WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  IP/C/W/552 
21 October 2010 
 (10-5481) 
Council for Trade-Related Aspects of 
Intellectual Property Rights Original:   English 
 
 
 
PRIORITY NEEDS FOR TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL COOPERATION 
 
Communication from Tanzania  
 
 
 According to paragraph 2 of the Decision of 29 November 2005 on the Extension of the 
Transition Period under Article 66.1 for Least Devel oped Country Members, "all the least developed 
country Members will provide to the Council for TR IPS, preferably by 1 January 2008, as much 
information as possible on their individual priority needs for technical and financial cooperation in 
order to assist them taking steps necessa ry to implement the TRIPS Agreement". 
  The present document reproduces the inform ation which has been received from the 
delegation of Tanzania by means of a communi cation dated 3 August 2010 and 19 October 2010. 
  
_______________ 
 
1. INTRODUCTION 
 On 29 November 2005 the TRIPS Council exte nded the original transition period for 
implementation of the TRIPS Agreement by LDCs under Article 66.1 TRIPS, from 1 January 2006 to 
1 July 2013.  That decision called for LDCs to provide the TRIPS Council, preferably before 1 
January 2008, as much information as possible on thei r individual priority needs for technical and 
financial assistance for implementing the TRIPS Ag reement.  Under Article 67 TRIPS, developed 
country members have an obligation to provide technical and financial assistance to developing 
countries for implementing the TRIPS Agreement.  
Tanzania took the initiative to respond to th e TRIPS Council decision of 29 December 2005 
by making use of a diagnostic tool kit and consultancy support from a pilot project undertaken by the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable De velopment (ICTSD) and S aana Consulting in 2007, 
with financial support from the UK Department for International Development (DFID).  With active 
participation from a wide range of stakeholders the pilot project completed a comprehensive needs 
assessment and stakeholder consultation exercise in Tanzania in October 2007,
 under the leadership 
of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Marketing (MITM) in collaboration with the Business Registrations and Licensing Agency (BRELA).    
Apart from MITM and BRELA other stakeholde rs who attended the meeting included those 
from the Copyright Society of Tanzania (COSOTA), the Attorney General’s Chambers, Police Force, 
the Fair Competition Commission (FCC), Tanzania Food and Drugs Authority (TFDA) and the Customs Department of the Tanzania Revenue Au thority (TRA).  The aim of the stakeholders’ 
meeting was to identify Tanzania’s  priority needs for technical and financial assistance, as well as 
needs for cooperation in order to implement the TRIPS Agreement. 
 IP/C/W/552 
Page 2  
 
   The report of the needs assessment and cons ultation exercise identified the problems, 
challenges and key issues related to the implemen tation of the TRIPS Agreement as well as the long-
term requirements for technical assistance and ca pacity building on the implementation of the 
objectives, principles, rights and obligations of the TRIPS Agreement for Tanzania in four major 
areas: 
 
a)  IP policy, legal and regulatory framework; 
b) Promoting innovation, technology transfer, creativity and using IP for development;  
c)  IPR administration infrastructure; and d) Enforcement and regulatory regime for IPRs. 
 
 Based on this assessment, Tanzania is subm itting formally its needs for technical and 
financial assistance to the TRIPS Council with encouragement from the TRIPS Council Members.  
Tanzania will be following up the needs assessment  work by translating it into a national capacity 
building programme through BRELA under the Ministry of Industry Trade and Marketing.  Work will 
be undertaken in close collaboration with stakeholde rs and development partners to formulate a suite 
of priority technical assistance projects and activ ity clusters within an overall national capacity 
building programme on trade, IP and TRIPS for Tanzania.   The overall goal of the project is to further integrate Tanzania into the global economy and 
world trading system by increasing the contribution of IP towards the achievement of sustainable 
economic growth and poverty reduction.  The speci fic purpose of the programme is to upgrade the 
national system for IP generation, protection, admini stration and enforcement in Tanzania in line with 
TRIPS and applicable regional and international IP agreements.  The main expected results of the 
programme can be summarised as follows:  
• Improved legal context harmoni zed with objectives, principles, rights, obligations and 
flexibilities set out in the TRIPS Agreement, as well as other commitments to international 
and regional IP standards; 
 
• Modern, service-oriented, and accessible and automated administration services for IPRs 
available for enterprises, creators and inventors in Tanzania; 
 
• Strengthened institutional fram ework and improved national IP  coordination mechanism;  
• Increased awareness and use of IP as a tool for economic development and integration in 
Tanzania; and 
• Structured expansion of IP education, tr aining and research institutions and programmes 
within a common national network. 
  Development Partners, including potentially multilateral organisations and WTO Members 
(National IP offices, Development Agencies, Innovation, Technology Research Institutes and 
Education Organizations) will be requested by Tanz ania to provide experts for specific programme 
activities.  The project implementing team will us e financial support from de velopment Partners to 
procure consultancy services from international and na tional experts and academics in the fields of IP 
law, economics, administration, education and trai ning, enforcement, and management.  In this 
regard, Tanzania welcomes multila teral organizations and WTO Memb ers to provide support towards 
the implementation of this programme.   
  IP/C/W/552 
 Page 3 
 
 
  2. NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT 
 The national development context, in terms of the broad range of economic, industrial, 
human, social and institutional factors, are of great  importance for the design of technical assistance 
and capacity building programmes in  any sector and IP-related technical assistance (IPRTA) is most 
certainly no exception.  This section first looks at some of the key issues and challenges related to the 
national development context in LD Cs, before setting out a detailed ch ecklist to guide an assessment 
of key factors that should be taken into account in  the planning of an IPRTA programme or project. 
 
2.1 Key Issues and Challenges 
  Donors and providers of IPRTA must be constant ly aware that the development of IP systems 
in LDCs cannot be considered in isolation to the general development context and needs of the 
country concerned.  For example, the sustainabl e provision of information technology equipment for 
an IP office may require consideration of financia l resources and local skills to service and maintain 
the equipment, reliable power supply and telecommunications infrastructure or associated equipment 
like air conditioners. 
  Other factors like the level of formal IPR regi stration activity (e.g. low numbers of patenting 
and trademark applications) in a small or very low- income country may mean that it is not technically 
feasible nor economically viable for such a country to establish and sustain an IPR system comparable 
to developed countries in terms of capacity for ad ministration, enforcement and regulation of IPRs. 
 
 It follows from this that the assessment of  IPRTA and capacity building requirements of a 
developing country should be based on what that c ountry needs, rather than on what a donor country 
wants, or is able, to provide.  Recipients of IPRT A from LDCs obviously have a key role to play in 
informing such assessments, based on a broad and me dium term perspective, and a wide range of 
stakeholders should be involved – not just nationa l IP offices but stakeholders from other government 
agencies, the business sector and civil society as well.     Donors do have an important role to play in  this process by assisting LDCs to understand the 
international IP systems and their future developm ents, as well as sharing the lessons of their own 
experience.  For example, IP offices of donor co untries as well as other traditional and non-traditional 
IP technical assistance donor agencies may be able to share experiences on the use of specific legal 
models and administrative practices for IP prot ection (e.g. utility mode ls, certain kinds of sui generis  
protection systems, or protocols for ensuring equita ble access to, and benefit sharing from, biological 
material) that could be appropriate for the needs of stakeholders in developing countries.  In this way, 
donors can provide LDCs with sufficient informati on to make informed decisions about how their 
national systems should develop and what can be real istically achieved and delivered in the short and 
long term. 
 
2.2 Diagnostic assessment checklist 
 
2.2.1 Economic Development status and economic structure 
 
• What is the economic status of the country in terms of GDP and recent growth levels?  What 
is the economic structure of the  country, including the manufacturing, services and 
agricultural sectors? 
 
¾ The GDP amounted T Sh 24,754,457 Million in 2008 at current prices or 
T Sh 14,828,345 million in 2001 constant prices. 
Contribution to GDP ¾ Agriculture 25.7 per cent IP/C/W/552 
Page 4  
 
  ¾ Manufacturing 7.8 per cent 
¾ Services 43.8 per cent 
  In 2008, the GDP in real terms grew by 7.4 per cent compared to 7.1 per cent in 2007.   
 The agriculture sector grew by 4.5 per cent in 2008 compared to 4.1 per cent in 2007.  The 
Agriculture Sector contributed 25.7 per cent to  GDP, compared to 25.8 per cent in 2007. 
  The growth rate of the manufacturing sector was 9.9 per cent in 2008 compared to 8.7 per 
cent in 2007.  The contribution of the sector  to GDP increased to 7.8 per cent in 2008. 
 
