IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/oec/envaaa/17-en.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Differentiated Intellectual Property Regimes for Environmental and Climate Technologies

Author

Listed:
  • Keith Maskus

    (University of Colorado-Boulder)

Abstract

Prior to the Copenhagen meeting on developing a new framework for climate-change policy there were sharp differences between the positions of developed and developing countries regarding the role of intellectual property rights (IPRs) in fostering international technology transfer (ITT). Expanding effective ITT is central to meeting needs for acquiring and adapting environmentally sound technologies (ESTs) in poor nations. Policymakers in developed economies generally view IPRs, particularly patents and trade secrets, as positive and critical inducements to ITT, while those in developing countries often describe them as sources of market power that impede access to new technology. This report reviews the economic logic of these positions and reviews available empirical evidence. The relationships among IPRs, innovation, ITT and local adaptation are complex and neither of the basic views described captures them well. Policy should be based on a more nuanced view. In that regard, to date there is little systematic evidence that patents and other IPRs restrict access to ESTs, which largely exist in sectors based on mature technologies in which there are numerous substitutes among global competitors. This situation may change as new technologies based on biotechnologies and synthetic fuels, which are likely to be more dependent on patent protection, become more prominent. At present, however, there is little evidence to support significant limitations on the issuance and use of IPRs in this area. In particular, it is unlikely that an international agreement on a compulsory licensing regime could achieve significant ITT benefits, while it may raise considerable costs. However, there may be scope for beneficial differentiation in patent rights, which is the primary subject of the report. Among these elements include ex ante extensions of patent terms tied to licensing commitments, expedited patent examinations in ESTs, investments in patent transparency and landscaping efforts, and facilitation of voluntary patent pools. The report argues that such changes are unlikely to achieve significant gains in innovation and ITT unless they are accompanied by broader policy approaches, including publicly financed fiscal supports for local technology needs and adaptation. Perhaps most important are finding means to raise the global costs of using carbon-based energy resources and improving the climate for investments in poor countries. Avant le Sommet de Copenhague sur l’élaboration d’un nouveau cadre d’action pour la lutte contre le changement climatique, pays développés et pays en développement nourrissaient des conceptions divergentes quant à l’incidence des droits de propriété intellectuelle (DPI) sur la promotion du transfert international de technologies. Or, pour répondre aux besoins d’acquisition et d’adaptation de technologies écologiquement rationnelles dans les pays pauvres, il est indispensable d’accroître l’efficacité de ces transferts. Les décideurs des pays développés considèrent généralement les DPI, en particulier les brevets et les secrets de fabrique, comme des incitations positives essentielles pour le transfert international de technologies, tandis que ceux des pays en développement les présentent souvent comme des sources de pouvoir de marché qui les empêchent d’accéder aux nouvelles technologies. Le présent rapport examine la logique économique de ces positions et passe en revue les données empiriques disponibles. Entre les DPI, l’innovation, le transfert international de technologies et l’adaptation locale, il existe une relation complexe dont aucune des deux conceptions très générales évoquées précédemment ne rend véritablement compte. Les politiques publiques doivent se fonder sur un point de vue plus nuancé. A ce jour, on ne dispose guère d’éléments solides attestant que les brevets et autres DPI restreignent l’accès aux technologies écologiquement rationnelles, car ces droits concernent essentiellement des secteurs basés sur des technologies matures pour lesquelles la concurrence mondiale offre de nombreux produits de substitution. La donne pourrait changer au fur et à mesure de la montée en puissance de nouvelles technologies faisant appel aux biotechnologies et aux carburants de synthèse, qui risquent d’être davantage protégés par des brevets. Pour l’heure toutefois, il n’y a guère d’arguments incitant à limiter notablement l’attribution et l’utilisation des DPI dans ce domaine. En particulier, un accord international sur un régime de licences obligatoires ne serait probablement pas très efficace en termes de transfert international de technologies, alors qu’il risquerait d’imposer des coûts considérables. En revanche, il serait possible d’apporter diverses modifications aux conditions attachées aux brevets, ce qui constitue le principal thème de ce rapport. Parmi les possibilités figurent la prolongation ex ante de la durée de validité du brevet assortie d’engagements en matière d’octroi de licences, l’examen accéléré des demandes de brevets visant les technologies écologiquement rationnelles, les investissements dans les efforts de transparence et de cartographie des brevets, les incitations à créer des communautés volontaires de brevets. D’après le rapport, des changements de ce type ne sauraient procurer des avantages significatifs en termes d’innovation et de transfert international de technologies s’ils ne s’accompagnent pas de stratégies publiques plus larges, comprenant des aides publiques pour répondre aux besoins en technologies et assurer leur adaptation à l’échelle locale. Mais l’essentiel est peut-être de trouver les moyens d’augmenter le coût d’utilisation des ressources énergétiques à base de carbone et d’améliorer le climat de l’investissement dans les pays pauvres.

