Presentation on theme: "Learning from Existing Evaluation Practices on the Impacts and Effects of Intellectual Property on Development Geneva 6th/7th October 2011 Evaluation Section."— Presentation transcript:
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)
BREAKING the CULTURE of FAKES and COUNTERFEITS: INFORMATION and EDUCATION PROGRAMS not CAUSING RISE of INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AWARENESS in the PHILIPPINES? Romeo B. Santos WorkLand M&E Institute, Inc.
COUNTRY BACKGRO COUNTRY BACKGROUND PHILIPPINES PHL _____PHILIPPINES [ PHL ] ____ POPULATION: 92 million GDP per capita: 3,724 AREA: 299, 764 sq. m. http://www.infoplease.com/atlas/country/philippines.html Introduction MAJOR LAWS, GLOBAL TREATIES AND ORGANIZATIONS [PHL is MEMBER] MAJOR IPR LAWSNAMEYEAR Republic Act 165PATENT LAW1947 Republic Act 166TRADEMARK LAW1947 Republic Act 8293 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE 1998 IPR GLOBAL TREATIES / ORGANIZATIONS COVERAGEYEAR BERNE CONVENTIONLITERARY AND ARTISTIC1951 PARIS CONVENTIONINDUSTRIAL PROPERTY1965 WIPOINTELLECTUAL PROPERTY1968 ROME CONVENTION PERFORMERS, PRODUCERS AND PHONOGRAMS AND BROADCASTING ORGANIZATIONS 1984 TRIPS AGREEMENTTRADE1995 PCTPATENTS2001 WIPO COPYRIGHT TREATYCOPYRIGHT2002 WPPT PERFORMANCES AND PHONOGRAMS 2002
http://ph.news.yahoo.com/philippine-mayors-next-target-pirates-manila-district-111003534.html http://ph.news.yahoo.com/anti-software-piracy-drive-nets-p4-3m-may-022218863.html Introduction COUNTRY BACKGRO COUNTRY BACKGROUND PHILIPPINESPHL _____PHILIPPINES [ PHL ] ____ STATE OF IPR IN THE COUNTRY USTR PRIORITY WATCH List until 2005 USTR WATCH List at PRESENT Source: Business Software A lliance and the Presidential Inter Agency Committee- Intellectual Property Rights Executive Summary for 1999-2001
STATE OF IPR IN PHL Has attained substantial PROGRESS in the LEGAL & INSTITUTIONAL ENVIRONMENTS Has attained substantial PROGRESS in the LEGAL & INSTITUTIONAL ENVIRONMENTS BUT in general: BUT in general: Introduction IMPROVING DECLINING STALLING
Software Piracy rate in the Asia-Pacific Region 1996-2003 [in percent] SOURCE: Annual BSA Piracy Study, January 2003: First Annual BS and IDC
Introduction Source: THE IP COALITION REPORT I: Copyright in the PHILIPPINES 2004 3 CORNERSTONES of IPR TREATIES IMPLEMENTATION in the Philippines. APPROACH used by the Philippines in its fight against PIRACY. [PROGRAM INTERVENTION APPROACH] The Total IP Protection Model, Philippines
Key Lessons APPROACH TO EVALUATION --Analyzed the PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT IPR PROTECTION INTERVENTION APPROACH used as basis of the EVALUATION APPROACH EVALUATION APPROACHINTERVENTION APPROACH A: PUBLIC INFORMATION and EDUCATION B: LEGAL and POLICY C: ENFORCEMENT and ADJUDICATIOIN 3 CORNERSTONES of the PHILIPPINE IPR TREARTIES IMPLEMENTATION ABC [ PROBLEM = EVALUATION CONTEXT ]
Key Lessons APPROACH TO EVALUATION EVALUATION APPROACHINTERVENTION APPROACH THEORY OF CHANGE: Recreating the LOGIC OF CHANGE, the CAUSAL LINKS between the PHILIPPINE IPR PROGRAM INTERVENTION and desired RESULTS. EFFECTS ABC OUTCOMES IMPACTS EVALUATION APPROACH = EVALUATION DESIGN
THIS REPORT FOCUS OF THIS REPORT The EVALUATION PROJECT APPROACH TO EVALUATION Key Lessons
METHODOLOGY GETTING the DATA DOCUMENTS REVIEW SURVEY STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS [KRPI] CS, FGD TRANSECTS Key Lessons ANALYSIS TRIANGULATE EVALUATION CONTEXT KEY FINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS LESSONS LEARNED Re-createTHEORY OF CHANGE DESIGN MATRIX EVAL Qs; RESEARCH DESIGN
Key Lessons QUESTION*SUB-QUESTIONTYPE Measures & Indicators TargetBaseline 1. To what extent has the PHL IPR Treaties Implementation Program [PROGRAM] increased the awareness on IPR among Filipinos? What PROGRAM component [PIEP, PRP, EAP]? What audience [schools, professionals, SMES, others]? Descriptive Number of respondents per audience type NANone What extent among people in general? Descriptive Number of respondents NANone Design Data Sources Sample Data Collection Instrument Data Analysis One shot Survey/ Interviews/ Transects Program records Inventory of all IPR orgs in PHL Record Retrieval Frequency count CommentsGraphic METHODOLOGY KEY EVALUATION QUESTIONS/DESIGN MATRIX * Only Selected KEY EVALUATION QUESTIONS are presented.
