SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT(PATENT PENDING)

The document analyzes the tension between the push for stronger international intellectual property (IP) protections—led primarily by the United States through GATT, NAFTA, and 'Special 301' actions—and the needs of developing countries for technology transfer and fair compensation for biological resources. It explores how IP rights can act as both a potential barrier to the dissemination of environmentally sound technologies and a possible incentive for sustainable innovation. Specifically, it discusses the conflict surrounding the Convention on Biological Diversity, where the US refused to sign due to concerns that 'fair and equitable' sharing of biotechnology benefits would undermine IP rights. The author concludes that while IP monopolies can increase costs for poorer nations, they are not inherently inimical to environmental protection and may actually encourage the development of green technologies.

• The United States government has aggressively pursued stronger international IP protections through multilateral trade agreements and unilateral measures, such as 'Special 301' trade sanctions, to protect US profits and deter piracy.
• Developing countries often view strict IP protections as non-tariff trade barriers and an infringement on national sovereignty, particularly when such laws limit the use of compulsory licensing for national priorities.
• The US refused to sign the Convention on Biological Diversity because the administration believed the treaty's provisions on the sharing of benefits from biotechnology would harm US trade and industry.
• There is a significant conflict regarding the patenting of 'products of nature' and the use of traditional knowledge from indigenous peoples, with calls for profit-sharing when pharmaceutical products are derived from biological resources in developing countries.
• The impact of IP rights on the transfer of environmentally sound technology is debated; while some argue IP increases costs, other evidence suggests much of this technology is already in the public domain and IP is not a significant barrier.
• The author posits that IP rights can potentially benefit the environment by providing an economic incentive for the innovation of environmentally sound technologies and adding value to the maintenance of sustainable resources.
• The GATT TRIPS code (specifically the Dunkel Draft) attempted to reconcile opposing views on IP by allowing exclusions for public order, morality, or the environment, though a qualifier regarding domestic law may negate these protections.

APA

Heller, S. D. (1992). SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT(PATENT PENDING). Center for International Environmental Law. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/SusDev_IP_EnvImpact_June1991.pdf

Chicago

Heller, Steven D. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT(PATENT PENDING). Center for International Environmental Law, 1992. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/SusDev_IP_EnvImpact_June1991.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Heller |first1=Steven D. |title=SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT(PATENT PENDING) |publisher=Center for International Environmental Law |date=1992 |url=https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/SusDev_IP_EnvImpact_June1991.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{heller1992sustainable, author = {Heller, Steven D.}, title = {{SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT(PATENT PENDING)}}, institution = {Center for International Environmental Law}, year = {1992}, url = {https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/SusDev_IP_EnvImpact_June1991.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }