Does Africa need a 3rd intergovernmental IP organisation?

There are already two intellectual property associations in Africa, the Anglophone ARIPO, and Francophone OAPI, but there is talk of allocating resources to a third organisation, to be titled the Pan-African Intellectual Property Organisation.

The African Regional Industrial Property Organisation (ARIPO), headquartered in Zimbabwe, enables its members to share resources for the technical implementation of intellectual property legislation. South Africa is an observer of ARIPO.The Francophone Organisation Africaine de la Propriété Intellectuelleimplements the Bangui Agreement.

What function would a third organisation serve? More particularly what function would a third organisation serve which would justify the diversion of scarce resources from the African Union’s members to the creation of yet another organisation, the political manoeuvring to host the organisation, the jockeying for positions in the organisation, and the inevitable boundary disputes between the new organisation and the existing organisations?

Its seems to be this concern about resources which has caused a delay, if not a rethink, of the plan.
According to Sci-Dev “delegates in Abuja found the blueprint too top-heavy since it proposes the establishment of a new ministerial forum, the African Ministerial Council for Intellectual Property”.
That top heaviness comes at a price, ministerial conferences, a salary for a high profile chairperson, and director general. In other words it reflects the hierarchical structure of international organisations like the World Intellectual Property Organisation which has historically received considerable criticism from developing countries as being unresponsive to the development needs of the vast majority of its members. Some commentators see more than a parallel in structure.

IPWatch reports the comments of a developing country source

“Those pushing for the creation of PAIPO are the WIPO secretariat who is driving the AU [African Union] secretariat. The goal is to extend the OAPI/ARIPO model - controlled by WIPO - to the entire African continent so as to considerably reduce the capacity of important non-OAPI/ARIPO members such as South Africa, Egypt [and] Algeria to take independent positions on IP at the international level such as in the debates in WIPO on the Development Agenda.”

While efforts to rationalise co-operation amongst African countries on intellectual property makes sense, the motivations advanced for PAIPO suggest an industrial era approach to intellectual property, which is all the stranger since it is apparently Ministers of Science and Technology who favour creation of a single Pan-African IP organisation.

Its strange because intellectual property is usually the preserve of Ministers of Trade and Industry, historically developing countries have tended to make concessions on intellectual property, which results in net outflow of revenue to developed countries, especially the United States, in return for access to developed world markets for their agricultural produce. Collective action by the continents trade negotiator’s would possibly give an advantage in the realpolitiekof trade negotiation. Isolating intellectual property from trade discussions undercuts any possibility of such an advantage. So the idea makes little sense from a trade perspective. What about from a technology perspective?

Technological development, and innovation and particular, could be enhanced by greater co-operation in Africa, and while that co-operation could include co-operation on intellectual property, if it is to have an impact it would have to take place in a far larger context. That larger context includes attention to the rules concerning the movement of skilled people, especially scientists, the wideness and depth of the knowledge base on which to innovate, the use of government incentives such as prizes, and access to capital by entrepreneurs. Instrumentalist attempts to centrally plan innovation have largely failed. However governments can play a role in creating appropriate environments for innovation to take place in. Governments can also work together in creating such environments. Isolating intellectual property policy from that co-operation will prove counter-productive.