[Ip-health] TWN Info: WIPO CDIP begins discussions on Independent Review of Development Agenda
sangeeta at twnetwork.org
Wed Nov 20 00:53:17 PST 2013
Title : TWN IP Info: WIPO CDIP begins discussions on Independent Review of
Date : 20 November 2013
TWN Info Service on Intellectual Property Issues (Nov13/04)
20 November 2013
Third World Network
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: ³To 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 CDIP².
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
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 ³the relevant WIPO
bodies², 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:
(a) Examine theappropriateness, utility, relevance, effectiveness and
adequacy of the activities undertaken to implement the relevant Development
(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
(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
(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
(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
As the CDIP session opened, Algeria on behalf Africa Group requested that
the CDIP first deals with the issue of independent review.
Egypt on behalf of the DAG stressed that the independent review should be a
³priority² for the committee, and stressing on the need for a decision on
the TORs and the IP and Development experts that will conduct the review as
the 12th session was thelast CDIP session in the biennium. Egypt also said
that the review should be ³thorough² and ³robust².
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
³onerous and should enable pragmaticconsideration² adding that the
assessment of impact should be confined to ³relevant WIPO bodies².
The US said the Review should follow the general principles of the
coordination mechanism, avoid duplication and where practical use existing
governance structures, adding that the Committee should take into account
the numerous reports that have been presented to the CDIP. It also added
that the Review should be concise to facilitate translations and within the
existing WIPO budget.
South Africa said that the Committee could not afford to delay the matter
anymore. On Group B¹s 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
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 Brazil¹s 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.
More information about the Ip-health