trips art 66

WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION

Home   |  About WTO   |  News & events   |  Trade topics   |  WTO membership   |  Documents & resources   |  External relations

Contact us   |  Site map   |  A-Z   |  Search

• legal texts

URUGUAY ROUND AGREEMENT: TRIPS

Part VI — Transitional Arrangements

• PART I General Provisions and Basic Principles
• PART II Standards Concerning the Availability, Scope and Use of Intellectual Property Rights
• 1. Copyright and Related Rights
• 2. Trademarks
• 3. Geographical Indications
• 4. Industrial Designs
• 6. Layout-Designs (Topographies) of Integrated Circuits
• 7. Protection of Undisclosed Information
• 8. Control of Anti-Competitive Practices in Contractual Licences
• PART III Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights
• 1. General Obligations
• 2. Civil and Administrative Procedures and Remedies
• 3. Provisional Measures
• 4. Special Requirements Related to Border Measures
• 5. Criminal Procedures
• PART IV Acquisition and Maintenance of Intellectual Property Rights and Related Inter-Partes Procedures
• PART V Dispute Prevention and Settlement
• PART VI Transitional Arrangements
• PART VII Institutional Arrangements; Final Provisions

Article 65 Transitional Arrangements

1.  Subject to the provisions of paragraphs 2, 3 and 4, no Member shall be obliged to apply the provisions of this Agreement before the expiry of a general period of one year following the date of entry into force of the WTO Agreement.

2.  A developing country Member is entitled to delay for a further period of four years the date of application, as defined in paragraph 1, of the provisions of this Agreement other than Articles 3, 4 and 5.

3.  Any other Member which is in the process of transformation from a centrally-planned into a market, free-enterprise economy and which is undertaking structural reform of its intellectual property system and facing special problems in the preparation and implementation of intellectual property laws and regulations, may also benefit from a period of delay as foreseen in paragraph 2.

4.  To the extent that a developing country Member is obliged by this Agreement to extend product patent protection to areas of technology not so protectable in its territory on the general date of application of this Agreement for that Member, as defined in paragraph 2, it may delay the application of the provisions on product patents of Section 5 of Part II to such areas of technology for an additional period of five years.

5.  A Member availing itself of a transitional period under paragraphs 1, 2, 3 or 4 shall ensure that any changes in its laws, regulations and practice made during that period do not result in a lesser degree of consistency with the provisions of this Agreement.

Article 66 Least-Developed Country Members

1.  In view of the special needs and requirements of least-developed country Members, their economic, financial and administrative constraints, and their need for flexibility to create a viable technological base, such Members shall not be required to apply the provisions of this Agreement, other than Articles 3, 4 and 5, for a period of 10 years from the date of application as defined under paragraph 1 of Article 65. The Council for TRIPS shall, upon duly motivated request by a least-developed country Member, accord extensions of this period.

2.  Developed country Members shall provide incentives to enterprises and institutions in their territories for the purpose of promoting and encouraging technology transfer to least-developed country Members in order to enable them to create a sound and viable technological base.

Article 67 Technical Cooperation

  In order to facilitate the implementation of this Agreement, developed country Members shall provide, on request and on mutually agreed terms and conditions, technical and financial cooperation in favour of developing and least-developed country Members. Such cooperation shall include assistance in the preparation of laws and regulations on the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights as well as on the prevention of their abuse, and shall include support regarding the establishment or reinforcement of domestic offices and agencies relevant to these matters, including the training of personnel.

< Previous     Next >

Read a summary of the TRIPS Agreement

Download full text in: > Word format (31 pages; 150KB) > pdf format (33 pages; 193KB)

The texts reproduced in this section do not have the legal standing of the original documents which are entrusted and kept at the WTO Secretariat in Geneva.

• Go to a basic explanation of the agreements ...
• ...or a more technical one
• List of Abbreviations

In these challenging times, JURIST is pledged to provide accurate, well-documented, clear and comprehensive coverage of the rule of law in crisis. But we're a non-profit service powered by law students. We need financial support from our global readership to help us train our volunteers, maintain our website, and expand our reach. Please donate to support our unique educational mission and encourage our dedicated staff in their public commitment to make a more just world. Thank you!

Bernard Hibbitts

Climate change is a serious challenge facing countries. Least developed countries (LDCs) are the most vulnerable to climate change impacts due to a lack of adequate resources, particularly technological resources, required to mitigate/adapt to climate change impacts within their territories. Some international agreements recognize this technology challenge faced by LDCs and thus provide for technology transfer from developed countries to LDCs. One of such agreements is the Agreement on Trade-Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement specifically provides for technology transfer from developed countries to least developed countries. However, it is difficult to enforce this provision before the WTO adjudicatory bodies. This is because the provision is broadly worded, and this is exacerbated by the fact that the TRIPS agreement recognizes intellectual property rights (IPRs) as private rights. As a result, it may be difficult to compel state governments to transfer technology, especially where they do not have the relevant patent right or control of the technology or invention. Although it may be difficult to enforce Article 66.2 of the TRIPS agreement through WTO adjudicatory bodies, the provision has been recognized as binding. 

At the meeting of the Council for TRIPS on 1st and 2nd December 1998, it was suggested that information should be requested from developed country members on how Article 66.2 was being implemented. This suggestion was adopted as a formal decision of the Council on 19th February 2003, and based on this, developed country members are required to submit annual reports on actions taken or planned in accordance with the provisions of Article 66.2 of the TRIPS agreement. Although this provision refers to technology transfer in general, developed countries also report on the transfer of climate technology. For example, the United Kingdom, through the programme , ‘Building Urban Resilience to Climate Change in Tanzania’, facilitates the transfer of technology in areas related to the use of survey drones and mapping instruments. Also, the United States runs a programme, Ambassador’s Water Expert Programme (AWEP) in Uganda. Under this programme, the US sends hydrologists to Uganda to provide technical assistance for water security amongst other objectives. Japan, through Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) runs a programme in Sudan, which is aimed at developing climate change resilient technologies for sustainable wheat production.

At the WTO annual TRIPS workshop in March 2021, Ambassador Ahmad Makaila of Chad , on behalf of the LDCs Group indicated that “modest progress has been made” with regards to technology transfer, including climate technology transfer, “but much remains to be done”. This raises a question that touches on the nature of developed countries’ obligations under Article 66.2 of the TRIPS agreement. For example, there is the question of whether the obligation of developed countries under Article 66.2 of TRIPS agreement is ad infinitum ? Unlike Article 66.1 of the TRIPS agreement, there is no timeline or completion date for the implementation of Article 66.2. However, a response to this can only be deduced from the provisions of Article 66.2 of the TRIPS agreement.

Article 66.2 of the TRIPS agreement expressly provides that:

‘Developed country members shall provide incentives to enterprises and institutions in their territories for the purpose of promoting and encouraging technology transfer to least-developed country members in order to enable them to create a sound and viable technological base’. 

It can be deduced from this provision that Article 66.2 of the TRIPS agreement is comprised of two parts, an obligation and an objective. The obligation is for developed countries to provide incentives to promote technology transfer’, while the objective is to ‘create a sound and viable technological base’. Based on the reports submitted by developed countries, this obligation is being implemented to an extent. Nonetheless, it is necessary to ask whether the objective of Article 66.2 of TRIPS agreement is being achieved. This leads to our main question: is the obligation under Article 66.2 of TRIPS agreement ad infinitum ? The answer to this question can be deduced from the second part, that is the objective, of Article 66.2 of the TRIPS agreement.

The objective for such incentives is to enable LDCs to set up ‘a sound and viable technological base’. Based on this, the obligation of developed countries to implement Article 66.2 ends when LDCs are able to ‘create a sound and viable technological base’. This raises further questions on the definition of a sound and viable technological base, who determines whether LDCs have attained a sound and viable base, and how long would it take for LDCs to have a sound and viable technological base? The answers to these questions lie with the LDCs as this depends on the extent to which LDCs assimilate the technology transferred by developed countries. This would require LDCs to report on technology transfer projects going on in their respective jurisdictions. Thus, Article 66.2 of the TRIPS agreement impliedly requires LDCs to report on whether the objective, sound, and viable technological base, has been achieved. 

On the other hand, LDCs may be exempted from fulfilling the obligation of providing a report. Article 66.1 of the TRIPS agreement allows LDC members to submit a request for a transition period, this request exempts LDCs members from performing the obligations under the TRIPS agreement. Further to request from the LDC Group, the council of TRIPS extended the transition period from 1st July 2021 to 1st July 2034. This extension means that LDC members are not required to comply with any provision of the TRIPS agreement, except Articles 3,4 and 5. Despite this, there are a number of reasons why LDCs should submit a report pursuant to Article 66.2 of the TRIPS agreement.

Firstly, considering that developed countries spend several millions of dollars in pursuing an objective, it is important to know if the pursued objective is being achieved or not, and a report on this should not be based solely on reports submitted by developed countries. Secondly, an annual report from LDCs would prevent duplication of efforts and thus ensure that technology is transferred to areas where technical support is needed. Furthermore, a report from LDCs would promote transparency and accountability, and therefore ensure the sustainability of the projects or initiatives implemented by developed countries.

In conclusion, the transfer of technology is essential to address climate change concerns. Article 66.2 of the TRIPS agreement requires developed countries to provide incentives to facilitate the transfer of climate technology to LDCs. This obligation is not ad infinitum as it ends when the objective is achieved. The Council of TRIPS requires developed countries to produce an annual report on how Article 66.2 of the TRIPS agreement is implemented. However, there is a need to require LDCs to report on how achievements made under Article 66.2 of the TRIPS agreement is being sustained and the steps taken to establish a ‘sound and viable technological base’ based on the support provided by developed countries.

Frances Nwadike is a Ph.D. candidate at Newcastle University Law School.

Suggested citation: Frances Nwadike, Article 66.2 of TRIPS Agreement: LDCs and Technology Transfer, July 31, 2020, https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2021/07/frances-nwadike-trips-ldc/.

