Robinson Esalimba - One of the renowned American inventors from the last century and former head of research at General Motors, Charles Kettering, was famous for his snazzy quotes and sound bites. One of my favourites is; “A problem well stated, is a problem half solved.” I couldn’t agree more. In the first part of my post on Stuck in the First Gear, I suggested that the draft WIPO proposal 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) from April 26 to 30, 2010; is unlikely, as currently framed, to move forward the discussion on transfer of technology. This is because the problem has not been well stated.

The essence of the project is to “identify issues related to improving technology transfer and propose potential solutions”. The problem has been phrased way too broadly. The point is that you cannot identify “issues” related to technology transfer unless you know which technology you are talking about, who wants it, how they propose to get it, and so on. As it is, the project is likely to arrive at the same broad diagnosis and even broader prognosis that is already buried in volumes of research material and reports. Probably, developing countries will be asked to “improve their investment climate” and developed countries to “explore more incentives”.

But all these mean everything and nothing unless assessed within the context of a specific technology. “Lack of absorption capacity” means nothing unless it is clear which technology is being spoken of and which point of the value chain faces inadequacies; is it the R&D part, or the production part, or the regulatory part, the demand part or the distribution part? The same argument applies to demands for incentives. Understanding technology transfer in this way then opens up the door for very specific and concrete action to address specifically identified inadequacies along the value chain. A “High-Level Expert Forum” conducted over three days as is proposed under the project is unlikely to address these issues in detail. Whereas a discussion on why developing countries have generally failed to attract or develop their own technologies is neither misplaced nor misconceived; the point is we have already had these discussions and tonnes of research. UNCTAD  and the World Bank have for instance a veritable chest of information detailing the technology challenges facing developing countries and in particular least developed countries. Other scholars (Keith Maskus, Dominque Foray, Carlos Correa, Sara Farley) have also done exemplary work on this subject and produced tonnes of useful information.  It is unlikely that a three-day forum, or even a two-week forum will yield or surpass the kind of information and analysis that already exists on challenges of developing countries and technology transfer.

We know in general what the problem is, or at least there is plentiful of research to give us a rich idea. However, we are not trying to make national champions out of developing countries in all technology sectors. The identification of problems and solutions should focus on those specific areas that are of interest to the countries. It would be of great help for developing countries therefore to figure out: what are their national development priorities; which technologies (if necessary) can help them meet these priorities and how do they acquire these technologies. The competencies and expertise within WIPO can be deployed to resolve these questions, and this can be partly achieved through the project.

·         The first step, which may not fall squarely within WIPOs mandate, is to help identify the national development goals of developing countries and the technology tools they need. WIPO need not directly enter into this but, it can simply get the information by partnering with other UN agencies as part of its broader development mandate. Such partners include: the World Bank which is instrumental in helping developing countries draft their Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) that prepares the Human Development Reports (HDRs) and even UNCTAD that puts together the Least Developed Countries Report. The New Partnership for Development (NEPAD), which is a body under the Africa Union (AU) has developed a succinct Science and Technology Consolidated Plan of Action providing a set of agreed upon clusters of programs for research and development and for improving science and innovation policies in Africa. In short, the availability of information and partners for the exercise is in plentiful supply. However, it is important; indeed such an assessment should be contingent upon request by the developing country in question. It is imperative that they take initiative for identifying their needs especially since any strategies that are finally developed will have to be country specific. The partnerships mentioned above can then help the country conduct such an assessment.

·         Secondly, WIPO can help in mapping the ownership of the identified technologies. This lies squarely within WIPO’s competence. It is happily noted that WIPO has proposed to begin such an initiative under the WIPO Project on Developing Tools for Access to Patent Information (CDIP/4/6) in which at least 12 patent landscape reports will be prepared. The proposed High-Level Expert Forum would then be very useful in this respect, if the forum brought together experts from a specific technology field and discussed issues of technology transfer within that field. The types of concerns for protection of intellectual property, the applicable industry standards, the regulatory rules and mechanisms, financing strategies, taxes and tariffs, and raw materials needed for designing an integrated circuit are totally different from those needed to engineer a drought resistant variety of maize. Bunching experts from a variety of technology fields in a room for a couple of days is unlikely to yield any real benefits. Expert forums on technology transfer should therefore be thematic to help focus the discussions and maximize on the time. The same applies to the proposed “web based forums”; they should also be organized according to technology themes. This differentiated action helps to identify very specifically: who if anyone owns a desired technology; how best to acquire it; challenges in acquisition; how to overcome the challenges; and partners in addressing the challenges. An interesting effort in this regard is by the Africa Union that is developing the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Plan for Africa which is an ongoing process that systematically addresses specific issues in the pharmaceutical industry and will provide detailed options to policy makers.

However, the output under the proposed project for which I remain most sceptical is the creation of a “New Platform for Technology Transfer and IP Collaboration”. It is of course difficult to comment without the benefit of details; nonetheless it remains difficult to hypothesize how such platform could come into fruition after a process that has been conceived in such broad terms. For obvious reasons, it is highly unlikely that the “New Platform” is a forum where owners and seekers of technology come to trade in IP protected knowledge. It is conceivable that it may be a forum where states (both developed and developing) can “display” the incentives they offer whether to push technology to developing countries or to better absorb received technology. However, even this is difficult to conceive. Granted that there are certain baseline incentives that are of benefit across all sectors in enhancing absorption of technology, e.g a skilled work force, a reliable energy source, good communications infrastructure or a functioning legal system, beyond such generalities the specifics across the sectors show such great variance. Because we already have multilateral and bilateral programmes covering general infrastructure, education and rule of law and such other broad programmes, the platform would only be of value if it “displayed” the incentives that are very specific to a technology sector. For instance, lowering the custom duties on raw materials needed for a drug or helping build a grid that allows supply of wind generated electricity. However, the offer and acceptance of such offers would entail complex trade negotiations. The project proposal does not provide for this. Even if it did, I do not think that WIPO is the place nor is it equipped to conduct such horse-trading. I do however submit that creating a forum where states can sit and negotiate for the exchange of incentives for technology transfer would be a significant and highly progressive step. I do believe, despite the misgivings of cynics and sceptics, that such a negotiating forum can be set up under the terms of Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement (however, I shall leave this discussion for a later blog post).

Nonetheless, I remain optimistic because as stated, the proposal is just but a draft. Member states were provided until 31 January 2010 to give their comments. The revised proposal will submitted to the fifth session of the CDIP in April of 2010. Hopefully, by then, member states will have revised the draft, narrowed the problem definition and provided more progressive and realistic activities and outcomes. Issues that have been addressed in projects and research over the last four decades need not continue to weigh us down. The car engine is spluttering for air, someone needs to make a shift and take us out of the first gear.