ACODE Policy Briefing Paper No.9, 2005 · espouses IPR protection as essential for stimulating innovation, technology transfer and attracting Foreign Direct Investments (FDIs). In

ACODE Policy Briefing Paper No.9, 2005


The views expressed in ACODE Policy Briefing Papers areentirely those of the authors and do not in any wayrepresent the position of ACODE or its partners whoprovide financial support for these publications.


HARNESSING THE POWER OF INTELLECTUALPROPERTY RIGHTS IN BUILDING SCIENCE

AND TECHNOLOGICAL CAPACITY

Key Issues for Policy Makers in East Africa

Godber TumushabeRonald Naluwairo

ACODE Policy Briefing Paper No. 9, 2005

©ACODE


Table of Contents

List of Acronyms....................................................

Acknowledgement................................................

Executive Summary.................................................

1. Introduction.........................................

2. Reconceptualizing the Role of Intellectual PropertyRights.......................................................

3. Factors shaping National Policy and Legal Reforms.....

3.1 Bilateral Assistance Programmes...................3.2 Obligations to Implement International

Commitments........................................3.3 Need to Protect Foreign Innovations as a Panacea

for Attracting Foreign Direct Investments........

4. Reconfigure Intellectual Property Rights ManagementInstitutions..................................................

5. Developing a Critical Mass of Scientists..................

6. Investment in Research and Analytical Work..............

7. Effective Participation in the Global Architecture andNegotiations on IPR Rules and Standard Setting........

8. Conclusion..................................................

9. References..................................................

10. Publication in these Series................................

i

Page

ii

iii

iv

1

3

5

6

7

7

9

12

13

14

15

16

17


List of Acronyms

ACODE Advocates Coalition for Development andEnvironment

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity

CJRP Commercial Justice Reform Programme

CTE Committee on Trade and Environment

FDIs Foreign Direct Investments.

ITPGRFA International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resourcesfor Food and Agriculture

IPRs Intellectual Property Rights

KIPI Kenya Industrial Property Institute

NARO National Agriculture Research Organization

PIDOC Patent Information and Documentation Centre

R & D Research and Development

TRIPs Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNCST Uganda National Council for Science andTechnology

URSB Uganda Registration Services Bureau

WTO World Trade Organization

ii


Acknowledgement

This policy briefing paper is one of ACODE’s contribution to theongoing Intellectual Property Rights Policy and legal reformprocess in East Africa.The paper aims at ensuring that reformsin this area contribute to the building of national science andenhancement of technological capacity.

We are indebted to the Global Inclusion Programme of theRockeffeller Foundation for providing the financial support thatfacilitated the production and publication of this policybriefing paper.

It is our hope that in exploring ways of making patentprotection work for Africa’s development, countries in theregion will embrace the ideas espoused in this paper.

iii


Executive Summary

Debate about the role of patent protection and IntellectualProperty Rights (IPRs) in national development has been reignitedby the advent of modern biotechnology. Policy analysts are nowcalling for a re-evaluation of the conventional philosophy thatespouses IPR protection as essential for stimulating innovation,technology transfer and attracting Foreign Direct Investments(FDIs).

In this policy briefing paper, we also challenge such philosophyand argue that even where IPRs are used to stimulate innovationand attract FDIs,it does not happen by accident but by aconsciously planned effort based on clear policy goals, actionsand priorities. In particular it is argued that patent protectionin modern biotechnology can only meaningfully benefit Africancountries if IPR policy and legislation is tailored to supportingbuilding national scientific and technological capacity. Weanalyze the critical issues that are necessary for making IPRsmore relevant to African development. These include:reconceptualising the purpose and role of IPR, understandingthe factors shaping IPR legal and policy reforms, reconfiguringnational IPR management institutions to bring them within thenational systems of innovation, investing in research andproactively participating in regional and internationalnegotiations. It is emphasized that a strong foundation forbenefiting from IPRs also requires development of a criticalmass of scientists in cutting edge technologies and scientificmethods.

It is observed that the ongoing national legal and policy reformsand negotiations within the World Trade Organization (WTO)

iv


framework in the IPR arena present rare opportunities forcountries in East Africa in particular and sub Saharan Africa ingeneral to rethink the role and purpose of IPR in nationaldevelopment. East African countries should seek to incorporateIPRs in national policy and legislation in a way that fostersnational and regional development.

