 Mae'r ddau'r ysgol yn ymgyrchu, mae'n ffordd oedd o'r gweithio'r 2017 ysgol fydd yng nghymru mewn gwirionedd Gwasanaeth Gweithgrifedd yw'r 10. Mae'r ysgol yn edrych i'r gweithio, ac mae'r ddweud i'r ysgol wedi fy nesaf yn ysgol yn ysgol yn ysgol, I will give you much more detail. I would like to make just a few opening remarks. Why do we do this and what is the GII? Well it measures essentially the capacity and performance of innovation across 130 economies in the world. And why is that important to measure? I give you four quick reasons. Economic growth. We're living in a period of sustained sluggish in economic growth. It has been conventional wisdom for a long time now that innovation is a major driver of economic growth. So, looking at the capacity to innovate and innovation performance is more important now than ever. Secondly, as the particular theme chosen for this year, namely feeding the world agriculture, indicates, innovation is our major tool for addressing the significant social challenges that confront the world, such as feeding a growing population with competing uses for land resources. Innovation is the way out and as a number of the essays that are contained in this year's edition indicate innovation agriculture is likely to experience significant change driven by innovation in the coming years. Thirdly, innovation is a measure of a country's capacity to compete internationally. So, what we are measuring here is central to economic performance and capacity to perform and compete internationally. And finally, technology is the great differentiator in the world or at least one of the great differentiators in the world. And innovation is at the heart of that. So, it is very important for countries to have available a tool which enables them to benchmark their own capacity and performance against other countries' capacity and performance and to see in what respects they may be able to improve their performance. There are a number of results that my colleagues will go through. Let me just make a couple of remarks about them. Of course, everyone focuses on the rankings and the rankings are important, but the rankings are not everything. But what the rankings show us, of course, is that there is continued stability in the top 2025 in the rankings on the Global Innovation Index. Switzerland is the gold medalist once again and that's seven years running, so that's quite an outstanding performance. In amongst the middle income countries we see China moving once again. It moved into the top 25 last year as the first middle income country in the first 25 and it moves up to number 22 this year. One final remark, we have in the discussions following the launch of the GII each year, we get a persistent question which is, well, how is it that the United States, for example, comes in at number four? When, in the popular mind at any rate and on many of the measures, the United States is the innovation leader in the world, or how is it that China is only number 25 or number 22 this year? And this is an effect of an index on in particular large and diverse economies. So if you look at the rankings you do see that a number of the highest performers tend to be small homogenous economies where an even performance across the economy with respect to all the complex number of measures that go into determining innovation capacity is rather more easy than in the case of a large and diverse economy. So to address this particular line of inquiry, we have started within WIPO an investigation into the occurrence of clusters or innovation hotspots around the world and we do release the first results in this regard this year. Let me say that those results, unlike the GII, are based on very specific data relating to patent applications. And they are very interesting in themselves because they tend to identify the clusters, the clusters become self-identifying. And there we have a different sets of results. We have Tokyo Yokohama coming out on top followed by Shenzhen Hong Kong followed by San Jose San Francisco followed by Seoul followed by Osaka Kyoto in clusters. The global innovation index is a far more comprehensive measure of innovation capacity and performance. This is the start of one particular component in the global innovation index, namely looking at clusters or innovation hotspots, not in terms of countries but in terms of particular geographical localities and it is based on much more limited data. Thank you very much and good morning everyone. So it's my pleasure to say a few introductory remarks about the global innovation index. As Francis mentioned earlier, this is the 10th year of the index and these 10 years will not have been possible without the support of many in the audience out here. I wanted to acknowledge especially my colleague Shasha from the WIPO who is one of the co-editors of the report and also support of Karsten who is the chief economist of the WIPO and we also have a knowledge partners from CII, represent Dr. Noshat Forbes and strategy and represented by Wolker Stack here. So thank you very much for your support. I wanted to use my few minutes to give you a sense of some overall trends that we have seen in the innovation index results over 10 years. What is important to keep in mind is there is no other comparable base of data that exists that looks at innovation broadly defined across countries over time. So we have the privilege of having this unique set of data over 10 years and I wanted to set the context in terms of what are some overall trends and then my colleague Bruno will go into more the in-depth results for this particular year. So what do we see as some important trends over the last 10 years? So what we have seen of course is in the last 10 years a sharp decline in investments and R&Ds expenditure triggered mainly by the global financial crisis in 2008-2009. Prior to that we had fairly high levels of investment across the world. Just after the crisis investments decreased dramatically and then they moved up. Clearly what has happened is they have moved up but they haven't actually caught up to the levels pre-crisis levels. What we see overall is if the world wants to maintain a steady and a high level of growth in the economies, we need to ramp up the level of investments in R&D across the world both in rich countries and also