 The growth rate of the mining and quarrying sector decline from 10.7 per cent in 2007, to 
2.5  per cent in 2008.  The contribution of the sector to GDP decline from 3.5 per cent in 
2007, from 3.4 per cent in 2008. 
 
 In 2008, the construction sector grew by 10.5 per cent compared to 9.7 per cent in 2007.  The 
share of the sector increased to GDP was 7.7 pe r cent in 2008, compared to 7.8 per cent in 
2007. 
  The growth rate of electricity and water sector declined to 5.4 per cent in 2008, compared to 
10.9 per cent in 2007.  The contribution of elect ricity and water sector to GDP was 1.7 per 
cent in 2008, compare to 1.6 per cent in 2007. 
  The trade, hotels and restaurants sector, incl uding tourism, grew by 8.5 per cent in 2008, 
compared to 8.1 per cent in 2007. The contributio n of the sector to GDP increased to 43.7 per 
cent in 2008, compare to 43.3 per cent in 2007. 
 
 In 2008, the transport and communication sector grew by 6.9 per cent compared to 6.5 per 
cent in 2007.  The sector's contribution to GDP in 2008 remained at 4.2 per cent, as it was in 2007. 
  The financial and business services sector grew  by 11.9 per cent in 2008 compared to 10.2 per 
cent in 2007.  The sector's contribution to GDP in 2008 remained at 1.6 per cent, as it was in 
2007. 
  In 2008, the growth rate of public administ ration and other services sector grew by 9.0 per 
cent compared to 6.9 in 2007.  The growth rate of public administration sub-sector increased 
to 7.0 per cent, from 6.7 per cent in 2007.  The education, health and other services sub-
sectors grew by 6.9 and 9.0 per cent respectively in 2008 compared to 5.5 and 8.8 per cent respectively in 2007.  The increase in the gr owth rates of those sub sectors was due to 
implementation of education development programmes partic ularly primary and secondary 
education development programme s, and expansion of health services in the country.  The 
sector's contribution to GDP increased to 5.5 per cent in 2007 to 6.9 per cent in 2008. 
 
• What are the main industries and sources of em ployment & investment in the country?  How 
are these trends changing over time? 
 
 The main industrial sub sectors are; Tea s ub sector, Non metal and mi neral products, Metallic 
products, Brewery, Wood and w ooden products, Tobacco sub sector, Soft drinks, Packaging 
industries, Soft drinks, Meat and meat produc ts, Automotive, Fishery, Leather and leather 
products, Edible oil, Energy sub sector, Coffee sub sector, Dairy and dairy products, Drinking 
water sub sector, Sugar sub sector, Cashew s ub sector, Chemicals sub sector, Textile and  IP/C/W/552 
 Page 5 
 
 
  textile products, Food sub sector and Pharmace uticals. Human resources in these industries 
include locals and foreigners.  Some industries are privately owned by locals, privately owned 
by foreigners, Joint ventures between foreigners  and locals and State and privately owned.  
 
• What is the ownership structure in the various sectors of manufacturing, service and 
agriculture 
 
¾ Specific information in ownership structure is  not available.  There are those which are 
owned by locals, foreigners and other by joint ventures. 
 
• What information is available about levels of  expenditure in Research & Development, levels 
of technology licensing activities? 
 
¾ Information is not available on the level of expenditure in R&D as different R&D 
Institutions have different sources of resources in R&D 
¾ No licensing agreement so far has been entered into at the Patent Registry. 
 
• What are the levels for key telecommunications and information technology indicators, such 
as numbers of telephone lines p er capita and Internet usage? 
 
By 30th June 2009, about 17.6 millions Tan zanians (at most) owned voice telephone lines. 
The mobile voice telecommunication leads the ma rket by having more subscriptions (99 per 
cent) as compared to fixed line services (1 per cent) 
 
The annual number of Tanzanian subscribing for a voice telephone lines grows at an average 
rate of 50+ per cent.  The mobile telephone num ber grows exponentially at the rate of 118 per 
cent while fixed lines grows at 24 per cent Internet users (per 1000 people) = 1.4  
• Are business and government agencies generally  able to utilize modern IT hardware and 
software applications to capture efficiency and pr oductivity gains?  If not, what measures are 
being taken or planned to address these problems? 
 
¾ Only some businesses and government agencies are able to utilize modern IT hardware 
and software. National ICT Policy is in place to facilitate efficiently use of ICT. 
 
2.2.2 Human Development Status and Poverty Profile 
 
• What is the national social and economic status of the country?  
 
¾ Gross per capita. 
¾ Per capita was T Sh 629,884 in 2008 compared to T Sh 546,956 in 2007 at current prices, 
equivalent to an increase of 15.2 per cent. 
¾ Level and Incidence of poverty:  
  In order to reduce income poverty, GDP grow th needs to b sustained at 6 to 8 per cent 
per annum, in the past six years the GDP has been growing at an average rate of 7.0 per cent per annum which reflects that the real GDP is within the target.  Despite the effect 
of drought that resulted to shortage of power the real GDP continues to grow where by in 
2007 the growth rate was 7.1 per cent compar e to 6.7 per cent in 2006 at constant 2001 
price.  In improving social well being, indicators such as education, health and 
availability of water and sanitation have been considered.  The achievements obtained so 
far have been reflected in the provision of social services. IP/C/W/552 
Page 6  
 
  • What is the general health and education situa tion for the population?  (e.g. infant mortality 
rate, maternal mortality rate, under 5 mortality rate, literacy levels)?  What is the level of 
government expenditure per capita on ed ucation and healthcare in the country? 
 
¾ Infant mortality rate 84/1000 live births 
¾ Under-five mortality rate  134/1000 live births 
¾ Maternal mortality rate 14/1,000 live births 
¾ Allocation to the education affairs and servi ces sector increased to 6.7 per cent in 2008 
compared to 5.5 per cent in 2007, while a llocation to health affairs and services sector 
increased to 9.0 per cent from 8.8 per cent in 2007. 
 
• Is the population in the country facing ac ute problems in accessing key technologies for 
human development and poverty reduction (such as access to essential me dicines, textbooks 
and educational materials, inputs for subsistence agriculture, etc)?  If so, what measures are 
being taken or planned to improve access?  
 
¾ Measures taken to improve access includes those of sensitizing and empowering least 
developed countries including Tanzania to ta ke advantage of the WTO flexibilities for 
creating viable technological base due to their special needs and requirements economically, financially and administratively so  as to address their specific constraints in 
the areas mentioned above. 
 
2.2.3 National Development Strategies and Assistance Programmes 
 
• What are the national development priorities,  plans and strategies for poverty reduction in 
the country? Are these clearly articulated in  published documents, such as Poverty Reduction 
Strategy Papers? 
 
¾ The National Strategy for Growth and Re duction of Poverty (NSGRP) is a national 
organizing framework for putting the focus on poverty reduction high on the country's development agenda. The NSGRP is inform ed by the aspirations of Tanzania's 
Development Vision (Vision 2025) for high and shared growth, high quality livelihood, 
peace, stability and unity, good governance, high quality education and international 
competitiveness. It is committed to the Millennium Development goals (MDGs), as 
internationally agreed targets for reduc ing poverty, hunger, diseases, illiteracy, 
environmental degradation and discrimination against women by 2015.  It strives to 
widen the space for country ownership and effec tive participation of civil society, private 
sector development and fruitful local and ex ternal partnerships in development and 
commitment to regional and other intern ational initiatives for social and economic 
development. 
 
¾ The NSGRP builds on the Poverty Reduction St rategy Paper (PRSP)) (2000/01 -02/03), 
the PRS Review, the Medium Term Plan for Growth and Poverty Reduction and the 
Tanzania Mini -Tiger Plan 2020 (TMTP2020) that emphasize the growth momentum to 
fast -track the targets of Vision 2025. 
 
• Have issues related to IPR, research and d evelopment, access to technologies and knowledge 
products been addressed in such documents? 
 
¾ Only issues relating to R&D, access to technologies have been clearly addressed 
  IP/C/W/552 
 Page 7 
 
 
  • What is the Official Development Assistance ( ODA) framework for the country?  Who are the 
key donors? What are the major ODA-funded programmes and future plans?  
 
 Tanzania is managing the ODA through a Join t Assistance Strategy (JAS) under the Ministry 
of Finance. 
 Key Donors. 
There are 14 key donors enumerated under JAS, these are UK, Canada, Japan, Germany, Norway Sweden Switzerland 
 Major ODA – Funded Programme  Primary Education Development Programme (MEM)   Secondary Education Development Programme (MES)  
 Local Government Reform Programme  
 Public Service Reform Programme   Public Finance Reform Programme PFMRP)   Agricultural Sectors Development Programme  
• Has a Diagnostic Trade Integrated Study (DTIS) been undertaken for the country under the 
Integrated Framework for Trade Related Technica l Assistance? What is the current status of 
the Integrated Framework in the country?  
 