We strongly believe that the recommendations and ideasespoused in this policy briefing paper can go a long way inmaking Intellectual Property Rights work for Africa’sdevelopment, in particular building and enhancing scientificand technological capacity. We therefore, call upon Governmentsin the region to take them seriously in the ongoing intellectualproperty rights policy and legal reform processes.

v


1. Introduction

The ongoing discourse on modern biotechnology and its role inpromoting agricultural productivity in Africa has rekindled thedebate on the utility of patent protection and the entireintellectual property rights regime in general. In its broadestsense, the debate on patents and biotechnology is informed bythe traditional notions that espouse IPR regimes as being essentialfor stimulating innovation, facilitating the transfer of technologyand attracting foreign direct investments . However, based onan analysis and understanding of the ongoing patent law reformsin the region and the structure of IPR management institutions,it is argued that unless there is a complete transformation inthe way countries handle IPR legal reforms, IPR in general andpatent protection regimes in particular may continue to beirrelevant to Africa.

Because East Africa’seconomies are still domin-ated by agriculture, theongoing debate on intelle-ctual property rights inmodern biotechnology andthe transformation of theagricultural sector shouldbe at the core of nationaland regional policy anddecision making. Thesedebates combined withcontinuing policy, institu-tional and legal reformspresent tremendous opportunities for countries to redefine therole of IPR to support the objectives of building national

1

Making IPR More Relevant to AfricanCountries: Five Priority Areas for Action

Reconceptualize the purpose and role of IPRtaking into account national peculiarcontexts;Understand the factors shaping IPR legal &policy reforms and the agenda of the variousactors;Reconfigure national IPR managementinstitutions to bring them within the nationalsystem of innovation;Invest in research and analytical work tounderstand the interface between IPR &technological innovations and development;andProactively participate in the globalinstitutional architecture where global IPRnorms and rules are made.


biotechnology capacity and stimulating the transformation ofagriculture through the application of appropriate tools ofbiotechnology. However, the current institutional architecturefor IPR management and the philosophical foundations of theongoing debate all point to the abstract nature with whichmany African countries are engaging in this debate.

Intellectual property rights are no panacea to stimulatinginnovation, facilitating technology transfer or attracting ForeignDirect Investments (FDIs). Even when IPR is used to achievethese objectives, it does not happen by accident. It must be aconsciously planned effort based on clear policy goals, objectivesand actions. African countries that want to harness the powerof intellectual creativity and innovation must undertake fivespecific actions for this to happen. They must reconceptualizethe role of IPR within their national and peculiar contexts,understand the factors shaping IPR legal and policy reforms andthe agenda of the various actors, reconfigure national IPRmanagement institutions to bring them within the nationalsystems of innovation, invest in research and analytical work tounderstand the interface between IPR and technology innovationand development, and understand the global institutionalarchitecture within which IPR norms and rules are emerging.

2


2. Reconceptualizing the Role of Intellectual Property Rights

Historically, intellectualproperty rights have beendefined as rights grantedto innovators by states.The traditional argumentsfor IPR protection regimesinclude the need tostimulate innovation andattract Foreign DirectInvestments (FDIs). Thegrant of intellectualproperty rights creates amonopoly in favor of agrantee of that right whouses the monopoly torecoup the costs ofresearch and development that led to the creation of theproduct covered by the property right. On the other hand,many proponents of IPR argue that because firms are able tosecure protection of their technologies in national jurisdiction,this provides them with incentives to invest in those countriesthat have strong IPR protection regimes.

