AGENDA ITEM 5: CONSIDERATION OF WORK PROGRAM FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF ADOPTED RECOMMENDATIONS (CONTINUED)
Consideration of Documents:
CDIP/8/INF/1 – External Review of WIPO Technical Assistance in the Area of Cooperation for Development
CDIP/9/14 – Management Response to the External Review of WIPO Technical Assistance in the Area of Cooperation for Development (Document CDIP/8/INF/1)
CDIP/9/15 – Report of the Ad Hoc Working Group on an External Review of WIPO Technical Assistance in the Area of Cooperation for Development
CDIP/9/16 – Joint Proposal by the Development Agenda Group and the Africa Group on WIPO’s Technical Assistance in the Area of Cooperation for Development
CDIP/11/4 – Status of Implementation of Certain Recommendations Extracted from the Report on the External Review of WIPO Technical Assistance in the Field of Cooperation for Development
CDIP/12/7 – Manual on the Delivery of WIPO Technical Assistance
164 The Secretariat (Mr. Baloch) recalled that an external review of WIPO's technical assistance was undertaken within the context of the project on the RBM framework. The report was presented for the first time to the eighth session of the CDIP (document CDIP/8/INF/1). At the ninth session of the CDIP, as requested by Member States, the Secretariat presented a management response to the report (document CDIP/9/14). During the eighth session of the CDIP, an ad hoc working group was established and it met in the period between the eighth and ninth sessions. The report of the ad-hoc working group was presented to the Committee (document CDIP/9/15). A joint proposal by DAG and the African Group was also received and presented at the ninth session of the CDIP (document CDIP/9/16). At the tenth session of the CDIP, after discussing the report for three sessions, the Committee requested the Secretariat to prepare a document on the status of implementation of certain recommendations (document CDIP/11/4). In the eleventh session, the Committee requested the Secretariat to work on three specific areas, namely to develop a manual on the delivery of the technical assistance, to examine the technical assistance database with a view to enhancing its searching capabilities and to upgrade WIPO’s website in order for it to serve as a more effective and accessible resource. A manual on the delivery of technical assistance was prepared (document CDIP/12/7). On the two other issues, oral presentations would be provided. As mentioned by the Director-General, the WIPO website was completely revamped. There would be a presentation on the changes and how the website was more effective and accessible. A presentation would also be given on the technical assistance database. The Committee was invited to consider documents CDIP/8/INF/1, CDIP/9/14, CDIP/9/15, CDIP/9/16 and CDIP/11/4, as decided in the previous session.
165 The Delegation of Japan stated that the discussion should begin with presentations on the three areas that the Secretariat was requested to work on, followed by a discussion on those areas. A general discussion on all the listed documents could take place after that.
166 The Secretariat explained that the suggested order was based on the sequence in paragraph 7(b) of the Summary by the Chair for the last session. However, it was up to the Member States and the Committee to decide on how they would like to discuss the issue.
167 The Delegation of Brazil proposed that the discussion could begin with a presentation on the Secretariat’s work after the last session. The discussion on the implementation of the other recommendations on technical assistance could resume after that.
168 The Chair enquired as to whether the suggestion was acceptable to the Committee. This was agreed. He then invited the Secretariat to introduce the Manual.
169 The Secretariat (Mr. Onyeama) introduced document CDIP/12/7. The Committee had requested for a manual on technical assistance provided by the Organization. The aim was to provide a one-stop shop for information on all the technical assistance provided by the Organization. The Secretariat had previously prepared a shorter manual. However, the Committee informed the Secretariat that it would like a more comprehensive document to be prepared. Thus, the Secretariat engaged a consultant and worked with her to develop a manual (document CDIP/12/7). They had tried to make it as user friendly as possible. The preamble provided an indication of what the Manual sought to do. It was very comprehensive. As such, the Secretariat hoped that it was a suitable response to the request by Member States. Delegations were invited to comment on the Manual.
170 The Delegation of Japan, speaking on behalf of Group B, took note that the technical assistance website and Technical Assistance Database were functional. They provided a comprehensive picture of WIPO technical assistance and allowed beneficiaries to understand the technical assistance options that were available to meet their IP development needs. The Manual that was prepared and presented by the Secretariat at this session included useful and objective information from different perspectives and could provide the final piece in the picture on WIPO technical assistance.
171 The Delegation of Poland, speaking on behalf of CEBS, stated that the manual was a very useful tool. The information presented within was broad and objective. It was a new element in WIPO's technical assistance efforts. In addition to the technical assistance website and technical assistance database, the manual provided a picture of WIPO’s technical assistance efforts. The Group hoped that it would be widely and wisely used.
172 The Delegation of India requested the Secretariat to prepare and circulate the document in the form of a printed handbook or manual. This could be done after it was revised to take into account any observations by the Member States. Modifications may be required in areas such as the criteria for approving assistance and the time frame for delivery. Further information could be provided in those areas, such as their degree of priority for the Organization. The document would serve as a good resource if it was made more precise and circulated as a handbook.
173 The Delegation of Lithuania, speaking on behalf of the EU and its Member States, stated that the manual provided a very comprehensive overview of the enormous amount of technical assistance provided by WIPO. It would be helpful in shaping future debates on technical assistance. The EU and its Member States looked forward to studying it carefully. They were interested to know more about possible problems WIPO experienced in trying to deliver technical assistance as lessons may be learned for the future to enable WIPO's technical assistance to become more efficient and effective.
174 The Delegation of Spain endorsed the statement made by the Delegation of Lithuania on behalf of the EU and its Member States. The Delegation believed the manual contained a lot of useful information on WIPO technical assistance. It referred to the Funds-in Trusts (FITs) managed by WIPO on behalf of various Member States. The Delegation was pleased that the manual included information on FITs as many were not familiar with them. It would assist in making them and their activities more well-known. They were an important element of WIPO technical assistance.
175 The Delegation of Australia saw value in establishing the manual. As a donor to the WIPO FIT program, it saw benefit in such a manual being available to the Member States. It was confident that the manual would assist new donors to set up and administer successful FIT programs for the benefit of developing countries and LDCs. It would also aid in delivering successful targeted technical assistance activities. Australia’s development assistance activities were focused on capacity building and strengthening of IP rights administration systems. These occurred primarily in the Asia Pacific region through two significant technical assistance programs, i.e. the WIPO-Australia FIT program and the Regional Patent Examination Training (RPET) program. The Delegation provided a detailed outline of the latter in the previous session. As a point of clarification and noting Australia's focus on the FIT and RPET programs, the Delegation stated that Australia had shifted away from sponsoring annual events, as outlined on page 36 of the manual. It had sponsored events in the past and would continue to do so, where there was a need, on an ad-hoc basis.
176 The Delegation of Georgia stated that the manual was a very useful and concise document. It provided a clear framework for WIPO's development assistance activities. The Delegation looked forward to utilizing the manual for future technical assistance requests, especially in relation to FIT programs. It would like the manual to be printed as a brochure and distributed to all Member States.
177 The Delegation of Cameroon supported the suggestion by the Delegation of India for the document to be produced as a handbook to facilitate easy access. It would be very useful, particularly for developing countries and LDCs.
178 The Representative of the TWN noted that the manual contained very useful information on the range of activities undertaken by WIPO. However, certain aspects required clarification. For instance, the information in the manual did not seem to be limited to development cooperation activities per se and probably covered all WIPO initiatives including studies, the annual report, databases, tools and training programs. This was confusing as the document stated that technical assistance as per recommendation 1 of the DA should be demand driven and country specific. However, many of the activities in the document were not. They concerned specific entities. For instance, WIPO Re:Search and WIPO GREEN were about entities entering into bilateral licensing arrangements. PATENTSCOPE was a database for patent searches. It appeared inaccurate to consider some of these as technical assistance activities. A distinction should be made between technical assistance activities per se and all the other tools and initiatives that were provided. This was important as the manual stated that the development share was 21 percent of the total WIPO budget. It was not clear whether all the activities in manual were funded through that. The Representative then referred to the objectives of technical assistance and highlighted that the report on the external review explicitly indicated that the Organization lacked a clear understanding of the overall purpose of its development cooperation activities or “development oriented assistance”. In the manual, the section on objectives seemed to indicate that the main objective was to promote IP. This was drawn from the 1967 WIPO Convention. However, as WIPO was a UN agency, the Representative believed that the starting point should be the UN-WIPO Agreement which talked about the promotion of intellectual creativity and the transfer of industrial property. This could then be followed by a reference to the WIPO-WTO Agreement on assistance in the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement which included both obligations and rights, in particular, the right to use certain flexibilities. Reference could then be made to the recommendations of the DA. On those recommendations, the Representative noted that only recommendation 1 was mentioned in the manual, although a number of other recommendations were also relevant. These included recommendations 6, 7, 12, 13 and others. This should also be reflected in the introductory section. There was a lack of guidance on the delivery of technical assistance, including policies and guidelines that underpinned the delivery of assistance. Issues such as conflicts of interest, organization of meetings, ensuring a balance in the selection of speakers, and the accountability of consultants were addressed in the recommendations. There should be clear policies on all these issues as well as on extra-budgetary resources. The section on monitoring and evaluation only referred to the Internal Audit Oversight Division (IAOD) and the WIPO Independent Advisory Oversight Committee (IAOC). To date, the IAOD had conducted four evaluation reports on four CDIP projects. This was clearly inadequate in view of the range of activities. A discussion was required on how monitoring and evaluation could be further enhanced.
179 The Chair invited the Secretariat to respond to the questions and comments from the floor.
180 The Secretariat (Mr. Onyeama) stated that it also intended to issue the manual as a printed brochure. However, this was only a first draft. The Secretariat took note of the comment that the FITs were highlighted and would provide Member States with a better idea of how these functioned. The Secretariat referred to the observations made by the Representative of the TWN and recalled the background to the manual. Following the Deere-Roca report, some Member States suggested certain things that the Organization could do to implement the report. Although there was no consensus on how the report could be taken forward, the Secretariat felt this was something it could do and saw merit in doing so. It understood that the Member States wanted something that would provide an overview of what was on offer in terms of WIPO technical assistance. The Secretariat also understood that it should be simple and not get into the intricacies of technical assistance. This approach was adopted in preparing the Manual. Policy and monitoring issues were dealt with elsewhere. It was up to the Member States to decide on whether or not the document responded to their request. The responses of many Member States seemed to indicate that simplicity, neutrality and concreteness were the most important elements.
181 The Delegation of the United States of America was very pleased to see that the Manual provided a complete resource for countries and institutions that were interested in receiving technical assistance, and in particular, identified points of contact for stakeholders who wished to find such technical assistance or who wished to express their views on WIPO's activities. Due to the nature of providing points of contact, the Delegation was a bit concerned when other delegations wanted this to be made into a fixed and printed document. The Internet nature of the manual as it existed allowed for it to be constantly updated. The Delegation hoped that WIPO would continue to update the manual as regularly as possible so that it could remain a useful portal for all parties seeking further information on technical assistance activities. However, the Delegation recognized that for some countries, a printed volume may be more useful and cited the need to maintain those contact points as current as possible.
182 The Chair closed the discussion on the Manual given that there were no further observations from the floor. He then invited the Secretariat to report on the changes to WIPO’s website.
183 The Secretariat (Mr. Tarpey) recalled the request by the Committee to ensure that WIPO’s website was upgraded in order for it to serve as a more effective, accessible and up-to-date resource for communicating information on development cooperation activities. The first phase of the restructured, realigned and redesigned WIPO website was launched a fortnight ago. It allowed for easier access and more direct navigation to documents and information. The project was quite massive. The preparations took six to nine months and implementation took place over the last nine months. In the first phase, work was focused on the user. A lot of thought was put into how the user approached the website and the kind information that was sought. The Secretariat hoped that the new website would provide a conduit to a lot more information with improved navigation and access to all the activities of the Organization, including those in the area of development cooperation. There was a lot of information and work was continuing on increasing and improving content. However, there was now an efficient means to access information within the website.
184 The Secretariat (Ms. de Icaza) presented the highlights of the ongoing project on WIPO’s website and some of its achievements. As mentioned, work began a year and a half ago. The website required realignment to meet internal and external requirements. Delegations had often stressed on the need to improve the presentation of information. Thus, the realignment of the website was a key deliverable of the Strategic Realignment Program (SRP) in the initiative to Strengthen External Communications and Branding. The last realignment took place in 2007 and seven years was a long time in the technology field. Many things had changed. The advent of various mobile technologies was just one of many developments. It was now possible to surf the Internet not just through mobile phones but also through game consoles and other devices. The website was very inadequate in meeting these access requirements. User feedback was also gathered through surveys and interviews. The comments indicated that the website was not user friendly. A lot of information was either missing or out of date. The design was dull and it was difficult to navigate through the website. Many had to resort to the Google search engine to find information on the website. Fifty percent of those who visited the website were first-time users. If they did not understand what WIPO did even after spending a lot of time on the website, there was clearly a problem. Thus, the Secretariat decided to embark on this massive project. As in the case of WIPO’s physical location, the website was actually a massive collection of many different websites and databases. Thus, it was not just one building but a series of buildings. The scope had to be limited in order for something to be done quickly. First of all, there was a need to improve signage. Users needed to know how to navigate, where to go and what was in each building. A lot of content needed to be cleaned up and rationalized. Although there was still much to be done, a lot had been rationalized. For example, the website only contained one definition for copyright instead of 13, which was the case a few months ago. Pathways and synergies were created. Not too long ago, a user had to go to 13 or 14 different locations on the website to obtain information on patents. Henceforth there was a patent portal from which, users could get to all the different places where information on patents were available. A decision was made to exclude all external applications. Thus, databases such as IP-TAD, the Roster of Consultants (ROC) and PATENTSCOPE were outside the scope of the project, as there was simply not enough time to include them. Access to those databases was improved. However, the project did not work on the contents. A plan was then developed. It included four phases. The first phase focused on user experience. The users of the WIPO website covered a wide spectrum. Thus, a technique called “web personas” was employed. Nineteen personas were selected as user archetypes for the website. They formed the basis for the work that followed, including on redefining the information architecture, creating a responsive design and revising content. The results included improved navigation. New categories were created and resources were referenced. For example, new categories such policy and cooperation were included. The “About IP” category was important because half of the new users who visited the website were looking for basic information on IP. The section on news and events was moved to the navigation bar at the top of the page. Some content was revised and work would continue in the second phase. The navigation bar that used to exist on the left of the page on the previous site was removed. A series of related links were provided at the bottom of each page to create and improve synergies and pathways between the different areas of the site. The “Cooperation” category at the top of the page included a sub-category on development and this may be of particular interest to the Committee. The policy menu at the bottom of the page included a section on decision making and negotiating bodies. Information was also provided on policy areas involving global cooperation and this section would be enlarged. For example, it would be expanded to also include NGOs and IGOs. Additional policy topics such as innovation could also be included. In terms of content, efforts were being made to translate all the main pages into the six working languages. This was taking a bit of time as it also required implementation. The pages had been made longer with improved integration of images and videos. The tone was also less bureaucratic. For example, on the homepage, the Organization referred to itself as “we” and not WIPO, the Secretariat or the International Bureau. The pages on the CDIP and the DA were now much longer. The Secretariat hoped they would be easier to navigate and that they contained the information required by delegations. Upon finalization, the manual on technical assistance could be included in the section on development. A responsive design was developed for the website. This meant that the site automatically adapted to the device that was used to access it. Those were some of the results achieved in Phase I. Phase II was now underway. Lower level landing pages were being revised and edited. Applications beyond the content management system were being examined. The Secretariat was also looking to improve the databases. For example, although the database on meetings and documents had been improved, more could be done and this would be addressed in the coming months. As mentioned earlier, work on content was continuing in terms of cleanup, revision and creation of new content in line with the users’ demand. The Secretariat would welcome any feedback from the delegations.
