Journal of Intellectual Property Rights

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Insights for Climate Technology Transfer from International Environmental and Human Rights Law


Affiliations
1 Strathclyde Centre for Environmental Law and Governance, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Lord Hope Building, 141 St James Road, G4 0LT, United Kingdom
 

The transfer of technologies to support the development of low-carbon pathways - that are fundamental for the mitigation of climate change - is frequently claimed to be hindered by the protection afforded by intellectual property rights. However, there are arguably further complexities involved in the development, receipt and operation of technologies that discourage the implementation of crucial mitigation processes. This paper challenges the notion of “transfer” of technology under the international climate change regime, in light of the recognition of a focus on needs and cooperative approaches in that context. The paper analyses any unidirectional concepts behind the idea of ‘transfer, building on the human right to science and the notion of fair and equitable benefit-sharing, which is a component thereof. The paper concludes with a series of considerations arising from international human rights and environmental law that could be taken into account in the ongoing negotiations on technology transfer under the international climate change regime.

Keywords

Kyoto Protocol, Technology Mechanism, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Paris Agreement, Technology Framework, Nationally Determined Contributions, Unfccc, Universal Declaration on Human Rights, International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources For Food And Agriculture, The Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Technology Transfer, Benefit Sharing, Inter-State Technology Transfer Obligations.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Bataille C et al., The need for national deep decarbonization pathways for effective climate policy, Climate Policy, 16 (2016) S7–S26; Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP), Pathways to deep decarbonization 2015: Synthesis Report & Executive Summary (2015) New York/Paris: SDSN/ IDDRI.

  • Rajamani L, Ambition and differentiation in The Paris Agreement 2015: Interpretative possibilities and underlying politics, International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 65 (2016) 493.

  • (FCCC/CP/2015/L9/Rev1) Article 10;Discussion in de Coninck H and Sagar A, Technology Development and Transfer (Article 10) in Klein D et al. (eds), The Paris Agreement on Climate Change: Analysis and Commentary (Oxford University Press) 2017.

  • Popp D, International technology transfer, climate change, and the clean development mechanism, Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 5 (2011) 131.

  • Chapman A, Towards an understanding of the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications, Journal of Human Rights, 8 (2009) 1.

  • Chapman A, Towards an understanding of the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications, Journal of Human Rights, 8 (2009) 6, Interpreted broadly, ‘science’ in this context can include methods, knowledge acquired thereby and even the cultural practices underlying these processes.

  • Savaresi A, The emergence of benefit-sharing under the climate regime: A preliminary exploration and research Agenda, University of Edinburgh School of Law, Research Paper Series No. 2014/43.

  • Many contributions in Barrera-Hernández L et al. (eds), Sharing the Costs and Benefits of Energy and Resource Activity (OUP 2016) and e.g. Rudolph D, Haggett C & Aitken M, Community benefits from offshore renewables: The relationship between different understandings of impact, community, and benefit, Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 2017, 1.

  • So for instance, key mitigation technologies might include renewable energies, efficiency technologies, active and public transportation, and passive building technologies, to name but a few.

  • Monterosa I, Technology Mechanism After Marrakesh: Enhancing Climate Technology Development and Transfer to Developing Countries (CUTS 2017) emphasises the need for and increasing relevance of such approaches.

  • Discussion in Parks L &Morgera E, The need for an interdisciplinary approach to norm diffusion: The case of fair and equitable benefit-sharing, Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 24 (2015) 353.

  • Of course, challenges around technology transfer present themselves in loss and damage and adaptation challenges as well, as much as the climate change challenge and legal framework extends beyond mitigation.As I explain above, for simplicity I have chosen to limit my discussion to climate change mitigation technologies.I have not explored the applicability of much of the discussion to adaptation technology, although it is likely that many of the observations made here could be applied more generally.

  • We refer here to the mechanisms envisaged in Article 6 of the Paris Agreement (n 2).

