WIPO Internal Audit Division Seeks Consultants To Assess IP In Kenya02/05/2011 by William New, Intellectual Property Watch Leave a CommentShare this Story:Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)Much of our best content is available only to IP Watch subscribers. We are a non-profit independent news service, and subscribing to our service helps support our goals of bringing more transparency to global IP and innovation policies. To access all of our content, please subscribe now.The World Intellectual Property Organization Internal Audit and Oversight Division is seeking expressions of interest from consultants to conduct an evaluation and analysis of Kenya’s performance with intellectual property rights during the years 2005 to 2010. The study aims to help WIPO members to assess the effect of the UN agency’s work in the country during that time, and to boost learning and accountability. Proposals can be submitted from individual consultants or a group of consultants, and are due by 20 May. Kenya is a pilot country portfolio evaluation, organised by the WIPO Internal Audit and Oversight Division. The need for an evaluation arises in part from implementation of the WIPO Development Agenda and concern on the part of some member states about the effect of WIPO’s assistance in developing countries, according to the terms of reference. It also arises from the WIPO director general’s interest in management having more reliable information to use in decision-making, it said.The terms of reference are available here [pdf].The deadline is 20 May, 2011. Work is expected to begin in June and run to the end of the year.According to WIPO, the main objectives of the evaluation will be to:“Assess and report on the performance and results (outputs, outcomes and where possible impact) of the activities undertaken in Kenya for the period of 2005-2010 in line with the WIPO mandate and in response to the country’s needs, as well as analyzing the factors that accounted for the achievement or lack thereof (accountability); andDetermine the reasons for observed success/failure and draw lessons from experience to produce evidence-based findings to allow Senior Management to make informed strategic decisions about positioning itself in Kenya, from strategic partnerships, and improve operations design and implementation whenever possible (learning).”The terms of reference said of the reason for the evaluation that, “WIPO’s Member States and other key stakeholders are increasingly requesting evidence of the effects of WIPO development oriented activities and the results being produced by the Organization.”“With the introduction of the development agenda, WIPO has developed further services and dedicated more resources aimed to fulfill the needs of developing countries, as reflected by the Development Agenda Recommendations and the constitution of the Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP). Furthermore, WIPO’s Director General has indicated the Evaluation Section that there is a need from management to have more reliable information they could use for decision making purposes. In special management is keen to have evaluations of the effects of development oriented activities.The terms of reference said in a footnote that the Evaluation Section defines as development oriented activities “all activities undertaken in a specific country which are meant to contribute to WIPO’s vision of developing a balanced and accessible international IP system, which rewards creativity, stimulates innovation and contributes to economic development while safeguarding the public interest. These activities encompass all activities dedicated to capacity building, infrastructure, norm setting activities, including all technical assistance activities and others.”Another footnote said that “according to the international definition ‘results’ go beyond the outputs and include also outcome and impact of interventions.Kenya could be an interesting case during that period because it undertook significant efforts to increase its intellectual property protection and enforcement (IPW, Developing Country Policy, 2 July 2009), including anti-counterfeiting legislation so strong it was later judged to be anti-constitutional.Share this Story:Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)RelatedWilliam New may be reached at email@example.com."WIPO Internal Audit Division Seeks Consultants To Assess IP In Kenya" by Intellectual Property Watch is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.