In many African countries, two important issues need to benoted. First, Africa lags behind in science and technologyResearch and Development (R & D) and therefore has limitedcapacity to engage in innovation. Most of the national researchinstitutions mainly dominated by the public sector also don’thave adequate funding to engage in research and innovation. In

3

Some Basic IssuesGranting of a patent is not an end in itself,patent protection should be used as anational policy instrument;The grant of IPR confers monopoly right onthe grantee, hence it must be balanced withthe broader national policy objectives andsocietal goals;There is no sufficient evidence todemonstrate that strong IPRs attract privateinvestments in national R & D programmesor will promote FDIs.Current IPRs rules are founded on westernnotions of property and their beneficialapplication in Africa is dependent on howwell these rules are reconceptualized.Promoting technological innovation and thedevelopment and application ofbiotechnology is dependent on many factorsthat call for a comprehensive interventionpolicy package at the national level.


other cases, there is general absence of a culture ofindividualism which is one of the major motivations foracquiring IPR protection. There is also absence of literature todemonstrate empirically that strong IPR regimes can attract FDIs.Finally, traditional and indigenous knowledge which embodythe intellectual knowledge and creativity of many Africancommunities are excluded from existing IPR protection regimes.

It is therefore tenable to argue that in these circumstances,the philosophical foundations of strong IPR protection do notprovide useful insights for IPR policy making in Africa. For IPRlegal regimes to be relevant to African countries, there is needto rethink these philosophical foundations and the purpose ofintellectual property rights in national economic development.The rationale for strong IPR protection regimes is articulated inthe Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual PropertyRights (TRIPS) as to “contribute to the promotion oftechnological innovation and the transfer and dissemination oftechnology in a manner conducive to social and economicwelfare, and to a balance of rights and obligations’’1.

However, it is argued that the promotion of technologicalinnovation and the transfer and dissemination of technology islargely dependent on many other factors other than thosepropounded by the proponents of strong IPR protection regimes.Therefore, African countries need to reconceptualize themeaning and purpose of IPR legal reforms. It must be understoodthat to achieve the broader societal goals as articulated in Article7 and 8 of the TRIPS Agreement2, IPR must be seen as a policyinstrument that should be harnessed to achieve clearly defined

1 Article 7 of the TRIPs Agreement.2 Article 8 of the Agreement provides among other things that member countries may, in formulating or amending

their laws and regulations, adopt measures necessary to protect public health and nutrition, and to promote thepublic interest in sectors of vital importance to their social-economic and technological development.

4


national policy and societal development objectives. Thoseobjectives will often go beyond the ambit of stimulatinginnovation and attracting investments to include efforts to buildnational innovation capacity, accessing technologies protectedthrough IPR, eradicating poverty and ensuring food security,health security and national security3. The grant of monopolyrights to the innovator should be seen as a direct consequenceof State action rather than the primary objective of IPR policiesand laws.

3. Factors shaping National Policy and Legal Reforms

In addition to problemsassociated with theconceptual understandingof the role of IPR andpatent protection regimesin Africa, IPR policy andlegal reforms are largelybeing driven by threeinter-related factors.These factors include“opportunistic” bilateralassistance programmes, thepresumed obligations toimplement obligationsunder internationalagreements, and the need

to attract foreign direct investments. It is argued that in theabsence of clearly articulated national policies and objectives,these factors are unfortunately shaping the scope and content

3 Ibid

5

Three Factors Shaping IPR Legal Reforms inmost African Countries:

Bilateral Assistance Programmescompelling countries to engage in IPR policyand legal reforms per se without anybearing on how IPR can enable thesecountries achieve their objectives todevelop national biotechnology capacity;

Obligations to Implement InternationalCommitments without due regard to howthey complement national objectives toachieve biotechnology capacity; and

Attracting Foreign Direct Investmentwithout any clear evidence that this ispossible and without appropriate legal andinstitutional mechanisms to ensureappropriate technology content in FDIs.


of IPR policy and legal reforms to the detriment of nationalbiotechnology and agricultural development priorities.

3.1 Bilateral Assistance Programmes It is not common to find African countries which have investednational resources to reform national Intellectual Property Rightspolicy and legislation. Most of the policy and legal reformprocesses as is the case of Uganda are supported under bilateralassistance programs4. Even where these countries are notrequired to comply with TRIPS obligations until the end of thegrace period, donors have influenced these countries tostrengthen their IPR laws through bilateral assistanceprogrammes. It is argued that in the absence of a strong scienceand technology base and low usage of IPR to protect innovations,the major beneficiaries of these reforms would be the bilateraldonors themselves who secure protection for their firmsinvesting in these countries. Indeed, as the 2001 HumanDevelopment Report observes, “the technology revolutionbegins at home yet no countrywill reap the benefits of thenetwork age by waiting forthem to fall from the sky.Today’s technological trans-formation hinges on eachcountry’s ability to unleashthe creativity of its people,enabling them to understandand master technology, to innovate and to adapt technology totheir own needs and opportunities’’5. Indeed, if ongoing bilateral

4 In Uganda, such bilateral assistance has been provided by a multiplicity of donors under the Commercial JusticeReform Programme (CJRP)

5 UNDP, 2001. Human Development Report 2001: Making New Technologies Work for Human Development. UnitedNational Development Programme. Oxford University Press. New York.