This article was prepared for publication by Vishwajeet Deshmukh , a JURIST staff editor. Please direct any questions or comments to her at [email protected]

Count Camillo di Cavour, the first Prime Minister of Italy, dies

On June 6, 1861, Count Camillo Benso di Cavour died He was the first Prime Minister of a united Italy and the political leader of his nation's unification movement. After Italian unification, Cavour was responsible for the creation of the Italian constitutional monarchy and its founding political documents.

US Securities and Exchange Commission established

On June 6, 1934, the US Securities and Exchange Commission was established to protect the interests of investors. Its first Commissioner was Joseph P. Kennedy. Learn more about the creation of the SEC.

Does TRIPS Art. 66.2 Encourage Technology Transfer to Ldcs? an Analysis of Country Submissions to the TRIPS Council (1999-2007)

policy brief Number 2. december 2008 Does TRIPS Art. 66.2 Encourage Technology Transfer to LDCs? An Analysis of Country Submissions to the TRIPS Council (1999-2007)

UNCTAD - ICTSD Project on IPRs and Sustainable Development

By Suerie Moon* Giorgio Ruffolo Doctoral Research Fellow and Doctoral Candidate Center for International Development Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University

Introduction The issue of whether or not technology transfer to least developed country (LDC) members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) has actually increased as a result of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)-mandated incentives is a broad question requiring lengthy empirical study. This policy brief addresses just one facet of this question: based on country self-reports to the TRIPS Council from 1999–2007, has the article 66.2 obligation led developed countries to increase incentives to enterprises and institutions in their territories for the purpose of promoting and encouraging technology transfer to LDC members?

The present policy brief does not analyse the volume or nature of the technology that has actually been transferred, but rather examines the actions taken by developed countries to encourage such transfer. Furthermore, the brief does not ask whether developed countries encourage technology transfer at all, but rather whether article 66.2 has led to an increase over business as usual to LDC members in particular. There may be some debate over whether TRIPS requires developed country members to provide additional incentives over business as usual, or whether any incentives will suffice to meet the obligations. From a purely legal perspective, interpretations of the article are likely to vary. However, from a development-oriented perspective, it is critical to discern whether LDCs have indeed benefited from increased technology transfer in exchange for their obligation to protect intellectual property (IP).

The study focuses on public policies or programmes that developed countries undertake to encourage their enterprises or institutions to engage in technology transfer, rather than on market-based technology transfer that largely occurs through private channels. This distinction is important for three reasons: (a) measuring private technology transfer will be very difficult in the absence of a unified reporting mechanism; (b) market-based flows from the most advanced economies to the least developed are likely to be minimal in the absence of policies that offer additional incentives;1 and (c) perhaps most importantly, the legal obligation in article 66.2 is on Governments rather than on private firms.

A clearer understanding of developed country members’ compliance with this obligation may be useful for several reasons. First, it may provide a better understanding of the effects of the TRIPS Agreement in developing countries, particularly in the LDCs. Second, it may affect how LDCs approach the implementation of IP protection. Third, it may their 66.2 obligations.8 However, most of the literature contribute to the negotiation of stronger technology on technology transfer between industrialized and transfer obligations in the future. Finally, it may help to developing countries does not focus on the extent to clarify the credibility of similar quid pro quo offers – that which Governments have met their legal obligations to is, technology transfer in exchange for other concessions – encourage it, but rather on why it does or does not occur, in other treaty negotiations. The final section of the brief how it happens, and how to improve it.9 offers recommendations for making monitoring of article Methodology 66.2 compliance more effective. Without many micro-level studies, it is very difficult 1. Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement to measure directly whether and how the article 66.2 One of the WTO’s TRIPS Agreement objectives is that obligation has influenced national policy decisions. “the protection and enforcement of intellectual property Therefore, this policy brief focuses on examining the types rights should contribute to the promotion of technological of evidence one might expect to see if the obligation did innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of have any impact. For example, if developed countries technology.”2 Indeed, it is widely accepted – and the WTO were fully complying with the obligation in good faith, website notes – that “developing countries, in particular, one might reasonably expect to see: see technology transfer as part of the bargain in which • Regular developed country reporting of activities; they have agreed to protect intellectual property rights.”3 Perhaps with the understanding that LDCs had potentially • Participation of all developed countries;

the most to lose from TRIPS, article 66.2 created a legal • Incentives targeting LDCs, and LDC WTO Members in obligation for developed country members to encourage particular; technology transfer to the LDCs. The article reads: • Explicit mention of Article 66.2 as a rationale for new “Developed country members shall provide policies;10 incentives to enterprises and institutions in their territories for the purpose of promoting and • Incentives regarding technologies; and

encouraging technology transfer to least developed • Incentives for the transfer of technology;11 country members in order to enable them to create a sound and viable technological base.” Definitions WTO clearly defines LDCs as those countries specified as Article 66.2 establishes a positive legal obligation – it such by the United Nations. Currently there are 50 LDCs – does not merely make a suggestion.4 The 2001 WTO Doha 32 are WTO members, 10 are in the accession process, 1 is Decision on Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns5 an observer, and 7 are not WTO members.12 However, WTO reaffirms the mandatory nature of the obligation, as does has no clear definition of “developed” or “developing” the 2001 Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public country, although the term “developed” country was used Health.6 Member Governments are not obligated to carry in TRIPS to create this legal obligation. The lack of clarity out technology transfer themselves, but rather, are to regarding which particular members are actually obligated provide incentives to their “enterprises and institutions” to encourage technology transfer under article 66.2 may to encourage technology flows to LDC members. The impact the effective implementation of the provision. obligation may be understood to include not only the This study uses two possible definitions for “developed” provision, but also the effective functioning of such country: members of the Organization for Economic 7 incentives. The importance of this commitment was Cooperation and Development (OECD) and World Bank- underscored again in 2003 with the creation of the WTO classified high-income countries (annual gross national Working Group on Trade and Transfer of Technology, and income (GNI) per capita (Atlas method) greater than the TRIPS Council decision requiring developed countries $11,116). For the OECD countries, it includes all members, to submit detailed annual reports on their article 66.2 while recognizing that some may consider middle-income activities. members such as Mexico and Turkey to still be developing rather than developed. Has the bargain been met? Literature is scarce on this subject. One recent analysis by Correa examined the Second, there is no standard definition of what comprises 2006 country reports to the TRIPS Council, and concluded technology transfer, nor does TRIPS provide one. Of the that developed countries have generally failed to meet 22 countries13 that submitted at least one report, only five

2 (23 per cent) provided a definition of the term. For the Communities, 830 pages of documents in all) were publicly sake of clarity, this brief relies on the relatively broad available, so it was possible to review the universe of definition used in the TRIPS Council submissions ofNew reports submitted. Also, because the data rely on self- Zealand, which states: reporting by developed members, they are likely to state at the maximum level the extent to which they have met Technology transfer is interpreted in this report their obligations – that is, if there is a bias, it is likely to broadly to include training, education and know- be uniformly toward overstatement. how, along with any capital component. Using the United Nations definition, New Zealand sees four Shortcomings of the data include that there is no uniform key modes of technology transfer: (i) physical reporting format between members, nor do individual objects or equipment; (ii) skills and human members report in a consistent format from year to year. aspects of technology management and learning; Furthermore, members have different definitions of (iii) designs and blueprints which constitute the technology transfer, which are only sometimes made explicit. document-embodied knowledge on information Finally, there is wide variance in the level of detail provided and technology; and (iv) production arrangement regarding target countries, size of programmes, length of time linkages within which technology is operated.14 of programmes, and other crucial elements of information. This lack of standard formatting has made methodical coding This definition is broad enough to incorporate many of of the data difficult (as discussed further below). the activities that developed countries reported, without The limitations of the data and the lack of clear losing coherence. One of the key risks of the lack of definitions for some of the key terms confine the analysis definitional clarity is that any activity can be stretched to to being largely descriptive. Nevertheless, by compiling qualify as technology transfer – that is, even if developed and methodically quantifying and comparing developed countries make no policy changes, they may be able to member reports for the first time, the study aims to provide report ongoing activities as meeting article 66.2 obligations some intuition regarding the extent to which article 66.2 via definitional “gymnastics”. For this reason, it is critical has led to increased incentives for technology transfer to set out an explicit, albeit broad, definition and criteria from the developed to the least developed members. against which this study measures the reported activities.

Data Coding

This study reviewed all submissions made to the TRIPS Five key pieces of data from each country report were 18 Council regarding developed countries’ technology coded: transfer activities from 1999 to 2007.15 In theory, • Country report submissions from 1999-2007; developed countries could have begun submitting such • Funding amounts associated with any policy or reports in 1995, when the agreement – and therefore the program (where stated); article 66.2 obligation – first went into force. However, in practice, it was only after the 1998 TRIPS Council meeting, • Target country, and whether it was an LDC and/or when Haiti requested further information from other WTO WTO member; members regarding article 66.2 implementation, that a • Whether the policy or programme is of a technical trickle of reports began to appear. Members began to nature. submit regular reports after the 2001 Doha Ministerial • Whether the policy or programme involved transfer Conference mandated that the TRIPS Council put in place (of skills, knowledge or technologies). a monitoring mechanism for article 66.2.16 The TRIPS Council subsequently decided in February 2003 that developed members must submit full reports on activities 2. Findings undertaken to meet these obligations every three years, The available data allow us to address three specific beginning at the end of 2003, with annual updates in questions: How broad and regular is reporting among intervening years.17 In summary, the first data are from developed countries? How specifically targeted are the 1999, and there is a significant increase in both volume policies towards LDC members? And do the programmes and level of detail from 2003 onward. encourage the transfer of technology to LDC members? Strengths of the data include that all reports from 1999 to The answers to these questions may help to assess the 2007 (56 reports covering 21 members and the European extent to which article 66.2 has achieved its purpose.