¾ Yes 
¾ Identification of quick win projects to be implemented  
 
• How will the proposed IPRTA project or progr amme relate to these ongoing or planned 
efforts by other donors?  What lessons have been learnt by donors providing technical 
assistance and capacity building in the country? 
 
¾ IPRTA is one of the capacity building programmes like any other programme  
 Addresses the weakness of Tanzania n economy in their specific area.  
 
3. INTELLECTUAL  PROPERTY  POLICY  FRAMEWORK  
 This section looks at the key issues and challe nges related to the legal and policy framework 
in LDCs, before setting out a detailed checklist to  guide an assessment, based  on available evidence, 
about the capacity of a country to formulate po licy and legislation on inte llectual property and to 
participate in international IP standards setting and negotiations. 
 
3.1 Key Issues and Challenges 
 
 Most LDCs are members of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) or are in the process of 
accession. Compliance with TRIPS will therefore requi re the preparation and implementation of the 
full range of industrial and intellectual property la ws, as prescribed under the TRIPS Agreement.  At 
the same time, many countries are finding themselve s increasingly involved in negotiations that are 
occurring in parallel at the international, regional a nd bilateral levels, negotiatio ns that are constantly 
reshaping the global IPR regime.  LDCs are increasingly concerned about the TRIPS-plus agreements at the regional and bilateral level, as these tend to require commitments that go beyond the minimum 
standards set out in the TRIPS Agreement. 
 
 The capacity of LDCs to participate effectivel y in international and regional IPR rule making 
and standard setting varies considerably, from influe ntial to virtual spectator.  Effective IPR policy 
development and implementation requires specialized  technical and analytical skills and also a 
capacity to coordinate the policy development proc ess in the national capacity so as to ensure the IP/C/W/552 
Page 8  
 
  participation of key stakeholders both within a nd outside of government.  Responsibility for IPR 
policy in LDCs generally falls to ministries of intern ational trade or foreign affairs.  The subsequent 
development of IP legislation and re gulations is often delegated to mi nistries or departments that are, 
or will be, responsible for the actual administration of the IP system.  
 
 Important IPR issues facing national policy make rs and legislators in developing countries 
include how to regulate access and protect plant varieties and plant genetic materials; how to best 
exploit national biological resources as envisag ed under the Convention of Biological Diversity 
(CBD); whether and how to design and implemen t appropriate systems to protect traditional 
knowledge; how to deal with the various "flexi bilities" afforded under the TRIPS Agreement; and 
how best to continue to adopt administrative sy stems and processes to keep pace with rapidly 
evolving international and regiona l IP systems and standards.  
 
 To ensure that national IPR reform processes are effectively linked to related areas of development policy, and that stakeholders partic ipate effectively in these reform processes, IPRTA 
donors and providers should be mindful of the need to build the capacity of local institutions to carry 
out policy research and dialogue with these stakeholders , in addition to providing international expert 
and legal advice. 
 
 In recent years, concerns have been expr essed from a number of different sources regarding 
the role of donors in providing advice and technical assistance to developing countries for reform of IPR policy and legislation.  While LDC IP offices ty pically value the technical assistance provided by 
institutions such as WIPO or bilateral donors, a nu mber of experts and organizations have raised 
substantial concerns about whether this assistance has always been appropriately tailored to the 
circumstances of the developing country concerned.    Such concerns demonstrate the potential sensitiv ity and importance of this area of domestic 
regulatory policymaking in developing countries.  As many LDCs will continue to depend on 
technical assistance in this area for some time  to come, particularly as they proceed with 
implementation of the TRIPS Agreement, IP technical  assistance should be mindful of the need to 
respond positively to these concerns.   In particular, IPRTA donors and providers should ensure that advice on legal and policy 
reform to LDCs in relation to implementation of  the TRIPS Agreement, always fully takes into 
account the possible options and flexibiliti es to accommodate public policy objectives. 
 
3.2 Diagnostic Assessment Checklist 
 
3.2.1  Key National Concerns and Issues  
 
• What are the key national concerns in relation to IPR policy and legislative framework? 
 
¾ Lack  of National IP Policy. 
¾ Lack of legislation on some important branches of IP including Geographical Indications, 
Industrial Designs, Traditional Knowledge and out-dated provisions in the existing 
legislation.  
 
• How well have such concerns been manifested or articulated by stakeholders in the country? 
Are these concerns based on actual documented evidence? 
 
¾ They have been manifested or articulated  through the media, workshops, meetings, 
seminars, conferences, etc.   IP/C/W/552 
 Page 9 
 
 
  ¾ Yes they are based on docume nted evidence which can be found in various reports, 
(National Stakeholders' meetings, ARIPO Dr aft Instrument on Protection of TK and 
Expression of Folklore, reports from various IP workshops, e.g. Expanding frontier of 
music industry in Tanzania" Bagamoyo, March 13 – 15, 2006.  The report of the "Small 
research on Bongo Flavour in the music busin ess of Tanzania: Livelihood Focus."  
Conducted by Tanzania Youth Coalition (TYC), etc.) 
¾ Lack of legislation is causing the country  to loose out in goods that have unique 
characteristics only found in Tanzania (T anzanite, Usambara flower, etc), genetic 
resources/TK patented and country losing out in benefit sharing. 
 
• Are some potentially important concerns and issues li kely to surface in the near future?  What 
are these?  What measures are being taken or planned to address these? 
 
¾ Yes some potential important concerns are likely to surface. 
¾ Lack of coherence in forming institutional IP policies, refer 2nd bullet above, loss of 
income due to infringements/piracy, etc. 
¾ Planned formulation of National IP Policy, re view of IP Laws, COSOTA is working on a 
fundraising project for purchase of anti-piracy  stickers – HAKIGRAM.  The Regulations 
for the use of the same is in place. 
 
• To what extent have the objectives of the TRIPS Ag reement, Article 7, been taken into account 
in formulating national IP strategy? 
 
¾ No IP Policy in place 
 
3.2.2 National Policymaking/legisl ative processes & stakeholder map 
 
• What Ministry has the lead role in ensuri ng the country's compliance with the TRIPS 
Agreement? 
 
¾ Ministry of Industry, Trade and Marketing 
 
• What Ministry or agency has the lead role in IPR policy making? 
 
¾ Ministry of Industry, Trade and Marketing 
• What is the general policy making process particular ly with respect to public participation in 
the area of IPR? IP/C/W/552 
Page 10  
 
   
 
 
• To what extent does lobbying by particular interest groups influence policy making and 
legislative processes generally and in respect of IPR policy/legislation in particular?  
 
¾ Lack of awareness on IP issues is the big concern 
¾ Large segment of the population is not aware so it becomes difficult to legislate 
 
• If the development of policy and the preparation of legislation for the various forms of IPR 
are the responsibilities of different minist ries or agencies, what are these? 
 
¾ Ministry of Industry, Trade and Marketing, Mi nistry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs. 
 
• What Ministry or agency has the lead role in the drafting of IPR legislation? 
 
¾ Ministry of Industry, Trade and Marketing 
 
• What role do IPR administrators play in poli cy development and the drafting of legislation 
and regulations? 
 
¾ Advisory 
¾ Identifying gaps and controve rsial provisions and recommend  
¾ Soliciting views from stakeholders 
¾ Conduct research and study 
 
• What is the process for developing IPR legislation, regulations and procedures? 
 
¾ Preparation of discussion papers 
¾ Compilation of stakeholders concerns and comments 
¾ Research and study The Policy Making Process in Tanzania 
Start Policy Making Process 
Step 1: Registration of Annual Policy Proposals  
Step 2: Preparation of Technical Paper on Policy Proposal 
Step 3: Appointment of Policy Drafting Team/Consultant 
Step 4: Inception Report 
Step 5: 1st Stakeholder Workshop 
Step 6: Draft Policy Document 
Step 7: 2nd Stakeholder Workshop 
Step 8: Final Draft Policy Document 
Step 9: Cabinet Secretariat 
Step 10: Inter-Ministerial Technical Committee (IMTC) 
Step 11: Cabinet  IP/C/W/552 
 Page 11 
 
 
  ¾ Draft proposal for the relevant legislation and regulations 
 
• Who are the key stakeholders in the count ry's process for IP policy and legislation 
development? 
 
