the strategic use of intellectual property for prosperity ... · discuss, in-depth, the strategic...

Compendium of the Proceedings of the High-Level Forum on IntellectualProperty for the Least Developed Countries

July 23 and 24, 2009Geneva, Switzerland

The Strategic Use of Intellectual Property for Prosperity and Development

WIPO Director General Francis Gurry and International Publishers Association Secretary General Jens Bammel signing the aRDi Partners’ Statement of Intenton the occasion of the High-Level Forum.

Photo: WIPO/M. Martinez Dozal

Compendium of the Proceedings of the High-Level Forum on IntellectualProperty for the Least Developed Countries

July 23 and 24, 2009Geneva, Switzerland

The Strategic Use of Intellectual Property for Prosperity and Development

C O N T E N T S

Preface 11

Opening Addresses 12Dr. Francis Gurry

Director General

World Intellectual Property Organization

His Excellency Mr. Dilip Barua

Minister for Industries, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh

Chairman of the Coordination Council of Least Developed Countries

Special Plenary 15His Excellency, Mr. Juneydi Saddo

Minister for Science and Technology, Ethiopia

Her Excellency Mrs. Mpeo Mahase-Moiloa

Minister for Law and Constitutional Affairs and for

Justice and Human Rights, Lesotho

His Excellency Mr. Richard Fienena

Minister for Economy and Industry, Madagascar

His Excellency Mr. Ahmadou Abdoulaye Diallo

Minister for Industry, Investments and Trade, Mali

His Excellency Mr. Mohamed Rasheed

Minister for Economic Development, Maldives

His Excellency Mr. Dan Bahadu Chaudhury

State Minister for Industries, Nepal

His Excellency Mr. Fredrick Ruhindi

Deputy Attorney General and Minister of State for

Justice and Constitutional Affairs, Uganda

Her Excellency Mrs. Mary Nagu

Minister for Industry, Trade and Marketing,

United Republic of Tanzania

His Excellency Mr. Roger Dovonou

Minister for Industry, Benin

2

CONTENTS

J u l y 2 3 a n d 2 4 , 2 0 0 9 — G e n e v a , S w i t z e r l a n d

Inauguration of the Access to Research for Development 28and Innovation Service (aRDi)

Mr. Yo Takagi

Executive Director, Global Intellectual Property

Infrastructure Department


Mr. Andrew Czajkowski

Head, Innovation and Technology Support Section


Dr. Francis Gurry

Director General



Minister for Industries, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh

Chairman of the Coordination Council of Least Developed Countries

Mr. Sergie A. Ordzhonikidze

United Nations Under-Secretary-General

Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva

Mr. Jens Bammel

Secretary General, International Publishers Association

Dr. Francis Gurry

Director General


Theme One – Integrating Intellectual Property into National Development 36Policy and Strategies of the LDCs

Mr. Narendra Sabharwal

Deputy Director General



Minister for Law and Constitutional Affairs and for

Justice and Human Rights, Lesotho

Professor James Otieno-Odek

Managing Director, Kenya Industrial Property Institute

3

Topic (a) – The Role of IP in Reducing Poverty, Fostering Development and Wealth CreationProfessor Keith E. Maskus

Associate Dean for Social Sciences

University of Colorado

Topic (b) – IP and Public Policy IssuesProfessor James Otieno-Odek


DiscussionHer Excellency Mrs. Mpeo Mahase-Moiloa

Delegation of Uganda

Delegation of Lesotho

Delegation of Senegal

Delegation of Niger

Professor Keith E. Maskus



Theme Two – The Strategic Importance of Transfer of Technology 50and Technological Capacity-Building for the Development of LDCs

His Excellency, Minister Juneydi Saddo



Associate Dean for Social Sciences

University of Colorado

Topic (a) – Linking Universities and Research Centers to Public and Private Sector for the Management, Promotion and Commercialization of IP Assets; Spin-offs and Start-ups

Mr. Yuke Chin Lee

Intellectual Property Consultant

Malaysian Invention and Design Society

Kuala Lumpur

4

CONTENTS


Topic (b) – The Importance of Patent Documents for the Extraction of Technological Information for Technological Development: The Malaysian Experience

Mr. Yuke Chin Lee



Kuala Lumpur

DiscussionHis Excellency, Mr. Juneydi Saddo

Delegation of Bangladesh

Delegation of Cambodia

Delegation of Guinea





Mr. Yuke Chin Lee

Delegation of Nepal

Delegation of Mali


His Excellency, Mr. Juneydi Saddo

Theme Three – Sharing of Experience with some LDCs on the Wealth Creation Effect 64of Trademarks, Service Marks, Geographical Indications and Industrial Designs

Her Excellency, Mrs. Mary Nagu

Minister for Industry, Trade and Marketing


Mr. Getachew Mengistie

Intellectual Property Law Consultant and Attorney, former Director General

of the Ethiopian Intellectual Property Office

5

Topic (b) – Using Industrial Designs for Value Addition in Products and Servicesof LDCs – The Experience of Ethiopia


Intellectual Property Law Consultant and Attorney, former Director General

of the Ethiopian Intellectual Property Office


Topic (a) – Geographical Indications and its Application in LDCs:The Experience of the African Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI)

Mr. Paulin Edou Edou

Director General, African Intellectual Property Organization

DiscussionHer Excellency, Mrs. Mary Nagu


Delegation of the United Republic of Tanzania


Delegation of Samoa

Delegation of Sudan

Delegation of Rwanda


Delegation of Madagascar







6

CONTENTS


Theme Four – Role and Contribution of Copyright 74and Related Rights and Collective Management Societies for Economic Growth and Development of LDCs





Minister of Economy and Industry, Madagascar

Mr. Daniel J. Gervais

Professor of Law, Director, Technology and Entertainment Law Program

Vanderbilt University Law School, Nashville

Topic (a) – Copyright and Related Rights: Striking the Balance BetweenProtection and the Public Interest

Mr. David Uwemedimo

Director of Legal Affairs

International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers, Paris

Tobic (b) – Copyright Collective Management Societies and New TechnologiesMr. Daniel J. Gervais

Professor of Law, Director, Technology and Entertainment Law Program

Vanderbilt University Law School

DiscussionHis Excellency Mr. Richard Fienena



Delegation of Burundi


Delegation of Sudan

Delegation of Ethiopia

Delegation of Samoa


7


Mr. David Uwemedimo



Theme Five – Traditional Knowledge, Genetic Resources 91and Traditional Cultural Expressions: Preserving Traditional and Cultural Assets and Creating Wealth






Mr. Wend Wendland

Acting Director and Head, Traditional Creativity, Cultural Expressions

and Cultural Heritage Section


Topic (a) – Exploitation of Traditional Knowledge and Folklore and itsContribution to Sustainable Development in LDCs: From Farm to Pharma,the Experience of South Africa from Research to Commercialization

Mr. Motlalepula Gilbert Matsabisa

Director, Indigenous Knowledge Systems (Health) Lead Programme (IKS)

South African Medical Research Council

Topic (b) – Protecting Traditional Knowledge and Folklore in LDCsMr. Gift Huggins Sibanda

Director General, African Regional Intellectual Property Organization

DiscussionDelegation of Ethiopia

Delegation of Mali

Delegation of Nepal

Delegation of Burkina Faso

8

CONTENTS


Mr. Wend Wendland


Mr. Gift Huggins Sibanda

Theme Six – Regional Cooperation in IP: Promoting Synergies 104and Building Partnerships


Deputy Attorney General and Minister of State for Justice

and Constitutional Affairs, Uganda




Topic (b) – The Role of OAPI in IP Institution Building for LDCs Mr. Paulin Edou Edou

Director General, African Intellectual Property Organization


Deputy Attorney General and Minister of State for

Justice and Constitutional Affairs, Uganda

Topic (a) – The Role of the African Regional Intellectual PropertyOrganization (ARIPO) in IP Institution-Building for LDCs


Director General, African Regional Intellectual Property Organization

DiscussionDelegation of Rwanda




Delegation of Mali


9



Delegation of Sudan



Conclusions and Closing Ceremony 117His Excellency Mr. Dilip Barua





Delegation of Nepal


Delegation of Mali




Annex 1: Program

Annex 2: List of Participants

Annex 3: Ministerial Declaration on Intellectual Property for the Least Developed Countries

10

PREFACE


P R E FA C E

The WIPO High-Level Forum for Least Developed Countries (LDCs), held in Geneva on July 23 and 24,2009, provided an opportunity for ministers, senior policymakers and high level officials from LDCs todiscuss, in-depth, the strategic use of intellectual property for prosperity and development in their countries.

Participants were able to reflect on the formulation of national IP policies and how to implement them; to discuss with international and national experts the technical aspects of using IP for wealth creation inLDCs; and to examine successful country experiences.

This publication contains the policy and technical papers and the presentations made concerning valuablecountry experiences as well as the ministerial policy statements delivered at the special plenary session of the Forum.

During their statements, ministers outlined the state of IP institutions at the national level and underscoredwhat has been accomplished so far, as well as what remains to be done. They emphasized the importancethey attach to the assistance received from WIPO in both policy formulation and the use of IP for development,including its role in poverty reduction and in the transfer of technology.

Presentations of national experiences in the successful use of IP for economic growth and development in LDCs, included that of Ethiopia, in using trademarks to promote its major export commodity, coffee; of Malaysia, in using patent information for national technological capacity-building; and of South Africa, in using traditional knowledge for the generation of employment and wealth creation.

The Forum also hosted the launch of the Access to Research for Development and Innovation (aRDi) project, a new public-private partnership involving WIPO and leading science and technology publishing companies,as well as the International Publishers Association. The aRDi program enables LDCs to access selectedonline scientific and technical information free of charge.

Participants in the Forum recognized that a wide range of institutions – those concerned with markets,education, information, research, administration and legislation, as well as non governmental organizations,the judiciary, the media and civil society – can contribute to the process of IP institution building in LDCs,through efforts to enhance and sustain awareness of IP issues.

The Geneva Ministerial Declaration on Intellectual Property for the Least Developed Countries, adopted at the close of the Forum, is also included in this publication. The Declaration stresses the importance bothof IP as a tool for development and of WIPO as a forum for partnership and cooperation in strengthening IP institutions in LDCs. It urges WIPO to intensify its capacity-building assistance for LDCs and to supportLDCs in improving the competitiveness of their companies through regular access to new technologies. It also appeals to development partners to make more funds available for LDC-specific projects. It is hopedthat this publication will serve as important reading material for all those interested in the development of IP institutions and systems in LDCs.

Francis Gurry

Director General

11

“aRDi”, or Access to Research for Development andInnovation. It is a service that we think can be ofgreat value to, in particular, research institutions,patent offices, academics, business andprofessionals in LDCs and indeed in developingcountries. Broadly speaking, it provides freeaccess to a series of scientific and technicaljournals of great importance and equivalent in valueto 400,000 US dollars of annual subscriptions in thecourse of one year. Of course, for an individualresearcher, a scientific person, a university, a patentoffice in an LDC, such a sum is completely beyondthe realms of possibility, so we are delighted thatthis will be a feature of our program in the courseof today’s session.

This particular element, the aRDi program or theAccess to Research for Development andInnovation, is more generally part of a newstrategic goal of this Organization that was adoptedby the Member States in the Program and Budgetfor the current year, 2009. It features proposals forthe Program and Budget for 2010 and 2011,concerning a global infrastructure and enhancementof participation, in particular of developing countriesand LDCs in global infrastructure. The programcontains a number of different elements, mostnotably databases of scientific and technologicalinformation to put at the disposal of researchinstitutions, patent offices and universities. We areworking on this and you will see in the course ofthis year further developments in respect of whatwe call our PatentScope search service which givesaccess to over 1.6 million patent documents, in fullysearchable form, which constitutes the completelibrary of international patent applications filedunder the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). Inconjunction with this, we are digitizing the patentcollections of a number of different countries. Inthe month of September, we will be unveiling thecollections of about eight such countries, whichinclude the collections of the African RegionalIntellectual Property Organization (ARIPO), withwhom we are very pleased to have had very closecooperation. This will be closely followed we hope

O P E N I N G A D D R E S S E S

Dr. Francis Gurry

Director General

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)

It is my pleasure to welcome you here thismorning. It is a very great honor for me to see 10Ministers here from the Least Developed Countries(LDCs), and so many other guests from the LDCsfor this High Level Forum on Intellectual Property(IP) for the LDCs and the Strategic Use ofIntellectual Property for Prosperity andDevelopment.

We are delighted that you have taken the time tocome and join us here at WIPO. This is the firstoccasion that I have had to speak with Ministersfrom LDCs since I started my term of office as theDirector General of WIPO in October of last year. Iwould like to say a few words if I may, about theimportance that I personally attach and that thewhole of the WIPO administration attaches to theLDCs. I emphasized when I started that it wasnecessary for IP to broaden its horizons and for theinternational IP system to focus on some of thefundamental challenges that the world is facing atthis moment. Foremost, amongst those of course,is the challenge presented by the knowledge gapand the digital divide. A key element of ourmission is to determine how we can use IP tocontribute to the reduction of the knowledge gapand the digital divide. Of course, these are verygrand words and we hear them repeated sofrequently, but what we are trying to do at WIPO isto take a number of concrete steps that cancontribute to this objective of reducing theknowledge gap. During my campaign for electionto the office of Director General, I mentioned theimportance of access to scientific and technologicalinformation. I am very pleased that, at the end ofthis morning, we will be unveiling a new product ora new service of this Organization, which we call

12

OPENING ADDRESSES


We are also placing a great deal of emphasis on theimportance of national IP and/or innovationstrategies. We are encouraging countries to adoptsuch strategies where they have not yet done so.Our conception is that such a strategy should fitinto the national development plan for the nationaleconomic strategy. It should seek to work inunison with that national development plan and tryto identify the areas in which IP can contribute tothose industrial and agricultural sectors that may beidentified in the national development plan or in thenational development economic strategy.

Similarly, we are very much aware of theimportance of the international architecture forfacilitating the participation of LDCs in both thisOrganization and in the world of IP. In this respect,we are very conscious of the need to establish aninternational framework for the protection ofTraditional Knowledge (TK) and Traditional CulturalExpressions (TCEs), in which the LDCs areextremely of course rich. I am very disappointedthat we have had two meetings in this area thisyear that have both ended without a result. Wevery much hope that in the future, we will be ableto move this particular area of the program ofWIPO so that the overall international architecturereflects fully what we understand by theknowledge economy. The knowledge economy isnot confined of course, simply to one part ofknowledge but encompasses global knowledgeincluding, in particular, TCEs and TK.

Let me again thank you so much for your presencehere this morning and extend to you once again avery warm welcome.

by its counterpart, the collections of theOrganisation Africaine de la propriété intellectuelle(OAPI), in the course of the year.

Of course, this base of disembodied information isone thing, but primary importance is embodied inknowledge or human capital. Another veryimportant part of our program is to concentrate onstrengthening human capital in the LDCs inparticular. As you are aware, the WIPO Academyplays a key role in this respect. The WIPOAcademy has as its mission to provide distancelearning programs, other training programs andeducational opportunities for developing countriesand LDCs. The Academy will encourage moreactive participation of IP academies and traininginstitutions from developing countries and LDCs inour network that we are building globally.

I also place a great deal of emphasis on thestrengthening of our LDCs Division in WIPO. Inthis respect, I am very happy to say that in Octoberof last year we appointed a Director for thisDivision, Mr. Kifle Shenkoru, whom I wish to thankmost warmly for his work and organization inbringing together this Forum, and we have alsostrengthened the staff of that Division.

Later this year, we will be organizing another majorconference, in December of this year, on MobilizingResources for Development. This event forms partof our overall development agenda, which is anextremely important feature of the institution thatwas endorsed by the Member States a year ago,and which we are trying to make operational at themoment. The December conference is aimed athelping us see how we can mobilize resources inthe most effective manner, resources from aroundthe world and extra budgetary resources of WIPO,for the purpose of meeting the contribution of IP, inparticular to the Millennium Development Goals(MDGs).

13

creating a sound industrial base and fosteringResearch and Development (R&D) institutions haveremained unfulfilled.

In this context, I would like to recall Article 66.2 ofthe TRIPS Agreement, which allows a mandatoryprovision of providing incentive to entrepreneursfrom developed countries for promoting theirinvestment in LDCs. We expect meaningfultechnology transfer to take place under thisprovision and urge our development partners tosupport our endeavor of industrialization andenhanced productivity.

Let me raise another specific area of concern. Asyou may be aware, LDCs were required to submittheir TRIPS needs assessment reports by January1, 2008. So far, only a handful of LDCs have beenable to comply with this requirement. This clearlyreflects the inability of many LDCs to identify theirIP related needs.

We believe WIPO can assist individual LDCs inidentifying their respective IP needs with a view todeveloping an IP based society, drawing up andimplementing comprehensive programs forindividual countries.

LDCs are not importers of technologies. They have limited financial and human resources fordeveloping their IP institutions. The concept ofinstitution-building of IP for development involvesseveral interrelated dimensions and a multiplicity of actions. The setting of priorities and coordinationis therefore imperative. Each dimension ofdevelopment is vital to the success of all others, as well as to the core concept of citizen-centeredprogress and development. Successful developmentcannot be achieved by pursuing any one sector inisolation, nor can any one sector be excluded fromthe development process.

It is also alarming that despite the waiver grantedby the WTO and efforts undertaken by LDCs, manydeveloped countries are pressing the LDCs to sign


Minister for Industries, Government of the

People’s Republic of Bangladesh

Chairman of the Coordination Council of Least

Developed Countries (LDCs)

It is an immense pleasure to see you all at thisHigh level Forum on IP for LDCs. On behalf of theLDCs, I wish to extend my heartfelt thanks to theDirector General, Dr. Francis Gurry, for organizingthis important Forum. We are proud of having apersonality like you as our Director General. Wehave full confidence that under your leadership,WIPO will strengthen its IP-related activities insupport of the national development of LDCs. Wealso appreciate the proactive role played by the LDCsDivision in drawing up a comprehensive program.

The global economy and trade are evolving rapidly.New innovations, technologies, creativity,knowledge, talent and management techniques are contributing to enhanced productivity andcompetitiveness. New IP-related areas of tradehave emerged, in particular in the service sector.This globalized economy represents a turbulentreordering with distinct opportunities and pitfalls.WIPO’s role against this backdrop should bestrengthened through its commitment andactivities in facilitating the utilization of IP as a tool for development, particularly for LDCs.

We are encouraged to see that this High LevelForum will address some key issues that are crucialto LDCs in fostering their national development andproductive integration in the world economy.

Most LDCs have been opening their economiesand liberalizing their policies with the intention ofattracting foreign direct investment (FDI), expectinga transfer of improved technologies to theireconomies. In reality, this has rarely been thecase. FDI flows to LDCs have not led to anynotable improvement in terms of technologytransfer. Our aims of improving productivity ofsmall and medium sized enterprises (SMEs),

14

OPENING ADDRESSES


- Increasing the visibility of LDCs in WIPO andfurther raising the profile and inclusivity ofthis Forum.

Let me conclude by urging WIPO to increase itsassistance to LDCs in meeting all their IPobjectives. From our side, I would also like toassure you that LDCs would extend their fullsupport and cooperation to WIPO to promotefurther development of the international IP system.

I finally expect that the WIPO Secretariat willimplement the outcome of this Conference fullyand will contribute to the strategic use of IP for ourprosperity and development. I wish this eventevery success and thank you for your patience.

Special Plenary



It gives me great pleasure to address to thisHigh Level Forum on IP for LDCs organized by WIPO.

I would like to thank WIPO for organizing thisForum for LDCs, and also for the excellentfacilitation, communication and organization.

The 21st century is known for the globalized worldbut also for the cruel division of the world todifferent sections based on the level of economicdevelopment. Our world is currently divided intothree sections, the G8, the 134 middle incomecountries and of course the 50 LDCs. This is only a broad classification of the 192 current UnitedNations (UN) recognized Member States.

In the purely capitalist world of our time, this realityis stark. The G8 comprises nearly 948 millionpeople (14 percent of the total world population)but commands 65 percent of the gross worldproduct, while in the LDCs there are 750 million

bilateral and regional trading arrangements withstringent provisions for the protection of intellectualproperty rights (IPRs). This would not only underminetheir multilateral commitments but would meanthat LDCs would be compelled to do what theycannot afford to do. On behalf of the LDC members,I call upon our trading partners not to impose TRIPSplus provisions, which would compromise ourpoverty alleviation and development priorities.

In order to make this Forum effective andmeaningful, I would like to urge our distinguishedexperts and delegates to come up with usefulrecommendations.

I would like to suggest that we try to develop anoutcome based on the recommendationsemanating from this Forum. On my part, I believethat the following issues of our common concernshould be reflected in such an outcome:

- Strengthening regional and internationalcooperation for building sustainable IPinstitutions;

- Assistance in formulating strategies andpolicies for poverty eradication and wealthcreation through effective use of IP;

- Increasing the protection and beneficial use of TCEs;

- Strengthening the use of trademarks, servicemarks, designs and geographical indications;

- Enhancing WIPO’s assistance and support forcreative and innovative activities;

- Increasing use of IP tools in economic activitieswith a focus on branding selected exportproducts of LDCs;

- Strengthening ongoing efforts to generateadditional resources for development of IPinstitutions and systems for LDCs;

15

institutes, universities and the entire educationsystem including technical schools should bereoriented and refocused on technological learningin industry and with industry. Later, as capacitygrows, they can lead the advancement of technologyin many fronts.

In this High Level Forum, we need to be clear onthe need for development with particular emphasison IP. If and when the UN systems and thedeveloped world assist the LDCs, then let it bestrong genuine capacity-building for the acquisitionof technology. Let us work together to defeatpoverty through technological catching up, not byassistance only for survival. World history hasshowed us that after World War II the United Statesof America pumped huge sums of money intorebuilding Europe. It also assisted Japan and Koreasubstantially. It opened up its doors to Europeansand East Asians so that they could trade, learn andstart innovating.

Finally, we are here to learn from the bestexperiences of fellow countries, different expertsand authorities of the UN system agencies andorganizations. We are also ready to work,cooperate and move forward to the acceptablemiddle income countries. It is my government’swish to smash poverty and abolish the so-calledLDCs. We can all be respectable middle incomecountries. Thank you very much.

people, nearly 11.1 percent of the total worldpopulation of which 50 percent of this populationare living on less than one dollar a day. Nor can Iforget to mention that 34 countries out of the 50LDCs are African.

It is against this simple background in fact that the UN specialized agency, WIPO called upon us to hold this High Level Meeting. The wide dividebetween the world communities is due to complex,historical, political and economic reasons. I will notgo into the details of these problems; rather, I willfocus on what the UN system in general and WIPOin this particular case can do for us in enabling usto help ourselves.

This ugly divide is getting bigger and wider,assisted by the gap in technological capability. As everybody clearly understands, the gap ineconomic development is almost the gap intechnological capability. This means that anymeaningful development agenda should focus ontechnological capacity-building. Technologicalcapacity requires development of the right humanresources starting from schools, universities, theright manpower in the industry, which is ready todeal with technology. This in turn requires the rightscience and technology infrastructure in the righttechnology landscape.

Technology is widely available throughout theworld. We are trying to learn how some countriescould just manage to acquire and assimilatetechnology in a very short time into their economy.There is so much out there to learn about and actupon quickly. IP information is critical in technologynegotiation, licensing, transfer and protection. It isa fact of life that we in LDCs are not in a position toinvent technologies and we do not have all the timein the world to play around with such myths. Weneed to be alert and steadfast in learning fromothers and revamp our production systems in bothagricultural industries and manufacturing industries,covering both hardware and software and includingmanagement systems. Government research

16

SPECIAL PLENARY


- Ensuring effective utilization of all aspects of IP for wealth creation, including focus of IP institution-building;

- Utilization of WIPO PatentScope for policy and business analysis;

- Initiating the requisite legislative framework;

- Promoting creativity and formulating andadopting more innovation-friendly policies and programs;

- Strengthening cooperation among allstakeholders at the national level;

- Utilizing copyright to facilitate access to better education;

- Engaging in sustainable qualitative developmentof human resources through investment inspecialized training in the field of IP;

- Embarking on national awareness programs tohighlight the importance of protecting IPRs aswell as promoting IP culture;

- Enforcing pertinent laws, rules and regulationsmeticulously;

- Promoting exchange of ideas and information aswell as sharing of experiences on major issuesrelevant to the development of inventive andinnovative activities;

- Building awareness of IP as it relates to theprivate sector, governmental organizations, IP advocacy groups and non governmentalorganizations; and

- Putting in place reward systems for owners ofIPRs in recognition of their outstandingachievements and contribution, so as toencourage inventive and creative activity.


Minister for Law and Constitutional Affairs and

for Justice and Human Rights, Lesotho

First, I would like to thank WIPO for invitingme to this important Forum and I also wish toendorse the statement made by the Coordinatorof LDCs. We are gathered here today toexchange views on how best we can deviseappropriate strategies and put in place policies onthe use of IP for prosperity and development inthe context of LDCs. We look forward to somevigorous discussions and stimulating debates,which should include sharing experiences andexchanging ideas, hence learning from one another.

Global developments in technology and internationaltrade have led to heightened awareness of theimportance of IP. Countries have increasinglyrecognized the importance of IP as a tool forcreation of wealth.

As LDCs, we face huge challenges to build IPinstitutions in order to ensure that our respectivecountries receive tangible benefits from thesystem. We have a duty to ensure that thesebenefits extend to both the owners of IPRs and the general public.

These challenges include:

- Addressing capacity building, human andinstitutional; and creating relevant institutionsaimed at contributing to economic growth andsocial and cultural development. This hasbecome increasingly important for LDCs;

- Formulating and adopting national policies thatincorporate strategic utilization of IPRs;

- Attending to technology transfer andcommercialization especially in universities andresearch institutions;

17

For several years now, thanks to the outreach workcarried out by WIPO, the general public hasbecome increasingly interested in IP issues. The topic is widely debated and now occupies acentral place in discussions on a globalizedeconomy. The compromise between property anddissemination linked to IP are the two central pillarsof this debate. For some countries, the IP systemis a decisive factor in prosperity in this era oftechnology. For others, it is considered a new formof protection, which replaces disappearing non tariffmeasures, subsidies and other commercialmeasures. Although IP is increasingly recognizedin political and economic circuits in developingcountries, the institutions in this area are stillrelatively unknown in countries such as our LDCs.

In fact, in most developed countries, IP organizationsare part and parcel of national intergovernmentalstructures, whereas in our countries they are onlyin their budding stages. Some lawyers andeconomists have analyzed IP and its mainconstituent elements in developed countries. The same cannot be said for the LDCs.

In Madagascar, the Malagasy Intellectual PropertyOffice (OMAPI) administers IP, and we have aspecial office for copyright. Through theseinstitutions, Madagascar has adopted theresolutions stemming from the 2007 Forum onCapacity-Building and the Knowledge Base forSocial and Cultural Development. However, wehope that more concrete and tangible action can be taken for the LDCs’ advancement.

With respect more particularly to Madagascar,several achievements should be mentioned. Wehave trained staff and automated the IP office butwe still have much to do. In this respect, Mr.Director General, we would like to request the helpof WIPO in developing our IP strategy andintegrating it into our national development policy.This will help us modernize our structures. Mycountry is aware that access to knowledge as wellas the dissemination of knowledge through

The challenges LDCs face in building IP institutionswill require action aimed at strengthening bothnational policies and external support measures. In this context, there is a need to:

- Foster regional cooperation in order toovercome the shortage of resources for IPinstitution-building in LDCs. The regionalapproach would have to include issues ofenforcement, taking into consideration thatinfringement of IPRs respects no borders; and

- Fully appreciate that governments haveobligations to put in place the appropriatepolicies at the national and regional levels.

It is our hope that WIPO will continue to strengthenits partnership with LDCs by intensifying itstechnical assistance programs, in particular thoserelating to the formulation and implementation ofnational policy strategies.

Only when IP has been fully integrated into nationalpolicies can we fully benefit from IPRs. Protectionalone is not enough. This means that IP offices shouldrealize that their mandate goes beyond providingprotection of IPRs. They have to be involved instrategy formulation, planning and implementationso as to further technical and economic progress. I thank you all for your kind attention.



It is a great honor and a genuine pleasure forme to speak at the opening session of this High-Level Forum on Strategic IP for Prosperity andDevelopment. On behalf of the Government ofMadagascar, let me begin by thanking Dr. FrancisGurry, Director General of the Organization, for hiskind invitation to take part in this High Level Forum.I would also like to thank all of your colleagues andmost particularly the LDCs Division.

18

SPECIAL PLENARY


assets in our country. Second, we have so far notsucceeded in creating fertile and dynamicinteraction between IP assets in Mali and those atthe global scale. Third, we have not managed tocreate sufficient interaction between our actors andthe knowledge community, especially universitiesand other institutions of higher learning, researchcenters and individual researchers. Fourth, wehave not yet managed to create a shared space forinventors, scientists, universities, research centers,educational institutions, world banks and financeinstitutions. Fifth, when we organize invention andtechnology fairs, we discover that there is muchtalent in Mali, but once the works have beenhanded out we do not know where to go fromthere, simply because we do not have thecapability to implement the inventions that havebeen designed. Sixth, with regard to musicalworks we have not been successful in fightingpiracy. Seventh, we have not been successful inmaking IP a vehicle for stimulating FDI.

The consequence of all the above mentioned pointsis that in actual fact we are very far from achievingthe aims stated in the title of the Forum. This iswhy I thought it was a very worthwhile trip for meto make. I know that you are aware of all this but I will repeat it all the same, hoping that togetherwith WIPO and ARIPO, of which Mali is a member,we will succeed in achieving the seven aims whichI enumerated. This is why I came to Geneva with a draft agreement that I hope we can sign with theDirector General of WIPO. Thank you very much for your attention.

inventors and other creators is a sine que non formobilizing national capacity and directing it to thestrategic use of IP. This impacts different areas,such as education, pharmaceutical products,communication technologies, renewable energyand food security, which concern the internationalcommunity. My country would thus like to benefitfrom the experience of the LDCs Division and theinformation center notably.

In conclusion, my delegation would like to take thisopportunity to commend the Director General onhis choices in the new Deputy Directors Generalrecently approved and confirmed. Rest assured thatMadagascar supports you in the accomplishment of your obligations. We hope that our cooperationties can be maintained and that the IP situation inthe LDCs would be reinforced. Thank you for your attention.

His Excellency Mr. Ahmadou Abdoulaye Diallo

Minister for Industry, Investments and Trade, Mali

Let me first of all express my gratitude for theinvitation to speak at this very High Level Forum.Since this is the first time that I have seen theDirector General of WIPO directly, I would like tocongratulate him and tell him what a good job he isdoing. I read your acceptance speech with thegreatest attention and I think it was full of hope and full of promises.

I also welcome the advent of aRDi and congratulateyou on the topic of this Forum – The Strategic useof IP for Prosperity and Development. If I were tore-phrase it, I would say The Strategic Use of IP forDevelopment and Prosperity, to put emphasis onthe cause and effect relationship – the fact thatdevelopment must precede prosperity.

If I were asked to tell you about the IP situation inMali, I would say the following. First of all, we donot have exhaustive knowledge of all IP objects and

19

within the Maldivian community. Our aim in theimmediate term is to foster a conducive environmentfor the establishment of a holistic IP regime and IPculture in the Maldives.

Maldives is due to graduate from LDC status inDecember 2010. This will have a huge implicationfor the Maldives in the immediate term followingits graduation. It means as a country, it must havean effective legal framework and enforcementmechanisms in place and be in full compliance withthe WTO TRIPS Agreement by the end of 2010.This is a gigantic step. It is a move from nonexisting IP regime to a full compliance regime.Undoubtedly, this poses huge challenges andopportunities for a graduating small and vulnerableeconomy like ours.

To address the immediate challenges associatedwith the introduction of an IP regime, Maldives willneed policy space and sustained technicalassistance and cooperation from partner countriesand multilateral agencies. We need your supportand ask WIPO to support our efforts to becomefully IP-compliant and to establish the necessarysafeguards as a coping strategy to deal with issuesstemming from IP-compliance in the immediate andmedium term.

We believe that within challenges lie opportunities.The government has recently announced plans forthe Maldives to become a carbon-neutral economyby 2010. We are a small vulnerable islandeconomy, and the risk of doing nothing to addressthe issue of climate change may be significant forus. With this commitment, the government wishesto place environmental sustainability at the centerof its own socio economic development while atthe same time pointing to a new cleandevelopment path for all development countries.

We believe that an effective international IP regimehas a major role to play in the move towards thesustainable development of an economy. Theenabling environment that will be created from an

His Excellency Mr. Mohamed Rasheed

Minister for Economic Development, Maldives

I am very privileged to be here today as theMinister from the Cabinet of the first democraticallyelected Government of the Maldives. I understandfrom the remarks of the Director General that themonth of October was also a very auspiciousmonth for him, as he was elected as the DirectorGeneral during that month. It was in October oflast year that the Maldives organized a multi partyelection. We won an election where we peacefullytransitioned from a 30-year single-party system to amulti party system. I am here to represent thatgovernment. Today, we are here to talk about IPRs,not human rights.

I would like to thank the Director General and thesenior management of WIPO for inviting me to thisHigh-Level Forum, and it is a very timely occasionfor us to adjust to this Forum. It is indeed an honorto be among the eminent guests and dignitariesfrom the international community. I hope thistimely initiative from WIPO will pave the way formore such events, focusing on addressing IP-related competiveness in developing countries,especially the issues in LDCs.

IP is a new notion in the Maldives, but I can assureyou that the momentum is being created toaddress the issue of IPRs. The current governmentgives utmost priority to protecting, promoting andimproving the quality of IPRs in the Maldives andthereby fulfilling its international obligations andcommitments. Furthermore, the governmentattaches the highest priority to good governance,transparency and accountability in fulfilling thepledges in our manifesto as well as delivering whatwe have promised to the people of Maldives, whichhad been deprived for some years.

Based on the efforts that have been made in thelast few years, especially the last couple of months,there have been intensified programs to raise thelevel of understanding and awareness of IPRs

20

SPECIAL PLENARY


My delegation expresses its appreciation to theSecretariat and the officials concerned for all thehard work that has gone into the preparation of this meeting.

This Ministerial Meeting stands as a strikingexample of WIPO’s commitment and approach tothe development of IP sector. The discussions onimportant themes, namely, Integrating IP intoNational Development Policy and Strategies of theLDCs; The Strategic Importance of Transfer ofTechnology and Technological Capacity-Building forthe Development of LDCs; Sharing of Experiencewith some LDCs on the Wealth Creation Effect ofTrademarks, Service Marks, GeographicalIndications and Industrial Designs; Role andContribution of Copyright and Related Rights andCollective Management Societies for EconomicGrowth and Development of LDCs, TK, TCEs:Preserving Traditional and Cultural Assets andCreating Wealth and Regional Cooperation in IP areof great significance and relevance in the presentcontext of LDCs. We are confident that this Forumwill come up with a set of recommendations thataim at improving the strategic, institutional, andsystemic frameworks for the modernization anddevelopment of the IP regime of LDCs.

LDCs like Nepal possess rich biodiversity andtherefore have great potential and hugeopportunities for the development of IP, especiallyTK, TCEs, indigenous technology and geneticresources. Our efforts should be directed towardsensuring the equitable distribution of benefits. We are of the view that users of these resourcesshould always disclose the country of origin, andacquire the prior consent of the originating country.I believe that this meeting would be able to makefirm and clear commitments on this issue to ensurethe protection of public interests in thedevelopment of IP regime.

We live in an age of information. The knowledge-based trade is growing both in importance andvolume. IP has emerged as a valuable tool for

internationally compliant IP regime will provideconfidence to enable investment, particularlyenvironment friendly technology producers toinvest in Maldives. An effective international IPregime is also a prerequisite for researchers anddevelopers to step up their efforts in our countries,rich in biodiversity and TK and other IP resources.However, countries such as ours would need moreequitable to access technology that is so crucial toachieving the sustainable development to which wehave committed ourselves.

In this endeavor, the Maldives need not onlysustained technical assistance but also continuedcooperation and partnership from multilateralagencies and the global private sector. TheGovernment of the Maldives stands ready towelcome and work with key partners in our efforts,as its top priorities today are enhancing democracy,prioritization, privatization and decentralization.Needless to say that with regard to prioritizationand the opening up our economy to the internationalcommunity where we are focusing on renewableenergy, we have the need to have good supportand guidance from WIPO. In conclusion, I wish the Forum every success. Thank you very much.

His Excellency Mr. Dan Bahadu Chaudhury

State Minister for Industries, Nepal

It is indeed a great pleasure and privilege forme to be here at this august gathering. I expressmy sincere thanks for the kind invitation extendedto my delegation and myself.

My delegation commends WIPO under its dynamicDirector General, Mr. Francis Gurry, for havingbrought IPRs to the center stage of internationaldebates in the present context. We are pleased tosee a number of far-reaching initiatives that aim tobring membership closer to the Organization,promote and protect IPRs, and project them as avaluable economic resource for development.

21

Nepal is making a democratic transition after anarmed conflict that has lasted over a decade. We are engaged in the post conflict reconstructionphase. Our focus is to mainstream people into peaceful and productive channels. Thedevelopment of IP in Nepal can play an importantrole for the institutionalization of peace andstrengthening of democratic roots in the transitionalphase of the country. What we need is huge FDIthat generates more jobs and makes people believethat democracy works better, takes care of theirneeds and creates a secure future.

We attach great importance to the ongoingcooperation between Nepal and WIPO. It has been instrumental in creating opportunities fordeveloping strategic, institutional and systemicimprovements in the field of IP. Its programs havehelped develop human and institutional capacity inthe IP sector, formulate new rules and regulationsand automate the IP system. Nepal is rich ingenetic and cultural resources, traditions andpractices, geographical features and indigenousproducts, knowledge and skills. Because of weakinstitutional and systemic capacity, existingpotentials for economic, social and culturaldevelopment have not been properly utilized.

The recent visit of officials from Nepal providedvaluable opportunities for productive interactionwith WIPO officials and has opened space forsupporting Nepal’s strategy for the strengthening of the IP system, strategic planning for policy andlegal reform, institutional capacity-building, humanresource development, application of informationand communication technology for automation,educational, systemic and methodologicalimprovements.

Nepal has listed IP as an instrument for broad-based industrial development and has accordinglydeveloped policy frameworks on industrialpromotion, foreign investment and technologytransfer. Preparations are underway to ratify the

economic growth. It has come to be associatedwith knowledge, innovation and creativity. The development of IP has a direct bearing oncountries’ technological, socio-economic, culturaland social progress. The strategic use of IP iscritical to the development of other policy areas,such as food security, health, labor, trade, cultureand heritage, the environment, investment andscientific and technological development. This callsfor investments in knowledge infrastructures. Thepotentials in LDCs provide ample opportunities forinvestments to promote innovation and creativityfor the advancement of IP.

However, LDCs face several constraints such asshortage of resources, lack of capacity and a weakIP infrastructure to develop and initiate trade that isknowledge-based. They stand in the way of LDCstaking full advantage of opportunities. We wouldtherefore appeal to development partners tosupport LDCs both technically and financially tohelp develop this sector.

The deepening global economic and financial crisishas hit the LDCs hard through no fault of their own,exposing them to external shocks. The lack ofemployment opportunities and trade prospectsamong others has increased their vulnerability tosocial upheaval and instability. This plight calls for a special and differential treatment of the LDCs. IP is one area that has immense potential fordevelopment and thus provides hope to LDCs inthis time of great economic difficulty, as it can helpcontribute to social development, economic growthand wealth creation.

We feel that there should be separate, focusedprograms backed by adequate resources. In thiscontext, the LDCs Division should be strengthenedand equipped with the necessary resources. Ageographically balanced and inclusiverepresentation in the Organization, particularly thatof LDCs, should be given due consideration.

22

SPECIAL PLENARY



Deputy Attorney General and Minister of State

for Justice and Constitutional Affairs, Uganda

On behalf of the Government and People ofUganda, it is a great honor for me and myDelegation to be invited to participate in this High-Level Forum on IP for the LDCs. Distinguishedparticipants, for me these two last expressions area mouthful and are opposites of each other. A HighLevel Forum on IP is very high-sounding and LDCsare very low sounding. What a contradiction, high-sounding and low-sounding. How many of us arehappy to belong to LDCs, put up your hands?Need I say any more about that? You know whywe are here for – to stop being LDCs.

Mr. Director General, I bring you heartfeltcongratulations from His Excellency President, Mr. Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, and the Governmentand People of Uganda upon your election as WIPO’sDirector General. I also take this opportunity tothank the entire staff of WIPO, who are of coursethe unsung heroes, for a successful andprogressive meeting so far.

My delegation greatly appreciates the invitationextended to us and the excellent arrangementsmade for our travel and stay in Geneva.

Uganda remains proud of its membership in WIPOand supports the programs and projects adopted bythe previous General Assembly that are now beingimplemented by the Director General and theInternational Bureau.

My delegation is pleased with the theme of thisForum – The Strategic Use of IP for Prosperity andDevelopment. Allow me to note that mygovernment has adopted the theme of Prosperityfor All as a national goal for all nationaldevelopment programs.

Our new National Development Program (NDP)2009/2014, has incorporated IP in two key sectors.

PCT and other relevant instruments so as toharmonize the national system with internationalstandards.

