WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION   
IP/C/W/578 
9 October 2012  
 
(12-5462) 
Council for Trade-Related Aspects 
of Intellectual Property Rights Original:   English 
 
 
 
QUESTIONS POSED BY THE LDC GROUP IN  THE CONTEXT OF THE TENTH ANNUAL 
REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE DECISION ON THE IMPLEMENTATION 
OF ARTICLE 66.2 OF THE TRIPS AGREEMENT 
Communication from Angola on behalf of the LDC Group 
 
 
 The following communication, dated 1 October 2012, is being circulated at the request of the delegation of Angola.
1 
 
_______________ 
 
 
The LDC Group would appreciate having the answers written by developed country 
Members.  I. AUSTRALIA 
1. Could Australia give concrete examples of th e type of incentives provided to Australian firms 
for technology transfer to LDCs?  
 
2. Could Australia explain how it distinguishes in its programmes between activities relating to 
technical assistance and capacity building a nd those relating to technology transfer? 
 
3. Could Australia clarify the functioning and imp act of its incentives through its participation in 
regional and global programmes?  How does Aust ralia measure the effectiveness of technology 
transferred to LDCs in such programmes?  
 
4. Could Australia explain why IP Australia ac tivities are listed under Article 66.2 and in which 
way they constitute incentives to technology transfer in LDCs? 
 
5. Comments:  with regard to bilateral pr ogrammes, the LDC Group would appreciate having 
uniform information about technology transfer-rela ted aspects, including the type of technology 
transferred, expected outputs and outcom es as well as duration of these programmes. 
 
6. Comments:  with regard to the Annex regarding Australian overseas development aid  (ODA) 
to LDCs, the LDC Group would appreciate a breakdow n of figures including the part allocated to 
technology transfer. 
                                                      
1 Secretariat note:  The questions refer to the followi ng reports on the implementation of Article 66.2 of 
the TRIPS Agreement:  Australia IP/C/W/558/Add.3;  Canada IP/C/W/558/Add.4;  the European Union 
IP/C/W/558/Add.7;  Japan IP/C/W/558/Add.1;  New Zealand IP/C/W/558/Add.2;  Norway IP/C/W/558;  
Switzerland IP/C/W/558/Add.5;  and the United States IP/C/W/558/Add.6. IP/C/W/578 
Page 2  
 
  II. EUROPEAN UNION 
 
1. Could the European Union be more precise a bout the beneficiaries eligible for incentives and 
give concrete examples of the type of incentives reported in the activities?   
2. The LDC Group would appreciate having more targeted information regarding LDCs in the 
projects reported under the Seventh Framewor k Programme.  The LDC Group observes that 
technology transfer activities in Ukraine are part of this report. 
 
3. The LDC Group would appreciate having informat ion on the duration and status of projects 
involving LDCs countries, such as technology transf er in the area of food security for Asia, green 
economy and social environmental entrepreneurship  in Africa, and private sector development in 
Ethiopia.  4.  Could the European Union explain how its agencies/institutions monitor and evaluate the 
effectiveness of technology transferred to LDCs  through its projects including all developing 
countries?   
III. JAPAN 
 
1. Could Japan give more details about the ty pe of incentives (financial and non-financial) 
provided to Japanese companies and in stitutions for technology transfer? 
 
2. Comments: the LDC Group would appreciate having more information on the budget allocated to projects involving LDCs and the current status of these projects.  
3. With regard to the scope of technical coope ration projects, could Japan describe the type of 
technology transferred to LDCs w ith some concrete examples and how it is measured in terms of 
output? 
 
4. Under "Training programmes", could Japan explain the expected outputs related to 
technology transfer and the main outcomes fo r the LDCs benefiting from these programmes? 
 
5. With regard to "Development and Import Schemes", besides financial support given to 
Japanese companies, could Japan clarif y the other supports used to mo tivate these companies to invest 
in developing countries, including LDCs?  Could Japan give more detailed information on projects 
carried out under these schemes in Malawi, Uganda, Ethiopia, Madagascar and Tanzania?  What type 
of technology was transferred?  And what were the outcomes for these countries given the objectives 
of the projects?  6. Could Japan explain in what ways the Aid-for-Trade programme can concretely be 
considered an incentive for technology transfer to LDCs? 
 
7. With regard to the activities in the field of intellectual property rights, are they also listed 
under Article 67?  Could Japan explain how these activities promote technology transfer to LDCs? 
 
8. With regard to the contribution from Japan to WIPO Funds-in-Trust/Japan for Africa and the 
LDCs for the promotion of technology transfer, could Japan elaborate on the expected outputs and 
outcomes? 
  IP/C/W/578 
 Page 3 
 
 
  IV. NEW ZEALAND  
1. Could New Zealand clarify which entities are e ligible for incentives for technology transfer to 
LDCs? 
 
