Skip to main content

Why patents are crucial for the access of developing countries to Environmentally Sound Technologies

Michael Benske

elni Review 2009, Issue 2,  pp. 88-92. https://doi.org/10.46850/elni.2009.014

This article demonstrates why Global Climate Funds might establish unexpected barriers to transfers of Environmentally Sound Technologies (EST) to developing countries rather than facilitating them. During political dialogues, developing countries frequently stress their discontent regarding Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) protecting EST. A typical objection raised by the Group of 771 and China reads: “The present restraint on access to advanced technologies, imposed particularly by the IPR regime, need [sic] to be lifted, […].” The Group of 77 and China expect developed countries to facilitate technology transfers and to provide other assistance by various financial and regulatory means. The proposed measures include a Global Climate Fund. At first, this article identifies the relevant actors’ interests and, to demonstrate that inter-governmental measures for tackling the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) problem are justified, carry out an analysis according to the behavioural model of the homo oeconomicus institutionalis. After that, it examines the role of IPR in the context of transfers of EST to developing countries. This article also deals with the question of what the overall objectives of technology transfer measures are and why the proposed Global Climate Fund might not be an adequate instrument for facilitating these transfers.

Access full article

References

  1. Mr Mukhdoom Syed Faisal Saleh Hayat, Minister for Environment and Special Envoy of the President of Pakistan, on behalf of the Group of 77 and China. High-Level Event on Climate Change, entitled ‘The Future in our Hands: Addressing the Leadership Challenge of Climate Change’, New York, 24 September 2007.
  2. Martin Führ, Kilian Bizer, Peter-H. Feindt, Menschenbilder und Verhaltensmodelle in der wissenschaftlichen Politikberatung – Möglichkeiten und Grenzen interdisziplinärer Verständigung, Interdisziplinäre Studien zu Recht und Staat, Baden-Baden (Nomos) 2007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845201931-215.
  3. Kilian Bizer, Martin Führ, Christoph Hüttig, Responsive Regulierung – Beiträge zur interdisziplinären Institutionenanalyse und Gesetzesfolgenabschätzung, Tübingen (Mohr Siebeck) 2002.
  4. Martin Führ, Kilian Bizer, REACh as a paradigm shift in chemical policy – responsive regulation and behavioural models, Journal of Cleaner Production (2005) pp. 1-8, Elsevier.
  5. Anthony Leiserowitz, International Public Opinion, Perception, and Understanding of Global Climate Change, Human Development Report 2007/2008, 2007/31, pp. 3-6.
  6. United Nations, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1992, FCCC/INFORMAL/84, GE.05-62220 (E) 200705.
  7. United Nations, Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1998.
  8. 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development.
  9. Dechezleprêtre, Invention and Transfer of Climate Change Mitigation Technologies on a Global Scale (2008).
  10. DG Trade/ Copenhagen Economics, Are IPR a Barrier to the Transfer of Climate Change Technology? (2009).
  11. ICTSD, Climate Change, Technology Transfer and Intellectual Property Rights (2008).