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 SecretaryGeneral 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 selfassessment. 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 post2015 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.