in developing economies. For a certain period of time private sector investments made up for the fall of the losses in government investments but what is of some concern to us is more recently this year and the previous year we are seeing some declining trends even in the private sector investments and this hasn't been compensated correctly adequately by rises in government expenditures. So there is a need out here for governments around the world and private sector around the world to increase investments, especially R&D investments if we want to continue with a healthy state of growth in the world around us. The second overall message that we see is there is an innovation divide in the world. It's undeniable. The set of countries that are at the top of the innovation rankings over the last ten years continue to be at the top and this gap is not necessarily decreasing on the whole. So the gap exists and continues to exist and of course the reasons for it are multiple but at the same time what we see are some hopeful signs of a more global based innovation emerging. As we mentioned earlier by the director general countries like China have moved up dramatically. So China is now ranked 22 this year and all the years is ranked and moved up consistently. India is increasing its progress and this year is ranked number 60 in the top half and we see other countries, a range of countries around the world who are occupying positions of significance in the top of the list. So even though there are some examples of countries moving out here upwards, the message really is that developing economies have to focus on policies and investment strategies to decrease the gap with the rich economies because this gap is a real gap yet at the same time we see examples of countries that are successfully closing the gap. So we need more of those successful closure of the gaps across the world. Now we also see in terms of overall regional trends a rise of an innovation powerhouse in general in Asia. This is not surprising per se given the rise of China and what we have talked about China but one should not forget that Japan continues to be a regional economic and innovation powerhouse. We see new Asian tigers emerging like Vietnam and Thailand and Malaysia and we see the rise of India which is doing increasingly well along many metrics. Now as we see some more collaborations across these Asian countries emerge and take more concrete forms of collaboration and manufacturing, other kinds of global supply chains. Our expectation is that Asia will start emerging as even more dominant home for innovation in the years ahead. Now in terms of other areas that have lagged behind traditionally, we know that Africa has been an area of concern but again the data shows and hopeful trend on that front where we see a gradual but steady rise in innovation results in Africa and certainly some countries are doing quite well and in our innovation research we identify countries that perform at a higher level as compared to their peers at the same GDP per capita levels and every year we term these countries innovation achievers and what we note is that this group of countries which are innovation achievers has been increasing every year and this year we have 17 of them and includes several countries from Africa such as Rwanda, Uganda, Mozambique, Malawi, Senegal and others. So we see some positive stories of examples of Africa as a region moving and improving yet it also emphasises the need for emerging economies as a whole to focus much more on innovation policies and the reasons that I mentioned earlier for competitiveness, for creation of wealth and essentially competing in the global world. Let me at this point pass on the flow microphone to my colleague Bruno who will go more in depth in this year's results. Thank you Sumitra, thank you Francis, good morning everybody. So you have seen the press release, you've heard what both the director general and Sumitra Dutta just said about the rankings. I have little to add indeed we have Switzerland in the first position for the seventh year in a row which is quite remarkable. It's something we are not seeing in the any other major global index we can think of, the same champion for such a long period of time. So we all continue to learn from the experience of Switzerland. Last year the press and the media insisted very much on the symbolic entry of China in the top 25. This trend is being pursued. China goes up another three notches this year. And we see indeed, as Sumitra just mentioned, an innovation powerhouse being somehow revived or reborn in Asia. So there are interesting trends and novelties in that. We still have stability at the top. We still see Europe dominating the rankings with eight European countries in the top 10 and 14 in the top 20. We also see interesting changes in the middle of the ranking between 30 and 50 roughly with some spectacular progressions like Vietnam plus 12. We also have other countries like United Arab Emirates, Croatia, Romania, each moving up plus six. So things are moving somehow in the middle. It remains, as Sumitra mentioned, that divide is still there and deserves all our attention. This year is also the year for which we chose food and agriculture as a theme. And there are various reasons for that. We thought we needed a theme for the 10th anniversary that would remind all of us that innovation is not just high technology sectors. That if innovation doesn't touch the majority of people on this planet, it is not actually playing the full role it could play. And that food and agriculture was indeed the most ancient activity of mankind and that it would be wrong to think that it's not a sector affected by innovation. Actually it's quite the opposite. We are heading to a world where the planet with estimated resources will have to feed roughly 10 billion people. If you look at the supply side and demand side, on the supply side you have the necessity to bring enough calories in a food for everybody. And on the other side you have not only to use available resources to do that but do it in a conservative way. We need to limit and reduce the pressure on the use of land, the use of energy as the director general mentioned before. To do that innovation is absolutely key. There's no way with the resources we have and the