On the first day of the 68th series of meetings of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Assemblies, seemingly divergent priorities emerged on the floor. On one side, developing nations like Brazil and South Africa are leading a campaign for a renewed focus on the WIPO Development Agenda, with a specific emphasis on norm setting. On the other side, developed nations are pushing to reinforce WIPO’s roles in managing international registration systems and strengthening intellectual property (IP) enforcement. This debate about when IP enforcement can support development, and when flexibilities and tech transfer are more helpful, mirrors familiar debates over the years about national development policy, free trade and globalisation. Just as other institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO) have historically sought to bridge these divides—such as through the Doha Declaration, which sought to balance strict trade rules with public health and development needs—WIPO is now navigating a similar balancing act.
South Africa and the Call for Balanced Norm Setting
Speaking on behalf of the African Group, South Africa stressed that the world is confronting complex development challenges, such as poverty, inequality, and public health pressures. In this context, South Africa made a pointed request for the organization to align its goals with the needs of the Global South. The delegation explicitly called for a “new commitment to the WIPO Development Agenda, balanced norm setting and practical technical assistance that is responsive to national and regional priorities”. Rather than treating IP purely as a legal right, South Africa emphasized that the system must respond to global challenges and ensure that innovation contributes meaningfully to sustainable development.
Brazil’s Critique: Leadership and the Development Agenda
Brazil echoed South Africa’s sentiments but took a decidedly sharper, more critical tone regarding WIPO’s internal governance and priorities. First, Brazil took the opportunity to explicitly “reaffirm the Member State driven nature of this United Nations organization”.
From there, Brazil leveled a strong critique at WIPO’s recent senior management appointments. The Brazilian delegation stated bluntly that it “regrets that the proposed new senior management does not reflect proper renewal, rotation nor geographical balance”. They pointed out that the new appointments resulted in an “increased representation of developed countries at DDG and ADG positions”. Furthermore, Brazil heavily criticized the failure to improve female representation at the top levels of the organization, noting, “Gender balance was clearly not a consideration… We now have one woman less, a mere 25% of WIPO’s senior team”.
Beyond leadership grievances, Brazil demanded a renewed focus on neglected WIPO policies. As WIPO approaches the 20th anniversary of the Development Agenda, Brazil argued that work on the Development Agenda should not be confined to the development sector in WIPO and that the “time has come to move the other equally important chapters of the Development Agenda forward”. Specifically, they demanded immediate action on “norm setting, flexibilities, public policy and public domain and access to knowledge,” calling this a “crucial pending mandate to start work on”.
Contrasting Views from the Global North
The priorities championed by Brazil and South Africa stand in contrast to the interventions made by developed nations and traditional voting blocs like Group B.
On leadership, both developed and developing nations raised similar concerns with only subtle differences in emphasis. Brazil criticized the opaque nature of WIPO’s appointments—arguing that “insufficient consideration has been given to technical expertise” and that internal promotion could have “sent a signal of the value placed on WIPO’s own staff”. Germany stated that “merit should remain the guiding principle in staff selection,” though they noted that gender and equitable geographic representation should also be duly recognized
Where the nations truly diverged was on substantive policy. Germany stressed that WIPO’s primary focus should remain on its commercial infrastructure, declaring it a “key priority to modernise and strengthen all pillars of WIPO services including PCT, Madrid, the Hague System, Lisbon and the arbitration mediation centre”.
Similarly, while developing countries pushed for flexibilities and access to knowledge, developed nations emphasized protection and enforcement. The United Kingdom praised discussions on “building enforcement structures that reward innovation while protecting citizens from harm”. Other states, such as Moldova, also made a point of noting their ongoing work to “strengthen enforcement”.
The Asia-Pacific Group (APG), referenced by members like Mongolia who aligned with their broader platform, struck a middle ground. Mongolia highlighted WIPO’s initiatives to “reinforce technical assistance, capacity building and promote knowledge for developing countries,” aligning closely with the development discourse, though generally adopting a more diplomatic tone than Brazil’s systemic critique.
Finding Optimism and Shared Goals
Despite these divergent visions, the Assemblies also highlighted potential for bridging the divide. First, successful norm-setting has recently proven entirely possible: South Africa praised the important progress made through the recent adoption of the WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge, as well as the Design Law Treaty, while Lesotho explicitly hailed 2024 as a ‘historic year’ for multilateral IP cooperation.
Furthermore, many developed nations agree that core commercial services and developmental priorities are actually complementary. Spain explicitly stated that strengthening core systems and advancing the Development Agenda must be integrated to build an inclusive system for small businesses, women, and youth. Latvia echoed this practical approach, stating that IP is a tool for turning ideas into value, which works best when cooperation is “close to users, close to national needs and with real impact”.
Above all, a unifying desire to serve everyday innovators emerged across different regions. Uganda’s Minister of Justice eloquently called for elites to act as “step down transformers” who lower “high voltage concepts” to make IP tools “more user friendly to the ordinary people at the lower ranks of the Intellectual Property ecosystem”.
Looking Ahead
The 68th General Assemblies have made one thing clear: WIPO remains an organisation with divergent visions to unite. How Director General Tang navigates and bridges these competing visions for global norm setting will likely define his second term. He might wish to take careful note of the positive feedback he received from nations such as Uganda, who praised him for “debureaucratizing WIPO” and making it an inclusive, Member State-driven organization.
