Editing IPCC:AR6/WGIII/Chapter-16 (section)

=== Box 16.9 | Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Regimes and Technology Transfer ===

<div id="h2-46-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

In the global context of climate mitigation technologies, it has been noted that technologies have been developed primarily in industrialised countries but are urgently required in fast-growing emerging economies ( [[#Dechezleprêtre--2011|Dechezleprêtre et al. 2011]] ). International technology transfers can take place via three primary channels: (i) trade in goods, where technology is embedded in products; (ii) Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), where enterprises transfer firm-specific technology to foreign affiliates; and (iii) patent licences, where third parties obtain the right to use technologies. IPRs are relevant for all these three channels.

Not surprisingly, the role of IPRs in international transfer of climate mitigation technologies has been much discussed but also described as particularly controversial ( [[#Abdel-Latif--2015|Abdel-Latif 2015]] ). The relationships between IPR, innovation, international technology transfer and local mitigation and adaptation are complex ( [[#Maskus--2010|Maskus 2010]] ; [[#Abdel-Latif--2015|Abdel-Latif 2015]] ; [[#Li--2020|Li et al. 2020]] ) and there is no clear consensus on what kind of an IPR regime will be most beneficial for promoting technology transfer.

Several studies argue that, particularly in developing nations, the global IPR regime has resulted in delayed access, reduced competition and higher prices ( [[#Littleton--2008|Littleton 2008]] ; [[#Zhuang--2017|Zhuang 2017]] ) and that climate-change-related technology transfer is insufficiently stimulated under the current IPR regime. Compulsory licensing (as already used in medicine) is one of the routes proposed to repair this ( [[#Littleton--2008|Littleton 2008]] ; [[#Abdel-Latif--2015|Abdel-Latif 2015]] ).

There is little systematic evidence that patents and other IPRs restrict access to environmentally-sound technologies, since these technologies are mostly in sectors based on mature technologies where numerous substitutes among global competitors are available ( [[#Maskus--2010|Maskus 2010]] ). This might, however, change in the future – for instance, with new technologies based on plants, via biotechnologies and synthetic fuels ( [[#Maskus--2010|Maskus 2010]] ), for which [[#Correa--2020|Correa et al. (2020)]] already find some evidence.

There is also literature suggesting that weak IPR regimes have a ‘strong and negative impact on the international diffusion of patented knowledge’ ( [[#Dechezleprêtre--2013|Dechezleprêtre et al. 2013]] ; [[#Glachant--2017|Glachant and Dechezleprêtre 2017]] ). Also, patents may support market transactions in technology, including international technology transfer, especially to middle-income countries and larger developing countries ( [[#Maskus--2010|Maskus 2010]] ; [[#Hall--2019|Hall and Helmers 2019]] ) but least-developed countries may be better served by building capacity to absorb and implement technology ( [[#Hall--2010|Hall and Helmers 2010]] ; [[#Maskus--2010|Maskus 2010]] ; [[#Sanni--2016|Sanni et al. 2016]] ; [[#Glachant--2017|Glachant and Dechezleprêtre 2017]] ) ''.'' It is also argued that it is not even clear that the patent system as it exists today is the most appropriate vehicle for encouraging international access ( [[#Hall--2010|Hall and Helmers 2010]] ; [[#Maskus--2010|Maskus 2010]] ; [[#Sanni--2016|Sanni et al. 2016]] ; [[#Glachant--2017|Glachant and Dechezleprêtre 2017]] ). Given the large variation in perspectives on the role of IPRs in technology transfer, there is a need for more evidence and analysis to better understand if, and under what conditions, IPR may hinder or promote technology transfer ( [[#TEC--2012|TEC 2012]] ).

In terms of ways forward to meet the challenge of climate change, different suggestions are made in the context of IPR that can help to further improve international technology transfer of climate mitigation technologies, including through the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement, by making decisions on IPR to developing countries on a case-by-case basis, by developing countries experimenting more with policies on IPR protection, or through brokering or patent-pooling institutions ( [[#Littleton--2009|Littleton 2009]] ; [[#Maskus--2017|Maskus and Reichman 2017]] ; [[#Dussaux--2018|Dussaux et al. 2018]] ). Others also suggest that distinctions among country groups be made on the basis of levels of technological and economic development, with least-developed countries getting particular attention ( [[#Zhuang--2017|Zhuang 2017]] ; [[#Abbott--2018|Abbott 2018]] ).

[[File:c0ced309a8d4345abbbfdd33722426cb IPCC_AR6_WGIII_CCBox_12_Figure_1.png]]

'''Cross-Chapter Box 12, Figure 1 | Stages of socio-technical transition processes.'''

<div id="16.5.4" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="emerging-ideas-for-international-technology-transfer-and-cooperation"></span>