3 Figure 1: Developed Country Report Submissions (1999-2007) Developed Country Report Submissions 1999-2007

United States

Finland, Germany , N.Zealand, Norway , Spain , Sweden , Switzerland , EU

Canada, France, Japan

Czech Rep., Denmark , UK

Austria, Ireland

Australia, Belgium, Netherlands , Slovak Rep.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 # Report/Years Submitted

Figure 2: Countries Targeted by IncentivesC ountrie s Ta rge te d by Inc e ntiv e s

# 1Programs50

56 52 40 50

0 Total programs LDC W TO LDC non-WTO Non-LDC WTO Regional Developing Global (countries not specified)

4 How broad and regular is reporting among policies included LDCs among regional groupings or developed countries? under the broader category of “ developing country ”. Another example is Germany’s 2002 submission in which it The answer depends very much on how one chooses to described its investment programme as capable of working define “developed country”. If one takes the OECD as “in any developing country where the legal framework and proxy, 21 of 30 (70 per cent) of OECD members have investment climate allows private investment. In general submitted a report at least once, while nine (30 per there are no restrictions that disadvantage the LDC cent) have not. However, the EU reports separately from countries, but neither are there any special advantages.”21 many of its member States; if one accepts that EU-level While LDCs may certainly have benefited from technology policies fulfill the obligations of all EU member States, transfer as a result of broader policies targeted towards then Greece, Hungary , Luxembourg , Poland and Portugal , all developing countries, a key aspect of article 66.2 was which never submitted reports, are covered, and the to single out LDCs for preferential treatment. Presumably, rate of developed country participation increases to 83 one reason for this preferential status was that LDCs per cent. In contrast, if one uses the World Bank’s high- would be less likely to receive technology transfer through income countries as proxy, then only about one third (35 regular market channels if they competed directly with per cent) of 60 countries participated. middle-income countries. Therefore, when policies fail to Among countries that submitted a report at least once, target LDCs specifically, it seems unlikely that they were out of nine years (1999–2007) in which they were explicitly put in place as a result of article 66.2 obligations. asked to submit reports, one third submitted them less than Do the programmes and policies encourage 50 per cent of the time (four times or less). No member technology transfer to LDCs? submitted a report every year. While submitting a report does not necessarily provide an accurate reflection of the As discussed above, the broadness of the term “technology nature of a Government’s technology transfer policies, transfer” means that it is not straightforward to determine it does provide some indication of a Government’s whether a given programme or policy should qualify as such. commitment to meeting its obligation. This policy brief The level of generality of the data makes it impossible to assumes that countries that never submitted a report have trace the extent to which article 66.2 may have influenced not adopted policies to comply with article 66.2. the decision to create a particular policy or programme, since many other factors are likely involved. Only in one To what extent do policies target LDCs, and case did a country (Sweden) explicitly claim that there was LDC WTO Members in particular? a direct relationship between article 66.2 and a particular Many of the policies and programmes either poorly programme.22 Therefore, developed countries were given targeted, or did not at all target LDCs. Overall, out of 292 the benefit of the doubt, and the study applied a relatively unique programmes or policies reviewed, only 31 per cent broad definition of “technology transfer”. It considered were targeted specifically towards LDC WTO members; 16 the following types of activities as qualifying: financing per cent were targeted toward LDC non-members, and the purchase of technologies, incentives for foreign direct remainder were targeted either to non-LDC developing investment, matching businesses in developed countries countries (15 per cent), to regions in which LDCs may or with those in LDCs for skills-building purposes, training may not be present (17 per cent), to developing countries (including various scholarships and other educational as a whole (31 per cent), or globally (all foreign countries) opportunities in technical fields), support to education (6 per cent).19 Although lack of specifics in some of the systems, providing venture capital, providing insurance reports makes it difficult to assess which LDCs were most against the risk of doing business in LDCs for technology- frequently targeted, it was clear that all LDC members related firms, building a technical training component into were the intended beneficiaries of at least some subset of an aid project, and sending skilled nationals to volunteer the various policies and programmes. in a technical capacity in an LDC.

Often, developed countries reported activities in their Despite this broad definition, many of the programmes TRIPS Council submissions that were not targeted at LDCs. or policies either were not technical in nature or did not For example, in its 1999 submission, Spain reports that include a transfer component. For example, Australia it provided a compiled database of Spanish-language reported that in 2006–2007 it provided approximately $300 patents to developing countries in Latin America, though million for governance assistance programmes in LDCs, none of the LDCs are Latin American countries.20 Other but did not specify what – if any – component qualified

5 as technological or involved transfer.23 Ireland stated TRIPS lead to the creation of new incentives, over and directly that it is not involved in technology transfer, but above business as usual? Or would developed country argued that “in concentrating on basic needs, bilateral aid programmes and trade policies towards LDCs look Irish aid enhances the ability of developing countries the same, regardless of the TRIPS obligations? In other to avail of technology transfer opportunities provided words, did LDCs gain in technology transfer in exchange in conjunction with other member States through our for committing to stricter levels of IP protection? Further support for EU programmes in this area.”24 The United research is necessary to develop a more detailed picture Kingdom reported that it had given grants to several drug- of the extent to which article 66.2 may have led to new development initiatives for research into the “neglected” initiatives in technology transfer. However, this initial diseases, arguing that these would benefit the entire assessment of the evidence is not promising. developing world; while this activity would widely be A number of limitations in the data constrained the considered technical, the report did not specify if the analysis. First, there is no consistent quantitative projects would result in any skills or knowledge transfer to measure for the incentives. Devising such a metric would LDCs (for example, through clinical trials).25 Finally, some allow countries to assess whether technology transfer programmes that did qualify as technology transfer were had increased since TRIPS went into force and/or over not targeted at LDCs. time. The reports provided funding figures for only 50 per Of the 90 programmes that specifically targeted LDC cent of the programmes or policies; furthermore, these WTO members, 64 qualified as technology transfer. If figures often lumped together budget amounts for entire one expanded the sample to include the 116 programmes aid programmes – in most cases, they did not provide the targeting all LDCs (whether WTO members or not), 84 specific amounts attributable to LDCs or to technology programmes qualify. Thus, if one considers the full set transfer activities. For example, in its 2005 submission, of 292 programmes reported by developed countries, only the EU reported that 3.9 billion euros were made available 64 (22 per cent) meet the criteria of targeting an LDC for private sector investment through the European WTO member with a programme or policy that encourages Investment Bank.26 While this amount is substantial, the technology transfer. report provides no indication of what proportion might be attributable to technology-related projects for LDCs. Table 1. Proportion of Reported Programmes/ Thus, while the study extracted funding amounts from Policies Qualifying as Technology Transfer to LDCs the country reports, it was not possible to calculate a N meaningful aggregate sum. All Programmes/Policies 292 (100%) Second, more detail is needed regarding the functioning Targeting LDC WTO Members 90 (31%) of the incentives. Some of the programmes explicitly --Of which qualify as technology transfer 64 (22%) include a technology transfer component, such as Targeting LDCs (WTO and non-WTO) 116 (40%) providing training to research scientists. However, a --Of which qualify as technology transfer 84 (29%) number of reported activities did not make clear how a given incentive or programme would lead to technology Developed countries seem to be over-reporting the transfer, but rather implied that this would naturally take measures they have taken to meet article 66.2 obligations. place. As noted in the 2003 TRIPS Council decision, more At the same time, the level of information provided is specific information regarding what technology will be too general to enable reliable conclusions regarding the transferred and how, would considerably strengthen the magnitude, growth, or effectiveness of the incentives put reporting mechanism. in place. Finally, the proportion of reported activities that 3. Discussion genuinely fulfill the article 66.2 obligations is likely to The data emerging from this review of developed country shrink if the study were to apply a stricter definition of reports suggests that article 66.2 has had a rather limited technology transfer. For example, this analysis included impact on the creation of incentives for developed country most activities that might improve a country’s capacity to enterprises and institutions to transfer technology to LDCs. absorb new technologies, including, for example, support Many of the activities in the country reports fall under the for primary education. Arguably, primary education is too umbrella of traditional official development assistance. far removed from the processes of technology transfer to Thus, a key issue is the question of additionality – did qualify as meeting article 66.2 obligations. In addition,

6 the study accepted the assertion of many countries that IP 5. Assess and report on the extent to which effective training programmes and technical assistance qualified as technology transfer is contributing to building a sound contributing to technology transfer. However, a number and viable technological base, identifying gaps where of concerns have been raised that IP technical assistance access to technology remains difficult; and has hampered rather than enhanced technology transfer 6. Submit regular reports detailing successful and by imposing stricter levels of protection than necessary.27 unsuccessful developed country incentives, with the In his 2007 analysis, Correa used a stricter definition aim of building a set of recommended practices from of technology transfer than the one employed here, the perspective of technology transferees. arguing “there must be a credible relationship between the incentive and the outcome.” Using a more rigorous Achieving these objectives will not necessarily be easy or definition of technology transfer would yield even lower straightforward. After all, debates on this topic have been proportions of qualifying programmes and policies. ongoing since the 1960s; the most prominent effort – the Suggestions for how to address some of the deficiencies in negotiations over a draft International Code of Conduct the reports are discussed in the following section. on the Transfer of Technology in the 1970s and 1980s – never came to fruition, as countries could not resolve major issues.30 Furthermore, it may be counterproductive 4. Recommendations to put additional tasks on already under-resourced LDC The data generated by the existing reporting mechanism missions to WTO. In light of the challenges involved, it has a number of flaws, making monitoring difficult. may be more feasible to narrow the scope of work at first, However, the reporting format adopted by the TRIPS for example, by focusing on one or two fields that are Council in February 2003 did contribute to improved of particular interest to the LDCs, such as agriculture- or reporting by requiring a higher level of detail than health-related technologies. previously provided.28 For example, in a changed approach Furthermore, other concerned members of the international from previous years, the 2007 United States submission community, such as international organizations, non- noted, “We have sought in this year’s report to confine governmental organizations (NGOs), and/or academics United States reporting to activities that are specifically could contribute by: targeted to providing incentives for technology transfer to LDC members… in light of the LDC focus of article 66.2”.29 7. Developing a “toolkit” for assessing best practices in However, this analysis indicates that further improvement both the reporting and functioning of incentives.31 Such is both possible and necessary if the reports are to provide a toolkit is likely to require detailed case studies of an accurate and usable picture of the extent to which successes and failures, with input from LDC governments members are meeting their article 66.2 obligations. and private sector demandeurs of technology;32