6

Like all bilateral assistance programmes,assistance to reform IPR policies and lawsis influenced by the priorities of the do-nor countries. Given the fact that theseprogrammes are provided in the context ofthe World Trade Organization agreements,the primary motivation for theseprogrammes is to ensure market access forthe products of the donor country, it cannotbe for facilitating access to or promotingnational science capacity and innovation.


assistance programmes are to be of benefit to the countriesengaged in the reforms, they should invest in creating a criticalmass of scientists who can engage in technology-orientedresearch.

3.2 Obligations to Implement International Commitments

Many countries are engaging in IPR policy and legal reformsbecause international instruments that they have signed obligethem to do so. Consequently, the rush to enact new legislationor reform of existing laws is guided more by the need to meetdeadlines for compliance with international agreements ratherthan what the new regimes are intended to achieve for thecountry. Essentially, one could argue that a country that has notclearly defined what it intends to achieve by strong IPR policiesand laws has no business investing in IPR policy and legal reforms.But African countries are told time and again and they tend tobe convinced that because they have signed these instruments,they have to comply by reforming their IPR policies and laws6.

3.3 Need to Protect Foreign Innovations as a Panacea forAttracting Foreign Direct Investments

The proponents of strong IPR protection argue that such a regimegives confidence to investors and therefore can facilitate ForeignDirect Investments (FDIs). Consequently, development of IPRpolicy and legal regimes are driven by the illusion that stronglaws will attract investors to invest in the national economy

6 African countries have continuously failed to take advantage of flexibilities provided in key international agreements.For example, although most of these countries have up to 2006 to implement the TRIPS Agreements, most of themhave been rushing to reform their IPR laws to provide for stronger IPR protection. The argument is often that sincethese countries have signed the agreements, they are obliged to comply. Instead of taking advantage of the flexibilities,it is the donor countries that are taking advantage of these agreements to compel these countries into stringentlegislation often running counter to national interests and national priorities including in the areas of science andtechnology development.

7


and bring in new technologies. However, there is no empiricalevidence yet to demonstrate that strong IPR laws attract FDIsand that increase of FDIs leads to the transfer of the muchneeded technologies7. What is needed therefore in thecircumstances is for analytical research to be undertaken onthe relationship between IPRs and FDIs before making blanketconditions on the issue. In any case, issues of major concernoften relate to infrastructure development, market size, humancapital, availability of business services and openness to trade8.In Uganda for example, there is no mechanism withinGovernment to even determine the technological content ofFDIs that have been licensed.

Consequently, this is an area that needs empirical researchfocusing on trying tounderstand the relationshipbetween strong IPR regimesand country performance inattracting FDIs in Africa.Secondly, the research shouldalso explore the legal andinstitutional mechanismsneeded to influence thetechnology content of FDIsthat are licensed. In otherwords, FDIs acting as avehicle for technologytransfer cannot happen as an accident, it has to be planned and

7 The relationship between IPRs and technology transfer is not clear cut as reasonable theoretical assumptions can be developedin either direction: stronger IPRs could lead to slower rates of imitation, which in turn slows down the rate of innovationas there is less competitive pressure. Equally reasonable is the proposition that technology diffusion is strengthened bystronger IPRs as FDI and licensing replace imitation and the quality of transferred technology is improved. See Ethel Teljeur,Intellectual Property Rights in South Africa: An Economic Review of Policy and Impact, the Edge Institute, South Africa(2003)