We feel that this High Level Forum should focus on the following:

- Facilitating the transfer of knowledge in favor of LDCs to fight against poverty;

- Assisting the enterprises in LDCs, includingSMEs, in improving their competitiveness andtheir ability to gain regular access to new ideasand technologies;

- Conducting research and awareness outreachprograms to promote links between IPprotection and economic development;

- Making technical assistance and capacity-building programs demand-driven anddevelopment-oriented in LDCs to cater to thespecial needs of LDCs and help establishnational IP institutions to foster economicgrowth, social progress and culturaldevelopment;

- Enhancing the collaboration and partnershipsbetween the LDCs and developed economiesfor producing synergic impacts;

- Developing the capacity of LDCs on thestrategic, institutional and systemic fronts inorder to effectively use IP in local, national andglobal systems;

- Developing and applying the tools, techniquesand methods for effective integration of IPsystem into national development and publicprivate partnership frameworks.

I thank you for your kind attention.

23

the WIPO and organizing seminars, workshopsand symposiums for awareness enhancementand distance training.

- A diagnostic study on Uganda’s trade and IPprograms has been conducted to make uscompliant with the TRIPS Agreement by 2013.We are now seeking additional support to covergaps in specific areas, such as enforcement andpublic awareness.

Mr. Director General, distinguished participants, I would like to conclude by reiterating that it is ourobligation as leaders of this generation to make IP asuccess strategy in our countries as a reality and alegacy of our lifetime. I strongly believe that we cando this in spite of the challenges that we still face.

Last but not least, I ask the Director General tofurther support these forums to bridge the gap andstrengthen functional synergies between technicalstaff/experts and policy makers. Uganda, incooperation with WIPO, is willing to host a followup regional seminar for Members of Parliament andother policy-makers. I thank you.




Let me at the outset join my colleagues inthanking Dr. Francis Gurry, Director General ofWIPO, for organizing this very important High LevelForum for LDCs, on this very relevant theme ofStrategic Use of IP for Prosperity andDevelopment. My government greatly appreciatesthe enabling role of IP in generating people’sdevelopment and prosperity and raising theirstandards of living while reducing poverty, hungerand disease, all key goals for our LDCs, and forIP’s strength and capacity to address other socialand economic challenges.

Our government intends to address IP issues underthe broad areas of science and technology,industrialization and competitiveness and justice,law and order.

Over the years, our government has embraced theidea of using IP as a strategy for prosperity and thegrowth of the economy. Various programs havetherefore been adopted to implement this strategy.A number of legal and institutional reforms havebeen implemented and others are ongoing. Allowme to highlight the following:

- In terms of legal reforms: We haveaccomplished enactment of the Laws onCopyright and Neighboring Rights and TradeSecrets. We have tabled in Parliament four Bills on IP, i.e., the IP Bill, the Trademarks Bill,the Geographical Indications Bill and the PlantVariety Protection Bill. I am confident, since I am the person shepherding these Bills inParliament, that by the close of this year a new law will be passed.

- In terms of institutional reforms: The UgandaRegistration Services Bureau Act was enactedto make the IP office autonomous. A board ofdirectors was appointed early this year andfinancial modalities are being worked out toensure implementation of the autonomy status of that organization, whose Head, Mr. Kyomuhendo Bisereko, is here with us today.

- We have done a lot in the modernization of IPoffice registration procedures. Particularly withthe technical assistance of WIPO, we haveimplemented the IP Automation System (IPAS)for registration of trademarks this year.

- In terms of cooperation for developmentprograms, in collaboration with WIPO, we haverequested technical assistance and we haveconducted activities in the areas of training staffin all fields of IP, placing our IP laws online on

24

SPECIAL PLENARY


sectors, such as industry, agriculture, energy,construction and mining.

As a result of our internal inadequacies, ourextreme dependence on imported technologypersists. In most cases, it is expensive and difficultto adapt, assimilate and integrate the same into the local environment.

The overdependence on imported technology also pulverizes our bargaining power. In a nutshell,the challenges are a major stumbling block todevelopment. I should also stress that technologyis a particularly outstanding challenge insofar asresearchers lack the ability to offer and promotetheir research outputs in the market. This problemis accentuated when research is designed andcarried out without determining the market needsand demand. In brief, the difficulties in thecommercialization of their research output haveremained serious disincentives to objectivescientific research which calls for deliberate actionfor its linkage between research and industry todetermine the relevant market needs.

In countries where this linkage exists, governmentsmay not need to set aside funds for researchexcept for strategic research, such as that involvingnational security and defence. On the other hand,there are research institutions in developed andsome developing countries which have not onlybecome financially independent but have also beencontributing part of their surplus incomes to theState. In our view, this type of synergetic relationshipin society is very important for incentivizing the“create protect and commercialize” principle, forthe benefit of our inventors and innovators.

Mr. Chairman, I am also informed that about 80percent of all published global technical informationis in patent documents, and that such documentsare publicly available free of charge in patent officesand on the Internet. This information enables anyperson who is skilled in the art of that field oftechnology to effectively use it. Indeed, scientific

Mr. Chairman, unlike in the past when IP wasperceived by developing countries and LDCsespecially in Sub-Saharan Africa as a tool for amonopoly of the few, many countries including myown country Tanzania now recognize IP is as aneffective instrument and facilitator of transformationand sustainable development.

In the case of my country, Tanzania, we have seen in practical terms how, for instance, theentertainment industry is benefitting youths and the old through job creation and relatedopportunities. Engagement in the audiovisualbusiness is exponentially expanding including thecomposition, production and distribution of creativeworks which make a significant contribution tonational GDP and the improvement of livingstandards. In my country, we have in place a very comprehensive Copyright and NeighboringRights Act, with all the necessary civil and penalsanctions, on the part of the copyright administrationand enforcement. There is also a copyrightcollective management society, which collectsroyalties from commercial users of copyrightedworks and distributes them to the owners of those works. Moreover, the Copyright and theNeighboring Rights Act of Tanzania is one of thefew pieces of legislation on copyright in Africa that contain specific provisions on the protection ofexpressions of folklore. Despite the encouragingsuccesses in this area, there are some challengesmainly relating to piracy and other illegal uses of these works. More needs to be done in termsof enhancing the awareness and cooperation of players in this industry, in order to make itperform optimally.

In the area of technology development, Tanzanialike other LDCs still faces critical challengesparticularly in relation to budgetary constraints tosupport R&D in designated universities and otherinstitutions. Consequently, the output from theuniversities and R&D institutions is limited in termsof developing appropriate technology and products,to be applied and diffused into the economic

25

Alongside this development, a technology licensingmanual was also prepared. Tanzania is deeplythankful to WIPO through its LDCs Division for itshelp in recording these success stories. The LDCsDivision worked hand in hand with the TanzaniaIndustrial Property Office (BRELA), COSTECH ofthe University of Dar es Salaam and the Tanzania IP Forum to ensure effective interaction andinvolvement of potential users of that center, andwe are very grateful indeed for its assistance.

I am also of the opinion that strategic use of patentinformation, especially in SMEs, could assistbusiness operators in innovating and enhancingtheir competitiveness.

Competitive innovations could also be transferredby way of technology license to other users,thereby providing the innovator with economicbenefits. The strategic use of trademarks, brands,geographic indications and industrial designs todifferentiate similar products of differentmanufacturers has also proved a very effectivemarketing tool for our SMEs. This is particularlyimportant when SMEs constitute the majority ofbusiness operators and include many women inLDCs. If this strategy is coupled with supportivepolicies, legal and regulatory frameworks couldprovide a significant turning point in these countries.

In this same vein, Tanzania attaches greatimportance to the need to promote value additionin the various locally produced items like agro-produce such as cotton, coffee and tea. Thedifference between LDCs or developing countriesand developed countries of course is theknowledge gap and the digital divide, but the factthat we trade in commodities and get value addedproducts from developed countries makes us tocontinue to remain LDCs. Proper management anduse of the foregoing IP tools could, to a greatextent, enable our SMEs upgrade their productionand supply capacities.

researchers need not reinvent the wheel. Throughpublished patent information, they are able to easilydetermine the latest status of any field technology.

For example, with the help of patent informationresearchers may not need to start from scratch.One needs only to know what has already beendone by others in that field of technology, and pickup from that point for further improvement. Anyadded inventive step from that prior art is alsopatentable as long as it meets the patentabilitycriteria as per specific national legislation.This has come out of the good work that WIPO has been doing.

Likewise, for purposes of negotiating a license fortransfer of technology, a prospective licensee,through patent information, is able to know thesource of technology, its proprietors, their locationand addressees. A published patent documentprovides an easy route to access the requiredtechnology, and facilitates negotiations options fortechnology transfer.

Similarly, patent protection is a territorial affair andis accordingly regulated under each country’smunicipal patent legislation. It means thereforethat patents are not protected in any territorywhere patent owners have not sought protection.Such patents are therefore in the public domainwith respect to a particular territory in whichprotection has not been obtained, and this is anadvantage for LDCs. Any disclosed technology ofsuch patent document could be exploited by anyinterested party without infringing any rights of its owners.

To take full advantage of the foregoingopportunities a Tanzania IP Advisory Services andInformation Center was established and formallylaunched on March 27, 2007. It is strategicallylocated at the Tanzania Commission of Science andTechnology (COSTECH), an umbrella institution forcoordinating scientific research and technologydevelopment in the country.

26

SPECIAL PLENARY


global financial and economic crisis threateningeconomic growth worldwide. Many developingcountries, particularly LDCs like Tanzania, willshortly be severely affected by the economicdownturn, with the obvious outcome of decliningfinancial capacity to support and sustain investment,production, trade and the livelihood of the majorityof our inhabitants. In fact, the negative effectshave already started to be felt. It is my delegation’sexpectation that one of the themes of this High LevelForum would have been this important challenge.

I am sure the successful outcome of this Forumwill come up with concrete proposals for solution,including the need for the implementation ofWIPO’s Development Agenda, which will get us outof the disgrace of LDCs, as my brother fromUganda has said earlier on. I thank you very muchfor your attention and I wish this meeting verysuccessful deliberations.



I would like to begin by thanking Mr. FrancisGurry, Director General of WIPO, for having invitedme to this High Level Forum.

It would not be decent on my part to say nothing at all, because I consider this meeting extremelyimportant. It is therefore a great pleasure for me to attend this meeting, which will provide anopportunity for exchanging points of views andexperiences, in particular as regards the formulationand implementation of IP strategies to boost thedevelopment of LDCs.

Benin attaches great importance to IP as a factorfor the growth of wealth. My government isconvinced that IP is what will help us meetchallenges of poverty and employment. This is whyI am particularly happy to be here at the beginningof a process that will help LDCs derive full benefit

Mr. Chairman, let me also mention that Tanzania,like many other developing countries, believes thatTK, Expressions of Folklore and Genetic Resourcesare an important subject matter with the substantialreal and potential contribution to national GDPs.These are part of the daily activities of our people,providing considerable employment and socialsecurity opportunities. My country thereforesupports the need to have protective disciplinesand mechanism in place, to regulate and checkillegal exploitation and curb ever-growing globalbiopiracy. The measures are also intended to providethe legitimate beneficiaries of these resources witha conducive and enabling environment with a viewto ensuring effective exploitation and economic aswell as moral benefits.

In the context of genetic resources and thepatenting process, I wish to reiterate that thedisclosure requirement on the source of geneticresources in patent applications whose subjectmatter for its protection is derived from a certaingenetic resource is in our view critical to enable thecommunities from where such a resource is obtainedto also benefit through agreed materials benefit-sharing. It is our hope that the IntergovernmentalCommittee, which was given the task to findmodalities on how such resources could be globallyprotected, will soon finalize its work so that thenext step, namely, having an internationally bindinginstrument for the protection of these resources,can be concluded and implemented as soon as possible.

For the benefit of those who might not be awarethat ARIPO is closely working with its MemberStates to draft a regional protocol on the protectionof TK and TCEs, I believe this adds to the positiveefforts which will eventually culminate in thesecountries having the ability to effectively exploitthese resources for economic development andpoverty alleviation.

In conclusion, my delegation is not oblivious of thecritical challenge that has come as a result of the

27

I n a u g u r a t i o n o f t h e A c c e s s

t o R e s e a r c h f o r D e v e l o p m e n t

a n d I n n o v a t i o n S e r v i c e ( a R D i )

Mr. Yo Takagi

Executive Director, Global Intellectual Property

Infrastructure Department, WIPO

It is my great honor to take this opportunity to give a short presentation of one of WIPO’simportant project for LDCs, aRDi, which stands for Access to Research for Development andInnovation Service. You are now familiar with thisacronym, as our Director General has mentioned it several times this morning. This presentation isintended to help you understand better thebackground and initial stage of implementation of the aRDi project just before the official launch of the project.

The project is a result of successful coordinationand partnerships with publishers of scientific andtechnical journals. We have also received adviceand support from other UN agencies, some ofwhich are represented here in this room today. I wish to thank the publishers for fruitfulcooperation, and in particular the significantcontribution made by the International Associationof Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers (STM).

For many years now, WIPO has provided technicalassistance and undertaken activities for capacity-building in LDCs to promote research andinnovation for development. One of our challengesis to improve access to human knowledge, inparticular scientific and technical information,because such access is essential to the enhancementof national capacity for home-grown innovation.

Innovation in this century is expected to meetglobal challenges such as poverty reduction,improvement of public health and sustainable

from IP. Researchers should have access todatabases, and thus add value to what they areworking on. Those who transform raw materialsinto commodities are those who become richest.In other words, owning raw materials is notsufficient. Only those countries which haveacquired technology to add value to the rawmaterial will derive full benefit from the situation.My country exports cotton fibre. We have financialdifficulties we would not have encountered had wehad the possibility of adding value to only 10percent of our production. This is why wewelcome the organization of this Forum.

The present Forum, as you will have understood, isof the highest importance to the government of mycountry in particular. We hope that therecommendations formulated here will be realisticand practical, because we have come here to findsolutions to our development problems.

To conclude, we would like to once againcongratulate and express our full support to Mr. Francis Gurry and his colleagues. Thank you very much

28

INAUGURATION


year. After almost one year of negotiation andconsultation with our partners, today WIPO is verypleased to inform you that the project is now readyfor official launch.

I wish to give you a flavor of the project by showingyou a newly created for this project. Let me askmy colleague, Mr. Andrew Czajkowski, ProjectManager of aRDi, to show you a few slides.

Mr. Andrew Czajkowski

Head, Innovation and Technology Support

Section, WIPO

aRDi reflects WIPO’s commitment andcontribution to the MDGs, particularly goal 8, todevelop a global partnership for development, whichincludes the specific target of making available thebenefits of new technologies, especially informationand communications technologies.

It is also a very important element in WIPO’sDevelopment Agenda, particularly recommendation8, in which Member States requests WIPO tofacilitate access to specialized databases.

aRDi is a new public and private partnershipbetween WIPO and major scientific and technicalpublishers. It follows in the footsteps ofestablished UN sister programs such as the Accessto Research Initiative (HINARI) of the World HealthOrganization (WHO), which provides access tobiomedical and health journals, Access to GlobalOnline Research in Agriculture (AGORA) of theFood and Agriculture Organization (FAO), whichprovides access to agricultural publications, andOnline Access to Research in the Environment(OARE) of the United Nations EnvironmentProgramme (UNEP), which provides access toenvironmental literature.

development with green technology. It requires widerange of human knowledge and multidisciplinaryresearch. The IP system, in particular the patentsystem, has functioned as a knowledge infrastructure,not only for protecting innovation results andpromoting the commercialization of results but alsofor disclosing and disseminating shared humanknowledge - new knowledge in all fields of scienceand technology.

There are now more than 800,000 new patentdocuments available to scientists and engineersevery year, which is we believe the largestcollection of human knowledge in the standardformat. Most of them are now made availablethrough the Internet free of charge.

The second largest resources of human knowledgefor innovation are scientific and technical journals.The number of articles published in those journalsannually is about 700,000. Scientific and technicaljournals and articles are also studied frequently byinventors, patent offices and examiners. In thisregard, we are very pleased to see growingcrossover effects between these two majorresources of human knowledge.

However, scientific and technical journals are notpublic documents that are freely available.Scientists and engineers in LDCs, therefore, havedifficulties in accessing the database of thesejournals. Our Director General mentioned thismorning the high price of the subscription. This ismainly because LDCs cannot afford to subscribe tothe databases of the scientific and technicaljournals. The challenge is to mitigate thesedifficulties of LDCs in accessing these databaseswhile respecting the rights of the authors and thepublishers including their copyrights.

WIPO Member States discussed the challengewithin the framework of WIPO’s DevelopmentAgenda as one of the special initiatives in relationto IP for development. Against this backdrop, theproject of aRDi was born and conceptualized last

29

Dr. Francis Gurry

Director General


My colleagues have explained the context andthe significance of this new service of WIPO.Allow me simply to make three points very briefly.

First of all, as my colleagues have indicated, thisrepresents a commitment on the part of thisOrganization to the MDGs as well as to the WIPODevelopment Agenda. As such, it represents ourdesire to open this Organization up to the rest ofthe UN system and to make sure that we play ourpart in the UN system.

Secondly, I would like to note that this is apublic–private partnership. As you all know and areaware, public–private partnerships are increasinglyvehicles that are used to deliver on certain policy objectives.

That leads me to my third point, which is toexpress our very deep gratitude to our partners inthe private sector in this particular service: first ofall, the International Publishers Association (IPA),whose Secretary General is with us and fromwhom we will be hearing shortly, and also to ourfriends in the STM who are also with us thismorning and who have been the driving forcebehind this and to whom we are deeply grateful.

Effectively, this service represents a renunciationon the part of the publishers of the right to receiveany remuneration for the journals that they publish.As I mentioned at the outset, the current collectionof journals that are available at free of access to theLDCs is equivalent to a subscription rate of400,000 US dollars per year. Therefore, it is a verysignificant contribution that is being made by thepublishing industry and we are very grateful to youall for this contribution.

We are also grateful as I and my colleagues havealso mentioned to our partners in the UN system

aRDi’s standing publishers are listed in this slide.Cooperation with publishers has been coordinatedby the STM, and we are also very optimistic thatthis list will grow very soon into a much bigger one.

The objective of aRDi is to promote the integrationof developing countries and LDCs into the globalknowledge economy and to allow developingcountries and LDCs to more fully realize theircreative potential. It strives to achieve this aim by providing valuable scientific and technicalinformation found in journals to LDCs, whereacademic and research institutions as well as IPoffices can access the full article in a scientific andtechnical journal free of charge. In the case forcertain developing countries, IP offices can accesssuch journals, the scientific and technical journals,at a very low cost.

Eligible countries are divided into two groups.Group one consists of the LDCs. Let me remindyou that these are the countries where access isfree. Group two covers certain developingcountries, and there are 58 such countries. In fact,you can see the exact countries in each group fromthe aRDi brochure that has been distributed withyour conference papers.

The eligibility conditions are the same as those ofthe other UN sister programs and as have beenagreed by the other publishers. WIPO insists thatthe UN agencies, publishers and all partners becommitted to raising awareness of aRDi and its UNsister programs with regard to capacity-building,training and use of these programs in evaluatingthe effectiveness of these programs and monitoringusage. This is the front page of the aRDi . It isavailable from today at the Internet address ofwww.wipo.int/ardi. Thank you very much for your attention.

30

INAUGURATION


public–private partnership (PPP) and will announcePPP guidelines shortly. With support from WIPO,the Dhaka Chamber of Commerce & Industry isworking on establishing an IP Knowledge Center.

Whether from basic research to applied technologyor from one firm to another, the transfer oftechnology is fundamentally a matter of the flow of human knowledge from one human being toanother. This can be done through education,scientific literature or direct human contact.

Human resources are crucial both to thedevelopment and the application of technology.Certainly, some inventions have been made byindividuals with little education, but today themajority of inventions are made by those who havesubstantial education in science or technology. Thereduction of invention to commercial applicationusually requires skilled entrepreneurs and, dependingon the particular field, skilled mechanics, labtechnicians, or software writers. Hence, a broadrange of scientific and technological skills isabsolutely crucial for LDCs to participate effectivelyin the international technological economy.

At present, innovation and creativity, knowledgeand talent, technology and technique are viewed as the key factors for productivity improvement.The international economy is rapidly changing as a result of globalization, liberalization, evolvingtechnologies and internationalization of productionnetworks. The environment in which LDCs areoperating today is different from that in which mostdevelopment strategies and institutions wereformed. This presents more challenges thanopportunities for LDCs.

The domestic knowledge system in LDCs is oftencharacterized by weak industrial and scientificinfrastructure, poor collaboration and sectoralinterlinkages, and lack of skills and institutionalsupport for technological upgrading. IPRs are stillunimportant across the main sectors and LDCssuffer from a lack of knowledge-intensive activities.

notably WHO, FAO and UNEP. I am sure that this is a service that will be highly appreciated.






For historical reasons, the IP potential and theinnovative genius of the LDCs could not be tappedand that is why we are lagging hard behind in theworld of IP, particularly in respect of industrialproperty. Lack of research, infrastructure andinvestment has turned the tide against us.

As a result, scholars and capable researchersfrequently migrate to industrially developedcountries. We face a bleak future unless this isreversed and unless we engage in IP research anddevelopment. In this context, what we actuallyneed is technological assistance complemented byappropriate IP policy and institutions integrated withthe overall development strategy of our countries.

Let me take this opportunity to explain our currentthinking on industrial development in Bangladesh.The newly elected democratic Government ofBangladesh is committed to the nation building upa knowledge-based society with a view toestablishing an industrialized Bangladesh by 2021.As per the road map of vision 2021, we will makea digital Bangladesh ensuring IPRs, e-governance,e-management, e-commence, e-learning as wellas e-service in every sector of the economy. Tomake a digital Bangladesh as envisioned by thegovernment, we need to begin with a strong IPRadministration for the realization of our dream of a digital Bangladesh.

The present government emphasizes IP in its newindustrial policy. Formulation of separate IP policywill be our next step. Bangladesh is an advocate of

31

resources available for the development of the LDCs. I thank you.

Mr. Sergie A. Ordzhonikidze

United Nations Under-Secretary-General

Director-General of the United Nations Office

at Geneva

It is a pleasure for me to be with you at theinauguration of the aRDi. The project has alreadybeen described eloquently by the previousspeakers and was presented brilliantly by theAssistant Director General of WIPO, so I will notdwell on the details. Rather, I will try to place itwithin the broader efforts of what the UN family inGeneva is doing to promote sustainable economicgrowth for development.

We come together here at a time of multiplecrises, from deep financial and economicuncertainty and high food prices to the continuouswarming of our planet and a rapidly spreading virus.Common to all these challenges is that they call fornew approaches and inclusive partnerships, andaRDi provides an illustrative example of both.

Despite advances, we are not fully on track torealizing the MDGs within the 2015 deadline. Wecan only accelerate progress through innovation.This is important across all goals and goal 8 inparticular, but particularly with respect to thehealth-related ones as well. Less than two weeksago, governments at the annual High-LevelSegment of the Economic and Social Council,which takes place this year in Geneva, recognizedthe vital role of research in this field. In theirMinisterial Declaration, they stated their commitmentto promoting research and development,knowledge-sharing and provision and use ofinformation and communications technology forhealth, including through facilitating affordableaccess by all countries, especially developing ones.Here, aRDi is a practical tool to help reverse the

In order to face these challenges, LDCs must carryout respective priority needs assessments fortechnical and financial cooperation to implementthe TRIPS Agreement in cooperation with WIPOand WTO. The priority needs among others, include:

- Securing financial and logistical assistance tocomplement ongoing IP reform programs;

- Setting up a national IP policy forum;- Developing a national strategy on IP;- Undertaking specific activities for updating the

IP legal framework and administrativeinfrastructure;

- Using IP as a tool for socio-economicdevelopment.

As an LDC member like other countries, Bangladeshis also striving hard for integration into the globaleconomy and has undergone several painfulreforms to this end. We have passed so manyhurdles that we believe that it would also bepossible to overcome and establish a balanced IPRsregime if we are united. I also like to bring up thecase of Bangladesh because it has a vibrant privatesector. With its innovative and industrious people,it has proved to be an economically rapidly growingcountry in the region.

Technology information would remain the key to addressing these challenges successfully.Technology available in the public and privatedomain needs to be more exploited. Access totechnological information in patents and scientificand technical journals is, therefore, extremelyimportant. It is a factor which helps to secureaffordable access to new technologies thatimprove technology transfer and R&D with a view to ensuring sustainable productivity. It has made a huge contribution towards economicdiversification ensuring low-cost access to drugsand life-saving interventions.

On behalf of the LDC group, I would like to expressour appreciation to Dr. Francis Gurry, DirectorGeneral of WIPO, for making this kind of precious

32

INAUGURATION


them to fulfil their potential and to contribute their creativity both to the local and to the globalcommon good. This is the path to meaningful long-term sustainable development because it producesinitiatives tailored to local conditions and concerns,builds local capacities, generates productivityinterests and stimulates diversification in ourknowledge-based economic environment.

The economic and financial crisis carries the risk ofcuts in funding for research, teaching and training.Yet these are among the most critical sectors tobring an end to the crisis. If these areas are notnurtured, the crisis could in fact deepen further andrecovery would take longer. It is our hope thataRDi and other projects will facilitate research,sending a clear signal to governments and otherstakeholders to maintain the focus on, and fundingfor research, teaching and training. The UN familyhas consistently advocated and worked concretelyfor such a long-term approach to address theunderlying structural causes of the crisis, andthrough this, turn it into an opportunity for progress.

In this context, we must also keep in mind that aRDi, or any access to information, is not an end in itself. For this information to be usedeffectively and have an impact, it must becoupled with continued training, capacity-buildingand technology transfers and ongoingimprovement in knowledge infrastructure.

aRDi and its sister projects within the UN also pointto the value of enhanced engagement betweenresearch and policy. Input from research andacademia helps provide a sound basis for policy-making and brings important nuance and detail.The UN Office at Geneva has been working for anumber of years with our colleagues in the UNsystem to strengthen the ties between these twocommunities. I hope that aRDi can also become avehicle for reinforcing these important links.

aRDi is a welcome addition to the initiatives of theUN bigger family to step up our development

negative trends by empowering developingcountries to help themselves.

A comprehensive, concerted approach to reduce theknowledge gap and encourage greater participationby developing countries is necessary if we are to achieve the MDGs. This has to include allstakeholders, national governments, donors, theentire UN system, other international organizations,civil society and the private sector. I am pleased thatall these stakeholders are represented here today.

For the UN, a strong inter-agency effort is key, and Iappreciate the involvement of several UN entities inthis effort as a demonstration of the Organization’scommon directions and drive for development. The aRDi project builds on the achievements andexperience of WHO, FAO and UNEP in sharinginformation in their respective areas. aRDi will now broaden the subject base and allow for greater exchange also across disciplines. Aninterdisciplinary approach is imperative in confrontingour shared challenges as these cut across allthematic boundaries. This inclusive and outward-looking collaboration can serve as a model for otherparts of the UN, and indeed for other stakeholders.

Allowing access to available scientific andtechnological data, information and analysis isneither a zero-sum game nor a short-term one-wayprocess. What we need is a balanced approachthat takes into account both the need to protectcopyright to enable innovation and to shareinformation in order to cultivate further innovation.In these debates, we sometimes focus mainly ondeveloping countries as “receivers” of know-how.However, with the right tools and adequateresources, they are also potentially significantproducers of knowledge.

Pooling and exchange of expertise bring mutuallong-term gains. At a time of global economicuncertainty, we must draw on the talent and skillsof all countries. By facilitating the work of scientistsand researchers in developing countries, we enable

33

Publishers create value by selecting, editing andplacing information into a context often involvingthe brand of a magazine or the imprint of apublishing house. In short, publishers turn minesof information into gold nuggets of accessibleknowledge. Creating value has a cost and it is themarket that determines the price. However, evensustainable market mechanisms have their limitsand fringes. We all understand that literary worksare commercial products but also objects of culturaland scientific value, and therefore have a specialrole to play. Providing these important publicationsto patent offices in developing countries, in an areawhere the benefits of the free market economy donot yet reach, is an important role to play.

It must, however, remain the rare exception to thegeneral principle that markets, in particular in thedeveloping world, can and should develop theindustry that brings forth such valuable works.Market mechanisms will provide the bestincentives for high-quality local school books,children literature, adult fiction and non-fiction andother publications.

The aRDi project is intended to boost thesemechanisms and to kick start innovation andcreativity in the developing countries. The aRDiproject is also a very good example thatdemonstrates the new approach that WIPO has taken to addressing the many publicinterests/concerns in the developing world. Itshows some new elements that are required toaddress these challenges and that may be useful inthe context of all the IP issues that we face. I would like to call them the “3Cs” – Collaboration,Commitment and Context.

Collaboration means that we should seek to bringdifferent stakeholders together instead of creatingunnecessary and artificial polarization. Anothergood example is the collaboration we are achievingat the moment in the stakeholder platform for thebenefit of access for visually impaired persons.

efforts and we look forward to following itsprogress. Thank you very much.

Mr. Jens Bammel

Secretary General, International Publishers

Association (IPA)

I am speaking on behalf of the IPA, ourassociate member, the STM Publishers Associationand the many publishers we represent from aroundthe world, big and small, from developed anddeveloping countries and LDCs.

We all support the MDGs, and we believe it is thesovereign right of every country to develop andnurture a local reading and book culture, and with ita local publishing industry. It is a sovereign rightbut it is also a moral and social obligation, inparticular because publishing depends so stronglyon the legal framework. It is up to you, it is up togovernments to decide whether you create ordestroy your local publishing industry.

We are delighted to see that the aRDi project hasbeen able to develop in such a short time and soeffectively, to the point that we are able to launch ithere today. Our greatest thanks go to the peoplewho have made this project reality. It is alwaysunfair to mention individuals who have worked veryhard, but at the same it would be more unfair notto mention those who have worked particularlyhard under the able guidance of Mr. Takagi. Inparticular, Mr. Andrew Czajkowski,whom you havealready heard, and Mr. Alex Riechel in thebackground, who have been active and committedbeyond the call of duty to make sure this wouldhappen. I would also like to thank Mr. MauriceLong and all the other staff at the STM Associationwho have committed considerable resources andcommitment to ensuring that this project couldindeed take off.

34

INAUGURATION


Dr. Francis Gurry

Director General


Mr. Bammel and myself are going to sign theAgreement that constitutes the basis for thisservice.

Ladies and gentlemen, my thanks once again to the IPA, the STM and Mr. Ordzhonikidze, thank youvery much for being with us this morning.

The second “C” is the commitment, and by this Imean the commitment of resources. Political willis important but it cannot change the realities andisolations. Resources are needed, technicalexpertise, legal expertise, time and money to getthe things to work. When we talk about thecommitment of WIPO to the aRDi project, I thinkwe owe special thanks to Francis Gurry, and hisparticular commitment to this project. aRDi bearshis hallmark at every step.

Context realization means that we are not lookingat copyright and IP in isolation. It is not a panacea,nor is it the solution to all the problems thatdeveloping countries still face. It is a part of anoften far broader picture and must be recognized as such.

There is a fourth important element, but myimagination did not reach far enough to find a wordbeginning with the letter “C” to describe it.Perhaps consensus describes it best. Consensuson the fundamental principle of IP. IP is a legalartefact, an artificial construction and at the sametime, it is a success story. It has been createdbecause of the fundamental insight that promotingand protecting the commercial and moral interestsof the few, in this case the creators and inventors,actually serves the interest of the many in thelonger term. It is the public that benefits from theindustrial and cultural progress of the creators.

We hope that WIPO and its Member States willkeep these fundamental principles in mind as wetake on the other challenges that lie ahead over thenext few years. IPA and its members wish aRDigreat success. Thank you.

35


Managing Director, Kenya Industrial Property

Institute (KIPI), Nairobi

The topic for my presentation is Integrating IPinto National Development. The first and mostimportant aspect when I was given the topic wasto pose the question, what is to be integrated intowhat? Is it IP to be integrated into the nationaldevelopment of a country or is it the nationaldevelopment policy that needs to be integrated?That is the challenge that occurred in my mind:which is to be integrated first?

It is not going to be a chicken-and-egg question asto which one comes first, is it the chicken or theegg? Nevertheless, suffice to state that when wedeal with IP we are dealing with knowledge. Forany country to prosper, for any country to develop,it is important for knowledge to be embedded andingrained within its national development policy. Inthis particular session, there is only one messagethat I would like us to take back home, that is what you see on the screen, namely, that IP is thedriving force behind a knowledge-based economyand IP is knowledge. That is the only message thatI want you to carry home with you.

I will use a motor vehicle as an example. If youhave a car and it does not have an engine, certainlythe car will not move. It will go nowhere. You canrepaint it, refurbish it, redecorate it, but you willonly have an empty shell – something that cannotmove, something that cannot take you from point Ato point B. That is basically what IP does to anational economy. It is the engine that drives thenational economy; it is the engine that gives riseto growth and development. The challenge that wedo have as LDCs is how to incorporate this IPengine in our national development goals.

We need to integrate IP into our national economy.In our economies, we do have various sectors, theagricultural sector for example. For the agriculturesector to thrive in our various economies we need

T h e m e O n e – I n t e g r a t i n g

I n t e l l e c t u a l P r o p e r t y i n t o

N a t i o n a l D e v e l o p m e n t P o l i c y

a n d S t r a t e g i e s o f t h e L D C s




It is a great pleasure to welcome you back forour first business session, which will deal withTheme One – Integrating Intellectual Property intoNational Development Policy and Strategies of theLDCs. Thank you.




Let me also welcome everybody to thisafternoon’s session. We are all aware that we aredealing with five themes, and we are now onTheme One – Integrating Intellectual Property intoNational Development Policy and Strategies of theLDCs. It is a great pleasure for me to introduce ourlead speaker on this theme, Professor JamesOtieno-Odek, Managing Director, Kenya IndustrialProperty Institute (KIPI), Nairobi.

Professor Odek has worked in the area of IP for anumber of years now. He has also published onthe subject, so today he will be sharing with us hisknowledge on the subject matter. I have alreadystated what our theme is about, so let me take thisopportunity to invite Professor Odek to make hispresentation.

36

THEME ONE


The first step is to identify the national objectives.What are your national development goals? That isthe first thing to do in the process of integrating IPinto the national development system.

Once we have identified the national goals, thenext step is to undertake a national IP audit. Inconducting the audit, we will find out the followingbasic purposes – what is the state of play? What isthe state of IP in the respective country? What isthe level of awareness? What are the laws or thelegal framework that exists? What human resourcecapacity exists in the country to implement an IPstrategy and what physical or financial resourcesare required?

Next, the third step is to formulate a national IPstrategy. A national IP strategy itself must have aprogram of action, what needs to be implemented.We need to move from the realm of theory andawareness-creation at that stage. We need aprogram of action in the national IP strategy, aprogram that will produce tangible andmeasureable results. Once this has been done interms of the strategy, then we need to identify thehuman and financial resources required toimplement the strategy. The strategy has to beimplemented and this strategy must be in line withthe national development goals.

As you undergo all this process, it is very importantto involve all the stakeholders. You need to bear in mind that IP is a cross-cutting issue that cutsacross all sectors of the national economy. It cutsacross the agricultural sector, the educational sectorand the health sector. All sectors of the economyare affected by the IP system. By recognizing thecross cutting nature of IP, it becomes imperative toinvolve all stakeholders, so that each stakeholder isquite clear as to the role he is supposed to play inthe process of integrating IP to meet the nationaldevelopment goals.

I need to add one other thing: a lead institutionmust be identified, an institution that will be

to imbibe, we need to put knowledge of IP withinthat sector. In other words, we need to put scienceinto agriculture.

When we use fertilizers, when we come up withnew plant varieties to increase yields, we areputting knowledge into agriculture and this is thechallenge that we do have. We have to putknowledge into our agricultural systems. When weare conducting irrigation, we are putting knowledgeinto the agricultural production system.

If we take the health sector for instance, a healthypeople, a healthy population is the human resourcebase, it is the foundation for the country todevelop. The human resource of a country isdetermined by the knowledge base of its people. If you have skilled manpower, it means you haveput knowledge and technology within them, so thisis another challenge for us.

How do we establish a critical mass ofknowledgeable technical people who can becreative and innovative? This is one of thechallenges of integrating IP into the nationaldevelopment policy. If we take the field ofinfrastructural development, we in LDCs say we donot have roads; we do not have bridges in terms ofinfrastructure. All these infrastructural facilitiesrequire knowledge, they require IP. Therefore, thisis another thing that we need to do. We need toput knowledge into our infrastructural system, weneed to put knowledge into our health sector andwe need to put knowledge into all the sectors ofour national economy. This knowledge is containedwithin the IP system.

One would argue or ask, what are the stepsrequired to integrate IP into the nationaldevelopment goal? What steps are required? I willsuggest several measures that are required, andwe as LDCs will need to think about them, ponderover them and implement them if appropriate.

37

that countries have specialized in specific fields.Therefore, it is up to us as LDCs to find out to whatextent we can develop a niche, in what specificaspect of IP.

Last but not least, we need to keep in mind that IPis not only national; it is also regional andmultilateral. There are certain things that take placeat the global level that must be considered. Thereare certain things that take place at the regionallevel that must be considered. At the global level,you cannot turn a blind eye to the provisions of theTRIPS Agreement. Fortunately, we are LDCs,because there are all those flexibility provisionscontained in the TRIPS Agreement. One needs tolook at those provisions and determine how we caneffectively exploit them to yield the desired results.

The last bit of homework I would like to give toeach one of us is to identify what constitutes ourrespective national innovation systems. For the IPstrategy to be delivered, one needs to understandand appreciate the national innovation system thatexists in your specific country. Once youunderstand the national innovation system and howto effectively make use of it, then I believe the skywill be the limit. With the strategy in place, with aclear appreciation and understanding of the nationalinnovation system, I do believe that one caneffectively integrate IP into the nationaldevelopment goals of our respective countries.

I do believe at the time of discussion, I will havemore opportunity to shed light and explain anythingthat has not been clear. Thank you ladies andgentlemen for paying attention.




Thank you very much, Professor Odek, that wasvery enlightening indeed. In the interest of time let

responsible for implementing the strategy. As inany community, you have several actors andplayers. When there is no leader, nothing movesforward. We need a lead institution, anorganization or an institutional framework that candeliver the national IP strategy. Hence, a leadinstitution must either be put in place or identifiedand given the resources to discharge its mandate.

Now, in an LDC framework, I do recognize andappreciate that there are certain challenges. Thiscould be financial, it could be human resourcecapacity constraints and it could be infrastructuralconstraints. Yes, all those constraints do exist, butas the constraints do exist, we are reminded of theold adage – you must first help yourself before youcall your neighbour to assist you. The beginning orthe starting point is in your own house. If yourhouse catches fire, you do not just leave it and runaround calling your neighbour to come and put thefire out. You have to start from there. As youshout for help, you should be doing something.Therefore, in this quest to integrate IP into ournational development goals, the ball starts with us,the LDCs. We need to put in place a national IPstrategy, a strategy that is realistic and a strategythat we can implement. This can only be doneeffectively once we identify our priorities.

Lastly, I wish to point out that it is not easy to bejack-of-all-trades and to specialize in everything. IPis wide, knowledge is wide, and each country mustidentify its IP clusters or the niche that they canexamine. One of the tasks when formulating anational IP strategy is to identify the niche of aspecific country. We know our individual countries,which aspect of IP one can exploit and boost thenational economy. It is not easy to integrateeverything and be a jack-of-all-trades and becomean expert in everything. We need to identify theindividual niches, the core competence of ourcountries that can easily be delivered.

If you look at the history of the world and thehistory of so many other countries, you will find

38

THEME ONE


much focused on small-scale innovation, extensivelicensing and dissemination of new knowledge intothe Japanese economy. We have fairly solidevidence that it helped boost economic growth in Japan.

There is also a fair amount of evidence that lookingat the data we have, the strength of IPRs over timegoes up but depends upon each country’seconomic and social interests. This means theoptimal protection system may not be the samein all countries. Many of my colleagues in theUnited States of America from the US TradeRepresentative’s Office and industrial organizationstend to take the view that very high-level one-size-fits-all IP regimes make sense with the globaleconomy. I think we are not so clear on that at all.However, interest in IP protection tends to developover time as economic interest emerges. Here aresome examples: In India, a fairly strong copyrightsystem has encouraged the film development and software industry for a long time. In China,stronger interest in patent protection has benefitedthe biotechnology sector, engine design and otherkinds of capital goods sectors. In Korea andTaiwan, this has helped in information technology,so these things do change over time.

Why IPRs? Society clearly has an interest increating knowledge and, just as important,disseminating that knowledge as broadly aspossible within the economy. However, knowledgecan be developed in a number of ways. If you relyon markets, it can be subject to real costs anduncertainties, which create problems and marketfailures. As you know, invention and creation canbe costly activities and they can have uncertainresults. It may be difficult for inventors, musicians,creators, novelists etc., to actually get the returnsfrom their activities or to appropriate these returns.It can be quite difficult to license or sell informationin a context where you do not have the kind oflegal certainty and contracting arrangements thatprotect secret information and patent information.

met quickly invite our panelist. Professor Keith E.Maskus is an Associate Dean for Social Sciences inthe University of Colorado. He has authoredinteresting books on IP and has worked with theWorld Bank in the area of IP. Today, he is here toshare with us his experience on the Role of IP inReducing Poverty, Fostering Development andWealth Creation. Before he dwells on that subjectmatter, I think it will only be proper for me to invitehim just to share with us his brief remarks on thepresentation that has just been made by ProfessorOdek. Thank you.