2. Could New Zealand give concrete exampl es of the type of incentives (financial and 
non-financial) provided to entities for technology tr ansfer to LDCs?  The activities reported do not 
reflect this kind of information. 
 
3. Comments:  the report should better reflect, w ith regard to bilateral programmes, which entity 
carries out the project. 
 
4. Could New Zealand explain how it distinguish es in its programmes between activities relating 
to technical assistance and capacity building and those relating to technology transfer? 
 
5. Could New Zealand indicate how its state agen cies monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of 
technology transferred in its bilateral de velopment assistance programmes in LDCs? 
 
6. Under bilateral programmes, the LDC Gr oup would appreciate having more detailed 
information about technology transfer-related aspects,  including the type of technology transferred, 
expected output and outcomes.  
7. Could New Zealand clarify the functioning and impact of its incentives through its 
participation in regional and global programmes?  How does New Zealand measure the effectiveness 
of technology transferred to LDCs in such pr ogrammes?  Examples include Pacific Economic and 
Trade-related activities, Pacific environmenta l activities, and New Zealand Scholarships. 
 V. NORWAY 
1. Comments:  under the incentives for technology transfer provided by NORAD, the LDC 
Group would appreciate having more detailed inform ation on projects involving LDCs (i.e. the type 
of technology transferred, expected output a nd outcomes, budget allocated, current status). 
 
2. With regard to the Cleaner Developm ent Mechanism (CDM), the LDC Group would 
appreciate more concrete examples of NORAD’s sch eme for support to CDM-projects in LDCs. How 
does Norway monitor and evaluate the technology transferred? 
 
3. With regard to Clean Energy for Developmen t, could Norway give more details (duration, 
budget, etc.) concerning the support provided to  Mozambique, Nepal, Tanzania, Uganda, 
Timor-Leste, Liberia and Ethiopia in terms of technology transferred and outcomes? 
 
VI. SWITZERLAND 
1. Could Switzerland further elaborate on enterprises and institutions benefiting from 
incentives? 
 
2. The LDC Group observes that in some project s (GARI Fund, SIPPO, financial assistance and 
export risk guarantees) incentives are provided to LD Cs' private sector and not to local entities.  
Could Switzerland clarify how technology transfer occurs in such programmes?  IP/C/W/578 
Page 4  
 
  VII. UNITED STATES 
1. Could the United States clarify which entities are eligible for incentives for technology 
transfer in LDCs? 
 
2. Could the United States give concrete exampl es of the type of incentives (financial and non-
financial) provided to US firms or ins titutions for technology transfer to LDCs? 
 3. Could the United States describe the differe nt types of technology transferred in its 
programmes?  How does it monitor and evaluate technology transfer to LDCs? 
 
4. Could the United States explain how it dis tinguishes in its progra mmes between activities 
relating to technical assistance and capacity buildi ng and those relating to technology transfer? 
 
5. Concerning US incentives programmes relating to climate change technologies, could the 
United States elaborate on the support provided to LD Cs with examples of expected outputs related to 
technology transfer? 
 6. Could the United States clarify the functioning  and impact of its in centives provided through 
its participation in multilateral programmes?  Ho w does the United States measure the effectiveness 
of technology transferred to LDCs in such pr ogrammes?  For example Clean Technology Fund, 
Copenhagen Accord, Climate Change Technologi es Investment Index, Coral Triangle on Food 
Security, Coral Reefs and Climate Change, etc. 
 7. Could the United States indicate whether the US National Institutes of Health technology 
transfer (NIH) plan to expand their technology li cences (i.e. patents for pharmaceutical products, 
vaccines) to LDCs?  If not, could they explain th e reasons?  The LDC Group observes that technology 
licences are granted only for emerging countries (C hina, Brazil and India) and one developing 
country, Viet Nam.  
 
8. Under US Bilateral Investment Treaties (BIT),  could the United States describe the type of 
incentives provided to US companies to engage in fore ign direct investment (FDI), in joint ventures 
and in other forms of investment in partner countri es that can lead to the transfer of technology?  
 
9. Could the United States give more informa tion about the impact of BIT signed respectively 
with the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mozambique and Senegal, with regard  to technology transfer 
in these countries?  Could they precisely indicate the type of technology transferred? 
 
10. With regard to the Generalized System of Pr eferences, could the United States elaborate in 
what ways this programme can concretely be co nsidered an incentive for technology transfer to 
LDCs?   
 
11. In the context of the Open Skies agreements , could the United States clarify what kinds of 
technologies are transferred to LDCs through these agreements? 
 
12. Concerning the Commercial Law Developmen t Programme, the LDC Group observes that the 
programme covers intellectual property rights activiti es. Are they also listed under Article 67?  Could 
the United States explain how these activities promote technology transfer to LDCs? 
 
__________