  • Olbrisch S et al., Estimates of Incremental Investment for, and Cost of, Mitigation Measures in Developing Countries, in Haites E (ed), International Climate Finance (Routledge 2013). Although technology transfer is not a function of the CDM per se, it has played a significant role.Murphy K et al., Technology transfer in the CDM: An updated analysis, Climate Policy, 15 (1) (2015) 127.

  • Peterson S, Greenhouse gas mitigation in developing countries through technology transfer: A survey of empirical evidence, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 13 (2008) 283.

  • Ockwell D & Byrne R, Improving technology transfer through national systems of innovation: Climate Relevant Innovation-System Builders (CRIBs), Climate Policy,16 (7) (2016) 836.

  • There is, of course, no clear definition or category of ‘developing countries’.Because of the abstract nature of many of the arguments made, it is not necessary to do so here.Of course, under the UNFCCC, the terms “Parties not included in Annex I” and “developing countries” were used interchangeably.These terms are not used in the Paris Agreement and it arguable whether the situation in1992 should continue to determine a party’s membership to a specific category.

  • Similarly, the discussion centres predominantly on transfers of technology at state level; specific issues relating to local and regional access and distribution are beyond the scope of this paper.Having said this, I am aware that very real issues exist concerning intra-state distribution of and access to technology, to which a benefit-sharing lens could also be applied.

  • Clémençon R, The Bali road map, The Journal of Environment & Development, 17 (2008) 70, 82.

  • Latif A et al., Overcoming the impasse on intellectual property and climate change at the UNFCCC: A way forward, ICTSD Programme on Innovation, Technology and Intellectual Property, Report 11, November 2011.

  • Olawuyi D, From Technology Transfer to Technology Absorption Addressing Climate Technology Gaps in Africa, (Centre for International Governance Innovation 2017) 5.

  • Santamauro J P, Failure Is Not an Option: Enhancing the Use of Intellectual Property Tools to Secure Wider and More Equitable Access to Climate Change Technologies, in Brown AEL (ed), Environmental Technologies, Intellectual Property and Climate Change (Cheltenham UK 2013).

  • For instance Sagar A, Bremner C & Grubb M, Climate innovation centres: A partnership approach to meeting energy and climate challenges, Natural Resources Forum, 33 (2009) 274.

  • Glachant M &Dechezleprêtre A, What role for climate negotiations on technology transfer? Climate Policy, 26 (2016) 1.

  • Dechezleprêtre A et al., Symposium: Technology transfer and climate policy - invention and transfer of climate change-mitigation technologies: A global analysis, Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 5(1) (2011) 109.

  • Dechezleprêtre A et al., Symposium: Technology transfer and climate policy - invention and transfer of climate change-mitigation technologies: A global analysis, Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 5(1) (2011) 112.

  • Protection of intellectual property does feature, although this is one of many factors.

  • de Coninck H et al., International technology-oriented agreements to address climate change, Energy Policy, 36 (2008) 335.

  • Sovacool B C, Placing a glove on the invisible hand: How intellectual property rights may impede innovation in energy research and development (R&D), Alabama Law Journal of Science and Technology, 18 (2008) 381.

  • It is notable that many similar difficulties and challenges are recorded in Technology Executive Committee, Enhancing Implementation of Technology Needs Assessments: Guidance for Preparing a Technology Action Plan, (UNFCCC Secretariat, UNEPDTU Partnership 2016) Table 3, 9 – 10.

  • WMO/UNEP IPCC Climate Change: The IPCC Response Strategies (1990).

  • Latif A et al., Overcoming the impasse on intellectual property and climate change at the UNFCCC: A way forward, ICTSD Programme on Innovation, Technology and Intellectual Property, Report 11, November 2011, 5.

  • de Coninck H &Sagar A, Technology in the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement and Beyond, (ICTSD 2015) 42,11.

  • de Coninck H and Sagar A, Technology Development and Transfer (Article 10) in Klein D et al. (eds), The Paris Agreement on Climate Change: Analysis and Commentary (Oxford University Press) 2017, 274 – 6.

