A report that makes far-reaching recommendations on changes to laws on intellectual property was formally launched this week in Geneva.

It is bound to ignite intense debate both because of its radical recommendations and the fact that it cannot be easily dismissed or wished away. At any rate, its profile as a commission established to advise the United Kingdom Government on this controversial subject is telling.

Compiled by a team of respected academics and based on intense consultations with numerous governments, private sector, UN specialist agencies and non-governmental organisations since last May, it reflects a broad perspective. But in indicting the relevance of current frameworks on intellectual property (IP) protection for the development needs of poor countries, the report has stirred an hornet's nest.

At face value, IP protection is an innocuous subject, especially for developing countries which account for less than two per cent of inventions registered worldwide. Laws on IP guarantee profits to the inventor and make it illegal to produce or sell the invention without his or her authority.

Common forms of IP protection include patents, copyright and trademarks. But the list has continued to grow as new inventions come into the market such as industrial designs, integrated circuits and geographical indications.

Unlikely to crawl out of poverty

But many developing countries have argued that the current tight IP rules have undermined access to new technologies and favoured research in favour of industrialised countries. Patents, generally increase prices of products while reducing the incentive to develop products for poor countries with limited purchasing power.

It is now widely acknowledged that poor countries are unlikely to crawl out of poverty, in the way the Asian Tigers did, unless the current rules are changed. The Tigers exploited weak laws and regulations on IP to develop a vibrant counterfeit industry which sliced into the profits of Western corporations. By the time the door was slammed on them, they were on the path to phenomenal growth.

Singapore for instance, had built a vibrant industry, becoming one of the largest manufacturers of computer chips. The magic has never stopped. Last year, Malaysia, had the highest per capita foreign direct investment in the developing world.

Obviously, many African countries which choose to pursue import substitution that largely reduced them to assembling products developed elsewhere, failed to develop local industrial capacity.

In many ways, it was a tragic mistake. The development of tough legislation on IP under the aegis of the World Trade Organisation has marked an early sunset to hopes for Africa's development. Unless, of course, developed countries reform the current laws.

There is breathtaking unanimity that, while the current framework is ill-suited to the needs of developing countries, it has allowed rich countries to consolidate control over new technologies.

The post mortem reveals a system that long failed to deliver for poor countries by undermining their scope to exploit existing technologies at affordable costs. The knowledge gap between the world's rich and poor nations has continued to grow.

From January 2000, developing countries were obliged to develop tough national laws and establish implementing institutions for intellectual property protection. But scant attention was paid on whether this would support their development. Predominantly, these laws have largely helped secure markets for foreign products rather than stimulate investment and cutting-edge research.

The Aids pandemic ravaging Africa, the world's poorest continent, has emphasised the moral dilemma and shortcomings of the patent system. While Aids is a chronic illness in developed countries, it remains a killer in Africa where life-saving drugs are beyond the reach of most people. Patents have helped keep the prices of antiretrovirals high as pharmaceutical companies argue over patents.

Starting this week, the drugs can be imported. But until 2005 when developing countries manufacturing the antiretrovirals - principally India and Brazil - will be required to honour patents to the original drugs whose patents will still be in force.

Our prayers should be for an effective cure by this date. Yet, this could be wishful thinking granted that patents have predominantly directed research at diseases prevalent in developed countries.

Thus, over 90 per cent of funds allocated to seeking a cure for Aids is devoted to HIV strains in Europe and North America even though the disease is predominantly an African problem.

Agriculture faces similar challenges to health. Research into crops of interest to poor farmers is grossly underfunded at a time of declining resources for public sector research.

At a time of rapid consolidation of seed companies, there is a risk of higher costs for seeds as these players monopolise the sub-sector. The potential of legal restrictions on seed saving practices by poor farmers could further undermine food security.

A radical overhaul of the current intellectual framework is imperative if developing countries are to benefit from technologies vital in helping them face key development challenges.

Developing countries must be accorded more leverage and greater flexibility to exclude products key to their livelihoods from patent protection.

Mr Ndirangu is the Food Rights Analyst at ActionAid. Comments\Views about this article