Intellectual Property and Sustainable Development

U.S. Identifies Vast Riches of Minerals in Afghanistan - NYTimes.com

via www.nytimes.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html?pagewanted=1&ref=world

An interesting development in Afghanistan, in particular regarding the large scale commercialization of electric vehicles. Apparently, the US has recently learned that Afghanistan holds vast supplies of lithium, a essential component of most batteries for electric vehicles. Some have speculated about the likelihood of limited supplies of lithium as a limiting factor in the meaningful growth of the electric vehicle market. See our earlier post on the topic here.

In addition, the war-ravaged country also holds vast reserves of iron and copper, based on geological surveys conducted by the Russians several decades earlier, the NY Times Reported recently.

The NY Times writes, quoting government officials:

“No one has tested that law; no one knows how it will stand up in a fight between the central government and the provinces,” observed Paul A. Brinkley, deputy undersecretary of defense for business and leader of the Pentagon team that discovered the deposits.

At the same time, American officials fear resource-hungry China will try to dominate the development of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth, which could upset the United States, given its heavy investment in the region. After winning the bid for its Aynak copper mine in Logar Province, China clearly wants more, American officials said.

Another complication is that because Afghanistan has never had much heavy industry before, it has little or no history of environmental protection either. “The big question is, can this be developed in a responsible way, in a way that is environmentally and socially responsible?” Mr. Brinkley said. “No one knows how this will work.”

Columbian IP Agreement continues to Raise Human Rights Concerns

During Columbia’s periodic review by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, specifically the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, several recommendations were made relating to intellectual property (IP) rights. 

The official UN report can be found here and CIEL’s publications relating to Trade Agreements and IP can be accessed here.

With respect to Access to Medicines, examining the US-Columbia Free Trade Agreement, the Committee noted that: 

The Committee is also concerned that the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) signed between the State party and the United States contains provisions on intellectual property that may result in increase of prices of medicines and negatively impact on the enjoyment of the right to health, in particular of those with low income (arts. 1, 12).

…In this regard, the Committee recommends that the State party consider revising the intellectual property provisions of the Free Trade Agreement signed with the United States, in order to ensure protection against the increase of the price of medicines, in particular for those with low income.  (para. 10)

With respect to development projects, including those that would be under the ambit of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol, the Committee noted:

The Committee recommends that the State party take concrete measures to review the processes concerning infrastructure, development and mining projects and fully implement decisions of the Constitutional Court in this regard. The Committee also recommends that the State party review the Presidential Directive 001 and the draft bill elaborated by the Working Party on Prior Consultation of the Ministry of the Interior. The Committee further recommends that the State party adopt legislation in consultation with and the participation of indigenous and afro-colombian people, that clearly establishes the right to free, prior and informed consent in conformity with ILO Convention 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, as well as the relevant decisions of the Constitutional Court.  (para. 9)

On Biofuels, the committee notes that:

The Committee is concerned that the policy encouraging agro-exporting goods, such as agro-fuels, may deprive peasants from cultivating their lands. The Committee is also concerned about the unequal distribution of lands owned by a minority of the population, as well as about the absence of a genuine agrarian reform, as recommended in the previous concluding observations of the Committee (art. 11).

The Committee recommends that the State party develop agricultural policies which prioritize the production of food; implement programs that protect national food production with incentives for small producers; and ensure the restitution of lands taken from indigenous and afro-colombian peoples, as well as peasant communities.   (para. 22)

Regarding Access to Knowledge and Education:

The Committee recommends that the State party take immediate measures to ensure access of all children without discrimination, to free and compulsory primary education.  (para. 29)

In addition to these recommendations by the Committee, on GMOs the Seeds Group presented its report on Genetically Modified Organisms and the Human Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Columbia.  The report states: 

The policies and practices of the Colombian State concerning genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have violated, and threaten to continue violating, the rights of indigenous peoples in Colombia, including their rights to self-determination, prior consultation, participation, property, culture, food, heath, and a healthy environment.

In 2005, the Colombian State issued a decree that regulates the approval of GMOs. Though indigenous peoples will be affected by the release of genetically modified (GM) seeds, they were not consulted before the approval of this decree; nor does the decree provide for any consultation during the approval process for each seed. Under this decree, the processes by which certain GM seeds have been approved have violated the Colombian State’s obligation to apply the precautionary principle, and have not taken into account scientific studies that have demonstrated the threat that GM seeds pose to native seeds, human health, and the environment.

The next periodic report of Columbia is due to be submitted by July 2015.