QUESTIONSUB-QUESTIONTYPE Measures & Indicators TargetBaseline 2. To what extent do PROGRAM components harmonize with objectives of WIPO & other conventions? Do the program components align with WIPO & other conventions? Descriptive/ Norm Check of alignment, conformity with WIPO, etc. NANone 3. What specific strategies have generated the highest responses and actions among recipients & the public in supporting IPR? Are the strategies consistent with international practices? Descriptive/ Norm Check of consistency with WIPO, etc. NANone Design: Record & document review; KRPI METHODOLOGY KEY EVALUATION QUESTIONS/DESIGN MATRIX Key Lessons
QUESTIONSUB-QUESTIONTYPE Measures & Indicators TargetBaseline 4. How effectively have the PHL IPR systems been utilized and how have these contributed to the results? How effectively has the coordination mechanism among IPR entities contributed to the achievement of results? Explanatory Number of cases; Attributes of Instance YesNA 5. What are the underlying factors that explain barriers to knowledge and appreciation of IPR among the public? Which categories of stakeholders were found to be most committed to understanding and applying IPR responsible practices? Descriptive/ Explanatory Number of cases; Attributes of Instance YesNA Design: Record & document review; FGD, KRPI, CS, Transects METHODOLOGY KEY EVALUATION QUESTIONS/DESIGN MATRIX Key Lessons
QUESTIONSUB-QUESTIONTYPE Measures & Indicators TargetBaseline 7. What are the key lessons learned and good practices that can add up to the knowledge base of PHL IPR Program? [ for policy change or program design] What are the comparative advantages or strengths of the PROGRAM? Descriptive/ Explanatory Number of cases; Attributes of Instance NANone What are the constraints and complex instances worthy of deeper consideration of PROGRAM proponents? Descriptive/ Explanatory Number of cases; Attributes of Instance NANone To what extent do the PROGRAM proponents willing to continue or scale up the program activities? Descriptive/ Explanatory Number of cases; Attributes of Instance NANone Design: Record & document review; FGD, CS, KRPI METHODOLOGY KEY EVALUATION QUESTIONS/DESIGN MATRIX Key Lessons
Evaluation Findings and Results The Philippines Program for IPR protection appears UNDERPERFORMING. The Information and Educational component of the IPR thrust is likely NOT causing substantial and sustained RISE of AWARENESS among public. Rise in Awareness is likely affected more by ENFORCEMENT and not by INFORMATION & EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS, [particularly when raids and arrests are given wide media coverage].
AWARENESS: 3 Key Thrusts Sector Unit RATING Factor RATING Overall RATING Public Information and Education Program (PIEP) a.General public b.Industry L L M L Policy and Regulation Program (PRP) a.General public b.Industry L M L-M Enforcement and Adjudication Program (EAP) a.General public b.Industry M-H H Rating System: H = High; M = Medium; L = Low Table 1: Awareness Performance Rating of 3 IPR Protection Thrusts EVALUATION Perspectives CRITERIA Unit RATING Factor RATING Overall RATING Organization a.Capacity b.Linkage S S U S Program a.Quality b.Content c.Reach U U S U Implementation a.Efficiency b.Effectivenes s c.Continuity U U U U Rating System: VS = Very Satisfactory; S = Satisfactory; U = Unsatisfactory; US = Unsatisfactory Table 2: Overall Performance of the Philippine IPR Protection Program Key Lessons It appears that the Philippine IPR protection program is UNDERPERFORMING. Information and Educational component, likely, NOT causing substantial and sustained rise in Awareness among public.
