|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on Intellectual Property Issues (Nov11/06) Dear Colleagues, Please find below a second article on the External Review of WIPO's Technical Assistance. Last week, we sent around a summary of the key comments made by the External Review on the orientation, management, coordination and cost efficiency of WIPO technical assistance. The report below is a follow up piece. It highlights some of the key recommendations made by the External Review on the orientation, management, coordination of WIPO's technical assistance. Further the report below summarizes the key findings of the External Review following its assessment of the 6 pillars of WIPO technical assistance activities:(i) IPstrategies and plans; (ii) legislative and regulatory assistance in developing countries; (iii) building of modern state-of-the-art national IP administrative infrastructure; (iv) support-systems for users of the intellectual property system in developing countries; (v) training and human capacity building in developing countries; (vi) promotion of innovation and creativity, and access to knowledge and technologies in developing countries. We hope you find it useful. Warm Regards WIPO: Expert Review Calls For Technical Assistance Reforms, Further Investigation Geneva (Sangeeta Shashikant): An independent assessment of WIPO technical assistance activities has resulted in a series of recommendations, essentially calling for a reform of WIPO technical assistance activities, and further scrutiny of certain areas of WIPO technical assistance. The external review mandated by WIPO Member states provides a rare insight into the range and scope of WIPO technical assistance (TA) activities between 2008 and 2010, and presents an evaluation of such activities including from a development perspective. On the orientation, management and coordination of TA activities, the Review found significant critical shortcomings and deficiencies. Notably, it found WIPO staff and the activities lacked a development orientation, including a clear understanding of the overall purposes of WIPOdevelopment cooperation activities. The Review also highlighted the lack of detailed information, transparency and appropriate accountability (monitoring, evaluation and oversight) mechanisms over those technical assistance activities. [For a more detailed summary of the analysis on the orientation, management and coordination of TA activities, see SUNS 7259] These findings are also supported by the External Review assessment of the 6 pillars of WIPO technical assistance activities: (i) IP strategies and plans; (ii) legislative and regulatory assistance in developing countries; (iii) building of modern state-of-the-art national IP administrative infrastructure; (iv) support-systems for users of the intellectual property system in developing countries; (v) training and human capacity building in developing countries; (vi) promotion of innovation and creativity, and access to knowledge and technologies in developing countries. [The assessment draws on interviews with WIPO staff, responses to the survey of beneficiary countries, six country visits, and a range of other specific sources] In each of these areas, the External Review observed a number of weaknesses, limitations and gaps. A snapshot of the Review observations on each of the pillars is provided below. To addresses the various shortcomings, the Review also makes numerous recommendations. Some of the key broad recommendations on orientation, management, impact, coordination are listed below. [Note: Specific recommendations made with regard to the 6 pillars of WIPO work mentioned above is not addressed by this paper]. SOME KEY RECOMMENDATIONS Improving Development Orientation of WIPO technical assistance activities The Review made a number of recommendations aimed at improving the development orientation of WIPOTA activities. This includes: (1) Improve efforts to better tailor TA activities to meet national development objectives and circumstances adding that a development-oriented approach must consistently integrate and acknowledge the importance of the social and economic context, national development goals and priorities, and the broader regulatory and institutional environment of the country. (2) Devise development guidelines providing more detail on how to plan and implement more development oriented assistance both in terms of substance and process based on the DA principles. (3) Refine and reorient WIPO strategic goals, outcomes and outcome indicators in the Mid Term Strategic Plan to reflect a comprehensive conception of development orientation in particular the objectives of reducing the knowledge gap, and reducing the costs of participation of developing countries in the IP system. (4) Devise clearer objectives and priorities for the TA activities, and criteria for determining what activities fall within those priorities. To enable this, the Review calls for more transparency in WIPO internal processes for the prioritization of activities and the allocation of the regular funds. The Review calls for greater attention to integrating and streamlining development goals and priorities across WIPO activities with priorities informed by and aligned with country needs and priorities. (5) Activities supported by Funds-in-Trust (FITs) and associated resources be reflected in WIPO regular budget, programming and reporting processes and aligned with the development goals and priorities. Towards this end the Review calls for greater MS oversight of the content of FITs work plans and their evaluation. (6) Clarification on the term demand-driven TA activities. On this the Review