Leading the Way towards Carbon Reductions

Heard of the Yes Men?  They are the incredibly straight-faced and gutsy duo that dare to go on the BBC TV and Radio, claiming to be from Dow Chemicals and announcing that Dow will compensate the victims of the Bhopal, India catastrophe with $12 billion from selling all assets related to Union Carbide Corp.  Dow purchased Union Carbide after the gas leak in Bhopal killed tens of thousands and continues to contaminate ground water in the area, probably under the assumption that their legal team could avoid paying the billions in restitution that is due.

Unfortunately, their routine is merely a hoax, disappointing hundreds of thousands of uncompensated victims.  Likewise, their stunt at the Copenhagen Climate Summit in December of last year gave everyone a glimpse of hope that the only country to abandon the Kyoto Protocol and home to the largest single source of industrial greenhouse gas emissions – Canada – was actually going to change its climate policy. 

No such luck.  Copenhagen went out with a fizzle as the Parties “took note” of the Copenhagen Accord.  An ambivalent reference to a vague document. 

Since then, China and India have associated themselves with the Copenhagen Accord.   There are still many nations which have not given any indication whether they will engage with the Copenhagen Accord.  The US-CAN website has an excellent table of which countries are on board with the Copenhagen Accord. 

The most recent country to not endorse the Copenhagen Accord was the Cook Islands.  In their letter of non-association to the UNFCCC, the Cook Islands identified the lack of clarity surrounding the “Technology Mechanism,” referenced in paragraph 11 of the Copenhagen Accord as being one of four major issues it found with the Accord.  In particular, the Cook Islands noted:

“[p]ast experience with the Expert Group on Technology Transfer has shown that mitigation technologies have received far more attention [than adaptation technologies'].”

As a small island developing state, the Cook Islands were one of several other island nations pushing for a 1.5 degree target at Copenhagen that would have reduced the likelihood of sending much, if not all, of their country underwater, which is predicted result from the 2 degree target under the Copenhagen Accord.   Many of the other small island developing countries have yet to respond (see US-CAN table above) to the Accord. 

The technologies and knowledge for adapting to climate change, which the Cook Islands accurately state as not receiving adequate attention, include technologies and knowledge such as:

• Medicines for combating increased incidence of vector borne diseases such as malaria;
• Water technologies, for economizing usage of freshwater, filtration & purification methods and desalination;
• Infrastructure technologies and knowledge for minimizing the disruptive effects of increasingly severe floods, storms and droughts;
• Crops for high-saline and low water growing conditions; and
• Advance warning systems for oncoming storms and pandemic spread of diseases.

These are what the most vulnerable populations will require to avoid the loss of human rights, such as the rights to life, food, water, health and adequate housing.  CIEL has articulated some practical steps for implementation of Human Rights and Climate Change law.  Many of these steps, along with integrating a rights-based approach into the Technology Mechanism of the Copenhagen Accord would help considerably in addressing the concerns of those countries and populations most vulnerable to the effects of climate change. 

Another potential tool is to lead by example.  The small-island developing state of the Maldives is doing exactly that.  While being one of the most progressive countries in examining the implication of climate change on human rights, they have associated themselves with the Copenhagen Accord AND are also setting the most ambitious mitigation target of any country:  100% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emission by 2020.  In other words, the island nation is putting its words into action, and promising to be carbon neutral in ten years. 

Whether or not countries associate themselves with the Copenhagen Accord, arguments on all sides of the climate debate are only strengthened with stronger national commitments to GHG reductions.  Hopefully, other countries will follow the Maldives’ lead.  Perhaps the Yes Men can use their trickery to help shame all other countries and the private sector, not just Canada, into taking this path towards solving the problem, that which was forged by the Maldives. 

Renewable Energy Technologies for Rural Development

With the debate around patents and climate change-related technologies at Copenhagen last December, it became easy to forget that there are many low-cost and clean renewable energy technologies available in the public domain. A recent UN meeting highlighted how these technologies can revolutionize the way of life for rural communities.

Over 90% of rural Africa and 1.6 billion people worldwide are without electricity. Kerosene, firewood, and dried dung are relied upon by rural communities for lighting and cooking fuel. These traditional energy sources pose many health hazards, especially for women. Air quality is a major concern with kerosene and open fires, releasing carcinogens, airborne particles, and greenhouse gasses.   Women are disproportionately exposed to open fires for cooking. Midwives working at night have to rely on a dim, flickering light. In addition, women are also the ones who scavenge for firewood or transport kerosene, often in inhospitable terrain. Thus, besides being a health risk, this is also a tremendous loss of productivity for the village; as women in these villages are forced to spend more and more time in search of diminishing fuel sources.

