WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION   
IP/C/W/562 
6 October 2011  
 
(11-4854) 
Council for Trade-Related Aspects of 
Intellectual Property Rights Original:   English 
 
 
 
QUESTIONS POSED BY THE LDC GROUP IN  THE CONTEXT OF THE NINTH 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 3 October 2011, is being circulated at the request of the delegation of Angola.
* 
 
_______________ 
 
 
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 indicate whether its incen tives programmes are additional to Official 
Development Assistance (ODA)?  3. Could Australia explain how the distinction is operated in its progr ammes between activities 
related to technical assistance and capacity building and those to technology transfer? 
 4. Could Australia explain how its government ag encies monitor and evaluate the effectiveness 
of technology transferred in its bilateral development assistance programmes with LDCs? 
 5. Could Australia clarify the functioning and imp act of its incentives through its participation in 
regional and global programmes?  How does Au stralia measure effectiveness of technology 
transferred to LDCs in such programmes (i.e. ab sorption, adaptation and subsequent spillovers)?  
Some examples:  The Caribbean programme, AA NZFTA Economic Cooperati on Support Programme 
and WTO Global Trust Fund.  
6. Could Australia explain why IP Australia ac tivities are listed under Article 66.2 and in which 
way they constitute incentives to technology transfer to LDCs?  7. Could Australia give more in formation on functioning of Austrade-assisted activities in the 
field of technologies in LDCs? 
 
                                                      
* 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/551/Add.1;  Canada IP/C/W/551/Add.6;  the European Union 
IP/C/W/551/Add.7;  Japan IP/C/W/551/Add.3;  New Zealand IP/C/W/551/Add.4;  Norway IP/C/W/551;  
Switzerland IP/C/W/551/Add.2;  and the United States IP/C/W/551/Add.3. IP/C/W/562 
Page 2  
 
  Comments:  On the Annex regarding Australian ODA to LDCs, the LDC Group would appreciate a 
breakdown of figures with the part allocated to technology transfer.  
II. CANADA 
1. The LDC Group would appreciate more concre te examples in the activities reported on the 
type of incentives (financial and non-financial) used to facilitate technology transfer transactions to 
LDCs.  2. Could Canada indicate whether its ince ntives programmes are additional to ODA? 
 
3. Could Canada elaborate on the monitoring, effectiveness as well as results of its programmes 
(i.e. absorption, adaptation and subsequent spillovers)?  
III. EUROPEAN UNION 
1. The LDC Group observes that the activities re ported for 2010 are exactly the same as those 
reported for 2009.  Does it mean that no substantia l changes in its programmes occurred from last 
year?  2. Could the European Union indicate whethe r its incentives programmes are additional to 
ODA?  
3. The LDC Group would appreciate more clarific ation on "objective (e) and type of incentives 
given".  What does this expression cover?  4. The report indicates that there are no specific  technology transfer programmes to LDCs.  How 
is the impact of these programmes on technolog y transfer to LDCs assessed and monitored 
(i.e. absorption, adaptation and subsequent spillovers)? 
 
IV. JAPAN 
1. Could Japan indicate whether its in centives programmes are additional to ODA? 
 2. Could Japan give more deta ils on the type of incentives (fina ncial and non-financial) provided 
to Japanese companies and institu tions for technology transfer? 
 3. In the scope of technical cooperation project s, could Japan describe the type of technology 
transferred to LDCs through some concrete ex amples and how it is measured (i.e. absorption, 
adaptation and subsequent spillovers)? 
 
4. Regarding "Development and Import Schem es", could Japan give more information on 
projects carried out under these schemes in Malawi , Uganda, Ethiopia, Madagascar and Tanzania? 
What type of technology was transferred?  And wh at were the outcomes for these countries given the 
objectives of the projects?  
Comments:  The LDC Group would appreciate having more information on the budget allocated to 
projects involving LDCs.  5. Could Japan explain in what ways the Aid fo r Trade programme can concretely be considered 
as an incentive for technology transfer to LDCs? 
  IP/C/W/562 
 Page 3 
 
 
  6. Regarding the activities in the field of intellectual property rights, are they also listed under 
Article 67?  Could Japan explain how these ac tivities promote technology transfer to LDCs? 
 7. Regarding 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 output and 
outcomes? 
 
V. NEW ZEALAND  
1. Could New Zealand give concrete exampl es of the type of incentives (financial and 
non-financial) provided to local firms or in stitutions for technology transfer to LDCs? 
 
