Monthly Archives

March 2013


The Africa IP Forum – a retrospective

[Reposted from infojustice, first published 18 March 2013]

The Africa IP Forum was held in South Africa on 25-27 February 2013.  Attendees were welcomed at a cocktail on the evening of 25 February and substantive discussions were held on 26 -27 February. There were 4 plenary sessions each complemented by 2 parallel sessions.  The following topics were discussed:

  • Promoting a development oriented IP system (plenary)
  • Achieving developmental objectives, building technological capacity in Africa
  • WIPO Development Agenda, what it means for Africa
  • Access to Affordable medicines, incentivizing local production of generic medicines in Africa (plenary)
  • Benefits of substantive examination of patents versus the depository system ( See commentary by David Cochrane on Afro-IP )
  • Facilitating R&D into disease that predominantly affect Africa
  • Bridging the knowledge gap in Africa: Role of Copyright Exceptions and Limitations (plenary)  (See commentary by Denise Nicholson on Afro-IP and on her  Copyright & A2K Issues newsletter)
  • Public Interest and Development Issues in IP enforcement
  • Achieving Food Security, Challenges and Issues in Africa
  • Challenges & Issues in Protecting Traditional Knowledge, Genetic Resources & Traditional Cultural Expression of Africa (plenary) (See commentary by Tracy Rengecas on Afro-IP )

The exclusion of discussion PAIPO from the agenda was unfortunate (see PAIPO at the Africa IP Forum: the elephant in the room) but it will be on the agenda at the AU May Summit to be held in May 2013.

For details of the speakers, see the Africa IP Forum Program. Some billed presenters and panellists were unable to attend (as occurs at most conferences) and other people were asked to step in to close these gaps. It was clear from all the plenary and parallel sessions that the cross-cutting nature of IP and the consequent involvement of numerous government departments results in a complex regulatory framework. This framework has to be carefully crafted and co-ordinated.  An underlying national IP policy would inform such collaboration and co-ordination. Drafting an IP Policy is a difficult task and many countries will require technical assistance. This makes role played by WIPO and individual experts/consultants critically important.  A list of countries that are currently benefitting from WIPO’s capacity building and technical assistance for IP policy formulation was given by Mr G Onyeama (Deputy Director-General, WIPO) in his Formal Opening Address of the Forum. It is commendable that WIPO is rendering such much needed assistance. However, several commentators have raised the need for transparency and the provision of details of the nature of advice/assistance given as well as information about the consultants WIPO retains for these tasks (See Nick Ashton-Hart’s op-ed entitled ‘Rebooting WIPO’). WIPO’s online roster of experts is a welcome first step in this direction but it does not provide the amount of detail being called for. Further, consultants are listed only with their permission, so the roster provides an incomplete picture. Whilst some of the consultants subsequently (self) publish their materials, not all of them do so, and WIPO would do well to publish these materials where it is not precluded from doing so by confidentiality and other issues. Doing so will lend credence to the policy formulation process and dispel any concerns about the nature, quality and substance of the advice given.  The provision of such information will also enable those who wish to critique or engage with a policy to do so.

The Forum ended on a high note, with some key issues having been vented. However, what will Forum participants do with the insights they gained at the Forum? Hopefully, those seized with policy formulation and legislative drafting will incorporate them into the policies and laws they draft and those who serve in advisory capacities will include these insights in the opinions they provide.

Pan-African Intellectual Property Organisation (PAIPO) South Africa - IP policy

PAIPO at the Africa IP Forum: The elephant in the room

Judging from the chatter amongst the participants at the Africa IP forum (25 – 27 February  2013) the Pan African Intellectual Property Organisation (PAIPO) was on the  minds of many. However, it was not officially on the agenda and the Minister of Trade and Industry, Dr Davies’ welcome address skirted the issue. Prof Esme du Plessis, who chaired the second plenary (Access to medicines and incentivizing local production of generic medicines in Africa) mentioned it in passing in her commentary on the session but there was no subsequent discussion of the issue. 

PAIPO is the joint creation of the African Union (AU) and NEPAD (see timeline and document archive here) and I hoped that representatives of these organisations would be at the Africa IP Forum. The formal acknowledgements made at the beginning of the forum did not refer to any AU or NEPAD functionary or official so it is reasonable to conclude that none was in attendance. The participant list was not circulated so I was not able to confirm whether the AU or NEPAD were represented at the Forum.

It would have been beneficial to discuss PAIPO at the Forum particularly as concerns have been raised about whether enough stakeholder consultation had been undertaken in relation to PAIPO. As many stakeholders attended the Forum it could have been used as some form of stakeholder engagement on the issue.  The Forum was also a perfect platform on which to provide complete and up to date information on the status of the organisation as well as the role being taken by African states in its creation/development. Linda Daniels of IP Watch spoke to the Deputy Director General in the Department of Trade and Industry and reports that there are some hints of South African support or even leadership of PAIPO (see Linda’s report here).  Hopefully all will be revealed at the May AU Summit, scheduled for 19-27 May (see AU website here for details).