Key Lessons Evaluation Findings and Results There seems no strong harmonization among the three key components of the present IPR thrust. There is no mechanism and structure for determining performance in the present IPR Implementation Program. The strong transnational nature of commerce involved in piracy makes it difficult to control patronage despite raised awareness on IPR value. Lopsided price gap between genuine and fake influences infringement.
Key Lessons Conclusions and Recommendations Legal and Institutional environments are already in place but socio-economic realities and poorly designed programs are the likely reasons for the slow progress in establishing a strong culture for IPR. Strong law enforcement, coupled with sound information and educational program, with emphasis on Media participation, may deliver better outcomes. Strong transnational cooperation and market adjustments [such as pricing mechanism realignment] may support effective implementation of IPR thrust. There shall be a built-in M&E framework within the IPR Programs, premised on results-oriented implementation objectives.
Key Lessons LESSONS LEARNED The weak empirical tradition and research culture in the Philippines are constraints affecting availability and sound collection of data that will feed evaluation. [NO existing BASELINE [need to re establish ], NO TARGET!!!] IPR policies and programs designed based on traditional project cycle management principles are weak. The use of Results-Based principles can provide strong M&E mechanism built within the system. The media is a strong tool for IPR treaties implementation; programs shall be designed with inclusion of media as a main element of the program design. Evaluation initiated by private entity without strong endorsement from a government authority is prone to more difficulties.
Evaluation Experience MY Evaluation experience in IP [ START UP ] IP issues evaluated STATE OF M&E IN THE COUNTRY START UP LOWNIL NIL -- many agencies totally without M&E START UP -- some beginning to see value of M&E due to requirements from partner, donor, and funding organizations LOW -- a number have been doing monitoring, traditional or hybrid M&E The START UP, still LOW M&E CAPACITY in the PHILIPPINES does NOT PROVIDE much OPPORTUNITIES for EVALUATION of IPR POLICIES in the country. The awareness on the value of M&E is BEGINNING TO TAKE HOLD! It appears no comprehensive EVALUATION of IP Treaties implementation, other than the few studies, has been done.
Evaluation Experience My Other Evaluation Experiences Assessment of construction industries [Philippines & Guam] to determine market environment for entry of Canadian green technology  Meta-evaluation of M&Es done on ODA-funded urban development projects in the Philippines, Indonesia and Sri Lanka  Design /formulation of Theory of Change & M&E framework, EVAW Program, Afghanistan  Assessment of effects of ESD in TVET Education  Assessment of socio-urban contexts for development planning of a fast urbanizing locality 
Evaluation Experience My OPINION on main evaluation needs NEED to ADOPT results-oriented implementation of IPR treaties in the Philippines. A sound M&E framework shall be integrated with the IPR Implementation Program. Government Agencies tasked to manage IP Protection in the country shall be restructured to incorporate an M&E body mandated to carry out systematic evaluation functions.
26 (MfDR Policy Brief, OECD, 2009) 2008 Survey on Monitoring the Paris Declaration to see progress on aid effectiveness 5% -countries with largely developed results-oriented frameworks 56% -taken action since 2005. Adoption of MfDR in PHL is sluggish, BUT as it moves toward its IMPLEMENTATION, the M&E capacity of IPR RELATED INSTITUTIONS must be built-up. This will enable sound DETERMINATION of PERFORMANCE of IPR TREATIES IMPLEMENTATION in the country.
Key Lessons SUGGESTION to PHL for strengthening IPR treaties implementation* PHL needs a mechanism for M&E in IPR protection. It has to build one. * [TYPICAL PHL AGENCY STRUCTURE FOR IP PROTECTION ] DIRECTOR GENERAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL Operation, IP Policies & International Relations BUREAU OF PATENTS DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL Management & Support Services BUREAU OF TRADEMARKS BUREAU OF LEGAL AFFAIRS BUREAU OF DOCUMENTS & IT DIRECTOR IV DIRECTOR III FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT & ADMINISTRATION MANAGEMENT INRORMATION SERVICE DIRECTOR IV DIRECTOR III DIRECTOR IV Office for OPERATIONS & POLICIES is the ideal office to reorganize & institutionalize an M&E department. Somewhere here, PHL needs an M&E SYSTEM in place -an M&E Office mandated to determine performance and provide feedback to the stakeholders, administration & policy makers.