LAW MANTRA

THINK BEYOND OTHERS

(National Monthly Journal, I.S.S.N 23216417)

IPR Implications vis--vis Developing Countries1

INTRODUCTION Intellectual Property (IP) pertains to any original creation of the human intellect such as artistic, literary, technical or scientific creation. Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) refers to the legal rights given by the State to the inventor/creator to protect his invention/creation for a certain period of time. These legal rights confer an exclusive right to the inventor/creator or his assignee to fully utilize his invention/creation for a given period of time. Systems to govern intellectual property and promote social welfare through innovation and knowledge creation are not new. Despite their existence through the past decades and centuries, intellectual property was relatively absent from the public debate. The relationship between intellectual property protection and international trade has been one of the most controversial issues in global negotiations in recent years. The debate has largely about the implications of the agreement on the Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) under the World Trade Organization (WTO) for international trade in general, and for developing countries in particular2. Intellectual property rights have never been as much in the news as they are today. Several issues have attracted controversy. For example, drug companies have been accused of taking advantage of their patent rights by charging exorbitant prices for life-saving medicines such as AIDS drugs. Indigenous peoples and advocacy groups supporting their rights condemn corporate bio pirates for making money out of their knowledge and claiming patent rights for inventions essentially identical to knowledge acquired from tribal healers. Concerns are raised that patenting plants, animals, genes and gene fragments is not only unethical but may also be stifling innovation. Many developing countries complain about the pressure they feel is being

Medha Bhatt, VIth SEMESTER, Amity University, Lucknow The TRIPS agreement covers: copyright and related rights (including the rights of performers, producers of sound recordings and broadcasting organizations); trademarks including service marks; geographical indications including appellations of origin; industrial designs; patents including the protection of new varieties of plants; the layout-designs of integrated circuits; and undisclosed information including trade secrets and test data.
2

imposed on them to introduce western-style IPR regimes before they think they are ready for them, and worry that this situation places them at a serious disadvantage in an era of rapid technological change. And while the global trend is towards ever stronger intellectual property right protection, increasingly determined efforts are made to oppose this process. According to rights-based justifications for IPRs, property in intellectual works is primarily a matter of justice rather than of public policy. IPR laws exist to define and enforce the property rights but are not the source of these rights; since to enjoy a property right over ones creative work is a human right. 3 According to such a view unauthorized use of somebodys invention or creative work is an unfair and therefore illegal intrusion on the creator-proprietors freedom to benefit from its use without interference. This justification does not of course apply so easily to those many cases where IPRs are owned by companies and not individuals. Concerns over the impact of intellectual property rights are not limited to developing countries. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, for example, has recommended adoption of guidelines on patents legislation which should help to develop criteria for granting patents continuously according to technological progress in favour of both the interests of the claiming party, as well as the interests of the public in regard to public order, morality and general aspects of state economy. 4 In addition to reservations about patenting living organisms, the Assembly also extended its concerns to developing country interests by recommending that the many outstanding questions regarding the patentability and the scope of protection of patents on living organisms in the agro food sector must be solved swiftly taking into account all interests concerned, not least those of farmers and developing countries5. Thus there are far-reaching potential economic and social implications of IPRs, and the stakes have never been higher than they are today. Increasing numbers of people have begun to recognise this. Consequently, despite their long history, public interest in IPRs worldwide has reached unprecedented levels, and views on their effects differ quite radically. 6

And this is recognised in the international law of human rights. Article 15.1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights requires state parties to recognize the right of everyone to benefit from the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author. 4 Council of Europe 1999. Biotechnology and Intellectual Property. Recommendation 1425, Parliamentary Assembly, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, Luxemburg. 5 Council of Europe 1999. Biotechnology and Intellectual Property. Recommendation 1425, Parliamentary Assembly, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, Luxemburg and for an examination of the moral aspects of intellectual property protection, see Drahos, P. 1999. Biotechnology Patents, Markets and Morality. European Intellectual Property Review, Vol . 21, No. 9, pp. 441-449. 6 For some examples of such differing views, see, on the one hand, Kumar, N, Intellectual Property Rights,