notes that the Secretariat should not be passive in the face of assistance requested that are inconsistent with national development needs or with the WIPO DA Agenda, or that are not cost-effective or sustainable. It stresses the need for WIPO to dialogue with the requesting country on the needs, priorities and the appropriateness of different kinds of assistance given a country level of development, preparedness, absorptive capacity and risks. (7) Greater attention to activities that enable South-South cooperation. (8) Greater attention to ensuring the development orientation, internal and external peer review, quality, communication strategy and availability of WIPO research and studies (9) Devise and deploy tools and processes to better measure the impact of TA activities at the country, sectoral and institutional level and to review these tools as well as WIPO Results Based Management (RBM) tools on an iterative basis, through an expert group comprising WIPO staff and external experts. (10) Develop tools and processes to improve institutional learning, monitoring, follow-up, institutional memory and staff accountability for TA activities. This includes adopting a Code of Ethics for WIPO staff and consultants that reflects the principles of DA and provisions on conflicts of interests. (11) Support efforts at the national level to gather data that would assist evaluations of the impact of IP systems on national development goals. Such data could also be used to inform the definition and monitoring of baselines and performance indicators of WIPO TA activities. (12) WIPO recruitment processes should be expanded to target candidates beyond the traditional pool of IP experts to other fields (development economics, law, health, agriculture) (13) Conclude a gap analysis of WIPO staff skills and competences (14) Adopt guidelines to ensure transparent processes for selecting external experts and consultants. Independent Monitoring & Evaluation & Oversight by Member states The Review also highly recommended putting in place mechanisms for M&E. It notes that to deliver real benefits to developing countries, there must be a comprehensive, systematic framework for M&E of WIPOTA activities. The Review adds that these evaluations must employ a relevant and publicly available set of qualitative and quantitative indicators and development benchmarks. It further notes that evaluation processes should facilitate effective decision-making about future activities and priorities. The Review stressed that ensuring WIPO technical assistance serves development necessitates a monitoring and evaluation mechanism that is independent of the Secretariat and reports directly to Member States, although it would be funded through the WIPO budget. Currently, no such mechanism exists at WIPO although such a mechanism is common in all other international organizations. The Review adds that such a mechanism would also receive feedback from relevant stakeholders and take action that is appropriate following investigation of the complaint. It also calls for a boost in MS review and guidance on WIPOTA activities adding that MS have an important role to play in the substantive planning, review and evaluation of the content of TA activities over time. The Review also observes that from a governance perspective, WIPO organizational structure for the delivery of WIPO development assistance deserves in-depth consideration by the Secretariat and MS, adding that options should be explored for making capacity-building activities organizationally distinct from WIPO other activities. Strategic Decision-making and Planning of CDIP Projects The Review notes that the process for reviewing, possibly extending, and/or mainstreaming existing CDIP projects should be properly integrated into future Program and Budget processes and aligned with strategic planning at the organizational, program and country level. It adds that pending CDIP review of DA implementation expected in 2012/13 biennium, there should be no automatic extension or expansion of CDIP projects in the absence of evaluations at the end of project periods, particularly in the case of pilot projects and projects designed to test methodologies. The Review further states that after such evaluations, MS must take the lead in ensuring that successful CDIP projects, where consistent with strategic goals, and MS interests, are properly mainstreamed into the organization. Transparency & Reporting On improving WIPO transparency, the Review notes that WIPOTA activities need to be reported and communicated more effectively. Towards this end, it proposes the development of an integrated information management system that would facilitate access to systematic and consolidated information on the content of WIPOTA interventions at the activity and country level as well as enable internal and external monitoring and evaluation. It also calls for MS to clarify and broaden the purpose and nature of WIPO Technical Assistance Database, established to implement DA Rec. 5, to enable it to serve as a vehicle for critical review of WIPOTA activities for relevance and effectiveness; and structured evaluation to ensure compliance with DA Rec. 1 (i.e. that TA should be development oriented). Specifically, the Review proposes that the Database should be redesigned to facilitate internal and public searching of activities according to the WIPO Program, region, country, expected results, type of activity, time-frame, categories of beneficiary and modes of delivery with associated information about resource-allocation and expenditures with the results of internal and external independent evaluations of activities made publicly available.