¾ Ministries/Agencies: 
 Industry, Trade and Marketing  Foreign Affairs and In ternational Relations 
 Justice and Constitutional Affairs  Finance  Science, Technology and Higher Education 
 Agriculture and Food Security 
 Health and Community Development  Information, Sports and Culture  Infrastructure  Education and Vocational Training 
 Labour, Employment and Youth Development 
 Environment   The Business Registrations and Licensing Agency (BRELA)  The Copyright Society of Tanzania (COSOTA)  The Fair Competition Commission (FCC) 
 
¾ Enforcement Authorities 
Customs Police Force Judiciary Courts and Tribunals 
 
¾ Non-Government 
IP Agents and Attorneys Inventor Association Copyright Collectives R & D Institutions 
Universities 
Tanzania Chamber of Commerce, Industry and Agriculture Consumers General Public Academic Community 
 
¾ International 
WIPO EPO WTO 
UNDP 
World Bank Foreign IP Offices East African Community (EPA) ARIPO/OAPI UNCTAD, UNIDO, WHO, WCO, ETC 
 
 IP/C/W/552 
Page 12  
 
  3.2.3 Existing Legal Framework for Industrial  and Intellectual Property Protection, 
Enforcement and Regulation 
 
• Does a statement of national policy (i.e. purpo se) with regard to intellectual and industrial 
property exist that forms the basis for IPR laws and the administration of IPRs in the 
country? 
 
¾ No, the statement does not exist 
 
• If there's no explicit statement of purpose, wh ere can the government's expression of such 
purpose best be found? 
 
¾ Laws and Regulations 
¾ International conventions, treaties, agreemen ts and protocols that the country is a 
signatory 
 
• What is the nature and scope of the national legal framework for the establishment and 
enforcement (including ADR) of IP rights? 
 
¾ Patents Act No 1 of 1987 
¾ The Trade and Service Marks Act No. 12 of 1986 
¾ Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act of 1999. 
¾ Plant Breeders Rights Act No.22 of 2003 
¾ Fair Competition Act No. 8 of 2003 
¾ Merchandise Marks Act 1963 
¾ Traditional and Alternative Medicines Act No. 23 2002 
¾ The Seeds Act 
¾ The Civil Procedure Code, 1966 
¾ Penal Code, Chapter 16 
 
• Does the National Legal Framework for IP meet all TRIPS requirements? 
 
¾ It does not. 
 
• If the National Legislation does not meet all TRIPS requirements, what areas require further 
attention? 
 
¾ Establishment of IP Policy, revision of the IP Legislation to include flexibilities and 
minimum standards. 
 
• To what extent have TRIPS flexibilities been c onsidered and reflected in national legislation? 
 
¾ They are not yet reflected but there are propo sals for having provisions that provide for 
public health.  TRIPS flexibilities have not yet been fully considered and reflected in the 
national legislation especially with respect to public health products and particularly 
pharmaceuticals. Available information estimates importation of more than 70 per cent of 
national requirements for essential medicines hen ce there is an urgent need for enactment 
of comprehensive legislation that protects public health and enhances access to essential 
medicines.  The transition period till 2016 given for pharmaceuticals in itself is a 
flexibility which needs to be utilized properly.  During this period the country needs to 
build manufacturing and technological capacity in the area of pharmaceuticals in order to enhance access to essential medicines.   IP/C/W/552 
 Page 13 
 
 
  ¾ Expression and or inclusion of TRIPS flexibiliti es in the proposed Industrial Property Act 
of the United Republic of Tanzania which le gislation consolidates pieces of Intellectual 
Property Laws, currently in force 
¾ Article 27(3)(b) of the TRIPS Agreement  
¾ Compulsory licenses and their implications 
¾ Several stakeholders' and cons ultative meetings have been  conducted and report produced 
on reflection of TRIPS flexibilities in the municipal, domestic or local legislation 
 
3.2.4 Protection of Traditional Knowledge, Folklore and Biodiversity  
 
• What are the broad national interests and/or concerns with respect to protection of 
traditional knowledge, folklore and biodiversity  
 
¾ Lack of database on TK and folklore in the country  
¾ Existence of similar tribes in more than one  country e.g. Masai in Tanzania and Kenya, 
Makonde in Tanzania and Mozambique etc. 
¾ Lack of appropriate and binding  access benefit sharing mechanism 
 
• What activities are currently under way in th e country that have led or will lead to the 
definition   
 
¾ A study on the mapping of creative industries in Tanzania 
¾ ARIPO Instrument on Protection of TK and Expressions of Folklore 
 
• Are there specific issues that are of particular  domestic concern or interest?  Who are the key 
stakeholders with respect to each issue? 
 
¾ Yes. 
¾ Geographical Indication; Kilimanjaro Mountain, Ngorongoro, Kyela rice, etc. 
¾ Traditional Textiles/art; Kikoi cloth, Mgolole cloth, tingatinga art, etc 
¾ Minerals; Tanzanite 
¾ Garden plant of Usambara that has been cross bred and patented by a UK National 
¾ Kihansi toads taken by the US research organization 
 
Key stakeholders: 
¾ Textile Industry (Local manufacturers) 
¾ Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) 
¾ Ministry of Finance 
¾ Ministry of Industry, Trade and Marketing 
¾ Ministry of Local Government and  Cooperatives 
¾ Ministry of Environment and Metrology 
¾ Ministry of Agriculture 
 
• Does the country participate in regional or international 'common interest' blocs in 
connection with any of these issues?  If yes, what ministry or agency has the lead role?  What role do the IPR administrators play in this? 
 
¾ Yes it does 
¾ The Ministry/agency having the leading role is the Ministry of Industry, Trade and 
Marketing and BRELA 
¾ The role IPR administrators play is; par ticipating in negotiations, representing country 
position/interests, Report back/advise  IP/C/W/552 
Page 14  
 
  3.2.5 Recent Legal Changes 
 
• What changes in IPR legislation have been promulgated since 1990? 
 
¾ 1994:  Coming into force of the Patents Act No. 1 of 1987 – Patents Regulations 1994. 
¾ 1999:  Enactment of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act No. 7 of 1999. 
¾ 2000:  The Trade and Service Marks Regulations 2000. 
¾ Accession to the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) 14th September, 2000. 
¾ 2002:  Enactment of the new Plants (Breeders Rights Protection) Act No.  22 of 2002. 
¾ 2003:  Fair Competition Act  
¾ 2005:  Coming into force of the 1963 Merchandise Marks Act 
 
• Why were these changes made?  Was it due to in ternal processes or in response to external 
forces such as the need to implement treaties, etc? 
 
¾ Partly due to the countries obligations, under the international instruments that she is a 
signatory and response to internal unavoid able economic and development trends.   
¾ Regulations were made in order to administer the above laws 
 
• Did the country require TA to undertake these changes?  If so, from whom was the TA 
obtained and under what conditions, if any, was the TA provided? 
 
¾ Patent, Trade & Service Marks – changes had to be locally manifested 
¾ Copyrights – yes; WIPO facilitated sensitisa tion seminars and work shops;  unconditional 
¾ Fair Competition Commission – yes; from World Bank through capacity building and 
project funding;  unconditional 
 
• Have the above legislative changes been implem ented in practice?  That is, are there 
implementing rules and regulati ons or administrative guidelines in place, and are these being 
actively implemented by administrato rs, courts and enforcement authorities? 
 
¾ Yes, the changes have been partially implemen ted in practice and are administered by the 
responsible institutions.  
¾ The High Court of Tanzania has established a Commercial Division that specializes in 
commercial disputes including Intellectual Property matters. 
 
3.2.6 Planned Legal Changes 
 
• What legal changes that will impact IPRs are planned or pending? 
 
¾ Formulating a national IP Policy 
¾ Reviewing existing IP laws 
¾ Enacting new IP laws 
 
• Are the planned legal changes due to inter nal demands/processes or is it because of 
international obligations or  other external factors? 
 
¾ Yes due to both internal demands  and international obligations. 
 
• When are they expected to be promulgated? 
 
¾ After all the procedures for enactment have been exhausted.  IP/C/W/552 
 Page 15 
 
 
  3.2.7 Membership of International Treaties and Agreements 
 
• Is the country a member of the WTO?  Is the country acceding to the WTO? 
 
¾ Yes (member). 
 
• Is the country a full member or observer at WIPO? 
 
¾ Full member 
 
• Is the country a member of other key intell ectual property protection, global protection 
system and classification treaties?  If so, which ones? 
 
¾ Yes 
¾ Berne convention 
¾ Paris convention 
¾ PCT 
¾ WIPO 
¾ Nice Agreement 
¾ International Patent Classification 
 
• Is the country a member of bilateral or reg ional trade agreements that include an IP 
component or provision?  If so, which ones? 
 
¾ Yes, SADC-EPA and EAC 
 
• Have all these treaties been implemented nationally? 
 
