1. SEVAL WORKSHOP 3 – September 4, 2015 Health Policy Evaluation: what role for independence a perspective from WHO Dr Elil Renganathan DG Representative for Evaluation and Organizational Learning

2. 2 |2 | Health Policy Evaluation Health policy interventions are often complex, programmatic and context dependent --- often also with a multi sectorial dimension. Traditional evaluation designs do not adequately respond to the multi-faceted nature of public health interventions. The changing international policy environment for public health Pressures of short-term accountability Improving national evaluation capacity

3. 3 |3 | A critical aspect of the evaluation of health policy is the balance between independence and engagement in undertaking the evaluation work. Relates to the 'accountability  --------  learning' dimension External vs Internal evaluations, and the role of independent evaluation functions Independence vs Engagement

4. 4 |4 | Global Strategy and plan of action on public health, innovation and intellectual property In 2006, the Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation and Public Health completed its report. One of the key recommendations: establishing an intergovernmental working group (IGWG) to draft a global strategy and plan of action. In 2008, following a two-year negotiation process, at the 61st World Health Assembly debated the output of the IGWG and the global strategy and plan of action was adopted in resolution WHA61.21. In 2009, resolution WHA62.16 finalized the list of stakeholders responsible for the implementation of each element and sub-element, established progress indicators for each element and proposed time frames for specified actions (covering the period 2008-2015)..

5. 5 |5 | Global Strategy and plan of action on public health, innovation and intellectual property (cont'd) In the negotiated resolution and the plan of action, there was a call for a comprehensive evaluation after 4 years of the GSPOA and an overall programme review in 2014. At the 68 th World Health assembly, Member States decided to extend the time frames of the plan of action on public health, innovation and intellectual property from 2015 until 2022, and to undertake a comprehensive evaluation of the implementation of the GSPOA in 2015/2016.

6. 6 |6 | Global Strategy and plan of action on public health, innovation and intellectual property (cont'd) Specific requests of member states in relation to the evaluation (outlined in a negotiated resolution): Ad hoc EMG with regional/gender balance (with nominations from member states), will support evaluation commissioner including in the selection of the evaluation team. Inception report and comments of the EMG to the inception report to be considered by the Executive board. Regular follow up by the EMG and member states throughout the evaluation process, regular reporting on progress to governing bodies, including the final report in 2017.

7. 7 |7 | Pros and cons Independence of the evaluation Member states' and partners' keen interest and scrutiny of process Lengthy process Active engagement and buy-in (on future recommendations) Learning for both member states and WHO A good means of promoting the evaluation function

8. 8 |8 | Thank You