The 2003 decision requested the TRIPS Council to review the 8. Drawing lessons from the experience of monitoring reporting mechanism in three years; the time has long passed technology transfer clauses in other treaties, such as for an improved and effective monitoring system. Such a in international environmental agreements; and system, at a minimum, would require WTO members to: 9. Monitoring the annual submission of reports (watchdog 1. Agree on a common definition of technology transfer function). and a list of programmes/policies that do and do not Nevertheless, while many aspects of the monitoring system qualify as such; could be improved with technical support, assessment of 2. Agree on common, comparable metrics for measuring compliance is likely to remain a political exercise. This is the extent to which the incentives have their intended because TRIPS is relatively clear on country obligations effect; regarding IP protection, but remarkably vague on what 3. Use a uniform reporting format that will be comparable would comprise satisfactory compliance with article 66.2. across countries and time periods; and How many incentives, and how much technology transfer is enough? From how many developed countries to how 4. Indicate whether and how reported incentives are many LDCs? For how long? Who decides? The letter of the additional to business as usual practices; law offers scant guidance on these questions. The first The system could be further strengthened with active step may be to develop a better system for understanding participation from the LDCs, in particular to: what has been happening, so that countries can have a

7 clear picture of the extent to which the expected benefits No LDC has brought a complaint before the WTO Dispute of TRIPS are or are not being realized. Settlement Body regarding compliance with article 66.2. Even setting aside considerations of power differentials Conclusion between developed countries and LDCs, such a complaint The evidence arising from this review of country reports to does not seem likely at this point. Given the vagueness of the TRIPS Council does not paint a rosy picture of compliance the language in the article, particularly regarding the terms with article 66.2. Lack of definitional clarity regarding the “developed countries” and “technology transfer”, it is not terms “technology transfer” and “developed country” 33 clear how such a complaint would be decided. However, IP make it unclear which countries are obligated to do what. remains one of the most contentious policy arenas within the Furthermore, many high-income and/or OECD countries WTO, and the institution’s credibility may further suffer if have never submitted a report, and among countries that developed countries are perceived to be falling short in their did, submissions have largely been irregular. In addition, technology transfer commitments. Both developed and LDC a majority of the programmes and policies reported do members could benefit from an effective monitoring system not specifically target LDCs, let alone LDC WTO members. that promotes accountability, as it would recognize developed Furthermore, a significant proportion of programmes members that have taken bona fide measures to comply, for LDCs do not actually target technology transfer. The focus attention on those members that have not, and provide country reports do describe a range of programmes that general lessons on effective modes of technology transfer.

certainly may benefit LDCs. However, they do not provide Finally, if the task of devising an effective monitoring sufficiently detailed data to determine whether article system proves impossible, members should consider revising 66.2 led to any additional incentives beyond business as and strengthening the article text. More comprehensive usual foreign aid. technology transfer clauses have been negotiated into One of the central challenges of this study was that the other treaties. For example, the United Nations Framework existing reporting mechanism does not provide enough Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) stipulates that data to gauge with any precision the extent to which developed country parties (defined as OECD members) not developed country incentives are actually working to only promote and facilitate, but also finance the transfer 34 promote technology transfer. It is also extremely difficult of environmental technologies to developing countries. to measure changes over time, and there is no baseline If technology transfer flows are not forthcoming, it is difficult to see why LDC members should implement other from which to compare. An improved reporting system parts of the TRIPS Agreement that may be detrimental to with contributions from both developed and LDC members their economic and social development. could lead to better assessments in the future. Finally, there is a need for a negotiated understanding of what system proves impossible, Members should consider revising comprises an acceptable level of compliance. and strengthening the article text. More comprehensive technology transfer clauses have been negotiated Establishing an effective mechanism will require time, into other treaties. For example, the UN Framework attention, political capital and financial resources. In Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) stipulates that assessing these costs, one should bear in mind that many developed country Parties (defined as OECD members) not resources have already been dedicated to implementing only promote and facilitate, but also finance the transfer other parts of the TRIPS Agreement, particularly those of environmental technologies to developing countries.34 pertaining to tightening IP protection and enforcement. If technology transfer flows are not forthcoming, it is An equal amount of political attention should be devoted difficult to see why LDC Members should implement other to ensuring that the agreement’s purported benefits, parts of the TRIPS Agreement that may be detrimental to namely technology transfer, are realized. their economic and social development.

8 Key Conclusions and Recommendations

The study finds evidence that implementation of TRIPS 3. Use a uniform reporting format that will be Article 66.2 has fallen short in a number of areas: comparable across countries and time periods; and

• Lack of definitional clarity regarding the terms 4. Indicate whether and how reported incentives “technology transfer” and “developed country” are additional to business-as-usual practices. make it unclear just exactly which Members are The system could be further strengthened with active obligated to provide incentives, and for what. participation of the LDCs, in particular to: • Many developed countries have never submitted a report to the TRIPS Council, and among countries 5. Assess and report on the extent to which effective that did, submissions have largely been irregular. technology transfer is contributing to building a sound and viable technological base, identifying • Of the 292 programmes and policies reported, gaps where access to technology remains difficult; only 31% specifically target LDC WTO Members. In and addition, about one-third of programmes that do target LDCs do not actually promote technology 6. Submit regular reports detailing successful and transfer. Thus, out of the 292 programmes, unsuccessful developed country incentives, only 22% involve technology transfer specifically with the aim of building a set of recommended targeted to LDC WTO Members. practices from the perspective of technology • The reports do not provide sufficient evidence transferees. to determine whether these initiatives represent Finally, other concerned members of the international additional incentives beyond business-as-usual. community, such as international organizations, Thus, it is unclear whether Article 66.2 has led to NGOs, and/or academics could contribute by: any increase in incentives for technology transfer to LDC Members. 7. Developing a “toolkit” for assessing best practices in both the reporting and functioning of incentives. In order to improve monitoring of compliance with Such a toolkit is likely to require detailed case Article 66.2, changes to the reporting system will be studies of successes and failures, with input from necessary. This study’s findings suggest that Members should: LDC governments and private sector demandeurs of technology; 1. Agree on a common definition of technology transfer and a list of programmes/policies that 8. Drawing lessons from the experience of monitoring do and do not qualify as such; technology transfer clauses in other treaties, such as in international environmental agreements; and 2. Agree on common, comparable metrics for measuring the extent to which the incentives 9. Monitoring the annual submission of reports have their intended effect; (watchdog function).

* The author gratefully acknowledges support from the Sustainability Science Programme at Harvard University’s Center for International Development, where she was a Fellow while conducting this work. Also, the author would like to thank Ahmed Abdel Latif, Ermias Biadgleng, Fleur Claessens, Dominique Foray, Elly Kamahungye, Travis Lybbert, Dani Rodrik, Pedro Roffe, Dalindyebo Shabalala, Sangeeta Shashikant, Jayashree Watal, and participants at the dialogue “Encouraging Technology Transfer to LDCs” organized by ICTSD and UNCTAD in June 2008 in Geneva for thoughtful comments. All errors remain the author’s.

Endnotes here is on TRIPS because this treaty arguably has the greatest potential impact on technology transfer flows. 1 Dominique Foray. Technology Transfer in the TRIPS Age: 4 Carlos Correa, Can the TRIPS Agreement Foster Technology Transfer The need for new types of partnerships between the to Developing Countries? in K. E. Maskus and J. H. Reichman (Eds.), least developed and most advanced economies. Geneva: International Public Goods and Transfer of Technology under a International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development Globalized Intellectual Property Regime, 2005, p253. (forthcoming). 5 World Trade Organization. Implementation-related issues and 2 WTO Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual concerns, Decision of 14 November 2001. WT/MIN(01)/17. Property Rights (TRIPS), 1994, Art 7; emphasis added. 20 November 2001, para 11.2 Available at Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary 6 World Trade Organization. Declaration of the TRIPS Agreement Measures, and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, and Public Health. 14 November 2001. WT/MIN(01)/DEC/2. also contain technology transfer clauses. However, the focus 20 November 2001.

