José Romero (Swiss Federal Office of Environment) set the scene by explaining the historical background of the UNFCCC negotiations: the +2C target set in Cancún was achievable with existing public domain technologies. However, two main barriers remain: the global availability of finance and technology. The lack of enabling frameworks in developing countries deters private sector engagement in technology transfer. A bottom-up approach, where specific technologies needed are listed and any IPRs identified, would be more productive. The WTO needs to engage to remove barriers to the flow of investment and technology.

Antony Taubman (WTO) said that climate negotiators had raised TRIPS issues in the UNFCCC negotiations and that the WTO could objectively contribute to the discussion, which was currently binary in nature. More evidence on patent filing and ownership, as well as impact, was needed. He analysed the topic from several angles, including new forms of innovation structures and IPR management; pre-grant (grounds for refusal, fast-tracking) and post-grant options (voluntary licensing, exceptions to rights, regulatory interventions) and market-based solutions. Climate change differs from the usual technology transfer debates in terms of the urgency and the ethical aspects of the measures needed, he said.

Martin Khor (South Centre) said that enough was known about climate science and the role of IPRs to take urgent appropriate measures. There was a need to add to technologies in the public domain, especially where research and development was publicly funded. Past studies of the Montreal Protocol and recent ones on climate technologies had shown that IPRs could be a problem. He advocated a Doha-type declaration to clarify TRIPS flexibilities and a Paragraph 6-type solution, if necessary. He predicted that IPRs would return to the UNFCCC agenda and that the WTO should provide a forum for discussion.

Dyebo Shabalala (Maastricht University) said that there were few legal options for developing countries in the existing TRIPS text and recommended amendments to facilitate patent revocation, compulsory licensing and other measures.

Thaddeus Burns (General Electric) said that the Internet and the TRIPS Agreement had changed the way GE innovated. GE now has research and development (R&D) centres in China, India and Brazil. The ratio of private sector to government investment in R&D was more like 70:30, and IPRs were important incentives. GE files patents in an average of five critical jurisdictions and hence other countries are free to use them. Owing to the diversity of climate technologies and the fundamental differences with the pharmaceutical and chemical sectors, lessons could not be drawn from the debates on the Montreal Protocol or access to medicines. IP is a tool to achieve customer satisfaction through licensing and not an end in itself, he said.