Sustainability

One normally understands sustainability as a term connoting the capacity of an Initiative to raise or seek funds that enable It to continue. However, as we shall show in this chapter, in the initiatives with which we work, the question of how to sustain Is a multifaceted one. It is more, that is, than simply a question of how the initiatives can continue to be 11nanclally sustainable. There Is a need, rather, to 11nd ways to marry social (including organisational), technical and financial sustalnablllty...

The provision of visitable housing in Australia: Down to the detail

In response to the ratification of the United Nations Convention of the Rights of People with Disabilities (CRPD), Australian housing industry leaders, supported by the Australian Government, committed to transform their practices voluntarily through the adoption of a national guideline, called Livable Housing Design. They set a target in 2010 that all new housing would be visitable by 2020. Research in this area suggests that the anticipated voluntary transformation is unrealistic and that mandatory regulation will be necessary for any lasting transformation to occur. It also suggests that the assumptions underpinning the Livable Housing Design agreement are unfounded. This paper reports on a study that problematised these assumptions. The study used eleven newly-constructed dwellings in three housing contexts in Brisbane, Australia. It sought to understand the logics-of-practice in providing, and not providing, visitable housing. By examining the specific details that make a dwelling visitable, and interpreting the accounts of builders, designers and developers, the study identified three logics-of-practice which challenged the assumptions underpinning the Livable Housing Design agreement: focus on the point of sale; an aversion to change and deference to external regulators on matters of social inclusion. These were evident in all housing contexts indicating a dominant industry culture regardless of housing context or policy intention. The paper suggests that financial incentives for both the builder and the buyer, demonstration by industry leaders and, ultimately, national regulation is a possible pathway for the Livable Housing Design agreement to reach the 2020 goal. The paper concludes that the Australian Government has three options: to ignore its obligations under the CRPD; to revisit the Livable Housing Design agreement in the hope that it works; or to regulate the housing industry through the National Construction Code to ensure the 2020 target is reached.

Eco-crime and freshwater

The unsustainable and exploitative use of one of the most important but scarce resources on the planet - freshwater - continues to create conflict and human dislocation on a grand scale. Instead of witnessing nation-states adopting more equitable and efficient conservation strategies, powerful corporations are permitted to privatise and monopolise diminishing water reservoirs based on flawed neo-liberal assumptions and market models of the ‘global good’. The commodification of water has enabled corporate monopolies and corrupt states to exploit a fundamental human right, and in the process have created new forms of criminality. In recent years, affluent industrialised nations have experienced violent rioting as protestors express opposition to government ‘freshwater taxes’ and to corporate investors seeking to privatise drinking water. These water conflicts have included unprecedented clashes with police and deaths of innocent civilians in South Africa (BBC News, 2014a); the United Nations intervention in Detroit USA after weeks of public protest (Burns, 2014); and the hundreds of thousands of people protesting in Ireland (BBC News, 2014,b; Irish Times 2015). Subsequently, the commodification of freshwater has become a criminological issue for water-abundant rich states, as well as for the highly indebted water-scarce nations.

Intellectual property and global warming: Climate justice

Engaging in a close analysis of legal and political discourse, this chapter considers conflicts over intellectual property and climate change in three key arenas: climate law; trade law; and intellectual property law. In this chapter, it is argued that there is a need to overcome the political stalemates and deadlocks over intellectual property and climate change. It is essential that intellectual property law engage in a substantive fashion with the matrix of issues surrounding fossil fuels, clean technologies, and climate change at an international level. First, this chapter examines the debate over intellectual property and climate change under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 1992, and the establishment of the UNFCCC Climate Technology Centre and Network. It recommends that the technology mechanism should address and deal with matters of intellectual property management and policy. Second, the piece examines the discussion of global issues in the World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO GREEN. It supports the proposal for a Global Green Patent Highway to allow for the fast-tracking of intellectual property applications in respect of green technologies. Third, the chapter investigates the dispute in the TRIPS Council at the World Trade Organization over intellectual property, climate change, and development. This section focuses upon the TRIPS Agreement 1994. This chapter calls for a Joint Declaration on Intellectual Property and Climate Change from the UNFCCC, WIPO, and the WTO. The paper concludes that intellectual property should be reformed as part of a larger effort to promote climate justice. Rather than adopt a fragmented, piecemeal approach in various international institutions, there is a need for a co-ordinated and cohesive response to intellectual property in an age of runaway, global climate change. Patent law should be fossil fuel free. Intellectual property should encourage research, development, and diffusion of renewable energy and clean technologies. It is submitted that intellectual property law reform should promote climate justice in line with Mary Robinson’s Declaration on Climate Justice 2013.

