Author name: Andres Izquierdo

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basis, to support the participation of Indigenous Peoples in sessions of the Intergovernmental Committee (IGC)—was withdrawn.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. 

By: Andres Izquierdo, Counsel, PIJIP, American University Despite a full agenda and spirited debate, WIPO’s 39th Program and Budget Committee ended with little to show in terms of any concrete modifications to the proposed 2026/2027 Program and Budget. Key issues—including budget transparency, integration of development goals, Indigenous participation, language access, and technical assistance—remained unresolved or were deferred for future negotiation. While Member States voiced the need for reform and greater equity, the session closed without any policy changes, underscoring a familiar pattern of careful dialogue but persistent deadlock at the heart of WIPO’s governance. One of the recurring topics at this year’s session was WIPO’s move from a detailed 31-program budget to a broader 8-sector model. China, Brazil, and Canada, among others, continued to call for more granular reporting—especially on how funds are transferred within and between sectors. The Secretariat defended the new approach as more efficient and coherent, and offered  an ongoing dialogue rather than any immediate changes. For now, the push for greater transparency in budget documents remains unresolved, with Member States requesting more detail in future cycles. The place of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in WIPO’s work also sparked debate. While most countries, including Brazil, Nigeria, and Mexico, insisted that explicit SDG language is appropriate for a UN agency, the United States argued for removing all such references to keep WIPO’s mandate narrowly focused on intellectual property. In the end, references to the SDGs were retained in the approved Program and Budget for 2026/27, reflecting the majority view but signaling an ongoing divide over the agency’s development role. A cross-regional proposal to allow WIPO’s regular budget to support Indigenous participation in the Intergovernmental Committee (IGC) if the Voluntary Fund runs dry was another unresolved issue. Colombia, Ecuador and Mexico led the effort in representation of most GRULAC countries, but ultimately the proposal was withdrawn after it became clear there was no consensus, with some Member States wary of setting a precedent. As a result, no change will be made for the 2026/27 biennium, though further consultation is expected. The question of multilingualism in the Brands and Designs Sector was equally contested. China, Russia, Brazil, and others pushed for strong commitments to expand language services and pre-allocate resources for future language additions, arguing that this would promote equity and better align with UN values. However, Group B, CEBS, and others favored a step-by-step approach, avoiding binding commitments. The final text recognizes the value of multilingualism but leaves further expansion and funding decisions to be considered in future working groups. Financial sustainability for the Lisbon System, which covers the international registration of geographical indications, was also on the agenda. The United States called for stricter self-sufficiency and more robust forecasting methods, aiming to prevent cross-subsidization from other, better-resourced Unions. Brazil, France, Egypt, and other developing countries defended the current approach as vital for development objectives. In the absence of consensus, the status quo prevails and the issue will remain under review. Discussions on technical assistance and performance indicators saw Member States, including China, Russia, and Nigeria, calling for improvements—whether through more balanced KPIs across global IP systems or a more proactive, needs-based model for technical assistance. While these points were acknowledged, no formal changes were adopted, and the Secretariat promised only to consider the feedback going forward. Efforts to expand WIPO’s external offices again resulted in a deadlock. Some countries, such as India, Colombia, and Iran, advocated for greater geographic equity and delinking evaluation from expansion. Others, led by Group B and CEBS, insisted that careful evaluation must come first. With no consensus, the issue was deferred to future sessions. There was at least modest progress in the area of oversight and governance. WIPO’s Internal Oversight Division closed 66 recommendations in 2024, drawing praise from Member States. Still, there were calls to accelerate recruitment for key evaluation and investigation roles and to address ongoing concerns around cybersecurity and internal controls. No new oversight mandates were issued, but the Secretariat was urged to maintain its focus on improvement. Given the absence of consensus, the PBC decided to refer several unresolved issues to the upcoming 66th series of WIPO Assemblies for further discussion and decision. These include proposals by the United States to remove all references to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and SDGs from the budget document, to adjust estimated applications and income for the Lisbon System and the budget for the Lisbon Union, and to remove the Development Acceleration Fund and associated references and budget lines. These matters now await further negotiation and possible resolution at the Assembly level. In the end, PBC/39’s proceedings reflect the ongoing complexity of multilateral governance at WIPO. While Member States continue to debate critical issues—transparency, development, inclusion, and accountability—the session closed with more questions than answers. The true test for WIPO will be whether continued dialogue eventually yields the substantive reforms that many are calling for.

