The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Secretariat appears to be making steady progress towards addressing the development dimension of intellectual property (IP) protection in response to the range of Recommendations that make up the WIPO Development Agenda (WDA). Important questions, however, remain regarding the real impact of the WDA; the manner in which some of the key recommendations, such as on public domain, are being implemented; and the role of WIPO Member States and other stakeholders, including civil society organisations and other international organisations, in contributing to the effective implementation of the WDA. This is the conclusion I reach after reading a WIPO a Secretariat document titled “Progress Report on Recommendations for Immediate Implementation” (WIPO doc. CDIP/3/5) which will be discussed at the third session of the organisation’s Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP) in Geneva (27 April  – 1 May 2009).

The report covers the period from November 2007 to December 2008. The report is complimented by  a second document (CDIP/3/2) focusing exclusively on Recommendation 6 which required the WIPO Secretariat to make available to the Member States a list of consultants it has used in technical assistance and capacity building activities.

Signs of positive progress

 The WDA has clearly made its mark on WIPO operations and activities. In addition to the efforts to specifically address the WDA under each strategic goal in WIPO’s Revised Program and Budget and the creation of new programme for the Development Agenda Coordination and for Economic Studies, Statistics and Analysis, the progress report reveals a number of positive strategies and activities. One notable positive sign is the effort to improve the transparency with respect to technical assistance and capacity building. The consultants roster is quite illuminating and the anticipated database is likely to become an important transparency tool, provided that other stakeholders such as civil society and research organisations play they roles.

However, the implementation of some of the Recommendations leave a lot to be desired. In this context, one area of worry relates to the implementation of Recommendation 16 (public domain). In this case, it is not obvious how far the reported activities go in ensuring better treatment of public domain related concerns in normative processes and if the activities provide any evidence of deepened analysis regarding the public domain in the organisation.

In some cases, further information would have been useful to permit an assessment as to  whether there is progress or not. For example,  it is reported under Recommendation 6 that a senior investigator was appointed in March 2008 to address the need to tackle wrongdoing related to technical assistance and capacity building. It is not clear, however, whether the existence of this investigator has been made known to Members States and other stakeholders and if systems have been established to facilitate objective investigations including confidentiality for countries or entities reporting wrong doing. Another example relates to the issue of a call for proposals from developing country economists.

Lack of means of verifying progress, impact and outcomes remains an important gap

The biggest challenge for the WDA implementation, which this report reveals, is the lack of a robust monitoring and evaluation system through which claimed progress and, in future, impact and outcomes could be verified. In most cases, in the absence of any means of objective verification, it is not obvious how the implementation strategy and the examples of activities cited led to the reported progress or achievements. It can not be assumed, for example, that every workshop held automatically resulted in enhanced knowledge and skills of participants or that every study led to better understanding.

Developing a credible monitoring and evaluation framework that can allow objective verification of progress, impacts and outcomes is therefore  a key issue that the CDIP and the WIPO Secretariat needs to take up and address quickly. If a clear connection can not be established between the objective of each recommendation, the implementation strategy, the activities undertaken and the progress/impact/outcome recorded then it will become increasingly difficult to tell whether the WDA is making a difference or not and how.

While it might appear to some that it is too early to evaluate developing the framework early is critical because it will ensure, among other things, that reporting to the CDIP is streamlined and that the correct information is collected from early on in the process.

Development Agenda requires more than WIPO Secretariat to succeed: The role of Member States and other stakeholders in implementation

Another issue, which comes to mind when one reads through the progress report and the document on consultants, and which the CDIP will need to address as a priority, relates to the responsibilities and roles of WIPO Member States and other stakeholders in implementing the WDA. While the WIPO Secretariat has a critical and the most important role, the WDA cannot succeed if other stakeholders, from Member States to other international organisations, funding agencies, civil society organisations, academic and research organisations, industry and business groups through to the media do not play their role.

In the case of Member States, both developed and developing countries have important responsibilities especially with respect to recommendations related to technical assistance and capacity building and norm-setting. For technical assistance, there is a big question whether any of the developed countries IP offices which deliver a lot of technical assistance on WIPO-related matters and the TRIPS Agreement have taken any measures to mainstream the WDA principles in their delivery and evaluation systems. For developing countries it is not clear whether there have been any specific measures to internalised the WDA and to reshape relationships with WIPO accordingly. With respect to norm-setting, especially the implementation of Recommendation 15, Member States have the primary responsibility to ensure that the established principles are followed.

In the case of other stakeholders, measures, for example, by other international organisations, civil society organisations, academic and research organisations as well as business groups to re-orient their technical assistance and capacity building activities to reflect the WDA principles would  contribute significantly to the WDA implementation. Some of these other groups also have an important role, for example, in analysing the roster of consultants for issues such as conflict of interest.

To ensure that each stakeholder, including Member States, are playing their role in supporting the implementation of the WDA there is a need to expand the reporting on progress to cover not only the WIPO Secretariat but also the other stakeholders.