A/HRC/15/WG.2/TF/2 principles and criteria, including equality, equity, non-discrimination, participation, transparency and accountability. Right to development criteria require an open and inclusive decision-making process, but current determinations by national authorities on whether projects under the mechanism contribute to sustainable development are not subject to this standard. Furthermore, right to development criteria require equitable benefits of development within and among countries, but at this time projects under the mechanism benefit only a few developing countries. With respect to refining the right to development criteria, Mr. Orellana suggested that the criteria take into account a sciencebased approach in decision-making, in line with the outcome of the World Summit on Sustainable Development held in Johannesburg in 2002. 40. The Manager of the Process Management Unit at the secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change gave an overview of the achievements of and developments in the mechanism and of its main activities, functions and bodies. He stated that the Clean Development Mechanism is a flexible market mechanism. He agreed that projects thereunder were mostly concentrated in a few developing countries, and a large majority were in the Asia-Pacific region, followed by a considerable number in Latin America and the Caribbean. This trend reflects the direction of foreign direct investment flows. He then referred to certain shortcomings of the mechanism, such as increasing delays in the rigorous approval process. Several measures had been taken recently to improve the methodology and the approval process, including steps to enhance transparency. The efficiency in the registration of projects and issuance of certified emissions reductions, as well as governance, transparency and communication with stakeholders, need to be enhanced. With regard to the contribution of projects to sustainable development, designated national authorities would be encouraged to publish their sustainable development criteria. The representative indicated interest in continuing the dialogue, and extended an invitation to the task force to participate in the Nairobi Framework, which brought together United Nations agencies and several other institutions with a view to promoting the involvement of African countries in the mechanism. 41. In the discussion that followed, the representative of WIPO stated that access to knowledge is a human right and intellectual property was made to build, not block, innovation and the rights of people. It is the responsibility of Governments to provide incentives for intellectual property, whereas the role of WIPO is to promote a culture for intellectual property and respect for indigenous, traditional and cultural knowledge and folklore. Regarding the realization of social and individual rights, WIPO drew attention to the importance of intellectual property in generating technologies that can help in protecting such indigenous knowledge and culture. Ms. Fukuda-Parr referred to the tension between public and private interests: incentivizing innovation by providing intellectual property protection on the one hand, and sharing and expanding that innovation on the other. The representative stated that market failures require Governments to intervene and address the needs of society, especially in the area of health. In that regard, WIPO pointed to TRIPs flexibilities, such as compulsory licensing, as a policy option to address the needs of society. 42. UNCTAD noted the growing interest in looking at intellectual property issues from a human rights perspective. In reaction to a statement by WIPO referring to the intention of its new Director-General to incorporate human rights components into the Organization’s workplan, the Chairperson-Rapporteur noted the advantage, from the right to development perspective, if these adjustments in the workplan not only referred to social issues but also to their human rights dimensions. 43. In the interactive session with observers, the United States of America stated that it supported effective development processes and welcomed the WIPO Development Agenda, which provided a practical way to put WIPO at the centre of development. It disagreed with 10 GE.10-11443