Search

This chapter provides an initial exploration and analysis of agricultural research and development paradigms under the Paris Agreement for climate-smart agriculture. Drawing on diverse bodies of literature, this chapter provides an examination of agricultural socio-technical regimes with a focus on how problems, means and solutions are constructed by three broad archetypes: the intensive agricultural paradigm, the Life-Sciences Integrated paradigm, and the Ecological-Integrated paradigm. Re-conceptualisation of climate-smart agriculture in line with the Ecological-Integrated Paradigm is positioned as a critical step towards climate justice. Through an examination of the Paris Agreement and related documents, this chapter argues that the Paris Agreement creates an enabling environment for the development of an agricultural socio-technical regime more consistent with the existing intensive agricultural model than with genuine climate-smart agriculture.

This chapter examines benefit-sharing under the REDD+ mechanism, focusing upon implications for women. In particular it will focus upon the competing motivations and constrains that are at play amongst the different networks and stakeholders involved (environmental, developmental, government, community and international institutions) and how these may manifest themselves in decisions about benefit sharing claims. It also examines the complex intertwining of property and participation rights women and the importance of ensuring gender equality in REDD+ instruments.

In December 2015, nations of the world joined together in Paris to negotiate a new legal instrument to address climate change. The debates which took place in the lead up to the adoption of the Paris Agreement reflected broader, ongoing tensions between developed and developing states within the international climate regime. They also demonstrated the divergence of opinion between states as to the relationship between climate change and human rights. While the human impacts of climate change are now well-understood, there is still debate as to what a human rights-based approach to climate change should look like. This chapter argues that these geopolitical dynamics and differing priorities will continue to shape the implementation of the Paris Agreement, as well as the specific debates over intellectual property, finance, technology transfer and innovation. The chapter therefore provides an important contextual backdrop for further analysis of these issues.

The Paris Agreement charts a new course for measuring, reporting, verification (MRV) of State obligations with the intensification of the emphasis on the criterion of transparency. This is, in part, responsive to modern debates in regards to environmental law generally and climate law in particular. Transparency is crucial to the success or failure of climate mitigation and adaption regimes because climate governance is intimately connected to the ideals of deliberative democracy, public participation, and the rule of law. The Paris Agreement thus presents a ground-breaking and important point in time for both developed and developing States. Aligned with this requirement is the desire to increase the amount and flow of ‘climate finance’ from developed to developing states. The associated need for transparency in funding flows has been raised in part through the accusations of misused or inadequate funds, ‘tied’ funding and double counting. Though there are new informational requirements placed on states in the Paris Agreement, they also present considerable practical challenges. The purpose of this chapter is to analyse the principle of transparency in climate finance and to chart the direction of the associated informational requirements in light of the measures agreed at Paris.

As well as outlining the structure and organisation of the collection, this introduction seeks to contextualise the debate over intellectual property and climate change. As a foundation to the collection, it provides an overview of the negotiation, agreement, and implementation of the Paris Agreement 2015. It offers a literature review in respect of international climate law, human rights, and technology transfer. The introduction highlights key research and scholarship on intellectual property and environmentally sound technologies. It outlines the relevance of various disciplines of intellectual property to the debate over climate change. In particular, it looks at the role and function of patent law, trademark law, consumer law, design law, copyright law, trade secrets, open licensing, as well as plant breeders’ rights, access to genetic resources, and Indigenous knowledge. It examines climate litigation in the field of intellectual property. The introduction considers the scope for law reform to ensure that intellectual property laws are better adapted to promote substantial and meaningful action in respect of climate change. It also explores how innovation law and policy may best promote climate justice and human rights.

This chapter considers the role of patent law in respect of geoengineering. Intellectual Ventures has developed a large portfolio of patents in this area. A number of other private and public entities have also filed patents in the field of geoengineering. In light of the recent precedents of the Supreme Court of the United States in respect of Bilski, Prometheus, Myriad, and Alice, it is worth exploring the question, Should patents on geoengineering be allowed? Defenders of geoengineering would maintain that such technology is legitimate, much like traditional forms of engineering. Critics, such as the ETC Group, have called for a ban on patents in respect of geoengineering. There have been fierce debates over the ethics of geoengineering. Philosophers and policy-makers such as Stephen Gardiner, Clive Hamilton, Bill McKibben, Al Gore, and Naomi Klein have argued over the merits over such technologies. It is useful to situate such a discussion in the context of previous debates over intellectual property and emerging technologies - such as biotechnology, nanotechnology, synthetic biology, and clean technologies. Moreover, this chapter explores the potential for patent thickets in respect of geoengineering. What will be the impact of such patents on research, clean technologies, the environment, the climate? There has also been much concern about the possibility of overzealous enforcement of patents in respect of geoengineering. As such, it is worthwhile considering what policy options for patent abuse will be useful or effective in this field. There is a larger international debate over the governance and regulation of geoengineering – particularly in light of the Paris Agreement 2015.