In the Expert Meeting on Green and Renewable Energy Technologies for Rural Development, organized by the UN Conference for Trade and Development (UNCTAD), several promising solutions were described for providing electricity and cooking gas for rural communities. These solutions – solar, biomass-to-electricity, biomass digesters, geothermal, micro-hydro and micro-wind power – were each shown to be particularly affordable and technologically promising in a variety of settings.

One of the most important messages to come out of the meeting was that the technologies deployed must be reliable. To ensure a reliable alternative energy supply and to help empower rural women, one man has started a brilliant effort to ensure solar power takes hold in these villages. A major problem with previous efforts in using solar power in rural settings was the inability to maintain and repair the necessary equipment. Training young men as solar engineers proved futile, as they would quickly leave to more lucrative urban markets.

But, Mr. Bunker Roy, founder of Barefoot College of India, has found a solution to this problem: training illiterate grandmothers. From each African village, he brings an illiterate grandmother back to India for a month of intensive training on solar photovoltaic system maintenance and repair. Learning alongside other grandmothers from villages throughout Africa, the newly-trained solar engineers return to their home village with a newfound sense of confidence and purpose. And, most importantly, they remain in their village, providing a much needed service and passing on their knowledge.

With the provision of clean, off-grid electricity from solar panels, the air is cleaner, the village is more productive and women are becoming empowered. What’s more, it makes clear economic sense. The cost of a solar system large enough for several lanterns is roughly the cost of one year’s supply of kerosene. But, solar energy can only solve some of a rural communities energy needs. Other experiences showed that there are other alternatives which can meet the need for sustainable development in rural communities.

In Nepal and Cambodia, biogas has proven to be a clean and reliable source of cooking fuel. Micro-wind and Micro-hydro are being deployed in Vanuatu and Mozambique, respectively. Many countries are experimenting with “mini-grids” to supply the generated electricity. The Zambia is exploring alternative distribution models, rolling out “energy kiosks” in several villages. India has a program to provide efficient cooking stoves to rural areas in an effort to reduce air pollution.

Several countries are re-visiting previous efforts for large-scale alternative energy generation as well. The Zambia is resurrecting a geothermal plant from the 1980’s to help it cope with an increasing energy deficit, which they attribute to climate change, due to lower levels of hydroelectric power production in recent years. Mauritius is revisiting the feasibility of wind turbines, especially recent advancements that allow for them to collapse during cyclones.

But, there are challenges. First, financing is still a challenge, even with the technologies being off patent protection and in the public domain. The Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) has provided some funding, e.g. for Biogas projects in Nepal, but the CDM is geared towards large projects and has a cumbersome administrative process. However, promising financing solutions are gradually being offered. There are also cultural challenges. For example, one effective solution for rural China – placing toilets on top of biogas digesters – was suggested as being culturally untenable in at least one country by a speaker. Finally, there is the challenge of education. Accessing knowledge on what has worked and failed in other villages is crucial. An unnecessarily poor experience with a particular technology can retard the adoption of that or other technologies by a village for several decades. In addition, it is necessary to educate villages about health and environment concerns, such as smoke inhalation and climate change, in order to generate further demand for these renewable energy technologies.

Despite these challenges, this meeting showed that there is much promise in bringing clean electricity to rural villages around the world. With electricity, much more will be possible, including the ability to provide irrigation for farming, encourage education, and generally enable human development in the broadest sense.

First published at WorldChanging.com - check it out here: http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/010993.html

What Obama Means by "Clean," part 3

Environmental details of Obama's budget proposal:

1. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - $10 billion overall
   
   • $1.1 billion for clean air and gloabl climate change programs
   • • $21 million to catalog Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emitters
     • $5 million for EPA to write permitting guidance for GHG reduction technologies
     • $6 million for mobile-source climate regulations
     • $7 million to investigate performance standards regulations
     • $6 million for Carbon Capture & Sequestration (CCS) related work
     • $25 million for state air pollution agencies process GHG permits from large-industrial emitters
2. Interior Department - $171 million overall for adaptation initiative (25% increase from 2010 levels)
   
   • $14 billion for 8 climate-science centers
   • US Geological Survey (USGS) - $78 million
   • • $2 million for carbon sequestration projects
     • $8 million for climate change and wildlife center
       
   • Fish and Wildlife Services - $9 million for landscape conservation cooperative
3. Department of Commerce
   
   • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) - Creating a climate change office to help inform local communities and businesses about climate change (see www.climate.gov)

However, Obama's goals on climate change have some signficant hurdles, besides congressional approval of the budget. 