  • Of course, this is not to dismiss the very valuable contribution made by private sector organisations in this context; however, it should be recognised that private entities will have financial or market-driven priorities that may take precedence over emissions reductions and meeting parties’ needs for technologies: Chapman A, Towards an understanding of the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications, Journal of Human Rights, 8 (2009) 9.

  • These are the contributions by which parties to the Paris Agreement are to communicate their intended contribution under Article 3 Paris Agreement(FCCC/CP/2015/L9/Rev1).

  • Corvaglia M A, South - South Technology Transfer Addressing Climate Change and Its (Missing) International Regulatory Framework CCLR[2014] 125.

  • Article 4.5 of the Convention requires developed countries to “take all practicable steps to promote, facilitate and finance, as appropriate, the transfer of, or access to environmentally sound technologies and know-how to other Parties, particularly developing country parties to enable them to implement the provisions of the Convention”. Article 12(3) (Communication of Information Related to Implementation) requires that ‘details of measures’ taken in accordance with, inter alia, Article 4.5, should be included in communications.It can and has been noted that the commitments under Framework Convention are very qualified, requiring that transferred technology be simply ‘environmentally sound’ rather than innovative or ‘best available’ – Singh Ghaleigh N, Barriers to Climate Technology Transfer – The Chimera of Intellectual Property Rights, CCLR, 2 (2011) 220, 223. He suggests that stronger obligations were left out because developing countries would have to ‘create a climate’ for IPR protection.

  • Article 10.5 and 10.6 of the Paris Agreement

  • Article 11 of the Paris Agreement.

  • Article 10.5 - Article 10 of the Paris Agreement sets out the shared vision for the development and transfer of technology. The lengthy article also reflects the need for increased co-operative action on technology development (Article 10.2).

  • This replaced the Technology Transfer Framework, which operated from 2000 – 2008.Previous mechanisms for the governance of technology transfer under the climate regime are beyond the scope of this article.

  • Article 10.3 of the Paris Agreement.

  • Article 10.4 of the Paris Agreement. The establishment of the Technology Framework was seen as instrumental towards establishing clear linkages between technology and finance under the Agreement – de Coninck H and Sagar A, Technology Development and Transfer (Article 10) in Klein D et al. (eds), The Paris Agreement on Climate Change: Analysis and Commentary (Oxford University Press) 2017, 264 – 266.

  • The detailed guidance provided in United Nations Development Programme, Handbook For Conducting Technology Needs Assessment for Climate Change, (UNFCCC 2010).

  • Morgera E &Kulovesi K, Public-Private Partnerships for Wider and Equitable Access to Climate Technologies: Environmental Technologies, Intellectual Property and Climate Change, in Brown AEL (ed), Environmental Technologies, Intellectual Property and Climate Change (Cheltenham UK 2013) 131-2.

  • Technology Executive Committee, Enhancing Implementation of Technology Needs Assessments: Guidance for Preparing a Technology Action Plan, (UNFCCC Secretariat, UNEP DTU Partnership 2016).Also Technology Executive Committee, Linkages between the Technology Needs Assessment Process and the Nationally Determined Contribution Process: Thirteenth Meeting of the Technology Executive Committee (UNFCCC 2016).

  • Ockwell D & Byrne R, Improving technology transfer through national systems of innovation: Climate Relevant InnovationSystem Builders (CRIBs), Climate Policy,16 (7) (2016) 837. As Ockwell& Byrne explain: ‘An NSI refers to the network of actors (e.g. firms, universities, research institutes, government departments, NGOs) within which technology development, transfer, and uptake occurs, the strength and nature of the relationships between those actors, and the institutional environment within which they operate’ at 839.

  • Ockwell D & Byrne R, Improving technology transfer through national systems of innovation: Climate Relevant Innovation-System Builders (CRIBs), Climate Policy, 16 (7) (2016) 840.United Nations Development Programme, Handbook For Conducting Technology Needs Assessment for Climate Change, (UNFCCC 2010).