¾ Yes.  PCT applications, Harare protocol, Banjul Protocol 
 
• Is the country a member of regional IPR treati es or agreements?  Is the membership regarded 
as successful by the country concerned? 
 
¾ Yes, ARIPO.  The membership  is regarded as successful. 
 
3.2.8 Participation in International IP Standard Setting and Negotiations 
 
• To what extent does the country participate in international IPR standard setting (e.g. WIPO, 
WTO)? 
 
The country participates in WTO and WIPO  in General Council Meetings, Assembly 
Sessions and some of intergovernmental working committees as full members. 
 
• Is the country currently involved in international, regional or bilateral negotiations that have 
an IPR component?  If yes, what are these? 
 
¾ Yes. WTO, SADC-EPA and EAC 
 
• Does the country have permanent represen tation at WTO and WIPO in Geneva? 
 
¾ Yes.  Through Geneva Permanent Mission. 
 IP/C/W/552 
Page 16  
 
  • Who are the key IP agencies and officials in th e capital?  What are the mechanisms for 
consulting with stakeholders and co-ordi nating policy positions across government? 
 
¾ MITM, BRELA, COSOTA and FCC  
¾ The mechanism is through conducting stake holders' meetings and other fora.  
 
• Does the country participate in regional trading bloc deliberations on IPRs? 
 
¾ Yes. 
 
• What role does the IP office play in supporting IPR discussions and negotiations at the 
regional and international levels?  What  resources do the IPR offices have for this? 
 
¾ IP office plays the role of establishing IP legal status, advice on IP legislation review 
process to comply with TRIPS Agreement and ot her relevant IP international standards. 
¾ IPR offices have very limited financ ial resources and negotiation skills. 
 
3.2.9 Technical assistance and capacity building programmes 
 
• What donors have been or are presently actively providing IP-related technical assistance in 
support of the development of the national IP policy and legal framework? 
 
¾ WIPO, WTO and World Bank. 
 
• How will new proposed IPRTA projects or progra mmes be co-ordinated with, learn lessons 
from and complement such ot her donor-supported activities? 
 
¾ Through the MITM and relevant authorities. 
 
4. IPR ADMINISTRATION REGIME  
 This section looks at the key issues and challeng es related to the IPR administration regime in 
LDCs, before setting out a detaile d checklist to guide an assessment , based on available evidence, 
about a country's capacity to administer IPRs effect ively at the national level in line with its national 
development policy objectives as well as its cu rrent or future international obligations 
(e.g. WTO/TRIPS, regional and bilateral agreements, etc).  
4.1 Key issues and challenges 
  There is a very wide variation in the volume s of IPR applications, grants and registrations 
processed by developing countries and developing c ountries.  For example, WIPO annual statistics 
show that in 2002, trademark app lication filings ranged from 378,631 in  China, to 106 in Tonga.  This 
has important implication for the kinds of institu tional arrangements for IPR administration that may 
be appropriate for individual LDCs. 
 IPR application rates in any given country are determined by various factors, including the 
nature of the national IPR laws and their enforcemen t in the country, whether the country is member 
of a regional organization (e.g. ARIPO, OAPI) or is a member of international treaties such as the Patent Cooperation Treaty, or the Madrid  Agreement in respect of trademarks. 
 The administration of industrial property rights (patents, trademarks, industrial designs, utility 
models, integrated circuit topographies and plant va rieties) involves the receiving of applications,  IP/C/W/552 
 Page 17 
 
 
  examination to ensure that applications comply with formality and substantive requirements, the 
granting or refusal of rights, and the registration, publication and maintenance of public records of the 
rights accorded.  Copyright subsists upon the creation of an eligible work and registration systems, 
where these exist, are voluntary.  Private copyri ght collective management societies collect and 
distribute royalties to members for the performance of musical works in their inventories and, in 
effect, assist national authorities with enforcement of copyright. 
 In the following section, the term IPR "office" is intended to cover all variants, including a 
single, integrated, organization as well as multiple or ganizations (e.g. where patents, trademarks and 
copyright may actually be administered by separat e institutions).  In the majority of LDCs the 
administration of industrial property is carried out in  a department within a ministry of industry and 
trade, or a ministry of justice.  
 In a growing number of countries an autonomous government agency is responsible for the 
administration of industrial property. Copyright is  generally administered by a department in a 
ministry of culture, information or education.  In  some instances, there is  no identifiable unit with 
responsibility for copyright administration.  As noted in the earlier section on IPR policy and legal 
framework, effective IP policy development and im plementation requires specialized technical and 
analytical skills.  The same skills are needed to se t up and effectively operate institutions that have 
been charged with the administration of those IPR policies and laws.   Often, LDCs may not have sufficient specia lized knowledge and relevant expertise among 
their officials to enable them to define effectivel y their needs with regard to administration of the 
national IPR system.  Donors and providers of IPRTA are therefore encouraged to adopt a transparent 
and comprehensive methodology for assessing a country's IPR administration needs, using the diagnostic assessment checklist below.   The methodology used should ensure that the re cipient country itself is able to participate 
effectively in both the needs definition process and in the implementation and subsequent evaluation 
of the results of IPRTA activities, projects, and programmes.  
4.2 Diagnostic assessment checklist 
 
4.2.1 Time series data on IPR applications and grants 
 
• What are the categories and volumes of IPRs that are applied for and granted or registered 
annually in the country ? 
 
Trade and Service Marks application filing - approximately 1000 per year 
Patents applications filing – approximately 20 per year 
 
• What are the current and previous years' statistics for each form of IPR?  
 
¾  2006 Trade and Service Marks applications  -     800 
Patents applications    -      25 
  
2007 Trade and Service Marks   -  1015 
   P a t e n t s       -       2 7     
2008 Trade and Services Marks  -  1200 
Patents     -      33 
   IP/C/W/552 
Page 18  
 
    2009 Trade and Services Marks  -  1300 
Patents     -      37  
• What significant trends may be observed from the data on IPR applications over the time? 
What factors explain these trends?  Are these t rends likely to continue or change in the 
future?  
 
¾ Filing of applications indicates an upward trend.  
¾ Factors responsible for the increased filings:  
- Awareness of IPRs on the part of local applicants 
- Efforts done by local patent and Trade marks Attorneys  
- Reliance and confidence in filing direc tly to the Registries as opposed to the 
introduced international application system.  
 
4.2.2 Legal basis and mandate of IP institutions in public and private sector 
 
• What are the laws and regulations that establish the legal mandate and basis for 
administration of industrial and intellectual property in the country?  
 
¾ Patents Act No 1 of 1987 and its Regulations of 1994 
¾ The Trade and Service Marks Act No. 12 of 1986 and its Regulations of 2000 
¾ Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act No. 
¾ Industrial Designs Ordinance of 1936 
¾ Plant Breeders Rights Act of 2003 
¾ Fair Competition Act of 2003 
¾ Merchandise Marks Act 1963 
 
• Have these laws and regulations been recently adopted or been in force for some time? 
 
¾ Some have been in force for some time  and some have been recently enacted. 
 
• To what extent are the existing laws and re gulations in compliance with the TRIPS 
Agreement?  What are the main  areas where amendments are re quired to bring about full 
compliance?  
 
¾ Semi compliant  
¾ -Public health and availability of essential drugs. 
- Express provisions and or inclusion of TRIPS flexibilities in the proposed 
Industrial Property Act of the United Re public of Tanzania which legislation 
consolidates pieces of Intellectual Property Laws, currently in force 
- Article 27(3)(b) of the TRIPS Agreement  
- Compulsory licenses and their implications 
- Several stakeholders' and consultativ e meetings have been conducted and 
report produced on reflection of TRIPS flexibilities in the municipal, domestic or local legislation 
 
4.2.3 Existing IPR administration processes 
 
• How is the responsibility for administ ering IPRs organized in the country?  
 
¾ Responsibility for administering IPRs is scattered:-  
 Patents, Trade and Service Marks, Industrial Designs   IP/C/W/552 
 Page 19 
 
 
   Copyrights and Neighbouring Rights, Expressions of Folklore  
 Anti-competitive practices and Plant Breeders Rights   
 
• Are there separate offices and accountabilities for ea ch of the various forms of IPR or are 
these administered from a single, integrated, IPR office?  
 
¾ Yes, there are separat e offices/institutions for the admini stration of the above forms of 
IPR. 
 
• Are there direct linkages between the stated "purpos es" (if this exists) of the IPR legislative 
framework and the specific operational activ ities of the institutions responsible for 
administration of the legislation identifiable?  
 
¾ No direct linkages. 
 
