By 2020
progress will have been made in the global governance arrangements that address
climate change through the promotion of climate-related technology-transfer.
Promoting technology-transfer involves sharing technological knowledge
to make it easier for a country to deploy technologies from other countries or
to develop their own. There are already early indications of cooperation
between countries in the management of intellectual property for
climate-related technologies. This can be seen in the challenge being mounted to
current multilateral agreements. International institutions and the
multilateral agreements that they espouse are influential in shaping the "rules
of play" in a particular global governance issue area.
The central
institution in setting the international rules for technology-transfer is The
World Trade Organisation (WTO). The WTO is responsible for overseeing the
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)
which has placed limitations on the free flow of technological knowledge
through universally standardized patent protection across its 140 members.
TRIPS, however, is beginning to be challenged in the context of climate change.
Exemptions from patentability and exceptions to patent rights and compulsory
licences are available through the "TRIPS flexibilities" clause in the agreement.
The notable example of these flexibilities being used is the Doha Declaration
in 2001, where WTO members stated that TRIPS should be supportive of public
health goals and not prevent access to medicine.
The prospect of flexibilities being applied to
the context of climate change technology was indicated at the 2007 UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference in Bali. The Brazilian Foreign
Minister proposed that a "similar statement to the Doha Declaration... be
considered in the climate change context." The European Parliament has
also recommended looking at amendments to TRIPS allowing compulsory licensing
of "environmentally necessary technologies".
However, it
is the major actors -- developed countries and multinational corporations (MNC)
-- who will determine how far cooperation in climate-related technology will
go. Climate change affects all countries and thus requires cooperation from all
in order to be possible. Despite this, at the UNFCC some parties were concerned
that "flexibilities may be insufficient to ensure the rapid and widespread
transfer of technology." Despite persuasive incentives for countries to
cooperate, powerful private sector interests demand protection of intellectual
property.
Climate-related
technology is big business. The key trends for the climate change sector are
wind and solar power, and both markets are growing rapidly. The World Bank has
described the wind power market in their International Trade and Climate Change
report, published this year, as being dominated by "large equipment
manufacturers like GE and Siemens." Similarly, the global manufacturers of
solar PV technologies are MNCs such as Sharp, Kyocera, and BP Solar are based
in developed countries.
What should be happening is even growth in the
production and deployment of such technologies in developed and developing
countries so that climate change can be addressed on a global basis. At the
moment there is still a lot of ground to catch up on, with China being the only
developing country to have become a major player in these industries. When
committing to climate change targets, the danger is that developed countries
will try to transfer the cost of this burden to developing countries and
expropriate the benefits of new business opportunities. Powerful companies can
lobby their governments to protect their business interests through
intellectual property protection. Such an outcome must be avoided in
up-and-coming international climate change agreements in Copenhagen in 2009 in
order to challenge TRIPS and offer new arrangements for cooperation.
Developing country negotiators need to be
fully informed and equipped in order to pursue their interests. International
institutions can assist by regulating the unequal lobbying power of powerful
MNCs in the climate change arena. This requires the setting of a fair agenda,
resources for developing countries and steering so that business interests do
not dictate the proceedings.
Sam Vanderslott is a Masters student in Global Governance and Diplomacy at the University of Oxford. Her research interests include intellectual property, business regulation and public-private partnerships.
This article has been shortlisted for the Atlantic Community's "Global Governance in 2020" student competition.
The Atlantic Community's World Economic Forum Focus Week (Jan 22 - Jan 28)
This article is part of the Atlantic Community's World Economic
Forum Focus Week in a 5 day run-up to the WEF Davos Conference
(conference begins Wed 28 January). We are focusing on two of the
most pressing aspects of the conference: the Global Economy and Climate
Change.
Other articles in our series on WEF:
- Jordan Levine: Socioecological Innovation: an Alternative Future
- Yam Ki Chan: Unipolarity's Days Are Numbered
- Scott E. Hartley: Political Liberalism At the Heart of International Trade
- Alyssa M. Ramsey: Human Rights: A Matter of Guiding the Invisible Hand
- Scott Michael Moore: A Multidimensional Approach For a Planet in Peril
- Dr. Luke Nichter: Redefining the IMF
From the discussion on the community page we will generate a special Atlantic Memo that will be distributed to WEF organizers and to decision makers worldwide at the start of the conference. Please share your comments on the recommendations and issues raised in this article. We want to know how you think the WEF Davos Conference should approach the climate change challenge.
- Do private sector interests in climate change techonology need to controlled?
- What can the WEF do to facilitate cooperation on climate change? How can the imbalance between developed and developing states be addressed?





January 27, 2009
Member deleted
How are the contributing countries affected?
Education
The foundation is education. Say you need engineers to build all your ecology friendly technology and the technology countries agree to train your engineers. Popular Science magazine (Oct or Nov 2008 issue) said 60% of USA engineering PhD college degrees are awarded to visiting students from countries around the world. This will have a devastating Dumbing Down affect on future US engineering projects. What assurances are you going to give to correct these effects to technology countries in the next 10 years?
Experience
Engineers in these jobs acquire more experience the longer they are in the job. If you take their job by building your own technology after having been given the knowhow and equipment, many of these people lose their jobs. All evolution theorists believe to some extent that the more you practice something the better you get and the more you understand. Taking these jobs away will take experience away from that country. What plans do you have to keep the experience for these technology countries?
Economic Incentive
Sort term survival requires having some kind of pay check, even though many people enjoy many aspects of their job. Also the most expensive part of some technologies is the research and development. Research and testing of new technologies is sometimes a long process which requires nurturing. Individuals and groups love to contribute in some way to sustain or improve the world because it makes us feel we are a part of something bigger than ourselves. It is instinctive and applies to any endeavor which helps ensure the long term survival of the species. Strangely enough, it is the short term survival (a steady income) which must be insured, or we will not get to the long term survival. However if we ignore the long term survival, then our long term future may be in question.
I agree with climate management concepts. I just want to see a balanced solution for both aspects of the problem, because both have long term implications.