Associate Dean for Social Sciences, University

of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado

(a) The Role of IP in Reducing Poverty, Fostering

Development and Wealth Creation

I am very delighted to address this High-LevelForum and very grateful for the invitation. I wasasked in this presentation to say some words aboutwhat economic research seems to say about thesubject that you can see on the screen – How canIP help reduce poverty and foster development? Iwould like to say at the outset that this is a complexissue. I will be focusing on elements that arepositive in developing countries and I hope in LDCs,but as you know these are very complex tradeoffs.

You may know that in historical prospectivereforms, IPRs tend to follow what marketparticipants see as their needs to protect their IPcreations. A good example would be the patentsystem developed in Japan after World War II. Thiswas a transparent system/an open system, whichwas actually designed to maximize thedissemination of new knowledge into the Japaneseeconomy. They have since the 1980s and the1990s adopted a much more rigorous patentsystem like the American system. During thisperiod, they had a system in place that was very

39

Finally, we think that there may be more productsdeveloped for developing countries and LDCmarkets as a result of stronger global protection.There is some evidence that is coming through, but it is taking some time.

There can also be some potentially negativeimpacts on economic development. I do not wantto suggest otherwise. What it all comes down to isto be sure that the IP reforms that you haveadopted or will adopt are complemented byappropriate policies; to make sure they arecompetitive; that they act in a way that encouragesdynamic innovation, competition and diffusion.These are some of the potentially negative impactson development, and we can talk later about meansof complementing these policies to try to avoidthose issues.

Systematic evidence on the gains and losses of IPforums in the LDCs is very scarce. We do notknow a lot about how this works. Most of thestudies we have tend to use aggregate data andmost of this data comes from the developing worldand the middle-income developing countries morethan the LDCs. Therefore, we really would like tosee more large micro-based economic surveys.Most IP reforms in the LDCs are still ongoing. Isuspect that the TRIPS Agreement has not beenfully implemented in many countries represented in this room.

IPRs are only one factor in technical change, so it isdifficult to sort out very clearly what the effects ofIP reforms can be. There are problems in decidingwhat is causing what. Do stronger patentsgenerate more innovation or is it the other wayaround? We have been forced to look intoindividual country studies and to talk about someanecdotal evidence. Here are some tentativeconclusions that I think have some sense to them.As far as we can tell, patent reforms do not raiselocal innovation for some period of time but they dotend to improve the prospects for inwardtechnology transfer. In very simple terms, if you

IPRs are market-based solutions rather thangovernment-directed solutions. This can be fairlyefficient in generating innovation in economieswhere there is a lot of competition, but it may berather costly in economies where there is not muchcompetition. These are the objectives of abalanced system of IPRs. No need to go throughthem in detail, other than to mention a few thatseem to be fairly significant in the context ofdevelopment, such as commercialization of newgoods and technologies. I will argue in a minutethat if we reform the patent system, it will takesome time before it encourages a lot of newdomestic innovation. What it can do is toencourage commercialization through the placingon a market of new technologies and new goods,particularly those coming from abroad.

With regard to providing legal frameworks forprotecting and licensing the basic resources andsupporting innovation in the context ofdevelopment, in particular genetic resources andtraditional knowledge, I think it is quite important toguarantee consumers the origin of products.Hence, you are buying something that came from aparticular firm or particular location and you can beconfident in consuming it.

There can be positive impacts to be sure oneconomic development. Economists have beenstudying this for a long time with, I think, a fairdegree of confidence to promote technical changeand to expand both domestic and foreign marketsproducts that can be registered at home andabroad. I will claim in another minute or so thatprobably one of the most significant things that youcan do to promote domestic value added fromprotecting IP is in fact to register IP in internationalmarkets.

More cultural goods can be created with theprotection of copyright for example, industrialdesigns, apparel designs, global commercializationof genetic resources and traditional knowledge.

40

THEME ONE


Here are some examples where weak IP seems to limit the local market. I have mentioned Indiantraditional apparel artisans. Let me just mention astudy the World Bank did some years ago inSenegal in which I was involved. Looking at themusic industry where substantial local piracy reallydoes limit incomes in Senegal – 30,000 localmusicians, less than 15 of them were selling andperforming abroad. Those who did perform abroadalso did their recording in music studios in France,the United Kingdom and the United States ofAmerica, because they felt that was where theycould protect those recordings. In fact, you have asituation, a two-tier kind of economy, in which thevast majority of the musicians with creative interestexists in a highly perfectly competitive kind ofindustry without being able to create much valuefor themselves and a small number of successfulmusicians who could do that.

The last couple of slides show some positivestories – global marketing prospects. Let me justgive you a basic economist perspective here. Tobegin with, I think that there is enormous scope forgains. When you recognize that in a rich world,which is knowledge-abundant but very heavily inthe position of wanting to demand the resourcesthat can be extracted from the resource-abundantand talent-abundant LDCs, there must be someway of breaching this gap and generating moreincome, more value for the owners of theresources and for the talent-abundant creativeinterests in the developing countries. Unfortunately,today, producers in the LDCs have simply not beenable to claim the intangible economic value fromtheir knowledge. It is quite difficult to do so. Ittakes not only creativity, it takes legal protectionand it takes licensing arrangements, so we reallyneed to develop that. A key strategy for gainingincome is to register and protect IP in majorinternational markets. A very good example is theMexican tequila industry. Ten years ago in theUnited States of America, tequila was considered asort of low-value drink on which you becameinebriated very quickly. Now, there are extremely

are a relatively poor country with limitedtechnological capacity, it is unlikely you will see thedomestic interest pushing strongly for patentreforms but you will see international interestpushing strongly for patent reform, as you very wellknow. The reason for that is that theseinternational firms intend to take advantage of thestronger patent rights through processes oftechnology transfer through patent registrations,licensing etc. Over a period of time, you may verywell see more innovation developed locally but inthe short run, that seems not to be the case.

There are some other forms of IP that seem to bemore associated with innovation in even the LDCs.Trademark protection can encourage local forumdevelopment, product entry and marketing reach.Without nationally, regionally or even globallyrecognized trademarks, it is quite difficult to extendyour market beyond the village/provincial level.

Balanced policies and trade secrets encouragefirms, specific investment and knowledge. In theabsence of IP protection, creative artisans andfirms tend to rely on more informal methods ofsecrecy which can limit the market quiteextensively. A good example comes from India,where the traditional apparel artisans/developers ofSaris and other forms of apparels tend to be verylocalized. Only a small number of the best andhigh developers of these apparel designs have anational or international market, so this tends tokeep the average income fairly low.

There is considerable potential for raising value-added production from geographical indications. Iknow that this is an area of considerable interestfor a number of countries in this room. Copyrightsand efficient collective licensing societies canencourage domestic development of software,especially music and films. Again, I emphasize theword efficient because there are some placeswhere collective agencies are not very efficient andfairly closed and have not been so positive for themusic sector.

41

multiple markets and domestic interest is just one.Informal IP protection tends to sustain lowincomes. You should invest in internationalregistration, in enforcement of IPRs which is wherethe larger markets are to begin with, so makingsure that your firms or creative interest get theirrents and royalties are important. Internationalfirms have an interest in licensing agreements andthere is considerable scope for international benefitsharing if we can develop administrativeprocedures that are effective and transparent. I will stop right there. Thank you for listening.




(b) IP and Public Policy Issues

I will talk about IP and Public Policy. Onceagain, I have a small message that we could reflectupon. The message states that the relationshipbetween economic development and IP lies ineffective utilization of public policy to achievenational goals. Public policy is the key.

In addition, public policy goes hand in hand withwhat we call policy space. I would not attempt todefine what constitutes public policy. I just wantto emphasize the importance of public policy in IP discourse.

Why is public policy important? There are tworeasons why public policy is important when itcomes to IP. The first one is that public policyaffects the nature and scope of rights within the IPsystem. The particular right that a country wouldgrant to IPR holders is a public policy question.Whether you want to give broader rights or narrowrights is a public policy issue that must be decidedbased on other factors.

very high-value niche developers of tequila whohave become quite valuable in the United States of America.

Here are a couple of examples you may knowabout. This one has been less than entirelysustainable but it is an interesting story. The CocoaFarmer Cooperative in Ghana that bought one-thirdof a British chocolate company some years ago inorder to take control of the brand names of theircocoa products/chocolate products in the EuropeanUnion and in the United States of America. Thathas generated, we think, somewhat stable marketsfor high-quality cocoa from Ghana. In Samoa, in atraditional village, healers use the stems of themamala tree, which has traditionally been used fora number of treatments. It turns out in workingwith the National Institutes for Health and AIDSresearchers in the United States of America, theyhave been able to extract prostratin, which is in facta drug that has potential use in HIV. This particulardrug has been licensed to the University ofBerkeley to run clinical tests to see if this could beuseful as a drug to treat HIV. If it iscommercialized, then the Government of Samoawill in fact be sharing the license revenues withBerkeley. Ethiopia is going to be talked about Iassume a little bit later today so I will not sayanything about that. One final example comesfrom Uruguay – the Acheguaki tribal name. I justwant to mention this because here is a case wherea well-meaning American fair trade companyactually used this tribe’s name in selling its own teain the United States of America without permission.When it was brought to their attention by theGovernment of Uruguay, they were willing to sign alicensing agreement and to send some resourcesto the tribe in Uruguay. Here is a case whererecognizing that international companies have someinterest in licensing is definitely worth doing.

Lessons to draw: this is I believe my last slide.Piracy and counterfeiting do penalize local launchproducers, at least as much if not more thanforeign firms. After all, the foreign firms have

42

THEME ONE


However, it needs to be kept in mind that theminimum standards actually provide the fourcorners of the public policy you can play with, what you can do or what flexibility provisions areavailable. Therefore, this needs to be kept in mindwhen it comes to public policy.

For an LDC country, I have identified five thematicareas where public policy shall remain crucial. Thefirst one that I mentioned is the flexibility provisionswithin the WTO and TRIPS Agreement. Eachcountry must examine and study these flexibilityprovisions and make use of public policy, becausethis is the area/the policy space that has beencreated to enable an LDC country to effectivelyutilize IPRs for its socio-economic development.

The second thing to be borne in mind with regardto public policy from an LDC perspective is the roleof IP in bilateral and regional agreements. This is acrucial issue today. We have numerous tradeagreements, regional trade agreements andbilateral trade agreements being negotiated. Allthese agreements have an IPR component. On thesubject of a public policy issue, it is important tobear in mind how to factor in IP in bilateral andregional agreements. It is in this area that TRIPSplus provisions are found. TRIPS plus provisionsare finding their way in bilateral and regionalagreements. As a word of caution, LDCs need tokeep in mind that these regional trade agreementscan actually go far beyond TRIPS plus. It maybecome both a political and an academic questionwhether those TRIPS plus provisions areencountered in the TRIPS Agreement. I do knowthat most of the LDCs represented here aremembers of the EU/ACP Cotonou PartnershipAgreement. In addition, there are all theseeconomic partnership agreement (EPA) negotiationsgoing on. A word of caution: bilateral and regionalagreements contain public policy issues that needto be looked at. Whether you have TRIPS plus ornot is something to keep in mind.

The second most important reason why public policyis important is that public policy balances privaterights and public interests. When we talk about IP,we are quite familiar that these are private rights.These private rights must be counterbalanced withpublic interest, and that balancing is done withinthe realm of public policy. Therefore, as you enactany legislation or as you take any position about IPin a specific country, the thing that comes in mindis that there is a balancing or private rights versuspublic interests. This is the realm of public policy.

The end result is that the particular system/the typeof IPR system that a country will have is a systemthat is based on public policy. In effect, eachcountry must ask itself what type of IPR system itneeds, what type of rights it needs to put in placeand what incentives it should give for innovationalcreativity. These are all public policy issues. Whatinstitutional framework should we put in place?What prioritization should we have in terms ofresource allocation? All these are public policyissues that must be decided by policy-makers.

I am happy to note that we have amongst us heretoday ministers and senior government officials.They are the ones who on a day-to-day basis makepublic policy decisions. They make public policydecisions when it comes to IPRs. These are someof the issues that they have to grapple with as acountry: What type of IP system do we need tohave? What incentive structures do we need to putin place? Do we need to encourage foreignregistration or do we need to exclude somesectors? All these are public policy issues that acountry must decide for itself, and these decisionsmust be made as I stated before, in line with thenational development goals.

I do recall that in the last few minutes I mentionedthat we must keep in mind the regional andinternational dimensions of IP. This is importantbecause within the global system we haveminimum standards. Fortunately for LDCs, someof those minimum standards are not applicable.

43

see to what extent is technology diffusing into our countries to enable us to undertakeeconomic growth.

Last but not least, capacity-building is always anissue that will be with LDCs for some time. Publicpolicy needs to address human resource capacityand infrastructural capacity.

I have focused mainly on the public policy concernsfor LDCs. Nevertheless, we need to bear in mindthat there are other public policy issues that aretopical and contemporary at the global level

When you talk about green technology, it is now apublic policy concern for the rest of the world. Wecannot ignore green technology issues. We cannotignore IP and climate change. These are facts oflife that we are facing in the current generation.

Questions of IP and food security are important.We as LDCs need to reflect on all these issues.What type of regime do we have, how can we usethe IP system to enhance our food security?

IP and health is also an important issue. We startfrom the point that most of us in LDCs do notinvent drugs but we import them. Since we importdrugs, what system shall be put in place to enablethe IP regime facilitate access to health and accessto medicine? These are some of the public policyissues that we need to bear in mind as we developour national IP strategy. There are certain publicpolicy concerns that are very crucial, that we mustkeep in mind and that we need to keep onbalancing. Hence, for policy-makers it is importantto bear in mind that public policy is the tool we dohave in our hands to shape the IP system inwhatever way we need. As we design and shapeour IP system, we need to bear in mind ournational goal and our national interest. As policy-makers, you are more experienced in this art ofbalancing than some of us. We may hear from youat an appropriate time in the course of discussion.

Enforcement issues are important for LDCs. As mycolleague, Keith has mentioned, enforcement ofstronger IPRs have repercussions for a country.The impact is not clear but enforcement issuesmust be kept in mind. Whether an LDC requiresstringent IPRs is something for debate. These arepublic policy issues that must be borne in mind byLDCs. What enforcement regime do you want toput in place? At the risk of not contradictingmyself, it is important to enforce IPRs, it isimportant to recognize IPRs, but the system/theregime that a country puts in place must be clearlythought out as a public policy issue.

Another public policy concern for LDCs is that weneed to recognize the role of non proprietarycollaborative works in generating IP. Issues oftraditional knowledge, genetic resources andbiopiracy as well as geographical indications needto be kept in mind. A regime that can be set up asa regional or multilateral framework must be borneor shaped by public policy considerations.

In the morning, we heard about the digital dividethat exists between LDCs and other countries ofthe world. When dealing with copyright and theInternet, we as LDCs must bear in mind that weneed access to literature, publications and journals.Personally, I was very happy with the initiative thismorning whereby LDCs will have free access tosome public journals. Unfortunately, my countryhas to pay as we are in the other category. For theother countries, it is a positive step that access toinformation is at least important in the IP field.

We as LDCs do require a clear policy on how technology can be transferred and howtechnology can be diffused to our countries. Weneed technology to be able to develop. We needtechnology to be able to extract the IP potentialthat we do have in our countries. Hence, a clearframework for technology diffusion is important.One might need to think about the possibility ofinitiating technology diffusion observatory unitswithin our respective countries so that we can

44

THEME ONE



I do not have a problem with the role of IP inreducing poverty. In Uganda, we no longer call itpoverty reduction – we call it poverty eradication.We do not intend to reduce – we intend toeradicate. I would like clarification from ProfessorOdek on the issue of public policy. I have no doubtin my mind that certainly, it strengthens the IPregime, but there are so many players involved.The public policy formulators, we the policy-settersand pacemakers are sometimes quiteoverwhelmed by international negotiations. Wewant you to get to the nitty-gritty of how LDCs can be assisted.

I will give you an example. Let us take the area ofpharmaceutical products. There is a rush todeveloping countries to set up pharmaceuticalindustries, both in active pharmaceutical ingredientsand finished products. However, there is a problemfrom developed countries, fighting the people whoare establishing these companies in LDCs,particularly from the Asian communities. Thedeveloped countries are coming in on the otherside, through fighting counterfeit laws that they areformulating. They are saying that such laws are notactually strong enough – in other words, they arefighting generic products. Therefore, we realizethat we are at a crossroads. How effective can webe, may be if we can be assisted by WIPO? Howcan WIPO come in to strengthen our understandingand our role in policy formulation, so that we areprotected from warring parties who want to takeadvantage of our situation?

Finally, you said that there must be a leadinstitution for an IPR regime. I believe Kenya has it.How independent is it, how autonomous is it andhow able is it to propel the IPR regime? Thank you.

Discussion




Once again, Professor Odek, we thank you somuch for sharing this information with us.Excellencies, distinguished participants, we havehad an opportunity to listen to two importantpresenters, and based on what they have sharedwith us this evening, I think you will agree with methat both of them are indeed able experts in theirown rights.

In some of our countries, it is true that IP is not partof our national planning and development strategies.One would like to seize this opportunity to urge usas governments to take a proactive role here toensure that IP becomes part of our national planning.

Yes, it is very true that the private sector also has arole or a stake in this, but we know that the privatesector in the LDCs faces numerous challenges. Itis not as strong as the private sector we find in thedeveloped world. Let us as governments take thelead. In the near future, we hope that we wouldable to work hand in hand with our private sector.In the same breath, we continue to appeal toWIPO. We know that they have expertise in thisarea, so they should continue to help our countriesas we move into the preparation of the policies thatwe are discussing here today. We have heard thatIP forms the most important part of our planning,that is the how part. We can make our plans, wecan formulate our visions, but if we lack thenecessary knowledge as to how we are going toimplement it, then we are likely not to move an inch.

The floor is open just for questions or remarks.

45

allow poor inhabitants to access to goods. Howcan we strike the right balance? I think this isextremely difficult in a context marked by greatpoverty. Thank you.

Delegation of Niger

As a representative of a very poor LDC, I haveto deal with a particular problem. The fact that the information that we receive based on patentdocuments is not utilized. We cannot takeadvantage of this information. It is very difficult forus to translate research into tangible activities andto make the best possible use of all the informationthat we can find in patent documents. We are veryglad to take part in this Forum to have a better ideaof the policies that should serve as guidelines forour governments to build their national capacities,and to make the best possible and most rationaluse of all the information that can be gleaned fromthese patent documents. Thank you very much.




Thank you for these questions and comments.These are indeed complex and difficult issues. Iwant to reaffirm what Professor Odek said aboutthe need for balance, as you reformulate yournational innovation strategies, your public healthpolicies in the context of IP. It does take a lot ofthought, a lot of reading and a lot of research tofigure out how best to utilize what is available inthe context of TRIPS flexibilities, etc., to make surethat there is a balance set up in the IP regime. The safeguards that you can have will in fact beappropriate for your economy.

The Minister of Uganda mentioned that even in thecontext of seeing these reforms in the LDCs, there


My question is directed to Professor Odek.Could he please highlight the features of an IP audit. Thank you.


I would like to thank both speakers. Their taskis not an easy one, as it is difficult to address suchintangible intellectual issues. Thanks to thecontributions of the professors, we have been ableto identify the real crux of the matter and theproblem of IP for development.

I have two questions for Professor Odek that I findparticularly important. First of all, access toknowledge. He demonstrated in his presentationthat profitable use of IP relies on access toknowledge upstream. He gave some tangibleexamples of that, but access to knowledge raisesdifficulties in LDCs and one particular difficulty isthat of language. Today, we refer to variouspublications that are accessible on the Internet.However, there are two obstacles to access thosepublications in poor countries, access to theInternet per se. We have mentioned the digitaldivide and the other obstacle is that of language. If we look at the percentage of those who haveaccess to the Internet in their language or thelanguage that they understand, it is a very lowpercentage. In order for everyone to be able tobenefit from such knowledge, the majority of thepopulation needs to have access to this knowledgeto be able to make the best use of IP.

The second problem is striking a balance betweenthe interest of rights holders, safeguarding theirrights and the public or general interest. In LDCs inparticular, it is difficult to know where we shouldset the threshold to make sure that the rightsholders collect fees to promote innovation, reap thebenefits of their innovation and at the same time

46

THEME ONE


KIPI, is largely a regulatory institution dealing withthe administration of IPRs, granting of patents,trademarks, utility models, etc. Hence, conflict ofinterest should not be a reason. Therefore, there isa separate institution that is the lead agency.

The National Council for Science and Technologyhas been funded and it has put in place aninnovation fund to promote innovation. It alsoensures that public universities and researchinstitutes research to invent. They should no longerresearch to publish articles to get promotion.Several things have been set up in this lead agency.

On the features of an IP audit, there are severalfeatures or essential requirements in an IP audit.Let me start by noting the objective of an IP audit.The main purpose is to determine the current stateof affairs. What is the existing situation? For thisreason, one of the fundamentals of the firstfeatures of an IP audit is the answers to thefollowing questions – What is the existing legalframework? What laws do we have in place in thecountry? Do you have laws on patents? Do youhave laws on trademarks? Do you have laws onindustrial designs? Do you have a law to deal withplant breeders’ rights? It will give you the status ofthe legal regime existing in a country. You will beable, through that, to identify any legal gaps youmay have.

Second, the IP audit will reveal the institutionalframework you have in your country. Do youhave an IP office and is the office effective? The institutional framework that exists in aparticular country will be clarified once youconduct an IP audit.

Third, the audit will be able to demonstrate orreveal the human resource capacity that exists in acountry. Do you have people to run the IP office?Do you have people who can teach IP awareness inthe country? Do you have the scientists who canlead innovation in the country? Do you have aninventors association? Do you have a collective

are still attempts in the developed world to try tolimit access, even more particularly, in the contextof pharmaceuticals. You mentioned a case. I thinkwhat you are referring to is the new counterfeitingtransit rules. Hence, what appears to be perfectlylegitimate generic drugs can be seized and takenout of circulation, if they go through a port wherethe patented drug is protected. I think that is whatyou may have been referring to – the recent case inthe Netherlands, I suppose.

I think that to the extent you can do so, it isimportant to make it clear that that kind oflimitation on what seems to be legitimate transit of pharmaceuticals and related products is perfectlylegitimate. You should not permit the portauthorities in developed countries to do that. I think this requires some negotiations and somerepresentations at high level. Otherwise, theseproducts will have to move in different transitchannels and that is a costly thing. It could in factlimit the ability to develop generic industries in yourown countries.




The institution which I head is the KenyaIndustrial Property Institute (KIPI). As I mentionedin my presentation, once you have a national IPstrategy, you need a lead institution. Within theKenyan context, let me state that KIPI is not thelead institution. The lead institution is the NationalCouncil for Science and Technology. It isresponsible for complementing the country’sscience, technology and innovation policy. It alsocoordinates all the stakeholders and, otheragencies including my agency, in trying toimplement and to deliver the national IP strategy.That is how we have set it up in the Kenyancontext. In addition, this was deliberately donetaking into account that the institute that I head

47

This is another policy option available to a country.

I am quite aware that few LDCs have provisionsthat allow parallel importation, perhaps largelybecause most of those TRIPS provisions are not yetapplicable. This is the effective tool that can be usedto allow generic drugs to enter into our countries.

Others, but that is not within our policy space rightnow – exclude the entire pharmaceutical sectorfrom patentability. India used that effectively until2005. These are the various policy optionsavailable. I do note that within the Kenyan context,we have passed a new law, Anti-Counterfeit GoodsAct, which has caused us problems. I will notmention which country has taken us or is thinkingof taking us to the WTO Dispute Settlement Body.I do believe we will reach this stage because of ourdefinition of counterfeit, mostly with respect todrugs. We have defined it in a unique way. If youhave the opportunity, Google a copy of our Act andlook at our definition that caused a stir in somequarters. It has been commented on in IP-Watch,which is being distributed outside the conferenceroom. These are the options that countries canactually use, defining counterfeits to excludeothers. I will be able to tackle more on that on aone and one basis.

Access to knowledge and digital divide. Yes, I doagree that we have linguistic problems with someof the documents that we are discussing. We havenumerous publications. Some of us speak French,English, Arabic or other languages. This is achallenge that will live with us forever. How do wedeal with this? How can dissemination take placeon an effective level when some of thesepublications cannot be read? The only immediateresponse that I have is that translation is necessary.Otherwise, we have to look for bilingual peoplewho can be able to come and enhance or do theawareness-raising and discourse. I do believe thateach one of us can either communicate in Englishor in one of the UN languages. It is easy to find apublication on the same topic that meets our

management organization for copyright and relatedrights? These questions will be clarified throughthe IP audit and it will give you a level of awareness.

What is the level of IP awareness? It willdetermine where to allocate resources. Is it toallocate it to the universities or to the privatesector? Where should awareness be focused?These are some of the key issues that the IP auditwill be able to highlight.

Let me deal with the question of public policy –LDCs and multinational corporations, morespecifically the pharmaceutical industry. There arevarious provisions that one can use in practicalterms to deal with questions and issues of thepharmaceutical industry and genetic drugs. Allthese are policy options that a country canexercise. Each specific country must choose itspolicy options.

The first policy option available is the utilization of the compulsory licensing system within theTRIPS Agreement and in some of your nationallegislations. Let me add that this has been able towork. The threat of issuing a compulsory licensehas been able to make some of those largemultinational companies grant a voluntary license.This applied in South Africa, Thailand and in Kenya,which once threatened some companies. I will notmention their names. We now have eight voluntarylicenses and we do make our ARVs.

Another option that can be used as a policy tool isthe “Bolar” provision. This specifically relates tothose countries that have the capacity tomanufacture drugs. Before the patent expires, youcan put in place a system that can enable yourexisting manufacturing industries to be able tomanufacture drugs.

Third, and most important, in my context and forthe LDC context, are the Parallel ImportationProvisions. You need to add to your legal systemprovisions that allow parallel importation of drugs.

48

THEME ONE





First of all, I would like to address the questionof formulation of national IP and innovationstrategies. In his opening remarks, the DirectorGeneral pointed out that this was one of the mainframeworks within which our efforts to directcapacity-building and technical assistance would bechannelled, though not entirely for all countries butfor those countries who would be prepared to doso. I would like to say that many countries areembarking on this path. Many countries havealready formulated their IP and innovationstrategies. Several other countries are in the midstof doing so. In addition, we have received severalrequests to help countries formulate these strategies.

We have a whole repertoire of tools andmechanisms and methodologies to help countriesdesign, formulate and implement their strategies.On behalf of the Director General and on behalf ofWIPO, I would like to offer this to any countrywhich would like to have our support, guidance andtechnical assistance in this respect. We would bevery happy to cooperate with those countries in thesame way as has already been done with most ofthe countries present here.

This would also involve in many respects the policy-and goal-setting in a strategy context when we gointo detail. It will invariably bring in the publicpolicy issues. You cannot divorce public policyissues from formulation of strategy public issues.As Professor Odek very rightly said, it is an integralpart of that process.

Once again, we will be quite happy to work withcountries in confidence when they request us toclarify the legislative options, the flexibilities ininternational agreements and conventions and theTRIPS-plus provisions, if a country is doing abilateral or multilateral agreement. We will clarifythe question of the kind of balance, to which the

linguistic concerns. I know from the LDC context,in particular from the African context, that we arelargely two linguistic groups. Hence, we find somepublications in English not available in French. I wish to seek the support of WIPO to translatesome key publications that we might need asLDCs. I would really like to request this supportfrom WIPO through this Forum.

Likewise, with regard to the digital divide, we needto put infrastructure facilities in place. I am notquite sure whether WIPO is the correct forum, butwe need to build up our infrastructure in the ICTsector, both nationally and internationally, so thatwe can access some of these information.

We launched the aRDi system this morning. If wedo not have access to the Internet, how will weobtain these documents? How will we make useof it? We have not reached the stage where thereis Internet in every household or in every office.We have our usual power problems, etc. This is achallenge that we need to face.

Concerning balancing, my colleague, ProfessorMaskus, has already explained. Patentdocuments, yes, these are important issues. I havetaken note of the comments. There is a need forreflection on how to draw this balance. As hasalready been stated, it is a complex issue. One hasto view the IP system as a system in itself and alsoin collaboration with other wider issues. Balancingis an art in itself and it is based on knowledge. Youneed to have a wider perspective of the issues athand to be able to draw the balance. Thank youladies and gentlemen.

49

T h e m e Tw o – T h e S t r a t e g i c

I m p o r t a n c e o f Tr a n s f e r o f

Te c h n o l o g y a n d Te c h n o l o g i c a l

C a p a c i t y - B u i l d i n g f o r t h e

D e v e l o p m e n t o f L D C s



My name is Juneydi Saddo, I am the Ministerfor Science and Technology. The Ministry just cameinto being only seven–eight months ago, so I amlucky to be the first Minister of Science andTechnology in my country. Our lead speaker isProfessor Keith Maskus.




Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was asked in thiscase to talk about the Importance of TechnologyTransfer and Capacity-Building. What I will try to dois to summarize economic research evidence oninternational technology transfer, which for LDCs isprobably the most important means of accessingknowledge. Of course, I do want to say in passingthat it is just as important to imagine or to thinkabout how technology and information istransferred from domestic agents to otherdomestic agents, such as from universities to thefirms that would commercialize the technology.The United States of America has a long history fordoing that, and other countries are trying toreplicate what the USA does. If you would like toask questions about that in the question-and-answer session, I will be happy to address it.

Delegate of Senegal referred, to enable countriesto understand the options. Afterwards, countriesmay take their own decisions.

With regard to Niger’s question about how to usepatent documents, as far as capacity building interms of human resources, institution-building,automation/provision of IP and IT infrastructure and the establishment of information centers areconcerned, we can discuss with you how to set upa technology development center or a technologydiffusion center within an institution or body of thegovernment you identify. We have set up informationcenters in Tanzania, Ethiopia and Cambodia.

Lastly, I wish to touch on the issue of languages.Something that we do regularly at the request ofcountries is to help countries technically andfinancially, as well to the extent possible intranslating the relevant WIPO publications into their own local languages. This facility is available.More and more of our publications and tools arealso being translated into many languages,particularly in the six official UN languages. Thissupport is also available to countries. If a countrywould like to have our assistance in translatingimportant documents into its own local language,that facility is available through a request to us.

The capacity-building, technical assistance anddevelopment cooperation assistance of WIPO iscomprehensive, integrated and coordinated.Please take full advantage of it as we are workingwith the countries on a one-on-one basis, andalso on the regional and subregional context.Thank you very much.

50

THEME TWO


ITT is a key input for linking domestic firms toglobal production networks. To take a very complexissue and simplify it far too much, for thedeveloping world to really take advantage ofglobalization, it does require greater integration intointernational production chains, value chains andinternational production networks. Having accessto global technology is really a prerequisite for that.

ITT is the primary means of acquiring technologyfor dealing with public goods problems. I knowthat very well. These days, LDCs are thinking aboutpublic health technologies and environmentaltechnologies, how to gain access to these and howto deploy them.

The crux of the IP issue in the context oftechnology transfer – Do you think that technologyis better transferred in markets with protectedprivate rights? Do you think that technology isbetter learned informally where that may be easierto do or where there are less protected privaterights? These are complex issues.

Here are the means by which marketmediate/channels of ITT happen. You are familiarwith all of them – trade in goods and services;foreign direct investment; licensing; outsourcingetc., including public–private partnerships inpublic goods such as medicines andenvironmental technologies.

Equally important and perfectly legitimate are non-market channels of learning ITT, through imitationand reverse engineering. Labor turnover is onceagain a very complex issue made very simple. One reason the Chinese economy has been able to develop its industrial capacity so quickly is that ithas a strong human capital base and lots ofengineers. Those engineers move very quicklyfrom multinational enterprises into developing their own firms, or into working with domesticenterprises and taking the technology with them orat least what they have learned from that technology.

I would like to talk about International TechnologyTransfer (ITT), and I will try to go through thisquickly since time is short. There are manydefinitions of what really constitutes ITT, and howyou consider it I believe depends upon theobjective you have in mind. Some people thinkabout ITT as having occurred if you have justaccess to some information, however that happens.Therefore, if you import for example, a capital goodor a wind turbine that you are going to put up for awind farm, you may not know how that technologyworks but it is there doing something for youreconomy. You might want to take a somewhatbroader view though, that technologies have to bedeployed in domestic enterprises as opposed toaffiliated international enterprises. Some think oftechnologies that are actually learned and used bydomestic enterprises as the appropriate definitionof technology transfer, arguing that technology isreally not transferred until domestic interests canuse it, understand it and even finally take control ofit and improve on it. It depends on your objective ifit is just to use a technology. The first is perfectlyfine, but if you want to expand the technicalcapacity of the economy, the broader definitionprobably makes more sense.

Technology transfer is of great strategicimportance for developing countries trying tocatch up to the global frontier. If your policychoice is to try to develop your own technologies,there can be some advantages to doing that.However, it is generally much costlier to do thatthan to import the technologies and then learnfrom those imported technologies.

ITT has the capacity to expand productivity bothdirectly by using the new technologies andindirectly through what we call spillovers. The bestexample is that many international companies,when they locate their facilities in a middle-incomeor developing country, will share their technologieswith domestic suppliers of inputs. That can spillover into more productivity and more learning inthose input upstream industries.

51

gains. That would suggest that making sure thatlocal enterprises can invest in R&D capacity canbe an important pro development factor.

As for governance and transparency, trade costsare fairly low and investment costs are fairly low, as I am sure you have heard all of this before.

The last point on that slide is contract enforcementand IPRs. I do not want to tell you that those areunimportant. They are important but they really arecomplementary policies to everything else on thatslide. I would argue that simply strengthening theIP regime by itself is not likely to generate muchmore in the way of domestic innovation and inwardtechnology transfer unless these other elementsare also factored in. If you do them all or you dosome appropriate subsidies of those, then IP canbe an important complementary policy. That iswhat this slide basically says.

Why do IPRs seem to improve prospects for inward technology transfer? Technology transfer isa costly investment and takes place in uncertainenvironments. The multinational enterprise isgoing to invest in technology in your countrythrough an affiliation, through a joint venture,through licensing because it needs to try toovercome those costs. There are market problemsthat make it difficult to transact, especially withhigher-quality technology without contract rights.To simplify again, if I have an advanced technologyand am willing to deploy it in your economy, I amnot likely to do so unless I am relatively sure thatyou will not take it and use it without compensatingme. Therefore, contract rights do matter there.IPRs can play a positive role in reducing transactioncosts, particularly when it comes to licensingcontracts for know-how.

Patents and trade secrets can encourage verticalsharing of technologies with upstream suppliers asI was saying – the suppliers of inputs, machinery,even labor to multinational enterprises operating inyour economies. That can be an important source

With regard to temporary migration of scientificand technical personnel, we have very goodevidence from surveys done in the developed worldthat in fact one of the most important means oftransfer and technology learning capacity is throughstudying engineering and science in the UnitedStates of America, Europe or Australia, then goingback to the home country and developing eitheryour scientific networks or entrepreneurial activitiesin the private sector.

As far as reading scientific and commercialliterature is concerned, we already talked aboutreading patent applications. Patent applicationsobviously have the problem that they areoverwhelmingly in English, possibly some of theEuropean languages, more than that at least in theUnited States of America. Even though there is arequirement that patent applications must clarifyhow to implement a technology, the lawyers wouldrather not do that so clearly. Hence, it is not soeasy to read those patent applications and learn thetechnology. Indeed, it takes real technical expertiseto do so. However, within the OECD countries, Ithink reading patent application is a real form oflearning. We have a lot of studies which are notentirely consistent with each other but I think youcan say the following about what really determinesthe extent of inward market-based internationaltechnology transfer: how big is your market? Howrapidly is it growing? How close are you to othermarkets? I realize this is perhaps one of thebiggest problems in economic structural terms forLDCs: just not being close enough to internationalmarkets and what to do about it.

With regard to human capital base and skills andother factor endowments such as resourceendowments and domestic R&D capacity, oursurveys clearly show that local firms indeveloping countries that have their own R&Dcapacity tend to learn international technologiesmore quickly, implement adaptations of thosetechnologies into their own economies morequickly and generate more rapid productivity

52

THEME TWO


There are some policy questions I would like togenerally raise, because you may be thinking aboutthem on ITT itself. Can you erect an infant industrytrade into industrial policy with respect to thisprocess of inward technology transfer?

Well, closing the economy through trade quotas orother kinds of restrictions on trade, in an effort totry to build domestic industrial capacity, can makesome sense. However, it only makes sense wherespillovers are within your economy rather thaninternational. If you build a technological capacitybased on that kind of high-cost intervention, youare going to lose those technologies abroadanyway. It will probably also require large marketswith substantial demand and inter-industry demand.Therefore, there are spillovers that emerge as well.I would say that this is not a very likely approach forsmaller developing economies. In addition, tradeprotection is a fairly indirect subsidy to R&D andcan generate a number of secondary or multiplecostly distortions.

Trade Related and Investment Measures (TRIMS)such as local content laws and intermediate inputrequirements are generally fairly inefficient meansof attracting FDI and do not generate muchinnovation at home. I would just say be carefulabout those.

You could ask “Is it not true that the larger Asianeconomies, East Asian economies did that sort ofthing? The answer is yes, in some senses, butkeep these things in mind. The policy in theseeconomies has favored licensing and joint ventures.If you look at the Chinese experience, for example,you will find that their policy was to try to makesure that inward transfer brought with it technologythat would be shared fairly quickly with domesticenterprises. International firms were willing to dothat pretty much because China is a large economywith a substantial engineering base and productivelabor force. Otherwise, trade policy is fairly opento capital goods imports. Their active generalpolicies are to build domestic technology capacities

of technology spillover, and patents and tradesecrets can matter there.

All of the above benefits are more likely when localfirms themselves have sound technical capacities,engineering skills and R&D capacity. Of course, onthe negative side, IPRs can raise the costs ofimitation and reverse engineering. There is alwaysa balancing act to make sure that you thinkthrough. There are some limitations on the scopeof the IPRs that are worth thinking through. Do wehave any evidence in all of this? I will tell you thatwe have very little evidence on LDCs, simplybecause the data we need to study these issuesare not generally available in the LDCs. These mainpoints really come from studying the emergingmiddle-income economies, but I hope there aresome lessons to be drawn for your owneconomies. High-tech trade in both imports andexports tends to rise with the strength of patentrights. This is perhaps surprising.

Foreign direct investment (FDI) and licensing alsoincrease with patent protection in middle-incomeand large developing countries. The level ofsophistication of the technology tends to rise withimprovements in the patent regime. There is also asubstitution effect away from FDI towards licensingas IPRs improve. As contracts rights becomestronger, licensing becomes a more attractivemarket means of technology transfer.

What should you expect from IPRs reform? Again,as I said earlier there is little evidence of inducedinnovation by local enterprises in the short run.There is considerable evidence of increase ofinward registration of technologies (patents andtrademarks) from abroad. Those applications are asignal of an intention to serve a market throughbilling and affiliation, and through sending moreexports to your economy though licensing. All ofthis suggests there can be dynamic gains from atransparent IPRs system as long as thosestandards are fairly pro-competitive.

53

With regard to pro-competitive IPR standards, youhave the slides so I am not going to go throughthese. These are some examples of the TRIPSflexibilities that I think are especially important inthe context of using inward technology transfer tobuild domestic capacity and an adequate competitionpolicy, which is focused on licensing restrictions. We can talk about that more if you like.

What are some of the global policies we can askthe world to look at, to try to improve or raise theflows of international technology transfer? I makethe case all the time within the OECD countriesthat if you really want to see technology capacitybeing built in the poorest countries, you are to raiseyour own market access for their products. After all,if they can export, that creates a bigger market andthus a bigger reason to invest in productive activities.

WIPO is providing technical assistance for capacity-building and technology absorption. Many otherorganizations are doing this as well, but I thinkprobably not enough yet. I would like to see thewealthier countries remove their fiscal disincentivesand their discouragement of internationaltechnology transfer to developing countries. This isa technically and politically difficult issue in theUnited States of America, where we have lost agreat deal of jobs in the manufacturing sector andwhere Congress tends to blame the developingcountries acquiring technology for this factor.Nevertheless, there are some disincentives to thattransaction in the United States of America and inEurope I would like to see reduced.

As for encouraging differential access strategies,the publishing strategies we heard about earlierthat WIPO is working on are a great example. Iwould like to see the developed world establishpolicies in which knowledge is made essentiallyfreely available in the developing world, particularlythe LDCs, but the licensing terms are graduated tothe extent possible.

through human capital engineering, etc. IPRpolicies particularly in Korea and Japan favoredgeneralized dissemination in local innovation withinthe economy.

Incentives for inward FDI such as tax holidays canbe justified in some circumstances but probably notin the context of smaller economies where therewill be substantial fiscal costs to your budgets.There are reasons to try to use subsidies to buildlocal technology. Here are some arguments infavor of this approach, but there are someproblems there as well.

What might be effective host country policies interms of trying to attract technology? Well, if youhave barriers to entry in domestic innovation, by allmeans try to reduce those barriers. This is part ofbuilding a national innovation strategy.

As far as improving the supply of engineering andmanagement skills is concerned, sometimes wethink of building human capital strictly in thetechnical sense. Engineering and science are veryimportant. Equally important are buildingmanagerial skills. In fact, those new elements ofknowledge can be translated into entrepreneurialactivities in the marketplace. Ensuring competitionin supplier industries – these are the backwardvertical linkages to which I was referring.