• How well does administration of the legislati on appear to serve the policy goals and stated 
"purpose" of the IPR legal framework?  What  criteria are applied, and by whom, in reaching 
such conclusions?  
 
¾ Absence of National IP Policy.  
 
• What is the quality of the IPR administrati on process overall? Are u sers satisfied with the 
levels of service provided by the national IPR offices?  If not, wh at are the main priorities for 
improving service delivery?  What measures a re being taken or planned to address these 
issues?  
 
¾ The quality is poor 
¾ No. Users are not satisfied with the levels of service provided 
¾ Establish a functional national IP Policy 
Review IP Laws 
Enhance technical skills  
Improve equipment   Enhance accessibility by decentralizing services and introducing WAN (Wide Area 
 Network) system 
Improve licensing of users and intro duction of anti-piracy security device 
¾ Legislation review process is in progress,  discussions are underway with view to 
formulating National IP Policy. 
 
4.2.4 Human resources 
 
• What are the total numbers of staff involved in administering the various forms of national 
IPR legislation?  
 
¾ Industrial Property- Patent, Trade and Service Marks    8 
¾ Copyrights and Neighbouring Rights     18 
¾ Fair Competition      47 
¾ Plant Breeders Rights       7 
 
   IP/C/W/552 
Page 20  
 
  • What is the allocation of IPR office staff by  broad areas of functional responsibility   
 
¾ Industrial Property  
Management    1 Legal/technical examination   3 
Clerical   4 
¾ Copyrights  
Management    5 Technical/Legal 13 
¾ Fair Competition 
Management  12 
Technical 35 
¾ Plant Breeders Rights 
Management   2 Technical   5  
• What are the educational and technical qualifications of IP office professional staff?  
 
¾ Advanced Diploma – Masters 
 
• What is the level in-house staff trai ning in IP law and administration  
 
¾ The level is minimal 
 
• Are there private sector practitioners and attorn eys available for each main form of IPR?  
 
¾ Yes, for Industrial Property.  
 
• Are agents and attorneys trained in IP law? By  whom? Is the qualification of agents certified 
by the IP office? If yes, How?  
 
¾ No, they are not trained. 
¾ No. The IP office does not certify the qualification of agents. 
 
4.2.5 Automation and information management systems 
 
• Does the national IPR office(s) have the technical resources, including project management 
capacity, to manage its own in formation management moderniz ation programme?  Does the 
office have a strategic plan to guide future automation efforts or does it rely on ad hoc 
projects?  
 
¾ No. 
¾ Yes, it is stipulated in the strategic plan 
 
• Are the existing information management an d automation systems effective and appropriate 
for the national IPR office(s)?  Does the offi ce have the financial and technical resources to 
maintain necessary computer systems?  
 
¾ No. 
¾ No. 
   IP/C/W/552 
 Page 21 
 
 
  • What automation projects have taken place?  
 
¾ Industrial Property – The WIPO Industrial Property Automated System (IPAS) is 
currently partially applicable for trade and service marks. 
- 8 staff and an administrator inclusive manage the system 
- The users are not well trained to use the system. 
- The system is three years old. - There is one main server and 7 other user computers - IT equipment is obsolete  - It is planned to fully automate Industr ial Property Registry in the near future. 
 
• Does the office have an Internet website?  
 
¾ Yes. BRELA – www.brela-tz.org
 
 COSOTA – www.cosota-tz.org   
 
• Does the office actively use WIPOnet?  
 
¾ No. 
 
4.2.6 Physical infrastructure 
 
• Where is the headquarters of the national IPR office located? In what part of the city?  
 
¾ Outskirt of the Central business city (Dar es Salaam) 
 
• Does the IPR office have mechanisms to provide regional access to its services? What are 
these?  
 
¾ No. 
 
• Are the IPR office accommodations designed to  facilitate public access? Are IPR office 
accommodations adequate to meet proj ected needs for the next five years?  
 
¾ No.  They are not user friendly.  
¾ No.  The office is currently rented, space is not enough and cannot automate under the 
current tenancy agreement.  
 
4.2.7 Financing and cost recovery from IPR service delivery 
 
• What is the size of the annual operating budget of the national IPR office(s)?  What trends 
may be observed in terms of changes in op erating costs and revenue for the national IPR 
office over time? What facto rs explain these? Are these trends likely to continue? 
 
¾ Industrial Property –T Sh 237.6 million – 20 per cent of total Organization's revenue. 
The trend is – relatively stable (depends on customer needs) 
 The trends are likely to continue 
¾ Copyrights  - Approximately T Sh 202.4 million 
  Unstable; dependent on government subvention  
  The trends are likely to continue 
 IP/C/W/552 
Page 22  
 
  ¾ Industrial property- Costs and Revenue  
Costs  2004/2005 T Sh 137.4 million;  
2005/2006 T Sh 165.8 million;  2006/2007 T Sh 200.5 million;  2007/2008 T Sh 130.4 million  
2008/2009 T Sh 164.4 million 
Revenue  
2004/2005 T Sh 214.4 million;  2005/2006 T Sh 229.7 million;  2006/2007 T Sh 242.0 million:  
2007/2008 T Sh 587.3 million 
2008/2009 T Sh 629.1 million 
  The trend is relatively stable and likely to continue.  
 
¾ Copyrights:- Costs and Revenue  
2005/2006;  approximately T Sh 100.2 million 
 2006/2007;  approximately T Sh 125.2 million 
 
Costs 2007/2008;  T Sh 247.6 million  
 2008/2009;  T Sh 345.2 million  
  
Revenue 2007/2008:  T Sh 255.5 million  
2008/2009:  T Sh 314.2 million  
  
• How are operations of the na tional IPR office(s) funded?  
 
¾ Industrial Property  100 per cent self-financing through user fees 
¾ Copyrights    95 per cent government 
   5 per cent user fees 
 
• What level of financial reserves, if any, do es the national IPR office have?  Are these 
considered adequate for prudential reasons? 
 
¾ No. they do not exist. 
 
• If funding is through annual go vernment appropriations, is there a potential for the office to 
access its own fee revenue? 
 
¾ Yes for Copyrights office 
 
• If the office accesses IPR fee revenues, to what  extent does income off set expenditures?  How 
regularly are fee levels reviewed by seni or management of the IPR office and on what 
criteria? 
 
¾ Industrial Property – The income is not enough to sustain IP expenditures. 
¾ Copyrights – 5/95 per cent; is not enough. 
¾ Fee levels not regularly reviewed. 
¾ Fee reviews are made through Regulations made  by the Minister responsible for IP upon 
advice  
 
  IP/C/W/552 
 Page 23 
 
 
  • How do fee levels compare with similar servic es provided by IPR offices in other LDCs and 
developing countries in the region? 
 
¾ Comparatively low. 
 
• What, if any, is the legal mechanism under wh ich the IPR office accesses fee revenue and for 
setting fee levels? 
 
¾ Through Acts and Regulations 
 
4.2.8 Modernisation plans and programmes 
 
• Does the office have a strategic plan for modernization?  
 
¾ Yes. 
 
• If so, to what extent has the plan been implemented?  
 
¾ To a minimum extent. 
 
• Have specific needs for external technical an d financial assistance already been identified?  
 
¾ Yes roughly.  
 
• What donors are already providing IPRTA?  Are the results of the assistance that is being 
provided sustainable?  
 
¾ WIPO, WTO, CISAC. 
¾ The provided assistance is not sustainable. 
 
• What requirements are there for human resource s development, including training, and what 
possibilities are there to exploit distance learning?  
 
¾ Conducive working environment 
¾ Training in the following: 
- Classification treaties 
- Existing systems 
- Documentations, licensing, litigations, negotiations 
- Advanced knowledge 
¾ Distance learning is accessible at cost. 
 
• What requirements are there for automation (both hardware and software) and streamlining 
of IPR administration processes? 
 
¾ Conducive accommodation, security devices, well maintained server and working 
machines (i.e. computers, scanners, printers, etc), trainings on system use.  
 
