|
AGENDA ITEM 5: CONSIDERATION OF WORK PROGRAM FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF ADOPTED RECOMMENDATIONS (CONTINUED)
|
| bet | 4/10 | | Sana | 07.04.2017 | | Hajmi | 471.46 Kb. | | #3444 |
AGENDA ITEM 3: ADOPTION OF THE DRAFT REPORT OF THE ELEVENTH SESSION OF THE CDIP
Consideration of Document CDIP/11/9 Prov. – Draft Report
20 The Chair stated that the draft report was issued on August 19, 2013. The Secretariat had not received any comments from Member States. He invited the Committee to adopt the report. It was adopted given that there were no objections from the floor. The Chair then moved on to the Independent Review of the Implementation of DA Recommendations.
AGENDA ITEM 5: CONSIDERATION OF WORK PROGRAM FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF ADOPTED RECOMMENDATIONS
Independent Review of the Implementation of the DA Recommendations as requested under the Coordination Mechanism
21 The Chair recalled that in 2010, the GA approved the Coordination Mechanisms and Monitoring, Assessing and Reporting Modalities (hereinafter referred to as “the Coordination Mechanism”), as recommended by the CDIP. It included the following: “To request the CDIP to undertake an independent review of the implementation of the DA Recommendations at the end of the 2012-2013 biennium. Upon consideration of that review, the CDIP may decide on a possible further review. The TOR and the selection of independent IP and development experts will be agreed by the CDIP.” The issue of the Independent Review was discussed at the 11th session. The Africa Group and DAG submitted a joint proposal on the TOR and methodology for the independent review (document CDIP/11/8). The Summary by the Chair for that session included the following: “The Committee discussed the Independent Review of the Implementation of the DA Recommendations as requested under the Coordination Mechanism and Monitoring, Assessing and Reporting Modalities. Recalling the related decision of the General Assembly, the Committee took note of the Joint Proposal on TOR and Methodology for the Independent Review of the Implementation of the DA Recommendations submitted by the African Group and DA Group. The Committee agreed to devote sufficient time for discussion on this matter at its next session with a view to implementing the General Assembly’s decision that the Review should be undertaken by the end of the 2012/2013 biennium. To that end, the Committee agreed to hold one informal meeting prior to its next session.” An informal meeting was held on November 12, 2013, and positions were expressed.
22 The Delegation of Japan, speaking on behalf of Group B, took note of document CDIP/11/8. The Review should be precise, practical, clear and concise. The most important element of the TOR was the purpose and scope of the Review. In accordance with the GA decision in 2010, the scope of the Independent Review was clearly the implementation of DA recommendations. Thus, the exercise should focus on how and to what extent the respective recommendations had been implemented based on the scope defined by the language of respective recommendations, without broadening the scope of the exercise to more general issues such as the development activities of WIPO as a whole. With regard to other elements, the Group was still engaged in internal discussions on the best way forward to meet the mandate of the review given by the GA. Members had already put forward some interesting ideas. The Review should avoid overlaps with past exercises, including reviews that had already been carried out by WIPO. The Group was ready to engage in discussions on this important issue in a constructive spirit to find a solution at this session.
23 The Delegation of Egypt, speaking on behalf of the Development Agenda Group (DAG), informed the Committee that it would be submitting a statement to the Secretariat for inclusion in the report. It would be made available to all delegations. The Group supported an objective, robust and complete review of the implementation of DA recommendations. The GA decision in 2010 instructed the CDIP to conduct a review by the end of the 2012/13 biennium. This was the last session of the CDIP for this biennium. Thus, the Committee should decide and agree on the TOR as well as the selection of independent IP and development experts that would conduct the review. The Group had presented a Joint Proposal with the African Group in the previous session on the objectives, scope, methodology and selection of IP and development experts for the Independent Review. The Group hoped that the proposal would be finalized and agreed at this session. It referred to the comments made by Group B and stated that the proposal included several elements on the scope and purpose of the Review. The Group would be happy to discuss them. Delegations were close to agreeing on some elements during the informal consultations. The Committee could begin by discussing those elements. During the informal consultations, the Secretariat had highlighted that resources would be made available for the exercise. It also stated that the output and timeline would be easily identified after the objectives and scope had been finalized. The Group reiterated its understanding that the review would cover all the clusters and the 45 recommendations of the DA. This was required in order to provide a clear picture of the implementation of the DA recommendations, including challenges, achievements, shortcomings and recommendations for overcoming problems that were encountered.