Intellectual property, innovation, and the environment (2014) edited by Peter Menell and Sarah Tran: A review

Peter S. Menell and Sarah M. Tran (ed.), Intellectual Property, Innovation and the Environment, Cheltenham (UK) and Northampton (MA): Edward Elgar, 2014, 756 pp Hardback 978 1 78195 160 6, http://www.e-elgar.com/bookentry_main.lasso?id=15063 There has been a longstanding deadlock over intellectual property and clean technologies in international climate talks. The United States — and other developed countries such as Japan, Denmark Germany, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand — have pushed for stronger and longer protection of intellectual property rights related to clean technologies. BASIC countries — such as Brazil, South Africa, India, and China — have pushed for greater flexibilities in respect of intellectual property for the purpose of addressing climate change and global warming. Small island states, least developed countries, and nations vulnerable to climate change have called for climate-adaptation and climate-mitigation technologies to be available in the public domain. In the lead-up to the United Nations Climate Summit in New York on the 23rd September 2014, it is timely to consider the debate over intellectual property, innovation, the environment, and climate change.

From Kafka to KAFTA: Intellectual property, and the Korea-Australia free trade agreement

This paper provides a critical examination of the intellectual property sections of the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement 2014. Chapter 13 of the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement 2014 deals with the subject of intellectual property law. The Chapter covers such topics as the purposes and objectives of intellectual property law; copyright law; trade mark law; patent law; and intellectual property enforcement. The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties in the Australian Parliament highlighted the controversy surrounding this chapter of the agreement: The intellectual property rights chapter of KAFTA has drawn considerable attention from academics and stakeholders regarding the proposed need for changes to Australian intellectual property law and the inclusion of intellectual property in the definition of investment with regard to the investor-state dispute mechanism. Other concerns raised with the Committee include the prescriptive nature of the chapter, the lack of recognition of the broader public interests of intellectual property rights, and possible changes to fair use provisions. Article 13.1.1 of the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement 2014 provides that: ‘Each Party recognises the importance of adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights, while ensuring that measures to enforce those rights do not themselves become barriers to legitimate trade.’ This is an unsatisfactory description of the objectives and purposes of intellectual property law in both Australia and Korea. There is a failure to properly consider the range of public purposes served by intellectual property law – such as providing for access to knowledge, promoting competition and innovation, protecting consumer rights, and allowing for the protection of public health, food security, and the environment. Such a statement of principles and objectives detracts from the declaration in the TRIPS Agreement 1994 of the public interest objectives to be served by intellectual property. Chapter 11 of the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement 2014 is an investment chapter, with an investor-state dispute settlement regime. This chapter is highly controversial – given the international debate over investor-state dispute settlement; the Australian context for the debate; and the text of the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement 2014. In April 2014, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) released a report on Recent Developments in Investor-State Dispute Settlement. The overall figures are staggering. UNCTAD reports a significant growth in investment-state dispute settlement, across a wide array of different fields of public regulation. Given the broad definition of investment, intellectual property owners will be able to use the investor-state dispute settlement regime in the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement 2014. This will have significant implications for all the various disciplines of intellectual property – including copyright law, trade mark law, and patent law.

Australia's Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2010-2020 Submission to the National Biodiversity Strategy Review Taskforce

This submission focuses on “Priority for Change 3: Knowledge for all” and “Priority for Change 5: Involving Indigenous Australians”. Our particular interest lies with ensuring that Indigenous knowledge holders are engaged with in a manner that recognises their prior rights over their own knowledge and intellectual property. As the Preamble of the recently endorsed United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states, we need to; “Recognis[e] that respect for Indigenous Knowledge, cultures and traditional practises contributes to sustainable and equitable development and proper management of the environment”.

