this is a little late of course. they're currently on a recess from the 9th session (which can be followed here <a href="http://www5.cop15.meta-fusion.com/kongresse/cop15/templ/live.php?id_kongressmain=1&theme=unfccc&id_kongresssession=1">http://www5.cop15.meta-fusion.com/kongresse/cop15/templ/live.php?id_kongressmain=1&theme=unfccc&id_kongresssession=1</a> if you happen to be wake) so there's no knowing what will happen....<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: <b class="gmail_sendername">Swaraj Paul Barooah</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:swaraj.barooah@gmail.com">swaraj.barooah@gmail.com</a>></span><br>
Date: 2009/12/17<br>Subject: [SPICY IP] See-sawing at Copenhagen<br>To: <a href="mailto:spicyip@googlegroups.com">spicyip@googlegroups.com</a><br><br><br><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_OMUnNbcROEs/SyqKlvwj-HI/AAAAAAAAADg/mtyrTX08YVA/s1600-h/tug-o-war.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="" style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; width: 300px; min-height: 199px;" alt="" border="0"></a><br>
<div style="text-align: justify;">With just a couple of more days remaining for discussions at 'Hopenhagen', the position of IP in the treaty text continues to remain ambiguous, see-sawing between a number of IP references being mentioned (1st draft), to IP not being mentioned explicitly at all (2nd draft) , and back to IP being mentioned again in the 3rd draft text (provided by IP-Watch <a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/skmbt_c65209121615470.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>) on the development and transfer of technology at the 7-18th December United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP15) being held at Copenhagen. This third draft, like the previous two, has been prepared by officials but is being referred to the ministers to negotiate/discuss in the 'high-level' meeting due to the clashing of interests (and therefore positions) on Intellectual Property Rights in the text. While developing countries are happy with this re-introduction of IP, developed countries are unhappy with this, as they would prefer not having to discuss IP issues at this stage. The 2nd draft of the treaty created a disturbance, with developing countries of the opinion that by not mentioning it, developed nations were using IP as a bargaining chip to try to force developing countries to raise their levels of commitment. Countries such as Japan and USA have expressed concerns that negotiations over IP issues at the climate change meeting would bring all discussions to a standstill, as it would take too long to come to a consensus about it. However, the 3rd draft treaty, once again included it. [Original image taken from <a href="http://hilarygardner.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/tug-o-war.jpg" target="_blank">here</a>]<br>
<br>Currently, two tracks are being followed, with one focusing on the UN Convention under the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long Term Cooperative Action under the Convention (LCA) and the other track discussing the Kyoto Protocol. Earlier, on December 8th, developing countries showed great concern when a leak of a draft agreement (provided by the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-change" target="_blank">Guardian here</a> ) by the Danish hosts which implied that transfers would be linked to specific actions that developing countries were to take. This was quickly brushed aside by embarrassed officials as merely being one of several unofficial papers, however the G77 countries haven't been so quick to forget it. The leaked document suggested that $10 billion was to be given as a 'quick start' fund. Considering the amount of money that countries have given to bail out their financial institutions, and the enormity and urgent nature of the global warming situation, responses included "paltry amount" and "it won't even pay for the all the coffins".<br>
<br>According to <a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/12/16/copenhagen-meeting-third-tech-transfer-draft-may-go-to-ministers-with-ip/" target="_blank">IP Watch</a>, "Bernarditas de Castro-Muller, one of the lead negotiators of G77 developing countries, said that developed countries had committed to the transfer of technology to developing countries under the UN Convention, especially Article 4.1.c. “It is a commitment already in the Convention,” she said."<br>
<br>However, it is quite alarming to look at USA's internal discussion on the matter. To quote a member of the House of Representatives, as well as a member of the USA delegation to Kyoto in 1997, on the issue of compulsory licensing under the UNFCCC, "<span style="font-style: italic;">The American people need to know that those were code words, like ‘compulsory licensing’ and ‘technology transfer’, that really mean allowing other countries to steal the American patents, copyrights and trademarks for anything related to climate change, efficiency or energy under the draft climate change treaty.</span>" To read more, check <a href="http://jiplp.blogspot.com/2009/11/road-to-copenhagen-intellectual.html" target="_blank">here</a>.<br>