The Review also recommends that each WIPO Program produce a breakdown of partners and providers used across its TA activities. Non-government stakeholder collaborations The Review recommends that WIPO should expand the range of non-government stakeholders with which it collaborates and consults to diversify the perspectives on the IP system and development that inform its work. It also calls for an organization-wide policy and strategy on outreach, engagement and partnerships with IGOs and non-government stakeholders including guidelines on private sector involvement in WIPO activities and dealing with conflicts of interest. Coordination On the issue of coordination, the Review made a number of recommendations. The Review noting that there was no compelling cost-benefit case for establishing greater WIPO presence in any country or region in the form of External Offices for the provision of TA activities and thus recommended a review and strategic guidance on the role of such Offices The Review also recommended that WIPO improve the quality of its collaboration with the UN family adding that a key goal would be for WIPO to learn and integrate into its activities a broader view on IP and development and that such collaboration should be approached from a development oriented and not an IP-centric perspective. It also stressed that such collaboration should not be to coordinate a uniform view on IP-related development cooperation within the UN family or to establish WIPO as the UN voice on IP. Calls for Further Investigation The Review also calls for the establishment of expert groups for further inquiry. This includes:
EXPERT ASSESSMENT OF PILLARS OF WIPO TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE IP STRATEGIES & PLANS The Review noted that WIPO offered a number of tools and activities to support developing countries to establish national IP strategies, policies and plans. In fact, the Experts country visits and analysis of internal documents revealed a high demand for IP strategies and needs assessments. According to WIPO records, 22 MS have requested assistance for formulating national IP strategies. However in its assessment WIPO assistance in this area, the Review identifies a number shortcomings: (1) Considerable confusion within the Secretariat and MS as to what constitutes an IP strategy policy or plan, and the purposes of the various strategy and needs assessment tools. (2) Confusion within the Secretariat about whether WIPO purpose is to support strategies, policies or plans on IP, or on IP and innovation. The Review noted that the terms IP strategy, and IP and innovation strategy were often used interchangeably even though a strategy that focused comprehensively on innovation should address broader issues related to technology transfer and innovation promotion that extend far beyond the realm of IP policymaking, administration or enforcement. It also noted an absence and/or weakness of attention to creativity (a core part of WIPO mandate) across the organization Program and Budget documents. (3) Inconsistency in the way WIPO supported the development of national IP strategies. The Review noted that each Regional Bureau followed a different approach, adding that there was a lack of clarity about WIPO role in the formulation of different strategies. The Review also noted that the final document often produced with the engagement of an international consultant may or may not have been discussed with national stakeholders in an open forum or workshop, adding also that there was no evidence of any internal or external evaluation of the quality of the work conducted. (4) Most of the strategies and plans available in WIPO compilation lacked a sufficient statement of their development purpose and that there was an inadequate effort to situate the strategy in the context of national development documents and goals and to ensure that stated priorities and plans addressed specific development goals. The Review is particularly critical over the focus of such strategies/plans. It notes that the strategies/plans were mainly focused on the use of IP for development, and how protect and enlarge the benefits that might accrue to national IP right holders; with significant emphasis on the value of acceding to WIPO treaties. On the other hand, the strategies/plans were deficient in ensuring a development-oriented IP system in terms of the overarching legal, institutional and regulatory framework, highlighting public policy considerations; incorporating explicitly actions for reducing the knowledge gap between developed and developing countries (such as those related to technology transfer and access to knowledge) including flexibilities that a country should explore or on reducing the costs for developing countries. In fact the Review found some strategies/plans pushing countries to implement IP provisions in bilateral free trade agreements, although such TRIPS-plus provisions are widely criticized for failing to properly balance the development interests of countries. The Experts found the lack of specific attention and advice on the implementation of obligations in ways that would maximize available policy space or use of flexibilities, disappointing (5) In some cases, the IP strategies reviewed related more to the strategy of an IP office than to the IP-related strategy of a country more broadly. The Review found considerable confusion about how an IP strategy should seek to address, link to, or be embedded within, broader public policy strategies in areas such as science and technology, public health, agricultural development, access to culture, business development. The Review also noted that in 2008, the CDIP approved a project on Improvement of National, Sub-Regional and Regional IP Institutional and User Capacity (DA_10_05) with the aim to harmonize all of WIPO pre-existing tools into a tool that is flexible enough to be used in different contexts. Further in 2010, the DG advanced a project entitled WIPO Framework for Developing National IP Strategies for Innovation to develop a conceptual framework, guide or tool that countries can use for assessing, analyzing and developing national IP strategies. The Review noted a lack of clarity as to how these different instruments will relate with each other as well as the Secretariat other activities on IP strategies/plans The Review also noted a number of shortcomings with regard to key tools used in the CDIP project. One particular critique was the emphasis given to ensuring protection and enforcement of the rights of the IP holders. LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY ASSISTANCE The Review faced significant constraints in reviewing the details of WIPO legislative assistance and regulatory assistance because it is provided on a bilateral and confidential basis. Further none of the sources it investigated provided a comprehensive overview of what is offered and to which countries.