Promoting an effective business environment andinvestment climate – I know you have been toldthese things before but they do seem to matter.

When it comes to building a domestic capacity forparticipation and licensing agreements, this is whereIP probably comes in most strongly. I think you willfind that it really benefited Brazil and Mexico. Whatthose local enterprises have is a capacity actually toparticipate both legally and economically in licensingagreements. That can mean registering your own IPor your own patents for purposes of trading withinthe context of licensing agreements. That probablymeans building real engineering and technical skills.

54

THEME TWO


Mr. Yuke Chin Lee



(MINDS), Kuala Lumpur

(a) Linking Universities and Research

Centers to Public and Private Sector

for the Management, Promotion

and Commercialization of IP Assets;

Spin-offs and Start-ups

The first presentation is Linking Universities andResearch Centers to Public and Private Sector forthe Management, Promotion and Commercializationof IP Assets Spin offs and Start ups. I would like toshare with you the Malaysian experience. Malaysiahas a dream to become a fully industrializedcountry by the year 2020. Hence, the countrymust shift to high-tech industry which requiresmore creativity, innovation and value-added. Thegovernment has a strategy to achieve this goal.The most important strategy is to enhance industry,academic and government collaboration. Whyacademic? All the top brains of the country can befound in the universities and research institutions.Why industries? These are the people who buildfactories, create jobs, increase exports and earn hardcurrency for the country.

Some of the major policies and initiatives taken bythe government to enhance the academic, industryand government relationships are as follows: thefirst strategy is to have an IP policy. The Governmentof Malaysia has made it mandatory for alluniversities and research institutions to have theirown IP policy.

One of the main strategies in the IP policy is toprovide monetary incentives (reward and award) tothe researchers. In the recent commercializationmodel released by the government, upon deductionof reasonable expenses, the disbursable amount/thefirst 250,000 Malaysian Ringgit will be given to theinventors. The next 1 million Malaysian Ringgit, i.e.80 percent, will go to the inventors of universities

With regard to greater opportunities for temporarymovement of technical workers and for studyabroad, I think an important element one can thinkabout is in the context of the WTO Mode 4negotiations, trying to devise larger temporary visasfor technical and scientific personnel to work andstudy in the developed world.

As for public research programs and the technologyneeds of developing countries and LDCs, we arenot nearly far enough down that road in my view.

When it comes to linking developing countriesscientists in a global research grant programs, theNational Institutes for Health in the United Statesof America now actually offers additional points andgrant proposals if a research network involvesresearchers from the developing world in themedical area. I think this is a positive thing.

Finally, with regard to trust funds for supportinginward technology transfer and public goodstechnologies, it is one thing to invest publicly innew technologies, but we also need to invest intransferring those technologies appropriately intothe developing world.

I want to thank you for listening to me again. I know there are a number of questions you mayhave and I will be happy to answer them.

55

Various funds have been put in place to helpMalaysian entrepreneurs buy or acquire technologyfrom the universities or research institutions,obviously to protect the government’s interests.These companies must be Malaysian-owned/havinga 51 percent share owned by Malaysians. Differenttypes of funding are available. For example, theCommercialization of R&D Fund (CRDF), theTechnology Innovation Fund (TIF), the TechnologyAcquisition Fund (TAF) are available for acquiringtechnology from overseas or local parties.

The fourth strategy of the Government of Malaysia isthe establishment of more venture capital firms setup in the government. First of all, the governmentmust take the initiative. The government itself hasformed a few venture capital companies with privatebanks or investment companies. The first example isthe Malaysian Technology Development Corporation(MTDC), and the second is the Malaysian VentureCapital Management Services Company (MAVCAP).This is a government venture with the bigcorporations or banks of the country, such as theMalaysian Bank, the National Electricity Board andthe Telecom Corporation.

The fifth strategy implemented by the Governmentof Malaysia is to encourage the formation of theinvention society, such as the Malaysian InventionDesign Society (MINDS), the society I amrepresenting today. This society is very active inorganizing national exhibitions. New technologiesand small inventions can be marketed or can bepresented to the public and to the private sectorsthrough these invention exhibitions. We invite tothese exhibitions the venture capitalists, licensinglawyers, industry partners to enable them to shopfor the technologies they want.

and research institutions. The exchange rate is 1.00USD is equivalent to 3.5 Malaysian Ringgit.

The next strategy taken by the government is toenhance industry and university collaboration. Wedo it through smart partnership so that the finalR&D findings are industry friendly. The industriesare likely or willing to take them up. With thatstrategy, the government has established anInnovation and Commercialization Center (ICC) ineach of these research institutions and universities.In short, the government wants the researchinstitutions and universities to work with industry,not in the laboratory.

The characteristics of the ICCs are the following:

- ICCs are staffed by experienced market orbusiness people who have ample experience inbusiness and commercialization.

- ICCs handle all negotiations, licensingagreements, marketing and researching themarket potential, etc. In addition, thegovernment also requires the Ministry ofScience and Technology and Innovation to setup a one-stop innovation center to facilitatecommercialization of universities’ R& Dfindings, for example, in the area pertaining to product development, testing, fabrication and prototyping.

The third strategy taken by the Government ofMalaysia to enhance university and private sectorrelationships is to have funds for commercialization.We have to admit that commercialization ofinvention involves quite high risks because newtechnologies are involved. Therefore, thegovernment must take the initiative to providesome kind of funding facilities so that IP assetsfrom the universities can quickly be turned intotechnology-based companies like start-ups andspin-offs at a later stage.

56

THEME TWO


had invented something using water to run cars.The whole society, the press and the governmentleaders became very excited. They wanted toinvest in water to be used as fuel to run cars. I hadheard of this invention many years ago when I wasa patent examiner. I therefore did a patent searchon the Internet and I came across quite a largeamount of prior art/inventions by other people. I alerted the government leaders to inform thepublic that many of these inventions were actuallynot new inventions. Somebody else had inventedthem and our inventors were reinventing the wheel.Using water as fuel is actually very simple – waterthrough electrolysis (water is H2O), you breakdown water into hydrogen, into oxygen and thenyou pipe the free hydrogen and you pipe the freeoxygen into the car’s internal combustion engine.

Patent information is very important. It is better todo a prior art search before you do your research.Check whether your invention is new or not new inpatent documentation. Do not reinvent the wheel.Engineers and businessmen can make use ofpatent information. The problem is that we tend tobe very shy in using patent information. We thinkthat we are copying. What is wrong with copying?

A couple of these leading Asian economies onceupon a time were copying. The Europeans, not oneparticular country, were also copying once upon atime, and they are very advanced now. Therefore,what is wrong with copying? Mind you, imitation isthe first step for industrialization – this is what Dr.Mahadi told me when I briefed him.

I will not share with you the benefits of patentinformation further. I would rather share with youmy personal experience on how we established thePatent Information and Documentation Center(PIDC) in Malaysia. I am very happy that I was theperson directly involved in establishing PIDC in1984. The government was very smart because itrealized that patent information was very importantfor the industry and for R&D. Dr. Mahadi wantedto start a new culture in the country by using

Mr. Yuke Chin Lee




(b) The Importance of Patent Documents for

the Extraction of Technological Information

for Technological Development:

The Malaysian Experience

This is a Malaysian story. It is a personal storybecause I was involved in the establishment of theMalaysian Patent Information Center from the verystart way back in 1982. I received my first trainingon patent information and dissemination services atthe Australian Patent Office, and subsequently WIPOhelped me to build up my expertise in patentinformation. I then returned to Malaysia anddeveloped the Patent Information and DocumentationCenter (PIDC). I will tell you the story now.

The IP system has a very important function inproviding information for R&D. Most of the time,we recognize the IP system as something givingprotection and somehow we are forfeiting itsinformation role. Patent documents in particularcontain a wealth of technical information. We aretalking about approximately 50 million patentdocuments. They are all public documents in thepublic domain. Everybody can access them andread them without infringing anybody’s rights.Every year, we are talking about close to 1 millionnew inventions being added to this public domain.The information is published free of charge.Therefore, patent information is very important andvery big. Whether you are technical researchers orbusiness researchers, you can look for patentdocuments and get the information you want.

I would like to share with you a recent experience.Last year, petroleum prices were skyrocketingeverywhere. Malaysia felt the hardship eventhough it is a small oil-producing country. Malaysianswere determined to overcome this dilemma/thishardship. All of a sudden, someone said that he

57

adventurous. We have our own car industry.During the period in question, I was activelyinvolved in publishing different types of patentsreports pertaining to different types of carcomponents, which the Government of Malaysiawanted to manufacture locally. We supported thegovernment national car project by producing manyof the state-of-the-art patent reports.

Of course, when you visit Malaysia you will not seePIDC anymore. It has been replaced by the IPdepartment within SIRIM. SIRIM has been turnedinto a self-reliant R&D company. It now operatesentirely under a private business environment.However, this does not curtail the work of the IPDepartment in SIRIM. In fact, it helps enhance thework or quality of work of the IP department inSIRIM. It continues to provide patent informationsearches and other services in support ofMalaysian industries and research committees.Thank you.

Discussion



I can tell you how interesting it has been for me to listen to these first-hand authorities and experiences from the Far East and also fromProfessor Maskus. It is so fascinating talking abouttechnology transfer. It is possible, it is notsomething mystical, it is something practical andpeople have done it. Millions have done it. Thankyou very much, Mr. Lee and Professor Maskus.Now, I would like to open the discussion up forquestions, opinions or comments. Thank you.

information for R&D, especially patent information.Hence, the government decided to place PIDC in themost diversified research institute in Malaysia, theStandards and Industrial Research Institution (SIRIM),the biggest industrial institution in Malaysia. SIRIMhas many technology centers under its control. By having the PIDC directly under SIRIM, PIDC has a very good chance to sell information to theMalaysian industries and researchers.

Establishing the PIDC was no joke, because inthose days, patent information was not free.Patent documents were published in either 16mmmicrofilm or microfiche, and you needed toacquire all the necessary equipment to read thedocuments, hence it was not free as it is today. I still remember we bought some millions ofdocuments from research publications. It was avery expensive investment. The Ministry ofFinance complained that they did not have thebudget and there was a lot of delay, etc. Thus, we went to see the Prime Minister directly and he approved the project as he considered itimportant. We then implemented and establishedthe PIDC in Malaysia. PIDC’s function haschanged a lot due to the transformation of SIRIMinto our corporate government company. ThroughPIDC, we provide various types of technicalinformation based on patent information toindustries, engineers and researchers, etc.

Concerning the question raised on theunderstanding of patent documents, I fully agreewith you that patent documents are written inpatent jargon and are very difficult to understand.The purpose of PIDC is to have the industriesinterpret, analyze patent documents and to makepatent information easier for industries tounderstand. Over the years, PIDC has providedmany services pertaining to technical information to Malaysian industry, researchers, etc.

PIDC is also involved in a couple of nationalprojects. I personally was involved in the nationalcar project. As you know, Malaysia has been very

58

THEME TWO


said, I have a question that I would like to addressto Professor Maskus.

My question is the following. Could you give usan example of a country which has benefited fromArticle 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement, which statesthat developed countries should encourage theircompanies to transfer technology to LDCs? I believe my colleague from Cambodia has put aquestion along similar lines. I would also like tohave an answer on this point. Thank you very much.


The situation in LDCs is such that when we aregiving an opportunity to take part in a meeting suchas this one, we feel that we should go back homewith something in hand or in our pockets. To bemore concrete, I would like to turn to the lastspeaker who has given us some very valuableinformation. I must admit that I was left a littlehungry when I heard that there are some 50 millionpatents in the public domain to date and that amillion more are added annually. The problem isthat you said later on that patent documents comein hard to understand jargon. You have been able tohelp the private sector in your country access theinformation contained in these patent documents.You have helped it decode these documents. Whatwould you recommend that LDCs do? What shouldthey create or set up in order to have access to thisvery precious information in order to be able tomanufacture spare parts for cars as you did? If wewere to go back home to Dakar tomorrow with thepossibility of decoding the information contained inpatent documents and the manufactured spareparts, our mission would have been successful.My colleague to my right would also like to put asmall question, if he may.


Professor Maskus in his deliberations mentionedsome essential determinants of inward market-mediated international transfer of technology. Weall know that the determinants he mentioned arenot very strong in LDCs – in some cases they arevirtually absent. May I add that transfer oftechnology is also market-driven. I want to knowfrom him whether there is an example of any LDCwhere a substantial amount of technology has beentransferred. Thank you.


My question is directed to Professor Maskus.As you may be aware, Article 66.2 of the TRIPSAgreement states that developed countries have anobligation to transfer their technology to developingcountries especially for LDCs. So far, this has notbeen the case. The developed countries usuallysay that they have no control over the companies,so it is up to the private companies to do that.Probably the market side of the LDCs is too smallto attract such FDI. Based on this Article, couldyou provide some advice as to what we should do to push for these obligations to be implementedby the developed countries? Thank you.


Allow me first and foremost to thank the WIPOSecretariat for having organized this High-LevelForum for LDCs. This is an extremely importantopportunity that gives our countries a very clearidea of the importance of IP for our development.

My delegation would have liked to have seendeveloped or developing countries present herewith us in this room, as we are talking abouttransfer of technologies for LDCs. That having been

59


Mine is a simple question, Mr. Chairman, and itis addressed to Mr. Lee. I hope that I havepronounced your name properly. Not many yearsago, Malaysia was the same as most of these 49LDCs. I believe I am right in terms of the 1970s. I visited Malaysia some time ago and I was quiteimpressed with your efforts to combat poverty.Poverty levels in most of these LDCs are incredible.Yours is nil or negative. Actually, when I was in thestreets of Kuala Lumpur, I asked colleagues that Iwanted to see the villages. How do they look like?I looked for poverty I could not see it. Tell us, youand your team, how IP management contributed tothat miracle? Thank you.



Thank you all for asking very valuable questions.I have also one question for you. I am theChairman but I would like to participate like an audience.

The question concerns the university system backin the late 1970s and early 1980s when youembarked on this rapid economic developmentprogram. You talked about not reinventing thewheel because knowledge and technology exist inabundance. However, universities regularly dobasic research, fundamental research, etc.Universities in my country are a group which resistsnew changes. They consider copying or imitatingtechnology in the academic circle. How did youovercome this problem? How did you repositionuniversities for technology copying, for technologyassimilation and for technology inward transfer asProfessor Maskus said earlier? Thank you very much.


I would like to seize the opportunity of yourhaving given the floor to the Delegation of Senegalto ask a few more questions. My question doesnot actually have to do with transfer of technology.It is a cross-cutting issue concerning the position ofLDCs and IP. Let me be clear on this. IP for thetime being is of particular interest in fields whichare not all that tangible – folklore, geneticinformation, traditional knowledge – things thatcannot be easily quantified. Unfortunately, this iswhere LDCs’ interest lies when it comes to IP.LDCs cannot do very much about these aspects.They do not have the necessary technical andadministrative capacities. They do not have themeans, for example, to prove that certain traditionalknowledge has been incorporated in inventionscoming from other foreign countries.

Developing countries within WTO in the frameworkof the TRIPS negotiations are trying to get aroundthis difficulty by introducing a clause that makes itmandatory to disclose such information. Thisconcerns folklore, genetic knowledge, etc. Will thisclause be successful? Will such countries beforced to implement it? Developing countries willnot have the means of proving that this type ofknowledge has been incorporated in foreigninventions.

I would like to know one thing about what WIPOcan do. Can WIPO take up the cause of LDCs onthis front? Can WIPO become the policeman for IP,helping LDCs which do not have the necessarymeans to do this sort of work?

A second question concerns the debate around IP.You who are experts on IP, do you think WTO is thebest forum to discuss IPRs? WIPO exists, is not thisusing two fora to discuss this matter? Thank you.

60

THEME TWO


How can we try to get this obligation going? It is a very good question. I suppose that I wouldsuggest building a strategy around something likethe following: I am an academic economist, I am not an international negotiator so this is just a general observation without the details. I thinkthere is scope for working on something likeaccess to knowledge agreement that would beadvantageous for the LDCs. The proposals for thatrange from very small to extremely broad. I thinktrying to negotiate within the context of the WTOgreater access for temporary visas so thatscientific, technical and managerial personnel wouldhave more access to learning in universities andbusinesses of the developed world. Probably, onecan think about integrating developing countryscientists more fully into the granting activities ofthe developed countries and the middle-incomecountries, making sure that there is the broadestpossible access to new scientific results, newresearch and data results. Again, we had anexample of this earlier with the scientific journalpublication and that is a nice start. I would like tosee that become much more broadly available inthe poor countries of the world. Lastly, I wouldalso try very hard to partner with universities, forexample in the developed world.

With regard to licensing arrangements that makeaccess to knowledge easily available and free or asclose to free as possible, I think you would getsome real returns from doing that.

Can you actually hold the governments of thedeveloped world accountable for Article 66.2? I doubt that because as you said, they will say wehave all these policies in place and we cannot forceour firms to transfer technology where they do notthink there is a market. That is a fact of life.Ultimately, it is improving the climate forinvestment in your countries that really matters.

Is the WTO the best forum to discuss IPRs? Wehave probably gone beyond the time where thatquestion should have been answered, since the


Associate Dean for Social Sciences, University ofColorado, Boulder, Colorado

Thank you to everyone for these questions,which are difficult questions. The first one has todo with the essential determinants encouragingtechnology transfer. It is true that quite often thoseconditions are not in evidence in the LDCs and theydo improve as economies develop.

Can I come up with an example of LDCs wheremany inward technology transfers happened? I donot think I can actually, unless you are thinkingabout public technology transfer through the WorldBank and the international agriculture organizations.

Where in the poor countries of the world can oneactually find international activities of that kind? Iwould mention places like Viet Nam, which has afairly large domestic market, a productive laborforce and proximity to the Chinese market. You canthink of other cases where there are particularcircumstances that made the country a prominentlocation for production. Generally speaking, this isa difficult question.

How do you actually improve these processesefficiently to try to attract inward technologytransfer? It requires a substantial amount ofinvestment. It requires making sure that you haveaccess to international markets.

The same question had to do with Article 66.2,which I think is frustrating to everyone who isinvolved in the TRIPS negotiations. If you read thereports that the developed countries submit to theTRIPS Council on occasion, there is always a longlist of things that have happened and that they aredoing. They do not amount to much in terms ofreal technology transfer. Again, I do not think I cangive you an example of an LDC where Article 66.2has made a large difference. Perhaps people atWIPO would know more about this.

61

patent documents, your trained people can givethem personal coaching and help them analyzedocuments. I think that is the best way to do it.

The last question is how to switch the mentality of university professors and their research to bemore industry-orientated rather than academic. My opinion is that you have to exert a certainamount of pressure, that is, the government shouldrequire the professors to concentrate on industrialresearch rather than academic research. One ofthe strategies adopted by the Government ofMalaysia is that the universities set their own Key Performance In-text (KPI), requiring theprofessors to do certain things such as filing patentapplications. Once your application is filed, thepatent office will determine if it is new or not new.If it is not new, your act of cheating can bediscovered very easily. In addition, expose yourR&D findings from university to the private sector.The industry will then determine whether theinventions are new or not new. Thank you.

Delegation of Nepal

My comment is on Professor Maskus’ statementon transfer of technology, Article 66.2 of TRIPS. I agree with him that the governments of thedeveloped countries cannot prosecute their privatesector for not transferring their technology. I thinkthe governments can and should create a positivepolicy environment that will encourage their privatesector to invest in the private sector elsewhere.

Regarding the transfer of technology, I think WIPOcan also play a very important role by trainingprivate entrepreneurs and giving information tothem. This can have a very positive impact on theireconomy. Thank you.

WTO is the location where the TRIPS Agreementexists. For better or worse, it is the most importantinternational agreement on IPRs. I think it isprobably an appropriate place to think about manyaspects of IP. What seems to emerge is that WIPOis an excellent place for thinking about the technicalissues involved in protecting traditional knowledgeand genetic resources. The UN is involved as well.Ultimately, in terms of the commercial aspects ofthat kind of IP activity, I suspect that WTO has tobe involved.

Mr. Yuke Chin Lee




The first question is whether the servicesprovided by PIDC are free of charge. They are notfree of charge because if they were free of chargepeople would not value them. Therefore, weprovide all these services at very nominal fees –fees that are much cheaper than the privateconsultants and lawyers in town, very nominal andvery competitive fees.

The second question is we know that there aremany patent documents that exist. We also knowthat LDCs have certain limitations in terms oflanguage, facilities, Internet connections etc. My advice is that you establish an IP InformationAdvisory and Information Center where you provideservices to your industry and private inventors sothat your efforts would be more focused and moreorganized. I think WIPO has established suchcenters in the United Republic of Tanzania, Ethiopiaand also Cambodia and they are receiving verygood feedback. If people do not have Internetconnections, have it in your center and your libraryso that the industry users can come to your libraryand use the facilities. If they do not understand

62

THEME TWO


On the other hand, there are several ongoingtechnical assistance and capacity-building activitiesin this area with various countries at their request.Many countries have embarked upon taking aninventory of their traditional knowledge andbiodiversity related assets, and they have convertedthem into traditional knowledge digital libraries.This helps to put the knowledge in an electronicform available in the public domain so that theycannot be used for avoidable patents. A veryimportant step can be taken by creating andarchiving the traditional knowledge repertoire orreservoir of a country.

Apart from that, many countries have alreadyembarked on enacting their own legislations.Furthermore, WIPO would be ready to help draftthose legislations or to comment on them uponrequest. There is a whole area of awareness-building and human resources development that is also a part of WIPO’s capacity-building efforts.



I would like to answer one question correctlyand strongly. Can LDCs copy technology? Yes, it ispossible. Forty years ago exactly, the per capitaincome of Korea was 87 US dollars. What wasChina in 1979 when Deng Xiaoping changed thewhole policy? What was Malaysia in the early1980’s? Now, look at what they are doing.Twenty/thirty years ago, many countries in what arenow the emerging economies of East Asia werejust LDCs. Therefore, it is possible that LDCs canalso copy and repeat this history. For inwardtechnology transfer from foreign countries todomestic economies, the strategy is catching up.The catching-up strategy worked for Japan, Taiwan,Korea, Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand. Manycountries are repeating it.

Delegation of Mali

Professor Maskus said when answering one ofthe questions that the most significant determinantfor the development of ITT is that LDCs needgreater development to foster or encourage ITT.LDCs of course need this transfer of technology inorder to foster development so this is a bit of avicious circle. I just wanted to draw your attentionto that aspect of things.




I think there was one part of the question fromthe Delegation of Senegal that needs somecomment. It was about the interest of LDCs intraditional knowledge, folklore, as well as access togenetic resources and what role WIPO has beenplaying. I think that this is something which wasmentioned this morning. The Director Generalpointed out the intergovernmental process of whichwe are aware that is looking at the whole issue ofIP implications of traditional knowledge, traditionalcultural expressions and access to geneticresources. That process is well advanced and inSeptember/October the General Assemblies ofWIPO will decide as to how it will go forward.

63

T h e m e T h r e e – S h a r i n g o f

E x p e r i e n c e w i t h s o m e L D C s

o n t h e We a l t h C r e a t i o n

E f f e c t o f Tr a d e m a r k s ,

S e r v i c e M a r k s , G e o g r a p h i c a l

I n d i c a t i o n s a n d I n d u s t r i a l

D e s i g n s




I would like to introduce the lead speaker, Mr. Getachew Mengistie, Intellectual Property LawConsultant and Attorney. He was also the formerDirector General of the Ethiopian IntellectualProperty Office (EIPO) and we will be able to tapinto his experience this afternoon. May I call uponMr. Mengistie to give his presentation? I dounderstand he is presenting on points (a) and (b). I do not know whether he should present the twotogether so that the panelists can react after his presentation.


Intellectual Property Law Consultant and Attorney,

former Director General of the Ethiopian

Intellectual Property Office (EIPO), Addis Ababa

While the PowerPoint is being set up, I wouldlike to take advantage of this opportunity toexpress my thanks to WIPO and for giving me theopportunity to undertake a case study on theEthiopian experience as well as present the majorfindings at this High Level Meeting.

IP information, scientific information frompublications, standards and technology purchasing,licensing, outsourcing, offshoring, FDI, imitationand reverse engineering are all forms of technologytransfer. The authorities have confirmed this.Therefore, create practical universities. Ouracademies have to be reoriented and repositionedin line with technology transfer. In addition, createa technologically middle-level skilled workforce.Revamp industries through benchmarking.Benchmark our industries with developed countriesand do what they have done. Retrain ourworkforce. Nothing should be taken for granted.

64

THEME THREE


seasons. They were unable to send their childrento schools. They were unable to meet theirhousehold requirements.

This has forced some of our farmers to cut downvaluable coffee trees and plant narcotic chat. Chathas a short-term return but it has serious long-termconsequences on the environment, on the geneticresources of the country as well as the productivityof the labor force.

We also noted misappropriation of some of thecoffee brands. We found in some countries thatcoffee brands like Harar were registered and ownedby foreign companies. Professor Maskus earliersaid that LDCs were endowed with intangiblevalues IP assets but failed to protect these, whichmight result in misappropriation by others. Theinitiative aimed to ensure Ethiopia’s ownership overits valuable assets and to improve the income ofcoffee producers, small traders and exporters.

It was also intended to create and strengthenpartnerships with foreign companies. By the way,Ethiopia had recognized the value of partneringwith coffee importing, roasting and distributingcompanies. Without such partnerships, there wasrecognition that whatever objectives we had setmight not be realized.

It further aimed at building IP asset protection andmanagement capacity. To meet these goals, wehad to make appropriate legal, marketing andbusiness tool choices. We conducted acomprehensive study on the relevant IP tools thatwould enable us to protect the coffee brands. The tools that we identified were geographicalindications, certification marks, and trademarks.The merits and demerits of each of these forms of protection were analyzed.

We also carried out extensive consultations bothinside and outside Ethiopia. The stakeholderscommittee which leads the initiative decided totake the trademark approach. It also decided that

The Ethiopian coffee designations, trademarkingand licensing initiative started in 2004. Theinitiative is being led by the stakeholderscommittee, which consists of representatives offarmers, exporters and relevant governmentagencies. The role of the Ethiopian IP Office ismerely to facilitate the work of the stakeholderscommittee as well as to serve as its secretariat.The initiative had enjoyed the technical and advisorysupport from a Washington based NGO called LightYears IP as well as a pro bono legal service from aUS law firm called Arnold & Porter. It securedfinancial support from donor organizations like theUK Department for International Development,stakeholders and the government.

I would like to highlight the grounds for andobjectives of the initiative, the choice made inselecting and using appropriate legal business andmarketing tools, the major achievements we havethis far and the lessons that Ethiopia and othercountries can learn from this initiative.

Ethiopia is renowned for producing some of thefinest gourmet coffee in the world. This coffee hasdistinctive flavor and aroma, which set it apart notonly from coffee produced in other countries butalso from coffee produced within Ethiopia. Thisdistinctive feature is the result of the hard work ofthe generation of Ethiopian farmers, so theyconstitute IP assets. The fine coffee commands alow price on the retail market. If I take Sidamo asan example, in 2006 a pound of Sidamo was soldfor 26 dollars. In 2004, a pound of Harar coffeewas sold for 24 dollars but Ethiopia sold this coffeefor less than a dollar or a dollar in some cases. Infact, the study clearly showed that only 5 to 10percent of the proceeds go to Ethiopia. Coffeegrowers receive about 50 cents a pound. Thefarmers were unable to meet their basic needssuch as clothing and food because they were notreceiving the right price for their valuable finecoffee. In fact, there are cases whereby ourfarmers would buy stuff during the peak seasonand be forced to sell whatever they bought in other

65

coffee around these brands, and promote the finecoffee as well as the brands.

To achieve these goals, Ethiopia employed anumber of strategies, including a free royalty as anincentive. We know that Ethiopia is the owner ofthe trademark. Trademark is an IP and IP is notfree. We know that we have the grounds to seekroyalties, but for a number of reasons, thestakeholders decided that the license should beoffered free of royalty. In return, we require thelicensee to make use of the brands when sellingthe fine coffees, as well as to educate theircustomers about the brands and the fine coffees.

To date, we have signed licensing agreements with96 coffee-importing, -roasting and -distributingcompanies in North America, Asia, Europe andAfrica. We also felt that our licensees might not bein a position to discharge their obligations if theydid not receive the fine coffees as Sidamo, Hararand Yirgacheffe from Ethiopia. Therefore, weconcluded similar agreements with 47 Ethiopiancoffee exporters as well as three coffee producers.Both domestic and foreign licensees have played acritical role in persuading other companies to jointhe initiative.

This business strategy was also complemented bya marketing strategy. The marketing strategy thatwas selected by the stakeholders was branding.A UK-based branding company was employed andit developed brands under the direction andsupervision of the stakeholders committee. Thisis the umbrella brand which would be used alongwith the registered trademarks. This brand ismeant to be used for future brands. Very recently,the IPO has sold trademark registrations of twonew coffee brands. Therefore, this umbrella brandis open to whatever fine coffee that we may comeup with and seek for trademark protection. Theindividual brands for the registered trademarksyou see on the screen now for Harar, Yirgacheffeand Sidamo are aimed to show that these areprotected trademarks.

we should try to trademark three of the fine coffeedesignations due to the long list of fine coffees andresource constraints in Ethiopia. In addition, itdetermined the list of countries where trademarkprotection would be lost. The basis for theselection was the countries which were either themajor import destinations or the future majordestinations of Ethiopian fine coffees.

We applied for trademark protection in 36countries. To date, we have secured trademarkprotection for Sidamo, Yirgacheffe and Harar in 29countries namely, the European Union, the UnitedStates of America and Canada. We have receivedtrademark registration for Sidamo and Yirgacheffe inJapan. We encountered a number of problems inEurope, in the United States of America and inJapan in the course of this process.

Owing to time constraints, I will focus on theproblem we encountered in Europe. A Europeancompany opposed the registration of Sidamo onthe grounds that it would create confusion with amark it owned called Sesemo. Ethiopia felt thatthere were no reasonable grounds for theopposition on two bases. First, Sesemo is speltdifferently from Sidamo. It is not identical. Thesecond ground was that the company registeredthe name Sesemo for grocery products butEthiopia thought to register Sidamo for coffee. We made this position known to the company and Ethiopia managed to persuade the company.The company dropped its opposition and wesecured the registration of Sidamo in Europe. Theregistration of the trademarks enabled us to meetone of the objectives that we had set. No one canmisappropriate these names in the future. Ethiopiaand the stakeholders are the owners of the names.

We had to devise a business strategy for the otherobjectives we had set to improve the income ofcoffee growers and small traders. The businessstrategy we employed was licensing. The objectivewas to facilitate the use of the Ethiopian brands,capture the goodwill and reputation of our fine

66

THEME THREE


at the price offered by the buyer. Now, they askthe buyer to sit down and negotiate the price.

We have also noted an increase in demand forEthiopian fine coffee. The Ethiopian coffeeexporters as well as coffee producers’ union reportthat companies which had never bought Ethiopianfine coffees have begun to ask for it. We have alsoobserved a rise in the price of fine coffee. Prior to2007, as I explained to you, a pound of coffee wassold for a dollar or less than a dollar. However, in2007, the exporters and the coffee producers wereable to sell the same amount of coffee for 2.20dollars/2.30 dollars, and this price went up in 2008.

The reports by the Ministry of Trade and Industry inJuly last year stated that Ethiopia had exported lesscoffee compared to 2007 but had earned more. Infact, Ethiopian coffee fetches more than half abillion US dollars. When we compare the proceedssince 2007, the difference is one hundred million.This could be attributed to the initiative and theawareness that we managed to create.

What lessons has Ethiopia learned? What lessonscould other countries learn from Ethiopia? The firstimportant lesson is top leadership support anddirection. I would like to tell you that had it notbeen for the able and wise leadership of my PrimeMinister H.E. Meles Zenawi, ministers and othertop officials, I assure you that the initiative wouldnot have moved an inch, let alone registering theseremarkable results.

The other lesson that we learned is that IP assetmanagement protection requires know how,technical skills and resources. Professor Maskusindicated that LDCs did not take measures toprotect whatever intangible values they had. Thisrelates to the incapacity that these countries face.These countries need technical and financialsupport at least for the initial stages, frominternational partners, but they shouldsimultaneously build their requisite capacity.

What are our major achievements? The majorachievement is the ownership and leadership of theinitiative by the stakeholders. We made sure thatthe stakeholders took the ownership at theinception of the idea. This has helped us speakwith one voice when we encountered problems.There were attempts by some of the companies todisunify the stakeholders; however, these failed asa result of the commitment and leadership of thestakeholders themselves.

We also set up institutions and coordinationschemes. The overall leader of the institute of thestakeholders committee is responsible for makingkey policy decisions. A licensing management unitwas established within the IPO. In addition, weestablished focal units in overseas embassies. InEurope, we have a focal point in the Embassy ofEthiopia in London, for North America the focalpoint is the Embassy in Washington D.C. and forAsia the Embassy in Japan. Members of thelicensing management unit as well as the focalunits in the overseas embassies have receivedtraining in licensing. They are responsible forcontacting companies and for monitoring licenseecompliance with the terms and conditions of thelicensing agreement.

The license distributors also established what wecall a network of license of distributors. This is ajoint forum where stakeholders and licensedistributors meet and discuss issues of mutualinterest. It was established in February 2007, and aseries of meetings were held in 2007 and 2008.The initiative secured support from Parliament, thePrime Minister’s Office, different ministries, thegeneral public and stakeholders in Ethiopia. It alsoenjoyed broad support abroad, including membersof Parliaments, renowned personalities,academicians, NGOs, etc.

The initiative improved the negotiating andmarketing position of the exporters as well as thecoffee producers’ unions. I was informed that ourcoffee producers’ unions no longer sell the coffee

67

The industrial designs are also used in the garmentindustry. I have taken Hana as an example. Hana is a young designer trained in North America who is involved in the garment and fashionindustry. By the way, industrial designs not onlyhelped her to make better products which aredemanded both locally and abroad, but they alsomade her well known. She has been invited to a number of exhibitions and has displayed herproducts alongside those of such internationallyrenowned designers as Armani, Gucci andValentino. These are some of her garments.

Besides, we have industrial designs that aredeveloped to meet a social purpose. An example isthis condom tray which was designed to promotethe use of condoms in Ethiopia. We believe thatthis would help break the taboo as well as preventthe spread of HIV-AIDS.

By way of conclusion, I would say that LDCs can use industrial designs as a tool to fosterdevelopment and world creation.




On your behalf, I would like to thank my brother,Mr. Getachew Mengistie, for his presentation. Hehas rightly showed that we have a lot to learn fromeach other. The fact that we are LDCs does notmean we have nothing to offer each other. Withoutpre empting the panelist, I would like to take thisopportunity to welcome Mr. Paulin Edou Edou,Director General of the African Intellectual PropertyOrganization (OAPI). I am sure he will be able tointervene and the intervention will definitely be toour advantage.

The ownership and development of stakeholders iscritical. By way of conclusion, I would say that ifdeveloping countries and LDCs truly wish to realizewhatever development aspiration they have, theyshould embrace IP and use it creatively to cater andpromote their interests.

(b) Using Industrial Designs for Value Addition

in Products and Services of LDCs – The

Experience of Ethiopia

Industrial designs in Ethiopia were not protected forquite a time. The first law in the history of thecountry was enacted in 1995. Industrial designs arebeing received and processed by the Ethiopian IPO.

Despite the fact that the Ethiopian IP system isyoung, it has already succeeded in registeringpositive results. Industrial design protection inEthiopia has stimulated the creation, protection anduse of industrial designs by our industrialists,handicrafts, etc. It has also facilitated or helped addvalue to local products. In some of the sectors, thevalue-added local products have managed to replacegoods that we used to import. In addition, suchprotection has generated competition within theindustry and the products sector. We now seebetter products available on the local market at abetter price. Some of the better designed productsare being exported to Europe and the United Statesof America, bringing in hard currency. Owing to time constraints, I will show you just a few of theindustrial designs. These are examples of designsthat are used in the shoe industry.

Industrial designs are also used in the handicraftssector. I have taken a designer called Saba Aleneas an example. She has secured 37 industrialdesigns registration certificates. More than 90percent of her products are made for the UnitedStates of America and the European markets. Herdesigns have won support from very importantpersonalities, such as President Clinton, who is alsoone of her promoters. These are some of thedesigns that are used in the handicrafts sector.

68

THEME THREE


tried to bring together general statements of thegovernments of our Member States. We realizedthat when the Prime Minister reads the policybefore the National Assembly, very few statementsrelate to invention, innovation or IP. I think thatchange has to come about through the understandingof IP by political decision-makers. That is the gambitfor the development of IP in our Member States.

If I may, ladies and gentlemen, I would now like tospeak on the theme given to me but I would first ofall briefly introduce my organization.

OAPI is a rather typical IP organization representing16 member States from developing countries and12 LDCs. LDCs play a key role by representingsome 75 percent of our organization. Some sevenmillion square kilometres over 130 millioninhabitants, an area which is extremely wealthy inraw materials, oil, iron, wood, uranium, as well asgenetic resources. Despite this potential, OAPI hasamong its members the poorest members in theworld. Some of our States have a GDP which isbelow 300 dollars.

Let me say a few words about the architecture ofthe system to help you understand how OAPIsystem operates. First, there is a commonlegislation – certain Member States have the samelegislation. There is a common office – OAPI is theIP office for the Member States. The proceduresare centralized at our headquarters. Our role is tofacilitate the transition to geographical indicationsso as to protect IP and improve commercialexploitation of these assets with a view tocontributing to the economic and social developmentof our Member States. This transition naturallybrings me to the role of OAPI and geographicalindications, and the conditions required for thefavorable implementation of such indications. This isimportant because a geographical indication is anatural right, as it is something that exists and simplyneeds to be formalized.


Director General, African Intellectual Property

Organisation (OAPI)

(a) Geographical Indications and its Application

in LDCs: The Experience of the African

Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI)

Before presenting the topic per se, I would liketo thank the Secretariat of WIPO for having invitedOAPI to take part in this important Forum. ThisForum is all the more important because thethemes are not only highly significant but also veryvital, judging from the quality and level of theparticipants, in other words, the decision-makers onaspects of IP in LDCs, such as the ministers andthe eminent council of the Board of OAPI.

In such fora, it is often important to raise afundamental question which is that of knowingwhat types of economies LDCs want to apply toenable them move out of under development. Thereply to this question can be found in the capacityand the will to change from the traditional conceptof an economy, based essentially on the sales ofraw materials, to an economy which is geared to aneconomy based on know-how under knowledge.

If you ask a French man what he knows to do best,he will say he knows how to produce wine, cheeseor champagne. If you ask a Swiss the samequestion, he will say chocolate and watches –although, I do not know of any cocoa beans grown in Switzerland. Watches and chocolate playa key role in the present generation of GDP inSwitzerland. If you put a similar question to anLDC, be it in Africa, Asia or elsewhere, the questionbecomes much more difficult. Yet in thesecountries there is significant potential in the field of know how.

I would like to share some brief comments before Imove on to the issue of know-how andgeographical indications, the topic with which Ihave been entrusted. Within the OAPI, we have

69

mamou peppers of Guinea, karité butter ofNumanapuli, green beans of Sourrou (BurkinaFaso), galmi onion and diffa pepper of Niger and theboghé mint and tokomadji yam of Mauritania.These are just a few examples. When we look atall this potential of geographical indications, webelieve that OAPI Member States can benefit fromusing geographical indications for their economicdevelopment, by recognizing product quality,developing existing distribution network, increasingproducer incomes and stepping up productionitself, which is very low and does not even meetnatural demand. This could also make it possible tofind new outlets for the export of agriculturalproducts, thereby boosting rural development.OAPI is also aware of the fact that geographicalindications in these countries can help agriculture toreally play a key role in national wealth generation.

What initiatives have been taken by OAPI to enablegeographical indications to truly fulfil its role as adevelopment tool? First, the development of thepilot project which of course is the protection andpromotion of geographical indications within ourMember States, a project which was initiated inpartnership with WIPO, the National Institute ofIndustrial Property in France (INPI) and the NationalInstitute of Appellation of Origin in France (INAO).This enabled us to negotiate an agreement with theFrench development agency (AFD) and to sign afinancing agreement of 1 million Euros with it. Aproject leader was appointed, and at present weare identifying the eligible products which canbenefit from the geographical indications. We arealso on a pilot basis establishing nationalcommittees for geographical indications withinMember States.

In conclusion, I can say that geographicalindications represent a genuine potential for LDCmembers of OAPI. With the promotion andrecognition of geographical indications which hasbeen initiated by OAPI, numerous geographicalindications could benefit from such protection. Inaddition, geographical indications as other IP

We have a modern legislation very close to theTRIPS Agreement. Here, I am referring to theAnnex of the Bangui Agreement, a very broaddefinition of geographical indications. Geographicalindications of agricultural products can havegeographical indications protection over crafts,industrial products as well as natural products.

Of course, when you look at the three categories ofproducts, it is hard to imagine a product which isneither agricultural, craft, industrial nor natural.Therefore, there is a very broad definition ofgeographical indications. These products areeligible to become geographical indications if theirquality, reputation or any other determinant of thecharacteristic is allocated to geographic origin.

