|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on Intellectual Property Issues (Nov13/04) WIPO: CDIP begins discussions on Independent Review of Development Agenda Sangeeta Shashikant & Alexandra Bhattacharya (Geneva): The WIPO Committee on Development and IP (CDIP) opened its meeting with a discussion on how to approach the independent review of the WIPO Development Agenda that has been mandated by the GeneralAssembly. The 12th session of the CDIP is meeting in Geneva from18-21 November 2013. The Independent Review is a component of the Coordination Mechanisms and Monitoring, Assessing and Reporting Modalities (Coordination Mechanism) adopted by the 2010 General Assembly to implement the CDIP mandate with the aim of mainstreaming DA across WIPO Bodies as well as to monitor and assess implementation of the WIPO DA. The Coordination Mechanism states: “To request the CDIP to undertake an independent review of the implementation of the Development Agenda Recommendations at the end of the 2012-2013 biennium. Upon consideration of that review, the CDIP may decide on a possible further review. The Terms of Reference and the selection of independent IP and development experts will be agreed by the CDIP”. Since the 10th CDIP session the Development Agenda Group (DAG) and the Africa Group have been pushing for the Committee to begin discussion on the Terms of Reference andselection of experts for the Review. At the 11th CDIP session the DAG and the Africa Group submitted a Joint Proposal on Term of Reference and Methodology for the Independent Review of the implementation of the Development Agenda Recommendations (CDIP/11/8). However efforts of the DAG and the Africa Group have been hindered by Group B (composed of developed countries) which has repeatedly stalled the discussion. An informal meeting was held last Tuesday (12th November) by the CDIP Chair Mohamed Siad Douleh from Djibouti to discuss the approach to the independent review. According to sources, there was general agreement that the TOR should be agreed to at the CDIP meeting. As the CDIP meeting opened, developing countries called for the Review to be dealt with as a priority and for a drafting session to finalise the TORs. They also supported the Joint Proposal being the basis of discussion. Group B on the other hand proposed that the Secretariat develop the TOR for the Review. Italso contended that the scope of the review should be limited, analysis of the impact of the DA should be limited to “the relevant WIPO bodies”, the report of the review should be concise; duplication should be avoided, the UN evaluation standards and principles of the Coordination Mechanism should be followed. DAG/Africa Group Joint Proposal At the 11th CDIP session, the DAG and the Africa Group submitted a joint proposal with the following elements: (1)
Scope & Purpose: The purpose of the Review is to conduct an independent,
thorough and in-depth review of the implementation of the Development
Agenda recommendations adopted in 2007 in particular: (b) Examine thedevelopment impact and orientation of the activities undertaken to implement the relevant Development Agenda recommendations and assess the extent to which the objectives of the Development Agenda recommendations have been achieved; (c) Assess the adequacy including scope and methodology of the evaluations undertaken of the Development Agenda projects. (d) Assess the appropriateness, adequacy, effectiveness, and impact of the project-based approach to the implementation of Development Agenda recommendations; (e) Evaluate the overall impact of Development Agenda implementation especially in mainstreaming development orientation across all WIPO bodies, programs and staff. (f) Identify the challenges, gaps, opportunities in the implementation of the WIPO Development Agenda recommendations; (g) Makerecommendations on how to further implementation of Development Agenda recommendations as well as with regards to paragraphs (a) to (f). (2) Methodology: The assessment should include a desk review of all the relevant documents within the relevant WIPO Programs, interviews, field visits and surveys. Feedback should be sought from Member states and other stakeholders such as the beneficiaries of activities undertaken in connection with the Development Agenda recommendations. (3) Expert Team: The expert team should possess the requisite skills and knowledge to conduct the review in a credible and independent manner. The team of reviewers should be leading experts in the field of IP and development, interdisciplinary, and include IP experts with academic background in economics and law. The team of reviewers should also have a good understanding of the development challenges facing developing countries and LDCs. (4) Budget: The ToRs should clearly spell out the budget that will be allocated for the preparation of the External Review. It is important to ensure that sufficient budget is allocated for the experts to have face-to-face meetings. (5) Expected Outputs and Timeline: The ToRs should also clearly outline the timeline for the review and outputs that are to be expected. Preliminary
Discussion on the Independent Review Japan on behalf of Group B said that the focus of the Review should be the implementation of DA and the scope of the language of each DA recommendation without broadening to development activities of WIPO as a whole, adding that overlap with past evaluation exercises should be avoided. On the process of developing the TORs, Japan on behalf of Group B requested the Secretariat to prepare a draft taking into account the various views of member states. It also stressed that the practices of the UN on Evaluation should be considered in preparing the TOR. Lithuania
on behalf of the EU said that any independent review should not
be “onerous and should enable pragmaticconsideration” adding that
the assessment of impact should be confined to “relevant WIPO bodies”. South Africa said that the Committee could not afford to delay the matter anymore. On Group B’s contention that the UN evaluation standards should be considered, South Africa questioned why did Members have to look at what UN was doing, arguing that this is not the first time a review is being done in WIPO. It added that prejudging the outcome is not helpful. Brazil called for a drafting session to bridge the differences of views. Algeria on behalf of the Africa Group said that the magnitude of the exercise should be reflected in the TOR, adding that the study should be exhaustive thorough and complete It added that the argument that the Review should be concise is not relevant. Algeria also argued that this is the first time an independent review of the DA had taken place, thus the issue of duplication does not arise. It also stressed that Secretariat should be prepared to use high level experts. Algeria also argued that it could not accept the suggestion that Secretariat prepare a draft TOR, adding that the DAG and Africa Group had submitted a Joint Proposal. It supported Brazil’s call for a drafting session. Trinidad and Tobago on behalf of the GRULAC region, Iran, India and Indonesia supported the Joint proposal as the basis for discussion. Indonesia added that according to the rules of procedure, proposal that is submitted is the document of the meeting, adding that since the Joint Proposal was the only proposal on the table. On the experts that will conduct the Review, developing countries (DAG, AfricaGroup, Iran) stressed that the General Assembly decision speaks about IP and Development experts and thus the experts selected should have required skills and should be leading experts in IP and development, with a good understanding of the challenges in developing countries. Algeria also stressed that the process for selecting experts should be member-driven. Uganda said that the experts should review and visit the projects already in existence in various locations. It was agreed that in the afternoon of CDIP on 19th November a drafting group will be formed. The CDIP is expected to continue discussions on the Independent Review after the drafting session.
|
||
