174. The representative of Brazil noted that reports on the implementation of Article 66.2 were rather lengthy and differed in style. He said that not only LDCs needed the assistance of the WTO Secretariat to better understand what is actually being done by the submitting Members. He supported the request of the LDC Group and suggested that the workshop should be open-ended so as to allow all interested Members to attend.
175. He said that there seemed to be a diverse interpretation of what was the actual meaning of Article 66.2. Firstly, there was not a single understanding on the meaning of the concept "transfer of technology", since most submissions listed activities under technical assistance to developing countries, funded through their respective ODA or competent authorities. As stated in Canada's submission, domestic incentives for the transfer of technology might occur in the form of intellectual property embedded in the transferred goods and services. He was not sure he could concur with this interpretation of the meaning of transfer of technology since, in his view, this was trade in goods and services. Mere trade in goods and services did not necessarily lead to transfer of technology.
176. He said that Switzerland's submission focused on the activities of the Swiss Official Development Assistance Programme, not many of which seemed to lead to transfer of technology to LDCs in the sense of Article 66.2. Its paragraph 16 described the Swiss Import Promotion Programme, which was aimed at enhancing exports from LDCs into Switzerland. While this could be an interesting trade promotion activity, it was not necessarily leading to transfer of technology. There were certain areas which needed further analysis like, for example, fostering compliance by Mozambique's exporters with EUREPGAP standards or good agricultural practices. While there was a considerable amount of training activities, they did not necessarily lead to transfer of technology. Paragraph 23 of the Swiss proposal described training courses on intellectual property supported by Swiss financing, which took place at WIPO headquarters in Geneva and then at the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property in Berne. This seemed to be a good education and awareness exercise, but not necessarily transfer of technology. According to paragraph 30, Switzerland provided assistance to LDCs for preparing and enforcing intellectual property laws and regulations, as well as for supporting their domestic offices. He said that there was also a lengthy list of projects in different countries, although there was no additional information on their nature. For example, there was a project to set up an anti-retroviral health system in Mozambique, which was carried out by Médecins Sans Frontières, Switzerland. This activity seemed to go in the right direction and was very important. However, there were other activities, which were not really covered by Article 66.2.
177. He continued that Japan's submission was framed under the Japanese official development assistance budget and appeared more in line with technical cooperation than transfer of technology. There was considerable assistance for export, legal and enforcement issues, such as an IP Enforcement Workshop for Indonesian Officials. He said that he failed to see how these capacity-building activities could lead to transfer of technology. There should be clearer criteria for the preparation of these submissions. He said that paragraph 7 of the Japanese submission described measures to combat the distribution of counterfeit medicines and this was also of great importance, but did not lead to transfer of technology.
178. He said that the lengthy EC submission attempted to define "technology transfer". According to its paragraph 4 technology transfer referred to the ways and means through which companies and organizations acquire technology from foreign sources. However, he did not agree with this definition or with the statement that the private sector was the main source of technologies, since technology production was normally subsidized by governments and later on acquired by the private sector. The report listed incentives, including direct investment, licensing, franchising, sub-contracting, technical assistance, and legislative reform. He wondered what kind of legislative reform this referred to. Also management of standardization was included in the list as a means to promote technology transfer. He did not think that trade and technological and scientific goods per se promoted transfer of technology. He cited the example of the "Clinical Trial Unit of Prince Leopold for Tropical Medicine", where there was no list of beneficiary countries and therefore it was not obvious where the relevant technologies had been transferred to. He said that it would be important to harmonize the presentation of the submissions in order to offer concrete information related to the provisions in Article 66.2. In his view, Members remaining silent should not be construed as endorsing the reports as a proof of compliance with Article 66.2.