185 The Delegation of El Salvador wanted to know when the website would include information on GRULAC.
186 The Representative of the TWN hoped that full information on all WIPO events, in particular, the agenda, list of speakers and concept papers would be made available on the new WIPO website in line with recommendations F(1)(a) and (b) in document CDIP/9/16. The said events included training events, seminars, workshops and conferences organized at the global, regional and country level.
187 The Secretariat (Mr. Tarpey) referred to the question on GRULAC. Information was being gathered and would be uploaded onto the site once it was put together. In terms of meetings, as mentioned, the website contained a very detailed meetings area which was driven by databases on meetings and documents. The website would provide all the information on the meetings. Efforts were being made to ensure that international meetings were included and that information and documents were entered into the databases.
188 The Chair closed the discussion on WIPO’s website given that there were no further observations form the floor. He moved on to the technical assistance database (also known as IP-TAD). The Committee had requested the Secretariat to examine the database with a view to facilitate searching capabilities, and ensuring the regular updating of the database with information on technical assistance activities, in line with recommendation G(1) in document CDIP/9/16. He invited the Secretariat to report on IP-TAD.
189 The Secretariat (Mr. Wibowo) stated that the Special Projects Division had been assigned to look after IP-TAD. With respect to recommendations G(1)and (2) in document CDIP/9/16, over 95% of the requirements had been implemented in IP-TAD. The only remaining aspect was the integration of the program structure into IP-TAD. In this regard, internal consultations were taking place with the Program Performance and Budget Division. Discussions on cost and implementation had also taken place with external contractors and they would be submitting a proposal. Implementation would take place in the near future.
190 The Chair closed the discussion on this item given that there were no comments from the floor. He invited the Committee to discuss the documents that were listed under the agenda item on the External Review of WIPO Technical Assistance in the Area of Cooperation for Development
191 The Delegation of Algeria, speaking on behalf of the African Group, recalled its joint proposal with DAG. It included important recommendations which should be implemented. The Group was pleased that the Committee was working to adopt certain recommendations and that the Secretariat was also providing comments. The Group was very happy with the approach and hoped that it would continue. The Committee should continue to examine the recommendations on the basis of the joint proposal. The Group would like some of the cross-cutting recommendations to be approved and implemented. There was a lot of value in implementing recommendations that were specific in nature as well as those that were relevant to all WIPO activities. The Group referred to recommendation A3 of the joint proposal. It was recommended that a draft policy be developed by the Secretariat, in consultation with Member States, on how WIPO should plan and organize activities and events to ensure that they were development oriented. The Group would like this to be implemented as it helped to ensure that development considerations were taken into account across the Organization. The Group drew attention to recommendation C2 on the preparation of a draft policy on extra-budgetary resources. It would be useful if this could be presented by the Secretariat. The Group also referred to recommendation D2. It recommended that a ‘gap analysis’ of staff skills and competences be carried out to understand where the Secretariat lacked skills, competencies and expertise relevant to improving the orientation, impact and management of its development cooperation activities. Lastly, the Group highlighted recommendation E2 on the preparation of guidelines to ensure that the processes for selecting independent consultants and experts were transparent. The Group attached great importance to the fact that WIPO was a member-driven organization. The Member States should be involved in the selection of experts for important activities such as development activities. The joint proposal had greatly reduced the number of recommendations. The Group hoped that all the recommendations would eventually be adopted in the future.
192 The Representative of the TWN stated that technical assistance was very important. It was critical to get it right as inappropriate assistance could have an adverse impact on development prospects. It was of utmost importance that WIPO, its Member States and the Secretariat invested time to discuss this matter and examine what was working and not working with regard to technical assistance. Transparency and added accountability were the fundamental principles that should underpin WIPO's technical assistance. Against this context, the external review provided an interesting insight into WIPO’s work on technical assistance. While the report recognized that there were some efforts in the right direction, it also raised some concerns. For instance, one key finding was that WIPO staff and activities lacked development orientation, including a clear understanding of the overall purposes of the DA. The Representative raised two other points. The first was on IP-TAD. The database was established through project document CDIP/3/INF/2. It was agreed that the Secretariat would make available general information on activities, including the objectives, expected and actual outcomes, recipients, donors, experts, speakers and evaluation reports and other relevant documentation. However, the information was not available on the database. This was also highlighted in the evaluation report on the database. The Representative understood that some information may be sensitive and confidential. However, many of WIPO's activities were regional or sub-regional seminars on various topics. Thus, information agreed to in document CDIP/3/INF/2 could easily be made available. In document CDIP/11/14, the Secretariat had acknowledged that only a limited number of activities were confidential. The Representative urged the Secretariat to immediately implement the project document agreed to by Member States. This was included in paragraph G2 of the joint proposal. It was also a recommendation of the external review. The second point was on the Roster of Consultants (RoC). Recommendation 6 of the DA required consultants to be neutral and accountable, including by avoiding potential conflicts of interest. It also required WIPO to draw up and to make widely known to Member States a Roster of Consultants for technical assistance. This recommendation had yet to be fully implemented. The RoC was voluntary and consultants had the option to disallow their information to be included in the roster. This meant that the roster did not provide full information on consultants that were used for technical assistance. The external review recommended that for those wishing to take up WIPO contracts, there should be an obligation to join the roster and provide such information. The roster also provided limited information on the consultants. It did not include CVs or information on potential conflicts of interest. Such information was crucial if the objectives of recommendation 6 were to be achieved. This point was also addressed in paragraph E3 of the joint proposal.
193 The Delegation of Japan, speaking on behalf of Group B, recalled that the EU and its Member States had put forward three very useful ideas on possible further work on this subject in the last session. First, the Secretariat could present a compilation of best practices of WIPO and non-WIPO technical assistance. Second, the Secretariat was requested to provide detailed information on the measures taken to improve internal and international coordination, including clarification of the roles and responsibilities of the various WIPO units in the delivery of IP and development technical assistance with a view to achieving coherence and unity of purpose and to avoid duplication. Third, the Secretariat could provide additional information on concrete steps taken to address recommendations in relation to cost efficiency. These proposals corresponded to recommendations that were categorized as B in the management response. Thus, they were worth pursuing further.
194 The Delegation of Egypt, speaking on behalf of DAG stated that the exercise was useful in highlighting the different elements that could be enhanced or improved to increase the relevance, orientation and development impact of the assistance provided by WIPO to developing countries and LDCs. It looked forward to further progress in this area. The Group supported the recommendations that were identified by the African Group for further discussion in this session, i.e. recommendations A3, C2, D2 and E2. It requested the Secretariat to provide an update on the implementation of these recommendations and implementation plans, if any. The Group had also identified some recommendations, i.e. recommendations C1, D2 and E3 and wanted updates to be provided on them. Recommendation C1 was on the draft Partnerships and Resource Mobilization Strategy. The Group enquired as to when this would be made available. There was a need for it to be examined and discussed. Recommendation D2 was on a gap analysis. The Group would like to know the current status with regard to this recommendation. Recommendation E3 was on the updating of the RoC. An update was also required in this regard. The Group referred to the ideas presented by the EU and its Member States in the last session and stated that it would be interested to examine them. However, these had yet to be submitted in written form for discussion.
195 The Delegation of Lithuania, speaking on behalf of the EU and its Member States, reminded the delegations of the importance of the debates on technical assistance held during the last session. They referred to their proposals made during that session which were mentioned by the Delegation of Japan on behalf of Group B. Future work on those areas would be most useful. They looked forward to further work in this field.
196 The Delegation of Brazil aligned itself with the statement made by the Delegation of Egypt on behalf of DAG. It supported the implementation of all recommendations in document CDIP/9/16. That was the only document presented by Member States on this subject. It was distributed to Member States and the recommendations were being discussed. The document should remain the basis for discussion. The Committee had started to implement some of its recommendations and should continue to analyze the document. The Delegation was open to discussing which recommendations could be prioritized.
197 The Chair invited the Secretariat to respond to the questions raised by the Delegation of Egypt on behalf of DAG.
198 The Secretariat (Mr. Onyeama) stated that it would respond to them later as inputs were required from other colleagues.
199 The Delegation of Bangladesh, speaking on behalf of the Asia Pacific Group, stated that technical assistance was provided to countries so as to assist them to achieve socio-economic development. Thus, the Group would like the provision of WIPO technical assistance to be development oriented at an optimum level. There was room for further improvement. It looked forward to further discussion on this topic.
200 The Chair invited the Delegation of Lithuania to respond to the question posed by the Delegation of Egypt on whether it was ready to submit its proposal in written form.
201 The Delegation of Lithuania, speaking on behalf of the EU and its Member States, stated that they were not ready to submit a proposal at this stage. They would coordinate on this matter and get back to the Committee.
202 The Delegation of Brazil highlighted that some recommendations were identified for implementation by the African Group. Member States should indicate whether or not they were willing to give the Secretariat a mandate to implement those recommendations. The Delegation had yet to hear any comments on them. The EU and its Member States had also made a contribution. However, this had yet to be submitted for discussion. Thus, perhaps the Committee could discuss the proposals by the African Group.
203 The Delegation of Japan, speaking on behalf of Group B, proposed a procedure for dealing with the issue. It understood that the African Group had identified four recommendations. The DAG had also identified three recommendations. The EU and its Member States had put forward three interesting ideas for further work in the last session and would consider whether these could be included in a document for discussion. Thus, it would be better for the Committee to consider which issues should be prioritized and pursued only after it had the whole picture. In that regard, the Group proposed that the discussion on this issue be suspended for the moment. The Committee could return to it after delegations were given an opportunity to consider the recommendations or work to be put on the table.
204 The Chair invited delegations to react to the proposal by Group B.
205 The Delegation of Egypt, speaking on behalf of DAG, believed that this issue was important for all Member States. They all invested in technical assistance. As such, they should all be interested and engaged to ensure that the investment yielded the highest possible returns. Thus, the Group requested delegations to show interest and engage in the process. It was also important that proposals were submitted in written form in order for them to be discussed. The last CDIP session was in May. Thus, delegations had four or five months to submit ideas or recommendations and to consider a proposal presented by two groups in the ninth session. Delegations had enough time to do so. Thus, the request for the discussion to be suspended was a bit unfair. Some recommendations were presented and identified. The Committee was waiting for the Secretariat to respond so as to be informed on progress in implementation in order to determine how these could be taken forward. Suspending the discussion without any conclusions or recommendations for the future would weaken the discussion and affect the Secretariat’s efforts in this area. Its work on the manual and the database was important and such efforts should be encouraged. Delegations must work together to further this issue and to achieve results that would benefit all Member States.
206 The Delegation of the United States of America stated that it had actively engaged in the very lengthy discussion on technical assistance at WIPO. It had looked at all the documents quite exhaustively. It was somewhat inappropriate to call upon the Secretariat to report on the implementation of certain recommendations from the DAG-African Group proposal because the Committee did not actually approve those recommendations. The Member States worked very hard in the last session and spent several days to reach consensus on a number of specific and tangible items that they felt could be achieved by the Secretariat. The Delegation was very pleased to see that the Secretariat did ably handle those specific tasks that were set forth. It also recognized, as noted by the Delegation of Egypt and DAG, that WIPO technical assistance was a matter for all Member States to be engaged in. This was because it was a substantial investment of WIPO resources, both financial and human. To that end, the Delegation recalled that the EU and its Member States, the Delegation of Japan on behalf of Group B, and themselves in previous sessions, had repeatedly asked if the Committee could consider looking at the recommendations in the various reports on technical assistance with regard to cost savings and efficiency. Indeed, a huge investment was being made in the technical assistance area. The Delegation believed that it might be a fruitful area for quite achievable, practical resolution to be reached by the Committee.
207 The Delegation of South Africa aligned itself with the statements made by the delegations of Algeria and Egypt. The Secretariat had provided information on the manual, WIPO's website and IP-TAD, as agreed in the last session. However, this was not the end of the debate on technical assistance. As stated in the Summary of the Chair for the last session, it was agreed that the Committee would continue discussions in this session on the proposals by Member States on this topic. Thus, the African Group and DAG had put forward some further recommendations which could be taken up by the Secretariat, i.e. recommendations A3, C2, D2 and E2. The Delegation requested the Secretariat to inform the Committee whether it was possible for it to implement those recommendations.
208 The Chair requested the Delegation of Japan to clarify what it meant by suspension.
209 The Delegation of Japan, speaking on behalf of Group B, acknowledged that the word “suspension” was a bit misleading. The proposal was just to give the groups some time to consider the concrete items that were put on the table at this session. The Group had constructively engaged in the discussion on this issue for a long time. Thus, the intention was not for it to be suspended. The proposal was on the procedure for this session.
210 The Delegation of Algeria, speaking on behalf of the African Group, highlighted that the joint proposal was submitted in the ninth session. The Committee was now in its twelfth session. Thus, the Group hoped that delegations had time to read the document in the past one and half years. It contained 36 recommendations whereas the report on the external review included more than 300. They had prioritized 36 of them. The Group had made tremendous efforts in order to do so. Thus, it had done its part. In each session, the Committee was identifying which of the 36 recommendations deserved implementation. As mentioned by the Delegation of the United States of America, the Committee spent many hours discussing which recommendations could be adopted in the previous session. Three were adopted and the Secretariat just presented its work on them. In this session, the Group identified four other recommendations in the joint proposal. Thus, they were not new. These crosscutting recommendations had a general impact on the Secretariat’s work and were not targeted at specific areas. The four recommendations were on general policy activities related to WIPO technical assistance. The adoption of these recommendations could assist in the discussions on technical assistance and development activities in general. Thus, it was worthwhile to look further into them. The Group would like to know how recommendations A3, C2, D2 and E2 could be implemented.
211 The Delegation of Canada fully endorsed the proposal by the Delegation of Japan on behalf of Group B. It also endorsed the statement by the Delegation of the United States of America. It was a good idea to take a further look at these recommendations. The Delegation agreed with the Delegation of South Africa that the manual was not the end of the Committee’s work on this issue. Three very interesting proposals were submitted by the EU and its Member States. The Delegation hoped that the Committee could be able to discuss them. In general, a compilation of best practices and best activities would also be interesting.
212 The Delegation of Brazil understood that the proposal by Group B was to postpone the discussion until there was a bigger picture. The EU and its Member States had just stated that they were not ready to present a written proposal at this stage. The Delegation did not see how the Committee could discuss something that was not presented. The Committee could begin by considering the items that were put forth by DAG and the African Group. The delegations that required more time to consider other items could report back to the Committee at a later stage. The Delegation stressed that the joint proposal by DAG and the African Group had been on the table since the ninth session of the Committee.
213 The Delegation of Japan, speaking on behalf of Group B, stated that the EU proposal completely related to the recommendations and was not new. Thus, the Group believed that the best way forward was to give the groups some time to consider all the concrete items that were identified at this session. The discussion could resume tomorrow morning or at some other stage.
214 The Delegation of Brazil stated that the Committee could not discuss a proposal that was not formally presented or distributed for discussion. A more efficient approach would be to look into the proposals by DAG and the African Group. Member States could state whether or not the recommendations were acceptable to them. Quick decisions could then be taken. The Committee had already discussed these recommendations. It was now time to make decisions.
215 The Delegation of the United States of America referred to the statement by the Delegation of Brazil and recalled that this matter was previously discussed when it raised the fact that the WIPO Rules of Procedure, specifically Rule 21.1, allowed delegations to make proposals orally. They did not need to be in writing. Thus, this matter had been discussed quite exhaustively in previous sessions. The Delegation called on all delegations to think about proposals for which it may be possible to achieve consensus. The Committee needed to reach consensus on proposals. It was clear that there was no consensus on the proposals that were suggested thus far. They may not be a fruitful line of discussion. However, perhaps during the break, delegations could discuss amongst themselves where there may be possible consensus.
216 The Delegation of Brazil clarified that it never said that oral statements could not be discussed by the Committee. The EU and its Member States stated that they were not able to present a document at this stage although delegations would like to discuss their proposal.