Domestically, the US Chamber of Commerce is contesting the legal authority of the EPA to regulate GHG emissions under the Clean Act, despite a 2007 Supreme Court ruling stating that the government does indeed have the power to regulate GHG emissions, if they pose a threat to human welfare (Bloomberg article).

Internationally, key parties at the table with the US in negotiating the last-minute Copenhagen Accord - Brazil, China, India and South Africa - are pushing for a "two-track process" on reaching a binding climate treaty, which might incorporate some, all or none of the Copenhagen Accord and the Negotiator Level Text (BASIC Group Statement).   For a very informative guide on National Positions on the Copenhagen Accord, see:  The US Climate Action Network:  Who's on Board with What?

WIPO Committee on Patents (SCP) Concludes with No Agreement on Future Work & Fragmentation Apparent

The 14th session of the WIPO Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (SCP or SCP 14) concluded late Friday evening, with no agreement on future work (see the IP Quarterly for a summary of the meeting).  The tenor of the negotiations of how to proceed and on which studies are extremely divided in the SCP.  Developing countries are pushing for studies on topics where IP is known to be an impediment, and industrialized countries are pushing for topics that would appear to support arguments for harmonizing some aspects of national patent laws.  The agenda item on the future work of the SCP was never discussed in the plenary and NGOs did not have the opportunity to comment specifically on the future work and/or direction of the Committee.

Discussions regarding Technology Transfer, Opposition Systems, Exceptions and Limitations in the SCP highlighted the development dimension of patents, which in all cases were emphasized as lacking appropriate consideration by the Secretariat, according to intervening developing countries.  One of the most interesting and unresolved issues of the meeting is how, exactly, the SCP will interact with the Committee on Development and IP (CDIP) to coordinate the implementation of the WIPO Development Agenda. 

Work on the subject of Technology Transfer in WIPO is suffering under the Member States' and the Secretariat's confusion regarding how to reconcile and coordinate Development Agenda recommendations with the work of the Standing Committees of WIPO. 

Intra-organizational Fragmentation?

A long-standing concern in international law has been the issue of fragmentation, i.e. the concern that treaties and institutions on specialized topics will be implemented without due regard for the activities of other related bodies of international law or organizations.  Regarding the specialized topic of IP, numerous fora have dealt with the topic, including: the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Trade Organization (WTO), the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the UN Conference on Trade and Development - and the list goes on. 

What is especially troubling with the subject of Technology Transfer under WIPO's Development Agenda is the potential for there to be intra-organizational fragmentation within WIPO, i.e. the inability for topics to be coherently addressed between Committees.  Transfer of Technology is currently discussed and debated in the SCP and the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR), as well as the Committee on Development and IP (CDIP).  The issue of a Coordination Mechanism for WIPO was left unsettled at the last CDIP meeting (see related documents CDIP/4/11, CDIP/4/9 and CDIP/4/10 and a transcript of the debate in CDIP/4/14 Prov, from paragraph 242).  The CDIP is mandated with approving and monitoring project to implement the WIPO development agenda.  However, the last CDIP failed to approve the project on Technology Transfer (see earlier posting)

Other fora have also seen the problem on intra-organizational fragmentation.  On the topic of Environmental Goods and Services (EGS), division of the topic among three different WTO committees has compounded the pre-existing problem of diverging economic, social and commercial interests.  As of July 2007, Members of the WTO had failed to agree on a common approach to the methodology for EGS negotiations.

Besides mainstreaming the development dimension into all of WIPO's activities, the Development Agenda is also expected to "explore...policies and measures Member States, especially developed countries, could adopt for promoting transfer and dissemination of technology to developing countries" (per Rec. 28).  One way of doing this is to create a mechanism to gather and compile data in a useful format, for developing countries "to explore IP-related policies and initiatives necessary to promote the transfer and dissemination of technology, the benefit of developing countries.." (per Rec. 25). 

Creating scientific methodologies should not be a far reach for a science oriented organization like WIPO.  These methodologies to explore policies and measures with empirical evidence, incarnated as "projects" in the CDIP, would help produce useful information for use and deliberation in other committees. There would be no fear of a hierarchy of committees, which is a major concern in discussions in the CDIP on the Coordination Mechanism.  Rather, the CDIP could enable objective criteria to facilitate evidence-based policy making in WIPO, while the debate over coordination continues.  

