Prof. Dominique Foray, a leading economist on knowledge and innovation from l’Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, presented the results of a report entitled “Technology Transfer in the TRIPS Age - The Need for New Types of Partnerships between the Least Developed and Most Advanced Economies”. The report explored ways to improve technology transfer to LDCs and focused on the need for public-private partnerships to achieve this (attached is a summary of the report).

Access to technology and know-how will play an important role in helping developing countries realise meaningful sustainable development benefits through trade and investment in EGS. However, ongoing negotiations on EGS have not yet addressed the issue of technology transfer in a meaningful way. On the one hand, it is assumed by a number of countries that environmental technologies will be diffused automatically once barriers to EGS are lowered, but on the other, many trade negotiators as well as experts do not see such an automatic link. They would prefer positive measures within the context of EGS and other WTO negotiations that would enable developing countries to meaningfully access and operate these technologies and eventually to build a domestic technological base and know-how as a stepping-stone to further innovation.

While transfer of technology is not explicitly mentioned in the EGS mandate in Paragraph 31 (iii) of the Doha Declaration, some trade negotiators feel that the issue should be addressed more meaningfully so that EGS negotiations deliver on sustainable development and not just on market access. However, there is some scepticism expressed on the extent to which the WTO can contribute to the process. So far, divergent opinions and priorities have held back constructive engagement on the issue not only in EGS negotiations, but also in the Working Group on Trade and Transfer of Technology within the WTO.

The paper by Lynn Mytelka argues, on the basis of empirical evidence and the conceptual evolution over the years of what constitutes technology transfer, that much can be done within EGS and other areas of WTO negotiations. This would, however, imply rethinking the mandate of EGS negotiations and steering the focus away from simply increasing market access for EGS to one that recognises and facilitates the importance of knowledge transfers including “tacit” knowledge embodied in services. Professor Mytelka clearly illustrates, through various examples and case studies, the impediments countries face in obtaining meaningful access to environmentally sound technologies (ESTs). The author questions whether it is feasible to expect the Doha WTO negotiating process to deliver more on the technology transfer front than has so far been achieved. The paper concludes that there are still other aspects of the mandate and the process of negotiating trade that could be rethought from a broader technology transfer and sustainable development perspective. These involve recognising the “public goods” element inherent in many ESTs and to open up opportunities for learning and capacity building and enhanced response capabilities in developing countries through flexibility, special and differential treatment and technical assistance. The paper calls for the identification of areas where such opportunities could be pursued, not only in EGS negotiations, but also in other areas of discussions such as subsidies, agriculture and Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. In addition, the paper advocates positive measures that go beyond the negotiating framework, including the creation of a Knowledge Fund to bring benefits of learning and innovation in technologies that respond to the critical needs of developing countries including the environment.

Dr. Lynn Krieger Mytelka is a Distinguished Research Professor at Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada, and former Director of the United Nations Institute for New Technologies (UNU-INTECH) (2000-2004), now part of UNU-MERIT where she is currently a Professorial Fellow and holds an Honorary Professorship in Development Economics at the University of Maastricht. Prior to that, she served as Director of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development’s Division on Investment, Technology and Enterprise Development (UNCTAD DITE) (1996-2000). Professor Mytelka has published extensively in the area of innovation, technological change and sustainable development and is a member of the International Livestock Research Institute’s (ILRI) Science Advisory Panel and the International Confederation of Science Union’s (ICSU) Committee on Scientific Planning and Review (CSPR)

The paper is part of a series of issue papers commissioned in the context of ICTSD’s Environmental Goods and Services Project, to address a range of cross-cutting, country-specific and regional issues of relevance to the current EGS negotiations. The project aims to enhance developing countries’ capacity to understand trade and sustainable development issue linkages with respect to EGS and reflect regional perspectives and priorities in regional and multilateral trade negotiations. We hope you will find this paper to be stimulating and informative reading and useful for your work.

Chinese Version

Empirical evidence on the role of intellectual property protection in promoting innovation and growth remains inconclusive. Diverging views also persist on the impacts of IPRs to development prospects. Some point out that, in a modern economy, the minimum standards laid down in the WTO Agreement on Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) will bring benefits to developing countries by creating the incentive structure necessary for knowledge generation and diffusion, technology transfer and private investment flows. Others stress that intellectual property, especially some of its elements, such as the patenting regime, will adversely affect the pursuit of sustainable development strategies by: raising the prices of essential drugs to levels that are too high for the poor to afford; limiting the availability of educational materials for developing country school and university students; legitimising the piracy of traditional knowledge; and undermining the self-reliance of resource-poor farmers.