24 The Delegation of Poland, speaking on behalf of CEBS, stated that it was true that the GA decision on the Coordination Mechanism in 2010 had instructed the Committee to undertake an independent review of the implementation of DA recommendations at the end of the 2012/13 biennium, and to agree on the TOR and the selection of independent IP and development experts for this purpose. However, since then a great number of external independent evaluation reports had been drawn up in relation to the implementation of many DA recommendations. These covered many elements listed in the joint proposal by the African Group and DAG, including effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of the implemented projects. Thus, careful consideration of the scope and purpose of the Independent Review was essential in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of work that had already been done.
25 The Delegation of Lithuania, speaking on behalf of the European Union (EU) and its Member States, noted that the Director General had provided several reports on the implementation of DA Recommendations and concluded that the Secretariat had continued its work in a progressive manner and in accordance with the collective decisions of the Member States. They also noted that independent evaluations were carried out with respect to a great number of Development Agenda projects. This led them to conclude that an Independent Review need not be onerous and the TOR should enable efficient and pragmatic consideration. Thus, they questioned whether it was strictly necessary to consider the methodology of the evaluations that were undertaken with respect to various DA projects or the basis of using projects. An assessment of the impact of the DA should be confined to the relevant WIPO bodies. They stood ready to hear the views of other delegations and to discuss the issue further.
26 The Delegation of the United States of America stated that it had reviewed document CDIP/11/8. It was ready to draft the TOR for the review and approve them at the meeting. The Delegation believed that the Independent Review should be conducted in keeping with the agreed upon principles of the GA's decision on the Coordination Mechanisms and Monitoring, Assessing and Reporting Modalities. For example, in designing this review, the CDIP should keep in mind the need to avoid duplication of WIPO governance arrangements and where practical, use existing governance structures and procedures. As mentioned by the EU and CEBS, the Committee had requested numerous reports and evaluations relating to the DA Recommendations. These documents should be the primary basis for the review. For example, the Director General's report on implementation, yearly progress reports on development related activities and numerous evaluation reports on WIPO activities. Further, in accordance with the Coordination Mechanism principles, the review should be limited to the relevant WIPO bodies, activities and staff. In addition, the Committee should try to use existing budgetary resources at WIPO. Lastly, the resulting document should be concise and well organized to facilitate its translation into WIPO languages and subsequent discussions.
27 The Delegation of Algeria, speaking on behalf of the African Group, informed the Secretariat that it had submitted a general statement for inclusion in the report. The Group referred to its Joint Proposal with DAG on the TOR and methodology for the Independent Review. The scope of the exercise should be reflected in the TOR for the review. The review should be exhaustive, thorough and complete. The Group heard some delegations using adjectives that in its view would limit the review. For example, Group B talked about a concise exercise. This should not apply to an independent review of the implementation all DA recommendations. It should be precise and well-structured but not concise. Some delegations also mentioned duplication. The Group considered duplication to mean repeating the exact same exercise once again. However, as far as it was aware, this was the first time that an independent review of the implementation of DA recommendations would be undertaken. Thus, it was clear that there would be no repetition. The Group fully supported the concerns expressed with regard to the budget. It should not be too costly. However, the Secretariat should be prepared to engage high level experts to undertake the work and there would be financial implications. Nonetheless, it should be worthwhile. The Group was looking forward to the exercise, from which a lot was expected.
28 The Delegation of Trinidad and Tobago, speaking on behalf of the Group of Latin American and the Caribbean Countries (GRULAC) referred to the definition of the TOR and methodology for the Independent Review. Document CDIP/11/8, presented by the African Group and DAG in the previous session, provided a good working basis and a practical framework for discussions in this regard. All the groups expected the results of this important exercise to produce a document that analyzed whether IP as a tool for development was mainstreamed in all WIPO activities. The document should serve as a reference for all future discussions in the CDIP and guide future work on IP and development.
29 The Delegation of the United Kingdom stated that the consultations held last week on the TOR for the Independent Review of the Implementation of DA recommendations indicated a lack of understanding with respect to certain elements of the proposal. Thus, the Delegation supported the idea that the Secretariat could prepare draft TOR based on UN practices. This was discussed in the consultations. It fully acknowledged the decision of the GA in 2010 for the Independent Review to be undertaken. The review should follow some basic principles in order for it to be clear and concise in evaluating the concrete impact of the DA Recommendations in practice. Duplication should be avoided. As such, recent in-depth studies and reports must be taken into account. The report should reflect reality and should not repeat the issues and elements that were analyzed and evaluated in other reports.