With regard to the role of agriculture in the LDCs,OAPI’s members and I would like to take anexample of the agriculture sector. In Senegal,agriculture accounts for 70 percent of the activepopulation but only contributes 11 percent of GDP.In Mali, 73 percent of the active population lives offagriculture and the sector represents some 40percent of GDP. In Niger, agriculture represents 40percent of GDP whereas agricultural commercialexports only account for 4 percent. Manufacturingindustries in Niger represent 8 percent of GDP andprimarily consist of food and textiles companies.

The conclusion one can draw when looking atthese statistics which are a few years old is thatagriculture represents a very large percentage ofthe active population but there is no correlationbetween the role of agriculture, employment andits contribution to GNP. Yet these countries,through their geographical indications potential, canparticipate in a greater development of agricultureand hence contribute more to national wealth.

A number of products are very well known buthave no protection in terms of geographicalindications. Some examples are gari of Savalou,pineapples of Sekou and Allada, peanut oil ofAgonlin (Benin), ziama coffee, red oil of Boké,

70

THEME THREE


the ownership of those trademarks. Are theyowned collectively? Who exactly owns them? As you know, trademarks to be effective must be owned by someone recognized.


I would like to thank the two speakers for thequality of their presentations and for all the relevantinformation they have just shared with us. Inparticular, as regards the Ethiopian coffees and alsoproducts which can be protected by means ofgeographical indications, as just indicated by Mr. Edou Edou. My question concerns the threeproducts from Guinea, mentioned by Mr. EdouEdou. He mentioned pepper from Mamou, teafrom Mancenta and a third product which now slipsmy mind. My question also relates to two otherproducts which were planned to have geographicalindications, pineapple from Mafahaya and lépisfrom Futah. What has happened to these two last products? Thank you.

Delegation of Samoa

First, I would like to thank WIPO for inviting me to participate in this high-level event and fororganizing the Forum. I have an interest in thepresentation on the Ethiopian coffee. I aminterested in how the initiative started. You saidthat the initiative started in 2004. I understoodfrom the presentation that many issues came intoplay before you actually decided to register thebrand as a trademark. Was it the case ofmisappropriation when the coffee brands wereregistered by foreign companies that resulted inthis initiative, or was it the case of long returns tofarmers which resulted in the initiative taken? How did it become an issue of trademarks under IP?Thank you.

elements could play a key role in the generation of national wealth and national income.

Discussion




Ladies and gentlemen, I wish to thank Mr.Pauline Edou Edou for his relevant presentation.He has indicated to us that we can revert to thisOrganization in Africa and use our geographicalindications to share the benefits that have beenaccruing to other people without having thatknowledge. Now that we have this knowledge, I think that we may be able to use whatever welearn from each other to make progress.


Cambodia intends to develop geographicalindications laws to protect our commodities. Mr.Mengistie explained geographical indications andtrademark. This is very useful to Cambodia at thisstage. We would like to ask Mr. Mengistie thefollowing question on the choice of appropriate IP.Correct me if I am mistaken. You chose theprotection of your coffee through trademarksuccessfully. My question is: why did you notchoose the protection of your coffees throughgeographical indications? If you chose theprotection through geographical indications, whatwould the result have been?


My question relates to the one asked by theprevious speaker on the protection of Ethiopiancoffees using trademarks. I just wanted to know

71

Delegation of Madagascar

My question goes to Mr. Mengistie. You talkedabout designs exported to the United States ofAmerica and Europe. Were they protected in those countries?




Finally, let me ask a question or make asuggestion. From what we have learned and fromsharing the experience, how can we help Ethiopiashare its experience in practical terms in ourcountries? How can OAPI facilitate this with thebacking of WIPO? As LDCs, I think that would dous a great favor to enable us to use geographicalindications to protect what has already beenbenefiting others and to reap the existing benefits.

Please, Mr. Edou Edou your intervention in responseto the questions that have been put to you.



Organization (OAPI)

To be quite clear, I would like to start by sayingthat our geographical indications project is a veryyoung project. The operational phase only startedabout three months ago. This is not really a projectwhich can be considered as a fully-fledgedexperience. We are looking to others who haveexperience in this field for inspiration. That is whywe are cooperating with France, for example. Weare trying to see how France sets up its owngeographical indications system. We are in ourlearning stages and we are young.

Delegation of Sudan

Sudan wishes to express its appreciation forthis Forum. My question is: do you think that weshould protect geographical indications throughtrademarks, through collective marks and certificatemarks, or do you think it is better to protectgeographical indications through bilateralagreements between countries and bilateral lists?Thank you.


I would like to invite the Representative ofEthiopia to Rwanda because they have advanced a lotand we need their experience. Thank you very much.


I would like to ask a question concerningchocolate as we are in Switzerland. TheRepresentative of OAPI mentioned chocolate whichis produced with cocoa. We do not produce cocoain Senegal, but we belong to a region where cocoais produced from other countries. Recently, the EUdecided to authorize the usage of other fats ratherthan cocoa to manufacture chocolates. It isunderstood that a decision of this type will reducethe value of cocoa. Cocoa will be less valuablecommercially because of this decision. My questionsare the following: Would the West African cocoa-producing countries have the possibility ofappealing this decision? Chocolates made with fatsother than cocoa should not be called chocolate.Can we launch an appeal of this type?

72

THEME THREE


geographical location. To use geographicalindications as a tool, at least we should determinethat these requirements are made.

When we come to the Ethiopian fine coffeedesignations, some of the names are notgeographical names where the coffee originates.Let me take Harar as an example. There is a citycalled Harar, but that city never grows coffee. Thecoffee that is identified as Harar grows in thewestern and eastern areas as well as Asi. Hence,it is not something that is limited to a specificlocation. Ethiopia is endowed with huge geneticresources. Studies showed that Ethiopia has about6,000 coffee accessions. Ethiopia has only given 4to 5 percent of its accessions to the world. Thereis the possibility of finding, for example, a certaincoffee with a certain coffee profile because of thisgenetic variation. If I take Yirgacheffe as anexample, on the side of Yirgacheffe you may getcoffee that meets the Yirgacheffe coffee profile, buton the other side the coffee is different. Thus, thiswas one consideration.

The other consideration was that these fine coffeeswere known by the coffee brands and sold on theretail market. We did some studies in the UnitedStates of America and we found that someAmericans opt for Harar and some opt for Sidamo.We decided to choose the trademark approachbecause of these considerations.

My colleague from Tanzania asked who owned thetrademarks. The trademarks are filed in the nameof Ethiopia and Ethiopia is the owner of thetrademark. However, when it comes to the useand exploitation of the trademarks, this is done bythe stakeholders group namely, the farmers and thecoffee exporters.

With regard to the questions on identifyingproducts, the list I gave is not a full list. I just gavecertain indications of geographical indications. Wereceived suggestions for products which mightqualify, then worked with French experts in order tostudy the lists to identify which products amongstthose lists that could really benefit from geographicalindications. Therefore, the lists are not definitive.

Concerning cocoa, it is difficult for me to answerthat question. It is a question which has to do withinternational and commercial policies. Can cocoa-producing countries prevent those who use otherfats than cocoa from calling their productschocolate? I am not competent to answer thatquestion. Maybe the ministers present might beable to give at least the beginning of an answer. Iwould therefore not like to tread on ground whichdoes not in fact come within my field of knowledge.


Intellectual Property Law Consultant and

Attorney, former Director General of the

Ethiopian Intellectual Property Office (EIPO),

Addis Ababa

If I may start with the invitation made byRwanda, supported by Tanzania, I would like tomake it clear that I have accepted the invitation andI am available whenever I am called to share theEthiopian experience. I personally believe that ifAfrica wants to be a different Africa in this twenty-first century, it should embark on using IP as adevelopment tool. The continent is endowed withIP assets, but these assets are not protected andexploited. In fact, what we see is the assets beingmisappropriated by foreigners. This should stop.

Why did Cambodia choose trademarks instead ofgeographical indications? Geographical indicationsprotect the origin or the name of the geographicallocation where a product originates. The attributes,the qualities of the products are linked to the

73

T h e m e F o u r – R o l e a n d

C o n t r i b u t i o n o f C o p y r i g h t a n d

R e l a t e d R i g h t s a n d C o l l e c t i v e

M a n a g e m e n t S o c i e t i e s f o r

E c o n o m i c G r o w t h a n d

D e v e l o p m e n t o f L D C s




We start today with consideration of ThemeFour: Role and Contribution of Copyright andRelated Rights and Collective Management Societiesfor Economic Growth and Development of LDCs. Tomoderate this session, we have the honor to haveHis Excellency Mr. Richard Fienena, Minister ofEconomy and Industry from Madagascar.



This is the second day of our High-Level Forum.Our topic this morning is the Role and Contribution ofCopyright and Related Rights and CollectiveManagement Societies for Economic Growth andDevelopment of LDCs. Today, we will be discussingthe second main branch of IP. As lead speaker, wehave Mr. Daniel Gervais, Professor of Law, NashvilleSchool of Law and our panelist is Mr. DavidUwemedimo, Director of Legal Affairs, InternationalConfederation of Societies of Authors and Composers(CISAC) in Paris. As you know, we only have onehour for the presentations and debate so I will notlaunch into a long speech. I prefer to give the floor toour lead speaker. Mr. Gervais you have the floor.




There is one thing that I need WIPO to respondto and this is about the chocolate issue.




This is a question which is very broad and hasvarious legal and other dimensions. I can requestmy colleagues concerned who are dealing with thisto get in touch with our questionnaire to see whatclarifications can be offered. Thank you.




I think you will agree with me that thepresentations were of high quality, very relevantand very beneficial. We have learned that there is alot to share among the LDCs and for our ownbetterment. In order for this to be of effective use,we have the services of OAPI and WIPO, which canfacilitate the sharing of experiences amongourselves because we need to create wealth andwe need to use that wealth to extricate ourselvesfrom poverty. We do not want to remain LDCs.There is opportunity and ability among us. Itherefore thank you very much for this veryinteresting discussion and for the interestingpresentations. Again, it is my honor and mypleasure to have been the moderator of thissession. Thank you.

74

THEME FOUR


over long distances and therefore copyright had tobe adjusted. That is why right of publicperformance was combined with the right tocommunicate to the public, a protected work at adistance. This now applies to television, to cable,to satellite and as we will see in the second part ofmy intervention this morning to the Internet as well.

The purpose of this evolution of copyright was tocapture the value of public uses of protectedmaterial, especially when this material is used forcommercial purposes by broadcasters, concertorganizers, theatre owners etc. These types ofuses are commercial in nature. Not all uses ofcopyright material have music for example as theirprimary focus. One example is restaurants orhotels that play live or recorded music. Arguably,these restaurants or hotels would be in the samecategory, making more profit because the musicmakes their establishment a more desirable placeto spend money on a meal. Should theseestablishments pay for the music that they use?The copyright answer under international treaty isyes, because the use of the music is in public andeven more so because it is commercial in nature.In fact, historically this is precisely what promptedcollective management of copyright into existence.I am told that this is a true story: a French musiccomposer was having dinner in a Parisianrestaurant and heard his music performed by a liveband in the restaurant. He then told the restaurantowner: “I will not pay your bill Sir until you pay formy music.” The idea here may sound good, butwhat was the restaurant owner supposed to do,and what does a theatre owner supposed to do inthose circumstances? It is clearly unworkable forthat restaurant owner to try to find the author ofevery piece of music that the restaurant intends toplay. Imagine that the restaurant is actually justallowing patrons to listen to radio stations that isbroadcast and therefore rebroadcast or performedpublicly in the restaurant. How is this restaurantowner supposed to first of all, know who theauthor of each song is, find the author and do allthis before the song is actually performed to make


Professor of Law, Director, Technology

and Entertainment Law Program


I have prepared my speaking notes in Englishbut I would be pleased to answer any questionsyou might want to ask me in French. Excellencies,ladies and gentlemen, let me first thank WIPO forthis invitation. I feel at home since I used to workhere. I am very glad to be here and to see somefamiliar faces and meet new ones.

The topic this morning is perhaps one of the mostcomplex, but at the same time one of the mostpowerful signs or symbols of the implementation ofIP in developing countries. Collective managementin particular is one aspect that can immediatelyproduce effects, and which has therefore drawn alot of attention in recent years as countries try tofigure out the best way to set up and enhance theircollective management system. To understandcollective management and the role of copyright, Ithink we have to briefly look at what history canteach us in this area. Copyright as the nameindicates, in English at least, was initially just theright to make copies, essentially copies of books.That sounds fair if you are a novelist or perhaps aphotographer. It may not be as fair for people whomake movies, write theatrical plays or musicbecause we as users of their works typicallyaccess them by listening, by watching those worksas they are performed whether in public or from arecording. It would be fairly easy to understand ifall that the radio station had to do to play a songlawfully was to buy a legal copy of that song.Alternatively, if all that a movie theatre had to do toperform a film up in front of a public audience wasto buy a DVD. Then the revenues for authors of thefilm and the music would drop dramatically. This iswhy copyright also involves not just the right tomake copies but also the right to perform a workpublicly in front of a live audience or from arecording. When radio was invented, the differencewas that live performances could be transmitted

75

importantly must have something to license. They need to acquire the rights that will form thepool of rights they will license. The easiest way todo this is to sign contracts with individual authorsor rights holders. The contract could take the formof the full assignment, in other words the right istransferred from the author to the collective. Itcould also be a simple authorization to license; the author saying to the collective you can nowlicense on my behalf but I as the author retain the title if you will or the copyright itself.

However, this is only a partial solution becausemost collectives operate on a national basis. That means that if they were to function only bycontract they would only acquire rights to theirdomestic repertory or pool of rights. However,users typically want at least a worldwiderepertory, and therefore collectives will normallysign agreements with other collectives in othercountries that manage similar types of rights. Thenthey will exchange repertories; collective A will tellCollective B, “here is the authorization to licensemy repertory in your country in exchange for theright to license your repertory in my country.” Thisis known as reciprocal representation. Thesecollectives will then go to users and ask forpayment for the use of these repertories and often,as one might expect, they do not agree on smalldetails like the price.

What should happen in those cases? In somejurisdictions, the matter is left to civil courts.Experience has shown this is usually not an optimalsolution. For one thing, it takes a long time tosettle the matter and civil courts are usually notexperts in this area of law. Actually, it is not justthe area of law but all the economics that supportcollective management. In fact, I would say thatexperience has shown that arguably the mostsuccessful and efficient collectives have access tospecialized dispute settlement bodies set up by theState, such as a neutral Copyright Board or Tribunalor other price-setting authority. This in fact is oneof the key decisions that each government must

sure it is legal? It is difficult; actually it isimpossible for the restaurant owner. It is similarlyimpossible to do this for a radio station, a televisionstation or any major user of music. As I said, this iswhat led to the establishment of collectives.

These collectives pool the rights for a certaincategory of work, such as music, then license themas a package to the user. For example, collectivescan now license over 99 percent of the world’smusic to any broadcaster anywhere in the worldtypically in exchange for an annual fee. Then thebroadcaster does not have to clear every song. He can basically play whenever or whatever he or she wants.

Let us take a few minutes to look at how thisactually happens in practice. Now, when I use theterm collective the problem is that there is nosingle definition of what a copyright collective is,although I think that everyone will agree that acollective is first and foremost a pool of rights,which is then licensed to users, fees are collectedand then ultimately paid to the rights holders.Beyond that, however, there are dozens of differentmodels and ways in which collectives are supervisedby the States, so let us look a little closer.

One issue that varies enormously from one countryto another is whether collectives need a license tooperate. Can someone basically just set up anorganization and call it a copyright collective ormust they go to the State to obtain the authorizationto perform this function? As the next speaker willdiscuss, there is undeniably a public interestcomponent in having well-functioning copyrightcollectives. Trust in their operations is a componentof the public’s trust in the copyright system itself.Therefore, it make sense for many countries wherenew collectives are being formed to set up anapproval process to ensure that new collectives arein fact set up properly initially, as this will thentypically reduce a number of obstacles furtherdown the road. We can come back to this duringthe discussion. Collectives obviously, more

76

THEME FOUR


As I said, a collective is normally a nationalorganization and so they will pay their domesticauthors and rights holders, and typically will payforeign authors and rights holders through theforeign collective with which they have a contract.The basic function of a collective is to license,collect and distribute. I do want to emphasize thatin fact, a collective can do more than just performthese financial functions. A collective obviously isimportant because by allowing domestic authorsand rights holders to receive funds for the use oftheir music, this will allow a domestic professionalindustry to develop or to grow. Nevertheless, as I said there is a function beyond this whichcollectives can perform.

Some collectives will for example, run awards,ceremonies or subsidies programs of that nature topromote and develop local talents. I know somecollectives also, for example, organize musiccomposition classes, many will run a copyrightawareness campaign. I believe this is still the casethat under CISAC rules, up to 10 percent ofrevenues collected by collectives can be used forsuch purposes.

A large part of the work of running a collective isclearly data processing operations. Therefore,information technology is crucial and I think CISACmay have help available for new collectives in thisarea. I would like to suggest that whereappropriate in certain parts of the world, two, three,or more collectives from different countries couldactually get together and share the burden ofdeveloping the information systems they need tofunction. I have seen this in certain regions, and itcan be a very effective way to save time andmoney in setting up a collective.

You may have noted that I keep mentioningcollectives being national organizations: this isbecause in almost every country there is only onecollective in each sector. Having more than oneespecially in a smaller economy has historicallyproven less efficient than one with proper

take, namely, how to regulate copyright fees whencollectives and their users disagree.

In the field of music, which is the bulk ofcollective management, larger users are firstbroadcasters whether State or private. There arealso large hotels and large resorts and when theyare owned by international chains they are used topaying for their music. Therefore, having a visitfrom that local collective will not come as asurprise for them. Still, this does not mean theywill agree on the price. These prices are typicallycharged as a percentage of the revenues made bythe users, such as advertising revenue. For someusers, for instance a public broadcaster whichdoes not use advertising, the price cannot becalculated on that basis and would typicallytherefore be a lump-sum payment.

We have seen that collectives must be set upproperly, then they must acquire the rights tolicense, they must set a price for the works thatthey license and then they will need to distributethose funds to the rights holders, a process whichrequires data. Many collectives work with largerusers such as broadcasters to create logs of theworks that are used. However, for a hotel or arestaurant to be forced to log every song that isplayed on the premises is difficult if not impossible.Therefore, collectives will more typically usesurveys. They will survey a certain number ofusers in each category of use for a certain numberof weeks per year. Then they need to take the datawhich will be typically say, title of songs against adatabase and perhaps Mr. Uwemedimo can saymore about this. CISAC actually develop andmanages a worldwide database of rights and if youare a member of CISAC, you can match the datayou receive from users against that database.When you have collected funds, you can match theuse of the works to certain rights holders and thenyou can pay as a collective each rights holder basedon the use of the funds.

77

management, at least not yet, but would be leadersof those organizations can get training, and in factdo, by observing the work of other collectives,typically in countries in the same region but theycould also be collectives in other parts of the world.

In conclusion, I will simply say this: I think a goodcollective management subsystem is a strategictool in developing local innovation potential. I will stop here and open the floor, with theChair’s permission, for discussion or questions.Thank you very much.

Mr. David Uwemedimo


International Confederation of Societies of

Authors and Composers (CISAC), Paris

(a) Copyright and Related Rights: Striking

the Balance Between Protection and the

Public Interest

On behalf of a non-governmental organization, I would like to say before beginning how honoredwe are to be given the floor before so manydistinguished public figures. Our presence todaydemonstrates that the IP field is the sum total of its component parts and that each of these partshas a critical role to play in the development of the IP industries of the world.

The subject on which I have been asked to speakto you today is a bit of a mouthful, as you can seefrom the screen. Therefore, what I propose to do isto split up the presentation up into four discreteparts. First of all, I propose to discuss the growthof copyright and the contribution of copyright to thedevelopment of all countries, including LDCs.Second, I propose to talk about copyright and thecontribution of copyright in relation to collectivemanagement. What exactly can collectivemanagement do for the development of countries?After having finished those two sections, I will then

governmental supervision. You may have alsonoticed that I have been speaking mostly aboutmusic. I do want to emphasize that music is thebulk of collective management. To give you a roughidea, in 2008 based on my estimates, about 14billion dollars transited through collectivesworldwide; about 10 of those 14 billion dollarswere for music, so it is definitely the bulk. Theother 4 billion dollars includes licensing such asreprography, the second largest area, which is thelicensing of photocopying and digital copying ofbooks, journals, newspapers etc. This is alsosomething I suggest it is important in a developingeconomy to allow the local publishing industry tobe compensated for uses of works that cannot beprevented, that are in fact desirable in many cases,but that also have an impact on the market for localauthors and publishers. There is a federation ofcollectives in this area, namely, the InternationalFederation of Reprographic Rights Organization(IFRO), that can assist in setting up collectives inthis area. Users that would typically be licensed bya reprography collective include schools and highereducation users, but also larger corporate usersand sometimes certain governmental users as well.

In short, collectives in at least music andreprography are indispensable in my view for thedevelopment of a national, professional industry inthe areas of music, book and journal publishing.Those collectives can be good partners indeveloping local culture and innovation but need tobe carefully supervised, especially in their earlystages, especially as I said in their first years ofoperation to ensure that they incorporate andreflect best practices in terms of efficiency,transparency and other key principles. This isessential to gain the trust of the users they will be licensing.

Setting up and managing a new collective,something I personally have had the pleasure ofdoing in a few different countries, requires anenormous amount of dedication as well asspecialized training. There is no school of collective

78

THEME FOUR


surveys which have been carried out around theworld that demonstrate beyond any doubt thatcopyright is an economic stimulus which canadvance the course of any country. In my writtenpaper I give quite a few examples, but forpurposes of brevity and since time is of theessence, I propose to choose just two examplesin this presentation.

I will take one large example, which is the UnitedStates of America, and then I will take a small tomedium-sized country, which is Latvia. First, if Imay, I will start with the United States of America.A survey which was carried out in 2004demonstrated that the copyright industriescontributed 12 percent to the GDP of the UnitedStates of America. Translating that into dollars gavethe figure of 1.25 trillion US dollars contributed tothe US economy by the copyright industries ofAmerica. Some 11.47 million workers gained theirincome through the copyright industries. TheUnited States of America was able to generatealmost 90 billion dollars in sales as a direct result ofcopyright. One does not have to look at such largefigures to see what contribution copyright canmake to the public interest.

I will take the second example, which is Latvia, asmall to medium-sized society. The figures areequally worthy of note. There was a survey carriedout in February 2005 which demonstrated thatsome 4 percent of the Latvian economy wasconnected in some way to the copyright industries.This equated to a generation of 315 million eurosfor the good of the Latvian economy. Exports inLatvia generated by the copyright industries workedout to some 35 million US dollars. Therefore,distinguished participants, the empirical evidence isthere, the objective evidence is there: copyrightcan make a contribution to the economy. It mattersnot whether one is a small to medium-sizedcountry or whether one is a larger country – theevidence is there. Hence, if I have a messagewhich I would like to share with you today, I wouldsay that it is in the interests of all of us to ensure

go on to talk about the relationship between thepublic interest and IP.

If I may, Mr. Chairman, I will start with the first ofthose four headings which is CISAC. As Daniel hassaid, CISAC is an international confederation basedin Paris. We were formed in 1926 and we havesome 225 societies in 118 countries around theworld. The chances are there is a society in each ofyour countries. The sum total generated by thesesocieties as Daniel stated amounts to billions ofdollars each year. There are probably approximatelythree million creators that form a part of the CISACfamily. Again, it is probably no exaggeration to saythat any creator in your territory whose works areexploited to any significant extent will be a memberof a CISAC society or have some close link with aCISAC society around the world.

The purpose of CISAC is to promote thedevelopment of the legal, economic and moralinterests of the creator in the four corners of theearth. There is a great deal more that I could sayabout CISAC, but I do not want to take up toomuch of your precious time on this particularsubject. I have done a written presentation and Ibelieve that it will be made available. Furtherinformation on CISAC can also be obtained fromCISAC’s , at www.cisac.org.

I propose to move to the second part of thispresentation, which talks about the role ofcopyright and its contribution to the developmentof LDCs. I think we all know that copyright playsan important role in promoting public interest.Strong copyright protection encourages creativity.Creativity encourages the cultural industries, and ifthe cultural industries are encouraged, then thebenefits of the public interest are clear for all tosee. The benefits of copyright are not just culturalbut also economic. WIPO itself is the expert onputting together the baseline for the methodologyfor accessing the economic contribution ofcopyright to the world’s economies. Using a guidewhich WIPO has produced, there have been several

79

creator, is receiving royalties for the exploitation ofhis work in the United States of America, that ismoney that is being generated for the Senegaleseeconomy. That is a benefit flowing directly fromthe United States of America to Senegal, therebyencouraging the economic development ofSenegal. As Daniel has said, there are billions ofdollars passing within the system, and we justneed a small fraction of those billions of dollars topass through the LDCs to see what a differencecopyright can make for LDCs.

The system of collective management also benefitsthe user. Again, take the example of a single radiostation in Nigeria. How is it that a radio station inNigeria can possibly receive all the informationabout the use of a work? How can it clear rights inadvance for its use of copyright materials? Thebenefits of the collective management systemmean that it is free of all these obligations. All ithas to do is to obtain a single license from its localcopyright society, and by virtue of this singlelicense, it is freed of the concerns and of the fearof infringing copyright. It can be sure that thechances of its infringing copyright, after it has takenout a license, will be virtually nil.

The third advantage is the advantage for theconsumer and the advantage for society. It followsclearly that if there is a system in place whichbenefits the creator and the user, there is also asystem which would benefit the consumer,because the consumer would have access to theworld’s repertoire of copyright music in aseamless and efficient fashion. This really showsthe advantages of collective management for thepublic interest.

If I may now move on, the fourth subject of mypresentation is the issue of balancing the interestof the various parties in the copyright field. CISACcould say right at the outset that it fully acceptsthat there are certain groups which require specialconsideration when it comes to copyright. TheWorld Blind Union estimates that some 180 million

that copyright is encouraged. I do have many moreexamples but, as I said, there are written paper andI propose not to deal with them during the courseof this presentation.

I would like to move on to the third part of mypresentation: the role of collective managementand the contribution which collective managementcan make to the development of LDCs. Daniel hasalready summarized how the collectivemanagement system works, and I do not proposeto say very much more about it. However, what Iwould say is that societies are non-profit-makingassociations of composers, authors and publishersset up by creators for the benefit of creators andrun by creators. As Daniel has said, a societycollects licenses on a blanket basis from the usersof copyright material, not just on behalf of themembers of society but also on behalf of the 3million creators around the world. The blanketlicense issued by collective managementorganizations entitles the user to perform orbroadcast each and every work within therepertoire of societies.

Moving on to the crux of the matter, what is theadvantage of collective administration, collectivemanagement? Well, I would say that there areadvantages for both creator and user. Thus,collective management offers advantages forsociety as a whole.

The first of these three advantages is theadvantage of the creator. Can you imagine, if youare a creator, how could you ensure that youreceive royalties when your works are exploited inthe United States of America, Russia or Europe?How could you do it by yourself? The answer ofcourse is that you cannot. Collective managementis there to do collectively that which the individualcreator cannot do by himself. By establishing asystem of collective management, a worldwidesystem of collective management, it means thatthe creator can receive royalties from around theworld. If the creator, for example a Senegalese

80

THEME FOUR


would ask that the message that we should takehome is that with the digital environment, it ismore important now than it has ever been thatcopyright should be reborn. Copyright should bethere to assist the creator and to assist society as a whole. The message we should take is thatcopyright is a bridge, not a barrier to progress. Inaddition, the copyright owner and the rights userare not opponents, they are not competitors: theyare complementary players in the cultural field.Finally, collective management is not a tool whichcan be used against the public interest but ratheran inherent and important part of that publicinterest. Thank you.


Professor of Law, Director, Technology

and Entertainment Law Program


(b) Copyright Collective Management

Societies and New Technologies

The second part of the presentation I have thismorning cannot begin by just saying collectiveshave a role to play and licensing new technologies.Let us focus for a few minutes first on what thechallenge actually is. I think we would all agreethat the Internet from not just a copyrightperspective but generally is both a very good thingand a very bad thing. That is why it is so hard tofind the proper way to regulate it. The benefit, andI would focus mostly on copyright here, is that itallows free worldwide dissemination of locallyproduced works from every nation. Therefore, itdoes not matter where you are from if you havewritten music, produced a short film or written atext. You can blog about it, you can send it toanybody you want essentially free of charge, exceptfor your access to the Internet. Compared toprevious methods of dissemination of culture, theInternet is an incredible step forward. It is not justa mode of sending material; it is also an incredible

persons are either blind or visually impaired insome way. Of those 180 million, they only haveaccess to some 5 percent of published books,which means that 95 percent of all published booksare not currently available to the blind. That is not in the interest of the visually impaired personsand that is not in the interest of the creator either.It is in the interest of the creator to try to ensuremaximum exploitation of his copyrighted works. All that the creator asks in return is that thatexploitation takes place within a properly regulatedcopyright system.

How does CISAC believe that the right balance canbe struck? How can CISAC believe that exceptionsand limitations to the strong exclusive rights canwork in the public interest? CISAC would say thatthat balance already exists within the internationalconventions and treaties. There have been rulesthat have been fashioned and put in place over thedecade that maintain the balance between thelegitimate interests of the creator on the one handand the reasonable expectation of the user on theother hand. CISAC would say that that balancecould be found within the so-called three-step test.This is a test which can be found in many of thetreaties. It is in Article 9.2 of the Paris Convention,Article 10 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty and it isalso in TRIPS, in Article 13. How does this three-step test work? How does it balance the interestof the various parties? Well, it says that nationalcountries can lay down exceptions provided thatthree criteria are met. The three criteria are: (1) incertain special cases; (2) whether there is noconflict in the normal exploitation of the work; and(3) where the exception cannot unreasonablyprejudice the legitimate interests of the creator.

If I may very quickly move on to the conclusion,CISAC acknowledges the importance of balancingthe interests of all within the IP field. CISACaccepts that exceptions and limitations have a veryimportant part to play in this balancing act. CISACbelieves that the three-step test is a critical toolthat helps to strike that balance. Above all, CISAC

81

to be able to deal with transaction costs,transaction obstacles, because again, that is part of what they do.

The problem with the Internet is that instead ofhaving as its primary focus professional users, ittargets all of us individual users. Therefore, thecopyright system that was designed for one type ofuser is really now trying to function in a verydifferent environment. A second part of thechallenge: Is it exactly the same rights that areinvolved? Is it just the right to make copies, justthe right to transmit at a distance the material thatis protected by copyright? The answer to thatcame in 1996 when WIPO adopted two treatiesthat you are probably familiar with: the WIPOCopyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances andPhonograms Treaty, which make it clear that makingcopyright material available on the Internet requiresthe authorization of the copyright holder. Thetreaties also make it illegal to circumvent so calledtechnological protection measures. This reallymeans a fairly simple thing, that when material ismade available in digital form but is locked up withsome technology that prevents access, this couldbe as simple as a password. Then circumventingthat technological protection measure to access thework is illegal, unless an exception applies. That isall really focusing on one thing, how to stop, howto prevent and how to block access to material.

The fact is that when you create something,normally you do not want to prevent people fromaccessing the material. When somebody writes asong, it is not the first thing they think about to say,“Oh, I do not want anyone to hear it”, “I have madea movie but I do not want anybody to see it”.Obviously, that is not the case. Most people wantto have the song or the film or the book to bedistributed as widely as possible. In many cases,however, they also want to be paid for it and thatreally is the challenge.

Copyright is not broken, the system in legal termsworks quite well, because it says you need an

archive of existing culture. One of the verycontroversial topics perhaps will come up duringour discussion is the Google box initiative, whereGoogle is basically putting tens of thousands ofpreviously published books on the Internet, but thatis only one example of this archive function. TheInternet can actually make copies of non-previouslydigitally available material and we hope, unlesssome major catastrophe happens, that this will beavailable forever.

We have this incredible dissemination function, thisincredible archiving function but on the other side,it also allows the dissemination of things that weperhaps would prefer not to see disseminated.Again, from a more copyright perspective, it allowsunpaid users of copyrighted material to go on amassive scale. It is easy at this point to say wellcopyright does not work. That has been said manytimes, by many people for many years talking aboutthe Internet. That is not quite the case. Let us seeagain what the challenge is.

The copyright system was set up initially in theearly 18th century to prevent the copying of books.The idea was to allow scarcity in the market.Obviously if everybody could publish any bookwithout authorization, the market would fail.Publishers would have no encouragement orincentive to bring out new books, because theyknew that if a book sold well, somebody elsewould copy it and the market would fail. Over theyears, as I said in the first part of my presentation,when radio, television, cable and satellite etc. wereinvented, this other side of copyright right wascreated: the right to perform publicly or tocommunicate the work at a distance. If you thinkabout it, really all the people who were performingthe publishing function, the transmitting functionand the concert organization function wereprofessionals. These are people who are supposedto be able to deal with copyright effectively. Peoplewho own concert halls, dance halls or radio stationsshould expect to have something to do withcopyright. That is their job, and they are supposed

82

THEME FOUR


Let me take perhaps a common example, howabout music. We all listen to music in a variety ofways. Assume you want music in digital form.Well, you can take a CD and make a copy. In manycountries, there will be an exemption in nationallaw that will allow you to make a private copy ofthat music. Can you send it to someone else? Can you put it on your ? Can you upload it asbackground of a video that you are uploading onsome site like YouTube or Facebook? Well, peopledo it now but that does not mean that it is legal. Itcertainly does not mean that it is licensed. Shouldit be? Is that not the future of the Internet – tohave more access to licensing options for that typeof use? If the answer is yes, and I believe it is,although obviously I cannot prove it, I am simplysaying, assume that there is this future, that thereis more access by individuals to this material thathas been licensed for reuse on a massive scale byindividuals. Then obviously, this use has to belicensed by a collective.

Let us take a very concrete example. You want toupload a song by my compatriot Céline Dion as partof the background of a video you want to put onYouTube. What are you supposed to do? Look upCéline Dion in the phonebook? I doubt that you aregoing to find her name, and if you do, I do not thinkshe will pick up the phone. Guess what? She isactually not the right person you want to talk to.You want to talk to her music publisher. Do youknow who her music publisher is? Does theaverage Internet user have the duty to find out whothe publisher is? You can see how that quicklymakes no sense when you keep asking thosequestions. Again, if this kind of use were to belicensed it would have to be licensed through acollective system. From the journal articleexample, we are seeing now that collectives canplay a very significant role in allowing legal use on amassive scale of Internet-based usage of material.I believe that collectives have a very interestingfuture in the area of Internet-based distribution.

authorization to access material on the Internet. Itmay be functioning less well at this particular pointin time. You have to make sure that if you want tobe paid you can be paid for the use of yourmaterial. This is in fact where collectives have apotentially significant role to play, when you talkabout technology such as technological protectionmeasures, when you say rights holders have theright to prohibit, again, that is assuming we all wantto stop material from being disseminated.

Collectives have the power of yes, which is notinsignificant. They have the power to tell users,yes, you can use it, but you know what, you aregoing to have to pay for it. The question is whoshould pay and in which circumstances. There arecircumstances where payment may not beappropriate. David referred to access by peoplewith visual difficulties, blind people. Well perhapsin those cases, they should not pay, but that is forinternational treaties and each government to makeproper exceptions for use of the material. Thereare cases where payment is in fact appropriate.Let me take a few that I hope are not toocontroversial. Let us say you are a largemultinational corporation, and you use tons ofjournal articles as part of your research anddevelopment projects. You basically subscribe tothis online version of published scientific journals oreven just the paper version. You have somebody inyour company scan it and then e-mail it to 5,000people within the company. Should not that be ause that the company should be required tolicense? The answer in my view is yes. Well whocan do this? You can do it by trying to find theauthor of the article or going to the publisher andnegotiating a one-off license for that particular use.Alternatively, you could also say, “You know what;we actually do this 216 times a day on average. I do not have time to find the publisher for eacharticle. I am going to go to a collective, get alicense and get it done on an annual fee basis.”Well, that sounds efficient and in fact, this isprecisely what reprography collectives do.

83


It will be the first and last time I take the floorbecause I have to take a flight at 2.00 p.m. I wouldlike to seize this opportunity to express on behalf ofour government and our Minister our heartfeltthanks to the Director General of WIPO for theinvitation extended to our country to attend thisvery important meeting. The Delegation of Senegalis fully satisfied by the arrangements made byWIPO for its stay in Geneva, and we would like tothank and congratulate the Director General and hiscolleagues. We would also like to thank theCoordination Council of the LDCs and its Chairmanfor the smooth meeting arrangements.Furthermore, we would like to thank themoderators, lead speakers and panelists.

Globalization has turned our world into a hugevillage. Exchanges take place at the speed of light.Trade barriers and protectionist regimes are unfairin the face of free exchange at a time where weare still mourning the King of Pop Music who owedhis fame to copyright and IP in general – copyrightwhich will ensure that his heirs enjoy a vastfortune. How many of Michael Jackson’s recordshave been uploaded and downloaded illegally overthe Internet? How much does this represent inmoney loss for his family and heirs? We are livingin a period where new technologies offer newpossibilities for creation and innovation, but also forcounterfeiting, industrial spying and many otherillegal activities. In this context, it is most relevantfor WIPO to convene such a high-level event, givingus an opportunity to reflect on IP and itscontribution to development and prosperity.

I will not put any question. I would simply like togive you my contribution in order to tell you aboutour experience in the field of copyright. For severaldecades, we have had a competent copyright officeover the whole of the national territory. We find itimportant to mention the significant progress madein these past years. We have a new law adopted inJanuary 2009 ensuring a copyright protection and

CISAC members, for example, already now licensesomething called streaming. For example, for atypical over-the-air radio station with an Internetchannel that broadcasts in parallel to over-the-airbroadcast, this activity has been licensed forseveral years by CISAC members. Morecontroversial is that any reuse of the music byprofessionals like broadcasters: for example, thisuse is already licensed by collectives.

To sum up on this point because there is so muchmore to say on new technologies but I suspect thatmany of you may have questions, the challengedoes not come from the structure of copyright asmuch as it comes from the fact that the nature ofthe user has changed. We have moved from an eraof purely professional users to an era of individualend-users. Collectives are not used to dealing withindividual end-users. Perhaps they would have toor would have to at least find a way to licensethese individual end-users through third parties.The evidence we are seeing now in themarketplace is that collectives can in fact find waysto make massive users and reusers on the Internetillegal, and have therefore a role to play in makingsure that copyright works not just in traditionalmedia but also in new media as well. I think Ishould probably stop here and just see where thediscussion might take us because I suspect theremight be different directions. Thank you.

Discussion



Thank you to both speakers and both panelists.We have already overrun the time allotted us. Iwould therefore like to ask participants to put theirquestions in as concise a manner as possible. Igive the floor to Senegal.

84

THEME FOUR



I would also like to extend my thanks to thepanelists for their eloquent presentations on atopic that is very topical, and on which much hasbeen said and written. Experts in IP law know agreat deal about this subject, and probably alsohave to plead cases before various courts. I would be interested in the success stories ofcollective management societies in LDCs. Canyou give us examples of successes achievedthrough this type of initiative? We know thatcommercial radios in Africa broadcast music or various radio programs, but we do not knowwhether or not the royalties for these works have been paid before they are broadcast.

As to works published by publishing houses inrespect of all the terms of use, sometimes theauthor will find his/her work on the Internetpublished by well-known publishing houses. What remedies can the author avail himself of inorder to assert his rights? Should he take legalaction against the publishing house that did notprotect his work or sue the host of the Internet sitethat allowed publication of the work on the site?

My last question pertains to current initiatives forarchiving on the Internet that we see in variousnational libraries. For example, the French NationalLibrary has a huge repertoire of works published onthe Internet that we can read in their entirety. Canwe say that there is an infringement of copyright inthis regard or that it is lawful? Thank you.


I would like to join the others in congratulatingthe two presenters on their very able presentations.I have two small questions. The first was justasked in part by the previous speaker from Burundi.Actually, I wanted to hear from the second speakeron the examples of the performance from LDCs.

neighboring right protection. This is somethingnew in Senegal; we are ensuring protectionthrough copyright and neighboring rights toperformers, producers and broadcasters. We alsohave a Law 2008 10 on the Information Societywhich regulates creative works in the digitalenvironment. Finally, we have a new law on cybercrime. All this shows that protection of rights is animportant mission for our State, which is why it hascreated a brigade against counterfeiting – a groupof people who will have powers throughout thenational territory.

Senegal would also like to thank WIPO for thestrategic plan it has decided to set up in the field ofcopyright. We have received help from WIPO in thisfield. We are also very happy to have witnessed thecreation of the aRDi system. Innovation and creationare dear to our hearts and we will certainly make fulluse of this new opportunity. This is our contributionwith many thanks again for this very importantForum. Thank you.


I would like to thank both speakers for theirvery useful information related to copyright. I havethe following two questions. First, I want to askwhether there is a link between collectivemanagement and copyright law enforcement.Perhaps you could inform us what best practice wecould use in relation to this topic. The secondquestion concerns royalty fees and charges. I thinkthat in the copyright area, there are many actorsincluding government who play an important role interms of law enforcement and protection. Whatare the royalty charges? Are they divided equally ornot, or are they distributed among the playersincluding government? The governmentsometimes has to charge for its services as well asfor revenue purposes. Could you tell us what sortof reasonable fee or charge that the governmentshould levy in this respect? Thank you.

