Showing posts with label LDCs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label LDCs. Show all posts

Monday, 1 July 2013

IPcommentator

A review of African official IP websites: no.52: Uganda

This Leo had the opportunity to watch both President Barack Obama's televised press conference and speech at the University of Johannesburg last week. During his town hall meeting in Soweto, this Leo eagerly picked up that the United States is committed to tackling climate change as well as sharing clean energy technologies with developing countries. This tallies with similar remarks made by Mr Francis Gurry at the IPKat's birthday (reported here) in terms of WIPO's efforts on this issue. (Afro Leo is hoping that these remarks will become a reality very soon)



Ok, this post is not about President Obama's visit to South Africa; rather, on Afro-IP's visit to Uganda to see if anything has changed since 2012. Sadly, nothing has changed so far. In fact, the poll found last year and thought to serve a purpose, seems to have been abandoned on the website (Afro Leo loves to see IP Registries ask users about the improvement they would like to see; it shows good customer service - only if it was meant to be). This Leo may well find that, in 2014, this poll would still be live. In case you have not submitted your response, you still have enough time to do so and please make sure you click on all things IP. 

To be fair, readers need to note that Uganda is one of the least-developed countries (LDCs) benefiting from the recent TRIPS extension. For recent Afro-IP posts on Uganda, see here and here
Read More

Monday, 17 June 2013

IPcommentator

A review of African official IP websites: no.50: Togo


As this Leo attempts to review the online presence of Togo's intellectual property (IP) office, he is nicely helped by one of our readers who goes by the name of Maria Georgieva - according to Google's translation. Maria has kindly directed us to this website www.innovations-togo.org which appears to have a searchable database for patents.

This Leo has had a look and he is not entirely sure where the owner, Ministry of Industry, Innovations and Technology, is going with this. Otherwise, the web presence of Togo's IP office has not changed since last year. He is conscious of the fact that Togo is one of the least-developed countries (LDCs) that has benefited from the TRIPS transition period extension reported earlier on this blog. Perhaps, they do not need to bother with a website for their IP office.


Same interests, one community, different locations.
Source: here
Well, this is not the first time Afro-IP's friend, Maria, has come to this Leo's rescue as he struggles to locate the existence of some of these websites. Afro Leo is always extremely grateful for any little participation or help from our ever-growing community because Afro-IP is here to inform us all regardless of where we are located. 

Thank you, Maria.
Read More

Friday, 31 May 2013

Afro Ng'ombe

Ugandans Fight for More Time

75954_01 Several organizations in Uganda have joined with Haiti in pressuring the WTO to extend the deadline for Least Developed Countries (LDCs) to comply with TRIPs.  The desired extension time: indefinitely.

Haiti submitted the Request for an Extension of the Transitional Period Under Article 66.1 of the TRIPS Agreement on behalf the WTO LDC Group in November of last year.  According to news(1) reports(2), several Developed Countries are pressuring the TRIPS Council to deny or limit Haiti’s request.  TRIPS-structured talks between LDCs and Developed Countries have put on the table a limited extension of 5 to 7.5 years and a “no rollback” provision that would prevent LDCs from removing TRIPS compliant provisions from their laws.

Ugandan organizations* are working to build pressure in the opposite direction.  The organizations have submitted a letter to the WTO Council Chair in support of Haiti’s request.  They have petitioned the East African Legislative Assembly to apply pressure in support of the request.  They have also written to several developed country-Ambassadors to Uganda, outlining the consequences for Uganda of not receiving an extension or introducing the suggested no-rollback provision.  A media campaign is underway to inform people of the LDCs’ concerns.  Organization representatives quoted in The Observer stressed the importance of ensuring Ugandans’ access to HIV medications and the country’s need to develop a competitive technological base, sentiments that echo Haiti’s concerns. 

Article 66.1 of TRIPS states:

In view of the special needs and requirements of least-developed country Members, their economic, financial and administrative constraints, and their need for flexibility to create a viable technological base, such Members shall not be required to apply the provisions of this Agreement, other than Articles 3, 4 and 5, for a period of 10 years from the date of application as defined under paragraph 1 of Article 65. The Council for TRIPS shall, upon duly motivated request by a least-developed country Member, accord extensions of this period. (emphasis added.)

The TRIPS agreement was signed in 1994.  Everyone was granted an initial grace period of one year and LDCs were granted an additional 10 years.  The LDC exemptions were set to expire at the end of 2005.  Zambia made a request in 2005 for an extension as outlined in Article 66.1 on behalf of the LDC members.  The TRIPS Council granted that extension, moving the compliance deadline to 1 July 2013.