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT Since the mid-1980s, policymakers in developed and developing countries have directed increasing attention to intellectual property rights (IPRs)7. The globalization of economic activities and the expansion of international transactions involving knowledge-intensive products have generated much friction around this topic.8 This friction often reflects differences in national approaches toward the protection of IPRs. 9 In turn, the various national approaches have fostered a movement toward higher standards of protection at a worldwide level. Many developing countries, for example, have begun to reform their IPR regimes in response to new international commitments,10 domestic economic reforms, and external pressures. Traditionally, attracting FDI in general, and in R&D in particular, has been high on the policy agenda of many countries, as inward flows of R&D are believed to provide net benefits for the host country (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2008).11 Several benefits of outward FDI for the home country have been identified. Such investment allows foreign firms to tap into other sources of expertise, enhance their access to foreign markets and benefit from reverse technology transfer (Griffith et al., 2006; OECD, 2008). In contrast, outward FDI may generate costs for the home country through loss of jobs, loss of technical capability, deindustrialisation and loss of economic benefits, if results are exploited locally (OECD, 2008). The reform of IPRs is a long-term process and there is reason to believe that IPRs will become increasingly important for FDI decisions.

Technology and Economic Development. Experiences of Asian Countries, in Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. XXXVIII, No. 3, January 18, 2003; and Mdecins Sans Frontires/Drugs for the Neglected Diseases Working Group, Fatal Imbalance. The Crisis in Research and Development for Drugs for Neglected Diseases, Geneva, 2001; on the other hand: International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Associations, "Encouraging Pharmaceutical R&D in Developing Countries", Geneva, 2003. 7 Carlos A. Primo Braga, Trade-Related Intellectual Property Issues: The Uruguay Round Agreement and Its Economic Implications, in THE URUGUAY ROUND AND THE DEVELOPING ECONOMIES 381, 381-82 (Will Martin & L. Alan Winters eds., 1995) (published as World Bank Discussion Paper No. 307) [hereinafter Primo Braga]; see also Carlos A. Primo Braga & Carsten Fink, The Economic Justifications for the Grant of Intellectual Property Rights: Patterns of Convergence and Conflict, in PUBLIC POLICY AND GLOBAL TECHNOLOGICAL INTEGRATION 99, 99 (Frederick M. Abbott & David J. Gerber eds., 1997) [hereinafter Braga & Fink]. 8 Braga & Fink, supra note 1; Primo Braga, supra note 1, at 381-88. 9 Primo Braga, supra note 1, at 381-88 10 E.g. Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, LEGAL INSTRUMENTSRESULTS OF THE URUGUAY ROUND vol. 31; 33 I.L.M. 81 (1994) [hereinafter TRIPS Agreement]. 11 A foreign direct investment enterprise is an incorporated or unincorporated enterprise in which a direct investor resident in another economy owns 10 per cent or more of the ordinary shares or voting power (for an incorporated enterprise) or the equivalent (for an unincorporated enterprise).

The available empirical evidence does not conclusively establish the relationship between IPRs and FDI decisions. Regional trading arrangements, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement and a series of Partnership Agreements under negotiation between the European Union and various Eastern European and Middle Eastern nations, now pay significant attention to issues of regulatory convergence, with particular emphasis on intellectual property rights. Most important is the introduction of the multilateral agreement on trade-related intellectual property rights, or TRIPs, within the World Trade Organization (WTO). Finally, while considerable controversy persists over international means of protecting key information technologies, including databases and electronic information transfer, there is an evident commitment to achieving strong protection in these areas. IPRs can be tacit as second-best elucidations to the problems created by the quasi-public good nature of knowledge. To the extent that IPRs develop appropriability, they are ordinary to foster investment in research and development (R&D) and knowledge creation. However, IPRs create a static distortion,12 as they restrain the existing consumption of knowledge by ornamental the market power, or monopolistic practices, of title holders. In short, IPRs involve a government-mediated snip between the creator of knowledge and society. Thus there are indications that strengthening intellectual property rights can be an effective means of inducing additional inward FDI, it is only a component of a far broader set of important influences. Emerging economies should recognize the strong complementarities among IPRs, market liberalization and deregulation, technology development policies, and competition regimes. Governments in emerging economies would do well to devote considerable attention and analysis to means for assuring they will achieve net gains from stronger IPRs and additional IPRs and licensing over time.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND TRADE Increasing and enhancing trade flows through liberalisation remains a priority for Policy makers in many countries, mainly industrialised ones (Sundaram and von Arnim, 2009). A common view assumes that trade liberalisation is an engine for economic development. Empirical evidence confirms the importance of trade for economic growth (Greenaway et al., 1997; Edwards, 1998), except in countries which have suffered from political instability, adopted contractionary macroeconomic policies or undertaken efforts to counteract trade
12