30 The Delegation of Bangladesh, speaking on behalf of the Asia Pacific Group, stressed that the implementation of DA recommendations was extremely important for WIPO and its Member States in terms of promoting development. It hoped that appropriate TOR and methodology would be developed based on consensus. In this regard, the Delegation invited the members of its Group to make interventions in their individual capacities.
31 The Delegation of Japan, speaking on behalf of Group B, believed that a drafting exercise based on draft TOR would be more efficient and straightforward than a text based discussion on the elements contained in the proposal. The Joint Proposal was not the draft TOR. The Group requested the Secretariat to prepare draft TOR taking into account the views expressed by delegations during the current session as well as in the informal session held the week before, as proposed by the Delegation of the United Kingdom. The exchange of views on various elements during the discussion was very useful. The Group fully trusted the Secretariat's sense of balance and insight with respect to the DA recommendations. Based on the document prepared by the Secretariat, the discussion could resume in the second time slot for this agenda item. It should take place at a later stage in the session. This was the most efficient way to work. The Group strongly believed that the Review must focus on how and to what extent the respective recommendations had been implemented based on the exact scope defined by the language of the respective recommendations. In other words, the scope of the Review should be limited to examining the extent to which each activity was relevant to each DA recommendation and the extent to which each activity contributed to the implementation of the relevant DA recommendations, strictly based on the language of each recommendation. It should examine the extent to which each DA recommendation had been implemented based on the collective analysis of the results of the first examination. The Group reiterated its interest in receiving more information on UN standard practices for evaluation and review. It looked forward to receiving such information. Those standards should be duly considered in the preparation of the draft TOR by the Secretariat.
32 The Delegation of South Africa believed that the informal consultations were good. Agreement was almost reached on some elements of the Joint Proposal by the African Group and DAG. The document was submitted in the 11th session of the Committee. Thus, delegations had time to make proposals on the basis of this Proposal. However, in this session, some delegations stated that the Secretariat needed to prepare TOR. This was irrelevant as the Joint Proposal could be used as a basis for the TOR. The elements required by Member States could be included in that document. The Delegation was not prepared to delay the process as there were only four days and an agreement was required as the decision by the General Assembly requested the Review to be undertaken at the end of the 2012/2013 biennium. The Delegation questioned the need for the Secretariat to look into UN practices as this was not the first review to be undertaken at WIPO. An independent review of WIPO's technical assistance had been conducted. Thus, this was not something new. As mentioned by the Chair in the informal consultations, the Secretariat would facilitate the process. It would advise the independent experts on what should be included in the review. The Delegation agreed with the Delegation of Algeria that the review must be thorough to assist the Organization in its implementation of the DA recommendations in the future. Pre-judging the outcome would not assist the Organization and Member States. The Delegation was prepared to work under the guidance of the Chair on the basis of the joint proposal by the African Group and DAG.
33 The Delegation of Brazil associated itself with the statements made by the delegations of Egypt and Trinidad and Tobago on behalf of DAG and GRULAC respectively. A decision was not too far away. The Committee already had a document. As discussed in the informal session last week, UN standards could add to the format of the document. This could be discussed in a drafting session. The Delegation took note of the various comments, including the need for the review to be concise, thorough and robust. Perhaps the gap could be bridged by including an executive summary to introduce concision, a need which was expressed by many delegations. A full document would also be prepared by the experts as this was necessary. The Delegation proposed that a drafting session be held during which information could be provided by the Secretariat on UN standards as well as the resources required to perform these activities.
34 The Delegation of Lithuania, speaking on behalf of the EU and its Member States, supported the proposal by the Delegation of the United Kingdom, also supported by Group B. The draft TOR should be prepared by the Secretariat. A discussion on the draft could take place at a later stage in the week, as suggested by the Delegation of Japan on behalf of Group B.
