Shaping Kenya’s IP Future: The Third Attempt at a National IP Policy and Strategy

In a previous discussion, we explored Kenya’s journey toward establishing a National Intellectual Property Policy and Strategy (NIPPS). Now, as Kenya embarks on its third attempt at finalizing a national IP policy and strategy, it is crucial to examine the current efforts and compare them with successful models from other countries.

Following consultations in 2023 between WIPO, the Kenya Industrial Property Institute (KIPI), the Kenya National Innovation Agency (KeNIA), and the Kenya Copyright Board (KECOBO), stakeholders identified the need to review and update the existing draft policy.¹ This decision was driven by the evolving national and regional IP landscape and the interest to align with WIPO’s methodology for the development of national IP policies and strategies.²

Key Issues to Consider for Kenya’s National IP Policy and Strategy

The 2024 NIPPS development is guided by an expanded steering committee of IP experts from various institutions, aiming for a more inclusive and comprehensive approach.³ The NIPPS focuses on strengthening innovation and value addition in key sectors such as agriculture, tourism, pharmaceuticals, and the digital economy.⁴ Aligned with Kenya’s Vision 2030 it identifies seven strategic priorities that will shape the future of Kenya’s intellectual property (IP) landscape.⁵ A situational analysis report on Kenya’s IP landscape was presented for validation in November 2024 during a stakeholders’ workshop. The report outlines critical challenges and opportunities, which are explored below.

1. Strengthening the Legal Framework

Kenya’s IP laws have significant gaps, particularly regarding geographical indications (GIs), trade secrets, and traditional knowledge (TK).⁶ The Traditional Knowledge and Cultural Expressions Act (2016) remains largely unimplemented due to incomplete regulations, depriving indigenous communities from potential benefits.⁷ In plant variety protection, the Plant Variety Act (Cap 326), the Plant Breeder’s Rights Regulations (2022), and the 2001 Plant Variety Protection Scheme govern seed certification and new plant varieties; however, the 2001 scheme remains outdated and requires urgent revision. Meanwhile, the Environmental Management and Coordination Act (Cap 387), which governs genetic resources, has yet to be fully assessed for its impact on biodiversity protection and commercialization.⁸ These legal gaps hinder Kenya’s ability to protect local innovations and remain competitive globally, underscoring the need for a NIPPS advocating legislative reforms aligned with emerging technologies and international best practices.⁹

2. Strengthening Institutional Frameworks

Kenya’s IP institutions suffer from inefficiencies that weaken their effectiveness.¹⁰ KIPI faces staffing shortfalls, limited automation, and accessibility challenges, while KECOBO’s underfunding and understaffing hamper enforcement. The Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Services (KEPHIS) similarly lacks infrastructure and technical capacity for plant variety testing. The NIPPS ought to make recommendations to strengthen these agencies. The Intellectual Property Bill (2020) proposed unified IP bodies into a single agency, and recent Cabinet directives to unite KECOBO, KIPI, and the ACA may revive this plan. However, such consolidation must be strategically managed to avoid bureaucratic hurdles and preserve specialized expertise.

3. Increasing IP Applications

Kenya currently ranks 66^th globally in patent applications,¹¹ with men filing the majority of local patents and copyrights (70% of copyright registrations by 2024).¹² This gender disparity, along with low participation from SMEs and universities, highlights the need for targeted outreach programs.¹³ Additionally, foreign applicants dominate 71% of plant variety protection filings, raising concerns about local innovation capacity and benefit-sharing.¹⁴ Policies promoting local research and investment in biotechnology and agribusiness IP are critical to strengthening domestic innovation.

4. Expanding IP Education and Training

Despite IP’s growing importance in the knowledge economy, IP education remains limited. Few universities offer IP courses, and Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) institutions lack structured IP programs. While KIPI, KECOBO, and KEPHIS conduct ad hoc training, there is no national IP training program or IP Academy.¹⁵ A comprehensive national IP education strategy is required to bridge this knowledge gap, ensuring that students, entrepreneurs, and policymakers have the skills needed to protect and commercialize innovations. This is particularly crucial as IP-intensive industries, such as AI, fintech, and digital content creation continue to expand.