8 Maskus (2000).

8

Prudent policy making on the part of AfricanGovernments will require undertakingempirical research to understand thecoloration between IPR protection and FDIs.At the moment there is no authoritativeliterature to suggest that strong IPR protectionacts as an incentive for foreign investorsto invest in a country. Instead, experienceand investor surveys show that investorsare more concerned with other issues suchas utilities, infrastructure, etc than aliberal IPR legal framework. The notion thatIPR will attract FDIs therefore needs to beinvestigated further and the research mustbe conducted in African countries becauseof the nature of the problems facing Africa.


stimulated through appropriate policy packages, legal andadministrative requirements. At the moment, institutions suchas the Uganda Investment Authority (UIA) operate more aspromotional agencies rather than regulatory agencies. In thecase of the former, such institutions focus on attracting FDIsand measure their outputs on the basis of the inflows licensedannually. In the case of the later, the agency ought to be able todetermine the nature of the investment including itstechnological content.

4. Reconfigure Intellectual Property Rights Management Institutions

Current national institutional arrangements do not reflect thedesire of IPR regimes to facilitate technology innovation andtransfer or even address pressing national problems of poverty,food security and health security. The current institutionalarchitecture related to IPR clearly demonstrates the disjuncturebetween the role of IPR as a policy instrument to stimulatescience and technological innovation and attract FDIs.

First, these institutions are located mainly in the AttorneyGeneral’s Chambers and have no relationship whatsoever withthe national R & D institutions9. This problem is perhaps bestillustrated by the case of Uganda. In Uganda, the registry ofPatents is under the Registrar General’s office under the Ministryof Justice. It is largely manned by registry clerks who simplyhandle filing of applications. There is no mechanism for linking

9 Kenya is however exceptional in this respect. The Kenya Industrial Poverty Office (KIPO) now Kenya Industrial PropertyInstitute (KIPI) was established to administer industrial property rights (trade marks, patents, industrial designs and utilitymodels) in the country. The Institute has an established Patent Information and Documentation Centre (PIDOC) with over14 million patent documents that are available to the public at a small fee. Most of the work is processed using IT equipment.Members of many research institutions also sit on KIPI’S board. For details, see Patricia Kameri-Mbote (2004) IntellectualProperty Protection in Africa: An Assessment of the Status of Laws, Research and Policy Analysis on Intellectual Property Rightsin Kenya (Unpublished)

9


the work of the patents office to institutions such as the NationalAgricultural Research Organization (NARO) or Universities thatcould take advantage of the technologies that are no longerprotected by patents10.

It is also instructive to note that in East Africa,countries such asUganda are essentially losing the initiative created by theongoing reform processes to reconfigure and reform thisinstitutional architecture. In 1990 for example, the UgandaNational Council for Science and Technology (UNCST) wasestablished with the overall mandate of coordinating scienceand technology activities in the country11. Among its specificfunctions, the UNCST is mandated to “protect intellectualproperty through appropriate patent laws and to operate anational patent office’’12. Yet,fourteen years later, there is nonational patent office and there is no evidence that the Councilexercises its statutory mandate of protecting intellectualproperty.

It is important to recognize that as the apex science andtechnology body in Uganda, the UNCST is appropriately placedto create the necessary linkages between IPR protection andthe application of technology in R & D activities in Uganda.Therefore, the creation and hosting of a national patents officewould be a strategic action to refocus the role of IPR policy inthe country. However, there appears to be no authoritativeexplanation as to why the legal requirement to operate a nationalpatent office has never been implemented by the Council.

10 A patent is granted for a limited period (in most cases 20 years). Patent protection could also be lost for failure to paymaintenance fees or any other fees required by law.11 Cap 209, Laws of Uganda. Revised Edition, 2000.12 Ibid. s4(b)(e)

10


Another opportunity to rethink the role of IPR in Uganda andthe appropriate institutional architecture to promotetechnological innovations and technology transfer presenteditself in 1998 when the Uganda Registration Services Bureau Act(URSB) was enacted13. While this was an opportunity to separatepatents registration from the other forms of registration thatought to be performed only as services14, it was not done. Infact, by its long title and its objectives15, the UgandaRegistration Services Bureau focuses more on registration andrevenue collection. Its mandate does not extend to promotingscience and technology development and does not show how itrelates to the Uganda National Council for Science andTechnology16. What is needed therefore is to ensure that theoperationalization of the Bureau takes into account thesestrategic considerations of science and technology research anddevelopment in the country.