The genographic project: Traditional knowledge and population genetics

This article considers the debate over patent law, informed consent, and benefit-sharing in the context of biomedical research in respect of Indigenous communities. In particular, it focuses upon three key controversies over large-scale biology projects, involving Indigenous populations. These case studies are representative of the tensions between research organisations, Indigenous communities, and funding agencies. Section two considers the aims and origins of the Human Genome Diversity Project, and criticisms levelled against the venture by Indigenous peak bodies and anti-biotechnology groups, such as the Rural Advancement Foundation International. It examines the ways in which the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) grappled with questions of patent law, informed consent, and benefit sharing in relation to population genetics. Section three focuses upon the ongoing litigation in Tilousi v. Arizona State University, and the Havasupai Tribe v. Arizona State University. In this matter, the Havasupai tribe from the Grand Canyon in the United States brought legal action against the Arizona State University and its researchers for using genetic data for unauthorised purposes - namely, genetic research into schizophrenia, migration, and inbreeding. The litigation raises questions about informed consent, negligence, and larger matters of human rights. Section four explores the legal and ethical issues raised by the Genographic Project. It considers the aims and objectives of the venture, and the criticisms levelled against it by Indigenous communities, and anti-biotechnology groups. It examines the response of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues to the Genographic Project. It charts the debate over the protection of traditional knowledge in various international fora. The conclusion recommends a number of measures to better regulate large-scale biology projects involving the participation of Indigenous communities.

The road to Copenhagen: Intellectual property and climate change

In the lead-up to the discussions over IP and climate change in Copenhagen in 2009, the US House of Representatives passed a resolution that it should be the policy of US government officials in discussions over the long-term action under the United Nations Framework on Climate Change to ‘prevent any weakening of, and ensure robust compliance with and enforcement of, existing international legal requirements as of the date of the enactment of this Act for the protection of IP rights related to energy or environmental technology’.

Climate justice for intellectual property at Durban

DURBAN CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE: In a global day of action for climate justice, thousands of protestors complained about the slow progress in international debates on climate change at the United Nations conference in Durban. One of the chants of the campaigners was “Climate justice … not climate apartheid”. Banners dubbed the Durban event a “circus” – a “conference of polluters”.

Rio+ 20: The future we want or greenwash?

The Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development featured a fractious debate over intellectual property and the environment. Not only was there heated debate about patent law, technology transfer, and sustainable development, there was also a debate about sustainable public procurement, eco-labelling, accountable advertising, and greenwashing.

A Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 (# ACTA)