5. Increasing Funding for R&D and IP Protection

Kenya’s research and development (R&D) funding remains low at 0.8% of the GDP, well below the African Union’s 1% target and the Science, Technology, and Innovation (STI) Act’s 2% goal.¹⁶ A heavy reliance on international funding (47% of R&D expenditure) makes local research vulnerable to external priorities.¹⁷ Moreover, funding for innovation and commercialization is insufficient for startups, MSMEs, and university spin-offs, as most universities do not prioritize IP-driven commercialization.¹⁸ Policy reforms should incentivize local funding mechanisms, ensuring sustainable investment in research, development, and IP protection.¹⁹

6. Enhancing Commercialization and Technology Transfer

According to the report, despite progress in technology commercialization through initiatives by the Kenya National Innovation Agency (KeNIA) and the Innovation Bridge, significant challenges remain. Many higher education institutions lack institutional IP policies, and Technology Transfer Offices (TTOs) struggle with limited funding, staffing shortages, and unclear career progression paths. Additionally, the report highlights that Collective Management Organizations (CMOs), responsible for royalty collection and rights management, are hindered by poor governance and low awareness among rights holders. The absence of CMOs for the film and visual arts sectors further limits the ability of creators to monetize their work. Targeted policy interventions are needed to support effective knowledge transfer, robust IP protection, and stronger commercialization channels.²⁰

7. Strengthening IP Enforcement Mechanisms

The report further highlights that enforcement remains one of the biggest challenges in Kenya’s IP landscape. Piracy and counterfeit trade have resulted in substantial economic losses, with an estimated KES 72 billion lost in sales and 44,198 job losses in 2018 alone.²¹ The Anti-Counterfeit Authority (ACA) and KECOBO are hindered by budgetary constraints, low public awareness, and weak inter-agency coordination, all of which hamper effective enforcement. The report emphasizes that strengthening multi-agency collaboration, boosting public education, and enhancing judicial capacity is essential to protect IP holders and deter illicit trade.²² Moreover, the report recommends that Kenya must enhance cross-border cooperation with regional and international bodies to combat IP infringement on a larger scale.

Comparative Approaches

Across the Global South, integrating IP into national policy has proven to be a key driver of economic development by commercializing IP assets. South Korea, for instance, has refined its approach through two national IP Masterplans (2012-2016 and 2017-2021) and now the Third Basic Plan for IP running from 2022-2026. This plan focuses on enhancing IP competitiveness, sustaining IP-inspired innovation and preventing digital IP infringement. South Korea’s strong governmental support, exemplified by the IP Framework Act, ensures effective policy implementation.²³ Kenya could similarly benefit from adopting a robust framework that fosters policy continuity and government accountability through legislative reforms, thereby strengthening its own IP strategy.

Mauritius offers another instructive example with its National Intellectual Property Development Plan, developed in collaboration with WIPO. This strategy encompasses the policy and institutional frameworks which cut across aspects of IP administration and commercialisation.²⁴ The process involved a comprehensive review of national development policies and active engagement with stakeholders from diverse industry sectors, such as manufacturing. This inclusive, multi-sectoral approach provides valuable lessons for Kenya, emphasizing the importance of broad stakeholder participation in crafting a holistic IP policy.

In Malaysia, the National Intellectual Property Policy (NIPP), launched in 2007 by the Ministry of Domestic Trade and Cost of Living, serves as a guiding framework for enacting IP-related The policy mandates active participation from government agencies, non-governmental organizations, and private sector stakeholders to promote the commercial exploitation of IP and develop the necessary infrastructure for IP transactions.²⁵ Malaysia’s vibrant IP landscape, underscored by a steady growth in royalty revenues, demonstrates the significant economic benefits that can arise from such a coordinated approach. These are benefits that Kenya could potentially realize by focusing on commercialization and robust policy implementation.

South Africa’s National IP policy, currently in Phase I, prioritizes support for small institutions, vulnerable groups, and the protection of traditional knowledge. This balanced approach has been recognized by UNCTAD, for its balanced approach to promote public health through its handling of medical patents. The South African model highlights the dual benefits of economic growth and social inclusion. For Kenya, incorporating these elements could ensure that its IP strategy not only boosts commercialization but also protects indigenous cultural assets and fosters inclusive development.

Conclusion

Kenya’s efforts to establish a National IP Policy have been hindered by inadequate government support, fragmented institutions, and unfinalized draft policies. A comprehensive, unified strategy could transform this by streamlining legislative frameworks and strengthening institutional capacity.

Drawing insights from successful IP policies in South Korea, Mauritius, Malaysia, and South Africa, Kenya must prioritise strong governmental commitment, a streamlined regulatory framework, and active stakeholder engagement. In doing so, Kenya’s strategy will embrace a balance between a trade-driven and inclusive approach allowing enhanced economic benefits for creators and businesses as well as robust safeguards for traditional knowledge and indigenous cultural assets.

To maximize the benefits of intellectual property, Kenya must improve its IP enforcement, commercialization, and institutional capacity. A strong national IP policy and strategy can boost industry growth, support local innovation, and enhance Kenya’s global competitiveness. Kenya ought to increase and maintain government commitment to legislative reforms, clear policies, and incorporating global best practices among key IP institutions.

Acknowledgements

This blog draws inspiration from the insightful ideas of Dr. Melissa Omino.

Photo by Pixabay from www.pexels.com.