[A2k] TWN Info: US proposal to remove IPRs from the table arouses developing countries¹ objections

[Sangeeta]

> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understan=
d
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]

Title : TWN Bonn News Update No.3
 Date : 12 August 2009

 Contents:

TWN Bonn News Update No.3

12 August 2009
Published by Third World Network
www.twnside.org.sg




Technology: US proposal to remove IPRs from the table arouses developing
countries¹ objections

Bonn, 11 August (Hira Jhamtani) -- The very sharp differences on
intellectual property were fully exposed at the Bonn climate talks on 11
August when the United States starkly stated that it wanted the issue ³off
the table² in the negotiations on technology transfer.

This drew a rebuke from many developing countries, that continued to insist
that IPRs can be a barrier to technology transfer and that it is a key issue
on the climate change agenda.

The United States statement that ³We want discussion on Intellectual
Property Rights to be taken off the table² was expressed at the session of
the working group on technology transfer during the Inter-sessional Informal
Consultation of the ad hoc working group on long-term cooperative action of
the UN Convention on Climate Change.

The US delegate said, ³We cannot and will not support discussions that seek
to undermine enforcement of IPR. It is an essential building block for
innovation.² She added that some proposals put forward by UNFCCC parties
will undermine IPRs and this will hinder the development of new
environmentally sound technologies. We need the technologies and changing
IPR regime will not achieve this, she said, adding we do not see that IPR
should be discussed in the Convention, and want to see the discussion taken
off from the table.

The informal group on technology was facilitated by Kishan Kumarsingh from
Trinidad and Tobago. In response to the US statement, the facilitator said
he has no mandate to take the issue off the table as the IPR issue is
contained in the 200 page negotiating text.

In contrast to the US, the Phillippines, speaking on behalf of G77 and
China, said that it is important to address the IPR issue. The group has put
in proposals on innovative partnerships on IPR regime, to look at
flexibilities offered by the WTO¹s TRIPS Agreement, and to look at practices
that exist such as compulsory licensing to remove barriers to transfer of
technology.

Belize on behalf of the AOSIS (alliance of small island states) agreed with
the Facilitator that he does not have the mandate to remove anything from
the text. Ghana said that IPR is an issue we are grappling with and
developing countries have made proposals to address the problem. There is no
reason to say we do not want to address the issue. IPR is an important issue
for developing countries and must be addressed.

Bangladesh said that we must look at IPR related to climate change issues in
a different way from the way we look at IPR at the WTO. We are dealing with
climate change, and this will need all kinds of technologies for mitigation
and adaptation. Developing countries like Bangladesh need technologies for
adaptation, which means looking at water security, food security and
survival issues. So we must be innovative in looking at the IPR issues in
this way. We need some collaboration for Research and Development as ways to
overcome the IPR issues.

Uganda, speaking on behalf of LDCs, said the IPR discussion is not aimed to
discourage innovations. It is am important issue and must be addressed.
Indonesia said that IPRs should not be a barrier for technology transfer and
there must be discussions on how to solve the issue. Argentina said IPR is
an important issue for developing countries and should be given due
attention. We need to face the issue in a serious and urgent way.

Bolivia said it sees IPR as a barrier for technology transfer and hurts the
full compliance of achieving the objectives of the Convention. The
flexibilities in TRIPS currently are not enough. We face issues such as
multiple patents taken out in different countries that would cost developing
countries time and money to trace the multiple patents before the
technologies can be acquired or transferred. Thus the revision of the
current IPR regime is important and the G77 and China has put forward
proposals to that effect.

The division on IPRs at the technology working group once again showed this
is one of the most contentious issues at the climate talks. The differences
are also evident in the section on Enhanced Action on Development and
Transfer of Technology in the current 200-page negotiating text.

During the 11 August meeting, the Facilitator distributed a paper with a
table summarizing his view on the issues of convergence and divergence in
the text on technology within the 200-page document. The table lists the
issues according to the sub-headings of the scope and objectives; technology
needs assessments (TNA); technology action plan; cooperative Research and
Development; IPRs, institutional arrangement, and financing technology.

In the table, the biggest issue on which there is divergence is IPRs (paras
187-189 of the negotiating text). There is a divergence on ³enhanced
protection of IP to enhance innovation² versus ³options for flexibility to
address IPRs.² On the options for flexibility, the table includes the
following: compulsory licensing, patent pooling, prerential/differential
pricing; IPR sharing for collaborative R&D; review of all IPR regulations;
revoking patent rights, limited time patents, proposed Declaration on IPR
sane environmentally sound technologies, exemption of LDCs/vulnerable
countriews from patent protection for climate-related technologies,
institutional arrangements to address IPR issues.

[These options listed in the table is a summary of proposals made by several
developing countries and their groupings, including the G77 and China, and
which are included in the 200-page negotiating text].

Two other divergent issues listed in the table are linked to IPR. One is
about technology information, where some countries would like to include the
information on IPR and licensing as part of the platform. The second is on
technology innovative centres, where there are views that the network of
these centres is also linked to sharing of IPRs.

On objective, scope and guiding principles, the divergent issues were: (a)
the different characteristics of a technology mechanism versus a framework
for technology versus a set of actions; (b) the scale and role of public and
private financing; (c) the nature of national actions.

On technology action plan, some countries ask for an international
technology action plan to be elaborated by a new constituted body on
technology which would oversee implementation while others only want an
international or national action plans and roadmaps. There is also
divergence on the scope of the international technology action plan, whether
the plan should be linked to a financing scheme, and who should be the
beneficiaries and who should provide financial resources.

Another important divergent issue was on institutional arrangement. Some
countries want a subsidiary body on technology, while others prefer only an
advisory group or the existing expert group on technology transfer. On
financing, some countries would like to form a specialized technology fund
under the Convention, while others do not.

The table also lists several areas of convergence, for example five points
on scope and principles, and two points on technology action plan. However
some developing countries questioned whether there is indeed convergence on
some of these issues.

The Philippines, speaking on behalf of G77 and China said that the way
convergence is interpreted in the chapeau of the facilitator's table will
take one day to negotiate, as there are differences in interpretation of an
issue, even if there is agreement that an issue should be included. (In the
table, convergence is interpreted where there are no opposing alternative
options and where brackets have not been used to identify objections to
elements of the text).

The Philippines said that convergence means the meeting of minds and a
common understanding. It gave an example that the need to refer to proposed
texts to provisions and decisions in the Convention has been listed as an
issue where there is convergence of issues. She said to the G77 and China by
this means that any text outside of the Convention and the Bali Action Plan
must be taken out, and questioned whether the other partners have the same
interpretation.

The parties agreed to use the table as a tool for further discussions, not
as a basis for negotiating text. Several developing countries emphasised
that they have agreed to this on the basis of trust to the facilitator, and
that this should by no means set a precedent for this same process to be
used in the other groups.

During the session, Australia suggested that the technology issue be
discussed in a smaller group, but this was not agreed to by many developing
countries. The G77 and China said that the group is not ready to meet in
smaller meetings on this issue.

At the end of the session, the US said that it would be happy to meet with
other parties to discuss the IPR issues, but have a strong preference to
talk about issues on which Parties can go forward.





--