  • Ockwell D & Byrne R, Improving technology transfer through national systems of innovation: Climate Relevant Innovation-System Builders (CRIBs), Climate Policy,16 (7) (2016) 845.

  • Although beyond the scope of this paper, this would include the CDM; Murphy K et al., Technology transfer in the CDM: An updated analysis, Climate Policy, 15 (1) (2015) 127.

  • Hansen U E et al., R&D Offshoring in Climate Technologies to Emerging Economies: Opportunities and Challenges for Europe, CARISMA Working Document Series No. 6 (2017).

  • Lindner S et al., International R&I Collaboration on Mitigation: Examples of International Climate Change Mitigation Research and Innovation Collaboration between the European Union and Developing Countries, CARISMA: Innovation for Climate Change Mitigation (2017).

  • Ockwell D & Byrne R, Improving technology transfer through national systems of innovation: Climate Relevant Innovation-System Builders (CRIBs), Climate Policy,16 (7) (2016) 845, Section 2.Murphy K et al., Technology transfer in the CDM: An updated analysis, Climate Policy, 15 (1) (2015) 132 Table 3. Various kinds of technologies are also detailed in Technology Executive Committee. The TEC does appear to be aware of this narrow vision and be seeking to correct it, Technology Executive Committee, Enhancing Implementation of Technology Needs Assessments: Guidance for Preparing a Technology Action Plan, (UNFCCC Secretariat, UNEP DTU Partnership 2016) viii.

  • Combes B et al., Emerging and exponential technologies: New opportunities for low-carbon development (CDKN 2017); Aganaba-Jeanty T, Anissimov S & Fitzgerald O E, Conference Report: Blockchain Climate Cup Round Table, (CIGI 2017).

  • Nygaard I & Hansen U E, The conceptual and practical challenges to technology categorization in the preparation of technology needs assessments, Climatic Change 131 (3) (2015) 371.Discussion in Davies A, Partnership and Sharing: Beyond Mainstream Mechanisms, in Brown AEL (ed), Environmental Technologies, Intellectual Property and Climate Change (Cheltenham UK 2013) 109.

  • Ockwell D & Byrne R, Improving technology transfer through national systems of innovation: Climate Relevant Innovation-System Builders (CRIBs), Climate Policy,16 (7) (2016) 836; de Coninck H &Puig D, Assessing climate change mitigation technology interventions by international institutions, Climatic Change, 131 (2015) 417, 429 – 432.

  • This paradigm was adopted for the purposes of this paper, while accepting that this is a narrow understanding of the innovation capacity in developing countries, and does not take account of the extent of innovation and support possible between developing nations. Corvaglia M A, South - South Technology Transfer Addressing Climate Change and Its (Missing) International Regulatory Framework CCLR[2014] 125.

  • This is a scientific body set up under the UN machinery to provide extensively researched reports on the scientific basis and socio-political impacts of climate change.

  • Metz B, Davidson O, Martens J-W, Van Rooijen S & Van Wie Mcgrory L (eds.) Methodological and Technological Issues in Technology Transfer, (IPCC Cambridge University Press 2000) 432.

  • de Coninck H &Sagar A, Technology in the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement and Beyond, (ICTSD 2015) 16.

  • UN Special Rapporteur in the Field of Cultural Rights, Report on the Right to Enjoy the Benefits of Scientific Progress and Its Applications, UN Doc. A/HRC/20/26 (2012), Paras 65–69.

  • Morgera E, The Need for an International Legal Concept of Fair and Equitable Benefit Sharing EJIL27 (2016) 375.

  • UN General Assembly. (1948). Universal declaration of human rights (217 [III] A).

  • UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966, A/RES/2200.

  • Charter of the Organization of American States, Article 38; American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man Article XIII and Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 14; and Arab Charter on Human Rights, Article 42.