Suggested Citation

  • Keith Maskus, 2010. "Differentiated Intellectual Property Regimes for Environmental and Climate Technologies," OECD Environment Working Papers 17, OECD Publishing.
  • Handle: RePEc:oec:envaaa:17-en
    DOI: 10.1787/5kmfwjvc83vk-en
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1787/5kmfwjvc83vk-en
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1787/5kmfwjvc83vk-en?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sun, Huaping & Edziah, Bless Kofi & Sun, Chuanwang & Kporsu, Anthony Kwaku, 2019. "Institutional quality, green innovation and energy efficiency," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    2. Kellard, Neil M. & Kontonikas, Alexandros & Lamla, Michael J. & Maiani, Stefano & Wood, Geoffrey, 2023. "Institutional settings and financing green innovation," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    3. Stergiou, Eirini & Rigas, Nikos & Kounetas, Konstantinos E., 2023. "Environmental productivity growth across European industries," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    4. Stefan Ambec & Mark A. Cohen & Stewart Elgie & Paul Lanoie, 2013. "The Porter Hypothesis at 20: Can Environmental Regulation Enhance Innovation and Competitiveness?," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(1), pages 2-22, January.
    5. Matthieu Glachant & Julie Ing & Jean Philippe Nicolai, 2017. "The Incentives for North-South Transfer of Climate-Mitigation Technologies with Trade in Polluting Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 66(3), pages 435-456, March.
    6. Ramona Miron & Simona Gabor, 2012. "Intellectual Property Within The Emerging Renewable Energy Market: A Case Study Of The Eu," CES Working Papers, Centre for European Studies, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, vol. 4(3), pages 364-384, September.
    7. Chen Zhou, 2019. "Can intellectual property rights within climate technology transfer work for the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement?," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 107-122, February.
    8. Rai, Varun & Funkhouser, Erik, 2015. "Emerging insights on the dynamic drivers of international low-carbon technology transfer," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 350-364.
    9. Damien Dussaux & Antoine Dechezleprêtre & Matthieu Glachant, 2017. "Intellectual property rights protection and the international transfer of low-carbon technologies," Working Papers hal-01693539, HAL.
    10. Sefa Awaworyi Churchill & Hoang M. Luong & Mehmet Ugur, 2022. "Does intellectual property protection deliver economic benefits? A multi‐outcome meta‐regression analysis of the evidence," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(5), pages 1477-1509, December.
    11. Stergiou, Eirini & Rigas, Nikos & Kounetas, Konstantinos, 2021. "Environmental Productivity and Convergence of European Manufacturing Industries. Are they Under Pressure?," MPRA Paper 110780, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Elena Verdolini & Valentina Bosetti, 2017. "Environmental Policy and the International Diffusion of Cleaner Energy Technologies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 66(3), pages 497-536, March.
    13. repec:jes:wpaper:y:2012:v:4:p:364-384 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    Keywords

    changement climatique; climate change; droit de propriété intellectuelle; environment; environnement; innovation; innovation; intellectual property rights; technologies; technology;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
    • Q27 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Issues in International Trade
    • Q56 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environment and Development; Environment and Trade; Sustainability; Environmental Accounts and Accounting; Environmental Equity; Population Growth

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oec:envaaa:17-en. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/enoecfr.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.