9 7 Correa, 2005, as cited in UNCTAD-ICTSD. Resource Book on 22 Council for Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property TRIPS and Development. Cambridge University Press. 2005, Rights - Report on the Implementation of Article 66.2 of the p734. TRIPS Agreement – European Communities . 26 January 2004. IP/C/W/412/Add.5 p61. 8 Carlos Correa, Intellectual Property in the LDCs: Strategies for Enhancing Technology Transfer and Dissemination. Background 23 Council for Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Paper No.4: UNCTAD: The Least Developed Countries Report, Rights - Report on the Implementation of Article 66.2 of the 2007. TRIPS Agreement – Australia. 3 December 2007. IP/C/W/497/ Add.7. p1. 9 See, for instance, Keith Maskus. Intellectual Property Rights in the Global Economy. Washington: Institute for International 24 Council for Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Economics, 2000; Keith Maskus, Kamal Saggi & Thitima Rights - Report on the Implementation of Article 66.2 of the Puttitanun, ” Patent Rights and International Technology TRIPS Agreement – Supplement Germany and Ireland. 20 Transfer through Direct Investment and Licensing.” , 2004. October 1999. IP/C/W/132/Add.4/Suppl.1. p 6. Paper prepared for the conference, “International Public 25 Council for Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Goods and the Transfer of Technology after TRIPS,” Duke Rights - Report on the Implementation of Article 66.2 of the University Law School, April 4-6, 2003. Available at: ; Lee Branstetter, IP/C/W/452/Add.6. p92-97. Raymond Fisman & C. Fritz Foley .Do Stronger Intellectual Property Rights Increase International Technology Transfer: 26 Council for Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Empirical Evidence from U.S. Firm-Level Panel Data. World Rights - Report on the Implementation of Article 66.2 of the Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 3305. (2004) http:// TRIPS Agreement – European Communities. 14 April 2005. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=610350; IP/C/W/431/Add.3/Suppl.1. p1. Bernard Hoekman, Keith Maskus & Kamal Saggi. „Transfer 27 UNCTAD-ICTSD. Resource Book on TRIPS and Development. of Technology to Developing Countries: Unilateral and Cambridge University Press. 2005, p737 Multilateral Policy Options.” (2005), World Development. 33(10): 1587-1602. John Barton. New Trends in Technology 28 Specifically, the Decision required: “(a) an overview of Transfer: Implications for National and International Policy. the incentives regime put in place to fulfil the obligations Issue Paper No.18. Geneva: International Center for Trade of Article 66.2, including any specific legislative, policy and Sustainable Development, 2007; Foray (forthcoming) . and regulatory framework; b) identification of the type of incentive and the government agency or other entity making 10 While explicit mention of Article 66.2 is not necessary it available; c) eligible enterprises and other institutions in to indicate a developed country’s compliance with its the territory of the Member providing the incentives; and obligations, it is a small piece of evidence that there is some d) any information available on the functioning in practice linkage between the TRIPS obligation and the country’s of these incentives, such as: statistical and/or other policies, and therefore merits some attention. information on the use of the incentives in question by the 11 These last two points may seem repetitive, but some reported eligible enterprises and institutions; the type of technology activities were either not technical, or exhibited no signs of that has been transferred by these enterprises and transfer. institutions and the terms on which it has been transferred; the mode of technology transfer; least-developed countries 12 See WTO website, http://www.wto.org/english/theWTO_e/ to which these enterprises and institutions have transferred whatis_e/tif_e/org7_e.htm technology and the extent to which the incentives are 13 This figure counts the European Union as a “country” since it specific to least-developed countries; and any additional submitted reports outlining European Community incentives; information available that would help assess the effects that is, the 22 “countries” are comprised of 21 separate of the measures in promoting and encouraging technology country reports and one European Community report. transfer to least‑developed country Members in order to enable them to create a sound and viable technological 14 Council for Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property base.” Rights - Report on the Implementation of Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement - New Zealand - IP/C/W/497/Add.3. 3 29 Council for Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property December 2007, para. 3. Rights - Report on the Implementation of Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement – United States. 3 December 2007. 15 These reports can be found by first going to: http://www. IP/C/W/497/Add.5. p1. wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/techtransfer_e.htm, then conducting the automatic search for “Implementation 30 Surendra Patel, Pedro Roffe, & Abdulqawi Yusuf (eds). of Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement: Information from International Technology Transfer: The Origins and Aftermath Developed Country Members.” of the United Nations Negotiations on a Draft Code of Conduct. London: Kluwer Law International, 2001. 16 World Trade Organization. Implementation-related issues and concerns, Decision of 14 November 2001. WT/MIN(01)/17. 31 I thank Mr. Elly Kamahungye, First Secretary, Permanent 20 November 2001, para 11.2. Available at California, Davis, for this suggestion 17 Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property 33 The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Rights - Implementation of Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement Change (UNFCCC) includes provisions that clearly define the - Decision of the Council for TRIPS of 19 February 2003. obligations of one set of countries “Annex II” – essentially the IP/C/28 OECD countries – to promote, facilitate and finance technology 18 The heterogeneity of the data required the use of judgment transfer to another set of countries, “non-Annex I,” essentially regarding coding decisions. Thus, all coding data are available developing countries. upon request from the author for purposes of verification. 34 UNFCCC Article 4.5: The developed country Parties 19 Percentages do not add up to 100, since some policies targeted and other developed Parties included in Annex II shall more than one category, e.g. a specific LDC as well as specific take all practicable steps to promote, facilitate and non-LDCs. finance, as appropriate, the transfer of, or access to, environmentally sound technologies and know-how to 20 Council for Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property other Parties, particularly developing country Parties, Rights - Report on the Implementation of Article 66.2 of the to enable them to implement the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement – European Communities and Their Member Convention. In this process, the developed country States. 6 August 1999. IP/C/W/132/Add.4. p11. Parties shall support the development and enhancement 21 Council for Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property of endogenous capacities and technologies of developing Rights - Report on the Implementation of Article 66.2 of the country Parties. Other Parties and organizations in TRIPS Agreement – European Communities and Their Member a position to do so may also assist in facilitating the States. 13 February 2003. IP/C/W/388/Add.6. p40. transfer of such technologies.

10 References Barton, J. (2007). New Trends in Technology Transfer: Implications for National and International Policy. Issue Paper No.18. Geneva: International Center for Trade and Sustainable Development.

Branstetter, L., Fisman, R., Foley, C. (2004). Do Stronger Intellectual Property Rights Increase International Technology Transfer: Empirical Evidence from U.S. Firm-Level Panel Data. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 3305.

Correa, C.M. (2000). Intellectual Property Rights, the WTO and Developing Countries: The TRIPS Agreement and Policy Options. London: Zed Books.

Correa, C. M. (2005). Can the TRIPS Agreement Foster Technology Transfer to Developing Countries? in K. E. Maskus and J. H. Reichman (Eds.), International Public Goods and Transfer of Technology under a Globalized Intellectual Property Regime, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Correa, C.M. (2007). Intellectual Property in the LDCs: Strategies for Enhancing Technology Transfer and Dissemination. Background Paper No.4: UNCTAD: The Least Developed Countries Report 2007.

Drahos, P., and Braithwaite, J. (2002). Information Feudalism: Who Owns the Knowledge Economy? London: Earthscan.

Foray, D. (Forthcoming). Technology Transfer in the TRIPS Age: The need for new types of partnerships between the least developed and most advanced economies. Geneva: International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development.

Hoekman, B., Maskus, K., Saggi, K. (2005) “Transfer of Technology to Developing Countries: Unilateral and Multilateral Policy Options.” World Development. 33(10): 1587-1602.

Maskus, K. (2000). Intellectual Property Rights in the Global Economy. Washington: Institute for International Economics.

Maskus, K., Saggi, K., Puttitanun, T. (2004). ”Patent Rights and International Technology Transfer through Direct Investment and Licensing.” Paper prepared for the conference, “International Public Goods and the Transfer of Technology after TRIPS,” Duke University Law School, April 4-6, 2003. Available at:

Parties and Observers. (2008). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Available at:

Patel, S., Roffe, P., Yusuf, A. (eds) (2001). International Technology Transfer: The Origins and Aftermath of the United Nations Negotiations on a Draft Code of Conduct. London: Kluwer Law International.

Roffe, P. (1985). “Transfer of Technology: UNCTAD’s Draft International Code of Conduct”, International Lawyer 19(689).

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)-International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD). (2005). Resource Book on TRIPS and Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (1992). United Nations. FCCC/INFORMAL/84 GE.05- 62220 (E) 200705 Available at:

World Trade Organization (WTO). (2001a). Implementation-related issues and concerns, Decision of 14 November 2001. WT/MIN(01)/17. 20 November 2001. Available at:

World Trade Organization. (2001b). Declaration of the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health. Adopted on 14 November 2001. WT/MIN(01)/DEC/2 20 November 2001.

11 World Trade Organization. (2007). “TRIPS Issues: Technology Transfer.” Available at:

World Trade Organization. (2008). “Understanding the WTO: The Organization: Least Developed Countries.” Available at:

All country reports to the TRIPS Council are available at:

About the author Suerie Moon is Giorgio Ruffolo Doctoral Research Fellow and Doctoral Candidate, Sustainability Science Programme, Center for International Development, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University She can be reached at [email protected]

The views expressed in this Policy Brief are those of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD). ICTSD welcomes feedback and comments on this document. These can be sent to Ahmed Abdel Latif at aabdellatif@ictsd. ch, or where applicable, to the author directly. ICTSD has been active in the field of intellectual property since 1997, amongst others, through its Programme on Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) and Sustainable Development. One central objective of the Programme has been to facilitate the emergence of a critical mass of well informed stakeholders in developing countries including decision makers, negotiators as 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.

For further information, visit: http://ictsd.net/, www.unctad.org

About the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development Founded in 1996, the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) is an independent non-profit and non-governmental organization based in Geneva. By empowering stakeholders in trade policy through information, networking, dialogue, well-targeted research and capacity-building, ICTSD aims to influence the international trade system so that it advances the goal of sustainable development.

About the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development Established in 1964, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) is the focal point within the United Nations for the integrated treatment of trade, development and interrelated issues in the areas of finance, technology and investment. UNCTAD seeks to promote the integration of developing countries into the world economy by providing a forum for intergovernmental deliberations, research and policy analysis, and related technical assistance. UNCTAD’s programme on the development dimensions of IPRs seeks to help developing countries participate effectively in international discussions on IPRs and – at the national level – to help ensure that their IP policies are consonant with development objectives.

©ICTSD, 2008. Readers are encouraged to quote and reproduce this material for educational, non-profit purposes, provided the source is acknowledged. The work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non commerical-No-Derivative Works 3.0 License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.

ISSN 1684 9825.

Workshop on the Implementation of Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement: Incentives for Technology Transfer to LDCs

March 14, 2023

On March 14, 2023, Technology Transfer Section (TTS), Intellectual Property for Innovators Department (IPID) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) participated in the panel discussion organized by the World Trade Organization (WTO) on the priority needs of least developed countries’ (LDCs) for technology transfer.

It has been highlighted at the workshop that technology transfer is essential for the development of LDCs, and in order to address the various challenges, LDCs would require appropriate TT related policies, infrastructures, human capital and partnerships that facilitate technology transfer and utilization.

Ms. Lorena Rojas Vega, speaking on behalf of WIPO, provided the overview of WIPO’s activities in the area of life science, such as WIPO Covid-19 Response package , aimed in increasing capacity of LDCs and developing countries to deal with the pandemic through an effective and balanced use of IP system.