<br>On December 16th, WIPO Director General Francis Gurry, speaking at some side events at Copenhagen, took a more pro-developed country viewpoint on the issue. As per the <a href="http://www.wipo.int/about-wipo/en/climate_change_conf_09.html" target="_blank">WIPO Press Release</a>, "<span style="font-style: italic;">Two major policy objectives need to be prioritized: Encouraging investment in the creation of environment-friendly technologies, and the rapid dissemination of those technologies. In both cases, the IP system, and in particular patents, are fundamental in that they provide a stimulus for investment in green innovation and contribute to a rapid – and global – diffusion of new technologies and knowledge.</span> <p style="font-style: italic;">
Green innovation requires significant private sector investment, which is incentivized through an effective patent system. The IP system makes an invention a tradable good, which can be licensed or assigned, thus facilitating technology partnerships.</p>
<p style="font-style: italic;">Effective patent protection in recipient countries can spur international technology transfer from the private sector. Moreover, since all patents are published, the patent system also provides the most comprehensive public repository of information on latest technologies. It reveals knowledge that already exists, which helps to develop new technologies, and it helps identify technologies that are not protected and thus freely available."</p>
With the huge spotlight being placed on Copenhagen, many of the bigger nations are conscious that steps taken are being viewed on the global political stage as well. While developing countries such as India, China, Brazil are essentially crying out that it is only reasonable for richer countries which have historically contributed more to global pollution be more responsible for their actions, and developed nations are stating that everyone should have an equal burden - each wanting the other to take on more of the burden, the island nations just want anyone to take it on, before they are drowned out. The smaller island nations however, being in the most urgent need of action, since they are in danger of being washed out by rising waters, are desperate to get any or all of the international community to start taking immediate action.<br>
<br>Although its complicated enough on its own, one would hope that in addition to transfer of technology, the negotiations also include collaboration of efforts at innovating and creating new technology, since that would mean more relevant technology as well as more efficient deployment. As it currently stands, such collaborations are extremely difficult due to various barriers including IPRs.<br>
<br><a href="http://www.greendetectives.net/?gclid=CKzp-IW03p4CFSIdawodOAV1Jg" target="_blank">Update</a>: At COP 15, US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, just <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE5BG1ID20091217" target="_blank">announced</a> that by 2020 the United States will work towards providing poor countries $100billion annually for climate change, contingent on all major economies contributing and helping to seal a deal, transparent to all parties.<br>
<br>To see the non-working papers prepared by the LCA, check <a href="http://unfccc.int/meetings/ad_hoc_working_groups/lca/items/5012.php" target="_blank">here</a>.<br>IP watch has good coverage of the 1st and 2nd drafts <a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/12/09/ip-issues-may-go-to-%E2%80%98higher-political-level%E2%80%99-in-copenhagen-amid-difficulties/" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/12/14/tough-talks-on-ip-in-technology-paper-at-copenhagen-no-mention-in-latest-draft" target="_blank">here</a> respectively.<br>
For more general reading on IP and climate change, click <a href="http://www.globalclimatelaw.com/2009/07/articles/intellectual-property/countdown-to-copenhagen-the-debate-over-technology-transfers-and-the-protection-of-intellectual-property/" target="_blank">here</a><br>
<br><br></div>
<br><br>--<br>
Posted By Swaraj Paul Barooah to <a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.com/2009/12/see-sawing-at-copenhagen.html" target="_blank">SPICY IP</a> at 12/18/2009 01:05:00 AM
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><p></p>
<p>--</p>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SPICY IP" group.<br>
To post to this group, send email to <a href="mailto:spicyip@googlegroups.com" target="_blank">spicyip@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to <a href="mailto:spicyip%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com" target="_blank">spicyip+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
For more options, visit this group at <a href="http://groups.google.com/group/spicyip?hl=en" target="_blank">http://groups.google.com/group/spicyip?hl=en</a>.<br>
</div></div></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Amelia Andersdotter<br>Lissabon-MEP<br>+46 722063698<br>