Webinar Summary — Climate Technology and Intellectual Property: A Repeat of the Access to Medicines Debate or Something New?
On Wednesday, February 28, the Boston University Global Development Policy Center (GDP Center) and Centre for Policy Dialogue co-hosted an event at the International Institute for Sustainable Development’s Trade and Sustainability Hub, which took place alongside the 13th World Trade Organization (WTO) Ministerial Conference in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Rachel Thrasher, Researcher at the GDP Center, moderated the event. The panel consisted of Fahmida Khatun, Director of the Centre for Policy Dialogue; Nagesh Kumar, Director and Chief Executive of the Institute for Studies in Industrial Development and Non-resident Senior Fellow with the GDP Center; and Antony Taubman, Director of the WTO’s Intellectual Property Division. This expert panel explored how intellectual property intersects with access to different climate technologies and how lessons from research on access to medicines could potentially be applied to this debate.
Thrasher began by setting the scene, noting wide agreement on the existential threat posed by climate change and the need for national policies aimed at a technological revolution to address climate change. While new climate technology is being rapidly developed, there remain serious risks that this technology will not reach low- and middle-income countries. Thrasher explained that the traditional theory of intellectual property is that providing innovators with a temporary monopoly will advance technological development. Thrasher continued to say that, while empirical evidence shows that patent protection is correlated with flows in advanced technology, technological investment flows and licensing of technology in some circumstances, this relationship varies across industries, country income levels and the type of technology. In light of these findings, Thrasher argued that intellectual property rules must be appropriately balanced between encouraging innovation and diffusion.
Khatun and Kumar were both asked about their countries’ efforts—Bangladesh and India, respectively—to respond to climate change and technological obstacles they face. Khatun noted that Bangladesh is extremely vulnerable to climate change despite contributing just 0.4 percent of global emissions. While adaptation technology is most relevant to Bangladesh, there are also efforts to advance mitigation technology, but barriers to finance make technological investment difficult, especially for small- and medium-sized enterprises. Kumar said that renewable energy capacity has quadrupled in India in the last decade, and there are plans to continue to rapidly scale up renewable energy by 2030, with the government making significant strides in solar, in particular. However, Kumar said that the government plans for coal to remain a significant part of India’s energy mix, and little coal infrastructure currently has emissions reduction or carbon capture technology.
In his opening remarks, Taubman reaffirmed the importance of technological diffusion, while noting his limited mandate as WTO staff. Taubman explained that the WTO’s Intellectual Property Division helps member states developed well-balanced and tailored intellectual property regulations, including work on technology transfer, licensing and competition policy. In the case of climate change, Taubman argued that even if countries were entirely self-interested, they would want climate technology—especially mitigation technology—to be “actively” and “energetically disseminated.” Taubman also spoke about Ecuador’s 2013 Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Council proposal to wind back patent-protections for climate-friendly technology. Although the proposal was not adopted, Taubman said it stimulated important debate and help contribute to the discussion around the Paris Agreement, in which Article 10.1 deals with technology transfer.
Following the first round of questions, Thrasher asked each panelist to give policy recommendations. Khatun cited the need to collect better data on climate technology, improving policymakers’ ability to tailor technology to different circumstances. She also called for more flexibility to enable continued technology access for countries like Bangladesh that—under the rules of the WTO’s TRIPS Agreement—will have to adopt stronger intellectual property rules as they graduate from least developed country status. Kumar said that it is important to expand the supply of public domain technologies through mechanisms like public-private, North-South and South-South partnerships. Kumar also called for actions on measures like Ecuador’s 2013 proposal or a climate peace clause to prevent trade complaints obstructing the diffusion of climate-friendly technology. Taubman cited the importance of analysis to clarify and prioritize climate technology priorities. In his personal opinion, Taubman worries that special measures to weaken intellectual property protections for climate-friendly technology would have the effect of incentivizing technology harmful to the climate or discourage licensing of climate-friendly technology. To that end, he said that other measures may be more effective.
The panelists added further remarks in response to questions from the audience. Khatun expanded on small- and medium-sized enterprises’ struggles to receive investment because they cannot provide economies of scale, and she argued that public sector support, intellectual property waivers and flexibility for countries graduating from least developed country status could all help. Kumar pushed back against the idea that loosening intellectual property protections would excessively harm innovation, pointing out that many important innovations—such as the COVID-19 vaccine—relied on significant public funding. In the case of pharmaceuticals, decades of production of generic antiretrovirals have not destroyed innovation in HIV/AIDS medications, while the expanded access to medicine has dramatically reduced the toll of HIV/AIDS.
In his final comment, Taubman said that, although there are some lessons from the access to medicines debate that are relevant to climate technology, there are significant differences between technological processes like developing a vaccine and installing a wind farm. Taubman noted that the TRIPS Agreement already includes flexibilities and argued for the importance of articulating the policy space countries already have.
*
Never miss an update: Subscribe to the Global Economic Governance Newsletter.