Home

  FAO - SFM Case Detail: Re-inventing forestry agencies – experiences of institutional restructuring i

FAO - SFM Case Detail: Re-inventing forestry agencies – experiences of institutional restructuring in Asia and the Pacific FAO.org english Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) Toolbox Background Modules Tools Cases News E-learning Gateway Register Case Details Re-inventing forestry agencies – experiences of institutional restructuring in Asia and the Pacific Author(s) Durst, P., Brown, C., Broadhead, J., Suzuki, R., Leslie, R. & Inoguchi, A. (...) Is re-invention through a gradual, evolutionary approach preferable to “big bang” reform? Can fundamental and superfluous institutional changes be distinguished? Can hijacking of “re-invention” by vested interests be avoided? These and many other questions appear essential for re-invention to have a significant chance of success and much effort is also required in retaining momentum once the process is underway.

Score: 1533588 - https://www.fao.org/sustainabl...cases/case-detail/en/c/237143/

  Microsoft PowerPoint - ~4567637

Microsoft PowerPoint - ~4567637 RE-INVENTING THE UNSIA WATER CLUSTER AFRICAN WATER DEVELOPMENT REPORT MONITORING WATER AND THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT AT THE REGIONAL LEVEL Stephen Maxwell Donkor, PhD. (...) Policy Objectives Urbanization in Africa Types of Settlements Adequacy of Urban Water Supply Water Supply Performance Issues and Constraints. Health Impacts RE-INVENTING THE UNSIA WATER CLUSTER Presentation Outline (cont’d) Indicators Related to Urban Water. (...) Those living in large cities are generally better served than those in smaller urban centres. RE-INVENTING THE UNSIA WATER CLUSTER Adequacy (cont’d) Low-income urban dwellers are often pay high prices for very inadequate water provision.

Score: 1494738.7 - https://www.un.org/esa/sustdev...frica/presentations/donkor.pdf

  Microsoft Word - WTACCARM16_LEG_1

Conditions of Patentability for Invention 1.An invention shall enjoy the protection afforded by the Law if it is new, involves an inventive step and is industrially applicable (conditions of patentability for invention). 2. (...) The procedure for the registration of patent attorneys shall be determined by the Office. Article 19. Invention Application 1.The invention application shall relate to one invention or to a group of inventions which forms a single inventive concept (requirement of unity of invention ). 2. (...) As a result of the re-examination the Office s

Score: 1476177.1 - https://www.wto.org/english/th...c_e/arm_e/WTACCARM16_LEG_1.pdf

  THE MINISTRY OF SCIE

Persons carrying out the invention/utility solution registration procedures on behalf of the subjects 3.1. (...) Authorization to carry out invention/utility solution registration procedures 4.1. (...) Request for substantive examination of inventions, utility solutions 21.1. Within 42 months counting from the priority date of invention applications or 36 months from the priority date of utility solution applications, the applicants or any third parties may request the National Office of Intellectual Property to examine the contents of the relevant inventions or utility solutions.

Score: 1389456.6 - https://www.wto.org/english/th...e/vnm_e/WTACCVNM33A1_LEG_1.pdf