2. Could New Zealand indicate whether its incentives programmes are additional to ODA?  Comments:  the report should better reflect, with re gard to bilateral programmes, which entity carries 
out the project. 
 
3. Could New Zealand explain how the distin ction is operated in its programmes between 
activities related to technical assistance and capacity  building and those to technology transfer? 
 4. Could New Zealand explain how its state agen cies monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of 
technology transferred in its bila teral development assistance progr ammes in LDCs (i.e. absorption, 
adaptation and subsequent spillovers)? 
 5. Could New Zealand clarify the functioning and impact of its incentives through its participation in regional and global programmes?  How does New Zealand measure effectiveness of technology transferred to LDCs in such progra mmes (i.e. absorption, adaptation and subsequent 
spillovers)?  Examples: Pacific Economic and Tr ade-related activities, Pacific Environmental 
activities.  
VI. NORWAY 
1. Could Norway indicate whether its ince ntives programmes are additional to ODA? 
 
2. The LDC Group observes that the amount provided by Norad to fund incentives schemes 
under Norad and Norfund in developing countr ies including LDCs is decreasing in 2009, 
i.e., US$29.4 million instead of 38 million in 2010.   The group would appreciate receiving more 
information about this decrease and the impact on activities.  
3. On the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), the LDC Group would appreciate receiving 
more concrete examples of Norad’s scheme fo r support to CDM-projects in LDCs?  How does 
Norway monitor and evaluate the technology transf erred (i.e. absorption, adaptation and subsequent 
spillovers)?  4. Regarding Clean Energy For Development, could Norway give more details (duration, 
budget, etc.) on the support provided to Mozambique , Nepal, Tanzania and Uganda, in terms of 
technology transferred and outcomes?  5. Through the Norwegian Oil for Development Initiative (OfD), could Norway explain which 
type of technology is transferred to Madagascar, Mozambique, Sudan and Uganda? 
 
 IP/C/W/562 
Page 4  
 
  VII. SWITZERLAND 
1. Could Switzerland indicate whether its incentives programmes are additional to ODA? 
 2. Could Switzerland explain how its state agen cies monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of 
technology transferred ((i.e. absorption, adaptation and subsequent spillovers)? 
 
3. The LDC Group observes that in some project s (GARI Fund, SIPPO, Financial assistance and 
Export risk guarantees) incentives are provided to LDCs  private sector and not to local entities. Could 
Switzerland clarify how technology transfer occurs in such programmes?  VIII.  UNITED STATES 
1. Could the United Stated indicate whether its incentives programmes are additional to ODA? 
 2. Could the United Stated give concrete exam ples 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 Stated describe the differe nt types of technology transferred in its 
programmes?   4. Could the United States explain how the dis tinction is operated in its programmes between 
activities related to technical assistance and capac ity building and those to technology transfer, 
especially in the African Growth and Opport unity Act (AGOA) and the Millennium Challenge 
Corporation (MCC)?  How does it monitor and evaluate  technology transfer to LDCs (i.e. absorption, 
adaptation and subsequent spillovers)?   5. Concerning US incentives programmes related to climate change technologies, could the 
United Stated elaborate on the support provided to LDCs  with examples of expect ed outputs related to 
technology transfer?  6. Could the United States clarify the functioning and impact of its incentives through its participation in multilateral programmes?  How does the United Stated me asure effectiveness of 
technology transferred to LDCs in such progra mmes (i.e. absorption, adaptation and subsequent 
spillovers)?  Some examples in the following programmes:  Clean Technology Fund, Copenhagen 
Accord, Climate Change Technologies Investment Index, Coral Triangle on Food Security, Coral 
Reefs and Climate Change, etc.  7. On the Biotech Reach programme, could the United Stated indicate how this programme 
plays a role in providing meaningful technology transfer in biotechnology to LDCs? 
 8. On Support for Biotechnology, could the Unite d Stated indicate whether some activities of 
this programme were carried out in LDCs?  If so, co uld they describe the projects, including expected 
outcomes, duration and budget?   
9. Concerning the Commercial Law Developmen t Programme, the LDC Group observes that the 
programme covers Intellectual Property Rights activ ities.  Are they also listed as activities reported 
under Article 67?  Could the United States explain ho w these activities promote technology transfer to 
LDCs?  
__________