5. ENFORCEMENT AND REGULATION REGIME 
 This section looks at the key issues and challe nges related to the regime for enforcement and 
regulation of lPRs in LDCs, before setting out a detailed checklist to guide an assessment, based on 
available evidence, about a country's capacity to en force and regulate IPRs at the national level in line 
with domestic legislation, national developmen t policy objectives and its current or future 
international obligations (WIPO treaties, TRIPS Agreement, regional and bilateral agreements). IP/C/W/552 
Page 24  
 
  5.1 Key issues and challenges 
 
 IPRs of all forms are useful and valuable to their holders only if they are capable of being 
enforced. At the same time, IPRs are also capable of being utilised by holders in ways which may 
unfairly restrict competition or be otherwise harmful to the public in terest.  This means that legal 
systems and regulatory frameworks and institutions must  be fully effective in respect of both of these 
objectives.  For many LDCs, the concepts of in tellectual property law and its administration, 
enforcement and regulation are new and therefore pr esent a challenge to enforcement authorities and 
regulators who may possess little, if any, specialized knowledge in the field.   
 IPR infringement through counterfeit or "fake" drugs, automobile parts, pesticides, foodstuff 
and bottled water are appearing in the marketplace at an  alarming rate in some parts of the world – in 
both developed and developing countries.  The nega tive implications of this, not only in financial 
terms but also in terms of public health and safet y can be huge. Consumers ca n be "morally selective 
when it comes to purchasing counterfeit goods, and frequently view the pirating of consumer goods, 
especially, clothing and CDs as soft crimes". 
  The public therefore needs to be persuade d to refuse to knowingly purchase counterfeit 
goods. Increased enforcement of IPRs is also often politically sensitive as it may be seen as leading to 
increased costs for consumers and even the loss of acc ess to jobs.  A key element in any effort to 
strengthen the enforcement of IPRs is to incr ease public awareness and understanding of industrial 
and intellectual property.  At the same time, clea r, cost-effective, readily accessible enforcement 
mechanisms and procedures are required.   For most major IPRTA donors, a key policy ob jective going forward is to ensure that 
enforcement systems in developing countries address serious IPR infringements more effectively. 
This is seen as critically important to protect the in centives that the system offers to IPR holders.  But, 
as the UK Commission on Intellectual Property Rights noted, it is also important that developing countries are assisted to develop institutions capable of doing this in a balanced, pro-competitive way. 
Developed countries have introduced stronger IPR pr otection in the context of competition regimes 
and other regulatory regimes designed to ensure that  IPRs do not harm the public interest.  Seen from 
the institutional perspective, however, such effectiv e regulation of IPRs is likely to present significant 
challenges for policymakers, administrato rs and enforcement agencies in LDCs. 
  This suggests that, as well as enforcement, building capacity for regulation of IPRs, particularly in relation to matters of special public  interest (as with compulsory licensing) or in 
relation to controlling anti-competitive practices by rights holders, should be given higher priority in 
IP technical assistance programmes for developing  countries and transition economies in the future.  
  As well as the development of appropriate regul atory frameworks per se, an important part of 
effective regulation is the undertaking of regular, periodic reviews of all aspects of the national IPR 
regime, to ensure that these are relevant and appropriate.  Donors of IPRTA could also do more to assist developing countries in this task, through pr oviding appropriate technical assistance as well as 
formal and on-the-job training.  
   IP/C/W/552 
 Page 25 
 
 
  5.2 Diagnostic assessment checklist 
 
5.2.1 Analysis of the nature and status of IPR infringement 
 
• What are the alleged levels of infringement of different kinds of IPRs in the country?  What 
official data is available about ac tual instances of IPR infringement?  
 
¾ Copyrights  – the level of infringement is very high at 95 per cent  
¾ Fair Competitions – in merchandise Marks the level is ve ry high but no data is currently 
available  
 
• By whom are the allegations of IPR infringeme nt being made e.g. domestic interests, USTR, 
BSA, copyright collectives?  
 
¾ Domestic interests, foreign interests and IPR collectives (associations)  
 
• What is the nature of infringement in each of the areas of copyright, trademarks, patents, 
Geographical Indications etc?  
 
¾ Copyrights – Illegal copying, reproduction, tr anslation, adaptation, distribution, public 
performances, broadcasting, importation/exporta tion of pirated bootlegs and counterfeits.  
¾ Industrial Property – Passing off and counterfeits.  
¾ Fair Competition – Counterfeiti ng of imported a nd domestic goods  
 
• Do linkages exist between na tional enforcement authorities and foreign or international 
authorities and bodies  
 
¾ Copyright – Southern and Eastern Africa Copyright Network (SEACONET), 
International Federation of Repr ographic Rights Organization (IFRO)  
¾ Fair Competition Commission – ICR Cooperate Research  
¾ CUSTOMS – Signatory to WCO, EACU 
¾ Police – Member to Interpol, Southern Africa Regional Police Chiefs Cooperation 
Organization (SARPCCO), East African Police Chiefs Cooperation Organization 
(EAPCCO) 
¾ TFDA – International Medical Products Anti-counterfeiting Task Force (IMPACT) 
 
5.2.2 Levels of public awareness and awareness raising initiatives 
 
• Does the IP office carry out activities in tended to increase public awareness and 
understanding of IPRs?  If so, what are they?  
 
¾ Yes to a limited extent. 
¾ Seminars, Marking of IP and Technology day,  seminars, workshops, conferences, TV and 
radio programmes, fairs and exhibitions. 
 
• What are the primary objectives of such "outrea ch" activities, e.g. to promote innovation, to 
fight infringement?  How extensive and well res ourced are such awareness raising activities 
in the country?  
 
¾ To create IP awareness, to promote innovation, to fight infringement. 
¾ Awareness raising activities are limited to availability of resources. 
 IP/C/W/552 
Page 26  
 
  • What are the views of stakeholders, including the domestic business sector and 
foreign/international stakeholders, e.g. US TR, AIPLA, BSA, ICC regarding access to IPR 
enforcement systems?  
 
¾ IP services are not adequately accessible, IP services are geographically centralized and 
erratic.  
 
5.2.3 Administrative systems 
 
• To what extent are the enforcement of IPRs provisions of the TRIPS Agreement (Part II) 
being met?  
 
¾ Inadequate  
 
• What role does the IPR office play in the enforcement of private IPRs?  
 
¾ Advisory, conducting quasi judicial proceedings 
 
• Does the IPR office provide any dispute resolution services?  
 
¾ Yes. 
 
• What linkages exist between the IP o ffice and national IPR enforcement authorities?  
 
¾ Enquiry and information sharing. 
 
• Is Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) practiced in connection with IPR matters?  
 
¾ Yes.  
 
• If ADR is used, in what form is it practiced (negotiation, mediation/conciliation, arbitration)?  
 
¾ Mediation 
 
• Is the country party to the New York Con vention on the Recognition and Enforcement of 
Foreign Arbitral Awards?  
 
¾ Yes 
 
• Is collective management of copyright and related rights practiced?  
 
¾ Yes 
 
• Does a Copyright Tribunal, or a comparable system exist for setting royalty rates?  
 
¾ Yes  IP/C/W/552 
 Page 27 
 
 
  • Does the national IPR office administer systems fo r the compulsory licensing of IPRs, e.g. in 
cases of national interest or the abuse of rights? Does the national IPR office have 
appropriate professional and technical capacity in this respect? Does the country have the institutional capacity to administer, in the pub lic interest, the compulsory licensing provisions 
under Article 31 of TRIPS?  
 
¾ Yes, patent law provides.  
¾ No professional and technical capacity in administering the compulsory licensing  
 
• Is there a requirement and a system for re gistering technology transfer agreement? 
 
¾ No. 
 
5.2.4 Judiciary 
 
• Are all civil and administrative procedures and remedies, as called for in the TRIPS 
Agreement, in place? 
 
¾ No. 
 
• What types of courts hear IPR cases? How are th e courts structured to deal with IP matters? 
Is the judiciary in these courts generally fa miliar with IPR concepts, legislation and case 
laws? 
 
¾ The High Court, Resident Magistrate Court and District Magistrate Court 
¾ No special IP court 
¾ The judiciary is not very familiar with IPR concepts. 
 
• Do prosecutors and the judiciary receive formal training in IPR law?  What kind of formal 
training programmes are operated?  Are thes e effective and well attended? What are the 
gaps? 
 
¾ No. 
 
• To what degree does the judiciary rely on lawyers,  as officers of the courts, to explain the 
legal and/or technical issues of IPRs? 
 
¾ To a great extent hence can be misled to favour ones interest. 
 
• How many IPR cases are brought before the courts? 
 
¾ Statistics  not currently available 
 
• Do the courts have access to IPR registry? 
 
¾ Yes.  Rarely used. 
 
5.2.5 Police 
 
• Are there special units for I PRs within the police forces?  
 
¾ No IP/C/W/552 
Page 28  
 
  • Are there formal linkages between the national I PR office(s) and the police?  If so, what are 
they?  
 
¾ Yes. Through counter-inquiri es and general correspondence  
 
• Do police receive formal training in IPR law?  What kind of formal training programmes are 
operated?  Are these effective and well attended?  What are the gaps?  
 
¾ No, they do not. 
 
• Do police have access to IPR registry information?  
 
¾ Yes. Rarely used. 
 