challenge we have ahead of us that if we left everything as they are today we would be able to solve that equation. And this year's report shows through its chapters in particular what we got from our various contributors from all around the world that good signs are appearing. Digital agriculture is rapidly spreading, the use of drones, remote sensing, satellite based systems. All of that is actually being increasingly used including in emerging and poorer countries. That's a good sign. But by itself it will not solve the hunger problem. We need to move from digital agriculture to smart agriculture and smart digital agriculture altogether is the key. What is the difference? The difference is that we are not looking just at technology and new crops. We are looking at ways to improve distribution systems to get the food to where it is most needed. Transportation, trade, regulation all have a role to play and this is where we also need innovative. And this might be the concluding point looking back at ten years of GII which is it's a fundamental message we tried to make as clear as possible since the very first edition of the report. Innovation is not just technological innovation. Innovation is a mindset. Innovation has to do more and more with new business models, with new ways of organizing input into valuable outputs. And if we can help in our modest way to contribute to inform this debate, to equip various decision makers, private and public to make the right decisions about innovation, this would not have been wasted times. Thank you. We'll take your questions if you can please identify yourself before asking a question and switch off your microphone when you're done. Tom Miles from Reuters. If the European Union was one country, how would it rank on the tables? And also can you say what do you anticipate will be the Trump and the Brexit effects on innovation in the United States and Britain? Thanks very much. Okay, we haven't done a ranking looking at combining all European nations into one. But as you see in the ranking, Europe does extremely well. So you have Switzerland, Sweden, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, all in the top 10. So there's a very strong sense of innovation achievement amongst many European countries. And it's a good exercise to do for the future perhaps combine and see how they would map up as one combined entity. But right now what I would say is that looking at countries individually and the many European countries are extremely well right in the top 10. Let me just make a couple of observations on the second part of your question. As is apparent from what Sumitra has just said, innovation is a very central strategy for the European Union. So I think that as far as Brexit is concerned, it is obviously in the interest of both parties that they come to an arrangement in respect of Brexit, which respects all of the complexity of the interrelationships that exist between the United Kingdom and other European partners and which have developed as a consequence of the centrality of the policy of innovation to the European Union and which have developed also because Britain itself is an innovation power. Great Britain is an innovation power. So I would say we can't make any observation on that other than to say that it is in both parties' interests to be able to preserve the sorts of relationship that have contributed to Europe as a whole including the United Kingdom being a high innovation performance. As far as the United States of America is concerned, I think again it's rather early days to be able to make any observations on that. I think we do notice that in the proposed budget presented by the President, their research and development expenditure in the public sector, these proposed would be reduced by 10%. That is a proposal only. Obviously, public research and development in the United States of America is exceptionally important component of the whole of the innovation ecosystem in the United States. So there are certain signs, but those I think would be premature to make any really firm observations about the administration's policy as a whole in respect of innovation. Just to add on that on the European side, I think Brexit was a wake-up call. We said last year that regarding innovation, but more generally the future emerging and developing countries have to invent the future and older economies such as Europe have to reinvent their models. So the wake-up call may lead to reinventing a few things about Europe, at least that's the hope. And now regarding as the Director General just said about what happened and the effects on innovation about what happened in the UK and in the US, I would be tempted to make the same answer that was made by Chu and Lai when the French ambassador asked him in the 60s what are the most important effects of the French Revolution. And Chu and Lai's answer was too early to say. Sorry, just to follow up on Brexit, I see that the UK has already gone down the rankings a couple. Is that related to Brexit? Why else? So most of the data collected out here was prior to Brexit, so in effect the data does not reflect any impact post Brexit and it would be completely speculated at this point to draw any association between the two. Ben Simon from AFP, just going to follow up on what Tom was going after a little bit. You make national rankings, but presumably exchange of ideas across borders, international commerce as part of innovation. WTO and others remind us every single day about the threat of rising protectionism and what that could do to the global economy. Presumably you have similar concerns for innovation that as countries leading innovators bunker in, be it the US or the United Kingdom, you're going to see less innovative ideas triggering through exchange. I wouldn't draw the conclusion, but I would share your concern about the subject matter. So we have emphasised in this particular context in the past the internationalisation of science and technology and the relationships that have developed in respect of innovation just as you have suggested across the world. Which are essentially international in character. Now will the tendencies that are out there for protectionism have an impact on that? Again regrettably perhaps for today's purposes it's too early to say, but it's something that