217 The Delegation of Lithuania, speaking on behalf of the EU and its Member States, clarified their position: The EU and its Member States were asked if they were in a position to present a concrete proposal in writing. It was stated that they needed to coordinate on this. However, as rightly pointed out by the Delegation of the United States of America, the topics they would like to discuss were presented in the last session of the Committee. Thus, they were not new.
218 The Delegation of South Africa referred to the Rules of Procedure. It was stated in Rule 21.1 that proposals for the adoption of amendments to the drafts submitted to the assembly, and all other proposals, may be submitted orally or in writing by any delegation. However, it was also stated in sub-rule (2) that the assembly may decide to debate and vote on a proposal only if it was submitted in writing.
219 The Delegation of Algeria, speaking on behalf of the African Group, proposed two courses of action. First, the EU and its Member States could be requested to submit their proposal in writing. Delegations and their capitals would then need time to examine the document. Second, the Secretariat could be requested to inform the Committee in the afternoon whether and how the recommendations presented by the Group and DAG could be implemented. The Secretariat’s response would help to guide the Committee in its discussions. Delegations had the right to object to the recommendations. The objections could be discussed after they were raised.
220 The Chair stated that the Delegation of Lithuania, speaking on behalf of the EU and its Member States, was very clear on the first point. They would coordinate and come back to the Committee with respect to the formulation of a written proposal. The Secretariat also clearly stated that other internal inputs were required to respond to the questions. He proposed that the Committee reconvene at 16.30pm following informal consultations on the Independent Review and the side event organized by Switzerland.
Consideration of document CDIP/12/6 - Pilot Project on IP and Design Management for Business Development in Developing and Least Developed Countries
221 The Vice-Chair opened discussions on document CDIP/12/6. At its eleventh session, the Committee considered a project proposal from the Delegation of the Republic of Korea on IP and Design Management for Business Development in Developing and Least Developed Countries. The Committee requested the Secretariat to work with the Delegation to further develop the proposal into a CDIP project document and to present it in this session. She invited the Secretariat to present the document.
222 The Secretariat (Mr. Höpperger) briefly introduced document CDIP/12/6. It contained an outline for a Pilot Project on IP and Design Management for Business Development in Developing and Least Developed Countries. As mentioned by the Vice-Chair, the initial proposal by the Delegation of the Republic of Korea was discussed in the last session. A number of questions were raised. The proposal was revised and details were included to take into consideration the comments made in the last session.
223 The Delegation of the Republic of Korea was satisfied with the business plan and budget prepared by the Secretariat. It would like Member States to approve the project. The Delegation made some suggestions to improve its implementation. First, the period allocated for analyzing design portfolios could be increased from three months to six or nine months to provide sufficient time to create designs. There was also a need to consider applications for design registration from that stage. It was crucial to consider all matters related to the granting of rights when companies were in the process of creating designs. The project was not just about the technicalities of developing designs. It would also focus on increasing capabilities and knowledge with respect to securing design rights from the initial stage of product development. Developing countries would benefit from increased incomes through improving design management for business. Developing countries would also benefit from stronger design protection for their products. Thus, the proposal could benefit all participants.
224 The Delegation of the United States of America believed that the project would be beneficial for design creators and would promote an understanding of the benefits of IP protection for SMEs in developing countries and LDCs. It also believed that the project would be beneficial to national IP offices as they would be working closely with the Secretariat in developing and implementing design protection strategies for businesses. The Delegation hoped that the project would allow national IP offices of selected Member States to gain valuable experience in order to continue such activities on their own after the end of the project period and help other SMEs to capitalize on their IP. It also hoped that the project would equip other national IP offices with necessary information to implement design protection strategies in their countries. Therefore, the Delegation supported the current proposal.
225 The Delegation of Japan, speaking on behalf of Group B, continued to support the proposal as it contributed to the domestic use of the IPR system, especially by SMEs in developing countries and LDCs. This was exactly the type of project that the CDIP should consider and the true development dimension of IP to which WIPO should attach importance and on which it should focus. The establishment of a successful model for design protection and its use through strategic and comprehensive support from WIPO under this project, and the sharing of successful experiences, could form the basis for effective and sustainable development in an effective manner.
226 The Delegation of Lithuania, speaking on behalf of the EU and its Member States, stated that the use of designs could be a powerful tool for adding value to a product, raising market demand and increasing the economic returns for designers in all countries. The proposed pilot project would raise awareness, encourage investment in design, and foster the use of IP in developing countries and LDCs for economic development. The project document contained comprehensive information which would facilitate its implementation in an effective and efficient manner. The EU and its Member States welcomed explicit references to the sustainability of the project and the inclusion of a detailed budget which was properly broken down. These aspects were of utmost importance as they enhanced the quality of the project and should be taken into account for future projects. Therefore, the EU and its Member States fully supported the proposal and looked forward to its successful implementation.
227 The Delegation of the United Kingdom stated that the United Kingdom had long recognized that a developed and sustainable IP strategy could add value to all IP, including industrial designs, and ensure economic returns for innovators in an appropriately protected environment. The ongoing review of the designs framework in the United Kingdom highlighted that effective design awareness and a need for building and strengthening capacities for management and protection of designs was not only a challenge for developing countries and LDCs. However, the Delegation recognized that such countries had more specific and immediate needs. Therefore, it welcomed the project and hoped that it would result in the development of concrete and effective strategies that would in a measurable way raise the capability of SMEs to protect and manage design rights.
228 The Delegation of Argentina stated that participation in the project should also be extended to entrepreneurs as they may be too small to be considered as SMEs. Argentina was interested in participating in the project.
229 The Delegation of Paraguay stated that Paraguay was also interested in participating in the project.
230 The Delegation of Norway believed that the project could achieve tangible outcomes for SMEs in developing countries and LDCs. The experiences to be obtained from this project could be very useful. It hoped that the project would gain support and be successfully implemented.
231 The Delegation of Moldova supported the project. Countries with economies in transition also needed to participate in such projects. The knowledge and experience gained from them should be shared. The Republic of Moldova’s IP strategy encouraged SMEs to use IP rights to develop their businesses. The country was using SMEs to develop and grow its economy. It was more than appropriate for countries in transition to also be considered for such projects.
232 The Delegation of the Republic of Korea stated that it would engage in close consultations with the Secretariat to improve and implement the proposed project.
233 The Representative of the TWN pointed out that the project did not really implement recommendations 4 and 10 of the DA. For example, recommendation 4 required assistance to be provided to Member States at their request and to assess the needs of SMEs in designing national strategies. The proposed project did not meet those fundamental requirements. For example, there were no specific requests from any developing country or LDC for any assistance in the use of designs. The proposal assumed that designs were necessary and of significant utility for SMEs without undertaking a needs assessment exercise to determine the specific needs of SMEs. It also did not explore whether designs were a priority for SMEs and whether they had the capacity to undertake high levels of sustained investment and to enforce their designs in litigation. Recommendation 10 called for building IP institutional capacity with the objective of promoting a fair balance between IP protection and the public interest. The proposal did not substantiate how the creation of design rights responded to the need for promoting a fair balance between IP and the public interest.
234 The Vice-Chair invited the Secretariat to respond to the questions and comments from the floor.
235 The Secretariat referred to the comments by the Representative of the TWN. The document indicated that the proposed project was directed at Member States who were interested to participate in it. They were required to fulfill a number of conditions, in particular, the designation of a lead agency to formulate a project proposal, assist the selected businesses in obtaining design protection and facilitate the promotion of the protected designs in relevant business circles. Referring to the comment by the Delegation of Argentina, the Secretariat stated that the project would be implemented in close cooperation with the national lead agency. The agency would identify potential participants and businesses for the project. As the definition of an SME was quite vague, there was flexibility to ensure that all design businesses in the participating Member States could be considered for the project. The Secretariat took note of the comment by the Delegation of Moldova that the project should be extended to countries with economies in transition.
236 The Vice-Chair invited the Committee to adopt the project. She stated that it was adopted, given that there were no objections from the floor.
Consideration of Document CDIP/12/10 - Pilot DA Project on Intellectual Property and Tourism: Supporting Development Objectives and Preservation of Cultural Heritage
237 The Delegation of Egypt introduced document CDIP/12/10. The pilot project was based on IP and its ability to contribute to the competitiveness of stakeholders in the tourism sector. Trademarks, industrial designs, geographical indications, copyright and other IP tools could play an important role in that regard. This was a new area. A number of studies were underway. Some countries were successful in their efforts to use IP for the development of the tourism sector. The objectives of the project were to promote the effective use of national IP tools and instruments to support the development of the tourism sector and the preservation of cultural heritage; assist towns, regions and key actors in the tourism industry, especially SMEs, in using national IP systems and tools to differentiate themselves and to market themselves as offering unique and distinct touristic products; and assist in the integration of IP teaching into the curricula of tourism/hotel management programs, schools and universities. A number of activities were proposed. First, the preparation of user-friendly documentation to explain and promote the national IP system and its management to key actors in the tourism industry. Second, develop draft curricula to include a module on IP, tourism development and the preservation of cultural heritage in professional teaching programs on tourism in hotel management schools, universities and others. Third, raise awareness of key actors, including ministries, promotion agencies, hotel associations, restaurants, recreation centers, tour operators, travel agents and others in using national IP systems/tools to enhance their competitiveness. Fourth, develop the capacity of national IP offices to provide sector specific support to key actors in tourism and run sector specific awareness campaigns. Fifth, collect and share best practices on the successful use of the national IP system in the development of the tourism sector. Lastly, organize a conference or workshops on IP, tourism development and the preservation of cultural heritage. The project was relevant to recommendations 1, 3, 4 and 10 of the DA. The Delegation hoped there would be support for the project and financial resources would be made available for its implementation. It would work with the Secretariat to develop a revised proposal based on the comments by delegations. The Delegation hoped that the pilot project would be supported by all Member States.
238 The Delegation of Japan, speaking on behalf of Group B, pointed out that the proposal was formally submitted just before the CDIP session. The deadline prescribed by the General Rules of Procedure should be respected in the submission of working documents to the Committee. The Group was happy to hear the background and the explanation of the proposal in this session. It looked forward to further examining and discussing the proposal in the next CDIP session.
239 The Delegation of Lithuania, speaking on behalf of the EU and its Member States, noted that the proposal seemed interesting and could add value to the competitiveness and further development of countries involved in the project. However, further information on the exact scope of the project, participating countries, budgetary implications and other aspects should be provided before the project could be fully discussed in the Committee. Furthermore, deadlines should be observed in the submission of new projects. As the project was introduced at a late stage, the EU and its Member States looked forward to discussing it in the next session of the CDIP.
240 The Delegation of the Czech Republic, speaking on behalf of CEBS, found the proposal to be interesting and valuable. Its contents may be of interest to many countries, their IP systems and tourism industries. The Group would like clarifications to be provided on geographical coverage, budgetary implications and the expected outcomes and results of the pilot project before giving the proposal its full consideration. As the proposal was distributed by the Secretariat last Friday, the proposal could be discussed in the next CDIP session after clarifications were provided in order for the proposal to be properly examined.
241 The Delegation of Brazil proposed that the Delegation of Egypt could present its proposal in a CDIP project format. This was done by the Delegation of the Republic of Korea for its proposal in the last session. Questions on geographical coverage, outcomes and other aspects could be dealt with in that format which was used in the CDIP.
242 The Delegation of Turkey found the project to be interesting and was ready to work on it in the future.
243 The Delegation of Trinidad stated that the document had been sent to its capital for consideration. Tourism was an important industry for Trinidad and Tobago, and the Caribbean region. Thus, it would closely examine the proposal. The Delegation looked forward to working with the Delegation of Egypt and other delegations on the proposal.
244 The Delegation of Zimbabwe stated that the tourism sector was cherished by many countries. Zimbabwe had a booming tourism sector and would benefit from the project. The Delegation hoped that the Delegation of Egypt would take onboard the comment made on geographical balance in the development of the pilot project. It should cover the geographical regions of the world.
245 The Delegation of Spain associated itself with the statement made by the Delegation of Lithuania on behalf of the EU and its Member States. The document could be considered in-depth in the next CDIP session. There was a need to take into account the observations made with regard to the project initiated by the Delegation of the Republic of Korea which had just been adopted. The Delegation stressed on the sustainability of the project. There was also a need to ensure that the proposed budget was as detailed as possible to facilitate an evaluation of the project.
246 The Delegation of Tunisia supported the proposal as tourism was important. It was important to include IP in plans to develop the tourism sector as well as in teaching programs.
247 The Delegation of Algeria, speaking on behalf of the African Group, supported and endorsed the proposal. It would help to develop a sector which was important for developing countries and all other Member States. The Group hoped that the proposal would be adopted by the Committee.
248 The Representative of the Institute for IP and Social Justice (IIPSJ) commended the Delegation of Egypt for constructing an innovative approach to interconnect the important development goals of cultural heritage preservation and utilizing the IP system to promote economic and social empowerment.
249 The Delegation of Yemen stressed on the importance of the project. Tourism should be included among the activities on IP and development in WIPO.
250 The Delegation of Azerbaijan supported the project. The results would be useful for future work.
251 The Vice-Chair noted that there was overall support for the proposal and the ideas enshrined in the document. However, concerns were also expressed. Certain aspects such as geographical coverage and budgetary implications required clarification. Thus, the Delegation of Egypt was invited to consult Member States and to seek the Secretariat’s assistance to prepare a document in the format of a project to be submitted to the next CDIP session for approval.
252 The Delegation of Egypt noted the requests for clarification. This was expected, especially with regard to geographical coverage, budget and project objectives. It would cooperate with the Secretariat to prepare a project document taking into account the comments made by Member States. It would also take into consideration the project initiated by the Delegation of the Republic of Korea which was just adopted. On geographical coverage, the Delegation recalled that the project initiated by the Delegation of Burkina Faso was being implemented in Burkina Faso and neighboring countries. Thus, that project covered the African region. Projects had also been implemented in countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Technical support from WIPO was important in the implementation of the projects. This project was a pilot project. Implementation could begin in Africa. It could also be implemented in countries in other regions. Countries could express their interest in the project. The Delegation hoped that all countries would be able to benefit from the project, within the limits of the budget and resources of the Secretariat for the project. As mentioned by the Delegation of Spain, the project should also be sustainable. This was important.
Consideration of document CDIP/12/8 - The measurement of the MDGs in other UN agencies and the contribution of WIPO to the MDGs
253 The Secretariat (Ms. Livshin) introduced the document. In its last session, the Committee requested the Secretariat to prepare a document with two components. Annex I of the document was a compilation of the practices by which other UN agencies, in particular, other specialized UN agencies, measured their contribution to the MDGs. In response to the request by the CDIP, a total of 17 UN agencies were appraised. They included 12 specialized agencies, 4 related organizations and a joint agency. Annex II of the document contained a brief report on how WIPO had contributed to the MDGs to date. The methodology in document CDIP/11/3 was consulted. It provided the basis for the two tables contained in Section I of Annex II. Other existing studies (documents CDIP/10/9 and CDIP/5/3) were also consulted. The report provided a matrix which outlined WIPO’s relevant programs and activities, and mapped them to the six targets under MDGs 1, 6 and 8. Section II included a narrative report on WIPO's contributions to MDGs 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7, drawing on examples from 2012.
