Draft report - bet 3

|
Draft report
|
bet | 3/10 | Sana | 07.04.2017 | Hajmi | 471,46 Kb. | | #3444 |
86 The Chair invited the Secretariat to respond to the questions and comments from the floor.
87 The Secretariat (Di Pietro) referred to the point raised by the Delegation of the United States of America. The issue was highlighted by the evaluator. As mentioned, the risk could not be completely controlled. However, efforts could be made to mitigate it. One of the first requests to beneficiary countries was for them to provide lists of academy coordinators and core groups of trainers. In the case of academy coordinators, the initial decision was to work with one coordinator. In Phase II, the Secretariat decided to work with two academy coordinators in case one was transferred or separated from his or her functions. Referring to the intervention by the Delegation of Egypt, the Secretariat explained that it had been to identify national trainers to train the trainers in Egypt. Due to certain difficulties in travelling to Egypt, it was decided that it would be more efficient to use local trainers to deliver the training. It was not that difficult. Time was taken to identify a core group of local trainers for this purpose.
88 The Delegation of Egypt stated that a meeting was held with the Secretariat. It was agreed that WIPO would send a mission to Cairo for the third and fourth training programs. The Delegation would like the mission to take place as soon as possible. Three training modules had been completed. The Delegation hoped that the two remaining modules would be completed. If this was not currently possible, the Delegation would like this to be done next year.
89 The Secretariat (Mr. Di Pietro) stated that there would be two missions to Cairo before the end of the year. One would be undertaken by a WIPO official, and the other, by an expert. An extension was also requested to finalize the two remaining modules in the first three months of next year.
90 The Delegation of Tunisia stated that it was not easy to create an academy in Tunisia, particularly in light of the events take place in the country in 2011 and 2012. Nevertheless, a great deal was achieved. The report referred to the risks which these projects were exposed to. However, a more serious issue was that WIPO would not be continuing or following up on the assistance it offered to the new academies. Without its continued support, the Start-Up Academies may not be able to continue their work. The authorities in Tunisia would like to create a Master's program in IP. This required serious and effective assistance from the WIPO Academy.
91 The Secretariat (Mr. Di Pietro) stated that this was a serious concern, which was mentioned in the evaluation report for the first phase of the Pilot Project. The phasing out strategy included how to assist the start-up national IP academies. By year end, the personnel in four academies would be trained in the various aspects required in order to run, manage and sustain their respective academies. However, some support from WIPO would still be required. This was in line with the streamlining of the Project into the budget of the WIPO Academy. It could also be complemented through coordination and cooperation with the Bureaus. On the creation of a Master's program, the Secretariat stated that the Academic Institutions Program within the WIPO Academy provided technical assistance to Member States to establish such programs. Guidance was provided on the curricula, selection of experts, reading materials etc. Tunisia should receive such assistance in 2014 as it was already planned.
92 The Delegation of India would like to know whether countries with existing institutions could approach the Secretariat for assistance to strengthen those institutions and if this was covered under the project.
93 The Secretariat (Mr. Di Pietro) referred to Colombia’s requested for a start-up academy. The country already had a training center. The absence of such facilities was not a requirement. It depended on the needs of each country. It would be easier to implement a project to further develop a training center or IP academy in countries where an institution or project had already been established with personnel to provide training activities.
94 The Delegation of India stated that a national institute had been established in India. It would like to request for assistance with regard to training and infrastructure. The Delegation would like to know whether the request could be made through the Project or if it should be dealt with bilaterally.
95 The Secretariat (Ms. Graffigna) highlighted the distinction between the Pilot Project which was being mainstreamed into Program 11 as of 2014 and the standard activities of the WIPO Academy and its Program. The Pilot Project had been successful. As such, it would be mainstreamed and new start-ups would continue to be established. Any government could request the Secretariat for assistance in launching a new program. It was not necessary for the request to be made through the CDIP. For instance, assistance may be required to launch a new IP program in a university, including in the context of the definition of the program, curriculum, selection of experts etc. The proposal under Program 11 in the draft Program and Budget for the next biennium included funds to strengthen the teaching of IP in developing countries and countries in transition. This broadly meant that assistance could be provided at any time within available resources without the need to engage in a project. The request should be communicated to the Secretariat. The outputs and lessons learnt from the pilot project would not be lost when the activity was mainstreamed into Program 11.
96 The Delegation of India understood that the provision of assistance was not linked to the CDIP. Thus, it would take up the matter with the Secretariat.
97 The Delegation of Algeria stated that a request was made for Algeria to benefit from the Project. The request was submitted to the Secretariat in 2011, almost two years ago. The Delegation would like to know when the Secretariat was going to set up a start-up academy in Algeria and if it would be linked to the CDIP.
98 The Secretariat (Ms. Graffigna) noted that the question concerned a start-up. Thus, it was not the same as the question posed by the Delegation of India. If approved in December, 400,000 Swiss francs under Program 11 would be earmarked for two new start-up projects. Funds were only available under Program 11. Contact between the government and the Secretariat should be sufficient. Activities could get underway once a committee was established, the conditions clearly set out and the project was approved.
99 The Chair closed the discussion on the project given that there were no further observations from the floor. He turned to the Project on IP and Product Branding for Business Development in Developing Countries and LDCs.
Consideration of Annex IV - Project on IP and Product Branding for Business Development in Developing Countries and LDCs
100 The Secretariat (Ms. Toso) introduced the report in Annex IV of document CDIP/12/2. The Secretariat highlighted that this was the final progress report on the implementation of the Project on IP and Product Branding for Business Development in Developing Countries and LDCs as the project would soon be concluded. Implementation began in 2010. The performance data provided in the tables at the end of the report indicated that most of the expected results and outputs were achieved. In total, nine products were identified in the three pilot countries, namely, Panama, Thailand and Uganda. Guidelines and procedures for quality control and certification were developed in these countries. Capacity building activities were carried out in all three countries. Stakeholders were sensitized and trained. A Conference on IP and Branding for Business and Local Community Development was held in Seoul, Republic of Korea. It was preceded by an expert meeting. All the consultants involved in the implementation of the project in the three pilot countries participated in that meeting together with other renowned consultants in the field of branding. Experiences and case studies were documented and shared. Processes and methodologies were also discussed and validated. In Panama, two collective marks and an Appellation of Origin were registered. The registration of a certification mark was pending. In Uganda, a certification mark and a trademark were registered. In Thailand, a collective mark and a geographical indication were registered. These were achieved under the project. However, it was more difficult to achieve the full and consistent mobilization of stakeholders in order to create, where necessary, associations of producers and collective structures that allowed for a complete buy-in of the project by the stakeholders. This was a long-term activity which required continuous follow-up in the respective countries. Lessons were learnt in the implementation of the Project. Thorough follow-up at the national, district and community levels was required to keep the stakeholders adequately involved in the project in order for them to work effectively toward the expected results. Appropriate coordination mechanisms were required at the country level. This was mentioned in the section on the way forward for the continued implementation of project recommendations. The Secretariat provided some further details of the conference on IP and product branding. It was organized in cooperation with the government of the Republic of Korea, in particular, the Korean IP Office and the Korea Invention Promotion Association. The conference took place in April 2013, 200 participants from 18 countries attended the conference. It emerged from the discussions that IP protection, whether in the form of a geographical indication, an appellation of origin, a collective or certification mark, was only one of several dimensions to be considered in the development of a branding strategy. Product identification and inventory, stakeholders’ mobilization, capacity building, IP options analysis, product branding, marketing strategies and financial sustainability were some of the key elements to be considered in order to properly support local producers in their branding efforts. Experience indicated that several players (i.e. the private sector, government and intergovernmental organizations) must be involved in the branding process. A collaborative and inclusive approach among concerned organizations was required to ensure an effective and sustainable intervention. The key lessons learnt were included in a document titled, “Framework for Action for the Development of IP, Branding and Product to Market Strategy”. This was one of the concrete outputs of the project. It was based largely on the analysis of best practices in originproduct branding, as well as on the project experiences in the three pilot countries. It outlined methodological aspects and guidelines for the implementation and evaluation of IP and branding projects, and aimed to increase the understanding of what was involved in the formulation and implementation of such projects. The document would be published by WIPO soon and could be of use to other countries that were interested in pursuing similar projects.