we should be very concerned about. We are studying global value chains, intellectual property and innovation, and that will be the subject of a world intellectual property report which will be released in November this year. So we hope that that will shed a little more light on this, but I think we should be extremely vigilant that the internationalisation of innovation which has had benefits for many countries, all countries, is not impacted adversely by protectionism. Just a footnote to that, I will go one step beyond what the Director General just said. I not only share your concerns, I share your implied conclusions. There's no surprise that among the first to actually worry about protectionist signals given by the new US administration were Silicon Valley entrepreneurs. Because they are the first to know how much they owe to diversity to the fact that people from all over the world have converged towards California and universities and Silicon Valley as entrepreneurs. The proportion of startups created by people who are not US national is significant for people to take notice. And there would be many other examples showing that indeed protectionist threat could be a threat to innovation and to the quality of innovation. It's also important to keep in mind and that's also something that Francis Gray highlighted before. It's a surprise to many people that the US should be only number four, number five, number six depending on the years. And that smaller economies would rank higher. And there's no secret about that. If you're a smaller economy you have to be an open economy. You have no choice, especially in these times of globalization. So openness is and will continue to be a critical factor of success in innovation. Yes, good morning. I was wondering, I'm a bit curious to find out how come Russia doesn't appear anywhere on the top 20. Given it's a world leader in so many areas in research, does that mean you don't include government funded research or defence R&D? Let me sort of, as was mentioned earlier, the whole premise behind the innovation index is to look at innovation as a broad based capability in the country. And the variety of different elements that go into the composition of the score of innovation including institutions, human capital, infrastructure, market sophistication, business sophistication. And they're each defined by a whole variety of variables. So if you look at Russia's ranking on each one of these dimensions, they're not necessarily in the top 20. So I'll just give an example on institutions is ranked 73 on infrastructure is ranked 62nd on market sophistication is ranked number 60. And on some of the outputs on the knowledge technology outputs are ranked number 45 and creative outputs ranked number 62. So the actual data does not necessarily show that Russia is performing in the top 2030 globally. And clearly Russia, despite as many strengths, has areas where it should be investing and trying to actually improve more. Let me just add two comments, John, if I may. First, innovation is the introduction of new products and services to the economy. So we're not focused on the military, first of all. And secondly, I think that the Russian authorities highly, I can't speak for them obviously, but they're highly conscious of the need to focus on innovation as a strategy. And that can be seen, for example, with respect to the development of Skolkovo as an endeavor to create a cluster of importance for innovation and a cluster which will enable the very strong tradition in science that has always existed in Russia in the Soviet Union and post Soviet Union to be able to find its translation through to the economy. I've got a follow up question with reference to the theme this year being agriculture. To what extent do you consider the introduction of GMOs in agriculture as an innovation step given that there is a trend by the consumers going the other way towards bioproducts? Yes, this is one of the questions which is addressed through some of the chapters. Clearly, there is a debate about GMOs and there are debates about other aspects of innovation in food and agriculture. It boils down to what I called earlier making the best use of available resources. If indeed some new products are polluting or poisoning our environment, we are not going to gain anything in innovation. Clearly the debate is open on GMOs. There are high stakes around it. A strong argument relates to how do we feed the people. Whether without genetically modifying the seeds we are able to do that, clearly that's one side of the equation. The other one is how do we protect the growth of the seeds and the fertilizer and nutrient kind of side of the equation. It's an open debate. It's a debate in which civil society needs to be involved so that all the elements are put on the table. But clearly the experiments we have seen around the planet point at ways in which this can be done properly. Finding out the best practices and making sure those are the ones adopted as opposed to the worst practices would be part of the innovation game in agriculture. Just to let me add one comment, John, I think it's an area to watch very, very closely, particularly with the introduction of CRISPR technology. We will see a lot of activity with respect to... I'm sorry, which technology? CRISPR. CRISPR Cas9. We will see a lot of activity as it's at the moment the main applications or explorations with respect to the human genome, but it's equally applicable to plant genomes. William knew an intellectual property watch. When I think of rankings it seems like it could be considered a sort of zero sum that if one is gaining another is falling. And yet there was a clear message that there's a need for the world collectively to invest and concentrate on innovation in order to benefit all economies and the global economy. How does an individual country set its targets that would be appropriate for its growth factor? Does it work with the partners that you have to do the three partners that have produced the report? Advise and help to construct specific targets on different elements of the whole. And then my only other little question was when I think of Africa and agriculture as that was a topic here today. I think what about the local farmer who has come up with a local innovation that some little