254 The Delegation of Japan, speaking on behalf of Group B, stated that the document provided very useful information on the practices of other UN agencies, including specialized agencies, in considering the way forward on this issue at WIPO. The review concluded that the majority of the agencies reviewed had not formulated MDG-specific results, indicators or other measurement criteria in their practices of measuring their organizational contribution to the achievement of the MDGs. The Group appreciated the information on the linkages between WIPO's relevant areas of work and MDGs 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7. It recalled that the study presented at the last session (document CDIP/11/3) explicitly denied the necessity to introduce an additional set of MDG indicators in the existing and well performing RBM framework. Furthermore, other studies (documents CDIP/5/3, CDIP/8/4 and CDIP/10/9) failed to establish a direct relationship between WIPO's activities and the broad MDG indicators, though they also clearly highlighted how WIPO indirectly contributed to the achievement of the MDGs. Putting the results of the survey presented at this session in that context, the Group concluded that there was no need for WIPO to consider the introduction of new MDG-specific results, indicators, or other measurement criteria, and that WIPO could continue to contribute indirectly to the MDGs under the current well-functioning RBM framework in line with its mandate. The Group believed that the enormous efforts on this issue thus far clearly revealed that any further study or survey was not needed, and WIPO should focus on continuing efforts to achieve its strategic goals and objectives under the current RBM framework through which it could contribute to the MDGs.
255 The Delegation of Lithuania, speaking on behalf of the EU and its Member States, stated that it would be happy if the document was updated again, perhaps towards the end of the MDG period in 2015. They also supported the statement made by the Delegation of Japan on behalf of Group B.
256 The Delegation of Bangladesh, speaking on behalf the Asia Pacific Group, looked forward to continued discussion on the study on the Feasibility of Integration of MDGs Related Needs/Outcomes into WIPO’s Biennial Results Framework, and identifying specific indicators to measure WIPO’s contribution to the MDGs. The Group’s members would actively engage in the process.
257 The Delegation of Azerbaijan stressed on the important link between IP and development. It not only strengthened the economic systems of countries but also improved the social and economic conditions of their people. The Delegation welcomed WIPO’s efforts to mainstream the DA into all its activities and hoped it would continue. It commended the positive results achieved thus far in the implementation of the recommendations. However, it was an ongoing process and must be continued. As such, the Delegation commended the proposal by DAG to include a new CDIP agenda item on IP and development. The proposal deserved support and approval. As a specialized agency of the UN, WIPO should play its role in the achievement of the MDGs. It was very important to exchange experiences in developing national IP strategies. IP assisted in the development of many sectors. The guidelines and studies commissioned by the CDIP were very important. Thus, Member States should be able to access them as soon as possible. Although the issues under discussion were complex and difficult, the Delegation was confident that results would be achieved during the session.
258 The Delegation of South Africa stated that it was important for the Organization to continuously report to Member States on how WIPO was contributing to the MDGs. The MDGs were currently under review. Discussion on the post-2015 DA was also continuing in the UN system. WIPO should not be left out of it. The Secretariat should provide information on how the Organization was contributing to the overall achievement of the MDGs. It should be provided in each and every CDIP session. The Delegation believed that the document could be improved with regard to how other UN agencies contributed to the achievement of the MDGs. It thought the Secretariat would engage directly with the agencies in order to get information on how they contributed to the MDGs and not just look at their websites. For example, UNCTAD was designated by the UN Secretary General as one of the lead agencies in the post 2015 DA. Working groups were established in other agencies to look into the issue of the MDGs. The Delegation requested the Secretariat to engage directly with UN agencies to see how they were contributing to the MDGs and to report to the Member States in the next CDIP session. The MDGs was an ongoing subject. Thus, it would like the Secretariat to continually update and inform Member States on WIPO’s contribution to the MDGs. It could contribute directly and indirectly to the MDGs.
259 The Delegation of the Russian Federation reiterated that the successful implementation of the WIPO DA would be a significant contribution to the achievement of the UN MDGs. The information in the document was very interesting and useful. It reflected the work of the Organization in this area.
260 The Delegation of Algeria, speaking on behalf the African Group, stressed on the importance of the MDGs. WIPO was a UN organization and the MDGs were UN goals. Thus, WIPO should align itself with the MDGs. The Group made some comments on the document. First, the findings of the Secretariat were based on publicly available information. The agencies were not contacted to obtain concrete information on their practices to measure their contribution to the MDGs. Second, it was not clear how the agencies were selected. The Secretariat was requested to examine the practices of other UN agencies, especially specialized UN agencies. However, four of the agencies, i.e. CTBTO, IAEA, OPCW and the WTO were not UN agencies. Furthermore, UN entities with mandates that were directly relevant to the MDGs such as UNICEF, UNDP, UNCTAD and UNAIDS were not selected. Third, the Secretariat did not reveal the identities of the agencies that were referred to in the findings. Fourth, the findings revealed that one lead agency had recently integrated mandate-specific MDG targets and indicators at the highest level of its results framework. It was also found that five UN lead agencies which act in a global custodial role were monitoring the global-level reporting for mandate-specific MDGs. The methodology used for global-level reporting was not clear. With regard to WIPO’s assessment of its contribution to the MDGs, the Group recalled that the PPR was used by the Secretariat. As recognized by the PBC, the PPR was a self assessment. The Group would like the Secretariat to clarify how it assessed WIPO’s contribution to the implementation of the MDGs based on self-assessment. Finally, the Group would like the document to be revised to include some of the most important UN agencies that were mentioned earlier, i.e. UNCTAD, UNDP, UNAIDS and UNICEF. The document should also include more concrete information. It should not be based only on publicly available information. It was also time for WIPO and its Member States to engage in discussions on post 2015 MDGs.
261 The Delegation of Egypt, speaking on behalf of DAG, stated that it was important for WIPO to play an active role and to effectively contribute to the achievement of the MDGs. As a UN specialized agency and guardian of the international IP system, WIPO had a role and a responsibility in the achievement of all the MDGs, especially in eradicating extreme poverty and hunger through promoting economic growth and productivity in developing countries and LDCs; achieving universal primary education through enhancing access to information and knowledge; combatting HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and other diseases through improving access to health and medicines; ensuring environmental sustainability through promoting technology transfer in environmental industries; and fostering a global partnership for development. It was essential for WIPO to develop specific indicators and a transparent monitoring framework to measure and reflect its contribution to all the MDGs as well as the post-2015 development goals and agenda when they were adopted. In its national capacity, the Delegation supported the statement made by the Delegation of Algeria on behalf of the African Group.
262 The Delegation of China stated that the document indicated how WIPO was contributing to the MDGs. A reasonable method for measuring WIPO’s contribution was necessary. As the MDGs would conclude in 2015, WIPO should actively participate in the establishment and achievement of the post-2015 MDGs. The MDGs should be effectively integrated into WIPO’s work.
263 The Delegation of the United States of America appreciated the detailed and conscientious work of the Secretariat in preparing the document and its annexes. The parameters of the reporting were appropriate. The Delegation agreed with earlier findings that it was a major advantage that the RBM framework allowed for WIPO's contributions to the most relevant MDGs to be measured at the level of results, and not just at the level of programs and activities. On WIPO's analysis of how other UN agencies measured their contributions to the MDGs, the Delegation noted that of the 17 agencies reviewed, only one, an unspecified lead agency on a particular MDG, had integrated mandate-specific MDG targets into its results framework. This was only at the highest level of that framework and in the agency's role as a global custodian of an MDG. The other 16 agencies varied from no reporting at all to identifying general linkages. They covered a few, some or all of the MDGs based on the competency and mandate of the particular organization. The selection of specialized agencies for the most part was appropriate. The Committee had asked the Secretariat to look, in particular, at how other specialized UN agencies did their reporting on their MDG contributions. The reporting on MDG contributions was publicly available. Thus, it was a very appropriate methodology for the Secretariat to look at those links and that information. Given the fact that many other agencies were not providing high levels of MDG contribution reporting, the effort that WIPO put into measuring the Organization's contribution to the six targets under MDGs 1, 6 and 8 using the RBM results, along with the additional narrative that it provided on the contributions to the other five MDGs, was quite impressive. The Secretariat should be commended for its effort. Although the Delegation agreed with the EU and its Member States that an updating or additional reporting on WIPO’s contributions to the MDGs would be appropriate, it would not want that to happen at every session. Perhaps annual reporting would be appropriate. Previous reporting was based on the 2011 2012 and then the 2012 2013 RBM results. Thus, maybe the appropriate place would be looking at the 2013 2014 RBM results. Member States should also be pleased with the findings themselves. Although the lengthy matrix in Annex II was sometimes repetitive and could be served by attaching an executive summary, the sheer number of concrete actions that WIPO was taking that contributed in some form to the achievement of MDGs 1, 6 and 8 was impressive. WIPO currently had a MDGs webpage. It used a narrative form to outline WIPO's contributions to each MDG. It would be worth further discussion to see how WIPO could use the information in Annex II to deepen the narrative with specific examples of concrete results. The narrative on WIPO's contribution to the other five MDGs i.e. primary education, gender equality, child mortality, maternal health and environmental sustainability was also useful and interesting. It reflected the ways in which WIPO's programs and projects made contributions in these important areas. While WIPO's contribution to these five MDGs would be much harder to measure using specific linkages to the performance data in the RBM, there was no doubt that WIPO's work on increasing access to information, creating platforms for the sharing of technology and know-how, education on IPR and related issues through the WIPO Academy, and other projects all had a contribution to the advancement of education, women, health, and environment.
264 The Delegation of Brazil associated itself with the statement made by the Delegation of Egypt on behalf of DAG and the comments made by the delegations of Azerbaijan and South Africa on the urgent need to continue work on the MDGs. Further exchanges on the practices of UN agencies were necessary and could only benefit the work of the Organization.
265 The Delegation of Germany supported the position taken by Group B, the EU and its Member States and the Delegation of the United States of America. WIPO already did a lot to contribute to the MDGs. It was among those agencies that were really committed to contribute to the MDGs. The Delegation supported the proposal for regular reporting on this matter.
266 The Delegation of Zimbabwe associated itself with the statements made by the delegations of Algeria and Egypt on behalf of the African Group and DAG respectively. The Delegation referred to Annex II of the document. On MDG 1, some activities were linked with eradicating extreme poverty and hunger. Clarification was required in this regard. For example, WIPO Strategic Goal 1, “balanced evolution of the international normative framework for IP”, was linked with MDG 1. An international agreement on a normative framework for industrial designs was included as a performance indicator. The Delegation would like to know how that was linked to eradicating extreme poverty and hunger.
267 The Vice-Chair noted that views diverged on the document. Some delegations supported the document. Others such as the African Group, DAG and the Delegation of Zimbabwe expressed concerns. She invited the Secretariat to respond to the questions and comments from the floor.
268 The Secretariat referred to the methodology for preparing the report on WIPO’s contribution to the MDGs. In the last session, the Committee requested the Secretariat to use existing documents for this purpose. These included documents CDIP/11/3, CDIP/10/9 and CDIP/5/3. The methodology referenced in document CDIP/11/3 provided the basis for the two tables. A matrix was provided. It outlined WIPO’s relevant programs and activities and mapped them to the relevant MDGs. The tables were based on updated performance data. Data from the PPR served as the performance data. The Secretariat referred to the query by the Delegation on Zimbabwe on individual performance indicators and stated that these were based on overall indicators. They were not MDG-specific. They were linked to them based on the said methodology. On engaging directly with the agencies themselves, the Secretariat stated that it was requested to use internal resources to prepare the report. This was done. A lot of work and effort went into the report. Reviewing publicly available information was the best basis to prepare the report as most agencies provided information on their contributions to the MDGs. WIPO had joined the relevant working groups on the MDGs and was actively involved. It was committed to the MDGs and the post-2015 DA. It was engaging with other UN agencies. The Secretariat took note of the request by the African Group for the report to be amended to include additional agencies. As mentioned, internal resources were used to prepare the report. Thus, it was not an independent evaluation. The two previous reports were prepared by independent evaluators. However, on this occasion, the Secretariat was requested to do the assessment. The report was prepared on that basis.
269 The Delegation of Zimbabwe understood there was no existing mechanism to link WIPO’s activities to the MDGs. However, it would still like to know how the Secretariat arrived at the link between the conclusion of an international agreement on industrial designs and the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger. The Delegation would like to know how the indicator was matched with that MDG.
270 The Delegation of Egypt, speaking on behalf of DAG, referred to the presentation of WIPO’s contribution to the MDGs and would like to know how it was being done at this stage, in particular, with regard to the RBM framework. The Group would like to know whether the RBM framework was being linked to each of the MDGs. If this was not the case, it would like to know how WIPO’s contribution to the MDGs could be integrated into the RBM framework. It also wanted to know if there were any plans or ideas to enhance WIPO’s contribution to the MDGs.
271 The Delegation of the United States of America reiterated that it appreciated the methodology which identified the six targets under MDGs 1, 6 and 8 as the most relevant and measurable within WIPO's RBM framework. The methodology was clearly based on an assessment of the links between WIPO's activities and the MDGs using three key documents, namely, the Millennium Declaration, the Sachs report and the STI Task Force report. This was identified by the tow external consultants, Mr. O'Neil and Mr. Musungu, who provided reports on this issue in previous CDIP sessions. Mr. O'Neil's report clearly stated that the introduction of separate MDG indicators beyond those identified with the six targets under the three goals would not be advised for various reasons. Both he and Mr. Musungu had identified that there was no direct causal relationship between WIPO's activities and the MDG targets. Instead, several key documents, as listed above, were used to identify that WIPO's role was most explicitly linked, although not directly, with MDGs 1, 6 and 8. These three MDG goals and their underlying targets could be linked to several WIPO goals and results. The one that was referred to here was the evolution of the normative framework on IP, a goal of the Organization. The goal itself was not to eradicate hunger. The idea was that in helping to evolve a normative framework for IP, economies could grow and hunger could be reduced. As mentioned, these were not causal relationships but areas where the most explicit links between WIPO's activities and the MDGs could be found. Six WIPO goals and 14 sub-results in the RBM framework were identified to measure WIPO’s contribution to those three MDGs. As stated by Mr. O'Neil and Mr. Musungu in their reports, these provided a very concrete assessment of WIPO's contribution to the achievement of the MDGs. As mentioned earlier, the RBM framework provided measurements at the level of results, not just at the level of program and activities. The RBM framework was used because it provided data on the results. In concluding, the Delegation reiterated that the linkages were made based on the Millennium Declaration, the Sachs report and the STI Task Force report.
272 The Vice-Chair invited the Secretariat to respond to the questions and comments from the floor.
273 The Secretariat referred to the question posed by the Delegation of Zimbabwe on the methodology. As mentioned, the methodology was approved by Member States. The Secretariat followed the decision that was taken. As pointed out by the Delegation of the United States of America, the linkages were made based on three other reports. The 2014-2015 results framework was prepared. The expected results were reduced from 60 in 2012 2013 to 38 in 2014 2015. There were no MDG-specific indicators. The same methodology was followed. The expected results linked up at some level with the MDGs. A lot of effort was made to mainstream development throughout WIPO’s work. The expected results and indicators for 2014 2015 would capture WIPO’s contribution to development. As mentioned, WIPO had joined the relevant working groups. That could help to improve the tracking of WIPO's contribution to the post-2015 DA.
274 The Delegation of Zimbabwe was particularly interested in the explanation given by the Delegation of the United States of America. RBM was a tool to measure the performance of an organization. Performance indicators were relevant to a particular goal set by an organization. The methodology needed to be corrected in order for it to be relevant to the subject of how WIPO could contribute to the MDGs. Activities that were not relevant to an MDG should not be cited. The document could be improved. Specific activities that pertained to a particular goal could be included. Some delegations believed that WIPO could not contribute at all to the MDGs. The MDGs were on development issues. Efforts were being made to mainstream the DA into WIPO’s activities. Thus, there should be a way to link the MDGs to those activities. Although not all MDGs could be directly linked to WIPO’s work, efforts could be made by the Secretariat to link certain elements of the MDGs, and to inform Member States of the outcome of those efforts.
275 The Delegation of the United States of America stated that although it would not agree to seeing WIPO's strategic goals changed to reflect the MDG goals or something to that effect, it noted in its intervention that the results of the RBM data reporting was a lengthy matrix. As the Delegation of Zimbabwe had correctly pointed out, some of that data very much pertained to improving economic situations in countries whereas some other results may be slightly less so. In other words, the Secretariat did exactly what the methodology requested, which was to list out data pertinent to that goal. However, perhaps some of those results were a little more pertinent than others. The Delegation had earlier suggested that an executive summary of that section would be useful. The Secretariat had provided a narrative summary of WIPO's contributions to the other MDGs. Perhaps the Secretariat could also prepare a short executive summary of the results of the RBM data reporting on MDGs 1, 6 and 8 to indicate some of the most effective ways in which the Organization contributed to these goals. This could help in clarifying the results of the RBM methodology.
276 The Delegation of Egypt, speaking on behalf of DAG, stated that the comments made by the delegations of Zimbabwe and the United States of America indicated that the RBM could be further enhanced to reflect WIPO’s contribution to the MDGs. Perhaps the two consultants who worked on this had taken a very narrow view. WIPO could contribute to other goals, not just MDGs 1, 6 and 8. WIPO was expected to contribute to all the MDGs. For example, WIPO could play a role in the areas of environmental sustainability and education. The Group took note of the Secretariat’s statement that there were currently no indicators to capture this role apart from linkages to the six strategic goals of WIPO. Perhaps, in addition to the idea presented by delegations of Zimbabwe and the United States of America, work could be undertaken on some indicators to measure the expected results of the Organization in relation to the achievement of those WIPO goals. This would assist in measuring WIPO’s contribution to all the MDGs. Perhaps the Secretariat could work on these ideas and prepare a document for the next CDIP session, in addition to the points expressed by the African Group.
277 The Delegation of the United States of America clarified that its commentary on an additional executive summary only related to the RBM data for MDGs 1, 6, and 8 and the provision of a narrative summary. Its commentary did not include trying to match the other MDGs in some way to the RBM. The Delegation would not support the creation of new indicators or efforts to force a connection where it did not believe there was a connection. The narrative prepared by the Secretariat for the other MDGs was very useful. The Delegation had referred to the narrative. The Organization had gone through its areas of work and concluded, for instance, that WIPO GREEN could contribute to environmental sustainability or WIPO's work with women or in education was helping the other MDGs. However, it would not be feasible to try to tie it to the RBM results. The O'Neil and Musungu reports were not narrow. The Delegation actually found them to be very thorough. It believed that they took a very thorough look at the RBM and the other foundational documents mentioned in its earlier intervention and found that MDGs 1, 6, and 8 were the areas where some kind of link could be made to the RBM. Thus, the Delegation supported an executive summary of the data results for MDGs 1, 6, and 8.
278 The Delegation of Indonesia stated that the UN was a coherent system. Thus, WIPO could not be isolated from the MDGs. Further work should be undertaken to examine how WIPO’s work on norm setting and its treaties and conventions could contribute to the MDGs.
279 The Vice-Chair noted that views continued to diverge on the document. However, it was clear that the document required revision. She would like to know whether some delegations thought it was crucial for the Secretariat to directly engage with certain UN agencies and not use publicly available materials.
280 The Delegation of Algeria, speaking on behalf of the African Group, clarified that it did not state that the Secretariat should not use publicly available information. The report should not be based only on information available on websites as some information may not be publicly available. A note should be sent to the organizations to request for additional information. They were situated nearby. Not everything was on the websites. Thus, there was a need to extend the data collection and engage directly with the organizations concerned.
281 The Delegation of Indonesia referred to its previous statement and agreed with the African Group. It requested the Secretariat to further examine the relationship between the MDGs and WIPO, including in a legal context. It wanted to know whether or not the MDGs had been achieved in the context of WIPO or if there were any recommendations for it to do so.
282 The Delegation of the United States of America referred to discussions with other UN agencies on how they reported on their contributions to the MDGs and reiterated that the most relevant agencies were the other specialized agencies of the UN. WIPO was a specialized agency. Thus, those were the agencies that would be the most relevant. If the Secretariat had the time to talk to officials in those specialized agencies, that would fine. Person to person contact was fine if delegations wanted to add that in. The Delegation believed that reporting was basically making your information publicly available. Thus, the reporting on the contributions of any agency should be contained in those sites or documents that were publicly available. However, if the Secretariat had the time to talk to officials in those organizations, that was fine. The Delegation reiterated that the relevant agencies were the specialized agencies.
283 The Vice-Chair stated that she was informed by the Secretariat that UNDP and UNICEF were programs and not agencies. That was why they were omitted.
284 The Delegation of Algeria, speaking on behalf of the African Group, stated that if the Secretariat was keen to keep to the mandate that it was given, the WTO and OPCW should be excluded. The Group would like its concerns to be taken into consideration. No one could dispute the fact that UNCTAD had done some work in this area. The Group was merely requesting the Secretariat to report on what was being done by organizations such UNCTAD, UNDP and UNAIDS. It requested Member States to allow the Secretariat to do so. It was not requesting for their practices to be adopted.
285 The Delegation of Egypt, speaking on behalf of DAG, pointed out that several DA recommendations urged WIPO to cooperate, consult and coordinate with other UN agencies, including UNCTAD. Publicly available information did not provide the full picture. Direct contact with the agencies concerned was required. If the Committee was going to base its discussion on accurate, precise and updated information, it should also be gathered through direct engagement with these agencies. The narrative for presenting and highlighting the Organization’s contributions to all the MDGs could be more elaborate. A methodology could be developed to measure the contributions. Reports by WIPO to the UN, MDG task force and others on its contribution to the MDGs could also be shared with Member States. This also applied to previous submissions by WIPO. These would be useful in guiding the discussions and in keeping Member States informed on what was happening on the ground.
286 The Delegation of Japan, speaking on behalf of Group B, endorsed the comments made by the Delegation of the United States of America on the RBM and specialized agencies. The mandate of an agency must be taken into account in considering how that agency could contribute to the MDGs. With regard to UNCTAD, UNAIDS, UNICEF and UNDP, it was clear that their mandates were directly linked with the MDGs, even linguistically. However, it was also clear that IP protection had no direct links with the MDGs, at least linguistically. In that regard, information on these development agencies may not be useful in considering the role of WIPO in the context of the MDGs. Thus, the Group endorsed the comment made by the Delegation of the United States of America that the agencies should be limited to the specialized agencies. They should not include development agencies which were completely different from WIPO.
287 The Delegation of South Africa referred to WIPO’s participation in the MDGs Task Force. In the last session, it was agreed that the Secretariat would brief Member States on WIPO’s contribution to the work of other UN entities. It would be useful for the Secretariat to engage directly with UNCTAD. It was designated by the UN Secretary-General as one of the lead organizations for the post-2015 DA. It would also be useful for the Organization to participate in that discussion and to get useful information from the discussions organized by UNCTAD on the MDGs and the post-2015 DA. There was nothing wrong in gathering publicly available information. However, the Secretariat had to engage directly with the organizations to obtain additional information and clarifications.
288 The Vice-Chair enquired as to whether UNCTAD could be included in the document even though it may not be a specialized agency. As there were no objections from the floor, she enquired as to whether the Secretariat could engage directly with UNCTAD to obtain information.
289 The Secretariat stated that it would take all the comments by Member States into consideration. It would get back to the Committee on direct engagement. It was amenable to the suggestion.
290 The Vice-Chair referred to the observations on the MDGs Task Force and enquired as to whether there were any reports that could be made available to the delegations.
291 The Secretariat stated that it would need to check. The reports, if any, could be made available to the Member States.
292 The Delegation of the United States of America hoped that WIPO would talk to UNCTAD. It knew that WIPO engaged in the Gap Task Force and that WIPO was engaged in discussions on the post-2015 MDGs. It was certain that WIPO attended UNCTAD events. The Delegation had no problems with the Secretariat working with them, talking to them and learning from them about what they did. What the Delegation had said was that for the purposes of the report on how other agencies reported on their contributions, the specialized agencies were the most relevant. Those were also agencies that had very specific technical mandates. Thus, how they reported on their contributions would be most relevant in terms of looking at comparable organizations and thinking about WIPO’s reporting. The Delegation reiterated that it had no problems with the Secretariat talking to UNCTAD and learning from them. However, it should be kept in mind that inasmuch as the document was supposed to provide the Committee with comparable examples of reporting, information from the technical UN agencies would be the most relevant.
293 The Delegation of Algeria, speaking on behalf of the African Group, wanted to be clear on what it would like the Secretariat to do in terms of revising the document. UNCTAD, UNDP, UNAIDS, inter alia, should be added to the organizations already examined by the Secretariat, and the same approach should be applied. This meant to see how these organizations evaluated their contribution to the achievement of the MDGs and how they integrated this contribution within their programs. Thus, what the Delegation requested the Secretariat to do was to apply to these additional organizations what it had already applied to the organizations examined in the document.
294 The Vice-Chair enquired as to whether the Delegation of the United States of America had any reservations on the inclusion of some other UN entities in the report.
295 The Delegation of the United States of America was not sure whether it perfectly understood the intervention by the Delegation of Algeria. The document would simply provide information on how other agencies were reporting on their contributions. It did not in any way mean that information gathered from the survey would be the way that WIPO would report on the MDGs. It would simply provide information on how other agencies were reporting on their contributions to the MDGs, and not information on how they may be changing their programs or altering their goals. The Delegation did not have a problem if delegations wanted to look at some other UN development agencies. However, for the purposes of looking at examples of reporting on contributions, the most relevant agencies would be the other technical agencies that also had very specific mandates and goals.
296 The Vice-Chair noted the point made by the Delegation of the United States of America that the document would provide information and WIPO should not necessarily follow the reporting mechanisms of other organizations. The Vice-Chair recalled that the Delegation had also suggested the inclusion of an executive summary in the document. She enquired as to whether the revised document could be submitted to the 14th session as it required further work, research, engagement with other agencies, redrafting and translation into five languages.
297 The Delegation of Japan, speaking on behalf of Group B, stated that it was not strongly opposed to the idea. The Group echoed the comments made by the Delegation of the United States of America which were also included in its previous intervention. The mandates of specialized agencies such as WIPO were completely different from those of development agencies such as UNDP, UNCTAD and others. It may be an excessive burden for the Secretariat to gather information that may not be directly applicable to WIPO.
298 The Delegation of Egypt, speaking on behalf of DAG, drew attention to recommendation 40 of the DA, “to request WIPO to intensify its cooperation on IP related issues with UN agencies, according to Member States’ orientation, in particular UNCTAD, UNEP, WHO, UNIDO, UNESCO and other relevant international organizations, especially the WTO in order to strengthen the coordination for maximum efficiency in undertaking development programs”. The request for WIPO to work with UN agencies and other relevant organizations was already included in that recommendation. This was important as the recommendations guided the work of the Secretariat on all issues, including the MDGs. The Group hoped the Secretariat could get the document ready for the next session. However, it could wait until the 14th session if this was not possible.
299 The Vice-Chair stated that it would not be feasible for the Secretariat to present the document in the next session. It was agreed that the document would be ready for the 14th session, given that there were no objections from the floor.
300 The Delegation of Indonesia referred to the comment made by Group B on WIPO’s mandate and aligned itself with the statement made by the Delegation of Egypt on behalf of DAG. The Delegation reiterated that the UN was a coherent system. The relationship between the MDGs and WIPO must be viewed in that context.
301 The Vice-Chair closed the discussions on this item given that there were no further observations from the floor.
Consideration of document CDIP/12/INF/2 Rev. – Study on Patents and the Public Domain (II)
302 The Secretariat informed the Committee that one of the co-authors of the study, Dr. Neil Wilkof, from Dr. Eyal Bressler and Company, was present and would introduce the document.
303 The Consultant (Dr. Wilkof) introduced document CDIP/12/INF/2 Rev. The Study on Patents and the Public Domain (II) focused on the relationship at the micro level between the patent system and the public domain. The authors sought to better understand how individual actors in the public domain behaved in making choices over using or not using exclusive patent rights and how that affected the public domain. Three distinct approaches were employed to analyze those actions. The focus was on a rich and freely accessible public domain. The study was divided into three parts. A heuristic framework for the analysis was provided in Part I. Contrary to what might be expected, the potential contribution by the patent system to the public domain occurred not only when a registered patent expired. It also took place prior to the completion of the full statutory term. The possibility for patent arbitrage of the public domain by countries in which no patent right was sought, and the potential of such arbitrage to contribute to national innovation, especially in developing countries, was also discussed and should be followed up. In Part II, the study focused on non-practicing entities (NPEs) and how their respective business models enriched the public domain. NPEs were entities that owned patents but did not make use of them. The study discussed five categories of potential NPEs, namely, patent assertion entities; patent aggregators; non-competing entities; patent intermediaries; and universities and research organizations. Part III described patent practices of entities more broadly and considered the potential impact of patent management on the public domain.
304 The Delegation of the United States of America stated that the study clearly demonstrated that for over 100 years, the patent system was a rich source of publicly available information. It contributed tremendously to the creation of a rich and accessible public domain. The Delegation acknowledged the study's conclusion that the overall relationship between patents, innovation and a rich and freely accessible public domain was complex and nuanced. The study was useful in understanding the public domain and how various actors and factors affected it.
305 The Representative of the TWN stated that the study was based on the theoretical premise that a rich and accessible public domain was a result of the disclosures in patent documents. In other words, an increase in patenting would automatically result in an expansion of the public domain. However, the concept of the public domain also included areas where IPRs were not applicable or enforced. The study did not take this into account and simply assumed that knowledge embodied in a patent disclosure contributed to the public domain. The concept of global patent arbitrage referred to in Part I of the study was based on the premise that a developing country could effectively capitalize and use an invention which was in the public domain in its jurisdiction, and also develop improvements to the invention which could also be exported abroad. However, very few developing countries had the means or the necessary technological base or capacity to successfully exploit the invention or to make those improvements. The lack of patents from developing countries in the developing world reaffirmed this. Moreover, firms in developed countries strategically applied for patents in selected developing countries where innovative capacity existed. Thus, firms in developing countries with some innovative capability would be prevented from making use of the knowledge. The study should be revised and improved to address the barriers to fostering a rich and accessible public domain. It should, in particular, address how the public domain could be explored in resource poor settings. As pointed out, patent information in itself was not sufficient in this regard. It should also examine how patent flexibilities could be fully utilized to foster a rich and accessible public domain.
306 The Consultant was not sure if he fully understood the first limitation and would like it to be clarified. On the second point, the authors appreciated the fact that there may be limitations in many countries in terms of the ability to use the public domain effectively. However, over time, the number of countries described as resource poor in that regard, may indeed become less resource poor and make greater use of the information. In any event, perhaps one of the challenges was to get that information out to resource poor countries in a more efficient way, at least for that to encourage potential use within their given jurisdictions.
307 The Representative of the TWN stated that the definition of public domain did not seem to take into account that IPRs may not necessarily exist in some areas. The Representative would like to know if this aspect of the public domain was taken into account in the study. The premise of the study was that contributions to the system would increase with more patent disclosures.
308 The Consultant stated that if that was helpful, the authors would be pleased to consider it in a revised text.
309 The Delegation of the United States of America stated that the study was sufficient and would not favor any revisions to the study.
310 The Chair closed the discussions on the study given that there were no further observations from the floor.
Consideration of document CDIP/12/INF/3 - Scoping Study on Strengthening and Development of the Audiovisual Sector in Burkina Faso and Certain African Countries
311 The Secretariat (Ms. Croella) introduced the Scoping Study on Strengthening and Development of the Audiovisual Sector in Burkina Faso and Certain African Countries. The study was the first output of the Project on Strengthening and Development of the Audiovisual Sector in Burkina Faso and Certain African Countries. It was prepared by Messrs Bertrand Moullier and Benoit Muller, external experts on the audiovisual sector with field experience in Africa. The Secretariat drew attention to an error in the English version of the document. Mr. Muller was an Audiovisual Sector Expert and a member of the Geneva bar. He was not an Information Technology and Services Expert from Belgium as mentioned in the document. The study provided an evaluation of the current role played by IP in the financing, production and distribution of audiovisual works in the three countries participating in the project (Burkina Faso, Kenya and Senegal). It provided an assessment of IPR based transactions related to the
film-making process, assessed challenges and proposed solutions for the further effective use of IP in this field. Part one described what can be referred to as the “international standard” in copyright-based transactions in the audiovisual sector. Part two provided a snapshot assessment of the structural and copyright issues in the audiovisual sectors of those three countries. The experts met with the national project coordinators to carry out their work. They addressed a questionnaire to and interviewed a number of key stakeholders, both government officials and audiovisual entrepreneurs, in the respective countries. Part three contained conclusions and recommendations aimed at assisting the WIPO Secretariat and Member States in the scoping of project actions and deliverables, leveraging international experience to the practical benefit of local needs. The Secretariat believed that the study assisted beneficiary countries to learn more about the positive role which IP could play as a legal instrument to raise funds for the production and distribution of audiovisual works. Mechanisms such as the pre-sale of distribution rights were yet to be fully recognized, understood and used in the beneficiary countries. They could be extremely helpful in the production and commercial exploitation of audiovisual works in Africa and international markets. The Secretariat stressed that the study was a reference document for the implementation of activities under the project.
312 The Consultant (Mr. Moullier) referred to the first part of the study and stated that it provided an overview of the various techniques used by film makers worldwide to turn their creative visions into films. Copyright and related rights were not the only methods for doing so. A combination of techniques was employed to produce a film and to distribute it through national and international networks. For instance, the pre-sale mechanism was a pivotal and strategic tool used by producers and film makers. The study provided specific examples of how things worked on the ground. The consultants believed that film makers in Africa would like a legitimate distribution infrastructure that was cogent enough about the IP framework to meaningfully engage with them to bring funding into projects through transactions based on copyright and related rights. A legitimate distribution framework would allow for a meaningful model for return on investment. A film was a very expensive undertaking. The fixed costs were very high. A meaningful distribution framework could allow a film to return sufficient revenues to provide certain residuals to the talent involved in the film and leave enough for the producers to recycle revenues into the development of a new creative project. It could take up to five years for a film to be ready to attract financing.
313 The Consultant (Mr. Muller) stated that it had not been easy to evaluate the current role played by copyright in the audiovisual sector in the three beneficiary countries. The consultants had tried to be as objective as possible. Interviews were held with the main stakeholders in those countries. It appeared that copyright was frequently a theoretical concept for those involved in the audiovisual sector in Africa. If copyright was only a theoretical concept, it was not really playing its role. It should make it possible for audiovisual works to be exploited commercially. The consultants observed that a “digital revolution” was taking place in Africa. Broadband provided access to audiovisual content. Films were increasingly produced in digital form in Africa. Thus, issues pertaining to the digital environment should be thought about. A bottom up approach was required to examine and address the specific needs of the economic players in the audiovisual sector. The workshops to be organized under the project would assist in examining the issues and the experiences of other countries to assist these countries to develop policies to meet their respective needs.
314 The Delegation of Burkina Faso recalled that three pilot countries (Burkina Faso, Kenya and Senegal) were designated for the first phase of the project. WIPO was committed to assist them to implement the project which was officially launched on February 26, 2013 as a side event during the Pan African Film and Television Festival (FESPACO) in Ouagadougou. Training workshops and onsite training on collective negotiation of rights would be organized under the project. It would be evaluated at the end of the pilot phase. Burkina Faso had hosted the FESPACO festival since 1969. It was considered as the showcase for African cinema. The sustainability of the African audiovisual sector was important for development. However, the role of IP was not well understood. The Delegation believed that the project would enable Burkina Faso to develop a sustained framework for the audiovisual sector based on improved professional structures, markets and regulatory environment, while enhancing the strategic use of IP as a key tool to support the development of the audiovisual sector. It would enhance the understanding and strategic use of the IP system as a key tool to foster production, marketing and distribution in the African audiovisual sector. The dissemination of new technologies allowed independent film makers to enter global markets. The African audiovisual market faced considerable challenges. It was very fragmented. Mechanisms were required to create wealth and remunerate creativity. The project would assist in the development of the African audiovisual sector through technical assistance and the strengthening of institutional capacities to enhance understanding of the role of copyright in the audiovisual sector among all stakeholders. As a pilot country, Burkina Faso was aware of its project responsibilities. It would fully play its part and do everything possible to ensure that the project was a success and for the conclusions and recommendations of the study to be implemented.
315 The Delegation of Kenya welcomed the study. It found the analysis to be thorough and well researched. Its authorities were considering the key findings of the study. The recommendations were useful. Legal and policy reforms were being considered to ensure that the project was successful and sustainable. The curriculum recommended by the consultants was very useful and practical in the context of the forthcoming workshops under the project. Some of the recommended interventions such as state support were at the advanced stage of being rolled out in Kenya. The Delegation disagreed with some of the comments that copyright was a strange factor in the film sector in Kenya. Cultural issues prevented the use of some mechanisms.
316 The Delegation of Senegal stated that the study was one of the first activities under the project. Senegal had a particular interest in the project. The Minister of Culture participated in the launch during the FESPACO festival in February. Senegal’s audiovisual sector was very rich in creativity. It had earned numerous awards in recent years. However, Senegal faced challenges in the development of the sector, particularly in the financing and distribution of works. The study was very useful as it highlighted, in an objective manner, priority areas where the project could provide effective assistance in order for the expected results to be achieved. There were many shortcomings which led to the limited use of copyright in the exploitation of audiovisual works; insufficient knowledge of copyright in relation to contracts, production and exploitation; limited capacities of professionals to use copyright; and insufficient knowledge in terms of the use of new technologies and techniques to produce and distribute films. The project should help to fill the gaps in order for its objectives to be realized. Senegal had an adequate legislative framework for copyright. The government would like to support the development and financing of the audiovisual sector in Senegal through revising certain copyright practices, particularly with regard to collective management and the digital environment. The Delegation endorsed the recommendations contained in the study and welcomed any additional deadlines granted by the Committee for the achievement of this project for which Senegal had great expectations.
317 The Delegation of Brazil made some comments on the study. It was delighted that the Brazilian system was referred to as a successful experience in the deployment of fiscal incentives to finance the private production of audiovisual works. However, the Delegation highlighted that more than half of the financing of audiovisual works was through state funding. Today, tax policies were a secondary source of financing in Brazil. The study recommended the ratification of WIPO internet treaties as a measure to strengthen copyright protection in the digital environment. However, there was no substantive analysis of the impact of ratification on these African countries. Burkina Faso and Senegal had already acceded to the WCT and WPPT. Kenya had substantive national legislation on technological protection measures. More information was required to evaluate the impact of ratification of the WCT and WPPT. The study also suggested that countries should implement notice and take down policies as a measure to fight piracy in the digital environment. However, there was no multilateral consensus to endorse this policy model. Notice and takedown policies were subject to criticism by many stakeholders, especially internet users. As there was no international consensus on the efficiency and legitimacy of this policy model, such policies should not be introduced in the project.
318 The Delegation of Switzerland found the study to be interesting and useful for the implementation of the project. The project was important. This was a crucial time in Africa, particularly with the transition to the digital age, as indicated in the round table discussion the day before. The project was timely in that regard. It was important for the necessary resources, both human and financial, to be mobilized as soon as possible in order for the project to proceed. The Copyright Law Division had been very busy with important treaty negotiations and there were resounding successes. However, it was also important for such projects to proceed in order for other results to be achieved, particularly in the countries that were beneficiaries of the project.
319 The Delegation of the United States of America agreed that the study was very high quality work. It read with great interest, the analysis of film financing and licensing models. In its discussions on capacity building with developing countries, requests for assistance in the areas of film financing and practical licensing skill development were often received. The Delegation supported further work following the path laid out by the study's authors, and if the project ultimately had a sustained impact in Burkina Faso, Kenya and Senegal, it would look forward to possibly expanding the project to additional interested Member States. The Delegation referred to the side event organized by Switzerland the day before and stated that it really gave life to the project by bringing a director from Burkina Faso to discuss his own experience. It looked forward to future work in this important area.
320 The Delegation of Azerbaijan stated that an evaluation of the current role played by IP in the financing, production and distribution of audiovisual works in the three pilot countries was very important. The proposed solutions for the further effective use of IP would be useful to all countries. Such studies were important in order to effectively use international experience to assist countries to address their own specific needs.
321 The Chair invited the Secretariat to respond to the questions and comments from the floor.
322 The Secretariat referred to the comments made by the Delegation of Brazil and stated that the scope of the project was limited to professional development, training and the strengthening of relevant institutional capacity and infrastructure. Thus, issues such as liability were not included. The comments would be taken on board in the shaping of further actions and initiatives to be implemented under the project. The Secretariat reiterated that it had requested for the project to be extended by six months due to initial delays as a result of the Copyright Law Division’s involvement in the preparation of the diplomatic conference in Marrakech earlier in the year. The Secretariat welcomed the extension of the project. The comments that were made would be taken into consideration in the implementation of the project.
323 The Consultant (Mr. Moullier) referred to the comments made by the Delegation of Brazil and stated that he recognized that the Fundo Sectoral was a substantial contributor to financing in Brazil. Fundo Sectoral was not mentioned in that section of the study as it concerned tax concessions and tax breaks. However, the authors recognized its importance in the overall picture.
324 The Chair closed the discussions on the study given that there were no further observations from the floor.
Consideration of document CDIP/12/9 - Implementation Proposal on Possible New WIPO Activities Related to Using Copyright to Promote Access to Information and Creative Content
325 The Chair recalled that in the 11th session, the Committee discussed the Feasibility Assessment on Possible New WIPO Activities Related to Using Copyright to Promote Access to Information and Creative Content (CDIP/11/6). The Committee requested the Secretariat to prepare a more detailed implementation plan, including information on financial and human resource implications. Document CDIP/12/9 contained a detailed implementation plan for the six activities proposed in document CDIP/11/6, including an estimate of the human and financial resources required. He invited the Secretariat to introduce the document.
326 The Secretariat (Ms. Croella) recalled that the copyright component of the Project on IP, Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs), the Digital Divide and Access to Knowledge led to the preparation of the study on Using Copyright to Promote Access to Information and Creative Content. It was discussed at the tenth session of the Committee in November 2012. Following the discussion, the Member States requested an assessment of the feasibility for WIPO, within its mandate, to engage in new activities that could potentially assist Member States to achieve their development goals in the areas covered by the study. A Feasibility Assessment on Possible New WIPO Activities Related to Using Copyright to Promote Access to Information and Creative Content” (document CDIP/11/6) was prepared by an external consultant. It contained a list of potentially appropriate activities that WIPO could undertake for each of the three areas previously identified. The document was discussed during the 11th session of the CDIP in May, and Member States requested the Secretariat to prepare a more detailed implementation plan, including information on financial and human resource implications to be considered at this session of the Committee. Document CDIP/12/9 and its annexes contain a detailed implementation plan for the six activities proposed in document CDIP/11/6, including an estimate of the human and financial resources required.
327 The Delegation of Brazil, speaking on behalf of DAG, attached great importance to the continued debate on copyright and development in the context of the implementation of possible new WIPO activities related to using copyright to promote access to information and creative content. It understood that this item could remain on the agenda for future CDIP sessions. With regard to the activities to be implemented by WIPO, the Group suggested a change in Annex V of the document. In the section entitled, “Brief Description of the Activity/Initiative”, the sentence, “Model provisions and material useful in providing legislative advice would be produced to address requests of Member States”, could be amended to read as follows, “Model provisions and material useful in providing legislative advice would be produced taking into account the different legal systems and levels of development to address requests of Member States". The change provided for a more country specific approach in addressing the development aspect of this activity. Speaking in its national capacity, the Delegation supported the discussion of implementation of activities in relation to copyright and access to information and creative content. On proposed activity 1, Pilot Project on Creation of a Centralized Database in order to make IP-Related Education and Research (E&R) Resources Available on an Open Access (OA) Basis, the Delegation suggested that the project should not be restricted to OA resources. It should allow for a broader approach. Brazil was ready to contribute to the implementation of this activity.
328 The Delegation of the United States of America stated that the paper clarified the proposed activities. As a threshold matter, the Delegation suggested that the Committee narrowed down from the six proposed activities to a few that were most likely to provide sustained impact. With respect to proposed activity 1, the Delegation believed the impact of this activity may be limited because it focused on three Member States with local institutions that provided IP-related education and research resources. It would be interested to know if the Secretariat was aware of any demand from Member States with local institutions that provided IP-related education and resources for this type of assistance. With respect to proposed activity 2, the Delegation appreciated WIPO's leadership in the Inter-Governmental Organizations (IGOs) Working Group on Copyright Licensing. It seemed that work was nearing completion. Using the Creative Commons license should provide a path forward for additional IGOs that were seeking to implement new copyright policies. The advantage of using a Creative Commons license was that even non-copyright experts could select and implement a license agreement that was customized for their needs. While it did not wish to micromanage the Secretariat's work, it was unclear to the Delegation why WIPO would require 20,000 Swiss francs for staff travel for this project. Many IGOs were located in Geneva and in-person travel to visit those not located here may not be necessary in the digital age. It would be interested to hear from the Secretariat why that particular need was mentioned in the report. With regard to proposed activities 3 and 4, the Delegation could support actions by WIPO to increase the awareness of open source licensing as an important source of innovation, including through WIPO technical training. However, as the Delegation had previously noted, any treatment of the subject should be balanced and objective and present a spectrum of views, including discussing potential risks associated with the use of open source software by developing countries and LDCs. With respect to proposed activity 5, the Delegation would support, in principle, the suggestion that WIPO should provide additional information to Member States on how they might implement policies for access to public sector information. However, it highlighted DA recommendation 1 which stated that technical assistance should be demand driven or otherwise requested by Member States. The Delegation would strongly support such technical assistance to any interested Member State but would first seek assurances that demand exists for the targeted activity. Although the proposal contemplated the creation of a set of model provisions or policies, the Delegation suggested that WIPO work on an interactive basis with interested Member States to examine their options on a case by case basis. As noted by the Delegation of Brazil, it should be country specific. Substantive copyright issues, including the development of any normative model provisions, should be addressed at the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR). Furthermore, the three approaches to public sector information outlined in the underlying study were sufficiently detailed to provide WIPO and interested Member States with appropriate models for implementation at the national level. Convening a conference, as suggested in proposed activity 6, may be premature. In order to take full advantage of this type of conference, interested LDCs would need to be in a position to implement new provisions or policies on public sector information. Member States may be better served if the Secretariat were to provide country specific, demand driven assistance that was consultative and interactive.
329 The Delegation of Lithuania, speaking on behalf of the EU and its Member States, referred to activities 1 and 2. It seemed that WIPO would be required to create, collect and hold a substantial volume of information and enable the public, both professional and non-professional, to obtain easy access. It was not clear how the implementation of these activities and the application of open licenses to protected works would affect the rights of copyright holders. It was also unclear whether the project would be held on a voluntarily basis for Member States or what the next steps might be. In this regard, the EU and its Member States needed some further assurance before being able to endorse activities 1 and 2. With regard to activities 3 and 4, these could be further considered by WIPO as a means to enhance awareness and understanding of open source software through balanced and objective treatment of its advantages and disadvantages, including consequences of the use of open source software in relation to security issues and maintenance. With regard to activities 5 and 6, they noted that further consideration of the exact scope of activities and their future budgetary implications was required.