“If Hollywood could order intellectual property laws for Christmas, what would they look like? This is pretty close.” David Fewer “While European and American IP maximalists have pushed for TRIPS-Plus provisions in FTAs and bilateral agreements, they are now pushing for TRIPS-Plus-Plus protections in these various forums.” Susan Sell “ACTA is a threat to the future of a free and open Internet.” Alexander Furnas “Implementing the agreement could open a Pandora's box of potential human rights violations.” Amnesty International. “I will not take part in this masquerade.” Kader Arif, Rapporteur for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the European Parliament Executive Summary As an independent scholar and expert in intellectual property, I am of the view that the Australian Parliament should reject the adoption of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. I would take issue with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s rather partisan account of the negotiations, the consultations, and the outcomes associated with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. In my view, the negotiations were secretive and biased; the local consultations were sometimes farcical because of the lack of information about the draft texts of the agreement; and the final text of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 is not in the best interests of Australia, particularly given that it is a net importer of copyright works and trade mark goods and services. I would also express grave reservations about the quality of the rather pitiful National Interest Analysis – and the lack of any regulatory impact statement – associated with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. The assertion that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 does not require legislative measures is questionable – especially given the United States Trade Representative has called the agreement ‘the highest-standard plurilateral agreement ever achieved concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights.’ It is worthwhile reiterating that there has been much criticism of the secretive and partisan nature of the negotiations surrounding the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. Sean Flynn summarizes these concerns: "The negotiation process for ACTA has been a case study in establishing the conditions for effective industry capture of a lawmaking process. Instead of using the relatively transparent and inclusive multilateral processes, ACTA was launched through a closed and secretive “‘club approach’ in which like-minded jurisdictions define enforcement ‘membership’ rules and then invite other countries to join, presumably via other trade agreements.” The most influential developing countries, including Brazil, India, China and Russia, were excluded. Likewise, a series of manoeuvres ensured that public knowledge about the specifics of the agreement and opportunities for input into the process were severely limited. Negotiations were held with mere hours notice to the public as to when and where they would be convened, often in countries half away around the world from where public interest groups are housed. Once there, all negotiation processes were closed to the public. Draft texts were not released before or after most negotiating rounds, and meetings with stakeholders took place only behind closed doors and off the record. A public release of draft text, in April 2010, was followed by no public or on-the-record meetings with negotiators." Moreover, it is disturbing that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 has been driven by ideology and faith, rather than by any evidence-based policy making Professor Duncan Matthews has raised significant questions about the quality of empirical evidence used to support the proposal of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011: ‘There are concerns that statements about levels of counterfeiting and piracy are based either on customs seizures, with the actual quantities of infringing goods in free circulation in any particular market largely unknown, or on estimated losses derived from industry surveys.’ It is particularly disturbing that, in spite of past criticism, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has supported the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011, without engaging the Productivity Commission or the Treasury to do a proper economic analysis of the proposed treaty. Kader Arif, Rapporteur for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the European Parliament, quit his position, and said of the process: "I want to denounce in the strongest possible manner the entire process that led to the signature of this agreement: no inclusion of civil society organisations, a lack of transparency from the start of the negotiations, repeated postponing of the signature of the text without an explanation being ever given, exclusion of the EU Parliament's demands that were expressed on several occasions in our assembly. As rapporteur of this text, I have faced never-before-seen manoeuvres from the right wing of this Parliament to impose a rushed calendar before public opinion could be alerted, thus depriving the Parliament of its right to expression and of the tools at its disposal to convey citizens' legitimate demands.” Everyone knows the ACTA agreement is problematic, whether it is its impact on civil liberties, the way it makes Internet access providers liable, its consequences on generic drugs manufacturing, or how little protection it gives to our geographical indications. This agreement might have major consequences on citizens' lives, and still, everything is being done to prevent the European Parliament from having its say in this matter. That is why today, as I release this report for which I was in charge, I want to send a strong signal and alert the public opinion about this unacceptable situation. I will not take part in this masquerade." There have been parallel concerns about the process and substance of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the context of Australia. I have a number of concerns about the substance of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. First, I am concerned that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 fails to provide appropriate safeguards in respect of human rights, consumer protection, competition, and privacy laws. It is recommended that the new Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights investigate this treaty. Second, I argue that there is a lack of balance to the copyright measures in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 – the definition of piracy is overbroad; the suite of civil remedies, criminal offences, and border measures is excessive; and there is a lack of suitable protection for copyright exceptions, limitations, and remedies. Third, I discuss trade mark law, intermediary liability, and counterfeiting. I express my concerns, in this context, that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 could have an adverse impact upon consumer interests, competition policy, and innovation in the digital economy. I also note, with concern, the lobbying by tobacco industries for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 – and the lack of any recognition in the treaty for the capacity of countries to take measures of tobacco control under the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Fourth, I note that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 provides no positive obligations to promote access to essential medicines. It is particularly lamentable that Australia and the United States of America have failed to implement the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health 2001 and the WTO General Council Decision 2003. Fifth, I express concerns about the border measures in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. Such measures lack balance – and unduly favour the interests of intellectual property owners over consumers, importers, and exporters. Moreover, such measures will be costly, as they involve shifting the burden of intellectual property enforcement to customs and border authorities. Interdicting, seizing, and destroying goods may also raise significant trade issues. Finally, I express concern that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 undermines the role of existing international organisations, such as the United Nations, the World Intellectual Property Organization and the World Trade Organization, and subverts international initiatives such as the WIPO Development Agenda 2007. I also question the raison d'être, independence, transparency, and accountability of the proposed new ‘ACTA Committee’. In this context, I am concerned by the shift in the position of the Labor Party in its approach to international treaty-making in relation to intellectual property. The Australian Parliament adopted the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, which included a large Chapter on intellectual property. The treaty was a ‘TRIPs-Plus’ agreement, because the obligations were much more extensive and prescriptive than those required under the multilateral framework established by the TRIPS Agreement 1994. During the debate over the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, the Labor Party expressed the view that it would seek to mitigate the effects of the TRIPS-Plus Agreement, when at such time it gained power. Far from seeking to ameliorate the effects of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, the Labor Government would seek to lock Australia into a TRIPS-Double Plus Agreement – the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. There has not been a clear political explanation for this change in approach to international intellectual property. For both reasons of process and substance, I conclude that the Australian Parliament and the Australian Government should reject the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. The Australian Government would do better to endorse the Washington Declaration on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest 2011, and implement its outstanding obligations in respect of access to knowledge, access to essential medicines, and the WIPO Development Agenda 2007. The case study of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 highlights the need for further reforms to the process by which Australia engages in international treaty-making.