  PowerPoint Presentation

Identified issues Collaborative Management of Flight Updates Airport CDM Information Sharing Collaborative Pre-Departure Sequencing CDM in Adverse Conditions Milestone Approach Variable Taxi Time Calculation Lessons learned  a centralized, full time Program Management Office is essential for any CDM program  try to learn from lessons learned elsewhere (do not reinvent the wheel)  always follow the Eurocontrol Implemention Manual guidance material, as supported by IATA & ACI EUROPE, unless the local special conditions make it really necessary to deviate, to be approved by the Steering Board after a pro/con analyses by PMo  try to define simple, transparent & achievable milestones & celebrate successes  allow creativity and stimulate out-of-the-box solutions  empower PM(o), Project Leaders & Organisation Coordinators within boundaries of MoU  create a no blame CDM culture inside Program and Organisations  develop & approve a realistic Program Realisation Plan, disregarding ‘political wishes’ Notes - Approach Elements – distorted view as all airports are different – ie de-icing Identified issues – Allows for grouping of issues under 8 relevant categories Lessons Learned – 8 areas Project Management Re-inventing the wheel Culture Change Partner buy-in Guidance Performance Communication Training Lessons Learned - Project Management Notes - Project Management Dedicated Project Manager Consistent and Leads Lack of consistent partner participation and avoid personnel turnover Project itself Funded and fully supported by senior management Working groups – too large Lack of PMP with tasks, accountability and timeframes Empowerment Empower not just the PM’s but Project Leaders & Coordinators – Disregard Political wishes Incremental steps avoid a big bang theory, have a realistic and steady project structure Timings of Implementation Planning – take into account strategic happenings at your airport ie Summer or Winter seasons Other projects running or over lapping Lessons Learned – Re-inventing the wheel Notes – Re-inventing the wheel Take advantage of other implemented Airports Do not model your implementation on just one Experience Counts Visit other airports, see how it works for them Platform developed around CDM Procedures Listen and learn from others Open “your” services to others partners who want to visit Lessons Learned – Culture Change Notes – Culture Change Cannot be under estimated Be prepared for anything Create a “no blame” culture from the outset Trust win and keep the trust of the partners address their concerns not just during but after implementation Transparency Multi-partner involvement and engagement Cultural and Institutional changes will be need – perception of Lessons Learned – Partner buy-in Notes – Partner buy-in Top level Management support essential Adequately funded Steering Groups slow in resolving issues No structure, fragmentation amongst partners End user engagement Include all from the outset – in working groups, etc Incorporate partners procedures into the process Maintaining Commitment of all partners MoU – signed and understood from the very start Do not “leave” anyone behind – use the Airline Operators Committee to engage to include individual AO’s Lessons Learned - Guidance Notes - Guidance Take advantage and use any available implementation guidance material Learn and use the “re-inventing the wheel” points given earlier “One size” does not fit all – Each airports has its own peculiarities – the Framework of A-CDM remains the same throughout Harmonized approach – from the framework – any differences minimised – Task Force addressed 35 issues Lessons Learned - Performance Notes - Performance Define “milestones” or Indicators early on – implement just for the sake of ?

Score: 1373722.4 - https://www.icao.int/SAM/Docum...essons%20Learned%20(FINAL).pdf

  Cases | SFM Toolbox | Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

It is in this context that a study was conducted on existing and future institutional changes needed. In order to... Re-inventing forestry agencies – experiences of institutional restructuring in Asia and the Pacific 25 June 2014 To effectively respond to changing needs, forest agencies must ask themselves: What are the objectives of re-invention? How can others’ experiences be used? Is re-invention through a gradual, evolutionary approach preferable to “big bang” reform? Can fundamental and superfluous institutional changes be distinguished? Can hijacking of “re-invention” by vested interests... Public sector forestry institutions in Near East countries: adapting to meet the challenges of a changing world 25 June 2014 This note has been prepared to inform the Near East Forestry and Range Commission (NEFRC) about FAO forestry activities of interest to the region which were carried out in 2010-2011.

Score: 1373521.5 - https://www.fao.org/sustainabl...orestry-institutions/cases/en/

  Ethan Frome

In the event of disagreement of the applicant with the examiner's decision, he shall have the right, within two months of the date of receipt of the decision, to file with the State Service of the Republic of Tajikistan for Protection of Inventions and Registration of Trademark and Service Marks a request for re-examination. Re-examination shall be conducted within two months of the date of receipt of the appli- cant's request. (...) In the event of disagreement with the decision of the re-examination, the applicant shall have the right, within three months of the date of receipt of the decision, to file a motivated appeal with the Appeal Board of the Examination Division under the State Service of the Republic of Tajikistan for Protection of inventions and Registration of Trademarks and Service Marks (hereinafter referred to as "Appeal Board").

Score: 1357655.4 - https://www.wto.org/english/th...e/tjk_e/WTACCTJK6A1_LEG_10.pdf

  1 WHO-WIPO-WTO Techn

1 WHO-WIPO-WTO Technical Workshop on Patentability Criteria Geneva, 27 October 2015 The TRIPS Agreement and Patentability Criteria Roger Kampf WTO Secretariat Trilateral Cooperation: To Build Capacity, To Ensure Coherence • Essentially among WHO, WIPO, WTO • “Traditional” fields of cooperation, in particular capacity building activities • Series of joint technical symposia • WHO/WIPO/WTO study on “Promoting Access and Medical Innovation: Intersections Between Public Health, IP and Trade”: • Aims at assisting decision-makers by providing information and data • Illustrates the need to adopt a holistic approach 2 WTO’s Role • Making available a forum for debate • Raising awareness through workshops – Example: Workshop on Trade and Public Health (since November 2014) • Providing factual / technical information • Facilitating informed decision-making • Solving disputes • The WTO’s mandate is NOT – to interpret provisions of any of the WTO agreements, including the TRIPS Agreement – to assess implementation/use 3 4 Intersections between health, IP and trade Patentability Criteria Interaction IPRs - public health Intellectual Property Rights In di vi du al d ea ls , p ro je ct s, pa rtn er sh ip s Po lic ie s & st ra te gi es fo r I P m an ag em en t a t i ns tit ut io na l l ev el N at io na l p ol ic y se tti ng s f or pu bl ic -f un de d / p ub lic -in te re st re se ar ch N at io na l l eg al fr am ew or k & in no va tio n po lic y In te rn at io na l l eg al fr am ew or k & c oo pe ra tio n 6 Patents: Search for A Balanced Approach Patentable Subject Matter (Art.27.1) Patent Application Exclusive Rights Conferred (Art.28) Protection: 20 years from filing (Art.33) Exclusions (Art.27.2+3) Disclosure (Art.29) Exceptions (Art.30, 31, Doha) Exhaustion (Art.6, Doha) Enforcement Various optional provisions 7 TRIPS: Cumulative Application of Five Patentability Criteria • Patentable subject matter • Novelty • Inventive step or non-obviousness • Industrial applicability • Disclosure of the invention 8 What TRIPS Says and Does Not Say (1) • Article 27 covers “patentable subject matter” • Article 27.1, 1st sentence makes availability of patents mandatory for: – Inventions: regarding both products and processes – In all fields of technology – Which are new, involve an inventive step and are capable of industrial application • Inherent flexibility (footnote 5 to Art.27): – Inventive step = non-obvious – Capable of industrial application = useful • In addition - key terms not defined: – What constitutes an “invention” – When is an invention new, inventive and capable of industrial application – No guidance by Paris Convention 9 What TRIPS Says and Does Not Say (2) • Article 27.1, 2nd sentence: no discrimination as to place of invention, field of technology and whether products are imported/locally produced: – WTO jurisprudence on non-discrimination principle in DS114 (Canada – Protection of Pharmaceutical Products) – Rejects de jure and de facto discrimination of regulatory review exception - concentration of effects on pharmaceutical industry is no sufficient evidence of discriminatory purpose • Disclosure requirement under Art.29: – Limited guidance as to what and how to disclose – Optional: best mode and information regarding foreign applications and grants – Silent with respect to disclosure of genetic resource or traditional knowledge • Note: LDCs currently exempted from TRIPS obligations, except for national treatment and MFN 10 Optional Exclusions • Available even when substantive and formal conditions for patents are met • Art.27.2 and 3 TRIPS contain exhaustive list of three possible grounds for exclusion: – Protection of ordre public (i.e. general security, core values of society) or morality, provided that prevention of commercial exploitation is necessary to do so – Methods of treatment - does not extend to related medical devices – Plants, animals and essentially biological processes for their production • Flexible framework: inherent recognition of different societal and ethical values 11 Patentability: Selected Key Issues (1) • Material existing in nature – Patentability of biotechnological inventions is subject to longstanding and ongoing debate – See Proposal in TRIPS Council review of Art.27.3(b) to exclude patents on life forms – Examples from WTO Members: • EU Directive 98/44/EC and CJEU jurisprudence • recent jurisprudence in the US (Myriad; Mayo) • First and second medical indications – Patentability not addressed by TRIPS – Countries take different approaches, e.g.: • Excluded by Andean Community Decision 486 • Permitted under EPC – Typical example for debate on access and incentives to innovate 12 Patentability: Selected Key Issues (2) • Incremental and adaptive innovation – Examples: • new dosage forms increasing compliance / improving efficacy • new formulations with improved storage characteristics • new forms of delivery – Concerns voiced: patenting delays access to medicines and innovation – Challenge: distinguish between innovations that confers real improvements and those that do not offer any therapeutic benefits • Disclosure: – Proposal to amend TRIPS to require the disclosure of the country providing/source of genetic resources, and/or associated traditional knowledge in patent applications (TN/C/W/52 of July 2008) Issues Raised in Recent TPR Reviews (1) • Patentable subject matter – Human gene sequence / biological material • Human gene sequence extracted and/or isolated from its natural environment / synthetic DNA is patentable, provided a practical use is disclosed for the sequence (Australia, 2015) • Mere discovery of living material directly isolated from nature does not constitute patentable invention, but applications for processes of isolation can be considered (India, 2015) • No patents for plants and animals other than micro-organisms (India, 2015) – Traditional knowledge (TK) • Technical invention based on or developed using TK may be protected by patents provided that patentability requirements are satisfied (Hong Kong, China, 2014) • Substantive patentability criteria apply to patent applications being developed from Australian genetic resources and TK; submissions from third parties and third countries can be considered (Australia, 2015) – Second medical use claims • Not considered to be patentable products or processes (Viet Nam, 2013) 13 Issues Raised in Recent TPR Reviews (2) • Patentability criteria in general – Interpretation • No move towards more liberal interpretation that could explain increase in patent grants (Japan, 2013) – In FTAs • No patentability of modifications and new uses of pharmaceutical inventions sought in FTAs concluded with developing countries (EU, 2013) • Inventive step/obviousness – “Enhanced therapeutic efficacy” in Section 3(d) Patent Act does not introduce additional patentability criterion, but implies inventive step and applies to all fields of technology (India, 2015) – Raising the Bar Act of 2012 removes restrictions on information and background knowledge taken into account in assessing inventiveness (Australia, 2015) 14 Issues Raised in Recent TPR Reviews (3) • Industrial applicability/usefulness – No intention to amend Patent Law to reflect “promised utility” doctrine in jurisprudence - courts seek to protect patent system against patent applications based on speculation (Canada, 2015) – To raise patent quality, 2012 Act bolsters usefulness requirement: invention to work as indicated by patent and explanation how it works (Australia, 2015) • Disclosure – No measures envisaged to relieve applicant`s disclosure obligation; to ensure that inventors do not “hide” relevant prior art (US, 2014) – High standards for disclosure to ensure granted patents are not broader than disclosed inventions (Australia, 2015) • Collaboration – With SIPO to support substantive examination of patentability criteria (Hong Kong, China, 2014) 15 Issues Raised in WTO Accession Negotiations • Exclusions from patentability: – Inventions violating social interests or humanitarian and moral principles: confirmation that Art.1349 of Russia’s Civil Code would be interpreted and applied in compliance with Art.27.2 and 27.3 TRIPS (Russian Federation, WP Report of Nov. 2011) – Inventions contrary to public interest, humanitarian principles and morality: confirmation of law amendment to replace terms by reference to ordre public and morality (Kazakhstan, WP Report of June 2015) – Micro-organisms and non-biological processes: patentability clarified in new Law on Patents (Saudi Arabia, WP Report of November 2011 16 Extracts from Country Reports 2015 • Brazil – Under way: Law Bill 5.402/2013 in Congress to implement TRIPS flexibilities – Proposed measures include stricter patentability criteria and explicit prohibition to grant patents for second uses • Seychelles – Recommendation to restrict patentability of new uses and new indications under consideration • Trinidad and Tobago – Possibility of patenting plants and animals – But: exclusions regarding discoveries effectively limit patentability to new varieties that can only be obtained by transgenic engineering and not by naturally occurring breeding 17 Patentability Provisions In Trade Agreements With IP Provisions (Notified to the WTO By Feb.2014) 18 55/174 30/174 41/174 % Patentability Criteria in Trade Agreements: Selected Examples • TPP - see leaked text of October 2015 ‒ Provision on patentable subject matter based on Art.27.1, and exclusions in Art.27.2 and 3 TRIPS ‒ Confirms that patents are to be made available for inventions claimed as at least one of the following: new uses of a known product, new methods of using a known product, or new processes of using a known product; optional limitation of such processes to those that do not claim the use of the product as such ‒ Confirms availability of patents for inventions derived from plants • TTIP – EU position paper of March 2015 – IPR chapter could recall “established practices on patent procedures and patentability criteria, including regarding secondary use or incremental innovation; …” 19 20 Conclusions • Key terms not defined in TRIPS: – Considerable policy space left to patent offices and courts to interpret and apply patentability criteria at national/regional level – Allows for sector-specific considerations to be built into decisions on patentability • Results in considerable divergence in implementation at country level: – patentability of new use or method of using existing product treated differently – varying landscape of patents for the same product: granted / rejected at country level • Comprehensive, holistic reflection needed: – At country level: how can patentability criteria best assist in achieving policy objectives – need to define and to ensure implementation – In general: preserve TRIPS as is or need to harmonize further?

Score: 1355401.8 - https://www.wto.org/english/tr...r_Kampf_trilatworkshop15_e.pdf

  WTO | Intellectual property (TRIPS) - fact sheet - pharmaceuticals - 1

This encourages new inventions, such as new drugs, whose development costs can sometimes be extremely high, so private rights also bring social benefits. (...) For example, patented inventions have to be disclosed, allowing others to study the invention even while its patent is being protected. (...) After a period, the protection expires, which means that the invention becomes available for others to use. All of this avoids “re-inventing the wheel”.

Score: 1353548.3 - https://www.wto.org/english/tr...rips_e/factsheet_pharm01_e.htm

  Slide 1

Identified issues 2 Collaborative Management of Flight Updates Airport CDM Information Sharing Collaborative Pre- Departure Sequencing CDM in Adverse Conditions Milestone Approach Variable Taxi Time Calculation Lessons learned a centralized, full time Program Management Office is essential for any CDM program try to learn from lessons learned elsewhere (do not reinvent the wheel) always follow the Eurocontrol Implemention Manual guidance material, as supported by IATA & ACI EUROPE, unless the local special conditions make it really necessary to deviate, to be approved by the Steering Board after a pro/con analyses by PMo try to define simple, transparent & achievable milestones & celebrate successes allow creativity and stimulate out-of-the-box solutions empower PM(o), Project Leaders & Organisation Coordinators within boundaries of MoU create a no blame CDM culture inside Program and Organisations develop & approve a realistic Program Realisation Plan, disregarding ‘political wishes’ Notes - Approach  Elements – distorted view as all airports are different – ie de-icing  Identified issues – Allows for grouping of issues under 8 relevant categories enter your presentation title 3 Lessons Learned – 8 areas  Project Management  Re-inventing the wheel  Culture Change  Partner buy-in  Guidance  Performance  Communication  Training enter your presentation title 4 5 Lessons Learned Notes - Project Management  Dedicated Project Manager Consistent and Leads Lack of consistent partner participation and avoid personnel turnover  Project itself Funded and fully supported by senior management Working groups – too large Lack of PMP with tasks, accountability and timeframes  Empowerment Empower not just the PM’s but Project Leaders & Coordinators – Disregard Political wishes  Incremental steps avoid a big bang theory, have a realistic and steady project structure  Timings of Implementation Planning – take into account strategic happenings at your airport ie Summer or Winter seasons Other projects running or over lapping enter your presentation title 6 Lessons Learned 7 Notes – Re-inventing the wheel Take advantage of other implemented Airports Do not model your implementation on just one Experience Counts Visit other airports, see how it works for them Platform developed around CDM Procedures Listen and learn from others Open “your” services to others partners who want to visit enter your presentation title 8 Lessons Learned 9 Notes – Culture Change Cannot be under estimated Be prepared for anything Create a “no blame” culture from the outset Trust win and keep the trust of the partners address their concerns not just during but after implementation Transparency Multi-partner involvement and