The argument that Ugandan policy makers and planners havenot assisted the country much in tapping the power of IPR instimulating science and technology R & D is reinforced by thefact that the URSB was also not created soon after the Act wasenacted. It is only under the Commercial Justice ReformProgramme (CJRP) that attempts are being made tooperationalize the Uganda Registration Services Bureau Act.Again, the main focus of the CJRP is to improve the efficiencyin registration services and has nothing to do with the utilizationof the technologies that may be protected by patents. It is

13 Cap 210, Laws of Uganda. Revised Edition, 2000.14 Registration of companies, business names, marriages, births and deaths.15 Ibid. s.416 In a personal conversation with Dr. Charles Mugoya of the National Council for Science and Technology on November18, 2004, he indicated that due to fears of potential rivalries with the Ministry of Justice, there was a gentleman’sagreement that Ministry of Justice should continue handling the administration aspects of IPR while the Council dealtwith the technical aspects. There is no evidence of this gentleman’s agreement working in favor of using the patentsregistration system to stimulate innovation or attract FDIs.

11


therefore tenable to argue that the relevance of a nationalpatent office as an institution that takes policy responsibilityfor harnessing patent protected technology is as valid as it waswhen the UNCST Act was enacted in 1990.

Consequently, all political good will need to be marshaled toensure that a national patents office, perhaps more appropriatelycalled the National Science and Technology Office be establishedunder the Uganda National Council for Science and Technologyor another appropriate institution. The objectives of the officeshould be clearly spelt out to include promotion of usingtechnologies that are available in public domain and should befully integrated in the national system of innovation.

5. Developing a Critical Mass of Scientists

Indeed, it is important to recognize that taking advantage ofthe potential role of IPR as a policy instrument to stimulateindigenous innovations and facilitate technology transfer andattract FDI must start with transforming the institutions for IPRmanagement. However, reforming these institutions will onlybe beneficial if its complemented by appropriate investmentsin creating a national pool of highly trained scientists. It isimportant to appreciate that in many countries such as Uganda,the current school system is not tailored to producing scientistswho are innovators. In the short-term, such countries ought totake strategic decisions to support training in cutting age scienceand technology disciplines. In the long-term, the schoolcurriculum could be re-oriented to offer such specialized trainingor even special academies could be established for this purpose.

12


6. Investment in Research and Analytical Work

As already alluded to, there is a lot of myth, most of it based onwestern notions of property rights suggesting that strong IPRprotection stimulates the development of R&D by attractinginvestments by the private sector. Yet, there appears to be noevidence to suggest that such private investments have beenattracted to support R & D anywhere. Even in developedcountries, a lot of the basic and applied research is fundedpublicly. Empirical studies performed with data on United States,France and Japan generally find that patent protection is not ofcritical importance in R & D decisions17. Sakakibara andBranstetter (2001)18 for instance find no evidence of increase ineither R & D spending or innovative output that could plausiblybe attributed to the 1988 Japanese patent law reforms. Indeed,there are several other basic infrastructural and policyincentives that attract private investments into R & D activitiesrather than mere strong IPR protection.

In order to make informed choices and decisions, we need toinitiate a conscious investment program to develop researchand analytical capacity to inform policy reform and decisionmaking on intellectual property rights. Key areas of researchmay cover issues such as the role of IPR in attracting FDIs, thenecessary incentives to attract private investments in nationalR & D programmes, implications of implementing global IPRregimes on the development of national scientific andtechnological capacity among others.

17 Ibid note 718 Cited in Ethel Teljeur (2003)

13


7. Effective Participation in the Global Architecture and Negotiations on IPR Rules and Standard Setting

The multiplicity of institutions and processes for negotiationsand rule setting on IPR pause a significant challenge to Africancountries. At the moment, discussions on IPRs are going on withinthe TRIPS Council of the WTO, the Committee on Trade andEnvironment (CTE) of the WTO, the World Intellectual PropertyOrganizations (WIPO), the Convention on Biological Diversity(CBD), the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources forFood and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) among others. In all these cases,different issues that have implications for access to technology,food security, health, etc are being negotiated.

