Sovereignty and development: law and the politics of traditional knowledge in Kenya

Abstract

This article investigates the justifications for Kenya's pioneering 2016 legislation to protect the interests of communities in their traditional knowledge. Drawing on parliamentary, governmental and media sources, it argues that law reform was underpinned by political concerns about the exploitation of valuable resources by foreign concerns. This problematization of traditional knowledge in terms of national sovereignty and development defines the scope of the legislation and leads to a number of important shortcomings and contradictions. It puts the nation state at the heart of the legal regime, limiting enforcement to the national territory and giving authorities ultimate the power to override community decisions. While the legislation should be adjusted to address these issues, we also suggest that communities should pursue non-legal alternatives, including the encouragement of ethical commercial conduct through media campaigns and licensing agreements.

Cet article étudie les justifications pour la législation innovante de 2016 au Kenya pour protéger les intérêts en matière de savoir traditionnel des communautés. S’appuyant sur des sources parlementaires, gouvernementales et médiatiques, il avance que la réforme judiciaire était soutenue par des préoccupations politiques concernant l’exploitation de ressources de valeur par des préoccupations étrangères. Cette problématisation du savoir traditionnel en termes de souveraineté nationale et de développement définit l’étendue de la législation et entraîne un nombre important de lacunes et contradictions importantes. Il met l’Etat nation au cœur du régime juridique, limitant l’application sur le territoire national et donnant aux autorités le pouvoir ultime d’outrepasser les décisions de la communauté. La législation devrait être ajustée pour traiter ces problèmes, mais nous suggérons aussi que les communautés devraient chercher des alternatives non judiciaires, y compris l’encouragement d’une conduite commerciale éthique à travers des campagnes médiatiques et la délivrance d’accords.

Keywords:

• traditional knowledge
• culture
• Kenya
• law
• politics
• intellectual property
• indigenous peoples

Mots-clés:

• savoir traditionnel
• culture
• Kenya
• Loi
• politique
• propriété intellectuelle
• populations autochtones

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Christoph Antons, Caroline Ncube, Portia Roelofs and the reviewers for their helpful comments and advice. Thanks also to Erin Thomas for excellent editorial help. The usual disclaimer applies.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 This theoretical register draws on the work of Michel Foucault and followers. In particular we use ‘governance subject’ here to suggest that various institutions and individuals promote regulatory goals through the exercise of their own agency, rather than simply as the mere instrument of external forces. For an introduction, Dean (2010, 175ff, 228ff).

2 See also Rose and Miller (1992) and Lemke (2007).

3 It is important here to recognize that governmentality theory, and thus problematization analysis, emerged out of an engagement with the domestic history of European states (Joseph 2010). Concerns about its utility elsewhere have been convincingly met by Carl Death, who argues that governmentality theory is well placed to account for the multiple sources of norms and practices (e.g. international organizations, foreign donors, private concerns, as well as national legislatures) through which, for instance, contemporary African societies and states are governed (Death 2016, 58).

4 For a concise introduction to this approach locating it with reference to governmentality theory, see Bacchi (2012b).

5 For an insightful analysis of copyright law in terms of multiple problematizations, see Dent (2009).

6 It should be noted that at the level of implementation, the picture is complex, however, because many developing countries have implemented strong IP protection under TRIPS for various reasons, including lack of knowledge, and pressure from developed nations, see Correa (2001).

7 At the time of writing these include Benin, Burundi, Cape Verde, Chad, Congo, Cote d’ Ivoire, DR Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Lesotho, Liberia, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania and Zambia, see https://wipolex.wipo.int/en/main/legislation

8 For a detailed comparative legal analysis, see Naidoo (2019).

9 At the time of writing it had eight contracting states: Botswana, Malawi, Namibia, Rwanda, The Gambia, Liberia, Zambia and Zimbabwe. It should be noted that that, though a member of ARIPO, Kenya has not yet ratified the Protocol.

10 Article 4, Swakopmund Protocol. The criteria vary, but only slightly, in the case of expressions of folklore, see Article 16, Swakpmund Protocol.

11 See for example Deacon (2017) on transboundary provisions, Otieno (2018) on questions of consent and benefit sharing, and Kariuki (2019) on community ownership of IP rights relating to traditional knowledge.

12 This regime is established under the Environmental Management and Co-ordination (Conservation of Biological Diversity and Resources, Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit Sharing) Regulations, 2006.

13 Section 21(4) of the Act.

14 Section 7(1) of the Act.

15 Article 5.2 of the Swakopmund Protocol.

16 Section 28B of the South Africa Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Act, 2013.

17 Mr Njuguna MP, Hansard, 12 Nov 2015: 12.

18 This ambition is widespread among African states, see De Beer, Oguamanam and Schonwetter (2014) and Langwick (2010).

19 This view was echoed by parliamentarians debating the Act, see, for example, Mr Ali MP, Hansard, 12 Nov 2015: 36.

20 See Government of Kenya (2012).

21 Under articles 11 and 69 of the Constitution, culture is recognized as the foundation of the nation, and the State is required to promote all forms of national and cultural expressions through among others, cultural heritage and enactment of legislation to protect indigenous knowledge, so that communities may receive compensation for use of their cultures and cultural heritage. On the Natural Products Initiative, see Harrington (2015).

22 Although the National Culture Bill has not passed through the legislative process, early drafts (2014) indicated the close link observed between culture and development, see Nzomo (2015). The current website of the Ministry uses some of the same language around culture and development as the Bill, see http://sportsheritage.go.ke/projects/

23 A figurative mark is a type of trademark that consists of just a figure or a figure and words. One of the figurative marks, number EU002831691 was a picture of a torso of a woman wearing a kikoi, with the words ‘kikoy.com’.

24 The two trademarks, numbers EU002829992 and EU002831691 expired on 27th and 28th August 2012 and were not renewed.

25 A word mark is a type of trademark that consists of words. To prevent confusion among consumers, word marks that should stand out both visually and phonetically. However, in the case at hand, ‘KIKOY’ is phonetically similar to the term ‘kikoi’.

26 Trademark registration 0000756637.

27 By ‘non-legal’ here we mean commercial or moral pressure as an alternative to enforcement based on law.

28 See WIPO, Transcript of Film ‘Digitizing Traditional Culture in Kenya’ http://www.wipo.int/portal/en/transcripts/wipo_untv_maasai.html

29 For research on the functioning of equivalent legislation in Polynesian states, see Forsyth (2012).

30 For a brief overview, see Anon (2020).

31 See also Mutta and Munyi (2010).

32 See Annex 9, Annex on Intellectual Property Rights Under Article 27(1) of the SADC-EAC-COMESA Tripartite Free Trade Area Agreement (20.12.2010).