  • The relevant paragraph reads as follows:‘Acknowledging that climate change is a common concern of humankind, Parties should, when taking action to address climate change, respect, promote and consider their respective obligations on human rights, the right to health, the rights of indigenous peoples, local communities, migrants, children, persons with disabilities and people in vulnerable situations and the right to development, as well as gender equality, empowerment of women and intergenerational equity,…’

  • Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment, John Knox, UN Doc A/HRC/31/52 (2016), Para 86.

  • Chapman A, Towards an understanding of the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications, Journal of Human Rights, 8 (2009) 9.

  • Report of the Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights: the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications (2012) UN Doc A/HRC/20/26. Discussion in Chapman A, Towards an understanding of the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications, Journal of Human Rights, 8 (2009) 9.

  • Report of the Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights: the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications (2012) UN Doc A/HRC/20/26 Para 68. Wolsink M, Fair Distribution of Power Generating Capacity: Justice, Microgrids and Utilizing the Common Pool of Renewable Energy, in Bickerstaff K, Walker G &Bulkeley H (eds), Energy Justice in a Changing Climate: Social equity and low-carbon energy (Zed Books Ltd 2013).

  • Report of the Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights: the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications (2012) UN Doc A/HRC/20/26 Para 66 – 69.

  • Morgera E, Fair and equitable benefit-sharing at the crossroads of the human right to science and international biodiversity law, Laws, 4 (2015) 803.

  • Armeni C, Participation in environmental decision-making: Reflecting on planning and community benefits for major wind farms, Journal of Environmental Law, 28 (2016) 415. Parks L &Morgera E, The need for an interdisciplinary approach to norm diffusion: The case of fair and equitable benefit-sharing, Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 24 (2015) 356.

  • Morgera E &Kulovesi K, Public-Private Partnerships for Wider and Equitable Access to Climate Technologies: Environmental Technologies, Intellectual Property and Climate Change, in Brown AEL (ed), Environmental Technologies, Intellectual Property and Climate Change (Cheltenham UK 2013) 131-2. Discussion of different conceptions of justice in Morgera E, ‘Justice, Equity and Benefit-Sharing under the Nagoya Protocol to the Convention on Biological Diversity’ The Italian Yearbook of International Law, Online, 24 (2015) 113.

  • Barrera-Hernandez L et al., Introduction: Sharing Costs and Benefits of Energy and Resource Activity, in BarreraHernández L and others (eds), Sharing the Costs and Benefits of Energy and Resource Activity (OUP 2016) 8.

  • There might be circumstances where needed technologies are provided directly for free, where such arrangements might not be practicable.As explained in the introduction, there is some diversity in the potential arrangements, however we would suggest that technology goals are unlikely to be met through relying solely on such transfers. The more complex ongoing arrangements discussed in this paper would lend themselves more easily to benefit-sharing situations.

  • Discussion in Armeni C, Participation in environmental decision-making: Reflecting on planning and community benefits for major wind farms, Journal of Environmental Law, 28 (2016) 428.

  • Savaresi A, The emergence of benefit-sharing under the climate regime: A preliminary exploration and research Agenda, University of Edinburgh School of Law, Research Paper Series No. 2014/43, 10 on the heated debate concerning the reporting of non-carbon benefits under REDD+.

  • Although it should be recognised that these arise in relation to activities that contribute to climate change as well, such as oil and gas extraction: Barrera-Hernandez L et al., Introduction: Sharing Costs and Benefits of Energy and Resource Activity, in Barrera-Hernández L and others (eds), Sharing the Costs and Benefits of Energy and Resource Activity (OUP 2016) 8.

  • Some examples include Wong GYet al., An assessment framework for benefit sharing mechanisms to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation within a forest policy mix, Environmental Policy and Governance, 27 (2017) 436; Luttrell C et al., Who should benefit from REDD+? Rationales and realities, Ecology and Society, 18 (2013) 52; Chapman S, Wilder M & Miller I, Defining the legal elements of benefit sharing in the context of REDD+, Carbon and Climate Law Review, 4 (2014) 270.

  • http://www.benelex.ed.ac.uk/__data/assets/image/0008/1662 83/Benefit_sharing_and_climate_change_full.png (accessed on 15 December 2017).

