RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/WGTTT/M/6
20 June 2003
(03-3332)
Working Group on Trade and Transfer of Technology
Sixth Session
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 13 AND 26 MAY 2003
Chairman:  H.E. Mr. Stefán Jóhannesson (Iceland)
A. ADOPTION OF THE DRAFT AGENDA
1. The draft agenda, contained in Airgra m WTO/AIR/2091 of 2 May 2003 was adopted.
B. SUBMISSIONS BY MEMBERS
2. The European Communities submission entitled "Reflection Paper on Transfer of Technology
to Developing and Least Developed Countries" (IP/C/W/398 - WT/WGTTT/W/5), had been
introduced at the fifth session of the Working Group.  The representative of the European
Communities, in reintroducing the paper said that it was an attempt to contribute to Members work of
coming up with an appropriate definition of the concept of technology.  The paper gave an illustration
of the various channels by which transfer of technology takes place as well as the importance of
absorptive capacity in the recipient country.  Some delegations said that although the definitional
aspect of technology was important and should be kept in mind, it should not be the focus of the work
by Members.  One delegation reiterated the importance of a country's absorptive capacity in acquiringtechnology from abroad.  Another delegation, emphasized the efforts that developed countries should
make to facilitate transfer of technology.
3. Switzerland's submission on "Creating Incentives for the Transfer of Environmentally Sound
Technologies" (WT/WGTTT/W/7) examined the Swiss experience of transfer of technology to
developing countries based on an hands-on experience with centres working in the field of transfer of
Environmentally Sound Technologies (ESTs).  The representative of Switzerland stated that
technology was essentially in the hands of private actors and activities to improve technology transferneeded to either focus on improving conditions at the firm level or improving the regulatory
framework.  Technology transfer should be regarded like any other economic activity with agents on
the demand and supply side. Various incentives to foster technology transfer needed to be supported
by measures to reduce impediments on the demand and supply side.  Those included a stable, clear
and enforced enabling environment and, especially in the case of ESTs, the existence of a priceregime including, as far as feasible, external environmental costs.  Many delegations agreed that the
enabling environment had a key role to play in the successful transfer of technology.  One delegation
believed that an open and transparent investment regime underpinned by rules in the WTO would
complement successful development strategies that included technology transfer as one means to
facilitate development.  Another delegation noted that both the Swiss and European Communitiessubmissions attempted to demonstrate that a strong IPR system was a fundamental element in
facilitating technology transfer.  This delegation stressed that studies carried out in that area indicated
that under a strong IPR regime, some developing countries were actually able to emerge as newly
industrialized countries.  Other delegations felt that developing countries could reap long-term
benefits from a strong application of IPRs only after they had reached a certain level ofindustrialization.  The effects of IPRs also depe nded on the technological nature of a country's
economic activities.  It was only after a country had acquired a scientific and technological
infrastructure that could carry forward creative imitation that IPR protection could become aWT/WGTTT/M/6
Page 2
fundamental element for the transfer of technolo gy.  Any assessment that did not take that into
consideration was incomplete.
4. One delegation stated that the notion that a strengthened IPR system, open trading regime and
an open investment climate would lead to technolo gy transfer was not entirely correct.  In order to
facilitate transfer of technology to developing countries, there needed to be a good policy mix fromboth the perspective of the host and home countries.  As a stimulus to innovation, patents would be
most relevant where a country possessed a solid knowledge base, a good enterprise structure and
financing mechanism in order to sustain a process of innovation.  However, those conditions did not
exist in the majority of developing countries.  However, another delegation stressed that an open-
ended trading system was critical to fostering technology transfer.  Technology was essentially in the
hands of the private sector and therefore a lack of strong IP enforcement or the lack of a stable
transparent investment climate would hinder the cross-border supply of technology.  One delegationstated that TRIPS and TRIMS limited the transfer of technology and in many cases reduced the ability
of countries to innovate.  Some delegations agreed that focusing their discussions in one particular
direction would not be helpful.  One delegation pointed out that in addition to other factors, financial
constraints faced by developing countries limited technology transfer.  In that delegation's experience,
a good investment climate and a strong IPR regime did not necessarily facilitate technology transfer.Another delegation mentioned its positive experience with transfer of technology through the
establishment of an EST centre in its country.  Some delegations sought clarification as to the
incentives that would foster transfer of technology and asked what conditions they would have to
meet in order to have centres established in their countries.
C. 
POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATIONS ON STEPS THAT MIGHT BE TAKEN WITHIN THE MANDATE OF
THE WTO TO INCREASE FLOWS OF TECHNOLOGY TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
- COMMUNICATION FROM CUBA , INDIA , INDONESIA , KENYA , PAKISTAN , TANZANIA
AND ZIMBABWE (WT/WGTTT/W/6)
5. The delegations of Nigeria and Venezuela associated themselves with the joint
communication from the delegations of Cuba, Indi a, Indonesia, Kenya, Pakistan, Tanzania and
Zimbabwe (WT/WGTTT/W/6) on "Possible Recommendations on Steps That Might be Taken Within
the Mandate of the WTO to Increase Flows of Te chnology to Developing Countries".  A number of
delegations welcomed the suggested recommendations in the paper which they believed could
constitute a good basis for recommendations to the General Council.  While introducing the paper, the
representative of India said that although discussions in the Working Group had enabled Members to
gain some understanding of technology transfer, there was a need to focus attention on concrete and
practical steps that Members might take in line with the second part of the mandate dealing withpossible recommendations to facilitate transfer of  technology to developing countries.  The issues
highlighted in the paper were by no means exhaustive and the co-sponsors of the paper reserved the
right to make additional suggestions if necessary.  One delegation stated that the submission was a
clear manifestation of the fact that developing country Members attached great importance to the
Working Group.  This delegation believed that the recommendations contained in the paper would goa long way in not only providing an impetus to the ongoing work of the Working Group at the
conceptual level, but also provide a substantive i nput towards the realisation of technology transfer to
developing countries.  For developing country Members, transfer of technology was not an end in
itself but a means to an end, the end being developmental objectives.  Another delegation said that the
recommendations in the paper were important with a view to ensuring that technology transfer serves
as a means of promoting development as envisaged in the Doha Ministerial Declaration.
6. Some delegations were of the view that the Working Group was not in a position to make
recommendations of the kind suggested in the paper and stated that they could not support those
recommendations.  They felt that Members had not yet sufficiently explored issues to make
recommendations.  Some delegations felt that there was no clear consensus on the future work of theWT/WGTTT/M/6
Page 3
Working Group and that it would be inappropriat e for the Working Group to assume that it would
continue beyond Cancún.  One delegation said that the spirit in which the recommendations had been
made was for future work in the Working Group to be focused in certain areas.  Some delegations
believed that a number of the recommendations addr essed elements that were within the jurisdiction
of other WTO bodies and therefore felt that the Working Group should not duplicate that work.   One
delegation stated that if transfer of technology was regarded as a cross cutting issue that should be
dealt with in other WTO bodies, then that rationa le should be equally applicable to other Working
Groups.
7. Some delegations stated that there was no evidence to support the presumption that WTO
agreements hindered the transfer of technology and for that reason were not convinced of the merits
of a review of those provisions as had been recommended in the paper.  These delegations opposed
any approach that would implicitly or explicitly endorse a coercive approach to technology transfer.That would have unintended effects, including potentially damaging decreases in investment flows in
technologically-intensive goods and services.  Some of these delegations also believed that several
recommendations in the paper went beyond the competence of the WTO and believed that technology
transfer could be improved through forms of cooperation outside the WTO.  One delegation stated
that the Working Group was not a forum to review the implementation of WTO agreements.  Otherdelegations stated that developing countries had recommended a review of existing WTO agreements
because they believed that some of the existing provisions had not adequately served developing
country Members particularly in the area of technology transfer.  They also said that although
technology transfer was largely in the hands of the private sector, this did not undermine the role of
the Working Group or governments in trying to influence increased technology transfer to developingcountries.
D. 
ELEMENTS OF THE REPORT TO THE GENERAL COUNCIL
8. The Chairman had sent out an indicative guideline, prepared on his own responsibility, of the
possible structure of the Working Group's report to the General Council.  Members generally agreed
with the Chairman's proposed structure of the repor t. However, there was divergence of views with
respect to the last section of the report relating to recommendations.  One delegation said that the
report must be factual, balanced and needed to clearly reflect differences in Members views.  Some
delegations also stated that in their view the Working Group had only a mandate up to Cancún and
recommendations would prejudge that work was to continue after Cancún.  These delegations
opposed any recommendations to be included in the report.  Other delegations felt that while there
was more work to be done Members were still in a position to make recommendations to the General
Council.  These could include recommendations about the focus of the future work in the WorkingGroup, including the issues raised in the submission by a group of developing countries, as well as in
other submissions that had been made in the Working Group.  Another delegation, supported by a
number of developing countries, stated that the last part of the mandate contained in paragraph 37
directing the Working Group to make recommendations was clear and was the operative part of the
mandate.  Accordingly, a report which did not include possible recommendations would not beacceptable.
E. OTHER BUSINESS
9. The Chairman informed Members that the last formal meeting of the Working Group would
be held on 10 July in order to adopt the report to the General Council.
__________