Sustainable Development, Talk about the good work being done to meet both the present and future needs of people and the planet.

26802 Followers

Follow Justmeans editorial on:

Share this on:

Mitigation - a public good?

Sara Wolcott | Friday 30th October 2009

Technology transfer is not going very well. No surprise if you've been around sustainable development for a while. Developing countries are not being given the low-carbon technologies they need to mitigate climate change. Once again, intellectual property law - and the profits behind these technologies - becomes a barrier for low-carbon development.
If sustainable development is going to be real, then so will low-carbon development. If low carbon development is going to happen in the developing world and with emerging markets, then there's going to have to be good transfer of technology. That's not happening. Why that's not happening is disputed. For years, developed countries have insisted that developing countries create strong intellectual property laws. However, a new study conducted by a research team from researchers in Malaysia, China, India and Indonesia suggests something different: intellectual property laws can be part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Malaysia and Indonesia has a strong set of Intellectual Property laws, including being active members of the World Trade Organization. But neither country has benefited from low carbon technology transfer. Often the firms who have developed the technology have been reluctant to give it over - or firms in the emerging market can not afford the high price of the technology.

There's another problem. Technology needs to be adapted to fit local needs. That's true almost regardless of the technology in question. However, many patents (held by firms in the developed world) insist that the technology stay the way it is - researchers and firms in developing countries are thus unable to adapt it to local needs. Unable to adapt, the technology fails. Sustainable development struggles falters.

So what to do? The report offers a somewhat radical and exciting solution, one that rests in a careful reading of the intellectual property law. In a state of emergency, countries are allowed to override a patent law. So: the report suggests declaring climate change a national emergency. And declaring mitigation a public good.

It's a novel notion - mitigation as a public good. I like it. Adaptation would need to be a public good too. Though it makes one wonder, what, then, is non-mitigation? A private good? Or a 'public evil'? Now that's a new legal term!

Other Great Categories