Distortions are factors causing an economy to depart from Pareto-optimality. See JOHN BLACK, A DICTIONARY OF ECONOMICS 131 (1997). The concept of Pareto-optimality is explained in note 66, infra.

reform (Wacziarg and Welch, 2008). For most developing countries, exports allow them to acquire goods through importation that are necessary for economic growth and poverty reduction, but are not produced domestically. In turn, exports can make it possible to transform underutilised natural resources and surplus labour into foreign exchange, in order to pay for imports to support economic growth. However, this process requires speed and stability in export growth so as to meet growing import demand sufficiently. The TRIPS Agreement and increases in the strength of IPRs through bilateral agreements in the TRIPS-plus era have raised concerns for policymakers about the effect of IPRs on trade. Stronger IPRs confer ownership advantages to firms serving foreign markets by providing legal recourse against violation of their assets. In this regard, stronger IPRs expand the markets served by firms. In addition, strong IPRs can increase bilateral exchange to foreign markets by reducing the costs associated with preventing loss of knowledge assets. Such costs consist of foregone revenues resulting from reduced bilateral exchange and/or expenses incurred to make knowledge assets difficult to imitate. For example, they found that patent rights are important to the import of textiles,13 drugs and industrial chemicals for both developed and developing countries. In addition, patent rights are important in the textile imports of the least developed countries. Computer and office equipment imports are affected modestly by patent rights, and insignificantly so in the case of imports by developing and least developed nations.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND INNOVATION Although there is not one uniquely accepted definition, innovation is often defined as the conversion of knowledge into new commercialized technologies, products and processes, and how these are brought to market. 14 Economic theories of endogenous growth emphasize the critical importance of allocating resources to innovation in sustaining long-run economic growth in both developed and developing countries. Countries with the highest technological capacity are better able to enhance the efficiency of their production methods and exploit new market opportunities. These higher technology- intensive countries enjoy more rapid economic growth because of
13

According to Park and Lippoldt, patent rights are important to the textile imports of least developed countries, where the threat of imitation of fabric patterns and other designs is high and could discourage foreign producers from selling in these markets. 14 The Oslo Manual defines four types of innovation: product innovation (new goods or services or significant improvements to existing ones), process innovation (changes in production or delivery methods), organizational innovation (changes in business practices, workplace organization or in a firms external relations) and marketing innovation (changes in product design, packaging, placement, promotion or pricing) (OECD & Eurostat, 2005).

the high returns to technology investment and the multiplier effects of technological spill over to other economic sectors.15 Studies also find the impact of innovation to be much greater for the aggregate economy than just for the manufacturing sector.16 Evidence suggests that roughly half of cross-country differences in per-capita income and growth are explained by differences in total factor productivity, which is driven mainly by technological progress.17 Innovation is estimated to account for 80 percent of productivity growth in advanced countries; productivity growth, in turn, accounts for some 80 percent of GDP growth.18 Differences in innovative activity and related technological gaps between countries are a significant factor in explaining cross-country variation in income and productivity levels.19According to several studies, roughly half of cross-country differences in per capita income and growth can be explained by differences in total factor productivity, a measure of an economys long-term technological change or dynamism. 20 In addition, the variation in the growth rate of GDP per capita is shown to increase with the distance from the technology frontier. Countries with fewer technological and inventive capabilities generally see lower and more diverse economic growth than do richer countries. As a result, reducing income gaps between economies is directly linked to improved innovation performance,21 which is in part driven by spill over from high-income to other economies. These spill over are frequently driven by knowledge acquired through channels such as foreign direct investment (FDI), trade, licensing, joint ventures, the presence of multinationals, migration and/or collaboration with firms from higher-income countries. 22Strategies for acquiring, adapting, imitating and improving technologies and existing techniques in relation to local conditions are keys for innovation. In addition, certain framework conditions, adequate
15