The Review identified several factors contributing to the weaknesses in the development-orientation of WIPO legislative assistance. (1) Lack of transparency about the content of WIPO legislative assistance hampering the ability to verify WIPO claims that its assistance is oriented to national development interests. (2) Lack of framework instruments to guide the details of advice on the substantive issues that arise in the course of providing legislative assistance. Interviews with WIPO staff revealed that development-orientation of advice varied by topic, the sector or program providing the advice, and the predilections and motivation of individual staff. The Review noted that WIPO staff had a significant duty of care since national expertise on the technicalities of IP was low. The Review found no evidence that showed that WIPO had integrated into its legislative assistance, lessons and insights from studies presented to the various Committees (e.g. Study on Limitations and Exceptions presented to the SCCR, CDIP study on the national implementation of patent-related flexibilities). (3) WIPO bundles legislative assistance on the many categories of IP and enforcement in one draft Act, motivated by the objective of putting in place a full spectrum of IP laws. For instance a draft law prepared by WIPO for an LDC viewed by the Experts covered more than 9 categories of IP (i.e. patents, utility model, industrial designs, layout-designs of integrated circuits; traditional knowledge and handicraft; trademarks, service marks, collective marks, certification signs and trade name; geographical indications; protection against unfair competition). This approach obscures the complex legal issues and development and sectoral implications of the proposed provisions, many of which warrant serious national debate and in-depth consideration prior to adoption. The Review also noted that limited resources and capacity meant that governments are unlikely to have the capacity to ensure adequate reflection on or implementation of all categories of IP law simultaneously. Thus the risk is that countries adopt the law without proper understanding of the content of the proposed law or its development implications. For LDCs, such an approach obfuscates the ability of countries to take advantage of LDC transition periods under TRIPS, the Review observed. (4) WIPO assistance on certain other IP-related regulatory issues (e.g. control of anti-competitive abuse of IP, advise on patentability guidelines) was generally rated poorly by the survey results (5) The Review found no evidence of systematic attention within WIPO to the practical challenges developing countries face in enforcing their rights. It noted for instance that there is currently no practical advice or mechanisms to support developing countries to legally challenge instances of misappropriation of their intellectual property. (6) WIPO is less engaged in the provision of legislative advice on the negotiation and implementation of treaties with IP provisions that are negotiated or under discussion outside WIPO and where such advice was given, the advice was generally considered to be poor. (7) The Review noted based on the limited evidence made available that: (i) information i.e. agendas and/or content of national seminar and trainings on legislative issues were generally not available online, (ii) except for participant satisfaction surveys, there have been no evaluations of the relevance of such workshops/seminars to development goals; and while WIPO staff do increasingly make note of the flexibilities available in international agreements, it is not necessarily conveyed, nor is information presented in a manner likely to facilitate an understanding of the flexibilities or how they can be used at the national level. It added that only a small segment of several day WIPO seminars and trainings is devoted to flexibilities, options and public interest considerations. The Review also noted that more effective processes and systems need to be established to ensure that WIPO seminars incorporate greater development orientation and to guide WIPO engagement with a diversity of stakeholders holding varying opinions and expertise on IP legislative and regulatory issues. (8) WIPO received high ratings on its support to countries to ratify and implement WIPO treaties, but poorer ratings on efforts to advice on the use of flexibilities in international treaties and tailoring of advice to national priorities. For instance in the area of copyright, the Experts found WIPO supported IP strategies/plans focused on getting countries to comply with WIPO Internet Treaties than how such countries might tailor laws for the digital environment to the particular priorities and needs of the country at hand particularly since developing countries have no obligations to join the WIPO Internet Treaties. It further noted that WIPO-supported strategies/plans recommended consideration of flexibilities but provided no guidance on what this might mean concretely, adding that such strategies/plans could better assist countries on exceptions and limitations to facilitate educational activities in the electronic learning environment in developing countries (e.g. electronic course packs and virtual learning environments, inter-library document supply, orphan works and translations). (9) Neither WIPO nor the beneficiary countries systematically gather or analyse data on the implications of different legislative options on development goals, thus it was unclear to the Experts on what grounds WIPO staff recommended certain legal options over