Review Of WIPO Programmes, Staff: Lisbon Agreement, Global Challenges, Geographic Diversity

The World Intellectual Property Organization Program and Budget Committee is meeting this week to scrutinise the UN agency’s inner workings. At the meeting, the director general’s report on programme performance gave member countries the occasion to comment on WIPO’s various programmes. They also reviewed the annual human resources report. [Note: article corrected]

The 22nd session of the WIPO Program and Budget Committee (PBC) is taking place from 1-5 September. Discussions were on the Program Performance Report for 2012/2013 (PPR).

The PPR is a report provided by the secretariat detailing the performance of its different programmes. The report for 2012/2013 presents the status of progress of WIPO committees based on nine strategic goals such as: the “balanced evolution” of the international normative framework for IP, the provision of “Premier Global IP Services,” the facilitation of the use of IP for development, and the coordination and development of the global IP infrastructure.

[Editor’s Note: this paragraph contains several corrections. The “summary of achievements” of the PPR (page 2) shows diverse levels of achievement on these strategic goals. IP-Watch said that Strategic goal 4 (Coordination and Development of Global IP Infrastructure) was shown as fully achieved, but it was not. Strategic goal 6 (International Cooperation on Building Respect for IP) was fully achieved. Also, IP-Watch mistated strategic goal 5 as International Cooperation on Building Respect of IP, over 80 percent achieved. In fact, strategic goal 5 is World Reference Source for IP Information and Analysis, and was over 80 percent not assessable, and 20 percent achieved. Finally, it stated that strategic goal 9 (Efficient Administrative and Financial Support Structure to enable WIPO to Deliver its Programmes) was less than 60 percent achieved. Strategic goal 9 was less than 60 percent fully achieved, and over 70 percent partially or fully achieved.]

Internal Audit Report

The PPR is audited and commented on by the Internal Audit and Oversight Division (IAOD) in a “validation report” [pdf]. The IAOD identified some strengths, such as that 81 percent of programmes collected and submitted relevant and valuable performance data versus only 24 percent in the preceding biennium.

The IAOD also noted some limitations, in particular that 29 percent of WIPO programmes “face challenges in gathering, analysing and reporting sufficient and comprehensive data in support of performance indicators.” And the IAOD remarked that some “32 percent of the selected performance indicators need to be more refined to provide relevant outcome/impact based results.”

The validation report provides a set of recommendations, among which is the enhancement of monitoring systems to “ensure that performance data are effectively and efficiently collected, analysed and reported for program performance measurement.”

The IAOD also recommends “the presentation of the approved budget and transfers by program in the programme and budget to improve transparency by providing information on funds transferred into and out of Programs during the biennium.”

Member State Comments

The secretariat was praised for progress achieved in the programmes and in their reporting. But several programmes, such as those pertaining to a potential amendment to the Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin and their International Registration (Lisbon Agreement), the programme on Intellectual Property and Global Challenges, and the programme on Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises were pointed out by delegates for particular issues or questions.

For example, on Program 2 (Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications), Germany remarked that the PPR labelled as “partially achieved” the convening of the final negotiation meeting (diplomatic conference) for the adoption of an international treaty on the law of industrial designs. No agreement has been yet reached on the convening of such conference (IPW, WIPO, 10 May 2014).

Germany, still in favour of holding a diplomatic conference, suggested to “freeze” negotiations on the treaty in the Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications (SCT). The delegate said the substance of the proposed treaty has been “watered down to the point where it is not clear whether we are aiming for a treaty or a set of recommendations.”

On Program 8 (Development Agenda Coordination), Brazil said progress had been made in some projects and initiatives but the full implementation of the Coordination Mechanisms and Monitoring, Assessing and Reporting Modalities (Coordination Mechanism) to the Development Agenda had not been achieved. Brazil also said that the third pillar of the Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP) still had not been implemented. This referred to the resistance of developed countries in the CDIP to having an agenda item on IP and development (IPW, WIPO, 21 November 2013).