In addition, the social impact of technology transfer was emphasized in WIPO’s Covid package. In this regard, it is envisaged to compile institutional IP policies, model agreements and regulations of institutions involved in R&D life science area introducing an aspect of social responsibility of innovation stakeholders in technology transfer processes.

As a result of the panel discussion, WIPO reiterated the importance of initiatives to accelerate and facilitate technology transfer in the framework of future pandemics. All participants also agreed on the need for all stakeholders to work together towards addressing the challenges faced by LDCs in creating new and accessing the existing technology.

You are here

Does trips art. 66.2 encourage technology transfer to ldcs: an analysis of country submissions to the trips council (1999-2007).

• United Nations [UN] Conference on Trade and Development  (UNCTAD) www.unctad.org

Focus themes

• Trade Policy
• Intellectual Property Rights

The issue of whether or not technology transfer to less developed countries (LDC) members of the WTO as a result of TRIPS-mandated incentives is a broad question requiring empirical study. This policy brief addresses just one facet of this question: has the article 66.2 obligation led developed countries to increase incentives to enterprises and institutions in their territories for the purpose of promoting technology transfer to LDC members? The paper notes that from a purely legal perspective, interpretations of the article are likely to vary. Therefore, the paper focuses on public policies or programmes that developed countries undertake to encourage their enterprises or institutions to engage in technology transfer. The paper finds evidence that implementation of TRIPS Article 66.2 has fallen short in a number of areas. Furthermore, lack of definitional clarity regarding the terms 'technology transfer' and 'developed country' make it unclear which countries are obligated to do what. The paper figures that members should consider revising and strengthening the article text. In addition, to improve monitoring of compliance with Article 66.2, the paper states that changes to the reporting system will be necessary. Accordingly, it suggests that Members should:

• agree on a common definition of technology transfer and a list of policies that do and do not qualify as such
• agree on common, comparable metrics for measuring the extent to which the incentives have their intended effect
• indicate whether and how reported incentives are additional to business-as-usual practices

Related content

Covid-19 impacts cross border traders in east africa, africa trade and covid‑19: the supply chain dimension, promoting intra-regional trade in north africa, ibcim economic corridor: facilitating sub-regional development, trade in high technology products trends and policy imperatives for brics.

Art Drawings Mixed Media & Collages Paintings Photography Prints & Multiples Scrolls, Screens & Fan Paintings Sculptures Statues & Statuettes Artists Andy Warhol Banksy Francis Bacon Frank Stella Jean-Michel Basquiat Keith Haring Pablo Picasso Roy Lichtenstein Popular Searches Bronze Statues Folk Art Lithographs Oil Paintings Pencil Drawings Portraits Browse by Origin African American Ancient Egyptian Ancient Greek and Roman Asian Catholic Egyptian European Middle Eastern Oceanic/Pacific Rim ANTIQUES, ART, WATCHES AND MORE AUCTION Embassy Auctions International Sponsored. Your ad here?

Jewelry bracelets brooches & pins cufflinks, tie pins & tie clips earrings loose stones & beads necklaces & pendants rings watches featured bulgari bulova cartier chanel chopard omega patek philippe rolex swarovski tiffany & co. van cleef & arpels popular searches 18k gold jewelry diamond jewelry emeralds pearls rubies sapphires june 5 jewelry auction the benefit shop foundation inc. sponsored. your ad here, asian antiques art collectibles fashion furniture jewelry tableware & barware vases & garnitures browse by origin chinese antiques indian antiques japanese antiques korean antiques persian antiques southeast asian antiques tibetan antiques featured bronze cloisonne han dynasty jade jewelry ming dynasty porcelain qing dynasty woodblock prints june auction of japanese prints and paintings floating world auctions sponsored. your ad here, furniture beds & headboards cabinets & storage seating tables tables coffee & cocktail tables desks & writing tables dining tables seating benches chairs sofas & settees cabinets & storage armoires & wardrobes bookcases, display cases & shelves buffets, sideboards & credenzas dressers & chests of drawers browse by styles art deco chippendale federal style hollywood regency mid-century modern mission style queen anne rococo victorian featured eames chairs george nelson hans wegner herman miller milo baughman paul evans stickley, collectibles advertisements & signs automobilia & petroliana banks, registers & vending machines books, magazines & papers breweriana & beer collectibles cameras & photo equipment coins, currency & stamps figurines & miniatures desk accessories hardware hunting & fishing maps & atlases musical instruments radios, phones & electronics railroad collectibles religious & spiritual objects rocks, minerals & fossils scientific & medical objects tobacciana toys & hobbies vanity, perfume & grooming weapons & armor wine & spirits classic american 25 thriftiques of iowa sponsored. your ad here, coins bills & currency notes bullion coins exonumia stamps stocks, bonds & bank certificates browse by origin african american ancient greek and roman asian byzantine egyptian european middle eastern oceanic/pacific rim featured coins commemoratives dollars & half dollars gold coins half-dimes and dimes nickels proof sets quarters timeline auctions coins sale - day 5 timeline auctions ltd. sponsored. your ad here, home & décor candle holders clocks decorative baskets fireplaces & mantels fireplace accessories garden ornaments & accents kitchenware lighting outdoor & patio furniture picture frames coat racks & umbrella stands magazine racks mirrors planters, cachepots & jardinieres rugs & carpets tableware & barware textiles & linens vases & vessels featured art glass baccarat kpm lalique limoges meissen murano rookwood sèvres tiffany studios session 2: summer estates & collections ahlers & ogletree auction gallery sponsored. your ad here, clothing dresses & gowns jackets & coats pants & trousers robes & kimonos shirts & blouses skirts suits & ensembles sweaters vests accessories bags & purses belts & chatelaines canes & walking sticks eyeglasses & spectacles neckties, bowties & bolo ties pocket squares scarves, wraps & shawls shoes wallets & money clips featured designers chanel chloe christian dior gucci hermes louis vuitton michael kors yves saint laurent.

Trips 66: Art by various psychedelic artists 1967 rare

Heading: (Psychedelic art) Author: Title: Trips 66: An Everyman's Primer of Trip Art Place Published: Publisher:Gordon Barbery Date Published: 1967 Description: Illustrate

Trips 66 An Everyman&#39;s Primer of Trip Art Book, 1st and only edition, 84 Pages, Editor: Gordon Barberry. This is EXTRAORDINARILY RARE in this high quality condition! Was distributed by Psychedelic

This stunning and hard to find poster was made for a Benefit show at the Avalon Ballroom in 1967. A very rare poster creation by artist Bill Kliban, who is primarily known for his cat cartoons that ap

This gorgeous, rare handbill was designed by artist D. Arthur Hahn for the Velvet Underground's June 1967 appearance at the Boston Tea Party in Boston, MA. According to Lou Reed, the venue was the Vel

We are THRILLED to present this incredibly rare Bay Area treasure in our auction for the first time! This poster was created by artist Bill Perry for the performance of Buffalo Springfield and Sopwith

This poster is signed by the artist, Stanley Mouse! The large Pre-Concert First Printing of this poster like the specimen offered here is infinitely more desirable and rare than the Second Printings

This poster is signed by the artist, Stanley Mouse! This piece has it all! The large Pre-Concert First Printing of this poster like the specimen offered here is infinitely more desirable and rare than

This second printing poster offers the same amazing artwork as the original for a far more affordable price! Trip or Freak is a rare collaboration between three of the most prolific and talented artis

This handbill is signed by the artist, Bob Masse! This incredible handbill by Canadian artist Bob Masse is one of the most striking designs in the rock poster world and is coveted by top collectors of

This second-printing poster is signed by the artist Bob Masse! This second printing poster offers the same popular and iconic art for far less than a First Print currently commands! This incredible p

This second-printing handbill is signed by the artist Bob Masse! This second printing handbill offers the same popular and iconic art for far less than a First Print currently commands! This incredibl

1960's New York Psychedelic art posters. Artist: Thielec. 1967 Blue Dome, Bleeker st. and Central Park Mall. New York.Dimensions: 19" X 29"

1879 American Painters & ART Beautiful 83 Engravings SIGNED Homer Gifford Moran A rare, 19th-century first edition art book of American Painters, filled with incredible art from various artists. This

Peter Max was one of the most successful commercial artists of the era and popularized the imagery and color schemes that were created by the San Francisco poster artists. This 1967 poster by Max adve

Peter Max was one of the most successful commercial artists of the era and popularized the imagery and color schemes that were created by the San Francisco poster artists. This 1967 issue was created

VARIOUS ARTISTS [PSYCHEDELIC ROCK CONCERTS.] Group of 6 posters. 1967-1968. Sizes vary. Condition varies, generally A-. Paper. Group includes: Quicksilver Messenger Service; Jimi Hendrix Experience /

This very rare original 1967 poster announced the Om Festival of Lights, which was a procession of light from Mt. Home parking lot to Mt. Tamalpais peak. Approximately 2500 people came to hear the Gra

This classic simple and powerful design from Rick Griffin was his art for The Family Dog&#39;s 4th of July Party in 1967. This artist&#39;s variant was printed by Rick Griffin in 1974. It is smaller t

3 Works by Various Artists: 1) Folk Art Angel, wall hanging, painted wood. Size: 45" x 26" (114 x 66 cm); 2) Folk Art Roadrunner Statue, wood and iron. Size: 23.25'' x 11'' x 5'' (59 x 28 x 13 cm; Str

Presenting this RARE poster from 1967 featuring a band called The Yellow Brick Road. The concert advertised took place at Webb&#39;s in Stockton, CA. The band also played at the Matrix a couple times

This limited-edition poster has been numbered 11/150 and signed by the artist, Emek! Here we have a very rare piece by artist Emek for the Grateful Dead&#39;s 50th anniversary celebration in July, 20

This poster is signed by the artist, Victor Moscoso! This 1967 Victor Moscoso original first printing poster announced a run of Moby Grape/Canned Heat concerts at the Avalon. Moscoso created several a

Related Searches

Travel Guide to Historic Route 66: The Mother Road

Route 66 was one of the United States' first continuous stretches of paved highway, and served as a major path for those who migrated to the West.