At the national and Africa Regional level, there is no mechanismfor effectively engaging in these multiple processes later onensuring that these processes inform IPR policy and legal reformsat the national level. East African Countries and Uganda in partic-ular need to develop an appropriate mechanism for ensuringcoordination in the negotiation of these agreements to theextent that they relate to intellectual property rights. Indeed,a national patent office or national science and technology officeguided by an appropriate national policy would provide themuch needed mechanism for addressing this gap.

14


8. Conclusion

There is currently growing consensus often expressed throughpolitical statements that the new national policy direction is tomake Ugandan and East African products more competitive inthe global market. Global market competitiveness of theeconomies of today and the future will largely depend on acountry’s capacity to engage in science and technologyinnovation. A properly functioning patent regime can beharnessed to enable countries achieve this competitiveness. Inthis context, patents ought to be considered as not only businessassets but also as inputs into the national research system. Patentprotection has to be considered as a policy instrument and thegrant of patent rights to innovators a natural consequence ofthat policy. At the centre of the entire patents debate, a nationalscience and technology office must be established as a priorityas the fulcrum for the national system of innovation.

15


9. References

UNDP, 2001. Human Development Report 2001: Making NewTechnologies Work for Human Development. United NationalDevelopment Programme. Oxford University Press. New York.

Ethel Teljeur (2003) Intellectual Property Rights in SouthAfrica: An Economic Review of Policy and Impact, the EdgeInstitute, South Africa.

Patricia Kameri-Mbote (2004) Intellectual Property Protectionin Africa: An Assessment of the Status of Laws, Research andPolicy on Intellectual Property Rights in Kenya. (Unpublished)

Convention on Biological Diversity, Nairobi, 1992.

WTO Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of IntellectualProperty Rights, 1994.

Uganda National Council of Science and Technology Act, Cap209, Laws of Uganda, Revised Edition, 2000.

Uganda Registration Service Bureau Act, Cap 210, Laws ofUganda, Revised Edition, 2000.

Industrial Property Act, 2001, Laws of Kenya.

Maskus, K., 2000. Intellectual Property Rights and EconomicDevelopment: Patents, Growth, and Growing Pains, PP.143-170 in Maskus, K., Intellectual Property Rights in theGlobal Economy, Washington DC: Institute for InternationalEconomics.

16


10. Publication in these Series

Mpeirwe A., (2003), WTO Negotiations on GeographicalIndicators: A Case for non-Discrimination of Products ofInterest to Developing Countries. ACODE Policy BriefingPaper No.1, 2003

Tumushabe G., (2004), Type II Partnerships As a Strategyfor Implementing WSSD Outcomes: Considerations toGuide Government Decision Making. ACODE Policy BriefingPaper No.2, 2003

Mugyenyi O., (2004) Status of EPA Negotiations: Easternand Southern Africa Approach and the Challenges toEffective Negotiations. ACODE Policy Briefing Paper No.3,2004

Tumushabe G., and Naluwairo R., (2004), COP-MOP 1Decision on Liability and Redress: Analysis of Implicationsand Challenges for Eastern and Southern Africa. ACODEPolicy Briefing Paper No. 4, 2004

Naluwairo R., and Tumushabe G., (2004), Uganda’sPosition on GMOs: Whose Position? Reflections on Uganda’sPolicy Making Process on GMOs. ACODE Policy BriefingPaper No.5, 2004

17


Naluwairo R., and Tumushabe G., (2004), Approachesto Biosafety Legislation in Africa: Options to FacilitateNational Decision Making. ACODE Policy Briefing PaperNo. 6, 2004

Tumushabe G., and Bainomugisha A., (2004), ThePolitics of Investment and Land Acquisition in Uganda:A Case Study of Pian Upe Game Reserve. ACODE PolicyBriefingPaper No.7, 2004

Naluwairo R., (2005), Promoting Common PropertyRights in Fisheries Management in Uganda: A Review

of the National Fisheries Policy and the ProposedLegislation. ACODE Policy Briefing Paper No.8, 2005.

18


Documents

ACODE Policy Briefing Paper No.9, 2005 · espouses IPR protection as essential for stimulating innovation, technology transfer and attracting Foreign Direct Investments (FDIs). In