By Andres Izquierdo, Counsel, PIJIP, American University At the 38th session of WIPO’s Program and Budget Committee (PBC), the Delegation of Colombia, speaking on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries (GRULAC), introduced a proposal to address the ongoing funding crisis that threatens the participation of Indigenous Peoples in WIPO’s norm-setting processes. The proposal calls for the internal reallocation of existing budgetary resources to ensure minimum, stable support for Indigenous and local community representatives at meetings of the Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC). Colombia emphasized that the proposal had the support of most GRULAC members and was developed in consultation with delegations from other regional groups. It was presented in response to the exhaustion of the WIPO Voluntary Fund, a mechanism created in 2005 (WO/GA/32/6) to support Indigenous participation but which has remained underfunded for years. The Delegation warned that the lack of resources—ongoing for more than a year—has already undermined inclusive participation in discussions directly impacting the rights and interests of Indigenous communities. Crucially, the GRULAC proposal does not introduce any new budgetary burdens. Instead, it draws on WIPO’s existing financial rules to allow internal reallocations, enabling at least two Indigenous representatives to attend each IGC session. This approach mirrors a precedent set in 2016 (IGC 31), when Member States—including Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Chile, and Peru—pushed for the inclusion of a contingent allocation from WIPO’s regular budget to temporarily support the Fund after its depletion (PBC/24). That 2016 compromise demonstrated that practical solutions can be implemented without amending the program budget or creating new financial obligations. Civil society organizations, including the South Centre, have long argued for the institutionalization of Indigenous participation through predictable, core budget allocations rather than reliance on inconsistent voluntary donations. GRULAC’s proposal responds to those calls and to the broader imperative of inclusive governance in global IP policymaking. No Member State objected to the proposal when it was introduced. However, the Chair deferred the final decision to an informal session to allow further review and discussion. GRULAC expressed its openness to constructive input from all delegations. As WIPO reflects on equity, access, and institutional coherence, this proposal offers a critical opportunity to reaffirm that the voices of Indigenous Peoples must not be sidelined in shaping international legal norms. The forthcoming informal session of the PBC 39th will be a key moment for Member States to move from recognition to action in ensuring meaningful, sustained Indigenous participation at WIPO.

By Andres Izquierdo As WIPO’s Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP) prepares to meet for its 34th session this May, an important question is back on the table: Are we doing enough to support access to knowledge, culture, and education through copyright limitations and exceptions? These legal flexibilities—designed to enable libraries, educators, researchers, and others to use copyrighted content under certain conditions—are vital tools for development. But despite being central to WIPO’s 2007 Development Agenda, they still play a limited role in the organization’s work. WIPO’s latest reporting shows a continued emphasis on supporting IP protection and enforcement. In the Director General’s report to the CDIP, most activities are framed around helping countries strengthen their IP systems. There is a brief mention of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) and its ongoing discussions on the Broadcasting Treaty and exceptions for libraries and education. But these references don’t tell us much about the real developmental impacts of those discussions—or the need to ensure that any new treaties respect countries’ ability to design exceptions and flexibilities that serve the public interest. There are some positive signs. One project approved at CDIP/30 supports the use of Text and Data Mining (TDM) by African research institutions. This is the first CDIP project specifically focused on copyright limitations, and it’s a promising example of how IP flexibilities can directly benefit research and innovation. But it’s also the only one of its kind. Meanwhile, WIPO’s Flexibilities Database—which could be a key resource—still focuses almost entirely on patent law and hasn’t been updated to include copyright-related flexibilities or real-world examples of how countries are using them. So what can be done? One idea is for Member States to propose new CDIP projects that explore how copyright limitations and exceptions can support public goals—like providing access to education materials, enabling preservation in cultural heritage institutions, or facilitating scientific collaboration. Another is to ensure that norm-setting activities, such as negotiations on the Broadcasting Treaty, are carefully monitored by CDIP to assess their development impacts. These steps wouldn’t require major changes, just a commitment to make sure the tools already embedded in international IP law are better understood and more widely used. As WIPO’s work continues to evolve alongside emerging challenges like artificial intelligence, access to digital content, and global inequality, the importance of copyright flexibilities is only growing. CDIP was created to help balance the global IP system, and that balance depends on more than protection—it depends on access too. By giving limitations and exceptions the space they deserve, Member States can help WIPO truly deliver on its promise of development for all.