Minutes of meeting

T.implementation of article 70.8 and 70.9

U.implementation of article 66.2

2.The representative of Zambia expressed his gratitude to developed country Members that had provided information with regard to this Article and said that this information was helpful in particular when it was targeted specifically to least-developed countries (LDCs) as was provided under Article 66.2. However, his delegation would like to see more comprehensive information on the types of incentives provided. This might help to identify the most suitable incentives to fulfil the objective of this Article. His delegation understood that identifying incentives right away might not be an easy task given that there might be many institutions, schemes and actors involved in respective countries. Nonetheless, in the process of trying to find effective ways of implementing Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement, his delegation wished to gather more information from developed countries regarding how they were fulfilling this mandate. The information that they had already provided in documents IP/C/W/132 and addenda was a useful resource that should be analysed to show how Article 66.2 could best be implemented to promote technology transfer to LDCs and further the objectives and principles of the TRIPS Agreement stated in Articles 7 and 8, respectively. He requested developed country Members to provide comprehensive information and in particular indicate the extent to which the transfer of technology had taken place in LDCs. In doing so, they should show how the incentives that they notified had operated in practice. Specifically, they were requested to provide any information that they had on: (i) the fields of technology in which each incentive had been applied in transferring technology to LDCs; (ii) the modes by which technology was being transferred to LDCs under each incentive (these could be for instance: training of personnel, licensing agreements, commercial establishment, sale of goods, etc); (iii) any factors which were perceived to have made some incentives more effective in transferring technology to LDCs than others; and (iv) how LDCs could have input into the choice of the fields in which technology was transferred to them under each incentive. His delegation awaited the reaction of their developed countries partners, particularly answers to these four specific points. His delegation would appreciate if answers to these questions could be provided both in writing and verbally and, for his part, he would try to answer any questions arising from their presentation at that meeting or at a later stage.

3.The representative of the European Communities thanked the delegation of Zambia for having shared with the Council the results of their reflections on the implementation of Article 66.2 dealing with incentives in view of ensuring the transfer of technology. His delegation considered this to be an important issue and was reflecting as to how best meaning could be given to this provision. The proposals referred to by the Chairperson in his introductory statement merited further examination and consultation. Zambia had rightly pointed out to the difficulty of providing additional and detailed information, given that in many countries there were many institutions schemes and actors involved. When his delegation had notified the information requested pursuant to Article 62.2 two years earlier, it had indicated that the programmes which were at the disposal of LDCs were conducted both by the European Communities and also the member States. Therefore, he could not assure the Council that it was possible for the European Communities nor its member States to provide the information in the way the representative of Zambia had requested. They had to investigate to what extent this information was available. His delegation took this issue very seriously because the transfer of technology was an important aspect in the debate on IP and development.

4.The representative of the United States thanked Zambia for its very substantive contribution on Article 66.2 which helped the Council consider how to carry forward its work on this agenda item. It was likely that his delegation would find itself in the same situation as the European Communities as it had numerous programmes relevant to Article 66.2. He would take up Zambia's proposal in his capital in order to determine whether or not his delegation was in a position to provide the type of information requested. He would provide some indication on how feasible this proposal would be for his delegation at the next meeting.

5.The representative of Japan first addressed the general issue of the need for LDC Members to be able to create a sound and viable technology base through technology transfer from developed countries. It was essential that LDC Members benefit from IP systems, not only for LDC Members themselves, but also for the credibility and reliability of IP systems under the TRIPS Agreement. The vast majority of technology transfer was being conducted by the private sector, so the key issue was how to give incentives to private enterprises. Without incentives to the private sector, which was the main supplier of technologies, technology transfer would not be facilitated in an effective manner. Adequate intellectual property protection for technology was one of the most important factors to facilitate technology transfer. Turning to Article 66.2, the Secretariat's note (document IP/C/W/169) had consolidated information submitted by developed country Members and already provided sufficient information. New procedures for notification and the monitoring of incentive measures should not impose too great an additional burden on developed country Members nor on the Secretariat. If such procedures were to be put on a regular basis, Japan was willing to update the information on a variety of incentive measures that it had provided and submitted in document IP/C/W/132/Add.2. Japan had been providing various incentive measures which were not described in that document. Those incentives included not only provision of technical assistance and expertise to developing countries, but also included various other measures, such as joint research and development with developing countries, promotion of the use of particular technologies including technologies that were beneficial to environment, infrastructure projects in developing countries and investment promotion for developed country enterprises. Any illustrative list should be non exhaustive, and of an information-gathering nature, so that it did not prejudice incentive measures which were or would be taken by developed country Members. This was very important because a variety of alternatives existed for incentive measures, and Members should be free to choose any one of those appropriate alternatives. Finally, with respect to the four requests for specific information made by Zambia, his delegation was still analysing how it could respond. He would come back to this point at the next meeting.

6.The representative of Australia thanked Zambia for its communication and said that she would respond to it at the next meeting.

7.The representative of Brazil reminded the Council that Article 66.2 provided an unambiguous mandate to transfer technology to LDC Members. That provision had to be read in light of the objectives of the transfer of technology and balance of rights and obligations contained in Article 7 of the TRIPS Agreement. His delegation looked forward to hearing more substantial inputs from developed countries as to how they were implementing this provision and, in particular, their response to the specific information requested by Zambia.

8.The representative of Zambia noted that Australia, the European Communities and their member States, Japan and the United States were looking into this matter and looked forward to a fruitful and positive engagement in this task.

9.The Council took note of these statements and agreed to revert to this matter at the next meeting.