others. It also found that countries do not necessarily receive any explanation from WIPO as to the development impacts of its proposals and that development assessments are not conducted by WIPO or by the Member State. In addition, the Review noted that WIPO Secretariat does not seek specialist advice on legislative issues or the overall orientation of its legislative advice from a diversity of international stakeholders (e.g., libraries, consumers organizations, public health advocates, and educators) and there were no transparent mechanisms for such stakeholders to convey their views. The Review further noted that WIPO has not made strong efforts to engage stakeholders at the national level in processes related to legislative reform and where involvement occurs it is often ad hoc, on short notice, with no funding provided. The Review encourages WIPO to be more transparent and open to other stakeholders. (10) The Review through its public consultation process received two examples, (one for developing country and one for LDC), that contained concrete examples of TRIPS-plus advice on several key issues, such as patent term extension, data exclusivity, exhaustion of rights and compulsory licensing. While acknowledging that these examples may not be representative of WIPO assistance, the Review found such practise unacceptable especially after the adoption of the Development Agenda recommendations. Thus it recommends an in-depth and comprehensive review of the content and orientation of a broad spectrum of WIPO legislative advice (including advice provided by WIPO legislative advisors as well as through its other activities) from 2008 until present should be conducted by a team of international experts. (11) The Review found a lack of systematic internal processes within WIPO that ensures careful consideration of the development needs and interests of developing countries or to gather the information or external input to ensure that advice provided is consistent with the levels of development. ENGAGEMENT IN GLOBAL DIALOGUE & DECISION-MAKING ON IP ISSUES The Review found evidence that developing countries rely heavily on WIPO support to facilitate their engagement in the international IP system. However a number of issues and concerns were raised, by the Review. The Review noted that the absence of comprehensive publicly available information on WIPO global and regional events from 2008-2010 limited its ability to assess their development orientation. However from WIPO website, it found listings of 57 regional or global events that had occurred in the period under Review and observed that for none of these events was there public information available on the nature of discussions that took place, the results of the meeting, evaluation results, costs or expected follow up. For more than half of these 57 events, no information about speakers or presentations was available. A review of events for which agendas/presentations were available revealed that the topics of meetings has evolved to incorporate many newer, breaking issues in the world of IP and several meetings focused specifically on development related issues and priorities. However, the Experts also found that although there are some exceptions, in general the details of the agendas, composition of speakers, and content presented at global and regional conferences do not yet fully reflect the spirit of the Development Agenda and there were no clear internal processes for ensuring that the design of events is filtered through that lens. It also found that the range of partners with which WIPO collaborates in the organization of international events was limited and that few events feature WIPO co-organizing global or regional events, with an NGO or a development agency. It also further found that WIPO does not have a policy to support stakeholder participation. A review of information on speakers at 36 global and regional events conducted between 2008 and 2010 found that the overall diversity of speakers/experts used at international conferences remains limited. The Review revealed that for those events for which speaker information was available, approximately 30% of speakers were from IGOs (with 18.5% from WIPO) and a further 30% government (over 22% were from regional or national IP offices), 20% were from industry, with only 5.4% from developing country academic or research institutes, 5.4% from NGOs or user communities and 2.5% from other stakeholder groups, such as inventors associations, creators, musicians, artists or scientific organizations. The Review stressed the need to ensure that a balance of perspectives is provided, adding that it found no evidence of systematic processes for speaker selections to ensure development orientation and appropriate balance, while recognising that in some cases, selections were made by program staff and in other instances with Member States input. The Review also found that the rationale for, and follow up to, many events held at the regional level was unclear and weakly linked to particular WIPO Programs, adding that many appeared to be conducted on an ad hoc basis, without clear links to broader multi-year planning or to other Program activities and expected results. BUILDING MODERN STATE-OF-THE ART NATIONAL IP ADMINISTRATIVE INFRASTRUCTURE The Review also looked at WIPO activities and services to modernize IP offices in developing countries which according to WIPO are aimed at efficiency, online services, integration into international and regional networks of IP offices (for members of the patent cooperation treaty, Madrid and Hague systems).