330 The Representative of Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) drew the committee's attention to an initiative that was jointly convened by UNESCO and WIPO in 1976, namely the Tunis Model Law on Copyright for Developing Countries. The Representative took note of the core objectives of the project. First, to gather information and explore the potential of the copyright system, its flexibilities and different models for managing copyright for enhancing access to knowledge. Second, to conduct an interdisciplinary evaluation of opportunities for WIPO, within its mandate, to engage in new activities that helped Member States achieve their development goals through enhancing access to knowledge. As part of the future implementation of this project, the Representative proposed that WIPO undertake a scoping study to ascertain the feasibility of producing an update of the Tunis model law adapted for the digital environment. The 1976 model law, drafted by experts at the behest of Member States of WIPO and UNESCO, sought to provide a Berne-consistent template for developing countries that could accommodate both common law and civil law traditions. It addressed some of the most important issues in copyright such as the protection of traditional cultural expressions, and limitations and exceptions to rights such as those in Section 7 on "fair use", Section 3 on works not protected, Section 10 on the limitation of the right of translation and proposed language on the treatment of domaine public payant in Section 17. It provided a foundation for the protection of authors' rights, including extensive provisions on licensing of works and enforcement of rights. Although the 1976 model law was useful, much had happened in the last 37 years and it seemed appropriate to consider an update of this soft law provision. In considering possible revisions, the Representative recommended that WIPO examine the areas where a model act would be particularly useful. For example, the implementation of copyright limitations and exceptions that addressed the special concerns of developing countries and which took into account new developments in international law, including the norms contained in the WTO TRIPS Agreement, the WIPO Internet treaties and the Beijing and Marrakech treaties. Among other topics, there would be an opportunity to draft model provisions that would address copyright limitations and exceptions for education and research, including institutions such as libraries and archives that support education and research; distance education delivered cross border; access to orphan copyrighted works; more timely exceptions for translation; and systems of liability rules to address a variety of concerns regarding access to cultural works consistent with addressing the legitimate interests of suppliers of knowledge and cultural works. In this regard, Article 44.2 of the TRIPS Agreement and the WTO TRIPS exception for LDCs provided possibilities for new ways of implementing copyright exceptions, including some of the approaches explored in the proposals for exceptions put forth by the African Group in the SCCR.
331 The Chair invited the Secretariat to respond to the comments from the floor.
332 The Secretariat (Ms. Woods) stated that although this particular set of projects could involve many different WIPO divisions, it would be presumably led by the Copyright Law Division which was tasked with overseeing the preparation of the study. The document expanded on the recommendations made by an outside expert in a study requested by the Committee. The Secretariat had attempted to provide further details on the potential projects and their potential costs. The Secretariat would take on board the interesting suggestions for expanding some of these projects even further. However, there would be a need to consider whether it was within the scope of the original instruction of the project as well as questions concerning the resources for taking on these projects. On the point made about providing model provisions versus specific legislative assistance, the Secretariat emphasized that its approach for many years had been to provide assistance to Member States on a country by country basis. Legislative advice would be provided to address specific requests by Member States. Some general work would be done on how the topics could be addressed within civil law and common law systems. Beyond that, any specific application would look at the specific circumstances of each Member State. The Secretariat routinely did this and would continue to do so. It sought the Committee’s guidance on whether there was consensus to move forward or if further work was required to develop any of the projects.
333 The Chair would like the Committee to think about activities where there could be a consensus in order to give clear guidance to the Secretariat on work to be done in the coming months.
334 The Delegation of Spain referred to proposed activities 1 and 2. The objective and scope of these activities should be clearer and more detailed. It was not clear whether they would contribute to balanced legislation and affect the balance in the copyright system.
335 The Secretariat believed the question concerned how the first two activities would affect the overall balance in the copyright system and how they should potentially be perceived by legislators. The overall goal of the project was to provide broader information on open access and open licensing. It was not really trying to make any decisions or to direct legislators as to how they would want to view such resources. In fact, many of these types of activities may not even be seen much at the legislative level, although activity 5 did contemplate the possibility of incorporating some aspects into legislation. However, the creation of a centralized database, looking at open licensing as an aspect of resources produced by international organizations and the possibility of using the Creative Commons license were really just about providing information on, or taking advantage of one option out of many in the system of using copyright. For instance, the use of the Creative Commons license within the copyright system was supposed to be a streamlined approach that was clear and understandable even to those persons who were not copyright experts. This was done in many different contexts. As mentioned in some comments, there was already some progress on this among IGOs. The idea was to provide easy access to information, for instance using it on websites. Similarly, the database would provide information on resources that were available. In general, these two activities would provide information and mechanisms for streamlining the availability of information on open access and licensing systems.
336 The Chair would like to know if there were activities where there was broad consensus among Member States as clear guidelines were required by the Secretariat. He invited the Secretariat to assist the Committee on the way forward.
337 The Secretariat observed that in some cases delegations were perhaps not ready to state whether they felt there was a consensus, and for others perhaps there were questions. The Secretariat could make a further effort to narrow down the proposals for the next meeting. On this occasion, it was asked to provide information on all the proposals. That was done. Perhaps at the next meeting, it could suggest some to start with and request for the Committee’s approval. Member States could then let the Secretariat know if they would like further action on other proposals.
338 The Delegation of Algeria noted that there seemed to be differences between the proposals made by Mr. Musungu (document CDIP/11/6) and the Secretariat, particularly in relation to activities 1 and 2. Thus, the Delegation agreed that some time should be given to delegations to examine the Secretariat’s document. Perhaps the Secretariat would like to revise it and provide further information, taking into account that there were sometimes significant differences with the activities proposed by Mr. Musungu.
339 The Chair closed the discussions on this item given that there were no further observations from the floor.
Consideration of document CDIP/12/INF/6 – Study on the Use of Utility Models in Thailand
340 The Secretariat (Mr. Fink) briefly introduced the Study on The Use of Utility Models (UMs) in Thailand. This was one of the country studies undertaken in the context of the Project on IP and Socio-Economic Development (document CDIP/5/7). UMs were often described as a form of IP that was particularly suitable to the innovation needs of low and middle income countries. However, evidence to support that policy recommendation was rather scant. Thus, the study tried to gather empirical evidence of the impact of UMs in Thailand. It was conducted in Thailand as UMs were introduced there in the late 1990s. It had more than 10 years of experience and data that could be analyzed for this purpose. That was also why the Thai Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) under the Ministry of Commerce expressed an interest in this activity.
341 The Secretariat (Mr. Raffo) reiterated that the study was requested by Thailand, in particular, the DIP. The study was undertaken in close cooperation with the DIP and the Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI). It was prepared by two consultants from the TDRI. UMs or petty patents as they were called in Thailand were a recent development in the country. The use of this form of IP differed among countries. The study was an opportunity to understand how and whether local users would use this instrument. The country study in Thailand had two main parts. The current study described the implementation and use of UMs in Thailand and explored the potential challenges faced by the Thai IP system in relation to this new policy instrument. It was based on IP data. The second study was more analytical and would be presented in the next CDIP session. It would examine the data in the context of the economic performance of the types of firms that were using UMs. Thus, it was important to keep in mind that the current study did not necessarily reflect the economic impact of UMs. The study focused on the following four questions - How had users received the new UM regime? Were UMs the best fit for Thai innovators? To what degree had UMs complemented other IP forms? What were important challenges for the development of Thailand's UM system? The study indicated that the introduction of UMs in Thailand was quite successful in terms of implementation and use. However, there were also some challenges for the IP office. UMs were rapidly adopted in Thailand. On average, annual growth was 25% since its introduction in 1999. Users were starting to use the IP instrument. Most of them were Thai residents. It could be argued that most were startups or SMEs although applications were mostly made by individuals. It was adopted across industries. It should be noted that most of the Thai users were using the IP system for the first time. This indicated UMs complemented other forms of IP. However, it was difficult to assess the quality of the inventions through IP data. One of the challenges for the IP office was a considerable increase in its backlog. Resource limitations accounted for a good part of the application backlog. This resulted in long pendency times. Thus, although the use of this IP instrument was quite successful in Thailand, there were some challenges for the IP office. As mentioned earlier, the impact of UMs on the economic performance of firms would be examined in a separate study to be presented at the next CDIP session.
342 The Delegation of the Republic of Korea stated that the study indicated UMs could serve as a useful instrument. These studies could show the importance of a national IP strategy based on a country’s social and economic conditions.
343 The Chair closed the discussions on the study given that there were no further observations from the floor.
Consideration of document CDIP/12/INF/4 - Study on Intellectual Property and Brain Drain – A Mapping Exercise, and document CDIP/12/INF/5 - Summary of a Workshop on “Intellectual Property, the International Mobility of Knowledge Workers and the Brain Drain”
344 The Secretariat (Mr. Fink) introduced the documents. The Secretariat stated that these were the concluding activities of the Project on Intellectual Property and Brain Drain. The mapping study described the mobility patterns of knowledge workers over the 1991-2010 period using information on inventor nationality and residence in Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) applications. The Secretariat believed it was an important empirical contribution to understanding, in a very narrow sense, the international mobility of inventors, and more broadly, the international mobility of high skilled professionals. The study described inventor mobility patterns around the world. Summaries were provided for different regions. The study also compared the data with other migration datasets. PCT data added value as it was detailed and collected on an annual basis. This was very useful, especially when compared with other datasets such as census data which was collected every 10 years. The inventor mobility data provided information on a relatively concrete category of high skilled workers compared to the broader categories of tertiary skilled workers found in migration databases. The empirical findings were summarized in the study. The database was available on WIPO's website. There was great interest in using the data for research on migration. That was an important contribution of the project. The Secretariat turned to document CDIP/12/INF/5, “Summary of a Workshop on Intellectual Property, the International Mobility of Knowledge Workers and the Brain Drain”. As outlined in the original project document, the purpose of the workshop was to bring together experts on the topic of skilled migration and the topic of IP to discuss the possible links between IP and brain drain. The academic participants were selected on the basis of their research. Efforts were made to achieve a regional balance in terms of the participants. International organizations with interest and expertise in matters of international migration were invited to the workshop. The program and list of participants were annexed to the document. The workshop was divided into three parts, namely, studying the international mobility of high-skilled workers: data availability, stylized facts and IP data for migration analysis; IP and the international mobility of skilled workers: a framework of analysis; and innovation, knowledge diffusion and the international mobility of knowledge workers. The discussions were summarized. The document reflected the opinions of the participants, which were not necessarily the Secretariat’s views on the topics discussed. The Secretariat highlighted some of the conclusions. There was wide consensus among workshop participants that an important “first-order” relationship between the IP regime of countries and their inflows/outflows of skilled people was unlikely. If any empirical relationship between the two emerged, it was probably governed by the level of development and employment opportunities of countries. Ascertaining a relationship was conceptually challenging as the IP regime of countries was at the level of institutions and the decision of an inventor or other high-skilled worker to emigrate was at the level of the individual. Despite the overall skepticism, IP may well play an indirect role in determining migration outcomes. There was quite a bit of interest, especially among the migration experts at the workshop, in the newly available PCT inventor migration database. Some experts expressed great interest in continuing with the work. Some participants recommended that WIPO engaged in research to disambiguate the likely cultural origin of inventors using their names and surnames, in order to characterize who were the inventors and their migratory background. In parallel, some participants highlighted the importance of conducting surveys of inventors. Survey evidence could help characterize inventors and their patenting practices, provide evidence on the reasons inventors migrated and a better understanding of how inventor migration affected home and host country innovation outcomes. Finally, surveying inventors directly could also help in understanding whether there was any relationship between IP protection and the international migration of this subclass of skilled workers. There were also a number of suggestions on the potential development role of high skilled migration and how that could be further explored. There was great interest in studying the behavior of firms and their hiring policies, and how that related to the migration decisions of inventors and migration flows in general. There was also a lot of interest in return migration and how it related to knowledge diffusion and innovation in the home countries of the migrants.
345 The Delegation of the United States of America believed the study contributed to the overall understanding of high skilled migration. The report noted that the new PCT-based database of inventor nationality and residency created for the study was able to meaningfully capture the phenomenon which was of growing importance, specifically, the migration of inventors. The Delegation believed that the new tool would be useful going forward. It encouraged the Office of the Chief Economist to continue engaging in research efforts on these issues, in particular, as they related specifically to innovation and IP. The Delegation referred to the summary of the workshop in April 2013. It was clear that this issue had only been lightly studied and that WIPO was adding value to the discussion through its implementation of the CDIP Project on IP and Brain Drain. The CDIP was contributing some value to this area by moving the project forward. The Delegation noted with interest that the workshop participants focused, in part, on the potential positive aspects of high skilled migration for the sending country. The summary noted that potential feedback channels can turn brain drain into a gain for the origin country, namely, through return migration with skills acquired abroad, human capital accumulation and diaspora supporting home country development. The Delegation agreed this was something that could potentially benefit from further analysis. In general, the Delegation was appreciative of the work done by the Chief Economist.
346 The Delegation of Algeria expressed some views on the study. Although the study was aimed at presenting a simple mapping exercise whereby PCT data was used to provide an overview of the migratory patterns of high skilled workers, there was an underlying assumption that the lack of strong IP rights in a country may encourage inventors to migrate to countries which provided for strong IP protection. Although this notion was not explicitly stated in the study, the migration of inventors from developing countries to predominantly developed countries with higher standards of IP protection may point wrongly to this conclusion. Immigration was a complex phenomenon. It was extremely difficult to attribute a particular factor to the brain drain phenomenon. For example, significant brain drain happened due to the migration of students to gain skills and technological knowledge in institutions in developed countries. The lack of IP protection did not seem to be a significant factor behind the brain drain. Conversely, the lack of such technological knowledge in their home countries was a significant factor behind the decision. The mapping exercise did not adequately consider the return of many members of the diaspora to establish industries in developing countries despite the lack of strong IP protection. Thus, this area could be further explored.
347 The Chair invited the Secretariat to respond to the comments.
348 The Secretariat referred to the comments made by the Delegation of Algeria and stated that the workshop tried to address the possible links between the IP regime and migration patterns. The result was fairly inconclusive. With regard to the mapping study, it was made clear in the initial discussion and the project document that this was a purely descriptive exercise. It was not intended to lead to any policy conclusions, especially with regard to the IP system. The Secretariat was concerned that the study gave the impression that was mentioned by the Delegation of Algeria. Perhaps the Delegation could identify some of the elements. It would be glad to meet with the Delegation to discuss them. The Secretariat reiterated that the intention was to conduct a mapping exercise and draw empirical patterns of migration behavior, and not point to any policy conclusions.
Consideration of document CDIP/12/5 - WIPO General Assembly Decision on CDIP related matters, and document CDIP/6/12 Rev. – Proposal for a CDIP New Agenda Item on Intellectual Property (IP) and Development
349 The Chair recalled that during the WIPO GA meeting, the issue of the implementation of the coordination mechanisms was discussed, in particular, the report by the relevant WIPO bodies and the inclusion of the third pillar of the CDIP's mandate in the Committee’s agenda. The GA's decision was reproduced in document CDIP/12/5. Document CDIP/6/12 Rev contained a Proposal for a CDIP New Agenda Item on IP and Development submitted by the Delegation of Brazil on behalf of DAG during the sixth session of the Committee. Due to a lack of agreement, the Committee had postponed a decision on the document. At its 11th session, the Committee agreed to continue the discussion at this session. By way of a communication dated November 18, 2013, addressed to the Secretariat, the Delegation of Egypt, on behalf of DAG, had submitted a Proposal for a CDIP New Agenda Item on IP and Development-Related Issues (document CDIP/12/11). An initial exchange of views had taken place on this issue in the informal consultations.
350 The Delegation of Brazil, speaking on behalf of DAG, introduced document CDIP/12/11. The document built on the discussions in the previous six sessions. It took into account the concerns raised by some delegations. The proposed new agenda item on IP and development related issues would implement the third pillar of the CDIP’s mandate. Some issues were proposed for discussion under the agenda item. First, a report on the discussions at the WIPO Seminar Series on the Economics of IP. The seminars addressed several issues that could be of relevance to the discussion on IP and development. For example, there was a presentation the previous month on “the Impact of TRIPS on Patenting in Latin America: the Different Performance of Residents and Non Residents”. Second, the matter of innovative technical cooperation and capacity building in IP. Member States would be invited to present their national experiences on bilateral cooperation for discussion. Third, WIPO’s contribution to the UN MDGs. Fourth, information on present and future work under the IP and Global Challenges Program (Program 18 of the 2014/2015 Program and Budget). According to the draft Program and Budget for 2014/2015, Program 18 “addresses innovation and IP at the nexus of interconnected global issues, in particular Global Health, Climate Change and Food Security”. Thus, Member States would benefit from information provided on the activities developed by the Secretariat under this program. Fifth, preparation for conferences and/or seminars on IP and development. Other issues may also be included for future work under the new agenda item, subject to approval by Member States in the previous session. The Group had waited two years for a decision on the implementation of the third pillar of the CDIP’s mandate. This subject was of utmost importance for developing countries. Sharing experiences and discussing the links between IP and development were the only ways to achieve good outcomes and shared solutions for common challenges for development.