  • Although, of course, much of the knowledge associated with REDD+ projects is encompassed by the broad understanding of ‘technology’ used in this article: Lindner S et al., International R&I Collaboration on Mitigation: Examples of International Climate Change Mitigation Research and Innovation Collaboration between the European Union and Developing Countries, CARISMA: Innovation for Climate Change Mitigation (2017) 28 – 29.

  • McHarg A, Community Benefit through Community Ownership of Renewable Generation in Scotland: Power to the People?, in Barrera-Hernández L and others (eds), Sharing the Costs and Benefits of Energy and Resource Activity (OUP 2016).In relation to wind and CCS in the UK context, Lee M et al., Public participation and climate change infrastructure, Journal of Environmental Law, 23 (2013) 33.

  • Morgera E &Kulovesi K, Public-Private Partnerships for Wider and Equitable Access to Climate Technologies: Environmental Technologies, Intellectual Property and Climate Change, in Brown AEL (ed), Environmental Technologies, Intellectual Property and Climate Change (Cheltenham UK 2013) 131-2; Chapman A, Towards an understanding of the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications, Journal of Human Rights, 8 (2009) 1; Plomer A, The human rights paradox: Intellectual property rights and rights of access to science, Human Rights Quarterly, 35 (2013) 143.

  • de Jonge B, What is fair and equitable benefit-sharing?, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics,24 (2011) 127-135.

  • Article 1.1, Food and Agriculture Organization International treaty on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture, 2001 Rome; de Jonge B, What is fair and equitable benefitsharing?, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics,24 (2011) 137.Tsioumani E, Beyond Access and Benefit-Sharing: Lessons from the Law and Governance of Agricultural Biodiversity, Edinburgh University Research Paper No 2016/18 27 – 29.

  • de Jonge B, What is fair and equitable benefit-sharing?, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics,24 (2011) 138.

  • Morgera E, Fair and equitable benefit-sharing at the crossroads of the human right to science and international biodiversity law, Laws, 4 (2015) 815.

  • Klinsky S & Winkler H, Equity, sustainable development and climate policy, Climate Policy,14 (1) (2014) 1.

  • A similarly broad approach to need is taken by de Jonge, de Jonge B, What is fair and equitable benefit-sharing?, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics,24 (2011) 138.

  • Eni-ibukun T, Climate justice: The Clean Development Mechanism As A Case Study, in Hollo EJ, Kulovesi K and Mehling M (eds), Climate Change and the Law (Springer Netherlands 2013).

  • Rogelj J et al., Paris Agreement Climate Proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 °C, Nature, 534 (2016) 631, 632.

  • Onazi O, Access to Essential Environmental Technologies and Poor Communities: Why Human Rights Should Be Prioritized, in Brown AEL (ed), Environmental Technologies, Intellectual Property and Climate Change (Cheltenham UK 2013).

  • Plomer A, The human rights paradox: Intellectual property rights and rights of access to science, Human Rights Quarterly, 35 (2013) 143.

  • The case studies in Azad A & Azad A, Energy Justice, Climate Justice, and Financing Innovation, in Abate R (ed), Climate Justice (Environmental Law Institute 2016) provide a good illustration both of where inadequate financial support and poor communication as to need can hamper the optimal functioning of projects.

  • Nygaard I & Hansen U E, The conceptual and practical challenges to technology categorization in the preparation of technology needs assessments, Climatic Change 131 (3) (2015) 371.

  • Parks L &Morgera E, The need for an interdisciplinary approach to norm diffusion: The case of fair and equitable benefit-sharing, Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 24 (2015) 353; Armeni C, Participation in environmental decision-making: Reflecting on planning and community benefits for major wind farms, Journal of Environmental Law, 28 (2016) 415.

  • Morgera E, Fair and equitable benefit-sharing at the crossroads of the human right to science and international biodiversity law, Laws, 4 (2015) 815. Parks L &Morgera E, The need for an interdisciplinary approach to norm diffusion: The case of fair and equitable benefit-sharing, Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 24 (2015) 356 regarding whether access is a benefit or a precondition for a benefit.

