301. The representative of Angola, speaking on behalf of the LDC Group, thanked developed country Members for their 2010 reports concerning the implementation of Article 66.2, as well as for their availability and the responses provided at the workshop. He also thanked the Secretariat for its valuable contribution to the work and for holding the workshop.
302. The mechanism established by the 2003 Decision of the TRIPS Council for ensuring the monitoring of Article 66.2 had laid the groundwork for improving the full implementation of developed Members' obligations in providing incentives to enterprises and institutions for the purpose of promoting and encouraging technology transfer to least developed countries. The overall objective was to assist LDC Members in designing their contribution to move forward significantly the implementation process articulated in Article 66.2. To that end, it required the adoption by developed countries of incentive measures for promoting and encouraging technology transfer to the least developed countries. The optimal objective was to enable them to create a sound and viable technological base for development in accordance with the position articulated by the LDC Minister in the Dar-Es-Salaam Declaration of 2009. In the light of that final objective, developed countries were therefore required to provide their annual updated report to the Council to be in compliance with their obligation.
303. An analysis of the 2009 reports submitted by developed countries under Article 66.2 on measures undertaken the previous year shed light on some key points for ensuring effective implementation of that provision. In the first place, it demonstrated that the content and format of reports should be structured and harmonized in order to ensure consistency of data from all developed country Members. He said that some progress had been made at the individual level by some developed country Members. For example, Canada had made substantial progress in following the structure of the table presented by LDCs during the previous workshop, and also Switzerland had made use of it.
304. Two substantive issues remained critical, namely, a lack of a common definition of technology transfer coupled with a lack of common understanding of the type of incentive required for effective technology transfer. The reports revealed a lack of common definition, in particular in the area of technology transfer. In his view technology transfer was a process involving/requiring physical objects or equipment. Incentives for technology transfer could encompass financial incentives, a grant facility, a loan, a tax exemption scheme, an investment, but they could also include technical advice, training, infrastructure-related to programmes and the like.
305. In his view, further work was needed to address those issues. There was also need for greater clarity in defining and circumscribing the beneficiaries of Article 66.2. Article 66.2 required developed countries to provide incentives for the purpose of promoting and encouraging technology transfer to least developed countries. Even so, some of the projects contained in the reports related to developing countries in some cases. For example, the EU report referred to several programmes that were unrelated to LDCs, including one project related to an IP office in Ukraine.
306. He stressed the non-binding nature of the working document and that it could be improved through their debate. There was a need for agreement on the key points, namely what should be seen as technology transfer and what types of incentives should be provided. It would also be important to know whether the enterprise benefiting from the incentive was located a least-developed, or developing country or elsewhere.