WIPO Members Working Out Response To Independent Review of Development Agenda

The first review of the implementation of the 2007 Development Agenda Recommendations aimed at infusing a development dimension into the World Intellectual Property Organization found that this implementation had been mostly consistent with the expectations of member states, but the review provided a list of suggestions to fill additional gaps. In committee this week, some countries asked that the WIPO secretariat prepare a response on how it plans to implement the recommendations provided by the experts conducting the review, but this is yet to be agreed.

The 18^th session of the WIPO Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP) is taking place from 31 October to 4 November.

The Independent Review [pdf] of the Implementation of the Development Agenda Recommendations was conducted by three experts: V.K. Gupta, Pedro Roffe, and Gift Huggins Sibanda (IPW, WIPO, 23 August 2016).

Gupta presented the methodology and findings of the review, and the recommendations of the review team to the CDIP on 1 November. The review looks at the implementation from 2008 until April 2015.

According to the review, the review team examined: the manner and extend under which the recommendations have been implemented and the extent to which they have been mainstreamed into WIPO’s regular activities; the work of different WIPO bodies, particularly the CDIP; the use of human and financial resources in the implementation of the Development Agenda and the sustainability of the different projects and activities adopted by the CDIP.

The team found that the implementation of the DARs has largely been consistent with the expectations of member states, stakeholders and other intended beneficiaries. It also found that the project-based approach has been a creative approach to meet expectations of member states in comparison with the earlier activity-based approach.

The review team also found that the CDIP has been playing a central role in implementing and monitoring the recommendations with the efficient support of the secretariat, in particular the WIPO Development Agenda Coordination Division (DACD). But it found that existing reporting mechanisms lack specificity, particularly with respect to actual utilisation of personnel costs.

Gupta said that the excellent progress made in the CDIP needs to be consolidated by introducing a higher level debate to address emerging needs and emerging issues, such as new technologies.

Review Team 12 Recommendations

The review team provided a number of findings (15) and a list of 12 recommendations for consideration by the CDIP this week. The recommendations are reproduced below:

“Recommendation 1: The good progress made in the CDIP needs to be consolidated by introducing a higher level debate to address emerging needs and to discuss the work of the Organization on new emerging issues related to IPRs. The Committee should also facilitate an exchange of strategies and best practices from Member States on their experiences addressing IP and development concerns.

Recommendation 2: Member States should take measures to resolve the outstanding issues related to the mandate of the Committee and the implementation of the Coordination Mechanism.

Recommendation 3: WIPO should continue to ensure an effective coordination, monitoring, reporting, evaluation and mainstreaming of the implementation of the DARs. The role of the DACD [Development Agenda Coordination Division] in coordinating the DA implementation should be strengthened.

Recommendation 4: The CDIP, in implementing the DARs, should consider how best to respond to evolving circumstances and to the emerging development challenges being faced by the IP system. This should be combined with an active involvement with other UN development agencies to benefit from their expertise for the DARs implementation and in advancing the implementation of the SDGs.

Recommendation 5: WIPO should consider linking DARs to Expected Results contained in the Program and Budget, wherever it is possible. Expected Results may be modified or new Expected Results may be introduced so as to ensure the integration of DARs into WIPO’s work more effectively and in a sustained manner.

Recommendation 6: Member States are encouraged to enhance coordination between Geneva-based Missions and their IP offices and other authorities in capital in order to have a coordinated approach in dealing with the CDIP and raising awareness about the benefits of the DA. Higher level participation of national based experts should be enhanced in the work of the Committee. CDIP should consider modalities related to the reporting on what has been done at the national level towards the implementation of the DARs.

Recommendation 7: Member States are encouraged, in light with their national needs, to formulate new project proposals for the consideration of the CDIP. They should consider the establishment of a reporting mechanism on the lessons learned and best practices from successfully implemented DA projects and activities. This reporting mechanism should include a periodical review of the sustainability of completed and/or mainstreamed projects, as well as the impact of these projects on the beneficiaries. WIPO should establish a database of the lessons learned and best practices identified in the course of DA projects implementation.

Recommendation 8: Future work related to the development of new projects should be modular and customizable and should consider the absorption capacity and the level of expertise of the beneficiaries. In the implementation of projects at the national level, WIPO should explore close partnerships with UN agencies and other entities to enhance the effectiveness, comprehensiveness and sustainability.

Recommendation 9: WIPO should pay more attention to recruiting experts that are very well versed and knowledgeable about the socio-economic conditions of the recipient countries. Beneficiary countries should ensure a high degree of internal coordination amongst its various organs in order to facilitate the implementation and long-term sustainability of a project.

Recommendation 10: The Secretariat’s Progress Reports submitted to the CDIP should include detailed information about the utilization of financial and human resources related to the DA projects. Simultaneous assignment of the same project manager to multiple projects should be avoided.

Recommendation 11: A mechanism should be put in place to report on the agreed recommendations contained in the evaluation reports and on the mainstreamed outcomes of the DA projects. Mainstreaming process should be aligned to the approved Expected Results.

Recommendation 12: Member States and the Secretariat should consider ways and means to better disseminate information about the DA and its implementation.”

No Agreement on Periodic Review, WIPO Response

Member states provided comments on the review on 1 November and some of them, such as China, Brazil, the African Group and Iran, underlined the recommendations that they think are the most relevant.

Brazil remarked that no recommendation of the Development Agenda would be exhausted by the “mere completion of a project, activity, or study.” The Brazilian delegate said the Development Agenda it a process “for bringing the focus of intellectual property rights to its contribution to the development of countries.”

Several developing countries suggested that from now on there be a periodic review of the implementation of the Development Agenda Recommendations. Some countries also suggested that WIPO elaborate a document detailing how the secretariat could address the recommendations of the review. No decision was made on the periodic review, and informal consultations are expected to be organised to decide on the WIPO response.

A number of delegations asked that WIPO come back with comments on the 12 recommendations at the next session of the CDIP.

Group B developed countries noted that some review recommendations are directed to WIPO, some are directed to the CDIP, some are directed to member states, and some are addressed to more than one entity. Many recommendations are practical in nature, such as encouraging member states to propose new projects, while others raise concern about practicability and implementation, the Turkish delegate on behalf of Group B added.

Some countries, such as Group B, asked that WIPO come back to the CDIP (after this session) after having considered the recommendations. Some others, such as the African Group and India, suggested that WIPO provide a response on the recommendations with an explanation of how it will implement them.

But the committee could not decide on the action to take on the report. The Group of Central European and Baltic States said they needed to consult before coming to a decision beyond noting the report, and the African Group said they could not agree on noting the report without the request for an answer from WIPO in the decision.

CDIP Chair Amb. Luis Enrique Chávez Basagoitia of Peru suggested that countries who wish to do so could send specific written proposals on the review team recommendations they wish to be implemented.

If no consensus is reached, the document would be left for further consideration of the next session of the CDIP.

The discussion has been suspended until later in the week, after the chair conducts informal consultations on the issue.