85

the deposit of the copyright works themselves withthe national library. Most of the time, it falls to the national library to deposit the works of thecopyright owner. Do you know of any other case,perhaps from your own experience or worldwide,where registration of copyright works and copyrightowners themselves can be conducted either by anational IP office or by the collective society itself?Thank you.

Delegation of Samoa

Samoa is a small country in the South Pacificwith a population of 178,000 people. We have aCopyright Act that was enacted and came intoforce in 1998. Since this legislation was enacted,there has been three copyright cases so far onwhich the courts have successfully ruled. I fullyappreciate the presentations by the resourcepersons. I also understood from the previouspresentations and from other fora that copyrightmanagement or collective organizations aresupposed to be non-governmental entities. Thequestion is the following: in the case of a smalleconomy, would you advise the government tostart off by establishing such an entity or acollective? Once it is up and running, for exampleafter a period of three to five years, then thegovernment could transfer it to a private entity or aso called legally registered society, which wouldpick up where the government left off. I haveraised this question out of concerns relating toresources and the cost, for small island States likeours, of establishing such a mechanism. Thank you.


I think I am a bit sceptical. I think I am from agroup of those who, as you said, claim thatcopyright actually does not work. Unfortunately, Iam from the government so I am obliged to make

You have given us examples from the United Statesof America and also examples from Latvia. I wouldlike to really hear something from the LDCs, becausethere are some LDCs which are also members ofthe organization.

The second question regards the specific role thatCISAC plays in terms of the relationship betweenCISAC itself and its members.

The third question goes to the Professor. He saidsomething to the effect that government/public-ledcollective societies do better than private-led ones.I am not sure that I understood him correctly.Perhaps he could elaborate on this.

Delegation of Sudan

I would like to join my colleagues in extendingmy thanks to the panelists for their excellentpresentations. I would like to inform my colleagueshere that the Minister of Culture and News justrecently established a collective management body in Sudan. I would like to know what help orexperience CISAC could give us to assist us in our endeavors. Thank you.


I would like to thank the presenters and I haveone question. It refers to countries that havealready established their copyright collectivemanagement society but have not yet worked outall the details.

In principle, copyright is automatic by nature butthere is a demand from the public for registration ofcopyright. However, our law does not allow that.Is there a possibility that the copyrightmanagement societies could handle the registrationof copyright works? There is also confusion as to

86

THEME FOUR


In terms of the fees, I think it is perfectly appropriatefor the government to pay the licensing fee forsetting up a collective. I think it is appropriate for a copyright tribunal or board to function, if not interms of cost recovery, at least to charge somefees like any civil court would. Beyond that, I am not sure what an appropriate fee for thegovernment would be. Typically, the income of acollective is not its own income. It is income thatbelongs to the rights holders. Typically, therefore,the tax authorities would not tax the collective butwould wait for the rights holders to be paid andthen tax them. I do not know if this answers your question.

Let us now go to the question raised by Burundi. I have had the pleasure of visiting several collectivemanagement societies in developing countries andin LDCs, including Burkina Faso and Senegal. I could mention other examples in the Caribbean; a regional approach has been adopted and seemsquite effective. Hence, we do have successstories. The question is do we want to preventaccess at all costs or do we want to organize the market and set up a structure that makes it possible for rights holders to collect fees?Collective management is one of the best ways to go about this.

With regard to archiving by national libraries, for along time now, these libraries have been grantedexceptions in the realm of copyright because theyplay a role that is in the public interest. The publiclibrary of France is currently setting up an interestingsystem but it raises a difficult issue – the issue oforphan works, in other words works for which we do not know where the author is or who the rightsholder is today. This is a problem with which anumber of national libraries have to deal with when itcomes to archiving. In some cases, governmentshave set out exceptions that abide by the three steptest mentioned by Mr. Uwemedimo.

In the case of Samoa, there was a questionconcerning the role of government and whether

sure it works. You said that one of the challengesis the issue of price between the copyright or theproducers and the users of their product. Let ussay that all goes well until the time comes for theproducers to share the royalties. How do wedetermine who gets how much of the royalty? Ithink there will always be an argument that “no,you’re not as popular a singer as I. Your song isonly played once a month, whereas mine is playedevery day” etc. How do you take care of suchthings? Thank you.


Professor of Law, Director, Technology and

Entertainment Law Program


With regard to the role of enforcement thatcollectives can or should play, this would obviouslydepend on the national situation to a certainextent. As I mentioned, I think all collectives have not just a possibility but a duty in fact toparticipate in awareness campaigns. Yet what isthe role in copyright enforcement, for example inan unclear situation where a particular type ofuser should be licensed? I could see a collectivebeing involved in a test case before the courts inthe country concerned. I could see a collectiveobviously if there is a tariff. Assume that a pricehas been set by the competent authority and thena particular user says that a given hotel orrestaurant refuses to pay. I obviously would seethe collective going to court to collect that licensefee. However, collectives are not the police. I donot see a collective basically fulfilling the functionof the police. I do not think that in most casesthat would be appropriate. Therefore, there is an enforcement role, but it is not the copyrightpolice. In fact, it remains to be discussedwhether copyright should be seen as somethingwhere the police should be involved, except forprofessional and commercial piracy.

87

their works. Otherwise, how would you knowwhich rights you are actually administering? That isnot a prohibited formality under the Convention. Itis the same thing as an enforcement action, whereyou have to convince the court that you are theauthor and the rights holder of the work. Thatwould require some documentation, but it is the same thing.

You mentioned something else that is prohibited –it is possible for the government to insist ondeposit in the national library of the copy of anynew work. That is legal. What is not permittedunder the Convention is to say if you do not dothat, we will remove the copyright from that work:for example, there could be a new set of fines ifyou forget as a publisher or an author to deposityour work, but you cannot remove copyrightprotection from that undeposited work.

Finally, with regard to the question from theHonorable Minister of Lesotho as to who gets howmuch, obviously, that can be contentious and thebest approach is to avoid possible problems byadopting a very objective text as to who gets what.For example, at least some larger users could besurveyed, or even better, full logs could be kept.Subsequently, these logs would become the basisfor distribution – each song was used a certainnumber of times over the year. Broadcasters usedto say, “Oh this is so much work, I cannot possiblydo this. I have to fill out this paper logs”. In fact, itcan all be done by a very simple computer programrun by the broadcasters. Some stations nowactually use a computer to send the music; theydo not use CDs anymore. In fact this can all bedone automatically. I guess my point is verysimple: if you have data and you follow the data todistribute the funds, then it is very hard for therights holders to say this was unfair. Beyond that,though, the reality on the ground is that manycollectives have distribution keys and systems thatare not purely data-driven. They use other factors.For example, they might say this kind of music wasworth more than that kind of music. That is when

collectives should be public or private. That is acomplex question. In large markets with a verysubstantial number of users, it is entirely possiblefor a collective to be entirely private from the initialstages, in other words to secure the initial fundingto set it up. In smaller markets, that may not berealistic and so a public private partnership or evenin some cases an entirely public institution may bepreferable. The problem that arises at this point isreally that of defining the separation between theState and the organization, especially when itcomes to setting prices. It is difficult for thegovernment to set a price as a neutral third partywhen it is an entirely public institution, but it can bedone. There are ways to make this happenthrough, as I mentioned in my first presentation,neutral third parties or copyright boards or tribunals.Therefore, there is this mix of public and privatethat is entirely possible, as is a regionalperspective. In the case of Samoa for example,they have a number of collectives collaborating, forexample, on the information technology aspects ofcollective management.

To the question from Ethiopia about registration ofcopyright, I wish to say that there is amisunderstood prohibition in the Berne Conventionon formalities. I say “misunderstood” because Ihave heard a number of things about it, but it is thecase that a government cannot impose copyrightregistration as a condition for the existence of thisright. Thus, you cannot have a system that says ifyou do not register your copyright it does not exist.That is clearly a violation of the Convention, nodoubt about it. Beyond that, however, things are abit murky. For example, in the United States ofAmerica, if you do not register your copyright youhave it but enforcing it will be more difficult andsome remedies will be unavailable. That is probablycompatible with the Convention. You can see howcareful I am being. However, to the question asyou posed it, then I think it is possible for acollective. In fact, I do not see how a collectivecould function without asking its members, theauthors and rights holders it represents, to register

88

THEME FOUR


of the problems with which creators areconfronted. That is exactly why collectivemanagement is more important today than everbefore. Only if the three million creators of theworld pool their resources will they be able to dealwith the worldwide problem of unauthorized use oftheir copyright material.

Moving on if I may to Tanzania, where incidentally Iwas last week on behalf of WIPO and also on behalfof my organization CISAC, this can work. TheCopyright Society of Tanzania (COSOTA) is a youngorganization as is the Copyright Society of Zanzibar(COSOZA). They are young organizations and theyhave the full support of the African community andCISAC. As you well know, they are beginning thelicensing process and the collection and distributionof royalties. That process has already begun verysuccessfully. Rome was not built in a day – it doestake time. To give you a concrete example, justdown the road from Tanzania we have South Africawhere we have a collective management organization,the Southern African Music Rights Organisation(SAMRO), which collects tens of millions of dollarsannually on behalf of African composers and othercomposers. We do conduct economic studies todetermine exactly where money is generated andwhere the benefits are. I would be pleased to passon further information to you.

Moving on if I may to the question of the role thatCISAC might play in developing a society, I thinkthis came from Sudan. We are of course there toperform that very function and that is what we doevery single day of the year. We would be veryinterested in establishing contact with you andfinding ways of developing collective managementstructures within Sudan.

Moving on to registration, I believe that Daniel hasalready answered that question so I propose not todeal anymore in relation to that particular question.

Moving on to the issue from Samoa on the subjectof small countries, there are a great many small

questions might come up, but because there isno set rule, those things do happen. I suspectCISAC may have something to say about that so I will stop here.

Mr. David Uwemedimo


International Confederation of Societies of

Authors and Composers (CISAC), Paris

I am going to be brief because Daniel hasalready covered quite a lot of the responses.Starting with the first one in relation to the role ofenforcement, I would agree that generally copyrightis a private right, and normally it will be for theprivate individual or the collective managementorganization to enforce the rights on behalf of thecreator. There are, of course, certain provisions inlaw relating to piracy in which governments wouldbe involved. Essentially, however, copyright is aprivate right and the obligation for enforcementwould therefore fall on the individual or hiscollective management organization.

Turning to the question of success stories, anexample of success stories was not givennecessarily from here but what was given from thefloor. Obviously, I might be biased because Irepresent the societies themselves, but youyourselves have heard from Senegal, whereSenegal has itself testified that within Senegalthere is a well-established and properly functioningcollective management organization. I have visitedSenegal on many occasions; I have visited BSDAand can also testify that collective management canand does work in Africa.

Moving on to the question of what exactly can anauthor do when his works are exploited on theInternet, this is a problem. The birth of the newtechnologies has created not only opportunities butalso challenges for creators. The multiplicity ofways of exploiting creative works is of course one

89

collective management societies, training them andensuring that they work for the benefit of thecountries and their members is one of the veryimportant capacity-building activities that WIPOundertakes. In fact, we have a Division thatconcentrates on developing guidelines and policiesfor the collective management societies. In thisroom, we have a large number of experts who areworking very closely with the countries involved inhelping them make their societies viable andensure that they derive the right benefits fromthem. This whole package of services covers theentire process, from establishing the societies,setting up their laws and regulations and trainingthe personnel to helping them computerize. Wehave a very important software which is calledWIPO Cost which is essentially meant for thebenefit of collective management societies.

Apart from this, assistance is available for settingup societies and networking them at the regionallevel. It was already mentioned that in the SouthPacific we have already done a study which isavailable for setting up a regional network. In theCaribbean, the Caribbean copyright link is a verysuccessful example of a regional copyrightnetwork, and similar examples in Africa are alsosuccess stories. There are a number of successstories and WIPO is at the disposal of our MemberStates to give them assistance on all possibleaspects of the establishment of copyright societies.

Lastly, may I also say that we have very robustcooperation with CISAC and with all otherinternational agencies that work in the field ofcopyright and in the field of collective management,and we are extremely pleased at our cooperationwith them. Our colleagues will be very happy tointeract with you during the coffee break, so pleaseask any other questions that you may like to followup with them. Thank you very much.

countries in the world, and CISAC and moreparticularly WIPO has a wealth of experience insetting up organizations and structures withinsocieties that are not necessarily very numerous. I can see that there are some people in the roomacross the aisle here who have had considerableexperience with exactly how to set up organizationswhere the population is small. The suggestion thatDaniel gave of having a cluster of organizations or acluster of societies is something with which WIPOand the gentlemen in this room have a great deal ofexperience. We would be delighted to talk to youabout the situation in Samoa, and I am sure thatWIPO would like to do so as well.

Moving on if I may to the final question, which isfrom Lesotho, on how exactly you determine therole, I think Daniel has answered this in a nutshell.I would be pleased to give more information afterthis meeting. It is very complex issue and I wouldbe delighted to have a discussion with you. Iwould also like to have a discussion with you aboutyour questions on copyright. Perhaps after thismeeting we could have a few words. Thank you.



We have gone quite a bit past the time wewere allotted for this session. I would like to thankour two experts for their excellent presentations. Iwould also like to thank all of the delegates whotook part in the debate, but before closing I wouldlike to give the floor to Mr. Sabharwal.




I will be very brief. I would just like to inform allof the distinguished participants that establishing

90

THEME FIVE


the intergovernmental committee in 1999.Identifying the resources which are part of ourtraditional knowledge and setting up theappropriate legal system to protect traditionalknowledge are extremely important. At the start ofour meeting, WIPO’s Director General told us aboutdifficulties encountered in the past two sessions ofthe intergovernmental committee. This is a greatconcern and shows how important the organizationand Member States consider this topic to be. Thetopic is difficult, that is something we acknowledge,but we have speakers of great expertise and I amsure that our fears will be allayed once we haveheard them. Without further ado, I would now liketo give the floor to our lead speaker, Mr. WendWendland. He will be the one to introduce thistopic. You have the floor, Sir.

Mr. Wend Wendland

Acting Director and Head, Traditional Creativity,

Cultural Expressions and Cultural Heritage

Section, WIPO

It gives me great pleasure to be here with youtoday. The theme of this session gives rise tomany complex questions as the Chairman hasrightly said. LDCs are rich in traditional knowledge,genetic resources and expressions of folklore. The precise intersection with the IP system is acomplex one and gives rise to and concerns manyquestions. I hope that in my presentation and inthe others that will follow, we will try to flesh outthe different issues for you, to identify the interfacebetween the IP system and traditional knowledge,folklore and so on. As there are many acronyms in the IP world, it might be useful if I were to setout at least the terms that I will be using in mypresentation. Traditional Knowledge or (TK), I willuse this term to refer to the substance or contentof technical knowledge that has arisen in atraditional context that might be knowledge relatingto biodiversity, medicine, agriculture, nutrition and so on. Traditional Cultural Expressions or

T h e m e F i v e – Tr a d i t i o n a l

K n o w l e d g e , G e n e t i c

R e s o u r c e s a n d Tr a d i t i o n a l

C u l t u r a l E x p r e s s i o n s :

P r e s e r v i n g Tr a d i t i o n a l

a n d C u l t u r a l A s s e t s

a n d C r e a t i n g We a l t h




We will now start with our deliberation onTheme Five, and I have the pleasure to introduce toyou our Moderator for the session, His ExcellencyMr. Roger Dovonou, Minister of Industry fromBenin. He will be moderating the session onTraditional Knowledge, Genetic Resources andTraditional Cultural Expressions: PreservingTraditional and Cultural Assets and Creating Wealth.



We are now beginning our session on ThemeFive: Traditional Knowledge, Genetic Resourcesand Traditional Cultural Expressions: PreservingTraditional and Cultural Assets and Creating Wealth.I think each and every one of our countries hasmany resources of the type just mentioned. Wehave to learn how to best exploit these resourceswith a view to our development. We are veryhappy to see that WIPO has decided to include thistheme in our Forum, and that WIPO has in factbeen working on this theme since the creation of

91

which actually accounts for the bulk of our workand takes up most of our time.

Let us now take a step back and try to identify the precise interface between IP questions on the hand and TK, TCEs and GRs on the other.Many countries, including LDCs, are interested inintegrating traditional knowledge, genetic resourcesand folklore into national planning, in strategies to create wealth and to facilitate economic andcultural development. What different objectives areusually identified in relation to TK, TCEs and GRs?Countries generally speak of the wish to integrateTK, TCEs and GRs in order to affirm their value for the country and, particularly the value of themaintenance of the communities for TK holdersthat are the custodians and the practitioners of TK and TCEs.

Second, there is very often recognition of the value of TK and TCEs in addressing global policychallenges such as food security, access to healthcare, cultural diversity, the preservation of culturalheritage and the conservation of biodiversity.

Third, a reference is very often made to the need to protect TK from unauthorized misappropriation or exploitation by third parties.

Finally, TK and TCEs are often referred to in aneconomic context. They are regarded as economicassets, as a source of inspiration and as a means of generating wealth. Naturally, I am sure you willunderstand that the IP system contradicts all ofthese goals. The precise interface or the precisecontribution of IP, principles and systems is relevantto only some of the goals. I would suggest twogoals in particular where the IP system may have arole to play: first, the goal relating to the protectionof TK and TCEs from unauthorized misappropriationby third parties; and second, the commercializationof TK and TCEs as a source of inspiration, the useof TK as an intellectual asset and as a source ofinspiration for creators and innovators. I suggestthese two might be the two specific goals relating

Expressions of Folklore, or if I may use theacronym (TCEs,) will refer to the tangible andintangible forms in which knowledge and culturefind expression, how they are visible and how theyare manifested in the form of music, designs,performances, literature, architecture etc. GeneticResources (GRs) are defined in the Convention of Biological Diversity to refer to genetic material ofactual or potential value, and again if I may use theterm GRs on occasion to refer to this importantarea. Traditional Knowledge as a term issometimes also used in a broader and more holisticsense to include both traditional knowledge in thenarrow, technical sense to which I have referredand expressions of folklore. Sometimes we use TKin a latter sense of things, a broader sense andsometimes in a more narrow way.

If I had only one minute to speak to you and I hadonly one slide to use, I would put up this slide,because I think this really encapsulates thechallenges in the TK field. These are I think the fourkey questions that any legislator or policy-makerwill need to ask himself or herself. What is it thatone wishes to protect? What is TK, what isfolklore, why would one want to protect it? Whatare the goals that one is trying to achieve: are theyeconomic or cultural? Who are the intendedbeneficiaries of such protection? Fourth, in whatways should TK, folklore and GRs be protected?We will come back to these questions, and I thinkthey will underpin most of my presentation.

My presentation will be in three parts: it will beginwith a look at the interface between IP systems,TK, folklore and GRs, identifying precisely the IPquestions that arise in relation to these areas.What IP traces are there for you to make and whatoptions are there for addressing the goals that youmight set for yourself – the goals that you wouldset in answering the important question of why toprotect TK and folklore. Second, I will give you abrief update on the state of play in the IGC towhich the Chairman referred. Third, there will be abrief update on our capacity-building program,

92

THEME FIVE


It is also useful to pause and consider what wemean by protecting TK and TCEs. As some of youare aware, we conducted extensive fact-findingactivities when the program began in early 1998.One of the things which we learned was to make adistinction between the positive protection of TKand its defensive protection. The people withwhom we were speaking realized that there weretwo distinct needs. Some TK holders were seekingan IP like property rights, to positively protect TKlike a patent or like a copyright. One can use thatright to prevent the unauthorized use of the TK oryou can use the right to license it so that you canconduct business on the basis of the right.However, we also learned that there were manypeople who wished TK to be IP-free, to bedefensively protected against IPRs, and there aremany strategies that seek this as a particular goal.

Going back to the earlier slide about the four keyquestions, one of the questions that we alwayscome back to is why? What are the objectives thatone is trying to achieve in protecting TK and TCEs?One can break this down and ask oneself, what is itthat you wish to stop other people from doing withyour TK and folklore, or what do you wish your TKholder to be able to do with their TK? Is it toprevent unauthorized use by third parties? Is it toensure attribution and respect for the TK and TCEs?Is it to generate benefits and ensure that there isbenefit-sharing? There are a number of goals thatone can achieve in relation to TK.

Having set the goals, the next question then iswhat options are there for achieving the goals?There are really three clusters of options: the firstset of options lie in the legislative and policy area.Yes, one can intervene in a legislative sense toprotect TK and TCEs depending again on one’sgoals. Here again, the options break down into asort of cascade down into a menu of options. Youcan protect TK and TCEs to some degree within theexisting IP system, you can protect TK and TCEs byestablishing a separate special law, what is called asui generis law for TK and TCEs. One can also have

to TK and TCEs where the IP system hassomething to say.

If I were to take this a bit further, it might be usefulto distinguish between innovations and creationsthat are based on TK and TCEs, contemporarymusic, contemporary pharmaceutical products onthe one hand, and traditional knowledge as such orexpressions of folklore as such on the other hand:what one might refer to as underlying folklore andTK, perhaps folklore and TK in the strict sense ofthe term.

With regard to innovations that are derived from TKand TCEs, these are of course largely protectableby the current system. Dr. Matsabisa will shortlytell you about an example of where a remedybased on South African traditional medicinalknowledge is patentable. There are examples bothin the TK stricter sense of area and the folklore areawhere contemporary creations are protectableunder the current patent, and certainly even moreeasily so under a copyright system. There aresome complex questions. One of these is ofcourse that if the creator or the inventor is not fromwithin the culture, is not a member of thecommunity or the country in which the TK resides,should that third party, that foreigner, if I may usethat term, have a duty to share benefits with thecommunity concerned? Should that third partyhave the obligation to seek the prior and informedconsent of the group before he/she uses the TK asa source of inspiration? The underlying TK, thebase if one may call it that, which is generally in thepublic domain under the current IP system, isunprotected by the current system. This form of TKand TCEs are certainly the subject of extensiveprograms for their preservation, sustainable useand promotion, but the question that WIPO facesis should that base be protectable in an IP sense?Should that public domain, TK and TCEs be subjectto some sort of a property right or some sort of aright of control as one finds within the IP system?

93

rights under the law are not familiar with the law,the law is not really useful in practice.

In summary of this part of the presentation, theseare the six key steps I would suggest for any countrywishing to establish a policy. Maybe a good firststep would be to establish a policy on IP and TK,TCEs and GRs: what, why, who and for whosebenefit? In addition, setting up an effective programof implementation is another important step.

Very briefly, an update on the IGC: I am veryhappy to answer questions on that, perhaps in thequestion-and-answer session. I would simply liketo recall the IGC was established in late 2000. Ithas met 14 times in its nine or so years and themost recent session took place only a few weeksago. The IGC is really the space for three mainquestions. What would the content of aninstrument or any other outcome of its work be?What would it actually say? What would theanswers be to those four questions?

Second, what would the legal status of thatoutcome be, principally binding or non binding?Third, what working methods should the IGCemploy to advance its work? There has been somediscussion and intercessional process to make thework advance more quickly.

Finally, as I mentioned, our capacity-buildingprogram is extensive and takes up most of ourtime. The TK program at WIPO comprises the IGC,which is one part and the capacity-building work isthe other part. We carry out a wide variety ofactivities ranging from awareness-raising to helpingwith the drafting of laws and policies and runningpractical training programs. We have a wide rangeof materials, case studies, databases, etc., all ofwhich are accessible and available to you. We alsohave a new newsletter which I encourage you tosign up to. It appears every two months, and wereport therein on what we are doing. There arealso more frequent e-mail updates if there areurgent new documents or new publications which

recourse to customary laws and one can also ofcourse use non IP laws, laws related to biodiversity,cultural heritage, trade practices, labelling, etc., can also be useful in protecting TK and TCEs.

Let me say something very rapidly about the useof existing IP system. In principle it is useful,again depending on the goals you are trying toachieve. As I already mentioned, contemporaryversions of the underlying TK and TCEs areprotectable by the current system, particularlycopyright. The Berne Convention on Copyright has an article, Article 15.4, specifically designed toprotect folklore. Let me mention one other thatcame up this morning, I think the WPPT, the Treatyfrom 1996 provides for the first time internationalprotection for performances of expressions offolklore. There are others which I will not take thetime to mention. There are other aspects of thecurrent IP systems which can be usefullyemployed to protect TK and TCEs to some degree,again depending on the goals that you have set foryourselves. However, most WIPO Member Statesbelieve that the existing system does not providea sufficiently comprehensive response to TK andTCEs and that there is a need for a special suigeneris separate system. In establishing such asystem, again we return to the four key questions,what is TK and TCEs, what are the goals for suchprotection, who would benefit therefrom, andprecisely how would one do so, what kinds ofrights would you vest in TK and TCEs? Again,these questions break down into a number of subquestions, so I shall perhaps not take too muchtime on this because we are running slightlybehind. There are a number of interestingquestions that one can then ask oneself, if onewishes to draft a law aimed at separate protectionfor TK and TCEs. It is important to note thatsolutions are not only found in law: there aremany practical things that one can do in the formof databases, guidelines and contracts, and ofcourse training is also vital. However good yourlaw might be, if the officials have to implementthe law and the TK holders who have to exercise

94

THEME FIVE



Director, Indigenous Knowledge Systems

(Health) Lead Programme (IKS)

South African Medical Research Council,

Cape Town

(a) Exploitation of Traditional Knowledge

and Folklore and its Contribution to

Sustainable Development in LDCs: From

Farm to Pharma, the Experience of South

Africa from Research to Commercialization

I would like to do my presentation in threeformats. First, I was asked to give a South Africanexperience and a South African progress in termsof traditional medicine research or traditionalmedical knowledge. Second, I would like to talkabout a new program that the government hasestablished on the farm to pharma. Last, I wish togive the best practice examples from the MedicalResearch Council, a program which I run oncommunity entrepreneurship development andbusiness development. In addition, I would like toprovide the best example in terms of the patentexploitation based on traditional medical knowledgeand how we intend doing benefit-sharing. Finally, Iwill talk briefly about the benefit-sharing model thatwe have established.

The Medical Research Council is a science council,and the interest for today is how does a ScienceCouncil do translational research and appliedresearch based on traditional knowledge and howdoes this research has an impact on the daily livesof ordinary people and communities? We conductour research based on knowledge that comes frompeople as part of the program. We have a vision ofbuilding a healthy nation through research but I willnot go through all that: in short, the intention is toimprove the nation’s health and we improve thatnation’s health also using traditional medicalknowledge research. In terms of the country’sprogress again, I have compiled a list of initiatives,a list of policies that South Africa has developedthat relates to traditional or indigenous knowledge

we can alert you to, and if you send an e-mail to the following e-mail address: [email protected], we will sign you up for the newsletter.

If I may end Mr. Chairman, with just ademonstration of the kind of practical work that wedo, documentation of TK and TCEs is a controversialquestion that raises certain IP questions. In response to this, we have launched a veryhands-on practical training program on culturaldocumentation, archiving and IP management. The training program combines the preservation of cultural heritage with its legal protection; itfacilitates the preservation of cultural heritage butalso new creativities that contribute to culturaldiversity. In very brief terms, the training programcomprises practical training on how an indigenousgroup can document its own traditional culturalexpressions and knowledge systems, how it canarchive and catalogue its recordings, what IP issuesarise in doing so and how it can manage those IP issues. We have a pilot program that has justconcluded with the Masai people of Kenya and theNational Museum of Kenya. If I may, I would like toend with a couple of photographs from the trainingprogram. It all began with a consultation with thecommunity in northern Kenya two years ago,where we discussed the project. Everything wasvery much led by them: they identified the needfor the training program and designed the programwith us. This was the training program itself: it was held in Washington with two excellentinstitutions who have great expertise in thedocumentation of indigenous cultures. It endedjust last week with a hand-over of equipment that we bought for this particular group. Therefore,they have been trained on how to do so and how to manage IPRs. Our has a wealth ofinformation on the training program, and I stronglyencourage you to contact us and to look at our .Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much and lookforward to questions and discussions. Thank you.

95

about how to interface the protection and thecommercialization of traditional knowledgesystems. The Department of Science andTechnology is also forming a body called TIA, theTechnology Innovation Agency, to commercialize all research based on traditional knowledge.

To move into the farm-to-pharma which I willexplain, I really needed to give the background interms of where this starts. The National ResearchStrategy which was developed in 2002 deals withtechnological innovation as a key driver to economicgrowth and wealth creation. Because of that, theDepartment of Science and Technology, through its10-year plan, identified five grand challenges. Thefirst of those five grand challenges are spacescience and technology, energy security, globalclimate change signs, farm to pharma and humanand social dynamics. What I have been asked totalk about today is farm to pharma, which is reallyan interface between indigenous knowledge,biodiversity and biotechnology. We are really askinghow these three can be brought together foreconomic growth and wealth creation.

The farm-to-pharma challenge really states that wewant to be one of the top three emergingeconomies in the global pharmaceutical industry.That is really the intention of the farm-to-pharma,but the pharmaceutical industry needs to bebased on innovation, using the nation’s indigenousknowledge systems. We want to create a herbalmedicine or a traditional medicine pharmaceuticalindustry. What will be the focus areas? There are three focus areas that we want to developthrough the farm-to-pharma and through our national bioprospecting platform. The first of those is traditional medicines andpharmaceuticals, food and nutraceuticals andindustrial biotechnology. These are captured inthis interface that I have talked about. Briefly, Ithink what the farm-to-pharma strategy looks likeis really biotechnology, indigenous relief systemsand bioprospecting platform. Looking at thethree, I think phytomedicine is what I refer to as

systems. In 2004, the country developed a policywhich was presented here at WIPO. TheDepartment of Science and Technology has a policyon IP generated from government-funded research,and that talks about how IP should actually beshared and how IP should contribute to the general economy. The former Department ofEnvironmental Affairs and Tourism has theBiodiversity Management Act. Chapter 6 of thatAct talks about bioprospecting and it actuallyrequires prior informed consent for researcherswho do basic research for them to go and getinformation or to be involved in research withcommunities. The same Act also speaks aboutprior informed consent and issues of benefit-sharing for bioprospectors. When you apply foryour bioprospecting permit, we feel that thereshould be a benefitsharing model that the companyor the institution has identified with that particularcommunity. We also have a National TraditionalHealth Practitioners Act through the Department ofHealth. Again, the National Department of Healthhas established a Directorate that deals withtraditional medicine and it develops policies aroundthe practice of traditional medicines. We have anational bioprospecting platform which issomething that has recently been developed. It isan intergovernmental platform where the farm topharma, which I want to talk about, resides.

In terms of traditional knowledge, the Departmentof Science and Technology is developing a digitallibrary where you can document traditionalpractices, practices knowledge or traditionalinformation. The Department of Trade and Industryback at home has amended our patent laws toinclude indigenous knowledge systems. It is now arequirement that when you patent anything onmedicinal plants or traditional medicines, thatpatent needs in fact to talk to about the origins andthe source of that knowledge. I think I will givethat as an example in terms of what the MedicalResearch Council has done on its patents. Again,the Department of Trade and Industry has an IP andindigenous knowledge protection policy that talks

96

THEME FIVE


IKS utilization and business development meansthat we need therefore to do applied andtranslational research so that the research we docan be commercialized. We talk about establishinga strategic business unit within the MedicalResearch Council that will then commercialize ourresearch outputs. The last point in terms ofcommunity and social impact is that we want themto see that research is having a meaningful impacton the daily lives of our communities, and we willgive examples of those in the next slides.

This is really just marketing that the programfocuses on malaria, hypertension, HIV/Aids,tuberculosis, cancer and diabetes. In addition, wedo drug discovery and drug development; wedevelop new research methods that are appropriatefor the conditions we want to research; establishhyperclinical trial platforms and also our primateunit where we do the safety and toxicology oftraditional medicinal products. We want to addvalue onto these products. I think that in terms oftraining and knowledge development, it is reallyabout training and creating databases. We havepiloted numerous databases in South Africaenabling us to pinpoint where the traditionalhealers are and what their expertises are. We havecreated a geographical positioning system oftraditional healers, so that with a click of yourmouse you can tell that in Cape Town, there is atraditional healer in this place and this is whathe/she does. We have a document of the currentuses and the current formulations that traditionalhealers, traditional people or indigenous knowledgeholders are using. This is proprietary informationthat will be subject to confidentiality and patenting.

We talked about spinout companies that MRCneeds to commercialize our research outputs.Those companies then need to establish what wecall private community partnerships. I will talkmostly about this because we want to create asense of ownership, a sense of leadership for thecommunities, and an empowerment forcommunities. This is why within the program we

traditional medicines, pharmaceuticals we havejust changed that and food and nutraceuticals.Underneath that, we look at drug discovery,adaptation and validation; issues of clinical trialsuntil we come to commercialization through ourgovernment-established biotechnology, regionalinnovation centers, or through the DSTestablished TIA and our Department of Trade andIndustry. This picture shows us the interface. Thewhole idea of a pharma is actually your indigenouscommunities, your ordinary person at thecommunity who can be trained and developed tocontribute and take part in the development of theknowledge until you have a product which is apharmaceutical product. That is really theinterface we are thinking about between the farm-to-pharma.

Within the Medical Research Council therefore,there is a special program that I run which is onindigenous knowledge systems. In summary, wedo research and development on traditionalmedicines. The four core research activities reallyshow the interrelatedness and how our indigenouscommunities are involved right through the processof our research until we commercialize, and howthat research needs to have an impact on the dailylives of communities. Our research anddevelopment is where our ordinary traditionalhealth practitioners get involved from the beginningin terms of doing our observational studies and ourclinical trials. They get involved in terms of how weformulate their traditional medicinal product.

The second core activity is our knowledgedevelopment and our knowledge management.Not only do we train students and scientists, butwe also train traditional health practitioners to helpthem better understand the processes that areinvolved in drug discovery, in drug development andin our research and development. We want tocreate and build a spirit of trust so that they areaware of the issues that traditional medicineresearch records.

97

secondary economies. Once again, this is basedon scientifically validated medicinal plants.

Based on what we are saying, I just want to talkabout how we use what we know in terms ofindustrial viabilities to support the model that weare using. One always talks about the needs foreconomic growth, markets, commercial viabilityand technical viability so that your businesses cangrow. However, in terms of traditional medicalknowledge and business development, we feel thatthere needs to be entrepreneurial viability to trainpeople, to train communities to understand and talka business language.

The second or third aspect of that is that theremust be institutional support, which needs to comethrough the local authorities or local government orat least from your science council to give ascientific backing of your research product thatneeds to come from government ministries. In our case, it comes through the Department ofTrade and Industry, Department of Science andTechnology, Department of Health and also throughour biotechnology regional innovation centers. This has created a model that we have used for our community business development based ontraditional medicinal plants. That is what wereferred to as institutional viability. The bestexamples are negotiations and discussions: we identify what we call the poverty notes, weidentify the plants grow there, and then theMedical Research Council will conduct the scientific research, train the communities and find a pharmaceutical industry that will thenbecome part of this program.

We have a number of projects that we have startedin Mbobela, Mpumalanga, there are two in theEastern Cape, the Breede River valley project,where we have now started planting medicinalplants. All these projects have industry supportingthem. The market industry gives the technicalrequirements for the quality of medicinal plants thatthey want to do. We have now seen growth in

have established an entrepreneurship and businessdevelopment project that is geared to our traditionalpeople, communities and our traditional healers.

The existence of such a program depends on thetrust that we have developed over time with ourcommunities, so I will refer to our laboratories, aswe have a leading laboratory of our traditionalhealth practitioners and our indigenous communities.We have a pilot cultivation site where we grow allof the plants on which we do research, so that weknow that we can have learning curves in terms ofagriculture for commercial cultivation. We run anumber of school community outreach programs tocreate awareness in terms of what the program isdoing, do research and discovery work and also doour formulation and marketing.

We are driven by a few ethical and researchprinciples. I think these principles are in terms ofthe research review process and of what we wantto do to enhance the relations between us and thecommunities, in terms of those principles ofconfidentiality, principles of respect, principles ofcommunication and empowerment. I will runthrough these, but what is really important is thatas an institution we are saying that research makesno difference to the economy, health and quality oflife of people unless such research is translated –into policy, practice, promotion, and products. Thisis what we are doing in terms of the process.Now, what are the best examples? If you use whatwe know for instance, the aim of the project interms of community, empowerment andcommunity business development is to promotethe application of scientific research into practicalimplementation of projects. We want to createwealth for our communities to make sure thatcommunities take leadership in terms ofcommercial development of the product. Theprogram is based on the production andindustrialization: we are not simply talking aboutselling traditional medicines on the streets; rather,we are talking about the industrialization and thecontribution of traditional medicines to the

98

THEME FIVE


medicinal plant used in traditional medicine,irrespective of whether we find somethingdifferent, we still want them to share the benefitswith our communities.

In conclusion, we have therefore developed abeneficiary model which talks about the principleof equality whereby we share the royalties and thebenefits derived from this patent equally with ourcommunities. Consequently, the government isgiving thought to establishing a national trust fundon bioprospecting where such funds would then goon to the National Trust Fund. We have gonefurther to say, you then need to have a communityfund because a particular person comes from aparticular community. How could that communitybenefit? The model goes further to say, however,we understand the collective nature sometimes oftraditional medical knowledge, but there are thoseindividuals who have that knowledge and howwould that individual benefit? Thus, the modeltalks about the individual benefiting. We alsounderstand that you may have an individual whosupplies the information but does not supply thegenetic material, and we say that the individualneeds to benefit. In conclusion, we havedeveloped our business models, these areworkable models, and we want to expand them.We have been approached by the Africa Forum topilot some of these models in some of thecountries in Africa. Thank you.


Director General, African Regional Intellectual

Property Organization (ARIPO), Harare

(b) Protecting Traditional Knowledge

and Folklore in LDCs

I would have loved to respond to thestatements that were made by the Director Generalduring the opening regarding the cooperationbetween ARIPO and WIPO. I am pleased to state

three new projects where industry has come upand said it was interested in the model and wantedto support these communities. These people arenow making money, are self-sustaining, havebought themselves cars and tractors. A time willcome when MRC will say we have done enough:we are pulling out because these people can nowbegin to talk a business language with thecompanies that are involved. This just shows thenumber of jobs that have been created thoughthis process; it shows monthly salary increasesfor a community that was reliant on cultivatingthe fields, with uncertainties of whether theywould make money at the end of the day. We aretalking about a person who can now say I amtaking about 4000 rand back home because oftraditional medicinal plants.

I mentioned a number of these partnerships thatsupport institutional viability run by the privatesector or municipalities. These are examples ofprojects that we have now implemented wherecommunities are now running their own businesses.Briefly, just to show the scope in terms of wherethese projects are in South Africa that we havebeen supporting and that are now becoming selfsufficient, where they have exports and can rely onthe project for their own livelihoods: these projectshave taught people to become reliable, responsibleand to manage their own assets.

In closing, we have a traditional medicine that wehave patented for the development of malaria. It isabout the principles that institutions or researchinstitutions need to have, the principle of equalitywith their communities, the principle that weunderstand that medicinal plants would have multi-pharmaceutical activities, because one of theseplants in fact had no use in terms of malaria, butthrough serendipity, we discovered that the plant infact does have novel molecules that are effectiveagainst malaria. We have a number of patents anda PCT on this. The principle that we have in termsof sharing is that, even though it did not comethrough knowledge, directed by the fact that it is a

99

component, we have the development of regionalframeworks for the protection of new varieties ofplants providing technical support to the MemberStates of ARIPO. These are the two componentsthat we have.

What is our road map in the implementation of thismandate? We are looking mainly at the issues oflegislative development. As you may well recall,when you have a new mandate obviously it is veryimportant to amend your legislations to include thatparticular new mandate. An amendment has beenmade to the ARIPO Protocol or to the ARIPOProtocol on Patents and Industrial Designs toincorporate issues of traditional knowledge andexpressions of folklore. Again, you have to makesure that when you come up with a mandate youdevelop a concept paper. That concept paper hasbeen developed, and it is our marketing paperwhen we are doing the consultations in ourrespective Member States, and of course, theconsultations take different forms. The first thingthat we take into account is to make sure thatthere is a nod from the policy-makers, the peopleresponsible for coming up with policies. That hasalready been achieved, but again furtherdiscussions and consultations will be undertakenduring the next Council of Ministers, which isexpected to take place in November of this year.

It is important to ensure that you have expertreview meetings to look at the issues that you havecome up with so that whatever you come up withis something that can be accepted. You must knowthat in the African region we have two regionalorganizations, OAPI, which is represented by Mr.Edou Edou and ARIPO. When this issue oftraditional knowledge came to the fore, it was veryimportant to continue consultations with OAPI, sothat whatever document we come up with, itshould be a document that is actually consistentwith the process of legislation that is taking placeunder the OAPI system. There were a lot ofARIPO/OAPI harmonization processes in developingthis legislation framework.

that cooperation is actually at a high level. I havebeen asked to talk about the Protection of TraditionalKnowledge and Folklore in LDCs. I have to statethat the outline of my presentation will cover onlythree or four areas, that is, the mandate given tothe organization on the protection of traditionalknowledge and expressions of folklore, and then ofcourse, the implementation of the mandate andARIPO’s involvement in this traditional knowledgeand expressions of folklore. In addition, I willbriefly talk about the future activities that havebeen undertaken by the organization towards theimplementation of this folklore.