101 The Delegation of Bangladesh, speaking on behalf of the Asia Pacific Group, hoped that the project would be effective and useful in supporting small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) to actively create and commercialize designs through active use of the IP system and the development of strategies that would encourage investment in designs. The Group understood that the Delegation of the Republic of Korea would also be speaking on the project. It was pleased that a framework for action was one of the concrete outputs of the project and would be published by WIPO next month. It was waiting for the document to be published and would like to explore opportunities to use it in other countries for the benefit of developing countries and LDCs. The Delegation referred to page 3 of the report which stated the following in relation to Panama, “Thanks to the notoriety acquired by the project in the country during its implementation phase, the Ministry of Trade and Industries expressed interest to invest in the branding and commercialization of two of the selected products”, and observed that it was a strange way to attract investment.
102 The Delegation of the Republic of Korea was confident that this project would foster capacity building, especially in the case of SMEs, by utilizing branding strategies associated with IP to promote product values. The Delegation hoped that the benefits would extend to all relevant Member States, including through the sharing of experiences.
103 The Delegation of Uganda also noted the use of the word, “notoriety”. An explanation was required. Uganda was a beneficiary of the Project. The Delegation appreciated the progress made by the Secretariat in the implementation of the project in Uganda over the last three years. The Project was instrumental in mobilizing a wide range of stakeholders and in raising awareness on the importance of IP in the branding of some of Uganda's most emblematic products, in particular, cotton, sesame and vanilla. In the course of the project, farmers and small businesses both in the central and northern parts of the country were sensitized to the importance of effectively branding their products in order to add value and to increase their competitiveness in external markets. New perspectives for local development were taken into account in the use of appropriate IP strategies for each of the selected products. As a result of the project, the first certification mark was registered on March 11, 2013, “Mukono Vanilla”, for the Mukono Vanilla Spices and Horticultural Co-Operatives Association Ltd. A trademark application “Divine” was also lodged by Farmnet Limited under class 29 for edible oils and essential oils, and registration was pending. There were no registrations as yet for Ugandan cotton. Product branding was a long and complex process. Brand protection through the IP system was critically important. However, it must be integrated into broader commercial and business strategies. Uganda was endowed with diversity in terms of agriculture, natural resources, culture and traditions. These qualified as geographical indications. The products included coffee, cotton, vanilla, tea and bark cloth. The country could tap into this enormous potential to eradicate poverty, a major objective of Uganda’s National Development Plan and Vision 2040. The Uganda Registration Services Bureau had supported the implementation of the project and was committed to continue working with WIPO and other partners to build on the project’s results. In the immediate future, the country would continue to focus on promoting coordination and the mobilization of stakeholders in the branding of quality products based on origin. In April 2013, Uganda was invited to participate in the Conference on IP and Branding for Business and Local Community Development in Seoul. It was represented by the Commissioner of Internal Trade and Industry and by the Uganda Export Promotion Board. It appreciated the opportunity to share its experience as a beneficiary of the project and to learn from others. The Delegation believed that the appropriate use of IP for product branding would contribute to the attainment of its country's strategic objectives. This was supported by recent developments in its national IP laws. These included the introduction of a new law on industrial property and a law on geographical indications law in 2013 as well as a law on trademarks in 2010. This was indicative of its interest in the project. It also reflected a commitment to improve its IP platform in view of the commercial and non-commercial benefits that could be derived by the country.
104 The Delegation of Panama stated that the products selected for the project in Panama were Chorrera pineapples, Palmira coffee and the “Mola” of the Kuna people. As mentioned in the report, the project became very well known in Panama. Chorrera pineapples were special as they had a particular flavor. The project increased awareness of the importance of product branding. It was hoped that in the second phase, the production of pineapples under international quality control schemes would be encouraged through the provision of technical and financial assistance. In the case of Palmira coffee, the community was involved in every stage of product branding. The Ministry of Commerce and Industries liaised with the Association of Coffee Growers. Purchase agreements on roasted, ground and organic coffee were concluded with international buyers. The project produced new packaging designs that were more attractive. An Appellation of Origin for Café de Boquete was also registered by producers from another community. In the case of Mola, a project funded by the government and the Inter-American Development Bank was addressing the commercialization of Mola Kuna handicrafts. The Delegation encouraged the Secretariat to continue developing such projects in developing countries and LDCs as they had an important impact on entrepreneurs and SMEs. Referring to the comment by the Delegation of Bangladesh, the Delegation pointed out that the project was given wide publicity by its ministry and high officials were involved. Thus, when the report referred to notoriety, it referred to the fact that the project became well-known, including at the highest levels of the ministry. The Deputy Minister for Trade personally checked on progress and dealt with the communities to identify their needs to determine how they could be assisted in order for the initiative to be implemented and followed up.
105 The Delegation of Egypt stated that it was not a pilot country like Thailand, Panama and Uganda. However, the project was a good idea. Its primary aim was to support SMEs, especially those resulting from the association of local groups of farmers and producers in developing countries and LDCs, in the design and implementation of strategies for the appropriate use of IP in product branding. This could be of interest to many developing countries. It could help to increase incomes and reduce poverty. The report indicated that cooperation was required between the national bodies that were involved. There were already some clear results. The report indicated that the information was beginning to be used. The proposal to establish an online platform for IP and product branding projects was interesting. Perhaps further information could be provided. The platform would need to be continuously updated. The results of the project must be reviewed and evaluated. In the future, other developing countries should also be included in such projects.
106 The Chair invited the Secretariat to respond to the questions and comments from the floor.
107 The Secretariat (Ms. Toso) referred to the use of the word “notoriety” and explained that the project was highly publicized in Panama. It was well-known in the country. This was also clearly explained by the Delegation of Panama. The Secretariat apologized for the confusion caused by the use of the word. There was a need to continue work with the communities, groups and stakeholders in the various countries as expectations had been created. Thus, it was necessary for the activities to be mainstreamed into the regular work. On the proposed development of an online platform, the Secretariat stated that this could be linked to IP-DMD. It could include requests for support in developing similar branding projects by different stakeholders. The network of experts identified in the implementation of the project had also indicated that they would be available to provide assistance to other countries. The development of the platform required more thought but there was potential for existing mechanisms to be used to take the project forward, including for the benefit of other countries.
Consideration of Annex V - Project on IP and Socio-Economic Development,
Annex X - Project on IP and Brain Drain and Annex XI - Project on IP and the Informal Economy
108 The Secretariat (Mr. Raffo) introduced the report in Annex V of document CDIP/12/2. The report was for the period covering August 2012 to August 2013. The Project on IP and Socio-Economic Development (DA_35_37_01) would soon be concluded. Implementation was in accordance to the timeline (extended by 6 months at the 10th session of the CDIP). Two country studies (Chile and Brazil) were completed and the others were close to completion (Uruguay, Egypt, China and Thailand). As foreseen in the project document (CDIP/5/7), a research symposium would be organized in December 2013 to distill the main lessons learned from the different studies, their broader applicability, and their implications for policymaking at the national and international levels. A summary of the proceedings would be submitted to the Committee at the next session. The studies that had yet to be submitted to the Committee would also be presented at that session. The Secretariat then turned to the report in Annex V of document CDIP/12/2. The Project on IP and Brain Drain (DA_39_40_01) was completed. The study on mapping inventors with migratory background was completed and would be presented to the Committee in this session. As envisaged, an experts’ workshop was held in April 2013. A summary of the workshop proceedings, offering a research agenda on IP, migration, and associated knowledge flows, would also be presented in this session. The results of the Mapping Exercise and the experts’ workshop would be published next year. The Secretariat turned to report in Annex XI of document CDIP/12/2. The implementation of the Project on IP and the Informal Economy was in accordance with the project timelines. The conceptual study and the full implementation plan were presented to the Committee in the previous session. Three case studies (Ghana, Kenya and South Africa) were submitted to the Secretariat and were under evaluation. They would be presented to the Committee in the next session.
109 The Delegation of South Africa sought clarification on what would take place with regard to the case studies received by the Secretariat in connection with the Project on IP and the Informal Economy.
110 The Secretariat explained that the case studies were prepared by local and international consultants. It was currently evaluating the studies. They would be finalized for submission to the Committee. The studies were of excellent quality. However, it would take longer than expected to finalize the studies. Thus, they would be presented in the next session of the Committee.
111 The Delegation of Algeria would like to know how countries were selected for the studies.
112 The Secretariat stated that countries had put themselves forward for the studies. They had to meet the requirements that were linked to the studies. A basic condition was that they should be developing countries. The Secretariat was very pleased with the participation of the six countries in the project. Their authorities had put in a lot of effort in order for the studies to be carried out by local and international experts.
113 The Delegation of Brazil would like more information on the symposium that would take place under the Project on IP and Socio-Economic Development. It understood that there would be opportunities for in-depth discussions on the studies during the symposium. The Delegation would like to know the dates for the symposium and whether Member States would be invited to attend.
114 The Secretariat explained that a technical symposium was planned. It was not intended to be a diffusion symposium. Local workshops were held in the countries where studies were conducted. Some took place before the studies were carried out in order to gather information and to understand the needs of the stakeholders. Member States were invited to attend the technical symposium which would take place in Geneva on December 3 and 4. The Secretariat reiterated that the results of the studies would be presented to the stakeholders through other channels.
Consideration of Annex VI - Project on IP and Technology Transfer: Common Challenges – Building Solutions and Annex VII - Project on Open Collaborative Projects and IP-Based Models
115 The Secretariat (Mr. Jazairy) provided an overview of the report in Annex VI of document CDIP/12/2. The Project on IP and Technology Transfer: Common Challenges – Building Solutions was based on recommendations 19, 25, 26, and 28 of the DA. The project included a range of activities to explore possible initiatives and IP-related policies for promoting technology transfer, the dissemination and facilitation of access to technology for development, particularly for the benefit of developing countries and LDCs. The activities were outlined in the revised project paper (document CDIP/9/INF/4). The first activity was on the organization of five regional technology transfer consultation meetings. Two were held, one in Singapore (for the Asian region) on July 16 and 17, 2012, and the other in Algiers (for the African and Arab region) on January 29 and 30, 2013. The third meeting would be held in Istanbul (for the Transition region) on October 24 and 25, 2013. The fourth meeting (for developed countries) was scheduled to be held in Geneva on November 25 and 26, 2013. The fifth and final meeting (for the Latin American and Caribbean region) was scheduled to be held in Monterrey, Mexico (pending confirmation) on December 5 and 6, 2013. Thus, it was envisaged that this activity would be completed before the end of 2013. The second activity was on the elaboration of peer-reviewed analytic studies. Studies were commissioned on obstacles to technology transfer (Professor Damodaran, India); IP-related policies and initiatives in developed countries to promote technology transfer to developing countries (Mr. Sisule Musungu, Kenya); cooperation and exchange between R&D institutions in developed and developing countries
(Mr. Ulf Petterson, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden); incentive policies for businesses to become partners in technology transfer processes at the national and international level (Mr. Philip Mendes , OPTEON, Australia); an analysis of technology transfer issues to identify the needs in certain specific regions or sub-regions (Professor Keith Maskus, University of Colorado, and Professor Kamal Saggi, Vanderbilt University, United States of America); and alternatives for supporting innovation aside from the patent system (Dr. James Love, KEI, United States of America). Five studies were received by the Secretariat in draft form. The study on obstacles to technology transfer was received in final form. It was envisaged that five studies would be completed by year end. The study on cooperation and exchange between R&D institutions in developed and developing countries should be completed in the first quarter of 2014. The third activity was on the drafting of a concept paper on building solutions as the basis for discussions at the High Level International Expert Forum. A first draft of the concept paper would be prepared following the completion of all the regional consultation meetings and the six analytic studies. The paper would summarize the achievements under the project. It would be submitted to the Committee in the next session for approval. Prior to that, a one day meeting with IGOs, NGOs and professional associations would be organized in April to obtain their feedback on the project. The High Level International Expert Forum was scheduled to take place in June 2013. The three-day meeting would be organized after the concept paper was approved. The Project was using a step-by-step approach involving accredited organizations and new partners involved in all aspects of technology transfer to explore IP-related policies, new initiatives necessary to promote the transfer and dissemination of technology, and the establishment of international IP collaboration. The Project’s outcomes would be integrated into the relevant WIPO activities after consideration by the CDIP of recommendations that may emerge from the expert forum. The recommendations that resulted from the five regional consultations would be compiled. When a consensus was reached on the most common denominators in the recommendations, these would be referred back to the Committee for approval at its 14th session. The Secretariat requested for an extension until June 2014 in order for the project to be completed. The Secretariat then turned to the report in Annex VII of document CDIP/12/2. The Project on Open Collaborative Projects and IP-Based Models was described in document CDIP/6/6 Rev. It was based on recommendation 36 of the DA on exchanging experiences on open collaborative projects such as the Human Genome Project as well as on IP models. Under Activity 1, a taxonomy-analytical study on open collaborative projects and IP-based models was prepared by Professor David Gann, Imperial College, and Professor Linus Dahlander, Stanford University. Activity 2 was on the organization of an open-ended meeting with Member States for a constructive debate on the essence, logic and stages of the approach. An informal event was held on May 11, 2012, and a formal meeting on June 18, 2012. The latter was attended by a number of participants, including delegates from several permanent missions in Geneva. Under Activity 3, high-level experts were commissioned to undertake an in-depth evaluation study. The team was led by Professor Henry Chesbrough, University of California, Berkeley, who coined the term ‘open innovation’ a decade ago. He had also written several books on open innovation. The study included an overview on the evolution of the concepts of open collaborations; an overview of open innovation since the coining of the concept a decade ago; a list of the benefits and challenges of existing projects and identify lessons learned for each paradigmatic open collaborative initiative; a list of inherent favorable conditions and successful IP models for effective paradigmatic open collaborative initiatives; and a list of recommendations on the ways WIPO programs could support developing countries and LDCs in overcoming the challenges they faced in open collaborative innovation processes. An interactive platform would be established under Activity 5. A database of tools and content would be developed and incorporated into the platform. The database would include an atlas or compendium of coherent concepts, maps, graphs and representations. It would consist of an overview of the current global innovation situation; an overview of the global intellectual property parameter space through WIPO applications; the evolution of traditional models of collaboration across the globe; a useful reference for the evolution of new, internet-enabled collaborations across the globe; and the evolution of knowledge flows in codified form as well as tacit knowledge flows between developed and developing countries. The content for the platform was being developed by a team of experts. The last activity of the project was on the organization of an expert meeting on open collaborative projects and IP based models. The two-day meeting was scheduled to take place at WIPO headquarters on January 22 and 23, 2014. Experts on open innovation from developed and developing countries would participate in the meeting. Work to incorporate any outcome resulting from the above activities into relevant WIPO programs could only begin after the expert meeting and the finalization and entry into force of the interactive platform. As agreed, it would only commence after consideration by the Committee. The said activities would be completed in June 2014. As such, the Secretariat requested for an extension of the project until June 2014.
116 The Delegation of Brazil sought clarification on the regional consultations organized under the Project on IP and Technology Transfer. It would like to know how they were organized and whether any decisions or recommendations would emerge from the consultation process.
117 The Delegation of Turkey provided some information on the third regional consultation meeting on technology transfer which was held in Istanbul on October 24 and 25, 2013. The meeting was organized by WIPO in cooperation with the Turkish Patent Institute. Twenty-two countries from the transitional region attended the meeting. It was held at a time when there was considerable progress in Turkey in terms of innovation and technology transfer. The discussions and exchange of best practices during the meeting should enrich efforts to promote innovation and technology transfer.
118 The Delegation of Venezuela stated that the Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean should be involved in the organization of future events. This was required in order for the delegations to be kept up to date on the process for the consultations, the expected results and the selection of speakers. It was important for the Bureau to be more involved.
119 The Delegation of India referred to the Project on Open Collaborative Projects and IPBased Models. It would like to know how the outcomes would be integrated into WIPO programs. The Delegation also sought clarification on how countries and participants were identified for regional consultations or conferences.
120 The Chair invited the Secretariat to respond to the questions and comments from the floor.
121 The Secretariat (Mr. Jazairy) referred to the question from the Delegation of Brazil on the organization of the regional consultations. The Secretariat encouraged the Delegation to refer to the program for the consultation meeting that would take place at WIPO headquarters for developed countries. The program was available on the WIPO website. Following an opening ceremony, a number of experts would speak on what was achieved in their respective countries in relation to technology transfer. A roundtable discussion would take place at the end of the presentations. Representatives that were nominated by the countries that received invitations from the Secretariat to attend this meeting would give a short presentation on the achievements in technology transfer in their respective countries as well as experiences in terms of international technology transfer between their respective countries and other countries. There would also be a session on responses to the questionnaires that were distributed to each of the representatives. The questions were related to the status and performance of their national innovation systems and the prerequisites for a successful and effective international technology transfer system. The prerequisites for an effective technology transfer system included political commitment; an IP legal framework to support international technology transfer; a national innovation strategy that supported technology transfer; sufficient capital to support an effective technology transfer system; an education system that was relevant to the environment for technology transfer; effective technology transfer offices in universities and R&D institutions; human resources within those technology transfer offices with sufficient capacity to undertake work on technology transfer work; sufficient collaboration between universities and industry; and the effective commercialization of technology transfer products. The answers would be summarized and there would be presentation on the importance of international technology transfer. After that, there would be round tables on the challenges, solutions and recommendations for promoting international technology transfer. That was how the regional consultation meetings were designed. The experts were selected by the Secretariat in a balanced manner. They were not nominated by the individual countries. Thoughts would emerge from the various regional consultations on how international technology transfer could be promoted. They would be collected and brought to the High Level Expert Forum in June 2014. The most common denominators would then be condensed into a number of recommendations. These would be submitted to the Committee for approval in its 14th session.
122 The Delegation of Brazil reiterated the suggestion by the Delegation of Venezuela that the regional Bureaus should be involved in the discussions. This was necessary in order for Member States to be involved from the beginning of the process and for their capitals to be informed about the events.
123 The Secretariat (Mr. Jazairy) stated that the regional bureaus worked in conjunction with the team that organized the various regional consultations. The same would apply to the regional consultation meeting on technology transfer for the Latin American and Caribbean region. The team was working with the Bureau and Member States in the organization of the meeting. Thus far, the Secretariat had a number of nominations and more were expected. The meeting was scheduled to take place in Monterrey, Mexico on December 5 and 6.
124 The Delegation of India noted that the experts were identified by the Secretariat and Member Stated participated in all the regional consultations. The meeting for the Asian region was held in Singapore. The Delegation would like to know how the venue for the consultations was selected. It would also like to know whether the Secretariat decided on the venue and arrangements for the consultations.
125 The Secretariat (Mr. Jazairy) referred to the regional consultations in Mexico as an example. Invitation letters were sent to every country in the Latin American and Caribbean region. It was up to them to respond and nominate representatives to attend the meeting. The Secretariat had received 15 nominations. More were expected, particularly from the Caribbean region which had the highest number of missing nominations. The Secretariat had received nominations from most of the countries in South America.
Consideration of Annex III - Strengthening the Capacity of National IP Governmental and Stakeholder Institutions to Manage, Monitor and Promote Creative Industries, and to Enhance the Performance and Network of Copyright Collective Management Organizations (CMOs)
126 The Secretariat (Mr. Uwemedimo) introduced the report in Annex III of document CDIP/12/2. The first component of the Project, relating to the creative industries, was successfully completed in 2010. Thus, the report only covered the second component of the project relating to CMOs. The project began in 2009 and was designed on the assumption that there would be a partnership with Google. That did not happen for various reasons. During 2013, work continued on the search for a partner with the business and technical expertise to implement a system in a complex environment, and on drafting a full set of system requirements, including those for regional and international data management and integration. A draft set of requirements was prepared and circulated to industry experts for review. An external expert with considerable experience in collective management as well as data management projects was recruited. The objective was to try to put in place a single authority source of data for CMOs in the developing world in general, and in particular, the West African region. The Secretariat was engaged in a consultation process with key users in the field. The idea was to hold a meeting in Geneva with key CMOs from Africa, Latin America and Asia. It could take place in the next two months. It was aimed at ensuring that the system requirements were fit for purpose moving forward. Once the requirements were agreed, an external partner would be selected to work with those involved and to develop the new data management system. The idea was to develop a private public partnership. It would involve WIPO, external experts and CMOs. It was hoped that through the consultations, a strategy would be put forward for state of the art tools to be developed to integrate the CMOs in developing countries with international networks of CMOs and to ensure that they had access to the same data as the CMOs in developed countries.
127 The Chair turned to the progress report on the Project on Patents and the Public Domain given that there were no observations from the floor.
Consideration of Annex VIII - Project on Patents and the Public Domain
128 The Secretariat (Ms. Miyamoto) introduced the report in Annex VIII of document CDIP/12/2. The Project on Patents and the Public Domain was a follow-up to the Project on IP and the Public Domain which had been completed. A macro study on patents and the public domain was prepared under that project. To supplement the findings of that study, the current project conducted a micro level study on patents and the public domain. It analyzed the important role of a rich and accessible public domain; and the impact of certain enterprise practices in the field of patents on the public domain. The study was completed and would be presented on the third day of the current CDIP session. The Committee would be able to examine and discuss the study. At the time when the progress report was prepared, payments had not been made to the authors of the study. Thus, the report indicated that the budget had not been utilized. Since then, payments had been made and the budget utilization rate was more than 80%.
129 The Chair invited the Committee to move on to the progress report on Strengthening and Development of the Audiovisual Sector in Burkina Faso and Certain African Countries, given that there were no observations from the floor.
Consideration of Annex XII - Strengthening and Development of the Audiovisual Sector in Burkina Faso and Certain African Countries
130 The Secretariat provided an overview of the report in Annex XII of document CDIP/12/2. This was the first report on the Implementation of the Project on Strengthening and Development of the Audiovisual Sector in Burkina Faso and Certain African Countries. The Project was adopted in May 2012 at the ninth session of the CDIP. The duration of the project was 24 months and implementation started in February. The project sought to develop a sustained framework for the audiovisual sector in 3 pilot countries (Burkina Faso, Senegal and Kenya) on the basis of improved professional structures, markets and regulatory environment while enhancing the strategic use of IP as a key tool to support the development of the audiovisual sector. The first component was in the field of professional development and training. The second component addressed the regulatory framework, and would seek to strengthen the relevant institutional capacity and infrastructure. Implementation of the project started according to schedule with respect to certain components. These included the appointment of focal points to facilitate the implementation of the project in each beneficiary country; the organization of the launching conference; and the scoping paper. The launching conference took place as scheduled within the ambit of the Pan African Film and Television Festival (FESPACO) in February 2013, organized every two years in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso. The conference was an opportunity to bring the project to the attention of international experts and government officials from a wide range of African countries. The Secretariat was pleased that the Ministers for Culture in Burkina Faso and Senegal as well as a representative of the Attorney General of Kenya participated in the conference. As mentioned, focal points were designated in each beneficiary country. However, in Burkina Faso, the project coordinator was appointed to different professional duties in March 2013. The new project coordinator was officially appointed in August 2013 and work with Burkina Faso resumed thereafter. The Scoping Study on Strengthening and Development of the Audiovisual Sector in Burkina Faso and Certain African Countries (document CDIP/12/INF/3) was commissioned in accordance with the timeline. It was prepared by two well-known international experts, Messrs. Benoit Muller and Bertrand Moullier, who both possessed very good knowledge of the African audiovisual market. The study was finalized and would be presented to the Committee tomorrow. It contained an evaluation of the current role played by IP in the financing, production and distribution of audio-visual works in the three recipient countries has been finalized. It also provided an assessment of IPR based transactions related to the filmmaking process. The project activities also included the preparation of a study on collective negotiation and collective management of rights in the audiovisual sector in the pilot countries. The study had been commissioned and was underway. It was expected to be finalized by year end. There was a delay in the planning and implementation of the training workshops and onsite training on collective negotiation. This was mainly due to work overload in the Copyright Law Division in the first half of the year. Thus, the Secretariat requested for the project to be extended by six months (third quarter of 2015) in order for it to be completed.
131 The Delegation of Kenya reiterated Kenya’s commitment to the project. It was envisioned that the project would strengthen the audio visual sector in Kenya. The Delegation assured the Secretariat that a training program would be ready in January to make up for lost time. The authorities would continue work with the Secretariat to fast track the program.
Consideration of Annex XIV - A progress report for the period from July 2012 to June 2013, on Recommendations for immediate implementation (the 19 Recommendations)
132 The Secretariat (Mr. Baloch) introduced the report in Annex XIV of document CDIP/12/2 on the 19 Recommendations for immediate implementation. The Secretariat recalled that in the first session of the CDIP, Member States had identified 19 recommendations which they felt did not require any human and financial resources for implementation. These were mainly principles that the Secretariat should adhere to in implementing all its activities, including those related to the DA. The Secretariat has been reporting on these recommendations for a long time. In the report, the implementation strategies defined by the Member States were included in the left column. Brief descriptions were included for the achievements with links provided to IP-TAD and the Program Performance Report (PPR). The Secretariat had adhered to this format as it was appreciated by Member States in the last three to four CDIP sessions.
The Chair closed the discussions on document CDIP/12/2 given that there were no further observations from the floor.
Consideration of document CDIP/12/4 - Evaluation Report of the Project on Enhancement of WIPO's RBM Framework to Support the Monitoring and Evaluation of Development Activities
133 The Consultant (Mr. O'Neil) introduced document CDIP/12/4. The Project on Enhancement of WIPO's RBM Framework to Support the Monitoring and Evaluation of Development Activities project had two basic components, i.e. the improving and strengthening of the RBM framework with a development focus, and an external review of WIPO’s technical assistance activities in the area of cooperation for development. The project began in January 2010 and was completed in April 2013. The Consultant highlighted some of the key findings of the evaluation. Since the launch of the project in 2010, WIPO’s RBM framework had been strengthened significantly. The expected results were consolidated directly under the nine Strategic Goals and consolidated from 140 in 2010/11 to 60 in 2012/13. Improvements were made to the performance indicators, baselines and targets, including for development activities. Improvements to the development focus of the RBM framework were directly related to mainstreaming development in WIPO’s activities. The development share of the budget for each expected result was included in the RBM framework. The relationship between activities and DA projects and recommendations was explained in the Program and Budget. The project complemented WIPO’s Strategic Realignment Program (SRP) which also strengthened the RBM approach. Thus, the successes could be considered as shared between the project and the SRP initiative. The project also contributed to improving PPRs and their development focus, particularly through changes made to indicators, baselines and targets. Another aim of the project was to create frameworks at country-level to monitor WIPO’s contribution to IP development linked to the collection of performance data as part of the PPR. Progress was made in defining the methodology of the country-level framework and integrating this within the WIPO country plan model. However, no pilots were carried out as the country plans are yet to be implemented completely. The project also aimed to create frameworks at country-level to monitor WIPO’s contribution to IP development. Progress was made in defining the methodology of the country-level framework and integrating this within the WIPO country plan model. However, no pilots were carried out as the country plans were yet to be fully implemented. The project also included an External Review of WIPO’s Technical Assistance in the Area of Cooperation for Development. The review was undertaken and the report was submitted to the CDIP in November 2011. An ad-hoc working group was established to consider the recommendations of the report. The WIPO Management Response was presented at the 9th session and discussions on the report continued at the 10th and 11th sessions of the CDIP. The evaluation found the process for conducting the review to be appropriate. It was transparent and led to the contracting of two recognized external experts on IP and development. They produced a comprehensive report for the CDIP’s consideration. The Consultant then turned to the conclusions and recommendations of the evaluation. There were seven conclusions and five recommendations. First, it was concluded that the project was clearly structured in two distinct but related components. However, clarity was lacking on the links to other monitoring and evaluation tools mentioned in the project documentation. Second, significant progress was made in strengthening the RBM framework and its development focus. The main challenge ahead was for WIPO programs to further sharpen their indicators and to utilize them for monitoring and reporting. As the RBM framework was increasingly focused on the measurement of outcomes, programs would increasingly rely on external stakeholders, including national IP offices, to support them in the collection of monitoring data. Ideally, this would be part of the data collected in the context of national RBM frameworks that were linked to national IP strategies. Third, the project was not able to complete all aspects of the country level development assessment frameworks due to their reliance on the implementation of country plans. Fourth, the independent evaluations of the DA projects contributed to WIPO’s capacity to assess the impact of its development-orientated activities. The longer term impact of development activities would be further understood by considering how the recommendations of the evaluations were followed up and implemented. Fifth, the completion of the external review was a key part of the project and a direct response to recommendation 41 of the DA. The long term success of this component would depend on the ability of Member States and WIPO to achieve consensus on the considerable number of recommendations and measures included in the report. In retrospect, it may have been appropriate to provide the external experts with guidance on structure and categorization of recommendations to facilitate the process. Sixth, the sustainability of the RBM component was dependent on the continued support services provided by PMPS and was reliant on the necessary budget and resources being available to mainstream this component within the regular activities of the section. The continued success of the RBM component also depended on the support of the top management at WIPO and Member States. Lastly, the sustainability of the review component was largely dependent on Member States. It would only be possible to determine the impact of the external review on technical assistance in the longer term. As mentioned, the evaluation report also contained five recommendations. First, it was recommended that for future projects of this nature, further descriptions of planned activities and links to other initiatives in the project documentation could be provided. Second, it was recommended that the PMPS be encouraged to continue its efforts to strengthen the RBM framework and its development focus and to carry out a new series of RBM workshops; and for national IP offices and other stakeholders to partner with WIPO in the collection of necessary monitoring data within the context of the country plans linked to national IP plans. Third, it was recommended that the implementation of the WIPO country plans incorporating the country level development assessment frameworks be accelerated by the Development Sector and that guidance be provided by the PMPS as required. Fourth, it was recommended that a meta-evaluation be undertaken by the Development Agenda Coordination Division (DACD) on DA project evaluations that were carried out to date. A transparent tracking system on the consequences and implementation of the findings and recommendations of the evaluations could be created by the DACD. Lastly, it was recommended that the project be considered as completed without the necessity of a Phase II on the basis that for the RBM component, ongoing activities would be integrated within the services of the PMPS and the necessary resources would be provided. As for the review component, the follow-up and implementation of the findings and recommendations of the external review was the responsibility of the CDIP with the support of the DACD.
134 The Delegation of Japan, speaking on behalf of Group B, stated that it attached importance to the evaluation of DA projects as it was required in order for DA recommendations to be implemented in an effective manner based on lessons learned through the evaluation process. With respect to the RBM component of the project, the Group agreed that significant progress had been made to strengthen the RBM framework and its development focus. It considered the project to be completed without the need for further phases, as recommended in the report (recommendation 5). With regard to the review component, it was clear that it had been completed and was being discussed. On that basis, no further work was required under the project.
135 The Delegation of Algeria, speaking on behalf of the African Group, stated that it fully shared the view expressed in the report that the RBM framework was more of a reporting tool rather than a management tool. The Group had always stated that the focus of the RBM framework was more on quantity rather than quality. Thus, it sought the Consultant’s opinion on how the RBM could be used to assess the quality of development activities. The Group found some of the recommendations in the report to be very useful. It would like to know whether the recommendations would be implemented as the Committee was only requested to take note of the report.
136 The Chair stated that the discussion on this item would resume tomorrow morning. The Consultant would also be present. He invited the Secretariat to read out the draft decision on document CDIP/12/2.
137 The Secretariat (Mr. Baloch) informed the Committee that the decision paragraph would be made available tomorrow morning for delegations to review. The following was read out:
“The Committee considered document CDIP/12/2 entitled Progress Reports, and took note of the progress achieved on the projects under implementation. Project Managers replied to the observations made by delegations and took note of their guidance. The Committee agreed to revise the timelines of the following projects:
-
Project on Intellectual Property and Technology Transfer: Common Challenges – Building Solutions;
-
Project on Open Collaborative Projects and IP-Based Models; and
-
Strengthening and Development of the Audiovisual Sector in Burkina Faso and Certain African Countries.
The Committee also considered the report on the nineteen recommendations for immediate implementation.”
138 The Delegation Algeria would like to know whether it could be clarified that some completed projects, including the Pilot Project for the Establishment of “Start-Up” National IP Academies, would be mainstreamed in the regular programs of the Organization to allow other countries to benefit from them.
139 The Consultant (Mr. O'Neil) stated that the aim was for the projects to be mainstreamed into the Organization’s work. However, this was dependent on the availability of resources.
140 The Chair stated that this would be reflected in the decision paragraph.
Consideration of document CDIP/12/4 - Evaluation Report of the Project on Enhancement of WIPO's RBM Framework to Support the Monitoring and Evaluation of Development Activities (continued)
141 The Chair resumed the discussions on document CDIP/12/4. He invited the Consultant (Mr. O'Neil) to respond to the question previously raised by the Delegation of Algeria.
