digital Opportunity Initiative. New York: Author, 2001.

DASGUPTA, SUSMITA, LALL, SOMIK, & WHEELER, DAVID. Policy Reform, Economic Growth, and the Digital Divide: An Econometric Analysis. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Development Research Group, 2001.

DESAI, Kartkeya N. and PADBANABAM, Anant R.. Evaluating National ICT Strategies: Export versus Domestic Market Focus The Comparative Experiences of Costa Rica and Brazil. Available at: http://www.foreignaid.com/services/ICTDandGlobalizationKD.pdf. Last accessed: 3 June 2004.

31 GAGE, John. Some Thoughts on How ICTs Could Really Change the World. In: KIRKMAN, Geoffrey (ed.), The Global Information Technology Report 2001-2002: Readiness for the Networked World. London, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2002.

HAWKINS, Robert J. Ten Lessons from ICT and Education in the Developing World. In: KIRKMAN, Geoffrey (ed.), The Global Information Technology Report 2001-2002: Readiness for the Networked World. London, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2002.

KIRKMAN, Geoffrey, OSORIO, Carlos A., & SACHS, Jeffrey D. The Networked Readiness Index: Measuring the Preparedness of Nations for the Networked World.

NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION (NTIA) Falling Through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide. Available at: http:// www.ntia.doc.gov/ ntiahome/fttn99/contents.html. Last accessed: 20 May 2005.

RATHGABER, Eva M. Women, Men, and ICTs in Africa: Why Gender Is an Issue. In RATHGABER , Eva M. & ADERA, Edith Ofwona (eds.). Gender and the Information Revolution in Africa. Ottawa, Canada: IDRC, 2002.

THE WORLD BANK GROUP. Global Information and Communication Technologies Department. The Networking Revolution: Opportunities and Challenges for Developing Countries. Washington, D.C.: World Bank, June 2004.

TOURÉ, K. Mustafa CARICOM. Small Island Developing States (SIDS) Information Technology Training & Capacity-Building: Priorities for Sustainable Development Decision-Making. Final Report For The “Information for Decision-making on Sustainable Development (IDSD) Project” Available at: http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinf o/indicators/idsd/pdf/training_needs.pdf. Last accessed: June 2005.

WORLD SUMMIT ON INFORMATION SOCIETY (WSIS). Proposed Themes for the Summit and Possible Outcomes. WSIS/PC1/DOC/4-E, 31 May 2002.

32