The mandate on genetic resources and expressionsof folklore was given to the organization in 2000,and implementation started in 2002. You mustrecall that when the organization was initiallyestablished, it was only responsible for theprotection of IP, and this particular mandate is inaddition to the one given to the organization. Youwill see that among the Member States of theorganization, we have about 11 countries that areLDCs and only five are developing countries, soobviously most of the work that the organization isdoing is actually work which is in support of theLDCs. In the implementation mode, we are lookingat about three areas. The first one is the protectionof traditional knowledge and folklore. Under thisarea, we have three components: development oflegislation on traditional knowledge andexpressions of folklore; documentation initiativesundertaken by the organization; and, lately,capacity-building and awareness creation.

The other component has to do with the protectionof genetic resources, and under this purview wehave the development of assets to the beneficiary.We have actually come up with guidelines for thisparticular area, and of course, we have established acenter of excellence in the teaching of biodiversity.

The third part deals with the protection of newplant varieties. We actually had a workshop onplant varieties only last week. Under this

100

THEME FIVE


is going to be held in Gaborone, Botswana inNovember. It is our hope that once we have the nod from the Ministers, then a diplomaticconference will be held so that this particularprotocol can be adopted.

We have already come up with the framework andwe have got about four parts. The first part dealswith preliminary provisions. The second part dealswith the protection of traditional knowledge, and adocument has been sent to all Member States, sowe are looking at that document as of now. Thethird part deals with the protection of expressionsof folklore, and we have some components thatthis section deals with. Finally, we have thegeneral provisions. We have also come up with the draft regulations, prepared by a delegate fromUganda, which will form part of the documentsubmitted to the Council of Ministers. There arealso such components as licensing agreements,registration procedures, mainly dealing with issuesto do with the implementation of the Protocol itself.

In conclusion, I have to mention that protection oftraditional knowledge and expressions of folklorefor LDCs in whatever form is desirable to avoiddepreciation and misappropriation of these resources.Absence of any protection will continue to depriveindigenous communities of their intrinsic rights totheir traditional knowledge and expressions offolklore. Obviously, prosperity and developmentwill continue to evade the LDCs. Finally, the dividebetween the developed world and the developingwithout the benefits from these resources willremain unbridged. Thank you.

Discussion


My question goes to the first speaker whomentioned cultural heritage. Does it fall under themandate or what is the interface with UNESCO?Thank you.

When you are coming up with this mandate, youhave to make sure that you do a lot ofconsultations, you have to deal with thestakeholders, and that has been done at a nationaland regional level. Under this process, one of theissues that we fleshed out was the development ofthe ARIPO traditional knowledge database, a veryimportant step. We believe that with this Protocol,we can come up with a digital library. The purposeis to promote documentation and preserve andmaintain traditional knowledge. Second, we haveto make sure that we provide a means to assistpatent search procedures and identify prior art. Thethird one is to identify communities which might beentitled to benefit-sharing and assign exclusiverights; that too is very important. Then fourth,provide the means for recording the existence oftraditional knowledge over which positive rightshave been recognized under national or customarylaws. Lastly, we have to make sure that thisparticular database should serve as the mechanismfor obtaining protection of traditional knowledgethrough a sui generis database for protection.

ARIPO has also been heavily involved in internationallevels; we have actually participated in nearly all thesessions of IGC. Other than just participating, ARIPOhas been instrumental in the submission of theAfrican Group proposal to the IGC. Third, ARIPO hascollaborated closely with WIPO in the development ofregional frameworks in Asia, Arab and Caribbeanregions. ARIPO represented WIPO and provided anupdate of the IGC at the Southern African DevelopmentCommunity indigenous knowledge system workshop,which was held last month in the Seychelles.

What are our future activities, what do we intend todo in future? We intend to make sure that weinclude mainly the collection of data for thedevelopment of the digital library. We also want tosupport the development of a legal framework inMember States. In addition, we plan to adopt aprotocol for the protection of traditional knowledgeand expressions of folklore. This will be tabledbefore the next Council of Ministers session, which

101

traditional cultural expressions. Therefore, I wouldlike to know how we can determine which culturalexpressions belong to whom. Second, if only onecommunity owns those cultural expressions offolklore how do we distribute the benefits to them?Thank you.

Delegation of Burkina Faso

I thank all the speakers. This is the first time Ihave taken the floor in this Forum, and I would liketo begin by thanking WIPO for having invited us tothis very important meeting which gives us a keyopportunity, as my country also possesses a greatdeal of folklore, genetic resources and traditionalknowledge. I believe that the Forum could help ourcountry deal with the problems of IP to movetowards development, because currently, themajority of the population lives off these resources.I was particularly interested in the last presentation,which showed that, first we have to organizedatabases. If you want to protect something, youhave to know where it is and have data. Therefore,databases are extremely important. To what extentcan WIPO, ARIPO, OAPI help countries set upthese databases? As you know, in terms ofmedicinal plants these countries have always hadtheir genetic resources pillaged, stolen. Therefore,first of all we need to enable each country to set upits own database, and secondly, hopefully to beable to guarantee the protection of theseresources. Thank you.

Mr. Wend Wendland

Acting Director and Head, Traditional Creativity,

Cultural Expressions

and Cultural Heritage Section, WIPO

I wish to recall that Ethiopia’s question wasabout cultural heritage and the intersectionbetween the work of WIPO and UNCESCO.

Delegation of Mali

I would like to thank the speakers for theirexcellent coverage of the subjects. Mali has a richcultural heritage. We have the oldest tradition interms of traditional medicine and traditionalpharmacopeia. We have had a Traditional MedicinesDivision since 1968, so this activity is quite long-standing in our country. Unfortunately, we do notreally take full advantage of it because we do nothave a full IP strategy. Therefore, my government isplanning to establish a policy and a strategy on IP inthe next few days, and particular focus will be ongenetic resources and traditional knowledge.

My question is what advice would the experts giveMali to help us in setting up our system to protecttraditional knowledge, and more particularly geneticresources? Should we have a sui generis system,a patent system? I would like to hear the views ofthe experts.

My second question has to do with the work of theIGC on the genetic resources debate which isongoing at WIPO. How can we devise a legalinstrument? Mali wanted a binding legalinstrument while some countries which I shall notname were against the idea of a binding legalinstrument. Could I ask the Deputy DirectorGeneral of WIPO what progress has been made onthis instrument, which is of the utmost importancefor our country? Thank you.

Delegation of Nepal

First of all, I would like to thank the presentersfor their very comprehensive and excellentpresentations. Nepal is very rich in traditionalknowledge, folklore and traditional culturalexpressions. We have several indigenouscommunities, and it would be very difficult for us todetermine which indigenous community ownswhich sort of traditional knowledge or folklore or

102

THEME FIVE


do so we have tools to provide you with advice onthe IP implications of documenting TK and folklore.

The other question was the African proposal, along-standing proposal for an internationally legallybinding instrument in the IGC on TK and TCEs. Asyou know, there has not been a forward movementon that proposal within the IGC. All that we cansay is that it is a matter for decision by the MemberStates. The Secretariat facilitates the sessions andwe prepare some of the documentation. Thecontent of the outcome and the legal status of thatoutcome is a matter for the Member States.


Director, Indigenous Knowledge Systems

(Health) Lead Programme (IKS)

South African Medical Research Council,

Cape Town

I would like to start with Nepal. It is verydifficult for one to identify the rightful communities.For instance, you have information that spans fromrural areas into urban areas. What is thecommunity? It all depends in terms of whatpolicies are being set up. What we have done interms of South Africa was to say indigenousknowledge, medicinal plants flora and fauna,genetic resources in fact belong to the people ofthe country. Therefore, everybody in the countryhas to benefit. This is why one of the clauses inour Biodiversity Management Act states that if youcannot identify the community, you should requestthe Minister to assist you in identifying such acommunity. That is why it is important to establishthe national trust funds. If there are any benefitsthat need to accrue, based on your geneticresources and the fact that you cannot identify thecommunity, at least there is a national trust fundwhich can actually be used for developmentalprojects, etc. It may work, it may not work, but itis very difficult to identify those communities.

Indeed, as you rightly pointed out, the subjectmatter is similar or the same while the twoorganization’s objectives are different. UNESCOfocuses on the preservation or safeguarding of TKand TCEs with a view to their maintenance,revitalization, transmission, promotion and so on.WIPO’s work focuses on its legal protection:protection against unauthorized copying andunauthorized use. Thus, preservation for UNECSO as against protection for WIPO is the basic difference.

The question from the Delegate of Mali was thathe wished to establish a national policy on TK andGRs in particular and wondered what advice wecould have for him. My contribution would besimply to say that I would focus on objectives firstand foremost. What do you wish to achieve in thelarger scheme? Then there are two sub-questions Iwould ask. First, what forms of TK and GRs do youhave in your country? Second, are they actualcases of misappropriation? This will help you focuson the forms of TK and GRs that are vulnerable tomisappropriation in the IP sense, in the WIPOsense of the term.

With regard to the question from Nepal, indeed it isdifficult, of course culture moves with people. Aspeople have migrated for various reasons overthousands of years, due to slavery, war, migrationetc., of course it is very difficult to identify that agiven expression of culture or a given remedybelongs to only this group and not to that group. Itis a perplexing question; it is one that we areasked very often and it is one that runs through thecourse of our work. In the case of shared TK andshared folklore between different groups indifferent countries, again one would think ofpossibly contracts, some sort of regional protectionsystem as the answer to that sort of question.

Finally, on Burkina Faso’s question on databases,what WIPO could contribute is IP advice.Therefore, if you wish to establish a database, thatis a decision only you can make, and if you wish to

103

T h e m e S i x – R e g i o n a l

C o o p e r a t i o n i n I P :

P r o m o t i n g S y n e r g i e s

a n d B u i l d i n g P a r t n e r s h i p s




The theme for this session is Theme Six –Regional Cooperation in IP: Promoting Synergiesand Building Partnerships. We have very ablespeakers and panelists and they do not need acommercial. However, I have been requested toadjust the program slightly because one of thepresenters on the Role of OAPI in IP InstitutionBuilding for LDCs will be catching an early flightthis afternoon, the panelist Mr. Edou Edou. Anyquestions put to him will be taken up by Mr. JamesOtieno Odek and Mr. Gift Sibanda. Therefore,without wasting time, as this is the last session ofour allocation, we would like to finish when we areall fresh. Mr. Edou Edou’s presentation on the roleof OAPI in IP institution building for LDCs follows.




The topic of my presentation is RegionalCooperation in IP: Promoting Synergies andBuilding Partnerships. As has been my tradition,there is only one message I would like you to carryhome with you, and the message is what appearson the screen, that IP is regional and multilateral innature. In this era of globalization and digitization,the era of individualism, isolationism and RobinsonCrusoe has no place. Cooperation, integration and

As far as the question from Burkina Faso on settingup databases is concerned, again, we know that itis individual institutions that tend to do research,that tend to have all this information. Hence, weare saying a policy could perhaps be developed interms of what would be the requirements for apublicly funded research. As an example, we havenational research funding agencies that havedatabases. As to who they are funded, on whatresearch they have done, we have gone aroundcollecting all this information because thegovernment wants to centralize all the databases.In this case, you go back to your researchinstitution to try to identify those researchers.




Burkina Faso is a member of OAPI, and I dorecall that OAPI in cooperation with WIPO and theEPO, ran a special workshop two years agodevoted to the development of databases. I think ithas been going on for two years, and during thosediscussions they did indicate how best you candevelop these databases. It is the same situationwith ARIPO. We have organized two workshops onthe development of databases. Our idea is reallynot to come up with individual databases in theseMember States, but to come up with a centralizeddatabase where you can actually get information.This is cheaper than having separate databases.

104

THEME SIX


LDC countries, we need to join regionalcooperation systems to facilitate trade by providinga simplified registration system at a regional orglobal level. For those of you who are familiar withthe Madrid system, this is precisely what it does ata global level. For those of you who are familiarwith the PCT system, this is precisely what it doesat the global level: facilitating trade for the privatesector and for businessmen; providing them with asimplified registration system that can facilitate themovement of goods and services at a regional orglobal level.

Another reason why regional cooperation on IP ismore or less relevant to LDCs is the pooling ofresources. We in the LDC countries suffer fromone weakness, limited human resource capacities,limited infrastructural facilities and limited skills inconducting patent searches, examinationprocesses, limited learning material etc. When wejoin together in a regional system, we are able topool our committed resources and put in place aneffective system that we can utilize. In the Africancontext, we have ARIPO and OAPI. One of theadvantages of these two organizations is thebenefits we are deriving as member countries fromthe pooling of our limited resources. Now, we areable at least to point that we have human resourcecapacities, infrastructural facilities, etc. Therefore,pooling of resources is another compelling reasonwhy countries need to adopt regional cooperationin IP matters.

The other justification for regional cooperation iswhat I call utilitarianism, which I will simplify asharmonization and approximation of laws.Countries have been known to add that there is aneed to harmonize and approximate their laws.Such a process of harmonization and approximationis easy to achieve in a regional framework. Thisprovides another impetus, another encouragementfor countries to adopt a regional outlook forapproaching IP issues.

engagement are the modus operandi. I do hopethat you know the story of Robinson Crusoe andMan Friday being alone. I will use that as ourstarting point to discuss this simple question, whyregional cooperation and IP? Do we need to have aregional cooperation in IP discourse? The answer isan unequivocal yes. There is a need for regionalcooperation in IP matters. Why do we needregional cooperation? There are several reasons.

The first is that IP deals with tradable goods. Theproducts and the services which contain IPRs crossnational boundaries. So long as countries are busytrading with each other, we have goods crossingnational boundaries and within them, there is apatent, a trademark or an industrial design. Theseproducts as they cross national boundaries do notrespect those boundaries. Hence, individualnational IP systems are inadequate to address thechallenges posed by goods crossing nationalfrontiers. Questions of enforcement orinfringement of IPRs cannot be adequatelyaddressed through a national regime. We needregional cooperation at least or multilateralcooperation to be able to address the challengesposed by goods crossing national frontiers.

The other reason why we need regionalcooperation is trade facilitation. IP is a tradefacilitation tool. How does it facilitate trade?Businessmen, as they move their tradable goodsacross national frontiers, need to protect their IPRs.As we are all aware, IPRs are territorial in nature.However, businessmen, the private sector, orindustrialists for that matter, require a systemwhere they can be able to register IPRs in differentterritories in different countries. For this reason, asimplified regional or multilateral system forregistration of patents and trademarks is essential.This can only be achieved through regionalcooperation. You provide your businessmen, yourprivate sector or your industrialists with a systemthrough which they can effectively registertrademarks or patents in different countries. Iwould like to take this opportunity to add that, as

105

is geographical distance. It would not beeconomically wise to send a technical expert toassist country A, yet country B next door alsorequires the same assistance. By pooling technicalprograms on a regional level, it is easy to fulfil ourtechnical assistance mandates. Likewise,technology diffusion issues, issues to do withtechnology transfer and technology diffusion, areeasier to administer or deal with at a regional level.

Thus, these are some of the compelling reasonswhy a regional approach is advisable. In the currentworld, there are so many regional organizations thathave come in place to be able to address IP issuesat a regional level. The most common andoutstanding to many of us is the EPO, taking aregional approach to administering the IP system.We also have the Eurasian Patent Office that hastaken a regional approach to administering the IPsystem. We have so many other examples; youcan see them in my paper, of bodies that haveadopted a regional approach. Last but not least, onour African continent we have ARIPO and OAPI thathave opted for a regional approach. The messagethat I am getting across is that it is important totake regional initiatives to address IP issues. Thereare sound economic, practical and politicaljustifications why a regional approach in dealingwith IP issues is important.

Let me emphasize that the fact that a country cantake a regional approach does not mean thatregionalism is superior to a national approach. Thatneeds to be clear. I am not saying that a regionalapproach is a substitute for a national approach. Onthe contrary, the two should be complimentary.You start small at a national level by biting off whatyou can chew but then expand to the regional level,to be able to cooperate and collaborate withgeographically neighboring countries.

In conclusion, allow me to go back to my messagethat in IP matters cooperation, integration andengagement are the modus operandi. There is noway a country can deal with the diverse and

Other reasons are networking, building networksand synergies, as we are doing here. I hope wehave been able to network and have contacts witheach other. This is another thing that a regionalapproach provides: an opportunity to network, anopportunity to share experiences, an opportunityto learn from each other. Networking is animportant thing that regional cooperation on IPmatters does provide.

Another justification for the regional approach isthat there are certain contemporary multilateral IPissues that cannot be addressed at a national level,such as issues dealing with TK, TCEs, biopiracy,climate change, food security and lately publichealth. Regional cooperation or multilateralcooperation is very essential.

The other advantage of a regional approach is whatI call systems guarantee and establishing a rule-based system. Most of our countries in the LDCcontext do not have adequate legal frameworks oradequate administrative machinery to administerIPRs system. When we come together in aregional framework, we set up a system that hasintegrity, a system that removes discretion, andarbitrariness in administering IPRs. These areimportant attributes of a regional system: thissystem’s guarantee is actually provided through a regional framework, and the rule-based system is established if we take a regional approach.

An additional issues that militates in favor ofregional cooperation is the question of technicalassistance. We in developing countries and byextension LDCs require technical assistance. It iseasier to administer a technical assistance programthrough regional cooperation or regional programsthan through national programs. We have someprograms that are common, some issues that arespecific to given geographical areas. Technicalassistance programs are easier to deliver on aregional dimension than on a national platform.One of the reasons why a regional approach isgood, other than the commonality of the problems,

106

THEME SIX


in a country or in a region, as we are an integratedframework, depends on the type of institutions thatare established. This is important to keep in mind;it depends on the quality of the people whoactually work in these organizations. These twofactors go hand in hand because if you have goodinstitutions but not the right people, quite clearly,you will not be able to reach your aims. OAPI isfully aware of this, and has since its inception madeefforts to implement a certain number ofstructures. As I did yesterday, if I may backtrack abit in my presentation, which I gave very quickly, I will introduce it very briefly. I spoke of the role ofOAPI in the creation of development of institutionswithin IP

ARIPO represents 16 States, 12 countries and 130 million inhabitants of a potentially wealthy areawith all the natural resources one could think of.Nevertheless, OAPI has amongst its members thepoorest countries in the world; in fact, some ofthese countries have a GDP which is below 300dollars. The architecture of the system is a commonlegislation. Professor Otieno Odek said that what isof interest is having a common legislation and I thinkhe is perfectly right. OAPI has therefore decided tohave a common legislative structure, a commonoffice. The only administrative service which cangrant you a patent or a trademark is OAPI. Theconsequence of these two principles is centralizedprocedures within the organization.

Our activities are aimed at protecting IP on the onehand and also encouraging commercial use ofthese assets because protection is not an end initself. One cannot simply protect IP but you alsoneed to ensure its marketing, because itsmarketing is what generates wealth andemployment. We are interested in participatingclosely in the economic and social development of our Member States.

What is the exact role of OAPI in the developmentof IP structures? First, a look at the economicsituation of its Member States shows that OAPI

challenges of IP system at a national level. Of late,you have the H1N1 flu, to take a public health issue,that cannot be dealt with from a national perspective.You can put all your border controls but people stillfly and they will spread the disease up and about. A regional approach or a multilateral effort is the onlyway to deal with some of these issues.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for listening. I now take this opportunity to reiterate that withinthe African set-up we have ARIPO and OAPI thathave taken a regional approach. I am happy toknow that the next presenter will elucidate more onwhat the African continent has done in this regionalapproach. If there is any African country or anyLDC that has not joined any regional framework, I hope I have given you sufficient grounds to jointhe bandwagon. Let us together cooperate andpull forward the IP agenda. Thank you.




Thank you so much, Professor, for setting the pace.You are the best example; you kept it short andsweet. Those who come after you should followyour example.



Organisation (OAPI)

(b) The Role of OAPI in IP Institution Building

for LDCs

My brother who preceded me certainlyfacilitated my task. I will speak more in detail ofthe organizations that have been established byOAPI with the assistance of its Member States.First, I would like to say that the development of IP

107

the implementation of the decisions taken. Wethen have the assistance institutions for creationand use of IP assets within LDCs. This is the coreof IP.

How do we go from a concept or an idea to anactual product that is the invention to the actualproduction which will increase national wealth? Wefelt it was necessary to reform what was createdover 10 years ago, namely, is the African Exhibitionof Invention and Technological Innovation, renewingthis body because this exhibition needs tostimulate creativity and the submission of patents.It also aims at giving advice to inventors andassisting inventors. Once you finish an exhibitionof this sort, what happens? What do inventors do?Are they simply left to their own devices? Shouldwe not be helping them or advising them to submitapplications for patents? That is what we want todo by reforming this exhibition. Finally, the AfricanExhibition of Invention and Technological Innovation,which meets every two years in one of theMember States of OAPI, also serves as anexchange forum between creators or inventors andbusinessmen so that license agreements orcontracts can be signed in order to use as IP. Wehave also thought of reforming the assistance fundfor the promotion of invention and innovationstructure which has been in existence for OAPI fora number of years, as this structure has not yieldedthe expected results. We feel that the fund shouldbe much more an organization of assistance andadvice. The Member States will decide on this at aforthcoming board meeting, where they willestablish a guarantee fund, after which we willseek funding to implement a number of projects.

In addition to the regional institutions, we also havenational institutions which support the developmentof IP in LDCs. First and foremost, we haveinstitutions that can stimulate IP information andpromotion. The central element, the hub of thewheel as it were, is information. Withoutinformation, we will not know what we want toestablish and we will not know whether we are

must work hand in hand with Member States toovercome their developmental problems. To startwith, the issue of reinforcing food safety is one ofthe major concerns of our Member States.Another is access to water and electricity. The thirdconcern is overcoming public health issues, thenprotection of the environment. Yet another is theimplementation of production which can generatewealth and employment. Along with the economicrole of IP, it also has not only a legal value but alsoan economic value and a social value. In otherwords, IP should be able to generate wealth andsolve social issues such as public health. In acontext in which the economy is basically geared tothe sale of raw materials, IP will target theacquisition of foreign technology with a view togenerating added value in an economy geared toraw materials.

If we look at the types of institutions we havedeployed to help our Member States encourage theuse of IP, we find first of all regional institutions andnational institutions. Among the regional institutionswe find assistance in management of IP in LDCs.Why managing IP? One of the key issues in LDCstoday is a question of management of IP. For 42years, we have been speaking of IP within ourMember States but there has never been anydevelopment of IP. That is why we felt that it was apriority to implement a structure that couldstimulate the use of IP in Member States. Wehave been considering organizing an internationalconference on IP and development. Thisinternational conference took place in Dakar inNovember, and provided an opportunity for politicaland economic decision-makers to deal with IP andto define future outlooks with a view to ensuring itsinclusion in the development policies of ourcountries. Parallel to this international conference,we deemed it useful to implement a follow-upcommittee to deal with IP-related decisions. Why afollow up committee? Well, because most of theresolutions in our fora or conferences often simplycollect dust on shelves after the actual meeting, soa follow-up committee could in this way monitor

108

THEME SIX


incubators are going to build bridges betweeninformation held by universities or research centersand the business community. They are a sort ofnurseries where researchers, scientists, academicscan provide information which can then be used.You know that universities and research centers arehubs of creativity. There is no better place to lookfor creative and innovative ideas than in universitiesand research centers, and we believe that leavingthem to their own devices would be a big mistakeand would certainly not stimulate the exploitationof IP.

Finally, by using these project incubators we wantto assist researchers in making better use of theinformation they possess. All of this information isjust sitting in drawers on shelves, all of theresearch findings, statistics and data. This must betaken off the shelves and used on the ground foreconomic and industrial development. Of course,the end goal is to move from this idea, this theory,to the building of new businesses.

Today, information is wealth, wealth is information,and there is no other resource which is soimportant. However, the problem between theNorth and the South is that the Northern countriesuse information well and the Southern countries donot. That is the only difference. If countries in theSouth used information rationally and wisely, theywould also have embarked on the same IPdevelopment processes as the North.

In conclusion, among the national institutions, wealso have those that can provide better guaranteesand protection for IPRs. In this room, we all knowthat proper protection of IPRs by the courts is avehicle for promoting private investment. I thinkthat all IP development action should aim to set upa proper legal framework for protecting IPRs. Thisis why we are now initiating action, not only tostimulate the establishment of collectivemanagement societies for copyright but also toincrease capacity in countries which already havecollective management systems. We are also

achieving the desired result. Many of our researchinstitutions wrongly believe that research is aninteresting activity with no application. This is whymany research findings are sitting on the shelves ofour research centers. I might add that ninety ninepercent of these are State-funded institutions. Wealso decided that we should set up IPdocumentation centers in Member States, and weare starting to do this now. We now have five ofthese centers under construction in the differentMember States. These will enable scientists,researchers, students and anyone else, in factincluding, the business community to obtain theright information from the documentation centerand perhaps, why not, set up their own businessesusing this information. We need to make sure thatthis information is available to users, so we deviseda system that will enable us to refine the technicalinformation and rework it so that it can be usablefor ordinary/lay people. Finally, we feel thesedocumentation centers will stimulate theestablishment of new businesses, which after all isthe aim of all IP activities.

Among the national institutions, we also haveinstitutions which can stimulate the exploitation ofIP assets. The Ministerial Conference in Dakaradopted a resolution stating that each MemberState should have a national coordinatingcommittee for IP. What would an IP coordinatingcommittee do? You know as well as I do that IP isa cross-cutting issue which involves severalministries in our countries. If we do not have amechanism for coordinating the various ministriesand agencies, IP information will be scattered andgovernments will not be in a position to decide on asingle line of action. This is why we decided toestablish these coordinating committees. We aretrying to encourage the States to set these bodiesup so that each Member State can have its IPcoordinating committee.

We want to create innovation project incubators inuniversities and research centers. This was anotherone of the aims of the Dakar Conference. These

109




(a) The Role of the African Regional

Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO)

in IP Institution-Building for LDCs

I will be talking about ARIPO, and for those ofyou who may not be familiar with the organization,I will first of all talk about the organization itself.After that, I will dwell on some of its recentactivities, and of course, some of the plannedactivities we want to carry out in the near future.

ARIPO is an intergovernmental organization thatwas established in 1976 by means of a DiplomaticConference held in Lusaka. This particularagreement had the aim of pooling the resources ofthe developing countries, so that when they pooltogether they can actually channel them to thepromotion, development and harmonization of IPlaws and policies in the region. According to theLusaka Agreement, any country that is a memberof the United Nations Economic Commission forAfrica and the African Union is actually eligible tobecome a member of the Organization. Currently,we have 16 Member States, and these are theones listed in the PowerPoint slide. I have toindicate that there are other members that areobserver States. These are member countries thathave already indicated their desire to join theorganization but have not yet joined. We haveseveral countries, Angola, Burundi, Egypt, Eritrea,Ethiopia, Liberia, Mauritius, Nigeria, Rwanda,Seychelles and South Africa. One of the firstcountries to sign the Lusaka Agreement wasMauritius, although it is not yet a member of theOrganization. I was just speaking with the Ministerof Ethiopia and he has indicated that we shouldcontact the Government of Ethiopia as soon aspossible so that they can start makingarrangements to joining this organization. Again,we have received a communication from Angola,which has also indicated that we should extend an

thinking of reforming the higher commission forlegal remedies. We have three bodies, we havethe Council, another body and then the highercommission, which is like an appeals court fordecisions taken by the Director General with whichthe applicants do not agree. We want to break thisCommission down into three chambers: anadministrative chamber which would continue toreview the decisions of the Director General; a judicial chamber which would be an appealschamber for judicial decisions; and finally anarbitration and mediation chamber which wouldattempt to resolve disputes. We no longer believethat our system can be based on the judicialsolution of disputes. We have to have a multi-pronged system.

Finally, we have the reform of our judicial system.Our courts are like GPs: they have to deal with alldifferent areas, social issues, family issues, IPissues and commercial disputes. Within our courts,we need to have special sections devoted to IPdisputes. We are not talking about broadeningthem to the entire country, but we could have, inlarger cities, sections of the courts which would beexclusively devoted to IP issues. Thank you.




That was Mr. Paulin Edou Edou, OAPI. He hasbeen very detailed because he will not be here tolisten to the questions, so he has pre-emptedthem. He has to leave now to catch a plane backto Yaoundé, but in the most unlikely event thatthere are any questions, they will be handled by Mr.Sibanda.

110

THEME SIX


mandated to establish training schemes, organizeconferences, seminars, and meetings in the field ofIP, and to promote the exchange of ideas andresearch in the field of IP.

What are the activities that have been carried outby the organization? These are clearly spelled outin the strategic plan which was adopted in 2005.The purpose of the strategic plan is orientatedstrategy, by which the organization’s objectives areeffectively achieved within a given period. It alsoprovides a systematic approach for enhancedefficiency in the operations of the organization.Thirdly, it gives ARIPO a clear focus and directionfor advertising its activities. Finally, it also providesa basis for measuring and evaluating the work ofthe organization.

The strategic goals are five. The first deals with the improvement of infrastructure and efficientmanagement of financial and administrative supportprocesses. The second pertains to the promotion,development and harmonization of IP laws. Thethird goal relates to the delivery of quality servicesin grant, registration and administration of IPRs.The fourth concerns the enhancement ofcooperation, partnership and institutional linkages,while the last one has to do with capacity-building.What are the activities that have been carried outrecently under these strategic goals? Understrategic goal No. 1 – the development of Internetdigital library for IP domains, including TK, and of course, the rendering of support to WIPO’sautomation initiatives has also been achieved. In fact, we have a WIPO consultant deployed at the ARIPO headquarters. We have also beensupporting WIPO activities on the installation ofWIPOCOS. We have been assisting WIPO in IPautomation activities. Other than that, we recentlylaunched a museum for selected African inventions.We think this is very important because ifsomebody comes and sees these inventions, as anAfrican, maybe we can encourage him or her to domore inventions.

invitation for them to join the organization. We arealso discussing the issue of membership of theOrganization with the Government of South Africa.The geographical distribution of Member States isindicated on this map. There are three countries inWest Africa: Gambia, Sierra Leone and Ghana.There is a major workshop taking place in Ghananext week for West African countries. In EastAfrica, there are five countries: Sudan, Uganda,Kenya, the United Republic of Tanzania and Somalia,all of which are represented here today exceptSomalia. In Central and Southern Africa, we haveseven countries: Zambia, Malawi, Zimbabwe,Mozambique, Swaziland, Lesotho and Botswana.

How is this organization governed? There is asupreme organ of the organization which is theCouncil of Ministers, a policy body, that is supposedto meet once every two years. I am pleased tostate that the Chair of this particular organ isrepresented here today – H.E. Mrs. Mpeo MahaseMoiloa. The Administrative Council Chairperson isalso here, Sentšuoe Ntseliseng Mohau also fromLesotho. This is a forum of experts who determinethe development of the organization.

What is ARIPO’s mandate? Under the LusakaAgreement, we have a number of points whichillustrate the mandate of the organization. The first one is the promotion, harmonization anddevelopment of IP laws. It is only through aregional system that you can actually have theapproximation of laws so that they are in harmony.The next thing is the establishment of commonservices and organs for IP coordinationdevelopment and harmonization. The organizationhas come up with certain protocols, i.e. the HarareProtocol which deals with the protection of patents,industrial designs and utility models. Under thissystem, instead of lodging your application in theindividual 16 Member States, you can lodge asingle application in one country, and then you willobtain protection in these 16 Member States. Thisis also the case with trademarks, utility models andindustrial designs. In addition, the organization is

111

of specialized ministries in Member States for IP.The other important thing that we should be doingshortly is to conduct studies on the contribution ofcopyright industries to the national economy.

Concerning Strategic Goal No.3, delivery of qualityservices, again we are busy trying to establish asearch engine so that we improve our searchservices. For the time being, ARIPO is in a positionto handle search services and searches for MemberStates. I think up to now it is the only institutionthat does substantive examination in the Africanregion. The Director General mentioned that thereis a lot of cooperation with ARIPO in developingPatentScope. I have just been informed today thatwe have the scanners and soon will be scanningdata, so that this data is used to develop thePatentScope initiative.

With regard to activities under Strategic Goal No.4,a great deal has been done with the World Bank.We have come up with a study on theimprovement of assets to HIV/AIDS medicines inAfrica, which will be presented to the Council ofMinisters at its next session. We have come upwith a monogram on ARVs AIDS drugs, which areprotected in ARIPO Member States. This is veryimportant because ideally, we are trying to see howbest we can customize IP information so that it canbe used by other people than those already wellversed with IP. The point has often been made thatthere is a need to support Member States with thedevelopment of guidelines on TRIPS flexibilities aswell as on IP policies. We have already come upwith this document but we are also told that WIPOis busy working on that, and we would want to seehow we can together, come up with these guidelinesso that we can assist our Member States.

As for planned activities, we are trying to makesure that we increase the mandate of theorganization. We have to include other issues suchas plant varieties and geographical indications thatare not covered in depth under ARIPO. It isimportant for us to establish proper synergies with

What are our future activities? We would want tointroduce an IP exhibition to be held concurrentlywith the meetings of the organization’s organs. The Administrative Council is held annually and theCouncil of Ministers once every two years. Then, we are looking to pursue the institutionaldevelopment, including the construction of hostelsto support the training activities. We already havethe training center at ARIPO, but we need to havehostels so that the training activities can besupported through having a place for participants tostay. In this connection, we have just purchased anadditional plot of land and we intend to extend theheadquarters of the organization. Obviously, whenwe have more accommodation, we envisage asituation where we are going to have moreactivities. Most importantly, we are already in theprocess of establishing online linkages with ARIPOMember States. We are conducting a pilot projectwith the Kenya Industrial Property Office (KIPI),whereby instead of sending documentation usingpaper we can now send the documents to allMember States online. This project is also beingimplemented with the assistance of WIPO.

Under Strategic Goal No.2, we have already launchedthe ARIPO legal instrument for the protection of TK.I have already talked about this and we have thedocument in place. What is required now is toorganize a diplomatic conference with a view to itsadoption. The legal instrument that was launched inMaputo was a document intended to guide MemberStates on how best to draft legislation on traditionalknowledge and expressions of folklore. We have alsonoticed that we have a problem with the trademarksystem. Member States have just completed astudy which we have conducted jointly with theInternational Trademark Association. This is a studywhich assesses the situation of trademarks in ourMember States. Ideally, if this study is finished, wewill try to see how best we can improve the BanguiProtocol while at the same time improving thetrademark system among Member States. We arealso trying to support the initiatives which camefrom the Council of Ministers, i.e. the establishment

112

THEME SIX


detail to all the presentations. If I compare thevisions of the two Organizations, but once again, I apologize, it seems to me that OAPI is moreengaged in assisting members, taking advantage ofIP, going from information to creativity and business-oriented, while I have the impression that ARIPO ismore engaged in administration, cooperation but notreally embracing the vision of ARIPO. You will tellme, Sir, that I am wrong and I would like to bewrong. My question is do the two organizations talkamong themselves or are we just Francophones andAnglophones? You can harmonize and benefit fromeach other’s experience.

Second question, in the WTO negotiations we areengaged in negotiating disclosure of origin.




In Africa, we are no longer Anglophone orFrancophone, we are Africaphone. Do you get the point? Very good.


Absolutely, I embrace your views. With regardto the disclosure of origin that we are negotiating inthe WTO negotiations in TRIPS Agreement, forsome we should disclose the origin of the providingcountry and for others it should be of theoriginating country. For example, if an Indiancompany isolates biological materials from a plantin Uganda, and if a US company wants to patenttheir discovery, the US company will disclose theorigin of the providing country, that is India, but notof the originating country, Uganda. What would beyour advice in this complex issue? I hope I amclear. Thank you.

Member States. So far, we have only been incontact with the focal points, i.e. the patent offices,but it is now our desire to make sure that thesecontacts are extended to other focal points such as research institutions and universities.

Last is Strategic Goal No.5, which is to do withcapacity-building. I am pleased to report that,within the cooperation with WIPO and the AfricaUniversity, we have a project dealing with theteaching of IP at a Master’s degree level. Last year,we had 22 students and it is our intention toincrease the number. This year, we have 33, andnext year the number may increase. TheOrganization has a regional training center, andevery year we come up with a training calendarwhich comprises 12 programs, i.e. on average oneactivity every month. We intend to increase thenumber of universities which are teaching IP. Wecurrently only have one, so ideally it has to increaseso that at least every region in Africa has at least aMaster’s degree training institute. These are someof the issues. I cannot mention all of them due totime constraints, but all these are indicated in thedocument in the corresponding folder.

In conclusion, development of legal and institutionalframework in LDCs is being realized through IPawareness-building programs in Member States,through training activities at the ARIPO regionaltraining center, through the development of IPpromotion units at universities, through suchservices which are provided by the organization,and finally through a centralized system of filing,search and examination. Thank you.

Discussion


I have a comment on the presentations and Iapologize if my consideration is not appropriate,because we did not have time to listen carefully in

113

have two cooperation agreements between OAPIand ARIPO. The first cooperation agreement is ageneral cooperation accord on most of the activitiesof OAPI, i.e. on the mandates with which these twoorganizations have been entrusted. The secondagreement deals specifically with cooperation in thefield of training. We are supposed to be exchangingsome experiences in our training activities. Theseare the two cooperation agreements that we have.Other than that, when it comes to certain issues, I did mention this morning that when we weredeveloping a legal framework for the protection oftraditional knowledge and expressions of folklore, wehad an expert group from ARIPO and OAPI. Whateverdocument we came up with, was a document whichhad a lot in common between the two institutions.

Concerning the second question, there are twoorganizations and we have been told that there isan initiative to come up with PIPO. It was realizedthe total number of Member States for these twoorganizations is 32, i.e. is 16 plus 16. I think theAfrican Union’s idea is to come up with a policy-making institution that will guide the Africancountries in the development of IP. It is not anadministrative institution; it is just a policy bodythat will be dealing with policy issues. Otherwise,the issues of administration of IP are dealt with byARIPO and OAPI, and of course, Member Statesthat are still not party to either ARIPO or OAPI.Ideally, all other Member States should be in aposition to join the organization because both theBangui Agreement and the Lusaka Agreementallow any Member State that is a member of theAfrican Union or the United Nations EconomicCommission for Africa to join the organization.



Organisation (OAPI)

Regarding the question raised on PIPO, I wouldsimply like to say that when this product was


I am still confused as to the establishment ofthe Pan African IP Organisation and the existenceof these two organizations, ARIPO and OAPI. Whatis the current position of these organizations, I mean ARIPO and OAPI, on the establishment ofthe Pan African IP Organisation (PIPO)? Thank you.

Delegation of Mali

My first question goes to Professor Odek sincehe spoke about the need for integration of IPactivities in the various States. I know that you are one of the authors of the statutes of PIPO, andwe have heard recently that the Heads of Stateconcerned have endorsed these statutes. We also know that the countries have differentlaws with regard to IP. Are we going to tendtowards harmonization under the auspices of thePIPO, and if such is not the case, does ProfessorOdek think that we should set this course? Shouldwe not try to harmonize our laws on IP amongvarious States, especially within ARIPO and OAPI?

My second question is addressed to the DirectorGeneral of OAPI. He said that universities andresearch centers are really the hubs of creativityand the centers of excellence. We agree that theuniversities and research centers do not file anypatent applications – that is what I have noted. HasOAPI taken any steps to encourage researchcenters and universities to take part in adding valueand really using the IP resources? Thank you.




The first question concerned cooperationbetween ARIPO and OAPI. I have to state that we

114

THEME SIX


inventions and truly utilizing the full potential of IP.OAPI cannot really exert any pressure on thesecenters. I think national governments need toencourage these research centers to take part inthe various fairs or exhibitions on innovativetechnologies. What exactly is the role of theseresearch centers today? Have we given anythought to the matter? Ninety percent of themdepend on the State for their funding, for theirresearch activities – that is the reality. They are civilservants and they do carry out inventions, but thereare inventions devised by employees. Who then isthe patent holder? The State is their employer andthese employees cannot become patent holders.That is at least what our statutes or by laws providefor. Therefore, we need to create a situation inwhich it is in the best interests of these people tofile a patent application because there is not anyparticular incentive for them to file an application.Currently, if a patent is granted, it is thegovernment or the research center for which thatperson works who will reap the benefits.Therefore, we need to try to strike the right balancebetween what should be collected by the inventorhimself and his employing organization. We seethat sometimes for very little money, someone willsell an invention to a foreign company, an inventionthat could be the source of great economic profit.Thank you.




There is a communication to do with PanAfrican IP Organisation (PIPO), which states thatPIPO did not come as an agenda item in the lastAssembly of Heads of States. The progress reportof PIPO was sent to them, and PIPO was referredback to the Ministers. Thank you.

submitted to us initially, we looked at it, reflectedon whether it was a good idea or not. The Headsof State decided that we should be in contact withthe AU, ARIPO and our Organization to define, tolay the foundation for a PIPO. However, werealized that it would be very unwieldy – aSecretariat, a Coordination Committee, a Council,administrators, at least 10 bodies that would beexcessively costly for the AU and African countries.If you look at the example of the European Union,there is the EPO, there is the Eurasian PatentOffice, and these are technical entities that areoperational, but are not so to speak EU bodies.Since the AU has drawn inspiration from the EU,we thought we should look to EU bodies as amodel. We think that those who first devised theidea of the Pan African Organization had perhapsnot analyzed the reality in sufficient depth. TheAdministrative Council of OAPI did study the issueand decided that we were not yet ready to takepart in this initiative for the time being.