"The Mother Road" was established on November 11, 1926, and ultimately stretched 2,448 miles (3,940 kilometers) from Chicago to Los Angeles. It became the shortest, year-round route between the Midwest and the Pacific Coast, and was also known as " The Main Street of America " and the " Will Rogers Highway ". On that date, only 800 miles of Route 66 were paved, the rest being graded dirt, gravel, bricks, or planks of wood. It took 11 more years before the entire road would be paved.

From its beginning in Chicago, Route 66 headed southwest through Illinois and Missouri, and a small section of southeast Kansas.

From there it turned in a more westward direction through Oklahoma and Texas, with the final stretches in New Mexico and Arizona before its termination point in Los Angeles.

During the Dust Bowl era of the 1930s, the diagonal course of the Route 66 was the primary route for migrating farm workers from the Midwest to California. The migration continued during World War II due to job availability in California.

It linked small, rural towns to larger cities, and markets. The fact that it covered mainly flat areas and featured moderate year-round weather made it an attractive route for traverlers, and truckers. During this time, it also became one of the key routes for moving military equipment across the country.

Due to the efforts of the U.S. Highway 66 Association, Route 66 became the first highway to be completely paved, in 1938. In the 1950s, Route 66 became the main highway for vacationers heading to Los Angeles. The traffic along Route 66 led to the opening of many "mom and pop" restaurants, motels, and service stations along the route to satisfy the needs of traveling motorists.

Alignments of the road changed often over the years, as improved sections of highway were constructed. In the early years many sections connected only one small town to the next, and had no official federal route number. Over time the route was formalized as a Federal Highway numbered as "U.S. 66".

We've had the pleasure of driving in all eight states along Route 66, The Main Street of America !

Included on this website are photographs, personal experiences, commentary and travel recommendations on the various segments of the Mother Road. We hope that this site will help with the planning of your next vacation or holiday, and get Route 66 checked off your bucket list of destinations in 2024!

The Lore of Route 66: The Main Street of America

Route 66 became one of the most famous roads in the United States, outdistancing others such as the Lincoln Highway.

It is popular lore in movies, songs, books like "The Grapes of Wrath", and TV shows.

The legendary highway was known far and wide for its variety of "mom and pop" motels, neon lights, drive-ins, quirky roadside attractions, flat tires, cars with no air conditioning, dangerous curves, steep hills, and narrow lanes.

Today, there are more than 250 buildings, bridges, road alignments and other sites along Route 66 that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

The movie "Easy Rider" was filmed at several locations along Route 66. The move "Thelma and Louise" also featured Route 66 references and scenes.

The popularity stuck, and continues to grow today! So ... get out and explore Historic U.S. Route 66!

Route 66 Map from Chicago to Santa Monica

Road Trip Travel Guides for Various States Along Route 66

Planning a road trip on Route 66 in 2024 or for the Centennial in 2026? Here are the travel guides and reviews by state...

List of Route 66 Mileage by State (1926 Alignment)

The demise of route 66.

Route 66 underwent many improvements and realignments during its lifetime.

The passage of the Federal Highway Act of 1956 sounded the death knell for the old road, and gradually segments were replaced with new, safer and faster superhighways.

Its final demise was the completion of the Interstate Highway System. The last town by-passed by the Interstate system was Williams , Arizona, on October 13, 1984.

Subsequently, U.S. Route 66 was officially removed from the United States Highway System on June 27, 1985.

Route 66 was replaced by five Interstates: I-55 southbound from Chicago, I-44 across Missouri and Oklahoma, I-40 in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico and Arizona, I-15 and finally I-10 into Los Angeles.

Route 66 Today

Today, in 2024, several states recognize the historical significance of the road, and have it marked with "66" in the state highway number. "Historic Route 66 Associations" are active in several states.

The road is also a major tourist attraction, so many states openly market attractions and lodging along the old route.

The old road still traverses dozens of small towns with vintage gas stations, quirky tourist attractions, diners, "Mop & Pop" motels, historic sites & museums, stunning vistas, and gift shops.

Touring Route 66 by Auto, Bus, or RV

Different people choose different modes of transportation to tour the Mother Road. While some elect guided bus tours, or drive their own vehicles, others seek new destinations in their RV or motor home.

And for those that don't own an RV yet, companies like Cruise America, El Monte RV Rentals, Road Bear RV Rentals, and Camping World offer a variety of RV sizes and rental plans.

Touring Route 66 by Motorcycle

Get your motor running! Get out on the highway!

Many travelers on Route 66 rent motorcycles to seek new open-air adventures on their USA road trip!

A variety of motorcycle rental plans are available, such as those from Eaglerider Motorcycle Rentals.

Out West, your motorcycle can be picked up at a number of rental locations in Nevada, California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. If you are starting your Route 66 trip further north, motorcycle pickup locations in Illinois are available.

Model options are plentiful, and cycles from manufacturers such as Harley-Davidson and Indian are available. Trikes can also be rented.

If you don't want to ride independently, choose from one of many guided motorcycle tours. Self-drive tours often include rental of the motorcycle, hotel reservations and detailed tour route information.

Some companies offer one-way rentals, hotel pickups, luggage storage, helmets and other amenities.

Route 66: The Song

The song "Get Your Kicks on Route 66" was composed by songwriter Bobby Troup in 1946.

It was first recorded by Nat King Cole, and sung by other singers over the years including Chuck Berry, Perry Como, and the Rolling Stones.

If you ever plan to motor west, travel my way, take the highway that is best. Get your kicks on Route sixty-six. It winds from Chicago to LA, more than two thousand miles all the way. Get your kicks on Route sixty-six. Now you go through Saint Looey Joplin, Missouri, and Oklahoma City is mighty pretty. You see Amarillo, Gallup, New Mexico, Flagstaff, Arizona. Don't forget Winona, Kingman, Barstow, San Bernardino. Won't you get hip to this timely tip: when you make that California trip Get your kicks on Route sixty-six.

For the Route 66 TV series on CBS, the "Route 66 Theme" song was written by Nelson Riddle.

Route 66: The TV Show

A popular television show during the early 1960s bore the road's name: "Route 66". Starring George Maharis as Buz, and Martin Milner as Tod, the two young adventurers drove the road in their Chevrolet Corvette for 116 episodes.

Despite the name of the series, most episodes did NOT take place on the historic road, but in 25 different U.S. states. The show was filmed mostly on location, and became known for its cinematography. A long list of well-known actors and actresses appeared on the series.

The show ran from October, 1960, through March, 1964, and created a huge following.

The interest in the show continues today by "Baby Boomers" who remember the original showings, and new generations of viewers fascinated by the show who watch it on DVD.

Chicago: The Route Begins

The beginning point for a Route 66 road trip could be either Chicago or Los Angeles, depending on the direction of the trip. Most travelers seem to start their journey on Route 66 in Chicago, and head westbound, the direction taken by those leaving the Dust Bowl and those seeking a new life in the West. That is the direction we take on this website.

Illinois was the first of the eight states through which Route 66 passed to have its segment of U.S. 66 paved, at a time when much of the route across the country was still a gravel or dirt road. Illinois Route 66 took over Illinois State Highway 4, a pre-existing, fully paved two-lane road between Chicago and St. Louis.

The beginning point of Route 66 in Chicago has changed over the years. Today, the starting point is at East Adams Street at South Michigan Avenue, and the end point is at East Jackson at South Michigan. One way streets in the area can be difficult to navigate for first-time Route 66 visitors!

While in Chicago, many Route 66 travelers seek out Grant Park, the Willis Tower, Chicago Architecture River Cruise, Art Institute of Chicago, Museum of Science & Industry, the Magnificent Mile, Lincoln Park Zoo and the lakeshore shopping areas.

Santa Monica: The End of the Trail

The original terminus of U.S. Route 66 was at 7th and Broadway in downtown Los Angeles. However, over the years, and decades, Route 66 has had several “official” and “unofficial" ending points.

The route was later extended to the intersection of Lincoln and Olympic boulevards in Santa Monica, about one mile from the Pacific Ocean. This is often referred to as the official ending point of Route 66.

Route 66 Centennial: 1926-2026

Route 66 was one of the United State's first continuous stretches of paved highway, and served as a major path for those who migrated west.

"The Mother Road" was commissioned on November 11, 1926, and ultimately stretched 2,448 miles from Chicago to Los Angeles.

In 2026, the nation will be celebrating the Route 66 Centennial ... 100 years of the Mother Road serving the traveling public! Many states and organizations are planning special events and tours to highlight the Centennial.

SITE MAP | PRIVACY POLICY | TERMS OF USE | CONTACT US

Copyright © 2024 Route66RoadTrip.com • All Rights Reserved.

THE 10 BEST Hotels in Elektrostal 2024

2. Apelsin Hotel

3. MTM Hostel Elektrostal

7. Hotel Djaz

8. park hotel bogorodsk.

"Viki Sinema"

Explore near "viki sinema": where to stay, eat, and visit, "viki sinema" reviews: insider insights and visitor experiences, additional information, you might also like.

The State Tretyakov Gallery

The Moscow Kremlin

State Historical Museum

Moscow Circus on Ice

Nearby attractions, popular types of attractions in elektrostal', popular restaurants in elektrostal', popular destinations, recommended attractions at popular destinations, popular ranked lists, more things to do in elektrostal'.

• Customer Support
• Service Guarantee
• More Service Info
• Website Feedback
• About Trip.com
• Terms & Conditions
• Privacy Statement
• About Trip.com Group

Other Services

• Investor Relations
• Affiliate Program
• List Your Property
• Become a Supplier

THE 10 CLOSEST Hotels to Electrostal History and Art Museum

Hotels near electrostal history and art museum, property types, distance from, traveller rating, hotel class.

• Best Value Properties ranked using exclusive Tripadvisor data, including traveller ratings, confirmed availability from our partners, prices, booking popularity and location, as well as personal user preferences and recently viewed hotels.
• Traveller Ranked Highest rated hotels on Tripadvisor, based on traveller reviews.
• Distance from Electrostal History and Art Museum See properties located closest to the place of interest first with confirmed availability for your dates from our partners.

Report by Developed Country Members on the implementation of TRIPS Art. 66.2 (re. Technology Transfer to LDCs) - View details of the document

Main information, 1. submitting member, 2. introduction to report.

REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 66.2 OF THE TRIPS AGREEMENT

The following communication, dated 15 September 2021, from Australia, is being circulated pursuant to paragraph 1 of the Decision on Implementation of Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement (IP/C/28).

1  Introduction

• Australia is committed to implementing Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement. Australia is also committed to sharing information with other WTO Members about incentives and support it offers enterprises and institutions to promote and encourage technology transfer to least developed country Members (LDCs). 
• This is a full report in respect of Article 66.2 which builds upon annual update reports provided in 2012 (document IP/C/W/580/Add.2), 2013 (document IP/C/W/594/Add.7), 2014 (document IP/C/W/602), 2015 (document IP/C/W/611.Add.4), 2016 (document IP/C/W/616/Add.1), 2017 (document IP/C/W/631/Add.1/Rev.1), 2018 (document IP/C/W/646/Add.2), 2019 (document IP/C/W/656/Add.3) and 2020 (document IP/C/R/TTI/AUS/1). It is submitted in accordance with the TRIPS Council’s Decision of 20 February 2003 on Implementation of Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement (document IP/C/28). Consistent with that decision, developed country Members are to provide annual reports on actions taken or planned in pursuance of their Article 66.2 commitments. The report focuses on incentives that are either targeted specifically at LDCs or at a group of countries which includes an LDC.
• In this report, technology transfer is taken to include training, education and the dissemination of knowledge, as well as the intellectual property embedded in transferred goods and services and the dissemination of business information and know-how on which a product, process or service is based. This report focuses on Australia’s efforts to help LDCs create the conditions essential to encourage technology transfer. Technical cooperation in favour of least developed and developing countries to facilitate the TRIPS Agreement’s implementation is another discrete obligation, on which Australia reports separately. Australia recognises that some technical cooperation activities may help to create an environment conducive to the creation or acquisition of technologies.
• In Australia, many incentives for technology transfer take the form of official development assistance. These incentives align with Australia’s strategic focus on using aid as a catalyst to promote economic growth and poverty reduction. Since 2012, Australia has provided aid for trade funding to the Australia-World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Funds in Trust (FiT) to assist technology and knowledge transfer to LDCs and developing countries in the Indo-Pacific region. From 2019, a third iteration of FiT (FiT3) will continue to support a range of intellectual property (IP) capacity building activities, which will enable the development of national IP systems in beneficiary countries, and help them to accede to WIPO-administered treaties. It will develop legal frameworks and infrastructure for effective knowledge transfer, including programs specifically focused on addressing IP related issues faced by women. The important FiT3 work on neglected tropical diseases and increased access to educational materials for the visually impaired will also continue.
• During this reporting period, the majority of activities under the new work plan for the FiT3 have been scoped or commenced. There have been delays and postponement of activities due to global COVID-19 health concerns and subsequent travel restrictions. Development of a judicial toolkit on IP adjudication (‘IP benchbook’) for judges and judicial officers directed to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has begun. The IP benchbook is intended to be an important judicial resource, serving as a core element of future judicial capacity building programmes for judges and judicial officers. Further activities, including a study visit programme for Pacific policy makers and the placement of Indo-Pacific and East African scientists on training and research fellowships in Australia have been planned, and will take place when the health situation allows.
• Enterprises and institutions eligible for funding to deliver projects and activities to facilitate technology transfer include government agencies and public institutions, non-government organisations, independent consultants and experts, and universities and research organisations. Australian aid has been untied since 2006, allowing non-Australian organisations to bid for contracts to supply goods and services under bilateral and multilateral development assistance programmes. Untied aid helps ensure activities represent value for money, are cost-effective and attract the best‑available global expertise, thereby achieving the best development results. Consistent with this, Australia’s aid-funded incentives for technology transfer are not restricted to Australian institutions and enterprises.
• Australia recognises that LDC Members are interested in the outcomes of technology transfer activities. This report’s annex includes specific examples of relevant programmes and projects in the format suggested by LDCs (document IP/C/W/561), including work done to deliver safe, effective and accessible COVID-19 immunisation programs. Australia lists all LDC recipients.  

List of programmes/projects

Click for more information.

• Name of programme or project
• Beneficiary Members(s)
• Category of technology

© World Trade Organization 2024 Contact us Disclaimer ver 2.0.2.27506 (13/02/2024 03:17 PM)

Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required .

Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.

Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.

Image Unavailable

• To view this video download Flash Player

Trips 66 An Everyman's Primer of Trip Art Paperback – January 1, 1967

• Language English
• Publisher The Psychedelic Shop
• Publication date January 1, 1967
• See all details

Product details

• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B00GM4QDO0
• Publisher ‏ : ‎ The Psychedelic Shop; First Edition (January 1, 1967)
• Language ‏ : ‎ English

Customer reviews

Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.

To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.

No customer reviews

• Amazon Newsletter
• About Amazon
• Accessibility
• Sustainability
• Press Center
• Investor Relations
• Amazon Devices
• Amazon Science
• Sell on Amazon
• Sell apps on Amazon
• Supply to Amazon
• Protect & Build Your Brand
• Become an Affiliate
• Become a Delivery Driver
• Start a Package Delivery Business
• Advertise Your Products
• Self-Publish with Us
• Become an Amazon Hub Partner
• › See More Ways to Make Money
• Amazon Visa
• Amazon Store Card
• Amazon Secured Card
• Amazon Business Card
• Shop with Points
• Credit Card Marketplace
• Reload Your Balance
• Amazon Currency Converter
• Your Account
• Your Orders
• Shipping Rates & Policies
• Amazon Prime
• Returns & Replacements
• Manage Your Content and Devices
• Recalls and Product Safety Alerts
• Conditions of Use
• Privacy Notice
• Consumer Health Data Privacy Disclosure
• Your Ads Privacy Choices

• Yekaterinburg
• Novosibirsk
• Vladivostok

• Tours to Russia
• Practicalities
• Russia in Lists

Rusmania • Deep into Russia

Out of the Centre

Savvino-storozhevsky monastery and museum.

Zvenigorod's most famous sight is the Savvino-Storozhevsky Monastery, which was founded in 1398 by the monk Savva from the Troitse-Sergieva Lavra, at the invitation and with the support of Prince Yury Dmitrievich of Zvenigorod. Savva was later canonised as St Sabbas (Savva) of Storozhev. The monastery late flourished under the reign of Tsar Alexis, who chose the monastery as his family church and often went on pilgrimage there and made lots of donations to it. Most of the monastery’s buildings date from this time. The monastery is heavily fortified with thick walls and six towers, the most impressive of which is the Krasny Tower which also serves as the eastern entrance. The monastery was closed in 1918 and only reopened in 1995. In 1998 Patriarch Alexius II took part in a service to return the relics of St Sabbas to the monastery. Today the monastery has the status of a stauropegic monastery, which is second in status to a lavra. In addition to being a working monastery, it also holds the Zvenigorod Historical, Architectural and Art Museum.

Belfry and Neighbouring Churches

Located near the main entrance is the monastery's belfry which is perhaps the calling card of the monastery due to its uniqueness. It was built in the 1650s and the St Sergius of Radonezh’s Church was opened on the middle tier in the mid-17th century, although it was originally dedicated to the Trinity. The belfry's 35-tonne Great Bladgovestny Bell fell in 1941 and was only restored and returned in 2003. Attached to the belfry is a large refectory and the Transfiguration Church, both of which were built on the orders of Tsar Alexis in the 1650s.  

To the left of the belfry is another, smaller, refectory which is attached to the Trinity Gate-Church, which was also constructed in the 1650s on the orders of Tsar Alexis who made it his own family church. The church is elaborately decorated with colourful trims and underneath the archway is a beautiful 19th century fresco.

Nativity of Virgin Mary Cathedral

The Nativity of Virgin Mary Cathedral is the oldest building in the monastery and among the oldest buildings in the Moscow Region. It was built between 1404 and 1405 during the lifetime of St Sabbas and using the funds of Prince Yury of Zvenigorod. The white-stone cathedral is a standard four-pillar design with a single golden dome. After the death of St Sabbas he was interred in the cathedral and a new altar dedicated to him was added.

Under the reign of Tsar Alexis the cathedral was decorated with frescoes by Stepan Ryazanets, some of which remain today. Tsar Alexis also presented the cathedral with a five-tier iconostasis, the top row of icons have been preserved.

Tsaritsa's Chambers

The Nativity of Virgin Mary Cathedral is located between the Tsaritsa's Chambers of the left and the Palace of Tsar Alexis on the right. The Tsaritsa's Chambers were built in the mid-17th century for the wife of Tsar Alexey - Tsaritsa Maria Ilinichna Miloskavskaya. The design of the building is influenced by the ancient Russian architectural style. Is prettier than the Tsar's chambers opposite, being red in colour with elaborately decorated window frames and entrance.

At present the Tsaritsa's Chambers houses the Zvenigorod Historical, Architectural and Art Museum. Among its displays is an accurate recreation of the interior of a noble lady's chambers including furniture, decorations and a decorated tiled oven, and an exhibition on the history of Zvenigorod and the monastery.

Palace of Tsar Alexis

The Palace of Tsar Alexis was built in the 1650s and is now one of the best surviving examples of non-religious architecture of that era. It was built especially for Tsar Alexis who often visited the monastery on religious pilgrimages. Its most striking feature is its pretty row of nine chimney spouts which resemble towers.

Plan your next trip to Russia

Ready-to-book tours.

Your holiday in Russia starts here. Choose and book your tour to Russia.

REQUEST A CUSTOMISED TRIP

Looking for something unique? Create the trip of your dreams with the help of our experts.