  • de Coninck H &Sagar A, Technology in the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement and Beyond, (ICTSD 2015) 17.

  • The range of collaborations in Lindner S et al., International R&I Collaboration on Mitigation: Examples of International Climate Change Mitigation Research and Innovation Collaboration between the European Union and Developing Countries, CARISMA: Innovation for Climate Change Mitigation (2017).

  • de Coninck H et al., International technology-oriented agreements to address climate change, Energy Policy, 36 (2008) 341 – 352.On the potential for contractually based public-private partnerships to support innovation under the CDM; Morgera E &Kulovesi K, Public-Private Partnerships for Wider and Equitable Access to Climate Technologies: Environmental Technologies, Intellectual Property and Climate Change, in Brown AEL (ed), Environmental Technologies, Intellectual Property and Climate Change (Cheltenham UK 2013) 131-2.

  • Corvaglia M A, South - South Technology Transfer Addressing Climate Change and Its (Missing) International Regulatory Framework CCLR[2014] 125.On the need to adapt existing hardware for its optimal operation in local contexts; Ockwell D & Byrne R, Improving technology transfer through national systems of innovation: Climate Relevant Innovation-System Builders (CRIBs), Climate Policy,16 (7) (2016) 840 – 841.

  • Morgera E, Fair and equitable benefit-sharing at the crossroads of the human right to science and international biodiversity law, Laws, 4 (2015) 812.

  • de Coninck H &Puig D, Assessing climate change mitigation technology interventions by international institutions, Climatic Change, 131 (2015) 426.

  • Schwemmer L et al., Toward more effective benefit sharing in South African National Parks, Society & Natural Resources, 28 (2015) 4.

  • Wynberg R & Hauck M, People, power, and the coast: A conceptual framework for understanding and implementing benefit sharing, Ecology and Society,19 (2014) 27.

  • Morgera E &Ntona M, Linking small-scale fisheries to international obligations on marine technology transfer, Marine Policy, (2017) (forth). While the platform was launched as a voluntary initiative of certain governments and stakeholders (FAO, Reports of Meetings on the Establishment of a Platform for the Co-development and Transfer of Technology (2013) FAO Doc IT/GB-5/13/Inf.16), it is gradually been integrated into the multilateral benefit-sharing structure of the Treaty (ITPGR Resolution 4/2015 (2015) FAO Doc IT/GB6/15/Res 4).

  • Nagoya Protocol, Annex, Para 1(j) and 2(q).


Abstract Views: 291

PDF Views: 150




  • Insights for Climate Technology Transfer from International Environmental and Human Rights Law

Abstract Views: 291  |  PDF Views: 150

Authors

Kim Bouwer
Strathclyde Centre for Environmental Law and Governance, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Lord Hope Building, 141 St James Road, G4 0LT, United Kingdom

Abstract


The transfer of technologies to support the development of low-carbon pathways - that are fundamental for the mitigation of climate change - is frequently claimed to be hindered by the protection afforded by intellectual property rights. However, there are arguably further complexities involved in the development, receipt and operation of technologies that discourage the implementation of crucial mitigation processes. This paper challenges the notion of “transfer” of technology under the international climate change regime, in light of the recognition of a focus on needs and cooperative approaches in that context. The paper analyses any unidirectional concepts behind the idea of ‘transfer, building on the human right to science and the notion of fair and equitable benefit-sharing, which is a component thereof. The paper concludes with a series of considerations arising from international human rights and environmental law that could be taken into account in the ongoing negotiations on technology transfer under the international climate change regime.

Keywords


Kyoto Protocol, Technology Mechanism, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Paris Agreement, Technology Framework, Nationally Determined Contributions, Unfccc, Universal Declaration on Human Rights, International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources For Food And Agriculture, The Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Technology Transfer, Benefit Sharing, Inter-State Technology Transfer Obligations.

References