142 The Consultant (Mr. O'Neil) understood that the question was on how the RBM system took into account the quality of the projects that were undertaken. This was something that many organizations were trying to address. RBM systems were generally oriented towards quantitative indicators. Perhaps text could be added to explain the reported results. For example, when the results stated that four countries implemented a project, an explanation could also be provided with regard to implementation quality. This was possible within WIPO’s RBM system. Thus, Member States and the Secretariat were encouraged to do so. They should ensure that the numerical results were explained. The WIPO system was quite good in that regard.
143 The Chair closed the discussion on this item given that there were no further observations from the floor. He then invited the Committee to consider document CDIP/12/3.
Consideration of document CDIP/12/3 - Evaluation Report on the Project on Capacity Building in the Use of Appropriate Technology – Specific Technical and Scientific Information Solutions for Identified Development Challenges
144 The Secretariat (Mr. Ghandour) provided an overview of the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the report on behalf of the external evaluator, Mr. Tom Ogada. There were ten findings. First, the project document was found to be sufficient as a guide for implementation and assessment of the results achieved. Second; the tools for monitoring, self-evaluation, and reporting of the project were fairly adequate and useful for providing information on the progress of its implementation. Third; the contributions of the other entities within the Secretariat were adequate to enable effective and efficient project implementation. Fourth; most of the risks that were envisaged in the project document did occur and affected the implementation of the project. Fifth; the project took into consideration emerging trends, technologies, and other external forces, given that the project itself was about the use of appropriate technologies based on existing patent information. Sixth; the project was fairly effective and useful in facilitating greater use of appropriate technical and scientific information in addressing nationally identified needs for development. Seventh; the project was fairly effective and useful in building national institution capacity in the use of scientific and technical information for the identified needs. Eighth; the project was fairly effective in coordinating the retrieval of appropriate technical and scientific information and the provision of appropriate know-how to implement this technology in a practical and effective manner. Ninth; there is likelihood for continued work on appropriate technology and the implementation of the business plans. Tenth; the project responded to recommendations 19, 30, and 31 of the DA. The report included six conclusions. First, the project document required further improvement to enhance efficiency, effectiveness and clarity in project implementation. Second, the participation of the regional bureaus in the project was important, particularly in view of exploiting opportunities for mainstreaming the appropriate technology projects in the countries’ national IP strategies. Third; the project piloting phase was fairly successful. The lessons learned could be used in future implementation of the project, in both LDCs and developing countries. Fourth; as a pilot, the project demonstrated its potential to build capacities in the use of appropriate technical and scientific information in addressing nationally identified needs for development. Fifth; the current arrangement for patent searches may need to be reviewed to provide opportunity for the national experts to acquire skills on patent searches. Similarly, the mechanism for transfer of know-how during the preparation of landscape reports should be reviewed to allow for more face to face interaction between the national experts, international consultant and WIPO experts. Sixth, it was too early to talk about the sustainability of the project in the pilot countries. The report also contained four recommendations. First, in view of the success of the piloting phase, it was recommended that the CDIP approved Phase II of the project. Second; it was recommended that the project document be modified by the Secretariat to address the key shortcomings identified by the evaluation. Third, for reasons mentioned above, it was recommended that the WIPO Secretariat should review the arrangement for patent searches and the mechanism for transfer of know-how in the preparation of landscape reports. Lastly; it was recommended that the Secretariat should undertake certain measures described in the report to enhance sustainability.
145 The Delegation of the United States of America appreciated the comprehensive evaluation report and was pleased to learn about the progress made in building capacity in the use of appropriate technology, technical and scientific information to address the development needs in the three countries selected for the project. It recommended that the CDIP took note of the evaluator's points in designing future projects and ensuring their sustainability. If the Committee was to approve the second phase of the project, there was a need to ensure that the next phase was better designed and managed based on the findings of the evaluation, and the project was sustainable and can be replicated by other Member States with minimal support from WIPO.
146 The Delegation of Lithuania, speaking on behalf of the EU and the its Member States, welcomed the external evaluations in respect of the Project on Capacity Building in the Use of Appropriate Technology and the project on the enhancement of WIPO's RBM framework. They provided a valuable opportunity to assess the completed projects. Evaluation reports were very useful tools to drive improvements and to identify shortcomings that should be avoided in future projects. They referred to their intervention in the ninth session in highlighting the importance of effectiveness, efficiency, and transparency in the management of projects. In addition to these aspects, sustainability must also be taken into account in the drafting and implementation of projects. They were particularly pleased to see clear recommendations following lessons learned in the implementation of these projects. The EU and its Member States urged the Secretariat not to lose sight of the lessons learned as they were critical to enhance effectiveness and efficiency in the management of future projects.
147 The Delegation of Ethiopia stressed that the project was of great importance to developing countries and LDCs as it contributed to reducing the existing knowledge gap in the field of IP. The Delegation fully supported the project and commended the recommendations contained in the evaluation report. The recommendations included the continuation of the project under Phase II. In October 2013, Ethiopia hosted a Roundtable on Public/Private Partnership in the Development and Commercialization of Appropriate Technologies. The roundtable was organized by WIPO in collaboration with the Ethiopian IP Office and with the assistance of the Korean IP Office (KIPO). The objectives of the roundtable were to exchange views on the issues related to development of appropriate technologies and to identify ways to overcome challenges in the commercialization of appropriate technologies. Around fifty participants representing various countries, sectors and interests attended the meeting. Identified needs and demands justified the continuation and sustainability of the project. It fully supported the sustainability and expansion of the project to other participants from the LDCs.
148 The Delegation of Japan appreciated the report’s conclusion that the pilot phase was successful. However, some aspects needed to be improved for future projects. These included the modification of project documents, arrangement for patent searches and the preparation of landscape reports as described in recommendations 2 and 3. In conducting phase 2, it was necessary for the Secretariat to appropriately address these recommendations. With regard to recommendation 4(b), the need for additional human and financial resources should be carefully examined, taking into account the fact that more than 90% of WIPO's income was generated from areas such as the PCT, and these programs should be given priority.
149 The Delegation of Benin, speaking on behalf of the LDCs, referred to the conclusions of the evaluation and noted that the project was very relevant and effective in building capacities in the use of appropriate technical and scientific information to address development needs. Each pilot country was able to pinpoint two areas of needs, identify appropriate technologies to address them and prepare business plans. The implementation of the business plans deserved WIPO’s support. In view of the success of the pilot phase and the project’s direct links with recommendations 19, 30, and 31 of the DA, the Group would like the project to be extended to other LDCs. It also supported the recommendation that more resources be allocated to the administration of the project by the LDCs Division and to support capacity building of Member States.
150 The Delegation of Spain reiterated that evaluation reports were very important. Thus, it was necessary for the two reports that were presented to the Committee to be fully translated, not just the executive summaries. The Delegation highlighted some issues based on the summaries and presentations. First, project documents should be clear and complete. They should contain as much information as possible. This was essential to facilitate and improve project management. It was important that the management of the projects was results-based. The sustainability of the projects and development activities should be ensured to the greatest extent possible. If a Phase II of the project on Capacity Building in the Use of Appropriate Technology was approved, the recommendations contained in the evaluation report should be taken into account to enhance the quality of that phase. They should also be considered for future projects in order to contribute to the improvement of WIPO technical assistance, including projects that were aimed at development.
