By Andres Izquierdo, Counsel, PIJIP, American University
At the close of WIPO’s 39th Program and Budget Committee (PBC) session, a modest yet symbolically significant proposal—to allocate regular budget funds, on an exceptional basis, to support the participation of Indigenous Peoples in sessions of the Intergovernmental Committee (IGC)—was withdrawn. Despite wide cross-regional support and a week of intensive consultations, consensus remained elusive.
The proposal, introduced initially by Colombia on behalf of GRULAC, aimed to address a persistent problem: the underfunding of the Voluntary Fund, which currently serves as the only dedicated mechanism to support Indigenous and Local Community (IPLC) participation in WIPO negotiations. The initiative would have allowed up to three IPLC representatives to be funded from unallocated regular budget resources—only when the Voluntary Fund lacked resources and under strict procedural safeguards.
A cross-regional group including Australia, Indonesia, Canada, Brazil, Switzerland, and the African Group expressed support, citing the urgent need for more inclusive representation in negotiations that directly affect Indigenous rights. Mexico later introduced a refined version of the proposal, limiting its application to moments when the Voluntary Fund is depleted and capping participation at three Indigenous representatives per IGC session. The revised language included safeguards: no new assessments, clear reporting obligations, and strict adherence to WIPO’s Financial Regulations.
“Guaranteeing the participation of Indigenous Peoples is not just a symbolic gesture,” said the delegate from Mexico. “It’s a basic precondition for our discussions to reflect the reality on which we are supposedly adopting rules.” In withdrawing the proposal, Mexico lamented the “lack of agreement from just a few states,” despite what it called a “balanced measure subject to strict conditions and aligned to the rules of the organization.”
The Australian delegation expressed disappointment: “While this proposal could not reach consensus, the discussions this week confirmed a widely shared view on the importance of the meaningful participation of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities.” Australia further emphasized the constructive tone of the negotiations: “The proposal demonstrated that we can work together and bridge differences across groups.”
Canada called the initiative “a valuable proposal and one that provides a creative pathway to supporting the essential participation of Indigenous Peoples as unique voices within the IGC.” Despite broad interregional support, it regretted that the measure could not “generate consensus.” Canada described the proposal as “purpose-driven and limited in scope… financially responsible, transparent, and supported by Member States across regions.”
Peru, speaking as a GRULAC member, underscored that “this is a question of principle.” It warned that the IGC’s legitimacy could be undermined “if we cannot hear the voices of the custodians of the knowledge we aim to protect.” The African Group, through Namibia, noted that “the continued lack of funding remains a serious concern and will hinder the effective participation and meaningful contribution of IPLCs.”
The group of Like-Minded Countries, represented by Indonesia, echoed this regret, noting that the proposal aimed “to enhance inclusivity and ensure balanced participation… essential for the legitimacy and effectiveness of the process.”
Despite such broad support, some delegations raised objections. The United States, United Kingdom, and Sweden opposed using core budget funds for observer participation. Their position, consistently restated throughout the week, was that such support should be confined to the Voluntary Fund or voluntary Member State contributions. The U.S. delegation, in particular, argued that the core budget should not be used to fund non-state actors, raising concerns about precedent and financial governance.
Other delegations, such as Japan (on behalf of Group B), Italy, France, and Estonia (on behalf of CEBS), stopped short of opposing the proposal outright but requested additional time to analyze its legal and budgetary implications. “We seek clarity on how such a reallocation could be conducted under WIPO’s Financial Regulations,” noted France. Japan emphasized the need for “specific implementation mechanisms and procedural transparency,” while CEBS said more time was needed to form a group position.
Still, many Member States signaled that the proposal had moved the conversation forward. “This is a moment of normative clarification,” said Peru. “The participation of Indigenous Peoples is not an accessory—it is central to the legitimacy of the IGC’s work.”
As the Committee adopted its final report, the Chair acknowledged that the proposal had been formally withdrawn. Several delegations, including Australia, Canada, Indonesia, Peru, Namibia (for the African Group), and others, reiterated their continued commitment to Indigenous inclusion and called for renewed contributions to the Voluntary Fund.
As WIPO heads into its 66th General Assemblies, the question lingers: Can the organization evolve its financial architecture to match its commitment to inclusive governance? The outcome underscores both the promise and the limitations of consensus-based governance at WIPO. While the proposal did not move forward, it reframed the terms of debate: from whether Indigenous Peoples should be included, to how WIPO can sustainably fund that inclusion within its institutional framework.