Hall, Bronwyn H. and Adam B. Jaffe. 2001. The NBER Patent Citations Data File: Lessons, Insights and Methodological Tools Tel Aviv University, The Foerder Institute for Economic Research. 16 Ulku, Hulya. 2004. R&D, Innovation, and Economic Growth: An Empirical Analysis. IMF Working Paper, International Monetary Fund. 17 For example, Lederman, Daniel and William F. Maloney. 2003. R&D and Development Policy Research Working Paper, World Bank; Bresnahan, Timothy and Manuel Trajtenberg. 2001. General Purpose Technologies Engines of Growth? NBER Working Papers No. 4148. 18 Steinberg, Rolf and Olaf Arndt. 2001. What Determines the Innovation Behavior of European Firms? Economic Geography. 19 See Fagerberg (1994); Hall and Jones (1999); Fagerberg et al. (2009); Klenow Rodriguez-Clare(1997); Griliches (1998); and Parisi et al. (2006). 20 See Jones and Romer (2010); Guinet et al. (2009); and Bresnahan and Trajtenberg (1995). 21 See Hulten and Isaksson (2007). 22 In the context of developing countries, particularly for those in the early stages of development, technology transfer from foreign high-income economies and the spillover effects from foreign investment have been considered the most important sources of innovation, since most such countries lack the capital and the skills to conduct state-of-the-art research.

human capital and absorptive capacity are necessary at the country- and firm-level in order to benefit from innovation spill over. The literature refers to the necessary presence of functioning national innovation systems with linkages between innovation actors and a government policy that underpins innovation activity. 23 Little is known about the effects of IPRs on international technology transfer through nonmarket channels, mainly reverse engineering and imitation. More precisely, it would be interesting to investigate to what extent the free technical information divulged in the exchange of patent rights is used as a source for new inventions in developing countries. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND PUBLIC HEALTH Before the World Trade Summit in Doha in 2001, the Ministers of Health of South Africa and Belgium issued a strong statement noting that It is a crime against humanity for poor people to die because life saving medicines are too expensive.24 Many, particularly public health advocates, claim that patents are responsible for such a crime because patented essential medicines are too expensive and thus not affordable to the poor people living in developing countries (DLCs) and least-developed countries (LDCs).25 For developing countries, where the demand is weak but not the need there is little incentive to develop new or modified interventions appropriate to the disease burden and conditions of the country. This economic reality introduces an important gap in the innovation cycle: either no products exist in the first place, or if they do, then there is often disproportionately small effort, globally, to make them more effective and affordable in poorer communities. Broadly speaking, the innovation cycle does not work well, or even at all, for most developing countries. Making the innovation cycle work in developing countries depends on improving the efficiency of the innovation process by addressing both technical and policy challenges at each stage of the cycle (discovery, development and delivery). Special issues arise at the interfaces between the stages of the process, and within each stage. For example, improved research tools and platform technologies could go a long way towards streamlining innovation, both leading up to and within the discovery stage. Many of the approaches used in
23 24

See Jones and Romer (2010). Mary Ann D. Lansang,Access to Medicines: Reorienting the Research Agenda,http://www.novartisfoundation.org/platform/content/element/278/access_research_agenda.pdf (last visited Dec.25, 2013). 25 For example, Mdecins Sans Frontires [hereinafter MSF]states in its website, Many medicines, in particular those that are still relatively new such as HIV medicines are too expensive for use in poor countries. Patent protection has increased in developing countries and this pushes prices up because patents provide a monopoly for the originator company for up to 20 years, blocking competition. See Campaign for Access to Essential Medicines: About Us, http://www.msfaccess.org/about-us/(last visited Sept. 254, 2011).

