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 20112012 and then the 20122013 RBM results. Thus, maybe the appropriate place would be looking at the 20132014 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 20122013 to 38 in 20142015. 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 20142015 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.