35 The Delegation of India associated itself with the statements made by the delegations of Egypt and Bangladesh on behalf of DAG and the Asia Pacific Group respectively. The Delegation supported most of the comments made by delegations on the importance of reaching an agreement on the TOR as well as a decision on the experts that would conduct the review. In this regard, the Delegation highlighted that there was a proposal on the table. Delegations were free to put forward textual contributions and proposals in the intersession between the 11th and current session. The Delegation encouraged them to make textual contributions during the proposed drafting exercise. The Delegation sought clarification on the application of UN principles in the review which focused on the DA recommendations agreed by WIPO Member States. Each of those 45 recommendations was sufficiently elaborated in terms of its scope and limitations. As such, the Delegation had no problems in confining the limits of the review to the explanation given under each recommendation. However, there was some confusion on what UN standards should be applied and how it could be done. The Delegation would be grateful if clarification could be provided by other delegations and the Secretariat in this regard. On the selection of experts, the Delegation shared the view that it should be balanced in terms of countries.
36 The Delegation of Algeria, speaking on behalf of the African Group, could not accept the proposal for the Secretariat to prepare draft TOR. It did understand the logic behind the request. A proposal had been submitted by Member States. It was being ignored by some delegations. There appeared to be a lack of consideration for a proposal that was submitted more than six months in advance. Thus, the Group requested those delegations to show some responsibility. Delegations should submit their amendments or proposals, if any. However, the Group should not be expected to ignore its proposal and to give full powers to the Secretariat to prepare a draft. It was not inclined to accept any other proposal. The Group shares the view of the Delegation of Brazil on a drafting session as it was the best way forward.
37 The Delegation of the Islamic Republic of Iran stressed that the General Assembly decision in 2010 required an Independent Review of the Implementation of DA Recommendations to be undertaken at the end of the 2012/2013 biennium. It was decided that the TOR and the selection of independent IP and development experts would be agreed by the CDIP. These should be decided during the session as the Committee was obliged to initiate the review before that deadline. The African Group and DAG presented a joint proposal on the TOR and methodology for the Independent Review in the previous session. The discussions should be based on that document. The implementation of the DA was an ongoing process. An independent review would help WIPO and Member States to effectively assess the implementation and mainstreaming of the DA recommendations. The Delegation associated itself with the statements made by the delegations of Egypt and Bangladesh on behalf of DAG and the Asia Pacific Group respectively.
38 The Delegation of Bangladesh pointed out that the agenda item was entitled, “Independent Review of the Implementation of the DA Recommendations as requested under the Coordination Mechanism”. It failed to understand how the review could be independent if the Secretariat was tasked as suggested. Perhaps the title should be changed. It was agreed that the review would be undertaken at the end of the 2012/13 biennium. Thus, it was time to start talking. The discussion could start with the proposal that was already before the Committee. The whole document could be changed in the discussion.
39 The Delegation of Cuba supported the views expressed by the Delegation of Egypt on behalf of DAG. It reiterated the importance of undertaking an independent review of the implementation of the DA recommendations as mandated by the Member States.
40 The Chair recalled that during the informal consultations, Member States had recognized the importance of this issue. They also recognized how important it was to come to a decision during this session. It was agreed that a clear understanding of the scope and purpose of the Independent Review was required before looking at other issues. As such, he requested the Committee to focus on the scope and purpose of the review. With regard to the request made to the Secretariat, the Chair had consulted the Secretariat on whether it would be in a position
to undertake such a task. The response was clear. It could not do so unless there was a clear and common understanding of the scope and purpose. The positions of the groups had been made clear. The Chair requested delegations to focus much more narrowly in order to achieve consensus on the scope and purpose of the Independent Review.
41 The Delegation of Egypt suggested that section 1(a)-(g) of the Joint Proposal could be discussed on an element by element basis. Delegations could comment on each element.
42 The Delegation of India had no comments on the proposal by the Delegation of Egypt. It would be ready to undertake that exercise. The Delegation understood that the Chair required Member States to have a clear understanding of the scope and purpose of the Independent Review. In this regard, the Delegation understood that he was referring to the scope of work of the whole Organization. As mentioned in the decision by the GA in 2010; “All WIPO Committees stand on an equal footing and report to the Assemblies”. Thus, all WIPO Committees should be included on an equal footing. All the DA recommendations should also be considered in the development of the TOR for the Review.
43 The Delegation of the United States of America understood the Chair’s statement to mean that when the Committee had an understanding of the scope and purpose of the review, at that time the Secretariat may be prepared to work with it on the TOR. The joint proposal by the African Group and DAG was a set of TOR. However, the Delegation agreed with the Chair that as a basic premise, the Committee must first understand what the scope and purpose was of that review. It reiterated that the appropriate scope for the review would include the relevant WIPO bodies as discussed before.