the development stage have not changed significantly in decades. The regulatory framework poses specific challenges in the process of development, and in facilitating delivery. The purpose of our investigation is to seek ways to make the innovation cycle work better to develop and supply healthcare products needed by poor people in developing countries. Our concept of innovation sees the process as a cycle consisting of three major phases that feed into each other: discovery, development and delivery. This is in contrast to conceiving of innovation as an entirely linear process that culminates in the launch of a new product. Within the innovation cycle, public health need creates a demand for products of a particular kind, suited for the particular medical, practical or social context of the group in question, and feeds into efforts to develop new or improved products. In topical years, common companies have become more strategically proactive and successful in challenging the patents of novel drugs. For example, Indias Ranbaxy Laboratories challenged the patent of Pfizers Lipitor in Australian court and invalidated one of its patents, although it was held to have infringed the basic patent covering atorvastatin.26 To retaliate against generic companies challenging their patents, MPCs adopted a strategy of authorized generics which grants another friendly generic company a license to produce a generic version of the original drug.27 For instance, a generic company Mylen Pharmaceuticals challenged the validity of a patent for Macrobis (for the treatment of urinary tractinfections) and therefore was entitled to the 180-days market exclusivity. The patent holder Procter & Gamble then licensed another generic company Watson Pharmaceuticals to manufacture a generic version of the drug, thereby stopping Mylens 180-day market exclusivity. MPCs also frequently reach settlements with a generic competitor to delay generic competition. Specifically, when facing a patent validity challenge, the MPCs agree to pay a generic competitor a certain sum of money, in return, the generic competitor agrees to delay the date of market entry. It is called a reverse payment settlement, because in this kind of settlement, the patentee pays the alleged infringer, which is opposite to a normal settlement scenario where an accused infringer, e.g., generic competitor, pays the patentee. Several cases involving reverse payment settlement have been challenged for antitrust law violations. Courts are divided on the issue whether these kind of settlements are legal. So far, the 2nd Circuit and Federal Circuit

26

Partial Win for Ranbaxy in Lipitor Case v.Pfizer in Australia, http://www.financialexpress.com/news/partialwin-for-ranbaxy-in-lipitor-case-vs-pfizer-in-australia/315685/ (last visited Sept. 25, 2011). 27 Pugatch, supranote 5, at 11.

held that it is legal per se,28 while the 11thCircuit held that they should be treated under the rule of reason, and the 6th Circuit ruled that they are illegal per se.29 Prof. Mark Lemley filed a friend-of-the-court brief to request the Supreme Court to hear the case, as they believe that the holding of per se legality is wrong.30 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, GENETIC RESOURCES AND TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE

The concepts of indigenous knowledge and traditional knowledge are widely used yet their meanings rarely provided. Their usage is often subject to confusion. There have been various efforts to define these concepts, but there are so far no universally adopted definitions. Different persons define them differently depending on their intellectual persuasion. And many often use the concept of traditional knowledge interchangeably with that of indigenous knowledge. Indigenous knowledge, as far as we are concerned, is that knowledge that is held and used by a people who identify themselves as indigenous of a place based on a combination of cultural distinctiveness and prior territorial occupancy relative to a more recently-arrived population with its own distinct and subsequently dominant culture.31 Traditional knowledge is, on the other hand, that which is held by members of a distinct culture and/or sometimes acquired by means of inquiry peculiar to that culture, and concerning the culture itself or the local environment in which it exists.32 Indigenous knowledge fits neatly in the traditional knowledge category but not traditional knowledge is not necessarily indigenous. That is to say, indigenous knowledge is traditional knowledge but traditional knowledge is not necessarily indigenous. Traditional knowledge is thus the totality of all knowledge and practices, whether explicit or implicit, used in the management of socio-economic and ecological facets of life. This knowledge is established on past experiences and observation. It is usually a collective property of a society. Many members of the particular society contribute to it over time, and it is modified and enlarged as it is used over time. This knowledge is transmitted from generation
28

They held that the settlement has no antitrust problem unless: (1) patent was obtained by fraud, (2) infringement suit has no basis, (3) restrains competition beyond the scope of patent. See CCH 2010-1 Trade Cases 76,989, Arkansas Carpenters Health & Welfare Fund v. Bayer AG, 604 F.3d 98 (Apr.29, 2010). 29 Reverse Payment Settlements Return to the Supreme Court, http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2011/01/reversepayment-settlements-return-to-the-supreme-court.html (last visited Sept. 25, 2011). 30 Kurt R. Karst, State AGs Urge U.S. Supreme Court to Take on Patent Settlement Agreements, 1(Jan, 2014) 31 UNEP/CBD/COP/3/Inf. 33, Annex 2. 32 UNEP/CBD/COP/3/Inf. 33, Annex 2.

