Robinson Esalimba - Notwithstanding the high regard one might have for a computer software engineer, it would be outrageous to consider commissioning one to design a drug for malaria, or even still, that the drug should be produced in a car manufacturing plant. Yet, it is precisely in this manner that most discussions on transfer of technology have carried on; as if what is good for the car is good enough for the drug. The proposed World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Development Agenda project on Intellectual Property and Technology Transfer (CDIP/4/7), which is up for discussion at the fifth session of the Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP) in April 2010, has the opportunity to change this thinking, but only if it redefines the problem that it seeks to solve. In this post and in Part II, I propose how this can be done.

The transfer of technology, especially from developed to developing countries has been on the development agenda for decades – literally. From United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in the early 70s and now at WIPO, World Trade Organization (WTO) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) developing countries have asserted that their developed country counterparts are not doing enough to promote transfer of technology to their economies; indeed over the last three decades a number of international treaties have been signed with provisions specifically supporting these demands. On the other hand, developed countries have countered that the developing countries lack absorptive capacity, without which, there cannot be effective transfer of technology. In this exchange, “technology transfer” is embraced as a single faceted problem; the general diagnosis by consensus seems to be that developing countries are ‘technology deficient’ and what is required is a defined set of prescriptions by developed countries to promote more technology transfer; and on the other hand, another defined set of prescriptions by developing countries to help them better absorb the transferred technology. That set of prescriptions, whether coming from the developed-country side or the developing-country side, and regardless of the technology in question, would then resolve all barriers related to transfer, and the taps would then open for technology to flow freely from north to south. This conceptualization exemplifies the simple logic outlined above and attempts to assign the same tools to a computer software engineer hoping that if she applied herself with sufficient diligence, she can indeed produce a malaria drug. Nothing could be further from the reality.

Firstly, the appropriateness of measures or incentives aimed at promoting transfer or absorption of technology varies according to the technology, the transferor and transferee. Secondly, transfer is not just about providing access to a blue-print, conferring a patent license or training personnel; rather, it is represented by a long value chain of actions designed at promoting transfer or absorption. The starting point for the discussion therefore has to be; what is the desired technology and why is it needed? For instance a developing country that seeks some technology from the pharmaceutical industry needs to establish the driving developmental goal. Does the country need the technology to help facilitate universal access to its citizens of certain essential medicines, or is it seeking to develop the pharmaceutical industry as a national economic sector? A country that seeks universal access to essential drugs may find that acquiring technology for local production may not necessarily be the most efficient or effective way to address the problem. If however, this is the chosen path, or developing a new economic sector is the goal; there will be the need to understand numerous other influential factors which include: human and technical capacity to use the technology; management systems; intellectual property policies; regulatory structures; tax and tariff policies; raw materials procurement; market demand; distribution channels and a host of other needs.

Mere acquisition of technical skills is therefore not sufficient to guarantee the successful use of an acquired technology. An entire ecosystem has to be created that supports the transmission of an idea from the inventors mind, to a service or product on the consumer’s table. Each of the factors mentioned above can determine the success or failure of a received technology. Now, whether a transfer is successful; meaning it has been usefully deployed to meet a development need, will depend on how effectively incentives have been applied at each of those points. It should be all too obvious that the kinds of technical skills, raw material, production equipment, regulatory structures, tariff policies or distribution channels that our computer software engineer needs will be vastly different from those that our drug engineer requires. Seen in its entirety and complexity, it becomes difficult to understand why discussions on transfer of technology have carried on as if, a set of measures, whether for promoting transfer or absorption, would work equally for one technology sector as the next. There of course those that argue that factors such as a skilled population, a reliable energy source or a functional judicial system are as good for pharmaceuticals as they are for computers. Fair enough. But it is equally true that these in themselves, no matter how successfully deployed, cannot guarantee the development or absorption of new technologies. More specific action targeted at a clearly defined technology is required. The broad, sort of generic incentives, buttress the granular policies aimed at enticing particular technologies. In other words, the discussion desperately needs to be reduced to the specifics of each technology and its needs.

It is for this reason that I am sceptical about the draft WIPO project on Intellectual Property and Technology transfer. At the risk of sounding presumptuous, it is my contention that the activities and expected outcomes from the proposed activities risk being mired in the same generalities and abstraction that has characterised technology transfer discussions for the past four decades. The layout of the project does not make sufficient attempt to understand the specificities that come with each technology sector and structure the project to address these nuances. Technology transfer has once again been couched as this monolithic problem; all we need to do is identify barriers to ‘its’ transfer and suggest solutions to overcome these barriers. Although I concede that such a general discussion is not entirely misplaced or misconceived, because there are indeed common problems and common solutions across all technology sectors,my only gripe is that; these discussions, on generalities, have been researched, debated, analysed, elaborated ad nauseum; we’ve been there and we’ve done that. The premium should not be on deepening existing information on the what, but translating the information to change. In Part II of this post I humbly suggest how this can be done.