However WIPO staff have reported to the Experts that as much as two-thirds of developing countries did not have the groundwork conditions in place to properly absorb WIPO assistance in the are of office modernization. On the orientation, the Review noted the concern that activities to modernize IP offices was most helpful to those that are already the greatest users of the IP systems, which for the vast majority of developing countries means foreign companies, universities or research institutes acquire and maintain their IP rights more efficiently. The Review, noted that several WIPO modernization services can be used by developing country governments. However it also revealed that the focus of modernization activities is not necessarily on those areas of particular priority for developing countries. In particular the survey respondents rated WIPO attention to regional and South-South cooperation among IP offices poorly. It also noted that WIPO provides little assistance to countries to assist with the challenges of assessing the compliance of patent cooperation treaty applications with national laws. The Review also found that WIPO tends to recommend that countries combine their offices into one IP office and to move toward some degree of autonomy for the office. The Review notes that such advice occurs in the absence of detailed analysis by the Secretariat of the various costs and benefits of different possible institutional approached. It further recommends that future activity in this area be informed by a rigorous effort to learn about the experiences and challenges of other developing and developed countries with different institutional models and approaches to the national governance of their IP systems, with an eye to helping countries elaborate models that would best advance their development objectives and respond to national circumstances. TRAINING AND HUMAN CAPACITY-BUILDING IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES Training activities and resources for developing countries are provided by many of WIPO Programs including the WIPO Academy. The Review importantly notes that while the various trainings regularly request participants to complete satisfaction questionnaires, there is no systematic evaluations of the impact, results of individual activities or WIPO training portfolio collectively on developing country capacity, either at the level of IP institutions, in government, or among the society at large. In addition, the Review further notes that much of the reporting focuses on the total number of participants trained than on the impact. The Review also noted that there has been no country-by-country assessment on the impact of the totality of WIPO training. For instance the Review reveals that between 2008-2010, 92 regional or national seminars and training courses were provided by WIPO in Indonesia, but the experts country visit revealed little institutional memory of the content and beneficiaries of various types of courses and trainings. The Review also found, little information available on the overall geographical distribution of WIPO training efforts as well as the total number of training activities undertaken or their costs. While the Experts did note efforts in some trainings to infuse development perspectives, overall the Review found that that there were no systematic processes of review to ensure the development orientation of trainings conducted by WIPO various programs or that they are appropriately tailored to national needs. The Review also raises several issues for consideration i.e. what areas are of greatest priority for developing countries, what are the best ways to ensure value for money for the resources WIPO spends in this area, and how can WIPO approach training in ways that will maximize the potential for a development orientation to its efforts, in this regard it questions the comparative advantage of the diverse scope of activities undertaken by the WIPO Academy. The Review also found weak relationship between WIPO Academy and training activities conducted by other Programs/sectors and questioned whether such activities were grounded in national needs assessments. SUPPORT SYSTEMS FOR IP USERS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES Under this heading, the Review analyses activities intended to improve support systems for users of the IP system in developing countries. Due to the diversity of activities, the Experts were unable to conduct an in-depth analysis of any one area of activity. In terms of impact, the Review noted that WIPO activities to support the users of the IP system were ranked by the survey conducted, less favourably than its activities in other areas. The survey respondents indicated that WIPO assistance to national residents to use the IP system was poorer than the support WIPO activities gave to foreign applicants to the use the Patent Cooperation Treaty as a filing tool in their country. The Review found that the usefulness of WIPO products and services to support users of the IP system varied depending on the level of development and the sophistication of national IP system, and related strategies/plans for science, innovation and technology. It also found inadequate consideration of the full range of users of the IP system that could potentially benefit from WIPO activities. In particular that the activities focus more on actual and potential holders of IP rights than on consumers, libraries, scientists interested in ensuring balance in how the IP system is designed and used in a country. It further noted that greater resources were devoted to the area of patents, than to activities related to the use of copyright mechanisms, industrial designs and trademarks, which may have economic opportunities for local stakeholders. It also found that the support for users did not address the full range of constraints users may face in using the IP system, e.g. it does not offer activities designed to help users understand whether and how they can intervene in processes for granting or