This chapter considers the atmospheric trust litigation in the case of Nelson Kanuk v. State of Alaska over the climate inaction of the State of the Alaska. The dispute is a compelling case study in respect of constitutional law, the public trust doctrine, climate change, intergenerational justice, Indigenous rights, and Indigenous intellectual property. The new litigation between Esau Sinnok and the State of Alaska promises to further refine and clarify issues in respect of climate change, human rights, and Indigenous interests. Such climate litigation highlights larger international legal issues in respect of Indigenous peoples and climate change. There has been debate over Indigenous rights and climate change during the discussions in respect of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 2007, the Anchorage Declaration 2009, the Paris Agreement 2015, and the Bonn climate talks in 2017. In the future, no doubt Indigenous communities will seek to engage in climate litigation against governments and corporations in order to seek redress for climate injustice, as well as loss and damage.

This book on Intellectual Property, Clean Energy, the Paris Agreement and Climate Justice was conceived of on the streets of New York, as I joined the People’s Climate March in 2014. The People’s Climate March on the 21st September 2014 was organised and designed to galvanise popular support for the United Nations Climate Summit being held in New York on the 23rd September 2014. The event was massive, with hundreds of groups, and hundreds of thousands of people, participating in the event. 400,000 people joined the parade in New York. The People’s Climate March was supported by hundreds of other companion events around the world, calling for climate action. I joined the Science Stands contingent at the People’s Climate March. The group marshalled outside the Hayden Planetarium at the American Museum of Natural History. There was a platoon of scientists, wearing white lab coats and carrying placards. The scientists wheeled along a blackboard, depicting the state of climate science. The board declared, ‘The “Debate” is Over. The Facts are In. The Evidence is Clear. Science Stands for Climate Action.’ The group carried a large banner as well entitled, ‘The Debate is Over.’ There were also a bevy of charts — ‘CO2 is rising!’, ‘The Oceans are acidifying!’, ‘Glaciers are melting!’ Citing Bill Murray’s character in Ghostbusters, the scientists also carried a banner, ‘Back off Man, I am a Scientist.’ The event also featured a number of other sections. Frontline groups included those people who were most impacted by climate change – such as Indigenous communities and environmental organizations. Generational groups included labor organisations, families, parents and their children, and elders. Environmental groups covered renewable energy, food activists, and water defenders. There was a section for protest groups. There was an interfaith group. There was also miscellaneous groups – covering various geographical entities from throughout the Uni9ted State

In the lead up to the Paris Agreement 2015, the United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon has commented: ‘Intellectual property, technology transfer, and financing are among a wide range of topics that must be addressed in the context of climate change and sustainable development’. The Paris Climate Talks considered a number of issues related to intellectual property, technology transfer, and finance. Draft Article 56.3 laid down a number of options. The first option suggested a number of possibilities to facilitate technology transfer. Item A suggested that developed countries ‘provide financial resources to address barriers caused by intellectual property rights (IPRs) and facilitate access to and the deployment of technology, including inter alia, by utilizing the Financial Mechanism and/or the establishment of a funding window under the Green Climate Fund / the operating entities of the Financial Mechanism.’ Item B called for ‘an international mechanism on IPRs to be established to facilitate access to and the deployment of technology to [developing country Parties].’ Item C asked for other arrangements to be established to address intellectual property rights – such as ‘collaborative research and development, shareware, commitments related to humanitarian or preferential licensing, fully paid-up or joint licensing schemes, preferential rates and patent pools.’ Item D suggested that ‘funds from the Green Climate Fund will be utilized to meet the full costs of intellectual property rights (IPRs) of environmentally sound technologies and know-how and such technologies will be provided to developing country Parties free of cost in order to enhance their actions to address climate change and its adverse impacts.’ The second option was that ‘Parties recognize that IPRs create an enabling environment for the promotion of technology innovation in environmentally sound technologies.’ The third option favoured by developed countries is that ‘IPRs are not to be address

This chapter considers Elon Musk and his company Tesla, and evaluates their statements in respect of intellectual property, open innovation, and climate change. It is worth situating the story in the context of the growing literature on intellectual property and clean technologies. This paper considers Tesla Motors’ shifting strategies in respect of patent law, policy, and practice. The work explores Tesla Motors’ embrace of an open source philosophy, and the motivations behind this business strategy. The chapter analyses the larger issues about business development relating to electric vehicles and clean technologies. It examines how Tesla’s rivals have responded – particularly looking at Toyota Motors. This paper concludes by considering Tesla Motors in light of larger initiatives in respect of clean technologies, renewable energy and climate change. Of particular note is sustainable transportation; the development of a Gigafactory; Elon Musk’s complementary work at SolarCity in promoting solar technologies; and the big battery project in South Australia. The chapter concludes with a consideration of Elon Musk’s advocacy for the adoption and implementation of the Paris Agreement 2015.