News and Analysis • Volume 8 • Number 6 • 4th April 2008

Climate Change Negotiations: Technology, IP Issues on the Table

Do More

See also

Climate change negotiators have started grappling with key issues in order to arrive at a new global climate agreement at the end of 2009. Meeting in Bangkok, Thailand, more than a thousand negotiators and other participants gathered to agree on the concrete work programme for the next two years.

During five intensive days of meetings, beginning on 31 April and ending late at night on 4 April, two different groups met: the “Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention” (dealing with all countries Party to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC) and the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (focusing on developed country Parties that already have taken on reduction commitments).

The work these groups undertook was set out during the last Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC in Bali, Indonesia in December 2007 (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 18 December 2007, http://www.ictsd.org/biores/07-12-18/story1.htm).

Paving the way for the post-2012 period

Looking toward the future, among the issues negotiators considered was what roles different countries could play, and what responsibilities they could be expected to take on. In this regard, some countries suggested an approach focusing on their different capacities and situation, potentially even leading to differentiation among developing countries. India presented this controversial notion in suggesting that per capita emissions could be used as a basis for deciding what actions different countries take. On a per capita emissions basis, China would fall into a different category than India, which has lower per capita emissions.

IP issues divide delegates

One of the keys to successfully mitigating climate change will be the rapid global diffusion of climate-friendly technology - be it energy efficient technologies, or new and renewable energy generation technologies. Therefore, negotiators spent significant time grappling with issues related to the transfer of technology and financing arrangements in this area.

In the context of technology transfer and diffusion, intellectual property (IP) issues have become a controversial topic. Some developing countries, such as India and Pakistan, called for a relaxation of IP standards for all climate-related technology in order to support their rapid diffusion. Saudi Arabia went further, suggesting that countries should be able to issue compulsory licenses for climate change technologies - meaning they would be able to unilaterally make decisions to allow their companies to copy technologies without following normal procedures for patented goods.

Other countries were sceptical with regard to such an approach. Some, such as the US, noted that IP has not been the bottleneck or a barrier to the diffusion of climate technologies. China, a significant importer of environmental technologies, but also a rapidly growing producer and exporter, called for a balanced approach, saying the technology transfer discussion should not be allowed to get stuck on the single issue of IP.

How to deal with competitiveness concerns?

During the negotiations, India stressed that there was no legal basis under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change to deal with competitiveness issues. Other delegates stayed clear of this hot political topic, so there was no real debate on the issue yet. Recently, both European and American legislators have been looking into how to address competitiveness and carbon leakage issues, including through border measures affecting traded goods (see Bridges BioRes, 25 January 2008, http://www.ictsd.org/biores/08-01-25/story2.htm). While delegates now shied away from the topic, it is an important background consideration as countries prepare their positions with regard to the future climate regime.

A related issue that delegates also addressed - albeit not yet in detail - was sectoral agreements that potentially would cover those sectors most heavily affected by climate mitigation efforts. Energy-intensive industries such as steel, aluminium, pulp and paper, cement and agro-chemicals belong to this group. Some countries would like to see international sectoral efforts to address climate change in this area, while others strongly oppose them (see Bridges BioRes, 20 March 2008, http://www.ictsd.org/biores/08-03-20/story2.htm). Brazil, however, cautioned against sectoral approaches that might lead to the development of international standards that not only developed, but also developing countries then would be forced to comply with and that would hinder or complicate their exports. In the view of Brazil, this would conflict with the notion of common but differentiated responsibilities. Overall, negotiators felt that the concept of sectoral agreements still needed further elaboration and that there was no clear or common understanding among countries.

Negotiations were still ongoing as the BioRes went into print. The following issue will provide a full update on the negotiations.

Additional resources

The Earth Negotiations Bulletin provides daily reports and a summary of the negotiations, available at http://www.iisd.ca/climate/ccwg1/

ICTSD reporting.