Haiti’s request differs substantially from Zambia’s request in that it asks for LDCs to be exempt from full compliance as long as they remain LDCs.  While the TRIPS provision mentions “10 years,” for the original exemption time period, it mentions nothing about time limits for extensions.  In this respect, Haiti’s request is within the bounds of the agreement.  However, Afro Leo wonders if it’s a good idea.

Least Developed Countries are designated by the United Nations, unlike Developing Countries which can designate themselves into that category.  33 of the 48 Least Developed Countries** are in Africa.  (See UN Factsheet.)  There is no set number of countries that must be LDCs, for example, LDCs are not the bottom 5% of countries.  Rather, LDC status is determined by 3 factors: per capita income, human assets and economic vulnerability.  Since the LDC status was introduced, three countries have improved enough to graduate off the list.  Two of these, Botswana and Cape Verde, are African.  This shows that a change in status is possible.  (Full LDC Report.)

Would an indefinite exemption for most TRIPS provisions provide reverse incentives to remain on the LDC list?  Once a country graduates from LDC status, it can still designate itself a Developing Country for WTO purposes.  TRIPS does provide extended deadlines for Developing Country compliance, but these deadlines have all passed by now.  The only remaining benefit to being a Developing Country under TRIPS is the technical cooperation from developed countries granted under Article 67.  Therefore, in order to not be in immediate violation of TRIPS, current LDC members need to be in full compliance with TRIPS before graduating from LDC status.

While purposeful holding back on development could be a risk of granting the indefinite extension, this Little Leo thinks it too risky to LDCs for any country to purposely pursue.  (But she has been told she gives too much benefit of the doubt in general.)   More likely is that a permanent extension would allow LDCs to focus on elements of development in the orders that best suit their individual country circumstances.  As LDCs focus on development and continue to engage in the international discussions on IP, they will begin implementing laws and regulations that comply with TRIPS provisions.  Not all at once, but piecemeal.  This Little Leo predicts there will also be some tradeoffs where certain implementations are required by the international community in exchange for progression in the areas of Traditional Knowledge, Expressions of Folklore and Genetic Resources, areas being championed by Devolving Countries.

Afro-Leo is interested to hear others’ thoughts on the extension request.

Hat tip to Primah Kwagala of CEHURD for links to several articles on this topic.

* Ugandan organizations involved in the appeals:
1. The Center for Health, Human Rights and Development (CEHURD)
2. The Aids Support Organisation (TASO)
3. Uganda Network on Law, Ethics and HIV/AIDS (UGANET)
4. Coalition for Health Promotion and Social Development (HEPS -Uganda)
5. The HIV/AIDS Alliance
6. Health GAP
7. The National Community of Women Living with AIDS (NACWOLA)
8. The Mariam Foundation
9. Health Advocates Network(HAN)
10. Community Health and Information Network (CHAIN)
11. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights –Uganda Country Office (OHCHR)
12. SALT –Uganda
13. Uganda Youth Against AIDS foundation (UYAF)
14. The Action Group for Health, Human Rights and HIV/AIDS (AGHA)
15. Southern and Eastern African Trade Information & Negotiations Institute Uganda

** LDCs: Afghanistan, Angola, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Niger, Rwanda, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sudan, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, Yemen and Zambia.

Read More

Friday, 6 February 2009

Asiimwe Paul

EU - East African Community EPA IP issues

Apart from the common market protocol negotiations that have been reported by Darren here, the EAC negotiations to take place in March 2009 will among other issues focus on Intellectual Property.

According to sources close to the negotiations, the draft text will consider all the areas under the TRIPS agreement such as copyright (including the copyright in computer programmes, and neighbouring rights); patents including patents for bio-technological inventions; protection for plant varieties; designs; layout-designs (topographies) of integrated circuits; geographical indications; trademarks for goods or services; protection for data bases; protection against unfair competition and protection of undisclosed confidential information on know how.

Some of the new areas to be tackled include traditional knowledge and folklore. The final text on issues such as this could determine how future negotiations on this issue under the auspices of WIPO or the WTO would turn out.

Subject to the pace of substantive negotiations, the parties (EU and the EAC) are expected to begin full implementation of the new IP regime not later than 1 January 2014. This appears to be an ambitious schedule, considering that most of the EAC member states as LDCs have failed to meet TRIPS standards which are considered by some to be less stringent than those contained in the draft EU-EAC Intellectual Property text. Should the EAC member states sign up on this text, the IP regime of the four member states that are LDCs ie Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi will require tremendous financial and technical support to establish functional IP registries, border and judicial measures in order to comply by 2014.
Read More