351 The Delegation of Algeria, speaking on behalf of the African Group, welcomed the GA’s decision which requested the CDIP to discuss these issues and make recommendations to the GA in 2014. The discussion was on two matters. The first dealt with the third pillar of the CDIP’s mandate, as mentioned by the Delegation of Brazil on behalf of DAG. The Group supported all the elements of the proposal and would like the Committee to adopt the proposed new agenda item. The second segment of the GA decision required the Committee to discuss the Coordination Mechanism. Consensus was not reached on two points. The first was on the list of committees that should be part of the Coordination Mechanism. To date, the PBC and the CWS did not report on their contributions to the implementation of the respective DA recommendations. The Group would like all WIPO committees to be part of the Coordination Mechanism. The second point was on the reports submitted by committees on their contributions to the implementation of the respective DA recommendations. Thus far, the reports were compilations of statements made by Member States. The Group would like the committees and the Secretariat to prepare substantive analytical reports on the contribution of each committee to the implementation of the DA. Simple compilations of comments by Member States did not fully reflect the decision by the GA. The Group would like a final decision to be taken. All WIPO committees must report on their contributions. The reports should be substantial and analytical.
352 The Delegation of Japan, speaking on behalf of Group B, appreciated the efforts to address its concerns. However, as the proposal was only introduced and made available in written form one or two days before, there was not enough time to examine the proposal in detail. Nevertheless, the Group made some preliminary comments on the proposal in a constructive spirit in order for the discussion at the next session to be more fruitful, keeping in mind that the GA decision requested the CDIP to report to the GA in 2014 and the Committee had one more session before then. The Group remained convinced that the overall role of the Committee was to discuss specific issues on IP and development. Therefore, specific and concrete issues on IP and development could be discussed without the establishment of a new agenda item which covered the role of the Committee as a whole. That was what the Committee had done thus far and should continue to do. Two of the four suggested sub-items under the proposed general agenda item on IP and development-related issues had already been dealt with. The Committee had intensively discussed the preparations for the conference and all seminars on IP and development as well as WIPO's contribution to the UN MDGs without the establishment of a new agenda item. The mandate given by the GA decision in 2007 could be achieved through discussion, as was done on those issues, and not through the establishment of a new agenda item. With regard to sub-item 3, namely, information on present and future work under the IP and Global Challenges Program (Program 18 of the 2014/2015 Program and Budget), the Group stated that its position was clear. It was satisfied with the current briefing method for Program 18 and saw no need to establish a new agenda item for that purpose. The Group saw no need to add an item on the agenda with exactly the same general title which would only be repetitive of the core role and objectives of the Committee. The Group reiterated its commitment to continue to fully implement the mandate of the Committee by reflecting and further discussing specific individual issues in respect of IP and development. With regard to the Coordination Mechanisms and Monitoring, Assessing, and Reporting Modalities, the Group continued to believe that these were applicable to the relevant WIPO bodies, and not all WIPO bodies. That was crystal clear from the language. Relevancy was decided by each body by itself.
353 The Delegation of South Africa aligned itself with the statement made by Brazil on behalf of DAG. The Delegation supported the revamped proposal by DAG for a new CDIP agenda item to deal with the third pillar of the CDIP’s mandate. The proposal was there since the sixth session. In the last session, it was agreed that other Member States could also contribute to the proposal. Since then, the DAG decided to revamp its proposal and to come up with new ideas on how the Committee could move forward with the discussion. The Delegation supported the idea.
354 The Delegation of Lithuania, speaking on behalf of the EU and its Member States, took note of the WIPO GA decision on CDIP related matters. The CDIP had made great progress in implementing the DA recommendations, as highlighted several times by the Director General. By definition, the core objective of the CDIP was to discuss IP and development. The Committee had been successful in doing this. In this regard, the Committee fully delivered on its mandate. Therefore, they saw no purpose in adding an item on the agenda with the precise same objective and which would only repeat the main title of the Committee. Having said that, the EU and its Member States emphasized that they were always open to discuss specific agenda items related to individual issues in respect of IP and development. With regard to the Coordination Mechanism, much time had been spent by the CDIP and other bodies in discussing the implementation of this mechanism. They noted that there were different interpretations of the meaning of the term “relevant WIPO bodies”, and reiterated their position that the WIPO bodies should themselves determine whether they were relevant for the purpose of the Coordination Mechanism. A protracted discussion on this topic would take time away from more concrete and meaningful discussions on CDIP projects.
355 The Delegation of the Czech Republic, speaking on behalf of CEBS, reiterated its position on the creation of a new standing agenda item on IP and development. It maintained the view that the primary role of the Committee was to discuss IP and development related issues. The addition of the new agenda item would not only repeat the title of the Committee but would also suggest that the CDIP existed to discuss issues other than IP and development. Nevertheless, the Group stood ready to discuss any issues covered by the Committee’s mandate. On the issue of the Coordination Mechanism, the Group noted that the Committee had been discussing it extensively for over three years. It shared the opinion of other delegations and groups that the coordination mechanism was correctly implemented and there was no need for the issue to be repeatedly taken up by the Committee. It was high time for the discussions to be concluded and to focus on substantive work. The Group continued to support the position that the committees themselves should determine whether or not they were relevant for the purposes of reporting on DA recommendations. The list of relevant bodies should only include committees which dealt with substantive IP issues, namely, ACE, SCT, SCP, SCCR and IGC. Committees such as the PBC, Coordination Committee and the CWS should not be included in the list as their work was either related to the running of the organization itself or its mandate only covered technical issues and not IP as such.
356 The Delegation of Bangladesh, speaking on behalf of the Asia Pacific Group, stated that the CDIP was a permanent committee mandated by the GA to discuss issues related to IP and development. Thus, it was concerned at the lack of proper implementation of all three pillars of the CDIP’s mandate. The Group referred to the principles and beliefs that led Member States to come up with the idea of the DA in 2007. They believed that IP and innovation were beneficial as tools for enhancing economic growth and social development, taking into account the specific needs and situation of a country. Its members would like the establishment of a regular opportunity to discuss the issue of IP and development at the CDIP on general terms, in addition to the existing focus on project and recommendation based discussion. The Coordination Mechanism was unanimously agreed to by all Member States to enhance coordination among different WIPO committees in the field of development activities. In this context, the Group reiterated that the decision on the Coordination Mechanism was not yet settled with respect to the PBC and the CWS which were very important committees for the realization of DA goals. The Group’s members were individually ready to actively engage in the discussion on this issue in future.
357 The Delegation of Trinidad and Tobago, speaking on behalf of GRULAC, stated that the implementation of the third pillar of the 2007 GA decision was of utmost importance to developing countries. So far, the DA recommendations provided the only framework to discuss and decide on IP and development issues. Nonetheless, new issues, debates and ideas on the relation between IP and development should also be taken into account. On this point, the Group stated that it was time to take stock of the concerns raised in the past six CDIP sessions and urged Member States to adopt a decision in this regard. The IP and development debate could be kept on the agenda on an ad-hoc basis for further discussion at the next CDIP session.
358 The Delegation of Germany supported the statements made by the delegations of Japan and Lithuania. The inclusion of a general agenda item on development and IP would not add any meaningful value. The mandate of the CDIP stated that the Committee was to discuss development and IP related issues. That was what it was doing, for example, when it discussed the international conference. The Coordination Mechanism was implemented. The mandate stated that coordination should only take place with respect to relevant bodies. This clearly implied a restriction to those bodies that substantially dealt with IP issues. Thus, the PBC and the CWS were excluded.
359 The Delegation of the Islamic Republic of Iran stated that in 2007, the WIPO GA adopted forty-five DA recommendations and established a dedicated committee, namely, the CDIP, to implement those recommendations. The GA decision gave the CDIP a mandate with three elements. As agreed, discussing IP and development-related issues was part of the committee's mandate. The Delegation raised its concerns with regard to the Coordination Mechanism. Member States had yet to come up with a resolution on the bodies that should form part of the Coordination Mechanism. The recommendations of the DA should be an integral part of the work of the CWS and the PBC. The Coordination Mechanism was important for mainstreaming the DA into all WIPO bodies. The absence of the CWS and the PBC raised serious concerns. The Delegation hoped that a solution would be found as soon as possible. Two of the three elements of the mandate given by the GA were reflected in the Committee's agenda, namely, develop a work-program for implementing the 45 adopted DA recommendations; and monitor, assess, discuss and report on the implementation of all recommendations adopted. The implementation of the third pillar of the CDIP’s mandate should be fulfilled by undertaking a clear debate on IP and development. According to its mandate, the Committee should make recommendations to the GA. It would not be able to make recommendations to the GA in the area of development-oriented norm-setting without discussions on IP and development. It was time for the Committee to engage in discussions on the objective of its creation and its future. The CDIP should assess the tangible benefits of its creation for developing countries and explore whether the Committee and its work had met the expectations of developing countries. In 2010, DAG submitted a written proposal (document CDIP/6/12 Rev) for a new CDIP standing agenda item on IP and development related issues. The Delegation strongly supported the proposal by DAG for implementing the third pillar of the GA decision in 2007.
360 The Delegation of Brazil, speaking on behalf of DAG, thought the new proposal would satisfy the concerns raised in the other sessions. Some delegations questioned the value of the proposed new agenda item. Thus, a way forward could be to include this item on an ad-hoc basis in the agenda for the next CDIP session. The Committee would then be able to make an informed decision on whether or not to include it as a permanent item on the agenda. The Committee had discussed this topic for a long time and should be able to make a decision.
361 The Delegation of Japan, speaking on behalf of Group B, could not be convinced of the proposal for the agenda item to be included on an ad-hoc basis in order for the Committee to make an informed decision. This was because it would not provide a logical answer to the concern which was mentioned in its previous intervention. Thus, the Group could not live with that solution at this moment.
362 The Chair invited the Delegation of Brazil to respond to the statement by the Delegation of Japan.
363 The Delegation of Brazil, speaking on behalf of DAG, stated that it tried its best to understand why this item was not acceptable. Some developed countries did not see any need to further discuss development and IP. However, it was a pressing need for developing countries. The Member States had agreed on that when they decided on the mandate of the Committee. The proposal added value. For example, when the Committee discussed the WIPO seminar series, the discussion that was already taking place would be brought to the knowledge of Member States and they would be able to participate in the debate. This matter had been discussed for a long time. A decision was needed. To show flexibility, perhaps the Committee could go along with the proposal by the Delegation of Trinidad and Tobago for the IP and development debate to be included as an item, not a permanent item, but as an item in the agenda of the next CDIP session. The Committee could then make an informed decision in that session as to whether the new agenda item added value to its work.
364 The Delegation of Japan, speaking on behalf of Group B, reiterated its commitment to continue to fully implement the mandate of the Committee by reflecting and further discussing specific individual issues in respect of IP and development. The Group reiterated that the Committee had actually discussed two of the four items listed in the proposal at this session. Thus, the Group could make an informed decision. The session dealt with two individual issues without the general agenda item proposed by DAG. Thus, individual items could be discussed without the general agenda item. This was enough for the Group to make an informed decision. In order for it to be convinced of the need for a general agenda item to accommodate each sub-agenda item, logic was required to justify the necessity for that general agenda item. The Committee had discussed individual items at this session without the need for such an agenda item.
365 The Delegation of Switzerland referred to the new proposal by DAG and stated that the basic problem which existed at the beginning continued to persist. The Delegation reiterated that it was not against implementing the third element of the CDIP’s mandate. The Committee had already done so and was continuing to do so. It would suffice for delegations to propose specific subjects and items which could be taken up by the Committee. If a general agenda item was included, even if it was done only once just to see how it worked, the Committee would not know what was within. It would still be in the original situation. Delegations could prepare specific proposals for specific subjects. If there was agreement, the Committee would deal with them. There was no point in having an agenda item with a general title. Delegations did not know what would be done under that title. They would just continue to discuss the general title. That would not be an efficient and effective way to work. The Committee already had a great deal of work.
366 The Chair invited the Secretariat to read out a draft decision paragraph on this item, given that there were no further observations from the floor.
367 The Secretariat (Mr. Baloch) read out the following, “The Committee discussed document CDIP/12/5 and CDIP/6/12 Rev. Divergent views were expressed by the various delegations. As mandated by the Assembly, the Committee decided to continue discussion on this issue at CDIP/13.”
368 The Delegation of Brazil, speaking on behalf of DAG, sought clarification on whether the draft decision paragraph covered both issues, i.e. the coordination mechanism and the third pillar of the CDIP’s mandate.
369 The Chair stated that it was on both because the last part of the mandate by the GA stated the following, “requests the CDIP to discuss these two matters during its Twelfth and Thirteenth Sessions, report back and make recommendations on the two matters to the General Assembly in 2014”.
370 The Delegation of Brazil, speaking on behalf of DAG, found it really frustrating that after six sessions of trying to improve the discussion on IP and development, some delegations still believed that it did not deserve a rightful place. The Group had a proposal on the table. Some views were expressed on a few of the items. However, one of the items was not opposed. It could not see why the new item could not be included in the agenda for the next session. As mentioned by many delegations, the Committee had already started discussions on the MDGs and the international conference. Discussions on these items would continue in the next session. It did not understand why the Committee could not discuss these subjects under the new agenda item. The Group took note of the comments made on Program 18. The proposal did not involve the creation of a new reporting scheme. It merely requested information from the Secretariat. According to the draft Program and Budget for 2014/2015, the IP and Global Challenges Program “addresses innovation and IP at the nexus of interconnected global issues, in particular Global Health, Climate Change and Food Security. The focus on this intersection is guided largely by Member States as noted, inter alia, in the DA. These three subject areas have been chosen because developing countries face particularly acute challenges in these domains and because solutions from innovation-driven initiatives are feasible.” The Group could not see why these items and inputs from the WIPO Seminar Series on the Economics of IP could not be discussed at least once under the proposed new agenda Item. The experience would allow Member States to make an informed decision.
371 The Delegation of the United Kingdom believed that the draft decision paragraph was a fair summary of the situation. In light of the divergent views and the need to move forward in this session, the Delegation could go along with it.
372 The Delegation of Algeria, speaking on behalf of the African Group, shared the disappointment and frustration expressed by DAG. The Group proposed that the draft decision paragraph be amended to include a reference to the GA decision. In this context, the last sentence could be amended to read as follows, “In accordance with the decision taken by the GA in 2013 on CDIP related matters, the Committee will continue the discussion on these issues with a view to finalize the discussion on these matters”.
373 The Delegation of the United States of America referred to the intervention by the Delegation of Algeria. The GA decision stated that the CDIP should report back and make recommendations. It did not state that the Committee would finalize the discussion. The Delegation was happy with the actual GA language. Thus, the decision paragraph could state the following, “with a view to report back and make recommendations on the two matters to the General Assembly in 2014”. This was in accordance with the language in the GA decision.
374 The Chair stated that the draft decision paragraph would be revised to take into account the views that were expressed. He adjourned the meeting and informed delegations that the drafting committee would engage in informal discussions from 6pm to 9pm. Although some ground was covered, he felt that the pace was painstakingly slow, with delegations wanting to see their language reflected. If they continued on that path, not much progress would be achieved. Thus, he invited delegations to engage constructively in the drafting group. The main objective was to achieve consensus on the TOR.
|