practice that is used at that very local level but isn't a sort of corporate level or commercial level activity. Does that sort of thing get captured here? Thank you. Answer the first part of the question. So the rankings are relative rankings and clearly there's a relative shift across countries as countries improve or they change their scores. But the rankings are also based on absolute scores. Absolute scores. So there are variables with actual data values that are computed and then we have a ranked order of the various total scores and then we give a rank. And what is important for us is to see the gap in the scores. So if you look at the rich countries, the leading countries, they typically score in absolute terms a higher value on the various indicators as compared to the emerging economies in many cases. And the report outlines the gaps very clearly. So what we hope is that emerging economies are able to invest in the right policies such that they're able to close the gap in actual scores because the actual magnitudes of the improvements are important at the same time. You also asked a very interesting question about how does it translate into individual country actions and policies. And let me just share with you one anecdote in many countries of the last few years have chosen to use the global innovation index as a guiding principle for setting their countries innovation strategies and policies. And one country that is working quite actively on it right now is India. We have Mr Noshat Forbes from CII out here with us and he can comment also at some later point on this. India has chosen to create an India innovation index that basically uses the framework of the global innovation index because the framework is a framework that really applies to all countries, but then customizes it with variables and strategic objectives linked to India per se. And right now the various Indian organizations are key ones involved in the IO, the Central Government Planning Commission, CII, which is an industry confederation body and a department of industrial promotion, industrial promotion DIPP. They're working together with WIPO, with Cornell University and with the World Economic Forum to try to create a state level innovation index. And this will be used to benchmark different states and to create the sense of transparency and competition across different states that will help them to both A improve themselves and also bring in a healthy level of competition for investments across the various states. So it's one example of a large country actually using it to create something localize and we have other examples of other countries using the innovation index as a guide for their own investments. William, if I may go back to the very first part of your question, I think if I may say you've put your finger on something which is extremely important, you have attention I think between two things. On the one hand, as we spoke about before, the internationalization that has occurred or globalization in general, but internationalization of science and technology and the relationships of science and technology and innovation. And on the other hand, the fact that innovation represents the competitive advantage of an individual enterprise or indeed an economy. And that's the tension between on the one hand if you like collaboration and on the other hand competition. And I think that that tension will in the views of some, for example, an article published several years ago now, the globally integrated enterprise by Samuel Parmesano, who was the CEO at the time and chairman of IBM. He said this will be the great tension, one of the great tensions, geopolitical tensions of the 21st century. And it's why he said intellectual property will become such an important element because how do you define within a collaborative relationship the rights and obligations with respect to the knowledge products that emerge from the collaborative relationship. And essentially you do so through intellectual property. So it's a mechanism for determining if you like the or managing the tension between collaboration and competition. Just about the last part of your question, William, about the small farmer. Indeed, that's something which is very difficult to measure. We spoke a few years ago in our own internal debate about frugal innovation and how do you detect what is really happening on the ground, which can have a significant impact, especially in sectors like agriculture. And what Sumitra has described of a country like India going to the local level, going to see what's happening at the local level, what is being tracked this year in the chapter of the report on clusters goes in that direction. That is the closer we get to the ground, the more granularity we're going to get about this data. And finally about your initial point, I'm not sure I agree with the fact that we should look at the rankings as a zero sum game. If somebody moves up, another move down. One of the messages we try to push through the report is that innovation is a positive sum game. That if one country becomes a better innovator, somehow everybody else benefits. So I know that Francis is keen on saying that IP should not just be intellectual property but also innovation promotion. I would say it's also about inclusive prosperity. So we should work on that as well. Sorry, just a very quick question. Is there a table somewhere that lays out the 2017 overall rankings and the 2016 so we can compare them? Because I've been looking for it, can't find it and it would be useful. Thanks. So if you have the report with you, there should be right up front a section called rankings. So it's on page 18 and 19 initially, the first up front. Yes, I'd like to follow up on what Francis is saying quoting this former IBM executive about geopolitical tensions. You mentioned earlier that R&D by governments, which is classified, is not part of your research. Isn't that a huge gap in your analysis because we have seen in the past so many products that were classified as defence related products, whether they were custom made electronics, when they were declassified became mass consumer items. So there seems to be a gap because the United States and many other countries, China, are spending huge amounts in this area and there's potential spin-offs. Not