Rwanda raised the issue of disclosure of origin.Currently, as far as I know, the issue of disclosureof origin of genetic resources has not yet beensettled at WIPO or WTO. No international treatyhas settled the matter to date. This is still adebated matter and there are significant interestsat stake whether or not to declare the geneticorigin of a plant that made it possible to carry outan invention. This is of great strategic importanceand this issue is still being debated between theNorth and the South. No one is really willing tocompromise. However, countries such asSwitzerland think that it would be quite possible toamend various treaties such as the PCT tointroduce the disclosure of the genetic origin of asubstance that made it possible to embody aninvention. Please correct me if I am wrong. but Ithink that is the current situation regarding that matter.

Mali spoke of centers of excellence that do not playan active role in using IP. We find it regrettable theyhave a somewhat different position regarding

115

adopted a resolution to the effect that PIPO shallbe established. What the Heads of States referredback to the Ministers is to sort out theadministrative structure, how PIPO shall relate tothe African Union.

Most specifically to the question of Sudan, PIPO as a Forum was intended to enable the experts inAfrica to meet and advise the Ministers to make apolicy decision. In particular, when you speak oftraditional knowledge, genetic resources, we do nothave a common African position. That was to bethe forum to discuss contemporary issues relatingto IP in Africa.

Mr. Chairman, let me just take another second torespond to a question from Rwanda that has notbeen answered, relating to disclosure requirementswithin the WTO system and the advice that onewould give. Now, we are still negotiating the twocompeting issues, yes, disclosure but disclosure asto what, originating country or providing country.For us in Africa the advice I would give is that ourconcern is to prevent misappropriation of ourgenetic resources. Our concern is the recognitionof our proprietary rights with regards to geneticresources. Our concern is the affirmation ofownership of our genetic resources and preventingbad patents. When you take all these four issues,then the direction that we are going is that weneed the prior informed consent of the originatingcountry so the advice is originating not providing.




Thank you so much. You have been anexcellent audience. I have enjoyed being your Chair for this Session.

Delegation of Sudan

With regard to the Pan African IP Organization, Ithink that as stated by Mr. Sibanda it is concernedwith making policies. What about the Council ofMinisters in the organization and its concern withpublic policies? There might be contradictions later.Can we have an answer in this area, please?




When the idea was mooted to form PIPO,there were two main options. One was whetherwe intended to form an IP administration office, sothat we would have a single African patent,whereby you can make an application to get anAfrican patent or not. Upon deliberation, it wasclearly agreed that Africa was not yet ready to havea scenario where we can issue an African patent.The consequence thereof was that the draftstatutes of PIPO do not establish a single IP officein Africa. Second, the Council of Ministers forScience and Technology resolved that what wasgoing to be set up was a Pan African Forum wherewe can discuss IP issues of interest to Africa. Itwas recognized that there is no forum at presentwhere we as Africans could meet and discuss ourissues as pertains to IP. Many a time we have tomeet in Geneva under the invitation and auspicesof WIPO. It was felt that there was a need for aForum where we could meet as Africans, discussand dialogue on our unique experiences andformulate a common position on IP issues.

In summary, what happened at Libya when theHeads of States met two/three weeks ago wasthat the agenda of PIPO was not presented. Theprogress report was given. The progress report isthe Articles constituting PIPO were approved by theMinisters for Science and Technology for thecontinent. The Heads of States have already

116

CONCLUSIONS AND CLOSING CEREMONY


First, let me begin by reading the preambular part:

“We, the Ministers participating in the High LevelForum on Intellectual Property for the LeastDeveloped Countries (LDCs): the Strategic Use ofIntellectual Property for Prosperity andDevelopment organized by the World IntellectualProperty Organization in Geneva on 23 and 24 July 2009;

Having discussed the policy and technical issuesregarding the integration of intellectual property inthe national development strategies of the LDCsfor prosperity and development and the challengesfaced by them and the opportunities available tothem in this regard;

Recalling the Agenda for Action for the LeastDeveloped Countries in the World IntellectualProperty Organization adopted in Geneva on 12December 2007 by the High Level Forum onIntellectual Property for the LDCs: BuildingCapacity and A Knowledge Base for WealthCreation, Social and Cultural Development andcalling for its continued implementation;

Recognizing that despite their efforts to build upsustainable national IP institutions and capacity,the LDCs face severe constraints such as ashortage of resources and a weak and sometimesnon existent intellectual property infrastructureand policy framework;

Recognizing further that intellectual propertyprotection is having an increasing impact on ourcountries’ technological, economic, cultural andsocial progress, and that the creation, protection,management and use of intellectual property rightswould contribute to economic development byfacilitating the transfer of technology, increasingemployment and creating wealth;

Noting that the WIPO Development Agenda hasagreed on a number of recommendations tosupport IP institutions and capacity building in the

C o n c l u s i o n s

a n d C l o s i n g C e r e m o n y




Chairman of the Coordination council of Least


Excellencies, Honorable distinguished guestswho have participated in this auspicious occasion,since the morning’s session, I have received somecomments from delegations on the draftDeclaration. I have understood the concerns of myLDC brothers and sisters who speak French,because the draft is in English only. I am very sorrythat we are not able to translate the document intoFrench given the short time. I am therefore askingmy delegation to read out the document so thatyou can hear it in French. I am also requesting theSecretariat to circulate the latest version to you all.Thank you.


I will read the text slowly so that it is translatedclearly. “Draft Geneva Ministerial Declaration –Agenda for the Strategic Use of IP for Prosperityand Development of the LDCs Adopted at the High-Level Forum on IP for the LDCs,” and then we putthe date and place before the preambular part.

The preambular part reads as follows. We havebeen receiving some comments and we have triedto incorporate those that are editorial and minor innature in the text. There are some additionalcomments that we have received, and at the end ofreading the draft we will mention a couple ofparagraphs and an idea that we have received fromtwo delegations.

117

access of the LDCs to technological informationand appreciate the Director General’s efforts aswell as the role of the participating privatesector entities in its realization;

4. Emphasize the importance of addressing thechallenges facing our countries regarding IPinstitution-building with a renewed sense ofpurpose and seeking to strengthening regionaland international cooperation in the use ofintellectual property to promote povertyalleviation, national prosperity and development;

5. Decide to participate actively in deliberations invarious international fora, particularly withinWIPO, on the wealth-creation effect ofintellectual property including at the nationallevel in formulating strategies, policies, plansand mechanisms;

6. Decide to further strengthen the protection anduse of national cultural and artistic creations,particularly relating to traditional culturalexpressions such as folklore, through thecopyright and related rights systems and otherappropriate mechanisms and call upon WIPO torender assistance to the LDCs in this regard;

7. Decide to intensify cooperation with WIPO toscale up the use of trademarks, service marks,designs and geographical indications ineconomic activities, especially in brandingselected export products of LDCs;

8. Urge WIPO to enhance its assistance to theLDCs in meeting all their IP objectives; inparticular, attention to be paid to supportingcreative, inventive and innovative activity in ourcountries across all economic sectors includingthrough the involvement of universities, R&Dinstitutions and technical skills developmentinstitutions, and in this context emphasize theneed for commercialization of research outputthrough linkage with the market and theprivate sector;

LDCs to promote national development as well asto promote awareness in the LDCs;

Reaffirming the vital importance of improving theinstitutional and policy framework for themodernization and development of the intellectualproperty systems and institutions of the LDCs;

Realizing the importance of intellectual property tocritical policy fields of food security, sustainableagriculture, health, education, employment, trade,investment, culture and heritage, environment andscientific and technological development;

Appreciating the initiative of the Director General ofWIPO for establishing innovation and technologicalsupport centers for technological capacity buildingfor development in the LDCs;

Acknowledging that rapid changes in digitaltechnology have made copyright economicallyimportant, and that the contributions of copyrightsystems to national economies are noteworthy interms of their contribution to economic, social andcultural development;”

Now, I come to the operative parts:

1. “Urge WIPO to contribute to the realization ofthe United Nations Millennium DevelopmentGoals especially in the context of using IP as atool for development and request WIPO tocooperate fully with LDCs delegation for thepreparation of the Fourth United NationsConference for LDCs in 2011;

2. Call upon WIPO to fully implement the WIPODevelopment Agenda recommendationspertaining to the LDCs, from its regular budgetand through generation of additional resourcesfor supporting IP-related activities in the LDCs;

3. Welcome the launching of the Access toResearch and Development of Innovation (aRDi)service during this Forum for enhancing the

118



working closely with the Division for LeastDeveloped Countries on the implementation ofthis Agenda and promoting more WIPOactivities related to the LDCs;

17. Extend our appreciation and gratitude to theDirector General of WIPO for his new initiativesfor the benefits of LDCs, the excellentarrangements made for the Conference and forhis warm hospitality during the Conference.”

“Geneva, Switzerland, and the date”

In addition, we have received two comments, twospecific paragraphs. Let me read them both for theconsideration of the floor. The first input that wereceived goes like this:

“Underscore the importance of creating, enablingnational framework for the use of intellectualproperty in economic, social and culturaldevelopment, and in that context seek to cooperatewith WIPO in formulating national innovationstrategies taking into account the level ofdevelopment of each individual LDC.”

This builds on, I believe, from the initial remarksalso made by the Director General, when hementioned formulating national innovationstrategies that will have linkages with overalldevelopment activity in our countries.

The second input that we have received goes like this:

“Call upon the Director General for a separatesection of Program and Budget for the LDCs in its biennial program and budget.”

With this I submit the text for your consideration.Thank you.

9. Calls upon WIPO to support LDCs in improvingthe competitiveness of their enterprises,including small, medium and micro enterprises,through enhancing their ability to gain regularaccess to new ideas and technologies;

10. Requests WIPO to assist LDCs in promotingpublic private partnerships to facilitate developmentfriendly IP utilization in these countries;

11. Express their appreciation to the WIPO DirectorGeneral for his efforts to generate additionalresources for the development of IP institutionsand systems for the benefit of LDCs andencourage him to further pursue his efforts forthe establishment of the Funds in Trust orsimilar resources for the benefit of LDCs asagreed in recommendation 2 of the WIPODevelopment Agenda in particular for the use of LDCs;

12. Urge all donors to actively support and participatein the efforts of the Director General to establishFunds in Trust for the benefit of LDCs;

13. Decide to raise the profile and inclusivity of thefuture High Level Forums to enhance thevisibility of LDCs in WIPO;

14. Call upon the Director General to ensure thatthe outcome of this High Level Forum is fullytaken into account by WIPO and that theDivision for the Least Developed Countriesprepare periodic reports on its implementation;

15. Take note with appreciation the DirectorGeneral’s continued efforts to strengthen theLDCs Division and emphasize the need fordeploying further financial and human resourcesto enhance the delivery capacity of the Divisionin response to the growing IP-related needs ofthe LDCs;

16. Emphasize the need for enhancing coordinationof LDCs delegations in WIPO with a view to

119

organizations in LDCs, especially as regardsdeveloping infrastructure, promoting technologytransfer and training managerial level staff.

My third suggestion would be to request that WIPObuild the capacity of OAPI and ARIPO whilerespecting the principle of subsidiarity. Those aremy three suggestions. Thank you.






We will work with your delegation toaccommodate your suggestions. Thank you.

Delegation of Nepal

Actually, I do not have any comment; I just wantto support your two edits. For the sake of uniformityof language, I would suggest removing the ‘s’ from“calls” in paragraph 9, because we have used onlyplural sentences. Similarly, in paragraph 10 “requests”.All other words above are in the plural, so I do notthink that it is necessary. Thank you.






You are quite right; we have done it in a hurryso we will correct it properly. Thank you. I see nofurther comments, so may we adopt this historicaldeclaration by acclamation, as adopted with these provisos.




My delegation supports this initiative andcommends you and other colleagues who initiatedthis idea. In operative paragraph 12, namely “urgeall donors”, I think it is better to say developmentpartners rather than donors.

In one of the preambular paragraphs, which startswith “realizing the importance of intellectualproperty, incorporates the fields such as foodsecurity, sustainable culture, health, education,employment, trade investment culture and heritagewealth and scientific involvement”, I think this one isquite a mouthful, because all we are really talkingabout is social and economic transformation. I thinkwe can say for social and economic transformationor even broader in perspective than narrowing itdown. I hate the use of expressions such assustainable agriculture or sustainable growth. Theseare words used by those fellows who do not wantus to develop. Sustainable growth, what issustainable growth? It is like telling a woman who ispregnant to have sustained pregnancy. There mustbe transformation of the child within the mother’swomb; there must be birth and growth. We aretalking about social transformation, not sustainablegrowth. Thank you.


I also fully support this initiative to adopt aMinisterial Declaration at the end of this Forum. Iwould like to make a few suggestions, three in fact.

The first is the industrial application in LDCs ofpatents in a public domain, so that IP can be a truevehicle for stimulating foreign direct investment.

The second suggestion is to request that WIPOprovide institutional support to national IP

120



Delegation of Mali

I would like to make a final suggestion. Did we talk about the fight against piracy in the musicfield? I would have wished to see a request toWIPO to take measures to combat piracy in thefield of music because this is a potential source ofrevenue for the LDCs. Thank you.






That is a good point. We will also include this point. Thank you. Now can we adopt thisDeclaration with the amendments?




Mr. Chairman, I move that this historicDeclaration be hereby adopted as amended.






Thank you all for taking this historical adopteddocument, now it is finalized as you amended.Thank you Excellencies. We will circulate thisamended Declaration to all the delegations whoparticipated and also to the Embassies.

121

A N N E X 1

P R O G R A M

Thursday, July 23, 2009

9.00 – 10.00 Registration

10.00 – 10.30 Opening Ceremony

Welcome addresses by:

Dr. Francis Gurry, Director General, World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO),Geneva

His Excellency Mr. Dilip Barua, Minister for Industries, Government of the People’sRepublic of Bangladesh; Chairman of the Coordination Council of the Least DevelopedCountries (LDCs), Dhaka

10.30 – 12.00 Special Plenary: The Strategic Use of Intellectual Property (IP) for Prosperity andDevelopment

Addresses by:

His Excellency Mr. Roger Dovonou, Minister for Industry, Minister of Industry, Cotonou

His Excellency Mr. Juneydi Saddo, Minister for Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, Addis Ababa

Her Excellency Mrs. Mpeo Mahase Moiloa, Minister for Law and Constitutional Affairs,Maseru

His Excellency Mr. Richard Fienena, Minister for Economy and Industry, Ministry of Economy and Industry, Antananarivo

His Excellency Mr. Mohamed Rasheed, Minister for Economic Development, Ministry of Economic Development, Male

His Excellency Mr. Ahmadou Abdoulaye Diallo, Minister for Industry, Investments and Trade, Ministry of Industry, Investments and Trade, Bamako

His Excellency Mr. Dan Bahadur Chaudhary, State Minister for Industries, Ministry of Industry, Kathmandu

His Excellency Mr. Fredrick Ruhindi, Deputy Attorney General and Minister of State,Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs, Kampala

122

ANNEX 1


Her Excellency Mrs. Mary Nagu, Minister for Industry, Trade and Marketing, Ministry of Industry, Trade and Marketing, Dar-es-Salaam

12.00 – 12.15 Presentation on the Access to Research for Development and Innovation Service (ARDI)for LDCs

Speaker: Mr. Yo Takagi, Executive Director, Global Intellectual Property InfrastructureDepartment, WIPO

12.15 – 13.00 Inauguration of Access to Research for Development and Innovation Service (ARDI)

Inaugural speeches by:

Dr. Francis Gurry

H.E. Mr. Dilip Barua

Mr. Sergei Ordzhonikidze, Director General, United Nations Office in Geneva (UNOG),Geneva

Mr. Jens Bammel, Secretary General, International Publishers Association (IPA), Geneva

13.00 – 14.30 Lunch Break

Theme One: Integrating IP into National Development Policy and Strategies of the LDCs

Moderator: H.E. Mrs. Mpeo Mahase Moiloa

14.30 – 15.00 Lead Speaker: Mr. James Otieno-Odek, Managing Director, Kenya Industrial Property Institute (KIPI), Ministry of Industrialization, Nairobi

15.00 – 15.15 (a) The Role of IP in Reducing Poverty, Fostering Development and Wealth Creation

Panelist: Mr. Keith E. Maskus, Associate Dean for Social Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado

15.15 – 15.30 (b) IP and Public Policy Issues

Panelist: Mr. James Otieno-Odek

123

Theme Two: The Strategic Importance of Transfer of Technology and Technological Capacity

Building for the Development of LDCs

Moderator: H.E. Mr. Juneydi Saddo

15.30 – 16.00 Lead Speaker: Mr. Keith E. Maskus

16.00 – 16.15 (a) Linking Universities and Research Centers to Public and Private Sector for theManagement, Promotion and Commercialization of IP Assets; Spin-offs and Start-ups

Panelist: Mr. Yuke Chin Lee, IP Consultant, Malaysian Invention and Design Society (MINDS), Kuala Lumpur

16.15 – 16.30 (b) The Importance of Patent Documents for the Extraction of Technological Informationfor Technological Development: The Malaysian Experience

Panelist: Mr. Yuke Chin Lee

16.30 – 16.45 Coffee Break

Theme Three: Sharing of Experience with some LDCs on the Wealth Creation Effect

of Trademarks, Service Marks, Geographical Indications and Industrial Designs

Moderator: H.E. Mrs. Mary Nagu

16.45 – 17.15 Lead Speaker: Mr. Getachew Mengistie, IP Law Consultant and Attorney; former Director General of the Ethiopian Intellectual Property Office (EIPO), Addis Ababa

17.15 – 17.30 (a) Geographical Indications and its application in LDCs: The experience of the African Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI)

Panelist: Mr. Paulin Edou Edou, Director General, African Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI), Yaoundé

17.30 – 17.45 (b) Using Industrial Designs for Value Addition in Products and Services of LDCs

Panelist: Mr. Getachew Mengistie

17.45 – 18.00 Discussions

18.00 WIPO Reception

124

ANNEX 1


Friday, July 24, 2009

Theme Four: Role and Contribution of Copyright and Related Rights and Collective

Management Societies for Economic Growth and Development of LDCs

Moderator: H.E. Mr. Richard Fienena

10.00 – 10.30 Lead Speaker: Mr. Daniel J. Gervais, Professor of Law, Director, Technology andEntertainment Law Program, Vanderbilt University Law School, Nashville

10.30 – 10.45 (a) Copyright and Related Rights: Striking the Balance Between Protection and the Public Interest

Panelist: Mr. David Uwemedimo, Director of Legal Affairs, International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC), Paris

10.45 – 11.00 (b) Copyright Collective Management Societies and New Technologies

Panelist: Mr. Daniel J. Gervais


Theme Five: Traditional Knowledge, Genetic Resources and Traditional Cultural

Expressions: Preserving Traditional and Cultural Assets and Creating Wealth

Moderator: H.E. Mr. Roger Dovonou

11.15 – 11.45 Lead Speaker: Mr. Wend Wendland, Acting Director and Head, Traditional Creativity, Cultural Expressions and Cultural Heritage Section, WIPO

11.45 – 12.00 (a) Exploitation of Traditional Knowledge and Folklore and its Contribution to Sustainable Development in LDCs: from Farm to Pharma, the Experience of South Africa fromResearch to Commercialization

Panelist: Mr. Motlalepula Gilbert Matsabisa, Director, Indigenous Knowledge Systems (Health) Lead Programme (IKS), South African Medical Research Council, Cape Town

12.00 – 12.15 (b) Protecting Traditional Knowledge and Folklore in LDCs

Panelist: Mr. Gift Huggins Sibanda, Director General, African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO), Harare

125


12.30 – 14.00 Lunch Break

Theme Six: Regional Cooperation in IP: Promoting Synergies and Building Partnerships

Moderator: H.E. Mr. Fredrick Ruhindi

14.00 – 14.30 Lead Speaker: Mr. James Otieno-Odek

14.30 – 14.45 (a) The Role of the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) in IP Institution Building for LDCs

Panelist: Mr. Gift Huggins Sibanda

14.45 – 15.00 (b) The Role of OAPI in IP Institution Building for LDCs

Panelist: Mr. Paulin Edou Edou



15.30 – 18.00 Conclusions and Closing Ceremony

126

A N N E X 2ANNEX 2


BENIN

Roger DOVONOU, ministre de l’industrie, Ministèrede l’industrie, Cotonou

François ADANDE, directeur du Centre national dela propriété industrielle (CENAPI), Ministère de l’industrie, Cotonou

Naïm AKIBOU, premier conseiller, Missionpermanente, Genève

BHUTAN

Tandin TSHERING, Deputy Registrar, IntellectualProperty Division, Ministry of Economic Affairs,Thimphu

Tenzin CHODA, Minister Counselor, PermanentMission, Geneva

BURKINA FASO

Gomkoudougou Roger ZANGRE, directeur, Agencenationale de la valorisation des résultats de larecherche (ANVAR) au sein du Centre national de larecherche scientifique et technologique (CNRST),Ouagadougou

Dieudonné SOUGOURI, deuxième conseiller,chargé d’affaires a.i., Mission permanente, Genève

Mireille SOUGOURI (Mme), attaché, Missionpermanente, Genève

L i s t o f P a r t i c i p a n t s

I. Members (in French alphabetical order)

AFGHANISTAN

Mozammil SHINWARI, Adviser to Minister, Ministryof Commerce and Industry, Kabul

Akhshid JAVID, Third Secretary, Permanent Mission,Geneva

BANGLADESH

Dilip BARUA, Minister for Industries, Ministry ofIndustries, Dhaka

Md. Abdul HANNAN, Ambassador, PermanentRepresentative, Permanent Mission, Geneva

Md. Enamul HOQUE, Joint Secretary, Departmentof Patents, Designs and Trademarks, Dhaka

Muhammed Enayet MOWLA, Minister, PermanentMission, Geneva

Faiyaz Murshid KAZI, First Secretary, PermanentMission, Geneva

Mohammed Nore-ALAM, First Secretary,Permanent Mission, Geneva

127

ETHIOPIA

Juneydi SADO, Minister for Science andTechnology, Ministry of Science and Technology,Addis Ababa

Fisseha YIMER, Ambassador, PermanentRepresentative, Permanent Mission, Geneva

Alemu ABEBE, Acting Director General, EthiopianIntellectual Property Office (EIPO), Addis Ababa

Shumu TEFERA, Director of Technology TransferDirectorate, Ministry of Science and Technology,Addis Ababa

GUINEA

Mohamed CAMARA, ambassadeur, représentantpermanent, Mission permanente, Genève

Aboubacar SYLLA, administrateur civil, Service depropriété industrielle, Conakry

Aminata KOUROUMA-MIKALA (Mme), premiersecrétaire, chargé des affaires commerciales etéconomiques, Mission permanente, Genève

GUINEA-BISSAU

Inácio A. Junior DA SILVA, directeur, Service desmarques, Direction de la propriété industrielle,Bissau

BURUNDI

Vianney NIYUKURI, directeur de la propriétéindustrielle et de la documentation, Ministère ducommerce, de l’industrie et du tourisme, Bujumbura

Alain Aimé NYAMITWE, premier conseiller, Missionpermanente, Genève

CAMBODIA

Tina DITH, Under Secretary of State in Charge ofIntellectual Property Rights, Ministry of Commerce,Phnom Penh

Sovann KE, Deputy Permanent Representative,Permanent Mission, Geneva

Sokheng SIM, Deputy Director, Department ofIntellectual Property Rights, Phnom Penh

Bunthon THAY, First Secretary, Permanent Mission,Geneva

COMOROS

Msoma BASTOINE, secrétaire général, Ministèrede l’énergie, des mines, de l’industrie et del’artisanat, Moroni

DJIBOUTI

Aboubaker ABDOURAHMAN YOUSSOUFABOUBAKER, chef du Service du développementindustriel, Ministère du commerce et de l’industrie,Djibouti

Djama Mahamoud ALI, Mission permanente,Genève

128

ANNEX 2


Tsotetsi MAKONG, First Secretary, PermanentMission, Geneva

MADAGASCAR

Richard Désiré FIENENA, ministre de l’économie et de l’industrie, Ministère de l’économie et del’industrie, Antananarivo

Guy RAJEMISON RAKOTOMAHARO, ambassadeur,Mission permanente, Genève

Andry RAHARINOMENA, conseiller principal auprèsdu ministre, Ministère de l’économie et del’industrie, Antananarivo

Jocellin ANDRIANIRIANAZAKA, directeur général,Office malgache de la propriété industrielle(OMAPI), Ministère de l’économie et de l’industrie,Antananarivo

Eric BEANTANANA, attaché, Mission permanente,Genève

MALDIVES

Mohamed RASHEED, Minister for EconomicDevelopment, Ministry of Economic Development,Malé

Sinanath HASHIM (Miss), Trade Officer, IntellectualProperty Office, Ministry of EconomicDevelopment, Malé

Abdulla THAWFEEQ, First Secretary, PermanentMission, Geneva

EQUATORIAL GUINEA

Leandro MBOMIO NSUE, Presidente, Consejo deInvestigaciones Científicas y Tecnológicas (CICTE),Malabo

Joaquin M. BACHENG, Presidente, Consejo deInvestigaciones Cientificas y Tecnologicas (CICTE),Malabo

German EKUA SIMA, Secrétaire, Missionpermanente, Genève

HAITI

Jean-Claude PIERRE, chargé d’affaires a.i., Mission permanente, Genève

Samuel BIEN AIMÉ, chef, Section des brevetsd’invention, Ministère du commerce et de l’industrie,Port-au-Prince

Pierre Mary Guy SAINT-AMOUR, conseiller, Mission permanente, Genève

Gladys FLORESTAL (Mlle), premier secrétaire,Mission permanente, Genève

LESOTHO

Mpeo MAHASE MOILOA (Mrs.), Minister for Law and Constitutional Affairs, and for Justice and Human Rights and Rehabilitation, Ministry ofLaw and Constitutional Affairs, and of Justice andHuman Rights and Rehabilitation, Maseru

Mothae A. MARUPING, Ambassador, PermanentRepresentative, Permanent Mission, Geneva

Sentsuoe Ntseliseng MOHAU (Mrs.), RegistrarGeneral, Ministry of Law and Constitutional Affairs,Maseru

129

NEPAL

Dan Bahadur CHAUDHARY, Minister of State for Industry, Kathmandu

Ganesh Prasad DHAKAL, Joint Secretary, Ministryof Commerce and Supplies, Kathmandu

Dinesh BHATTARAI, Ambassador, Public Relations,Permanent Mission, Geneva

Ravi BHATTARAI, Permanent Mission, Geneva

NIGER

Jérôme Oumarou TRAPSIDA, directeur dudéveloppement industriel, Ministère du commerceet de l’industrie et de la normalisation, Niamey

SAMOA

Margaret Agnes FRUEAN (Miss), Assistant ChiefExecutive Officer, Registries of Companies and IPDivision, Ministry of Commerce, Industry andLabour, Apia

SAO TOMÉ-ET-PRINCIPE/SAO TOME AND PRINCIPE

Maria Jose Dos Santos RITA AFONSO (Mme),technicienne supérieure responsable de la Divisionadministrative, Direction de l’industrie (SENAPI),Sao Tomé

MALI

Ahmadou Abdoulaye DIALLO, ministre, Ministèrede l’industrie, des investissements et ducommerce, Bamako

Mamadou Dit Cheickne DOUCOURE, directeur,Centre malien de promotion de la propriétéindustrielle (CEMAPI), Bamako

Alhacoum MAÏGA, conseiller, Mission permanente,Genève

MAURITANIA

Mohamed Yacoub BOUMEDIANA, directeur adjointdu développement industriel, Ministère del’industrie et des Mines, Nouakchott

Abdallah OULD ISHAQ, premier conseiller, Mission permanente, Genève

MOZAMBIQUE

Agonias Antonio MACIA, Head of Department,Ministry of Industry and Trade, Maputo

José Egídio PAULO, Commercial Counsellor,Permanent Mission, Geneva

MYANMAR

Thein MYINT, Deputy Director, Ministry of Scienceand Technology, Yangon

Khin Thidar AYE, Myanmar Mission, Geneva

Li Wunna Maung LWIN, Myanmar Mission, Geneva

130

ANNEX 2


UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA

Mary NAGU (Mrs.), Minister for Industry, Trade and Marketing, Ministry of Industry, Trade andMarketing, Dar-es-Salaam

Esteriano Emmanuel MAHINGILA, Chief ExecutiveOfficer, Registrar, Ministry of Industry, Trade andMarketing, Dar-es-Salaam

RWANDA

Venetia SEBUDANDI (Mme), ambassadeur,représentant permanent, Mission permanente,Genève

Cynthia L. KAMIKAZI (Mme), Multilateral Officer,Permanent Mission, Geneva

Sophie Sonia NZEYIMANA, Trade and DevelopmentAdvisor, Permanent Mission, Geneva

SENEGAL

Babacar Carlos MBAYE, ambassadeur, représentantpermanent, Mission permanente, Genève

Mare LO, directeur de Cabinet du ministre d’état,Ministère des mines, de l’industrie, de latransformation alimentaire des produits Agricoles et des PME, Dakar

N’Dèye Adji DIOP SALL (Mme), chef du Service de la propriété intellectuelle, Ministère des mines,de l’industrie de la transformation alimentaire desproduits agricoles et des PMA, Dakar

Ibou BOYE, deuxième conseiller, Missionpermanente, Genève

UGANDA

Fredrick RUHINDI, Deputy Attorney General and Minister of State, Ministry of Justice andConstitutional Affairs, Kampala

Maurice KAGIMU, Ambassador, PermanentMission, Geneva

Kyomuhendo BISEREKO, Registrar General,Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs,Uganda Registration Services Bureau, Kampala

Benjamin MUKABIRE, Second Secretary,Permanent Mission, Geneva

CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

Jean-Louis NDIBA, directeur général dudéveloppement industriel, Ministère du commerceet de l’industrie, Bangui

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO

Antoine MINDUA KESIA-MBE, ambassadeur,représentant permanent, Mission permanente,Genève

Sébastien MUTOMB MUJING, ministre conseiller,Mission permanente, Genève

Fidèle SAMBASSI KHAKESSA, ministre conseiller,Mission permanente, Genève

Henriette KAYEMBE (Mme), premier conseiller,Mission permanente, Genève

131

YEMEN

Fadhl AL-MAGHAFI, Minister, Permanent Mission,Geneva

Fawaz AL-RASSAS, Second Secretary, PermanentMission, Geneva

Nagib HAMIM, Attaché (Commercial Affairs),Permanent Mission, Geneva

ZAMBIA

Darlington MWAPE, Ambassador, PermanentRepresentative, Permanent Mission, Geneva

Anessie Michael Banda BOBO (Mrs.), Registrar,Patents and Companies Registration Office(PACRO), Lusaka

Christopher M. SITWALA, First Secretary (Legal),Permanent Mission, Geneva

Lillian BWALYA (Mrs.), First Secretary (Trade),Permanent Mission, Geneva

SUDAN

John Ukec Lueth UKEC, Ambassador, PermanentRepresentative, Permanent Mission, Geneva

John Simon YOR, Ambassador, Director ofInternational Law and Treaties Department, Ministryof Foreign Affairs, Khartoum

Hurria Ismail ABDEL MOHSIN (Mrs.), ActingRegistrar General of Intellectual Property, IntellectualProperty Office, Ministry of Justice, Khartoum

Osman MOHAMMED, First Secretary, PermanentMission, Geneva

CHAD

Allazam Mahamat ADOUDOU, directeur de l’actioncoopérative, Ministère du commerce et del’industrie, N’djamena

Ndade Mandagua DJIMASBEYE (Mme), conseilleréconomique, Mission permanente, Genève

TOGO

Komlan Abalo AHENOU, chef de la division de lapropriété industrielle, Institut national de la propriétéindustrielle et de la technologie (INPIT), Lomé

132

ANNEX 2


I I I . I n t e r n a t i o n a l

N o n - G o v e r n m e n t a l

O r g a n i z a t i o n s

International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers (STM)

Maurice LONG, Director, Publishing PartnershipProgrammes, OxfordCarlo Scollo Lavizzari, Legal Counsel, Bâle

Union internationale des éditeurs (UIE)/InternationalPublishers Association (IPA)

Jens BAMMEL, Secretary General, Geneva

I I . I n t e r n a t i o n a l

I n t e r g o v e r n m e n t a l

O r g a n i z a t i o n s

Office des Nations Unies à Genève(ONUG)/United Nations Office at Geneva (UNOG)

Sergei ORDZHONIKIDZE, Director General, UnitedNations Office in Geneva (UNOG), Geneva

Organisation Régionale Africaine de laPropriété Intellectuelle (ARIPO)/africanRegional Intellectual PropertyOrganization (ARIPO)

Gift Huggins SIBANDA, Director General, Harare

Organisation Africaine de la PropriétéIntellectuelle (Oapi)/african Intellectual Property Organisation (OAPI)

Paulin EDOU EDOU, directeur général, Yaoundé

133

V. S e c r e t a r i a t o f t h e

Wo r l d I n t e l l e c t u a l

P r o p e r t y O r g a n i z a t i o n

( W I P O )

Francis GURRY, directeur général/Director General

Narendra K. SABHARWAL, vice-directeur général,Secteur de la Coopération pour ledéveloppement/Deputy Director General,Cooperation for Development Sector

Kifle SHENKORU, directeur, Division pour les paysles moins avancés/Director, Division for Least Developed Countries

I V. S p e a k e r s(in the order of their presentations)

James OTIENO-ODEK, Managing Director, KenyaIndustrial Property Institute (KIPI), Ministry of Industrialization, Nairobi

Keith E. MASKUS, Associate Dean for SocialSciences, College of Arts and Sciences, Professor, Dpt. of Economics, University of Colorado, Boulder

Yuke Chin LEE, Intellectual Property Consultant,Malaysian Invention and Design Society (MINDS), Kuala Lumpur

Getachew MENGISTIE, Intellectual Property LawConsultant and Attorney, former Director General of the Ethiopian Intellectual Property Office (EIPO),Addis Ababa

Paulin EDOU EDOU, Director General, AfricanIntellectual Property Organization (OAPI), Yaoundé

Daniel J. GERVAIS, Professor of Law, Director,Technology and Entertainment Law Program,Vanderbilt University Law School, Nashville

David UWEMEDIMO, Director of Legal Affairs,International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC), Paris

Wend WENDLAND, Acting Director and Head,Traditional Creativity, Cultural Expressions andCultural Heritage Section, WIPO

Motlalepula Gilbert MATSABISA, Director,Indigenous Knowledge Systems (Health) LeadProgramme (IKS), South African Medical ResearchCouncil, Cape Town

Gift Huggins SIBANDA, Director General, AfricanRegional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO),Harare

134

A N N E X 3ANNEX 3


Ministerial Declaration on Intellectual Propertyfor the Least Developed Countries

An Agenda for the Strategic Use of Intellectual Property for Prosperity and Development in the Least Developed Countries

We, the Ministers participating in the High-Level Forum on Intellectual Property for the Least DevelopedCountries (LDCs): the Strategic Use of Intellectual Property for Prosperity and Development organized bythe World Intellectual Property Organization in Geneva on July 23 and 24, 2009;

Having discussed the policy and technical issues regarding the integration of intellectual property into thenational development strategies of LDCs for prosperity and development, the challenges faced by themand the opportunities available to them in this regard;

Recalling the Agenda for Action for the Least Developed Countries in the World Intellectual PropertyOrganization, adopted in Geneva on December 12, 2007 by the High-Level Forum on Intellectual Propertyfor the LDCs: Building Capacity and a Knowledge Base for Wealth Creation, Social and CulturalDevelopment, and calling for its continued implementation;

Recognizing that, despite their efforts to build up sustainable national IP institutions and capacity, LDCs face severe constraints such as a shortage of resources and a weak and sometimes non-existentintellectual property infrastructure and policy framework;

Recognizing further that intellectual property protection is having an increasing impact on our countries’technological, economic, cultural and social progress, and that the creation, protection, management anduse of intellectual property rights would contribute to economic development by facilitating the transfer oftechnology, increasing employment and creating wealth;

Noting that the WIPO Development Agenda has agreed on a number of recommendations to support IP institutions and capacity building in LDCs in order to promote national development;

Reaffirming the vital importance of improving the institutional and policy framework for the modernizationand development of the intellectual property systems and institutions of LDCs;

Realizing the importance of intellectual property for social and economic transformation in LDCs;

Appreciating the initiative of the Director General of WIPO for establishing innovation and technologicalsupport centers for technological capacity building for development;

Acknowledging that rapid changes in digital technology have made copyright economically important, and that the contributions of copyright systems to national economies are noteworthy in terms of theircontribution to economic, social and cultural development;

135

18. Urge WIPO to contribute to the realization of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals,especially in the context of using IP as a tool for development, and request WIPO to cooperate fullywith the LDC delegation for the preparation of the Fourth United Nations Conference for LDCs in 2011;

19. Call upon WIPO to fully implement the WIPO Development Agenda recommendations pertaining toLDCs from its regular budget and through generation of additional resources for supporting IP-relatedactivities in LDCs;

20. Welcome the launching of the Access to Research and Development of Innovation (ARDI) serviceduring this Forum, for enhancing the access of LDCs to technological information, and appreciate theDirector General’s efforts, as well as the role of the participating private sector entities, in its realization;

21. Emphasize the importance of addressing the challenges facing our countries regarding IP institution-building with a renewed sense of purpose and seek to strengthen regional and internationalcooperation in the use of intellectual property to promote poverty alleviation, national prosperity anddevelopment, as well as awareness raising on IP issues;

22. Call on WIPO to foster institutional support for national intellectual property institutions, including in the field of technology transfer infrastructure and the training of executive staff;

23. Urge the senior management of WIPO to take all measures necessary to promote the industrialapplication by LDCs of patents which have fallen into the public domain, as this will transformintellectual property into a tool for supporting the flow of direct foreign investment into LDCs;

24. Decide to participate actively in deliberations in various international fora, particularly within WIPO, onthe wealth-creation effect of intellectual property, including at the national level, in formulatingstrategies, policies, plans and mechanisms;

25. Decide to further strengthen the protection and use of national cultural and artistic creations,particularly relating to traditional cultural expressions such as folklore, through the copyright and relatedrights systems and other appropriate mechanisms, and call upon WIPO to render assistance to LDCs inthis regard;

26. Decide to intensify cooperation with WIPO to scale up the use of trademarks, service marks, designs andgeographical indications in economic activities, especially in branding selected export products of LDCs;

27. Urge WIPO to enhance its assistance to LDCs in meeting all their IP objectives; in particular, attentionshould be paid to supporting creative, inventive and innovative activity in our countries across alleconomic sectors, including through the involvement of universities, R&D institutions and technicalskills development institutions, and in this context emphasize the need for commercialization ofresearch output through linkage with the market and the private sector;

28. Underscore the importance of creating and enabling a national framework for the use of intellectualproperty in economic, social and cultural development, and in that context seek to cooperate with WIPOin formulating national innovation strategies, taking into account the level of development of each LDC;

136

ANNEX 3


29. Urge WIPO to support LDCs in the fight against the piracy of the musical works of their performers and musicians;

30. Call upon WIPO to support LDCs in improving the competitiveness of their enterprises, including small,medium and micro enterprises, through enhancing their ability to gain regular access to new ideasand technologies;

31. Call on WIPO to provide further capacity-building assistance for OAPI and ARIPO, under the principle of cooperation and solidarity;

32. Request WIPO to assist LDCs in promoting public–private partnerships to facilitate development-friendly IP utilization in these countries;

33. Express our appreciation to the WIPO Director General for his efforts to generate additional resourcesfor the development of IP institutions and systems for the benefit of LDCs, and encourage him to furtherpursue his efforts for the establishment of the Funds in Trust or similar resources for the benefit ofLDCs, as agreed in Recommendation 2 of the WIPO Development Agenda, in particular for use by LDCs;

34. Urge all development partners to actively support and participate in the efforts of the Director Generalto establish Funds in Trust for the benefit of LDCs;

35. Decide to raise the profile and inclusivity of the future High-Level Forums to enhance the visibility of LDCs;

36. Call upon the Director General to ensure that the outcome of this High-Level Forum is fully taken intoaccount by WIPO and that the Division for Least-Developed Countries prepares periodic reports on itsimplementation;

37. Take note with appreciation the Director General’s continued efforts to strengthen the Division forLeast-Developed Countries and emphasize the need for deploying further financial and humanresources to enhance the delivery capacity of the Division in response to the growing IP-related needsof LDCs;

38. Call upon the Director General for a separate section of program and budget for LDCs in WIPO’sbiannual program and budget;

39. Emphasize the need for enhancing coordination of LDC delegations in WIPO with a view to workingclosely with the Division for Least-Developed Countries on the implementation of this Agenda, andpromoting more WIPO activities related to LDCs;

40. Extend our appreciation and gratitude to the Director General of WIPO for his new initiatives for thebenefits of LDCs, for the excellent arrangements made for the Conference, and for his warm hospitalityduring the Conference.

Geneva, Switzerland, July 24, 2009

137

WIPO Publication No. 362e ISBN 978-92-805-1959-4

For more information contact theWorld Intellectual Property Organization

Address:34, chemin des Colombettes P.O. Box 18CH-1211 Geneva 20Switzerland

Telephone:+ 41 22 338 91 11

Fax:+ 41 22 733 54 28

Visit the WIPO website at:www.wipo.int

and order from the WIPO Electronic Bookshop at:www.wipo.int/ebookshop

or its New York Office at:

Address:2, United Nations Plaza Suite 2525New York, N.Y. 10017United States of America

Telephone:+1 212 963 6813

Fax:+1 212 963 4801