44 The Delegation of Japan, speaking on behalf of Group B, clarified that its intention was not to ignore the joint proposal by the African Group and DAG. The proposal was relevant. The TOR for the Review must be completed during the session. It would be much easier to engage in the drafting exercise for the TOR based on a prepared text by the Secretariat that took into account the elements included in the Joint Proposal as well as the views expressed at the session. It would help to expedite the process to achieve an outcome by the end of the session. It was important to first discuss the scope of the review. In this regard, the Group reiterated that the review had to focus on how and to what extent the respective recommendations had been implemented based on the exact scope defined by the language of the respective recommendations. The Group believed that the Secretariat could prepare something based on the discussions on the scope of the review during the session as well as in the informal consultations.
45 The Delegation of Algeria, speaking on behalf of the African Group, stated that the suggestion to request the Secretariat to prepare draft TOR was not an option. The Committee should stop discussing it. The Group proposed that a drafting session be held. Its Joint Proposal with DAG was on the table. There was no reason why amendments could not be made. All drafting proposals would be welcomed. The establishment of a drafting group and the organization of a drafting session was the best was forward.
46 The Delegation of Indonesia associated itself with the statements made by the delegations of Egypt, Algeria and Bangladesh on behalf of DAG, the African Group and the Asia Pacific Group respectively. The Delegation drew attention to Article 21 of WIPO’s General Rules of Procedure on proposals by delegations. The Joint Proposal was a meeting document. Thus, it was the only document that should be discussed.
47 The Delegation of China was pleased that since the inception of the DA, WIPO had made tremendous efforts to mainstream development into its work and fruitful results were achieved. With regard to the discussion on the Independent Review, the Delegation stated that the proposal by the Delegation of Egypt was very constructive. The Committee could proceed on the basis of that proposal.
48 The Chair noted that there were three proposals on the table. These included the proposal by the Delegation of Egypt, the suggestion that an opportunity should be given to the Secretariat to contribute which was strongly objected to by the African Group, and the proposal by the Delegation of Algeria on behalf of the African Group that a drafting session be organized. The Chair emphasized the need to make progress on this very important issue. He was in the hands of the Committee on the best course of action to be taken.
49 The Delegation of Japan, speaking on behalf of Group B, shared the Chair’s opinion on the need to achieve progress on this issue. The Group still believed that the Secretariat should prepare some documents to reflect what had been discussed so far. Taking into account the current situation and in order to be flexible to the maximum extent possible, the Group believed that it would be good to organize a drafting session. However, as mentioned earlier, there were some interesting ideas and proposals within the Group which required further elaboration in order for the Group to contribute constructively to the discussion at a later stage.
50 The Delegation of Ecuador believed that the Committee was very close to a consensus. The Delegation of Brazil had proposed the establishment of a drafting group. The Chair also mentioned that possibility. If agreed, the Secretariat could participate in the drafting group in order to provide their inputs which were always welcomed. That was the second possibility. The third was the proposal by the Delegation of Egypt to go through the elements that were submitted one by one. The Committee should be able to achieve consensus with some flexibility from delegations.
51 The Delegation of Algeria, speaking on behalf of the African Group, stressed that the Secretariat should merely play an assisting role. It should not provide written proposals. The Group agreed that the Secretariat could assist Member States in the drafting exercise. It stressed that WIPO was strictly a member-driven organization.
52 The Chair believed there was agreement on the establishment of a drafting group. The question was when the group would begin its work. The Delegation of Japan stated that there some interesting ideas and proposals within Group B that required further elaboration.
53 The Delegation of Japan, speaking on behalf of Group B, stated that it would be difficult to hold internal discussions that evening as informal consultations would be held on other issues. The Group would elaborate on the proposals and ideas during its meeting the next morning. Thus, the drafting exercise could start after lunch tomorrow.
54 The Delegation of Egypt, speaking on behalf of DAG, stated that it was ready to work on this issue since the last CDIP session in April. It was ready to work at any time. The Group would like the Chair to make a proposal in this regard.