It is urgent, therefore, to ask the question: How can developing countries use Intellectual Property (IP) tools to advance their development strategy? What are the key concerns surrounding issues of IPRs for developing countries? What are the specific difficulties they face in intellectual property negotiations? Is intellectual property directly relevant to sustainable development and to the achievement of agreed international development goals? How can we facilitate technological flows among all countries? Do they have the capacity, especially the least developed among them, to formulate their negotiating positions and become well informed negotiating partners? These are essential questions that policy makers need to address in order to design IPR laws and policies that best meet the needs of their people and negotiate effectively in future agreements.

To address some of these questions, the ICTSD Programme on Intellectual Property and Sustainable Development was launched in July 2000. One central objective has been to facilitate the emergence of a critical mass of well-informed stakeholders in developing countries — including decision makers, negotiators and also the private sector and civil society — who will be able to define their own sustainable human development objectives in the field of IPRs and effectively advance them at the national and international levels.

We hope you will find this study a useful contribution to the debate on intellectual property and sustainable development and particularly on the adequate conceptual framework for technology transfer and dissemination to countries in their various stages of development.

Developments in the research and policy-making communities have stimulated renewed interest in the links between protection of intellectual property and economic growth. With regard to the former, the emphasis that new growth theory places on the role of technological progress in the growth process, with research and development (R&D) being undertaken either to improve existing products or develop new ones, has stimulated extensive academic research. This has been reinforced by the controversy surrounding the negotiation and implementation of the so-called TRIPs Agreement which followed the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations, and sets minimum IPR protection standards for WTO members.
In the global economy, individual countries acquire improved technologies through a variety of channels, both direct and indirectly via spillovers. These channels include innovation, licensing, trade, foreign direct investment, imitation and piracy. Since stronger IPR protection has different and sometimes opposing influences on the flow of technology through these channels, the overall effects of stronger IPRs on technology acquisition and aggregate growth are in general ambiguous. The impact of stronger IPR protection is likely to vary across countries depending on their levels of development, as reflected in their capacities to innovate and imitate.
In this paper we investigate the role of IPRs in an empirical growth model for a large panel of developed and developing countries, using threshold regression models. Our results suggest that the relationship between IPR protection and growth depends upon the level of development, as proxied by initial GDP per capita, but in a non-linear way. For low- and high-income countries we find that stronger IPR protection significantly improves growth, but for middle-income countries no such relationship is found. These outcomes are consistent with the view that middle-income countries engage in imitation rather than innovation and may be less likely to benefit from IPR protection.
The rest of the paper is organised as follows. In Section 2, we review the theoretical linkages between IPR protection and growth, while Section 3 considers the existing empirical literature. Section 4 discusses the empirical set-up for our model, the data employed and the results obtained. In Section 5 we summarise and interpret our results.

Science and technology exert a growing influence on society and the economy. Scientific achievements continue to expand the frontiers of knowledge and increasingly contribute to the technological progress that affects how people live and work. New science-based technologies help protect the environment, build safer homes, schools and factories, and develop energy saving transport systems. Advances in genetics save lives and improve health standards throughout the world. Industries based on new technologies employ millions of highly skilled workers in the OECD and beyond. Information and communications technologies (ICT) have enhanced their productivity and made it possible for a greater number of individuals, firms and countries to take part in the knowledge-based economy.
Continuing progress in biotechnology, nanotechnology and ICT promises further improvements in living standards and economic performance. Such benefits, will not, however, occur without strong commitment to research. The same advances that can save lives and create jobs can prove harmful to populations and disrupt economies. Such concerns foment debates within society on issues ranging from genetically modified foods and nuclear energy to biometric identification using characteristics such as retinal scanning. Furthermore, considerable effort will be needed to ensure that research results are translated into new products, processes and services by the business sector.
What can OECD governments do to harness scientific and technological advances to the benefit of society at large? How can public research best contribute to innovation and economic growth? In an era where knowledge is key to competitiveness and where intellectual property plays a greater role in giving innovators market power over competitors, to what extent should scientific research data resulting from publicly funded research remain available and who should have access? Against a background of growing public concerns about scientific advances and waning interest in science among youth, how can society supply the scientists and engineers needed to keep the knowledge economy moving? Globalisation is also shaping – and is shaped – by scientific progress. Increasingly, international co-operation is necessary to advance scientific knowledge and technological capacity, whether in large scientific ventures such as the Large Hadron Collider at CERN or in emerging fields such as neuroinformatics. How should OECD governments organise such co-operation so that all can share the burden and rewards?
This Policy Brief looks at what OECD governments are doing, and can do in the future, to ensure that science and technology continue to provide solutions to economic and social challenges while minimising potential risks and taking into account the needs and interests of a growing number of stakeholders in government, academia, industry and civil society at large.