A proposal to implement the WIPO Development Agenda through thematic projects (grouping recommendations which address the same or similar subject matter into coherent projects) is a promising approach.  The proposal contained in document CDIP/3/4 dated 1 April 2009  (it is not an April Fool’s Day joke, I am sure)  is the initiative of the Secretariat of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Initially, a set of four projects covering 11 of the 45 Development Agenda Recommendations are proposed. Further projects would be developed once the approach is endorsed by Member States.

This approach, which is in line with the campaign promise of the not so new WIPO Director-General Dr. Francis Gurry, offers an important opportunity to make the Development Agenda real. It also makes it possible to evaluate not only progress but also, eventually, the outcomes of WIPO activities that are dubbed development-oriented. Further, this approach also offers an opportunity for the Member States of WIPO, constituted as the Committee on Development and IP (CDIP) to focus on their primary role of monitoring, assessing and reporting (to the General Assembly) on implementation of the Agenda as well as coordinating with other WIPO bodies. The idea that WIPO Member States should discuss and agree on every implementation activity and other mundane details is not only time consuming but also wrong-headed. If Member States are spending millions of dollars to pay hundreds of employees at the WIPO Secretariat they should leave the detail and mundane matters to them and focus on governance, finance and evaluation level issues. It is also important to understand that project design and management is not necessarily a natural diplomatic or administrative skill. The third session of CDIP, to take place at the WIPO Headquarters in Geneva from 27 April – 1 May 2009, will consider and make decisions on this approach.

While there may be some details that could make some Member States and stakeholders uncomfortable with the specific projects (for example I remain seriously concerned regarding the implementation of Recommendation 19 on access to knowledge), it is fair to say that coupled with a  better monitoring and evaluation system and clarity on issues such as methodologies for undertaking studies and experts selection, this would be the most pragmatic way to proceed. Indeed, this approach could offer important lessons to Dr. Margaret Chan at WHO on how to implement the WHO Global Strategy and Plan of Action on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property.

Monitoring and Evaluation

The main evaluation framework proposed for the projects consists of a mid-term review and end of project self -evaluation  which would presumably be undertaken based on a set of output indicators contained in the project proposals. The possibility of an independent end of project evaluation is also mentioned for three of the four projects. While this is a good beginning, a more robust evaluation system needs to be established not only with respect to these projects but any future thematic projects and the Development Agenda implementation in general, including wih respect to the so-called “principles recommendations”.

A robust monitoring and evaluation system would be one which, at least:

• makes independent evaluation an integral part of the system; and
• benchmarks progress and results on not only output but also outcome indicators. Outcome indicators will be critical is assisting Member States and other stakeholders to determine whether the Development Agenda is making a difference or whether it is a waste of scarce human, financial and other resources. This is because such indicators concretely helps connect the results from a set of activities to the objectives of the Development Agenda.

In the longer-term, with the Development Agenda Recommendations having been integrated into the Strategic goals of WIPO, and with the plan to develop a five-year strategic plan, such an evaluation system should form part of a broader organisation-wide evaluation.

Study Methodologies and External Experts

A range of studies are proposed under each of the thematic projects. This will be carried out by both internal and external experts. In total, it is estimated/proposed that 1,277,000 Swiss francs be spend on external experts. Considering this level of resources as well as the resources to be spend on staff and internal consultants, two main issues need to be addressed. First, it must be ensured that the studies are of credible quality. Secondly, a competitive and transparent system must be employed to select the experts to be involved in developing these studies.

In WIPO’s Revised Program and Budget for the 2008/09 WIPO Member States, among other goals, agreed that WIPO should work towards the strategic goal (see goal V) of becoming “World Reference Source of IP Information“. This goal can only be achieved if WIPO can produce reliable and timely information, and most importantly, if WIPO can produce credible and robust studies and analysis. While the recent studies on patent issues show that there is positive movement in this direction, and one would anticipate that the arrival of a new Chief Economist will also contribute positively, as I pointed out in a number of blogs on the patent studies, much more needs to be done for WIPO to be a premier source of information and analysis.

In particular, WIPO studies and analysis need to demonstrate awareness of the complete array of available literature and evidence on the subject and offer well argued and supported policy options. In this context, it would be useful for the WIPO Secretariat to lay out more clearly the methodology, including peer-review mechanisms, that will be employed to ensure quality studies and analysis. It would also be useful for some clarification to be provided on how external experts will be selected and the rational for choosing one approach over another.