engagement Cultural and Institutional changes will be need – perception of enter your presentation title 10 Lessons Learned 11 Notes – Partner buy-in Top level Management support essential Adequately funded Steering Groups slow in resolving issues No structure, fragmentation amongst partners End user engagement Include all from the outset – in working groups, etc Incorporate partners procedures into the process Maintaining Commitment of all partners MoU – signed and understood from the very start Do not “leave” anyone behind – use the Airline Operators Committee to engage to include individual AO’s enter your presentation title 12 Lessons Learned 13 Notes - Guidance Take advantage and use any available implementation guidance material Learn and use the “re-inventing the wheel” points given earlier “One size” does not fit all – Each airports has its own peculiarities – the Framework of A-CDM remains the same throughout Harmonized approach – from the framework – any differences minimised – Task Force addressed 35 issues enter your presentation title 14 Lessons Learned 15 Notes - Performance Define “milestones” or Indicators early on – implement just for the sake of ? (...) Simple, transparent and achievable Celebrate those successes with all partners Continuous process which requires regular monitoring “Hold on stand” – perception is seen as negative & ATC ground delay – Remember “no blame culture” therefore an IATA delay code. enter your presentation title 16 Lessons Learned 17 Notes - Communication Essential and very key to successful implementation Include all partners from the very start Commit to an open dialogue with all partners - Too many ‘talkers 'and lack of ‘doer’s’ Inform the wider airport community so it is not new when it happens Early, timely and accessible access to (project) implementation information Pre – ] During – ] ie Flight crew briefing sheets, Post – ] Continue – even with small changes, wins or loses Accessible website enter your presentation title 18 Lessons Learned 19 Notes - Training Cannot be emphasised enough High effort, both initially and continuous Must be adequate Initially not included in Flt Crews training – important to address transient workforces To DLA or not – Dispatchers, AOCC’s, Ground Handlers – when and who sends Understand the partners process as a whole (one piece of data important to who) New acronyms and abbreviations (ETA exercise) Awareness through NOTAM, AIP, Targeted leaflets, simple and clear process cards enter your presentation title 20 Lessons Learned 21 CDG VIE BUD Initial contact Ongoing A-CDM Airport PRG ZRH MXP AMS FCO MUC LYS LIS BRU WAW OSL ATH HER BCN SXF GVA IST MAD PMI LGW DUS FRA RHO TLS LIN VCE MAN BHX DUB CPH LTN LJU ORY LHR A-CDM 2015 STR HAM KBP HEL ARN SOF OTP Notes - With thanks to all the Partners themselves enter your presentation title 22 Lessons Learned 23 www,euro-cdm.org Implementation - Lessons Learned Lessons Learned - Approach Notes - Approach Lessons Learned – 8 areas Lessons Learned Notes - Project Management Lessons Learned Notes – Re-inventing the wheel Lessons Learned Notes – Culture Change Lessons Learned Notes – Partner buy-in Lessons Learned Notes - Guidance Lessons Learned Notes - Performance Lessons Learned Notes - Communication Lessons Learned Notes - Training Lessons Learned Notes - Lessons Learned

Score: 1328060.1 - https://www.icao.int/MID/Docum...Learned%20by%20Eurocontrol.pdf