to generation. According to UNEP, this knowledge can be contrasted with cosmopolitan knowledge, which is drawn from global experience and combines western scientific discoveries, economic preferences and philosophies with those of other widespread cultures.33 It is generally an attribute of a particular people, who are intimately linked to a particular socio-ecological context through various economic, cultural and religious activities. In addition, traditional knowledge is dynamic in nature and changes its character as the needs of local people change. Examples of traditional knowledge include knowledge about the use of specific plants and/or parts thereof, identification of medicinal properties in plants, and harvesting practices. Recent years have witnessed a paradigm shift in the recognition of and appreciation for the role of traditional knowledge. There is new awareness among (conventional, laboratory, Western or institutional) scientists that farmers and indigenous peoples not only have knowledge but also often actively engage in research. Rather like the rediscovery of Mendels Laws at the beginning of the 20th century, the end of the century saw a rediscovery of the creativity and innovation of rural societies. For some time, conventional science believed that traditional knowledge was a hit or miss affair through which communities built up a storehouse of useful experiences passed from generation to generation. Over the past decade or so, biotechnology, pharmaceutical and human health care industries have increased their interest in natural products as sources of new biochemical compounds for drug, chemical and agro-products development.34 The decade has also witnessed a resurgence of interest in traditional knowledge and medicine. This interest has been stimulated by the importance of traditional knowledge as a lead in new product development. Of the 119 drugs developed from higher plants and on the world market today, it is estimated that 74% were discovered from a pool of traditional herbal medicine.35 A report prepared by the Rural Advancement Fund International (RAFI) estimated that at the beginning of the 1990s, worldwide sales of pharmaceuticals amounted to more than U$130,000 million annually.36 African countries and their traditional peoples have contributed considerably to the global drugs industry. 20 plant species from the tropics generate about US$4 billion for the US

33 34

UNEO/CBD/COP/3/Inf. 33., p. 9. Reid, W. et. al. 1993. 35 7 Laird, S. 1994. 36 RAFI, 1994.

economy.37 The search for these plants has been accompanied by appropriation of traditional knowledge. The plant yields maytansine which was considered a potential treatment for pancreatic cancer. All the material collected was traded without the consent of the Digo, neither was there any recognition of their knowledge of the plant and its medicinal properties. Contributions of traditional peoples to the global crop production system have well been documented.38 It is estimated, for example, that the United States of America economy alone has annual sales at least US$50 m However, intellectual rights of these peoples are not recognized and protected. In addition, indigenous and local peoples do not share, at least in a fair and equitable manner, benefits arising from the appropriation of their knowledge and its subsequent use in drug development.

CONCLUDING REMARKS This article reviewed the evidence on the effects of IPRs in developing countries in the context of the WTO TRIPS Agreement and the development of TRIPS-plus standards. TRIPS encouraged the international harmonisation of IPR regimes by providing a minimum standard of protection for IP, and a dispute resolution system for entities to challenge breaches of these standards. Since the establishment of TRIPS, there has been an increase in the number of new deals formed through bilateral and regional free trade agreements to strengthen these minimum standards of protection, the so-called TRIPS plus standards. The impact of strengthening IPRs in developing countries in five main areas FDI, trade, innovation, public health, and genetic resources and traditional knowledge through a review of the most recent scholarly and grey literature. Article report show that stronger IPRs seem to influence the decisions of individual firms in developed countries by encouraging them to export, invest and transfer their technologies through licensing in developing countries, in particular those with strong technical absorptive activities. It also found that stronger IPRs can hamper access to medicines in developing countries and do not necessarily encourage pharmaceutical innovation that responds to developing country needs. This article stressed that uniform IP laws cannot ensure diversity of access and benefit-sharing from genetic resources and traditional knowledge.

37 38

Okoth-Owiro, A. with Juma, C. 1996. See for example Kloppenburg, J.; and Roht-Arriza N. 1996.

Finally, the revealed important knowledge gaps in the empirical literature on the effects of strengthening IPRs in developing countries. Therefore, its findings should be interpreted with caution. It needs a new direction for its implementation in the developing countries.

By:Medha Bhatt, VIth SEMESTER, Amity University, Lucknow