Lisbon Agreement Amendment

The question of a potential amendment of the Lisbon Agreement to include geographical indications (GIs), in addition to appellations of origin. Under Program 6 of the PPR (Madrid and Lisbon Systems) the amendment was discussed at length. Madrid refers to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks, and the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement.

In particular, the United States asked that the reporting on the Lisbon and Madrid systems not be described together in the PPR as it makes it difficult to analyse the data. The US also had concerns about the lack of financial sustainability of the Lisbon System and said convening a diplomatic conference, which was decided by the Lisbon Union Assembly, would be “spending resources of other unions.” A diplomatic conference is a final treaty negotiation.

Australia, like the US not a member of the Lisbon Agreement, suggested that observers (which they are) should have equal rights with members, and all issues should be on the table.

France and Hungary, both members of the Lisbon Agreement, had concerns with splitting the reporting on the Madrid and Lisbon systems and remarked that both systems were tied together in the approved budget.

As a result, the draft decision was edited to say that the committee should “continue its efforts to enhance its implementation of results based management, in particular its performance data, results frameworks, performance assessment, monitoring tools and related reporting, based on the suggestions made by Member States concerning the 2012/13 PPR, and take those duly into account, where relevant, in the next PPR cycle and the 2016/17 Program and Budget.”

Technology Transfer Offices

On Program 30 (Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs) and Innovation), Algeria remarked on the opening of technology transfer offices (TTOs). Algeria said that in the Arab region five projects were planned. However, activities had been launched in just one country with no office set up yet so she asked how WIPO assessed the performance indicator on the opening of technology transfer offices to find that it was fully achieved.

The secretariat said WIPO is not in charge of establishing TTOs, but facilitating and advising institutions upon the setting up of TTOs. The performance data indicates that WIPO helped institution and universities in several developing countries open TTOs, such as in Chile, Georgia, Morocco, the Philippines and Ghana. An action plan was adopted for the implementation of a TTO in Tunisia, the PPR says. WIPO is still working on Arab countries, the secretariat said.

IP and Global Challenges

On Program 18 (IP and Global Challenges), Brazil remarked that the Global Challenge division should regularly report to the CDIP. After lengthy discussions on the reporting of this WIPO division and the insistence of developing countries that it report to the CDIP, the division reported for the first time this year to the committee (IPW, WIPO, 14 May 2014).

Issues that are being dealt with in the division (global health, climate change and food security) are the primary focus of other international fora and it is important not to duplicate their work, the Brazilian delegate said.

Human Resources: Geographical Diversity, Staff Costs

Geographical diversity among WIPO staff is a long-standing issue in the discussions of the PBC. The Report on Human Resources [pdf] was presented on 2 September to the member states.

Paraguay on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean (GRULAC) countries, as well as several developing countries, made comments about the geographical diversity in WIPO. Paraguay said GRULAC only represented 7 percent of professional and higher categories of workers in WIPO, and that a new policy on geographical diversity should be adopted.

The report shows that 93 among 608 workers in the professional and higher category at WIPO come from the Asia and Pacific region, 38 from Eastern and Central Europe and Central Asia, 12 from the Middle East, 44 from Latin America and the Caribbean, 56 from North America, 300 from Western Europe, and 65 from Africa.

Some 69 countries are not represented, according to the secretariat, such as Angola, Congo, Dominican Republic, Namibia, Panama, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Vietnam.

The secretariat remarked on the challenges experienced in its effort to reduce the geographical imbalance. These were, in particular, the low turnover in WIPO staff and the fact that WIPO has regularised a number of long-serving short term employees under a programme approved by the PBC. However, only a small number of cases were left to be taken care of under that programme.

The secretariat said an outreach event for unrepresented member states would be held at the General Assembly at the end of the month.

Some developed countries said that the choice of candidates should remained based on qualification.

The WIPO secretariat with sadness announced that Avard Bishop, WIPO chief ethics officer, had passed away in July, and that Sergio Balibrea, current director of the Assemblies Affairs and Documentation Division, had been appointed chief ethics officer ad interim while the position was being advertised.