Please note - this is a temporary window. id21 is joining forces with Eldis and therefore the id21 website has been suspended. Soon all id21 content will be available on the Eldis website.

Intellectual property rights: food for the rich but poison for the poor?

Can rules concerning intellectual property rights (IPRs) benefit developing countries and reduce poverty? How should IPR rules and regimes cover access to genetic resources? Are the costs involved in patent litigation a necessary price to pay for the incentives offered by the patent system?

A report by the Commission on Intellectual Property Rights entitled ‘Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy’ seeks the middle ground in the debate between advocates and foes of IPRs which has strengthened since the agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) in 1994. Taking the view that IPRs are here to stay whatever their good and bad points, the report shows that most developing countries currently lack the means to take advantage of the opportunities IPRs provide and may incur substantial costs in implementing intellectual property (IP) regimes.

Drawing on a series of international consultations, the report stresses the importance of distinguishing between developing nations that have substantial scientific and technological capability – such as India and China – from the majority that do not. It warns of the risk that IP systems will introduce distortions detrimental to the interests of developing countries. The globalisation of IP protection will lead to large net transfers from developing to developed countries.

The report shows that:

TRIPS has strengthened the global protection offered to suppliers of technology without a counterbalancing strengthening of global competition policies.
IP rules and regulations may be hampering research on new crops or important diseases that affect developing countries.
Though the Internet offers opportunities for developing countries to access needed information, the spread of encryption and new IP rules may make this material less accessible than is now the case with printed material.
North-south bilateral or regional trade agreements often push developing nations to implement IP regimes that go beyond TRIPS minimum standards.
Tools of IP policy that were used historically are now restricted under TRIPS.

Too often, the interests of the producer dominate in the development of IP policy. Moves within the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) to harmonise patent systems do not take sufficient account of the interests of the poor. Developing countries lack negotiating strength to pursue their interests effectively in international negotiations.

The Commission warns that if there are to be benefits to developing countries from IP protection they will have to come from an offsetting dynamic stimulus to trade, the development of technology, investment and growth, but finds little evidence to suggest that IP protection by itself is a major factor in achieving that. It suggests that higher IP standards should not be pushed on to developing countries without assessing their development impact.

Among the recommendations are calls for:

developed countries to reconcile their commercial self interest with the need to reduce poverty in developing countries
the WTO and WIPO to take into account the needs and interests of those who are adversely affected by IP rights – and not just the interests of potential beneficiaries
international action to make it harder for commercial interests to claim rights on what is already known in developing countries
donor funding of agricultural and medical research in areas that lack a lucrative market
TRIPS implementation for Least Developed Countries to be postponed until at least 2016
international co-operation to improve access to medicines by exploring the potential of ‘compulsory licensing’ whereby developing countries could contract a third party to manufacture a patented product.

Source(s):
‘Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy’, Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, September 2002 Full document.

Funded by: Department for International Development, UK

id21 Research Highlight: 23 July 2003

Further Information:
IPR Unit
Room 9E15
Department for International Development (DFID)
1 Palace Street
London SW1E 5HE
UK

Tel: +44 (0)20 7023 1732
Fax: +44 (0)20 7023 0797
Contact the contributor: ipr@dfid.gov.uk

Department for International Development (DFID), UK

Views expressed on these pages are not necessarily those of DfID, IDS, id21 or other contributing institutions. Articles featured on the id21 site may be copied or quoted without restriction provided id21 and originating author(s) and institution(s) are acknowledged. Copyright © 2009 IDS. All rights reserved.

id21 is funded by the UK Department for International Development. id21 is one of a family of knowledge services at the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex. id21 is a www.oneworld.net partner and an affiliate of www.mediachannel.org. IDS is a charitable company, No. 877338.