Intellectual Property and Sustainable Development

Technology Transfer for Development Stalls in WIPO

Last week, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Committee for Development and IP (CDIP) met to discuss the organizations latest proposals for implementing WIPO's Development Agenda (for the background of the WIPO's Development Agenda, see CIEL's Citizen's Guide to WIPO, and IP Quarterly Updates for recent developments in the CDIP).  As it has in the past, CIEL participated in the Committee as a permanent observer.

On the agenda was the "Project on Intellectual Property and Technology Transfer: Common Challenges - Building Solutions" (document CDIP/4/7).  Details on the project and CIEL's concerns and suggestions are available below (see Oct 15th 2009).

Consistent with many of the problems identified by CIEL, a coalition of self-professed "like-minded" developing countries immediately began to articulate a long list of additional considerations for the technology transfer project.  One such country, Brazil, intervened that it would refuse to feel pressured to prematurely adopt this or any project on technology transfer, particularly without any discussion in the CDIP of the Development Agenda Recommendations on which technology transfer projects were based.  Another "like-minded" country, Egypt, relayed a long-list of considerations that it wished to have discussed before any project on technology transfer was undertaken.

The outpouring of concerned interventions appeared to catch both the WIPO Secretariat and Developed Countries off-guard.  Because the "like-minded" countries were unprepared to submit their lengthy list of comments, concerns and suggestions in writing, technology transfer discussions were postponed until the following meeting, in the spring of 2010.  The "like-minded" countries are to submit a written statement by the 15th of December, 2009, with responses due the 31st of January, 2010. 

The possibility of examining the transfer of climate-related technologies (for mitigation and adaptation), or at least a small subset of them, appears slim.  One small - but vocal - developing country, Sri Lanka, explicitly stated that her delegation did not want climate technologies included in the Technology Transfer Project. 

If this represents the view of developing countries as a whole, it is a strong shift from what India stated recently in the 2009 WIPO General Assembly, when they stated, "[w]e need to speed up the development and deployment of new green technologies" implying a greater role of WIPO in making this happen (see 24th Sept. 2009). 

At the same 2009 WIPO General Assembly, WIPO's Director General announced that he did not see IP posing a barrier to the development and transfer of climate technologies (see 23rd Sept. 2009).  Simultaneously at the General Assembly, the US Chamber of Commerce was also lobbying strongly against what they called the "rhetoric" that IPRs impede access to climate technologies. 

Group B (the coalition of developed countries) expressed support for studying "environmental technologies" under the Technology Transfer project.  

If developing countries are indeed shying away from examining Climate Technologies within WIPO, it could be perceived that they no longer see IP as being a significant barrier to accessing climate technologies, which has been their position at the UNFCCC negotiations leading up to Copenhagen later this year.  Giving this impression is not necessarily in the best interest of developing countries because it is not clear whether IPRs present a significant barrier with respect to many climate technologies.

Or rather, the Director General's blanket assertion - that IPRs are not a barrier - has given the impression that any study by WIPO on the transfer of climate technologies will have a predetermined outcome.  Given the breadth of technologies implicated by climate change, from drought resistant plants to diseases to large engineering endeavors, this blanket assertion should not dissuade developing countries from examining in an empirical fashion, which technologies are or are not being transferred over what alternatives.  A well-structured empirical analysis on technology transfer will not permit WIPO to interject its own conclusion on the results, while it would allow for the analysis of the effect of policy decisions on technology transfer to be examined from a baseline level by independent experts. 

World Bank discusses Trade and Climate Change

The World Bank, along with two other NGOs, held a panel discussion today on the trade implications of the ongoing climate negotiations.  The final presentation, on Technology Transfer and Climate Change was the most substantive, as detailed below.  The presentations did not address either labeling schemes, standards, border carbon adjustments, or subsidies.  For an in depth discussion of these topics, please see the 2009 CIEL publication, Is World Trade Law a Barrier to Saving our Climate?, available at: http://www.ciel.org/Publications/ClimateTradeReport_foee-ciel_sep09.pdf

Richard Baldwin began by discussing possible implications of Copenhagen outcomes for the world trading system, and coping policies to minimize conflicts in the trading system.  In order to prevent what he called a "train wreck" in the making, he encouraged Industrialized Countries and Emerging Economies like Brazil, India, China and Russia, to agree upon climate change rules for trade outside of the WTO system.  He especially emphasized not letting the WTO's Dispute Settlement Body take up the issue of climate related trade measures.

Dominique van der Mensbrugghe, Lead Economist at the World Bank, followed with an outline of some of the probable changes in patterns of international trade that rising global temperatures might precipitate.  His primary emphasis was on the implications of climate change on agriculture.  A representative of the World Health Organization (WHO) questioned why the health related aspects, i.e. the human rights implications of climate change, were not being addressed by the presentation, which was not answered by Mr. van der Mensbrugghe.

Aaron Cosbey of the International Institute for Sustainable Development discussed technology transfer and development assistance.  In using the IPCC 4 definition of Technology Transfer, he argued that weakening IPRs to stimulate the transfer of climate technologies is insufficient for the dissemination of these technologies to developing countries.   Rather, Mr. Cosbey emphasized the need for developing countries to have  enabling environments in place for investment.  He suggested learning from the experience of the trade regime, vis-a-vis Aid for Trade, to improve the investment climate in these countries, rather than looking at the experience of the WTO in handling another global challenge - access to medicines - with the Doha Declaration on Public Health.  He cited three reasons for the relative insignificance of IPRs in the dissemination of climate technologies: (1) the requirement for trade-secret protected know-how to implement patented technologies; (2) the significant barrier of a poor investment climate in many developing countries; and (3) the inapplicability of public health and IP lessons to energy-related technologies. 

However, in response to a question posed by CIEL, Mr. Cosbey did acknowledge that his analysis did not account for either patents on the most cutting edge of alternative energy technologies (i.e. cleanest), or the expected emergence of Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) for "Clean[er] Coal."  These advancements will be covered by patents for several years to come, and likely will not have the same level competition enjoyed by current climate technologies.  The World Bank, in its 2010 Development Report, projects that about 25% of the necessary reduction of greenhouse gasses (GHGs) by 2050 will come from CCS technology, which is expected to be an exceptionally concentrated industry. 

Indeed, his hypothesis on the impact of IPRs assumes a sufficiently competitive environment, where alternative suppliers of solar panels, wind turbines, etc, are readily available.  This is the case with older technologies that are in the public domain.  However, in order to reduce greenhouse emissions to 350 PPM, the World Bank, IPCC, and other researchers are united in stating the necessity that more efficient technologies be developed, deployed and disseminated to developing countries.  Thus, it is entirely possible that as advancements in energy generation/GHG reduction are developed (in large part with public funding) the importance of patents held by the private sector will increase tremendously.  

Green Patent Commons Article

The November 1st edition of the New York Times has an short article on efforts being undertaken on "green" patent commons.  It discusses the efforts of the EcoPatent Commons and the Green Xchange.

"Everybody in the Pool of Green Innovation"

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/business/01proto.html?hpw