Meeting in Bangkok in early April, climate change negotiators started grappling with key traderelated issues, such as intellectual property rights and competitiveness concerns.
Delegates also considered the responsibilities that countries could take on in the post-Kyoto climate regime they hope agree on by 2009. India proposed basing future commitments on per capita emissions, which could potentially – and controversially – lead to differentiation between developing countries. China and Brazil, for instance, would fall into a more demanding emissions-reduction category than India, where emissions per person are still very low.
Intellectual Property Issues Divide Delegates
One of the keys to successfully mitigating climate change will be the rapid global diffusion of climate-friendly technologies – whether aimed at improving energy efficiency, or increasing energy generation from new/renewable sources. Negotiators in Bangkok spent considerable time grappling with issues related to the transfer of technology and financing arrangements in this area.
Intellectual property (IP) has become a controversial topic in this context. Some developing countries, such as India and Pakistan, called for a relaxation of IP standards for all climaterelated technology. Saudi Arabia went even further, suggesting that countries should be allowed to issue compulsory licenses for such technologies.
Other countries were sceptical about these approaches. The US, for instance, noted that IP had not been a bottleneck or a barrier to the diffusion of climate technologies. China – a significant importer of environmental technologies, but also a rapidly growing producer and exporter – warned against letting the technology transfer debate become stuck on the sole issue of IP.
How to Deal with Competitiveness Concerns?
While India stressed that there was no legal basis under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change to deal with competitiveness issues, other delegates stayed clear of this hot political topic, although it remains an important background consideration as countries prepare their positions with regard to the future climate regime. Recently, both European and American legislators have been looking into how to address competitiveness and carbon leakage issues, including through border measures affecting traded goods (see Bridges Year 12 No.1 pages 16 and 17).
Delegates also discussed potential sectoral agreements among energy-intensive industries most heavily impacted by climate mitigation efforts. Sectors such as steel, aluminium, pulp and paper, cement and agro-chemicals belong to this group. The concept, however, remains controversial. Evoking the principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’, Brazil cautioned against the development of international standards that would require developing countries to comply with obligations that would undermine their exports. Overall, negotiators felt that the concept of sectoral agreements needed further elaboration as there was no clear or common understanding among countries.
Major Emitters at Odds over Sectoral Approaches
Sectoral initiatives were also addressed at a workshop held during a mid-April ‘major emitters’ meeting, the third such gathering among the 17 countries that account for 80 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions (for background see Bridges Year 11 No.4. page 11).
The workshop focused on global industrial benchmarks, such as targets for greenhouse gas emissions per tonne in the production of steel, aluminium and cement. Developing-country participants said that sectoral approaches could harm their less efficient industries, adding that the burden of mitigation should fall on the North. India requested the transfer of technology to help developing countries modernise their industrial sectors. France concluded that sectoral approaches should be complementary, rather than an alternative, to national targets.