Intellectual Property and Sustainable Development

Energy Ministers Endorse Clean-Tech Measures, Back CCS Group

Government energy ministers gathering in Washington, D.C., today launched 11 energy-efficiency and renewable energy initiatives around the world, which they claim will avoid the need to build 500 midsize power plants during the next 20 years.

via www.nytimes.com  (see http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/07/20/20greenwire-energy-ministers-endorse-clean-tech-measures-b-89532.html)

Of particular note is that "the United States and a dozen other nations will create what is being called the Carbon Capture, Use and Storage Action Group to develop a strategic plan for deploying carbon-capture-and-storage (CCS) infrastructure around the world by 2020.  Hopefully the development of this "strategic plan" is transparent and allows for the participation of NGOs representing a range of interests, in particular the public interest. 

For example, one might recall the issue with lead in paint.  While not saying that lead in cement/limestone brick is analogous to lead in paint, BUT - consider the following example of what some companies are doing at the pilot scale with CCS technologies:  capturing carbon dioxide and other toxic heavy metals and forming a carbonate mineral brick that embeds the toxic heavy metals, for use in buildings and other infrastructures .

"Mercury Control: 
Coal-fired power plants represent the largest source of mercury emission in the United States, but most operate with minimal controls designed to capture particulate matter that remove less than 35% of the mercury from their flue gas. This removal percentage can increase to greater than 50% when a sulfur scrubber is added, but capture levels are dependent upon coal type. With new federal and state regulations emerging, many power plants are contemplating the use of activated carbon injection (ACI) or other additional controls to remove more mercury from flue gas. The Calera CMAP process has the potential to not only capture mercury that would otherwise be emitted, but to bind it into the mineral output in a way that will prevent leaching to the environment..As with mercury, other trace metals can be captured by the CMAP process, including lead, chromium, cadmium, selenium, zinc, and others."  Available at:  http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/etaac/meetings/102909pubmeet/mtgmaterials102909/basicsofcaleraprocess.pdf

Studies indicate that leaching of heavy metals from the mineral, while being below US guidelines, does indeed occur.  Moreover, what happens in the case of intentional demolition?  Or, what about earthquakes stronger than the specifications of building codes?  Perhaps the settlement of the "9-11 illness" victims, including many first responders, warrants consideration? (see article on the 9-11 Settlement here)

While these toxic heavy metals may be contained for a period of time, these solutions do not appear to offer a permanent solution, to say the least.  All the more reason for transparency and public participation in the development of these "strategic guidelines" for CCS. 

Human Rights, Technology Transfer & Climate Change

On the margins of the WIPO Committee on Development and IP (CDIP), CIEL organized a series of presentations and commentary on the topic of Human Rights and Technology Transfer, in the context of climate change.  Information on what agreements were reached in the CDIP can be found on the CIEL IP Quarterly Update, Second Quarter of 2010.

The speakers included:

• Mr. Robert Archer, Executive Director of the International Council on Human Rights Policy (ICHRP)
• Mr. Michael Waibel, Post-doctoral researcher at Cambridge University
• Mr. Baskut Tuncak, Law Fellow, Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL)
• Ms. Caroline Dommen, Quaker United Nations Office (QUNO)
• Mr. Subhas Gujadhur, First Secretary of the Permanent Mission of Mauritius to Geneva

Mr. Archer began the event with a summary of the Human Rights dimension of climate change, based in part on their earlier publication “Climate Change and Human Rights: A Rough Guide.” 

Mr. Waibel followed with an overview of Technology Transfer in the International Agreements on intellectual property and environmental protection.  His presentation can be viewed here.

Mr. Tuncak then spoke of how and to what benefit human rights obligations can inform discussions on technology transfer.

Finally. Ms. Dommen and Mr. Gujadhur provided their perspective on the preceding presentations. 

For further information, please see IP Watch’s coverage here and/or contact Baskut Tuncak at btuncak [at] ciel [dot] org

Technology Mechanism for Climate Change: Still in the Lab

The first set of 2010 climate change negotiations under the UNFCCC concluded in Bonn, Germany (April 9-11th) with no progress apparent on the Technology Mechanism referenced in Paragraph 11 of the 2009 Copenhagen Accord. 

In fact, the only real outcome of the meeting appears to be an agreement to hold two additional meetings for both Advanced Working Groups on Long-Term Cooperative Action (LCA) the Kyoto Protocol, as well as for both of these groups to prepare draft texts to facilitate negotiations.  Conclusion for the LCA and Kyoto Protocol Working Groups are available here and here, respectively.

Although developing countries are pushing for legally binding commitments as an outcome of the December 2010 Conference of the Parties (COP) in Cancun, this does not appear likely. 

The Copenhagen Accord (the Accord), in particular the way in which it was negotiated, has led to what observers at Bonn are calling a sense of “deep distrust” at this past meeting between developed and developing countries.  Australia, on behalf of the “Umbrella Group,” stated that the Accord was a clear expression of political will to combat climate change and gave direction for future work.  However, many are concerned that the Accord would result in the end of the Kyoto Protocol.