Travelling bones: The repatriation of Indigenous ancestral remains

In the album Journey, Archie Roach -- the Australian Indigenous singer-songwriter hailing from Mooroopna in Victoria - has a melancholy song called ‘Travell’n Bones.' It is about the repatriation of Indigenous ancestral remains to their rightful home. This Chapter considers the legal, ethical, and cultural conflicts over Australian indigenous remains being held in museums, in Australia, the United Kingdom, the European Union, and the United States. James Nason comments: ‘The explosion of legal and extra legal attention on issues of cultural property and heritage was born of the frustration and anger of indigenous peoples whose rights and perspectives about cultural property and heritage issues had been largely absent and essentially unwanted by the museum of community.' Part I focuses upon disputes in Australia involving the repatriation of Indigenous Australian remains. In Bropho v HREOC, there was controversy over a cartoon, mocking the repatriation of the remains of Yagan, an Indigenous warrior, to Western Australia. There was a discussion about the operation of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), and the exemptions available from the operation of the regime. Part II considers the efforts by The Te Papa Tongarewa - the Museum of New Zealand - to repatriate Maori and Moriori ancestral remains to New Zealand, and to iwi communities of origin. The conclusion considers the relevance of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Persons 2007, and issues raised by ventures such as the Genographic Project.

Rights and wrongs of Australian government asylum seeker policy

Worldwide, no fewer than 50 million people a year are now fleeing dangerous and often life threatening situations in their countries of origin (UNHCR, 2014c). As one part of this movement, thousands risk journeys through dangerous waters hoping to obtain asylum in Australia. However, Australian Government policies adopted since 2013 aim to ensure that no asylum seeker nor any of the 3,500 detainees held in offshore detention centres will ever be settled on the mainland. To this has now been added a declaration that none of the recent refugees or 6200 asylum seekers waiting in Indonesia in centres run by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) will gain entry (Whyte, 2014a). These immigration policies differ dramatically from those adopted in earlier decades that produced the country’s decidedly multicultural identity. This article reviews these changing perspectives of Australian governments and communities within the context of international obligations and expectations; the experiences of those directly involved in border policing practices and in detention centres; and the attitudes of national media. Relations and conflicts among the interests of the different parties are discussed and the scope for less punitive responses to the plight of asylum seekers is examined. The authors then focus on alternative processes to better address the interests and objectives of legitimately interested parties by processes which successively examine, optimise and reconcile the concerns of each. In so doing, they aim to demonstrate that such methods of sequential problem solving can respond effectively to the multiple concerns of the many significant stakeholders involved in increasingly significant global issues, whereas recourse to such single-goal, top-down programs as are expressed in the government’s current determination to “Stop the boats” at all costs are unlikely to prove sustainable.

Global standard for the composition of infant formula: Recommendations of an ESPGHAN coordinated international expert group

The Codex Alimentarius Commission of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) develops food standards, guidelines and related texts for protecting consumer health and ensuring fair trade practices globally. The major part of the world's population lives in more than 160 countries that are members of the Codex Alimentarius. The Codex Standard on Infant Formula was adopted in 1981 based on scientific knowledge available in the 1970s and is currently being revised. As part of this process, the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses asked the ESPGHAN Committee on Nutrition to initiate a consultation process with the international scientific community to provide a proposal on nutrient levels in infant formulae, based on scientific analysis and taking into account existing scientific reports on the subject. ESPGHAN accepted the request and, in collaboration with its sister societies in the Federation of International Societies on Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, invited highly qualified experts in the area of infant nutrition to form an International Expert Group (IEG) to review the issues raised. The group arrived at recommendations on the compositional requirements for a global infant formula standard which are reported here.