Past UN discussions, including the Kyoto protocol, have recognized that the developed countries have historically contributed the most to the current problem and hence should take the major portion of responsibility in the action against climate change. In fact, the Kyoto protocol, which is currently the only legally binding international treaty for reducing greenhouse emissions, has been signed and ratified by 184 countries of which the 37 highly industrialized ones took on commitments to cut down emissions by 2008-2012. USA signed the treaty, but their Senate refused to ratify it since it did not commit India and China. (more about the Kyoto Protocol here ). Considering that USA is the highest producer of greenhouse gases, it is now of vital importance that they are a signatory to the agreement which is reached at Copenhagen.
New environmental technology is a key aspect in the reduction of carbon footprints, and these new technologies can only be used if there is access to them. Thus, as a natural corollary, industrialized nations have a duty to reduce barriers to these technologies, so developing countries can participate efficiently, effectively and ecologically in their own industrialization. Intellectual property is proving to be one of these major barriers, along with capacity building and financing.
USA has already categorically stated that it will not accept any compulsory licensing provisions in the new agreement. As reported by IP Watch, Jonathan Pershing, deputy special envoy for climate change at the US Department of State said, the US “will look at things” that increase technology diffusion in the market, not compulsory licensing which “does the opposite.” It is also important to note that currently the US Senate is working on a climate change bill, which seems, unfortunately, that it will not be ready by December when the Copenhagen talks will take place. This is relevant because it is much more likely that US will take a solid stance in the December meet, if it’s own domestic climate change bill is in place by then. That bill refers to a strong system of IP so as to protect and encourage research and investment, while calling upon US funding to developing countries to “promote the robust compliance with and enforcement of” IP rights protection.”
In the meantime, aside from specifically vying for compulsory licensing provisions, developing countries have shown displeasure with the developed countries overall attitude towards the Kyoto Protocol.
Shyam Saran, the India’s special envoy on Climate Change, expressed disappointment with the developed countries, stating that it seemed like there would be a failure by most of the Annex 1 countries (developed countries) to meet their emission reduction obligations. “At this penultimate stage of our negotiations, new concepts and instruments have been proposed, which taken together, would mean firstly, the setting aside of the Kyoto Protocol altogether; secondly, the diminishing rather than enhancing of the level of commitment as well as ambition with regard to mitigation; and thirdly, the rewriting of key principles and provisions of the UNFCCC itself. As you would appreciate, this is not the mandate we agreed upon by consensus at Bali,” he said. (sourced from here)
Blaming ‘political interests’, China’s delegation led by Su Wei, said of developed countries, “They neither offered satisfactory plans on their own emissions cut, capital and technological transfer to developing countries, nor responded positively to developing nations’ suggestions on these aspects” (More here).
Right now, all eyes are on USA for several reasons. Being the greatest producer of greenhouse gases, it is vital to get it as a ratified member of the new agreement. As stated earlier, the progress of its domestic climate change legislation will more or less direct the stance that US will take. Though unlikely, some are also weary of US doing a repeat of the Kyoto protocol, where it was a big participant in the formulation (courtesy Al Gore) but ended up eventually giving up on it (courtesy George Bush). President Obama’s recent Nobel Peace Prize may also play a role in the talks, as the prize specifically mentioned his contribution to fighting global warming amongst other factors. This may put some added pressure on him to advance negotiations and hopefully arrive at a compromise commonly agreeable.
There is one more set of talks at Barcelona in November, before the summit meet at Copenhagen. Hopefully the parties will agree on a mutually acceptable compromise wherein the focus of the issue of global warming and climate change is not lost out due to fights over selfish short term economic interests.
For more on the Compulsory Licensing issues involved, you can check IP-Watch.
For more on the unyielding blocks on both sides, you can check The Guardian.