challenging IP rights (e.g., in pre- or post-grant opposition proceedings) nor does it provide advice to countries on practical matters such as how to negotiate an access and benefit sharing contract with a multinational corporation, or to assist stakeholders to challenge or protect their genetic resources or traditional knowledge from misuse or misappropriation abroad. The Experts review of WIPO documents, (.e.g. brochures and web-site pages) revealed a focus on promoting the IP system, adding that they do not yet reflect the Development Agenda recommendations in terms of promoting greater balance in the global IP system or in terms of placing IP issues in the context of development challenges. The Review also found a lack of systematic prior needs assessment process to identify the needs of a particular category of users across developing countries or the needs of specific groups within a given country, adding that the criteria used in the Program and Budget process for deciding which products and services WIPO will provide to support system for users is unclear. There is no systematic analysis of the role of other institutions and actors in national innovation and IP related systems in developing countries. The Review found the systematic approach to understanding the constraints and needs of SMEs positive. It however noted WIPO activities to boost the awareness of IP among SME build on the experiences and lessons learned from developed countries, whereas the conditions and circumstances of SMEs in developing countries may warrant other approaches and that the constraints and challenges that SMEs face in many developing countries may be far more to do with the business environment in general than to specific IP issues. PROMOTION OF INNOVATION, CREATIVITY AND ACCESS TO KNOWLEDGE AND TECHNOLOGIES The Review also analysed WIPO support to activities to promote innovation and creativity in developing countries, and also to address the challenges of boosting access to knowledge and technologies. The Review observed that MS accorded high priority to issues related to innovation, creativity, and technology transfer and access to knowledge, and that despite a high demand, WIPO activities in these areas were limited. Survey respondents that offered a view on WIPO assistance ranked it generally as poor. The Review observed a slight improvement for WIPOPCT-related assistance related to access to information, although even in this area over 40% of countries either had not received, or could not comment on the usefulness of, WIPO assistance. The Review noted that WIPO efforts to facilitate exchange of data information on technologies that have fallen into the public domain were rated particularly poorly, as were its efforts to increase the availability of information on technologies that are freely available without licensing. The Review also found that WIPO orientation on these issues do not fully reflect DA recommendations. In terms of creativity and innovation, the Review noted that the focus is predominantly on promoting the ways in which the IP system can help achieve those goals adding that only within CDIP projects such as the project on Open Collaborative Models, are there activities related to innovative models and options for promoting innovation, beyond and within the IP system. It also found few examples of WIPO support on realizing the economic benefit of market commercialization. On access to and transfer of technologies, the Review found that the focus in on how best to manage IP assets (licenses and collecting), than to use and engage with the IP system to ensure public rights and interests in access to knowledge and technology are properly protected. It concluded that there were important gaps in the scope of WIPO work on technology access and transfer that reflect on their degree of their overall development-orientation. For instance it noted no assistance to help countries promote a broader international legal framework that would facilitate easier access to technologies useful for development in general nor at the level of particular classes of technologies (such as medical products and medications) or for sectoral purposes (such as for the agricultural sector). On access to knowledge, the Review found WIPO activities to be sparse for most of the period under Review, except for the activities related to several CDIP projects. It also noted little evidence that these had been integrated into WIPO legislative assistance, support for IP strategies or for national capacity building on copyright issues at the national level The Experts also found little evidence of strategic consideration at the Sectoral or Organizational level of WIPO priorities and niche in areas such as promoting innovation and creativity, and access to knowledge/technologies. It noted that without a strategic framework, there is a risk of incomplete messages being sent to MS and the public about the degree to which strengthened IP policies and laws are vital for advancing progress on the innovation and creativity front. In some countries, for instance, progress in areas such as contract law, national infrastructure, and access to commercial credit may be more important factors to building such capacity, the Review noted. For a number of activities related to this Pillar, the Review found that neither the roles nor responsibilities of WIPO Programs and Sectors for their implementation were well-defined, and nor were the mechanisms for coordination. Further, the relationship between activities related to new CDIP projects and some that had already been underway in the organization was unclear. The Review found no evidence of mapping by the Secretariat of the broader landscape of actors involved in the promotion of innovation, creativity, access to technology and knowledge. This includes an absence of systematic, strategic efforts to build institutional partnerships or collaborations with agencies or stakeholders with skills, experience and resources that could be brought to bear on specific areas.
|
||
