1. “Learning from Existing Evaluation Practices on the Impacts and Effects of Intellectual Property on Development” Geneva 6th/7th October 2011 Evaluation Section Internal Audit and Oversight Division (IAOD) World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)

2. 2 Why do we need evaluation? It contributes towards a UN system evaluation policy that promotes learning, accountability and transparency Provides the Organization and MS with valuable analysis and information that can be used for: Decision-making processes concerning the improvement of present and future activities; Policy formulation and review by Member States; and, Evaluation is an organizational function focusing on institutional learning and accountability towards constituencies.

3. 3 Is the Evaluation Section Independent? Director IAOD Director General WIPO General Assembly PBC IAOC Audit Section Evaluation Section Investigation Section

4. 4 IAOD Organigram Nick Treen Director IAOD T. Efendioglu Head Internal Audit Senior Internal Auditor (Vacant) S. Woess (Consultant Senior internal Auditor) J. Van Hecke Head Investigation (Temp. Assignment) Head Evaluation C. Hilfiker Head Evaluation C. Hilfiker J. Flores Senior Evaluator J. Flores Senior Evaluator S. Wiggins Investigation Assistant S. Nunez Secretary S. Winter Intern S. Winter Intern P. Mehta (Intern)

5. 5 How was the Evaluation Section created? Previous 2001 Evaluation was non existent in WIPO 2002 First evaluation intents Second evaluation intents 20042007 Evaluation is an ad-hoc activity First evaluation policy 2008 Evaluation Section is created with 2 post. 1 post filled and 1 vacant 2009 Evaluation Section functioning only intermittently due to lack of staff Evaluation Guidelines, and Evaluation Section Work Plans 2010 An Evaluation Framework is put in place through: Revised evaluation policy, Evaluation Section Strategy, 2011 Evaluation Section consist of 1 Head of Evaluation, 1 Senior Staff and 1 intern Focus on core business Process of institutionalizing the Evaluation Function 2011 Evaluation becomes effective!

6. What has been done since 2007?  up to 2007: Monitoring and Independent Evaluation: Program Performance Report (PPR) Providing support to the development of indicators Training staff in the development of Frameworks Developping Program and Budget Narratives Support RBM  From 2008: ES starts defining its core function: Independent review of the PPR process Self Evaluation Guidelines for Managers Revision of first WIPO Evaluation Policy Evaluation Guidelines Evaluation Work Plans Evaluation Strategy Creation of an Evaluation Section Website Dissemination of evaluative information First country portfolio evaluation First evaluation seminar 6

7. By which framework is the Evaluation Section’s work guided? 7 Internal Audit and Oversight Charter UN Norms and Standards for Evaluation WIPO Evaluation Policy and Evaluation Guidelines Evaluation Section Strategy Evaluation Section Biennial Work Plans Evaluation Section Annual Reporting Topics, Objectives, Program Performance and Country Evaluations

8. Current work underway: Country Portfolio Evaluation (CPE) Kenya HOW DO WE SELECT A COUNTRY? 1.Consultation of Director General and Managers 2.Data analysis using specific criteria looking at 184 countries Level of WIPO activity by country Baseline information International Context like UN Security Rating System, Economy Level, availability of a national IP strategy, etc. IP Statistics at national and international level IP Index 3. Geographical and strategic priority using evaluability and feasibility assessment 8

9. Current work underway: CPE Kenya Main Characteristics of CPEs 1.CPEs focus on the entire WIPO assistance to a country 2.CPEs address issues of strategic alignment, choices as well as performance and results 3.CPEs are utilization focused evaluations. They are designed to benefit WIPO management and IP offices and partners in the countries How is a CPE process being rolled out? 1.The Kenya CPE process started beginning 2010 with the planning and scoping of the evaluation including consultation of WIPO staff 2.An Evaluability Assessment was undertaken 3.Strengthening the evaluation process by selecting an evaluators team, setting up an LRG, undertaking an inception report 4.Report preparation 5.Dissemination 6.Preliminary findings reported to the DG 7.Evaluation includes management response 9

10. Where do we want to go Evaluation Policy and Strategy: Continue to implement the current policy and strategy Institutionalize evaluation Deliver more evaluation findings and information Revise strategy as needed 1 UNDERTAKING OF INDEPENDENT EVALUATIONS To deliver independent, credible and high quality evaluations that identify what works to developing a balanced and accessible international IP system and what can be replicated and scaled up.

11. Creating a Common Understanding 2CREATE COMMON UNDERSTANDING OF WIPO’S INDEPENDENT EVALUATION FUNCTION To contribute to strengthen and enhance the independent evaluation function and evaluation capacities for the benefit of WIPO and its stakeholders

12. Types of Evaluations 12

13. Pursue Validation of Program Performance Reports Accuracy and verifiability of the performance data Sufficiency and comprehensive of reported data Accessibility of data and the efficiency of its collection Accuracy of the self-assessment of achievement Clarity of reporting  Nearly two-thirds of the results validated, related to the relevance and value of the indicators  Performance measures are primarily utilized for purposes of accountability to Member States

14. Ongoing Kenya Country Portfolio Evaluation Inception Mission Completed (September 2011) Main Mission in October 2011 Results available in December 2011  Initial findings suggest that Kenya has received successful support and  Consequently is reaching the « critical mass » in terms of the sustainability of it’s IP system  Stakeholders have shown a keen interest in this evaluation

15. Pursue the Enhancement of the Evaluation Function (e.g. Evaluation Seminars) If rated successful, we will repeat this type of seminars  your opinion at the end of the seminar will be much appreciated ( a feedback form is being distributed)