5.2.6 Customs 
 
• Are TRIPS special requirements related to bor der measures (Part III, Section 4) in place?  
 
¾ No. 
 
• Are there units within the customs authority specializing in IPRs?  
 
¾ No. 
 
• Do customs authorities receive formal training in IPR law?  What kind of formal training 
programmes are operated?  Are these effec tive and well attended?  What are the gaps?  
 
¾ No. 
 
• Are there formal linkages between the national IPR office(s) and customs authority? If so, 
what are they?  
 
¾ No linkages. 
 
• Do customs authorities have access to IPR registry information?  
 
¾ Yes. Rarely used.  
 
5.2.7 Competition policy and authorities 
 
• Does competition legislation exist in the c ountry?  Does existing competition legislation 
address IPR issues? 
 
¾ Yes. 
¾ Yes. 
 
• Are IPR-related restrictive practices addressed in national IPR legislation? 
 
¾ Yes.  To a large extent. 
  IP/C/W/552 
 Page 29 
 
 
  • Does institutional capacity exist that can add ress IPR-related issues effectively either under 
competition legislation or under IPR legislation? 
 
¾ No. 
 
6 PROMOTING INNOVATION, CREATIVITY & TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER 
 This section looks at the key issues and cha llenges related to promoting national innovation, 
creativity and transfer or technology in developi ng countries and transition economies, before setting 
out a detailed checklist to guide an assessment, based on available evidence, about a country's 
capacity to promote these objectives through exploitation of the IPR system.  
6.1 Key issues and challenges 
 
 Most LDCs are able to devote few resources to  innovation and generate  very low levels of 
(industrial) intellectual property that could be pr otected by the formal system of patents and 
trademarks.  For example, almost 90 per cent of patents granted in 2000 in the US originated from the 
USA, Europe and Japan.  To address this situation, LDCs need to have more than just the minimum 
administrative and institutional capacities require d to provide a reasonably smooth system for 
administration and enforcement of IPRs.  
 LDCs require a wider institutional framework in order to support development of their 
national innovation capabilities through maximizi ng access to technologies and knowledge assets 
protected by IPRs (e.g. through subsidised pa tent information searching services and support to 
upgrade technology transfer capabilities in universities) .  They also need to strengthen research and 
education institutions and to c onduct public education and awareness campaigns that focus on the 
merits of innovation, creativity and technology transfer. 
 
 The evidence suggests that th ese imperatives are not always well reflected at present in the 
institutional infrastructure in LDCs or, indeed, in  most technical co-operation programmes supported 
by donor organisations.  The "cost of ignorance" re garding IPR can be high even when infringement 
of rights is not at issue. One need only consider  the amount of needless duplication of research and 
development that takes place in the industrial sector.  This occurs most often in the realm of small and 
medium enterprises (SMEs) but is not restricted to that sector.  Large, well-funded governmental 
research organizations have also been known to have "re-invented the wheel" because they were not 
sufficiently aware of or knowledgeable about the IPR system.  The mis-allocation of scarce R&D resources in this manner translates into significant direct costs.  
 
 Equally significant, albeit harder to quantify,  are the opportunity co sts associated with the 
reluctance of commercial enterprises to innovate for lack of understanding of IPRs. It is not 
uncommon for SMEs that do not understand IPRs to lack the en thusiasm to venture into areas of 
business where they may feel threatened by litigious competitors. 
 
 For example, a small business enterprise that does not understand that a competitor's foreign 
patent is not enforceable in his/her country, or th at a foreign patent granted 30 years ago is no longer 
enforceable, is at a serious competitive disadvantag e in the marketplace.  Similarly, a domestic 
producer of goods who has relied on foreign suppliers  of patented components is often not likely to 
substitute his own, or domestically fa bricated components, when the supp liers patent expires, if he has 
no basic understanding of the patent system. 
 
 The real gains for an LDC may instead lie in exploiting the intellectual effort already 
expended by a major foreign patent authority in establishing the TRIPS criteria for patentability, 
including novelty, inventiveness and industrial appl icability, and focusing their own scarce technical 
resources on activities that offer greater payback.  These might include activities such as helping 
domestic SMEs to access and exploit appropriate technology disclosed in patent documentation. IP/C/W/552 
Page 30  
 
  6.2 Diagnostic assessment checklist 
 6.2.1 Institutions and initiatives for promoting innovation, creativity and technology transfer 
 
• Are government research facilities and grant aw ard programmes for research & development 
available? 
 
¾ Yes. 
 
• Are government incentive programmes and subs idies for national industries and foreign 
investors in technology intensive sectors available? 
 
¾ No. 
 
• Are research and educational use exemptions in patent and copyright law to promote 
learning, research for follow-on innovation and di ffusion of technical knowledge in place? 
 
¾ Yes, but not fully utilized 
Key constraints: 
- Lack of awareness 
- Unstable organization 
- Lack of managerial skills. 
- Financial constraints. 
 
• Is research and development conducted at universities and colleges? 
 
¾ Yes. 
 
• Are there inventors, authors, co mposers, writers, musicians or handicraft societies in 
existence? 
 
¾ Yes. 
 
• How effective currently are the above institu tions and initiatives in promoting national 
innovation, creativity and technology in the c ountry?  What are the key constraints if any? 
 
¾ Not effective. 
 6.2.2 Mechanisms used by the IP office to enhance public awareness and understanding of 
intellectual property 
 
• Does the national IP office have or use any of  the following: a Web site; publications and 
audiovisual materials; radio and television; speakers and lecturers? 
 
¾ Yes, Occasionally. 
 
• Are invention/innovation fairs, prizes,  shows used to promote awareness? 
•  
¾
 Yes.  IP/C/W/552 
 Page 31 
 
 
  • Are intermediary organizations used to  leverage increased IP awareness? 
 
¾ Yes, somehow. 
 
• Does the national IP office provide access to a modern and comprehensive patent information 
system database for nationals, companies and research organizations in the country to 
utilize?  Is the database on-line?  Is the database linked to other global patent databases? 
 
¾ No. 
 
6.2.3 Who are the key targets of IP office public information or out-reach activities?  To what 
extent are the following included? 
 
• General  Public? 
 
¾ Yes. To a large extent 
 
• Does the country promote the participation of women in IP activities? 
 
¾ No. 
 
• Musicians, artists, Performers? 
 
¾ Yes, to a great extent. 
 
• Inventors and innovators? 
 
¾ Yes, to some extent. 
 
• Politicians and senior government policy advisers? 
 
¾ Yes, rarely. 
 
• Judiciary and enforcement agencies? 
 
¾ Yes, rarely. 
 
• Government officials, including treasury,  economic/industrial development, culture, 
agriculture, employment, education? 
 
¾ No. 
 
• Legal community? 
 
¾ Yes. Rarely. 
 
• Academic community (both as educators and researchers)? 
 
¾ Yes.  Occasionally. 
 IP/C/W/552 
Page 32  
 
  • Publicly funded research and development community? 
 
¾ Yes. Occasionally.  
 
• Business  community and their associations? 
 
¾ Yes. Occasionally. 
 
6.2.4 Opportunities to work in cooperation w ith (complimenting) key partners and stakeholders 
 
• Does a national research organization or council for science and technology exist in the 
country? 
 
¾ Yes. 
 
• Are there universities or other academic institutions  that conduct research which could be of 
industrial application?  Are such institutions we ll linked with industry?  Do they currently the 
IPR system and have technology transfer departments? 
 
¾ Yes. 
¾ Such institutions are not well linked with industry. 
¾ Yes some have technology transfer departments. 
 
• Do national organizations exist that manage rights on behalf of artists, composers, 
performers and other copyright holders? 
 
¾ Yes. 
 
• Is there a national (sub-national or regional) association of IPR professionals active in the 
country? 
 
¾ Yes.  In its infancy stage (IP Forum Limited). 
 
• Are there associations of inventors, ar tists, lawyers, engineers in existence? 
 
¾ Yes, but some not active. 
 
6.2.5 Are successful examples of other dom estic government programmes and foreign IP 
organizations exploited for e nhancing domestic IP awareness? 
• Do examples of successful public awareness activities by other government ministries exist? 
 
¾ Yes. 
 
• Is it feasible to evaluate public education and awareness activities of IPR offices in other 
countries and adopt/adapt best practices? 
 
¾ Yes. 
    IP/C/W/552 
 Page 33 
 
 
  • Do international associations of IPR practitioners, IPR holders and inventors have 
programmes that would support domestic initiatives? 
 
¾ Yes. 
 
• Are there regional economic cooperation pr ogrammes that may support national IPR 
awareness activities? 
 
¾ Yes. 
 
__________