Specifically, regarding the Technology Mechanism of the Accord, or “enhanced action on technology development and transfer” as it is being negotiated under the in the Working Group on LCA, several issues remain undecided, based on outside reports, including whether:

• activities or outcomes of activities eligible for support can included “purchasing of licenses and other intellectual property (IP) issues”;
• implementation of the technology mechanism shall be funded by new financial arrangements to meet the full incremental costs of compliance;
• the mechanism should support removal of barriers to technology development and transfer and enhancing means to promote technology transfer;
• the Technology Executive shall, among many other things, “address intellectual property issues as they arise”;

and most significantly – whether Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) will be mentioned in the text, and if so, whether:

• International agreements on IP shall not be interpreted so as to prevent parties from taking measures to address mitigation or adaptation to climate change (e.g. Articles 30 and 31 of the TRIPS Agreement);
• Global Technology Intellectual Property Pools for Climate Change are created;
• Steps are taken to share publicly funded technologies and know-how;
• Patents over environmentally-sound technologies for mitigation or adaptation are excluded from IP protection, including the revocation of any existing IP rights, in particular those that are publicly funded or those involving the use of genetic resources for mitigation or adaptation; or
• A recommendation is made that international action be taken to remove barriers to technology development and transfer, including those arising from IP rights.

In short, negotiators still have a range of options for how they choose to deal with the IP issue.  Obviously, industrialized countries are on the side of not weakening IP protection, with developing countries pointing to past experiences with the refusal to license non-ozone depleting (non-CFC) propellants to India and Korea, as well as experiences with essential medicines under the WTO's TRIPS Agreement.  But, interlinked to technology transfer is the issue of financing – the details of which are still skeletal as well and perhaps dependent on what becomes of the Copenhagen Accord. 

The next intersessional meeting is currently scheduled for the 1st-11th of June 2010 in Bonn, with the two additional meetings to be held between then and the Mexico COP in December.

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. 

China's labor edge in the Green Economy

Feb. 4 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama is spending $2.1 million to help Suntech Power Holdings Co. build a solar- panel plant in Arizona. It will hire 70 Americans to assemble components made by Suntech’s 11,000 Chinese workers.

via www.bloomberg.com

But, cooperation between US and China is the take home message here (see "Green Wars," below). If the manufacturing capitol of the world and the king of global consumption continue to increase their cooperation on developing truly clean technologies, meaningful agreements on climate change seem much more likely.

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.  

EPO Unveils Clean Tech Patent Study

During a side-event to the 7th WTO Ministerial Conference in Geneva, the European Patent Office (EPO) unveiled its forthcoming study on patents and climate-related technologies, in a presentation titled: Patents and Clean Energy: Bridging the Gap.  ICTSD and UNEP are collaborating with the EPO on the study.  The study is due to be published in the Spring of 2010 - over 3 months after the UNFCCC COP 15 in Copenhagen which starts next week. 

 

In fact, European diplomats at the presentation seemed rather irritated by both the timing of the study's publication and the apparent refusal of EPO officials to, at the very least, release preliminary highlights of the study before Copenhagen.  

 

In short, the study that will be released in the Spring of 2010 will focus on clean energy technologies.  The issues which the authors intend to address in the study include: the general use of patents, access to technology, licensing practices, and technology transfer. The first phase involves mapping of relevant technologies.  The second phase involves performing a landscape survey of patent claims and ownership in the identified technologies.  The third phase involved a survey of technology owners to glean insights on their licensing practices. 

 

What appears to be the most useful part of the study is the creation of a new patent classification code for alternative energy technologies.  Like nanotechnologies in the middle of this decade, no comprehensive classification system exists for alternative energy technologies.  In the case of nanotechnologies, this led to a fear of patent thickets due to nanotechnology's interdisciplinary application.  With this classification one might be able to examine whether thickets have formed or are forming in alternative energy technologies.

Otherwise, it appears that the diplomats' concerns about the timing of the study's publication is moot.  Even if the study were available in time for Copenhagen, it would offer negotiators little clarity on the issue of technology transfer.

 

Like other studies, it simply looks at patent applications for a particular invention in more than one jurisdiction and thereby presumes the transfer of the patented technologies.  Engineering firms who utilize a global supply-chain often obtain patents in the jurisdiction(s) of manufacture, despite never exporting the finished product to the patent-protected manufacturing jurisdiction. The study also does not account for multiple inventions assimilating into a working invention, e.g. materials such as carbon fiber, that have an application in making wind-turbines more efficient, but also have a broad spectrum of applications that are not climate-related.

 

Moreover, the study does not attempt to account for non-proprietary barriers, such the investment climate of a given country, which will affect technology transfer and prevent comparative analysis of the effect of IPRs on technology transfer.  Finally, at present, adaptation technologies are given no attention.  Even if drought-resistant crops are addressed in the food/agriculture phase, that phase is scheduled to be the fourth study, years down the road and preceded by studies on building efficiency and transportation. 

 

The aspect of the study that informs most of the researchers’ conclusions regarding the transfer of technology is the survey.  However, the survey only poses questions to the licensor regarding the relative importance of  factors enumerated in the survey. No questions are posed to the actual or potential licensees.  Just how honest are people  when they complete a survey? 

 

Moreover, for confidentiality reasons, the raw data from the survey will not be made available to the public.  Thus the interpretation of answers is in the hands of the EPO.  Would you really trust the NYSE to conduct a survey of the financial sector by allowing banks - their customers - to provide their own answers -- and then allow lawmakers to use the results to inform policy decisions? 

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.