Moreover, the issues selected for preliminary study by the SCP also indicate intra-organizational fragmentation.  For example, both the ongoing study on exceptions and limitations and the suggested study on climate-related technologies have technology transfer components.  These are three different studies at various stages of examination.  How do these studies harmonize and synergize with each other?  Are the outside experts commissioned for work on Exceptions and Limitations to ensure that their findings do not conflict with that of the Secretariat?  Would the Secretariat revise the Technology Transfer study based on the findings of 2 out of the 5 experts on Exceptions and Limitations?  

These and other, more existential questions regarding the viability of the SCP long-term remain to be seen.  But, it will take a while.  The report on exceptions and limitations to patent rights, commissioned to outside experts, will be ready to review 18 months after it was approved in SCP 13.  With another 1 to 2 sessions of the SCP for revisions and expansion, it does not appear that any action will be taken on this report for about 2 years from now.  Given the pace of progress and the absence of any sense of urgency in WIPO, one could easily forget that what we are really talking about in the report on exceptions and limitations is how to improve lives with medicines, educate our youth, and preserve a rapidly deteriorating environment, for starters.  Lets hope technology transfer doesn't hold up the discussion too.

Draft Danish Climate Agreement: "Respect IPR Regimes"

The draft Danish non-paper being circulated for comment contains the the following language on technology and intellectual property (the full text is available here):

Parties commit to enable the accelerated large-scale development, transfer and deployment of environmentally sound and climate friendly technologies across all stages of the technology cycle, respecting IPR regimes including protecting the legitimate interests of public and private innovators. Developed country parties commit to work towards doubling aggregate  public investments in climate related research, development and demonstration by 2015 from current levels and quadrupling the efforts by 2020. Parties stress the need for up front finance for inter alia technology capacity building, joint research and development and demonstration projects. Parties endorse the “Technology Mechanism” set forth in decision X5/CP15, containing a technology objective, a UNFCCC technology body, the development of technology action plans, the establishment of six Climate Technology Innovation Centres in developing countries, support to joint RD&D efforts between developed and developing countries, and technology support to nationally appropriate mitigation actions, and adaptation activities, by developing country Parties.

This is the only mention of IPRs in the Danish text, which has caused quite an outcry from Developing Countries, and what Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has described as exposing some "trust issues."

Unsurprisingly, the Danes and other Industrialized Nations have chosen to pursue "Option 1" - operating the IPR regime in a business-as-usual fashion - as described in FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/INF.1 pg 184, paragraph 187.  Developing countries have proposed other options for removing IPR related barriers to technology transfer, including: exemption of climate-related technologies and genetic resources from patent protection in some or all countries;  active use of the compulsory licensing flexibility contained in the TRIPS Agreement;  and establishing patent pools and other means of sharing IPR protected technologies, and associated know-how.  

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.  

Counting beans for bioenergy

The October 23rd issue of Science has an interesting study, "Fixing a Critical Climate Accounting Error," in which the authors contend that across-the-board exemption of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from bioenergy -- the use of plant materials known as biomass for the production of renewable fuels -- is improper in greenhouse gas regulations, if emissions due to land-use changes also are not included. According to a summary by the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Studies at Princeton University:

"[The prior method of calculation] treats all uses of bioenergy as carbon-neutral, renewable energy regardless of the source of the biomass, and could create strong economic incentives for large-scale land conversion as countries around the world tighten carbon caps.

According to the researchers, the greenhouse gas consequences of using bioenergy vary greatly depending on the source of the biomass. For example, if plant growth increases to produce bioenergy, as when fast-growing trees or grasses are grown on degraded land, bioenergy reduces global warming because the plants absorb more carbon from the atmosphere, which offsets the CO2 emitted by burning the bioenergy.

However, if bioenergy use results from burning wood chips from existing forests for electricity, or clearing rain forests to grow palm oil and other crops for biofuels, bioenergy does not reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and instead may increase them. Thus, the accounting rules in these legal measures mistakenly exempt the CO2 emitted by bioenergy regardless of the source, according to the authors.

Neither the Kyoto Protocol, nor the existing or proposed climate legislation in Europe and the United States, currently applies limits to emissions from land use such as deforestation. Because of that, the exemption of the CO2 actually emitted from the burning of biofuels and wood for electricity means all forms of bioenergy are treated as carbon neutral, which creates incentives to clear land."

According to a number of studies, applying this incentive globally could lead to the loss of most of the world's natural forests as carbon caps tighten. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that the cutting down of forests is now contributing close to 20% of the overall greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere. Forest degradation also makes a significant contribution to emissions from forest ecosystems. Co-author Philip Robertson states: "The promise of cellulosic biofuels is huge for our climate and economy. We don't want to find out later that we've built a new industry on a house of cards."

Labels: Climate Change, ESTs, Green Innovation