55 The Chair proposed that the drafting exercise could take place from 2pm to 4pm the day after. There was a side event from 1pm to 3pm. However, the drafting exercise would not involve all delegations. Delegations could attend the side event and also contribute to the exercise. The proposal was adopted given that there were no objections from the floor. The Chair then requested the Secretariat to provide some information on the budget and resources for the Review. He recalled that the issue was repeatedly raised in the informal consultations and the Secretariat’s response was reassuring.
56 The Secretariat (Mr. Baloch) reiterated that it had not provided for a specific allocation for the Independent Review. Instead, it had tried to be more flexible in order to be responsive to the needs of the Member States, including with regard to the scope of the exercise that they may decide upon. As stated in the informal meeting, adequate funds were available. If required, supplementary funds could be provided from elsewhere in the Organization's budget. However, it was hoped that the DA Coordination Division (Program 8) had sufficient funds for the expenditure.
57 The Chair recalled that interesting views were also expressed in the informal consultations with regard to the experts. The delegations of the United States of America, Australia, Algeria, Egypt and Brazil had outlined criteria for selecting the team of experts. He invited delegations to reiterate their views with regard to what was required in the selection of experts.
58 The Delegation of Egypt, speaking on behalf of DAG, highlighted that the GA decision referred to IP and development experts. This was an important guide. The experts should be competent. They should possess the requisite skills and knowledge to conduct the Review in a credible and independent manner. The Group would like leading experts in the field of IP and development with interdisciplinary expertise to be appointed, including experts with an academic background in development, economics and law. They should have a good understanding of the development challenges facing developing countries and LDCs. The Group then referred to the methodology for the Review. As highlighted in its Joint Proposal with the African Group, the assessment of the Review should include a desk review of all documents relevant to the DA recommendations. The experts could also conduct interviews, field visits and surveys. Feedback could be sought from Member States, stakeholders and the beneficiaries of activities undertaken in connection with the DA recommendations.
59 The Delegation of the Islamic Republic of Iran stated that the experts should be development-oriented with respect to the field of IP. They should have a good understanding of the challenges facing developing countries and LDCs. Many recommendations and project activities would be assessed. As such, there should be a reasonable number of experts with the relevant expertise to undertake the assessments.
60 The Delegation of Algeria, speaking on behalf of the African Group, referred to the requirements that were set out in its joint proposal with DAG. It was important that the experts had proper experience in IP and its link with development. They should have a good understanding of the development challenges facing developing countries and LDCs. These requirements were necessary in order for the Review to assist WIPO and the Member States to identify obstacles and to enhance the implementation of the DA by the Organization. On the selection process, the Group stressed that it must be member-driven. This was the most important aspect of the process. Although it sought the views of Member States on what was a member-driven process, that aspect was essential. Consideration could be given to the establishment of a panel where Member States would be represented and they would select the experts.
61 The Delegation of Brazil stated that it was agreed that the principle of balance should be observed in the selection of experts.
62 The Delegation of India referred to the comment made by the Delegation of Algeria that the selection process should be led or decided by Member States. The Delegation highlighted the circumstances that surrounded the IP and development conference whereby Member States were unable to agree. The Delegation suggested that the Chair gave the Member States a deadline to propose experts. This could be followed by informal meetings to finalize the names of four or five experts depending on the needs and the scope of work. Balance would be required in the selection of experts. That could be a way forward.
63 The Delegation of Venezuela stated that the Secretariat participated in all the activities. Their involvement helped Member States to achieve progress. As such, the Secretariat should be involved. Member States must ensure that their proposals were noted by the Secretariat. It would not help Member States to exclude the Secretariat. On the contrary, that would create problems. Delegations were engaged in many other activities. The Delegation also questioned whether it was possible for a group to be established to make decisions that all Member States could agree upon. A balance was required and that was where the Secretariat could play a role.
64 The Delegation of Uganda noted that progress had been made. There was agreement that the matter could be referred to a drafting committee. The Delegation agreed with the view expressed by some delegations that the experts should have thorough knowledge of development matters. They should also be experienced. This included previous participation in similar projects. The experts should be given the opportunity to visit some of the beneficiary countries. Interviews could be conducted with the beneficiaries to obtain their views on the projects. This would assist Member States to assess and form opinions on the effectiveness of the projects. With regard to the drafting committee, the Delegation stated that a member of the Secretariat should be included to guide the committee in its work.
65 The Chair believed there was a clear view of how the issue would be taken forward. Much was expected from the drafting group. He hoped that the expectations would be met.
|
| |