151 The Delegation of Senegal endorsed the statement made by the Delegation of Spain on the availability of the full document in other languages. The document was very important. It was a pity that only the executive summary was translated into French. The Delegation supported the statements made by the Delegation of Ethiopia and the Delegation of Benin on behalf of the LDCs. The project was very important for developing countries as it contributed to capacity building in the use of appropriate technology. As mentioned in the report, the results in the three pilot countries indicated that the project was very useful and the lessons learned could assist other developing countries and LDCs. The Delegation supported the recommendations contained in the report, especially the recommendation for the project to be continued and extended to other interested countries. The recommendation for more resources to be put into the administration of the project by the LDCs Division and to support capacity building of Member States was also very important.
152 The Delegation of the Republic of Korea referred to the successful completion of the project and recalled that it had initiated the project in 2010. The Delegation hoped that the practices and experiences of the three pilot countries, namely, Zambia, Bangladesh, and Nepal could be extended to other interested Member States. These included, in particular, the business plan in Zambia and the appropriate technology center in Nepal. It supported the approval of the second phase of the project, including support for the implementation of the business plans in the pilot countries and the expansion of the project to new participants. The Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) had been involved in this area since 2010 and was willing to share its expertise.
153 The Delegation of Venezuela supported the statement made by the Delegation of Spain on the translation of the full report into Spanish. Similar requests were made in the past. This was an important issue.
154 The Representative of the Third World Network (TWN) made some comments on the evaluation report. First, the process for identifying development needs was not very clear. A main objective of the project was to identify appropriate technology solutions for the most urgent development needs. As such, a clear process for identifying needs was very important. The conclusions of the evaluation report clearly stated that WIPO should provide guidelines in this regard. Second, the project focused on appropriate technology based on patent searches. The implementation of an identified technology required the transfer of tacit knowledge and know-how. Thus, it would not be sufficient to rely only on patent searches. It would be useful if information could be provided on how tacit knowledge and know-how were being transferred. Third, the report recommended that the project document be modified to include clear and comprehensive selection criteria for participating countries; the introduction of a partnership agreement to clarify the roles and obligations of the participating countries and WIPO; preparation of guidelines on the process for identifying needs; and other aspects. The modifications should be made before launching phase 2 as it was clear that the implementation of the project had a number of shortcomings which appeared to be quite critical. They must be addressed in order for the project to be successful.
155 The Chair referred to the translation of documents and stated that the Secretariat would provide a response at a later stage. He informed the Committee that a decision paragraph on the two evaluation reports was ready and would be read out by the Secretariat.
156 The Delegation of Bangladesh submitted the following written statement:
“Developing national capacity in the area of science and technology is of utmost importance to Bangladesh. According to its vision 2021 by which the country seeks to become a middle income country by 2021, one of Bangladesh’s main development priorities is to create and promote technology and knowledge inspired development pathway. It is in this context, the delegation of Bangladesh supported strongly the adoption of the WIPO Development Agenda project on Appropriate Technology. We appreciate very much the focus of the project which seeks to facilitate capacity building through concrete activity on how patent, scientific and technical information databases could be explored to find appropriate technical solutions to meet key national development priorities. Bangladesh appreciates WIPO’s support in undertaking this useful initiative to gain practical experience of utilizing intellectual property to contribute to the development needs of least developed countries.
“In this context, the needs areas identified by Bangladesh were firstly, the requirement to find advanced ground improvement technique for infrastructure development in soft, low Lying, marshy land and secondly, the need for appropriate Technology for conversion of municipal wastes into land-filling materials for combating environmental hazards thus converting waste into a resource. This project sought to contribute to address these problems. We are pleased with the ‘country needs’ based approach of the project. We also appreciate the way the project implementation at the country level was carried out- where participation of broad based stakeholders ranging from relevant government ministries, department to private and public sector research and development institutions, universities, chambers and industry representatives was ensured. The central role of the National Expert Group in the management and implementation of the project at country level is also much appreciated.
“We hope that Bangladesh will be able to benefit from the technology solutions proposed in the technical landscape report and the recommended implementation strategies which will be indicated in the business plan. Such an outcome may require further support from WIPO and other development partners. We hope that WIPO and other partners would be forthcoming to take this pioneering approach to its subsequent required steps to ultimately implement the technology in the country. Bangladesh and other LDCs would benefit immensely from such international cooperation to meet their crucial development challenges.
“CDIP should approve phase II of the project to support the three pilot countries to implement the business plans, expand the project to new participants from LDCs and pilot the participation of select developing countries in the project.
“We would like to conclude by reiterating our sincere thanks to WIPO for implementing this project in Bangladesh as one of the pilot countries. Our technological capacity and knowledge building process would immensely benefit from the experience of this project. We seek to build on this and to continue our joint efforts in the area. In this context, we request WIPO and other fellow member countries for the continuation of this project for the benefit off the least developed countries by broadening its scope and frequency and by making it a regular development program.”
157 The Secretariat (Mr. Ghandour) read out the following decision paragraph:
“The Committee addressed the following project evaluation reports:
(i) Evaluation Report on the Project on Capacity Building in the Use of Appropriate Technology – Specific Technical and Scientific Information as a Solution for Identified Development Challenges (recommendations 19, 30 and 31), contained in document CDIP/12/3; and
(ii) Evaluation Report of the Project on Enhancement of WIPO's Results Based Management (RBM) Framework to Support the Monitoring and Evaluation of Development Activities, contained in document CDIP/12/4.
Following the presentations of the evaluation reports, an exchange of views took place. It was decided that the Secretariat will follow up on the recommendations contained in the reports, taking into account the comments made by Member States. In addition, the Committee approved the recommendation to have a Phase II of the Project on Capacity Building in the Use of Appropriate Technology.”
158 The Delegation of the United States of America proposed that the word “approved” be replaced with the word “considered”.
159 The Delegation of Benin would like the paragraph to clearly state that the Committee would consider the recommendation on Phase II and the extension of the project to other LDCs in the next session.
160 The Delegation of Japan preferred the words, “follow up”, to be replaced by the words, “take appropriate actions”, as the Secretariat would consider the recommendation and take appropriate action and not directly implement the recommendation.
161 The Chair stated that the paragraph would be redrafted to take into account the contributions from the floor. He then invited the Secretariat to provide a response with regard to the translation of documents.
162 The Secretariat (Mr. Baloch) referred to the WIPO language policy and reiterated that it required the summary of voluminous documents to be translated into all languages. The documents themselves would remain in the language in which they were drafted. However, upon a specific request by a Member State or a group of Member States, those voluminous documents could also be translated into other languages. Thus, if any delegation would like such a document to be translated into other languages, a request could be communicated to the Secretariat.
163 The Delegation of Spain recalled that the matter was also discussed in previous sessions as the Committee dealt with a lot of documents, including some which were voluminous. The Delegation believed that the language policy was often interpreted in a restrictive manner. It requested for document CDIP/12/3 to be fully translated.
|
| |