to mention dual use situations where companies are involved in defence but also have civilian arms like aerospace. Well look, I'm sure everyone's got something to contribute on this one. But if you say it is made a civilian product, at that stage it does enter the economy as an innovation, doesn't it? So it is measured at that stage when it does become an economic commodity as it were. But in terms of overall government expenditure, yes, on research and development, yes, this is measured. And then it has different components of which defence is won. So in that respect it is captured in the overall public expenditure on research and development. As to the products, well many patent laws around the world have a provision for secret patents. So they don't become published. If a particular application has in the view of the country concern a specific military application it goes by a different path than the ordinary path of publication. And that different path is generally known as secret patents and there are many major economies that have this provision exactly. So by definition you cannot measure it and you cannot trace it. However there is also other military technology which is, as you've said, first of all has civilian applications. And secondly there is a market for better or for worse for arms which also functions. But we don't get into that in this particular exercise. I wasn't thinking only of arms, I was thinking of civil aviation. The 30 year dispute between the United States and Europe on airbus versus Boeing has this dual use debate at the heart of it. Sorry to ask another one. There are many factors in this very sophisticated methodology. How do you describe how intellectual property broadly is assessed and then specifically patents? How can I compare patent filing or patent quality even with ranking or progress in innovation? And then a separate question is, is there anything in here, I guess I haven't looked in the past, I haven't thought of this, that relates to, I guess what I would just say, counterfeiting and piracy issues. Are you sort of deducted or adduct some points for problems in this area, so to speak, or activity in this area? So I think the relationship between intellectual property, what we're measuring here is innovation, capacity and performance. The relationship between intellectual property and innovation capacity and performance is I think multiple. First of all, it is one of the elements of a policy setting which contribute to giving a country an enhanced capacity to innovate in intellectual properties. It's an encouragement to investment in innovation. And secondly, I think intellectual property is the mechanism, or the chief mechanism, one of the chief mechanisms, by which the advantage of innovation is captured by an individual enterprise and commercialised. So whether it relates to functionality, which is essentially patents, appearance of a product, and let's remember that that of course is a big differentiator in the market, which is designs, or reputation and image in the market, which is trademarks. All of these elements, the intellectual property captures the specific competitive advantage that is conferred by innovation for an individual enterprise to be able to maximise its position and its advantage as a consequence of innovation. Just to clarify that second question, innovation, as I would imagine, is as you define introducing new products and services. But one generally thinks of it as being an original idea or elements of originality. So I just wondered if counterfeiting and piracy factor in in any way. So it's very hard to measure counterfeiting directly because clearly we look at innovation, a broad based approach. We do include inside model elements about intellectual property payments or the proportion total trade, which actually reflect more genuine recognition of IP property. At the same time we also have inside innovation model elements around online creativity of individuals. So we measure online creativity of individuals not patented, but basically people creating content online and creating there and expressing their own creativity. So there is a different elements of innovation we try and capture. If we had the right variables and data for countries on the aspects you mentioned, we would certainly look at ways included. There are many aspects on which you don't really have the right model data available today for the kind of country coverage we seek in the report. You have to wrap up. Professor Duta, following up to William's comment, you said you have problems measuring counterfeit or piracy products. But it seems to be a wealth of information in customs databases and that research is being done by the OECD. So I'm a bit puzzled why you're not doing it. So what I would say is that A, we look at innovation in a much more broad based phenomena across society. And B, I think certainly we look at the different data variables and we have certain minimum thresholds of coverage that we expect from the database. So be happy to consider what are variables you might want to suggest and we look at that in the future. And just to add, John, we are doing it at WIPO. Castle and Fink's outfit has looked at the methodology and worked with the OECD in respect of this. But the question is its relevance to innovation capacity here. We'll take one last question from the Kuwait news agency. I see here that Kuwait is ranked 56. That means they moved 11 positions up from last year. What does it mean for the country like Kuwait in the region? It is a challenge or it is an opportunity? Thank you. Yes indeed, the change is quite remarkable. We always caution observers about reading too much in year to year changes. It's safer to look at moving average let's say for a period of three to five years. The case of Kuwait is interesting because we see that the GCC area right now exhibits quite a high level of divergence in performance. We have parts of the world where the majority of countries moved up or the majority of countries moved down. This year at least for the GCC we have a split between countries who moved up quite significantly like Kuwait and others who moved down. We would suggest to let it rest two or three years to see where the things stabilize. But clearly this is a positive and encouraging sign regarding Kuwait.