South Africa - IP policy

Of political speeches and IP Policy (South Africa, February 2013)

February 2013 has been a significant month for IP because in the last two weeks  it has been prominent in three political speeches made in South Africa, namely the State of the Nation Address (SONA), the minister of Trade & Industry’s speech at the Africa IP Forum and the Minister of Finance’s Budget Speech. These speeches are important because they are indicative of the executive’s commitment and provide a road map for government departmental action in the rest of the year.

In the case of the President’s SONA delivered on 19 February (available in full here), IP was conspicuous by its absence. It was not expressly mentioned but its significance permeated the speech. The President spoke of the National Development Plan, which unfortunately does not consider or mention IP at all. This shows that the relevance of IP to achieving economic development has been overlooked at the macro-policy and planning level. When the president spoke about improving the quality of education, I could not help but sigh in exasperation as I thought of the significant role that the use of open educational resources (OERs) can play in this context. We already have the success stories of Siyavula and the Free High School Science Texts project. The reliance on OERs delivered over the ubiquitous mobile phone could have averted or minimized last year’s textbook delivery debacle. The  crisis of youth unemployment was discussed at length by the President. The creation of an equitable IP system that enables creativity and innovation by youth will make a meaningful contribution to reducing the ranks of the unemployed when young people are not hindered by IP in their pursuit of innovative businesses and models. It has been reported that tech hubs are growing in Cape Town and other African cities. Isn’t it time to reconsider IP protection of computer programs, business methods and mobile apps to enable these tech hubs to flourish? Finally, when the fight against diseases such as HIV /AIDS and TB was mentioned, the relevance of IP, particularly patents, to access to medicines was brought to the fore. Especially in the context of the local manufacture of generics or the unhindered importation of generics. Also relevant is how South Africa’s equivalent of the Bayh-Dole Act may be hindering research into neglected diseases or negatively impacting the sharing of critical research domestically or internationally (see OpenAIR case study on this issue here).  The SONA  implicitly underscored the importance of IP in the above ways and places the onus the relevant ministries to provide the necessary detail and to take appropriate action.

Another equally important high level statement is the Budget Speech delivered by Minister Pravin Gordhan on 27 February (available in full here). It did not expressly mention IP. However, as with the SONA it was simmering under the surface. Specifically, the importance of the provision of quality education to reduce poverty and unemployment was mentioned several times. A total of  ZAR 232.5 billion was allocated to sports, education and culture plus ZAR 23.9 billion for  provincial education departments for infrastructure in the short term. In addition to the provision of funds, education quality has to be enhanced by a more balanced copyright regime with appropriate exceptions and limitations for educational use,  the proper utilization of OERs and OA to educational materials.  Of course, these measures are outside the ambit of the Ministry of Finance’s area  of competence and should be attended to by the ministries responsible for IP.

The ministry primarily seized with IP matters in South Africa is the Department of Trade & Industry (DTI). Therefore it is to Minister Rob Davies to whom we look for the details pertaining to the IP issues that stood out from the SONA. So, I was very excited to attend the Africa IP Forum hosted by the DTI last week  as I expected the Minister to speak to these issues in his Welcome Address on 26 February (for background on the Forum see my previous post  here and commentary on afro-ip. For an overview of how the Forum unfolded see the series of posts on afro-ip here. ) As had been widely reported, the Treatment Action Campaign (TAC) staged a demonstration before the beginning of the Minister’s address calling several things including for movement on the IP Policy which has been in the works for an inordinate period of time and for concrete action on the negative impact patents are having on access to medication for people living with HIV. In response, the Minister assured the Forum that the IP policy will be released for public consultation and that he is available to meet with the TAC (For a report on this aspect see the TAC’s report here).

Minister Davies began his Welcome Address  by stating that the forum would feed into South Africa’s IP policy.  He then made  a number of remarks on the policy’s underpinnings including the key point that IP policy ought to be calibrated to suit the country’s current socio-economic status  and future goals. He also stressed that in formulating the policy, South Africa would be wary of calls for harmonisation and enforcement and only  provide for  an appropriately balanced IP system.  He  rightly stated that the relevant stakeholder interests that have to be balanced to be creators of scientific and cultural works and the users of such works. He then emphasised that the key current issues that need immediate attention are access to medicine and the protection of traditional knowledge.  These remarks show that the DTI has considered all the critical elements and issues that must inform the policy. It remains to be seen how it has dealt with them in the policy. It is not yet clear when the policy will be released for public comment.  (For a historical overview of the development of the policy  and the initial plan for Cabinet approval see my post here).

2013 has begun with a clear indication of the primacy of a sound IP Policy to inform South Africa’s IP system and I hope that we will soon see real movement on the policy which is characterised by a truly open and receptive consultative process.