TWN Info Service on Intellectual Property Issues (May26/01)
6 May 2026
Third World Network

WIPO development mandate under pressure

6 May (Sreenath Namboodiri) – The 36th session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)’s Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP) opened in Geneva in the shadow of what several developing-country delegations described as a systematic effort to hollow out WIPO's development mandate, even as the organisation prepares to mark the 20th anniversary of its Development Agenda (DA) next year.

The meeting is taking place from 4 to 8 May in hybrid mode.

Delegations spent the opening day delivering general statements that revealed deep faultlines between those who see WIPO's mandate as centred on intellectual property (IP) protection and those who insist that development, technology transfer and equitable access must sit at the very heart of the organisation's mission.

WIPO’s Deputy Director General Hasan Kleib opened proceedings with a statement emphasising that the CDIP remains "a forum where all Member States, regardless of level of development or technical specialisation, can engage meaningfully in shaping the role of IP in development". He noted that the session would consider new project proposals on climate resilience, artificial intelligence (AI) and creative industries, IP commercialisation, and handicraft artisans, alongside the completion reports of four previously approved DA projects.

The Director General's 16th annual report on the implementation of the Development Agenda (document CDIP/36/2) was also before the Committee, covering WIPO's activities in 2025. While the Secretariat emphasised integration, on-the-ground results and broad beneficiary reach, developing-country delegations pressed for a shift from activity-counting to genuine impact measurement, and raised concerns about whether the DA's foundational principles are being systematically applied across all WIPO bodies.

Development under siege

The African Group, speaking through South Africa, called for development considerations to “extend beyond the CDIP to permeate all WIPO activities and bodies”, and urged the organisation to move from activity-based reporting towards “a more impact-oriented approach, drawing out WIPO's substantive interventions and demonstrating how these contribute to national development priorities”. The group emphasised that the DA “should be anchored in substantive work, including where appropriate norm-setting activities”, not confined to technical assistance alone.

El Salvador, on behalf of the Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC), reaffirmed that “the Development Agenda is a transversal horizontal pillar that counts in all the areas of work of this organisation”. GRULAC highlighted proposals tabled by its members (Dominica, Venezuela, and Chile), and expressed particular interest in discussions on IP and the creative economy in the digital age, including the impact of AI on creators. GRULAC also noted its expectation that DA implementation would be further strengthened during the Director General's second term.

Saudi Arabia, on behalf of the Asia-Pacific Group (APG), called for IP technical assistance to be “inclusive, balanced and responsive to the diverse development challenges” of Member States.

Germany, speaking for Group B (the bloc of developed countries), offered a comparatively brief statement and called for “fact and evidence-based discussions”. Group B expressed particular appreciation for the revised project on cross-border trade in counterfeit trademark goods, co-sponsored by the United Kingdom and others, signalling the bloc's support for an enforcement-oriented agenda, sharply contested by other delegations.

Albania, speaking on behalf of the Central European and Baltic States (CEBS) Group, called for WIPO assistance to "remain responsive, accessible and effective in this digital era".

The Russian Federation, speaking for the Central Asian, Caucasus and Eastern European Countries (CACIC) Group, tabled a new project proposal on IP evaluation and commercialisation mechanisms, and expressed support for practical tools for implementing DA projects, including technology commercialisation and the preservation of folk arts.

Individual country statements were more critical.

Iran highlighted that nearly two decades after the DA's adoption, “its transformative potential remains unrealised”. The project-based approach, Iran argued, “has not mainstreamed a development orientation across the work of this organisation. Development discussions remain too often confined to this room alone.” Iran also raised the absence of updates to the database on flexibilities as a warning sign, questioning how many of WIPO's 952 technical assistance activities in 2025 included substantive content on TRIPS flexibilities.

India described the CDIP as “an important forum for ensuring that the global IP ecosystem is inclusive, development-oriented, and aligned with the 2030 Agenda”, but echoed the call by Iran and others for the 2010 General Assembly accountability mechanism (which requires all relevant WIPO bodies to report on their DA implementation) to be given “renewed effect”.

Egypt too called for WIPO's various sectors to continue integrating the DA and for “efficient tools that can measure the impact of these efforts on development”, as well as for strengthened South-South cooperation.

Brazil delivered a wide-ranging statement linking several recent developments at WIPO with what it described as "dangerous attempts to erase the development mandate". It pointed to three specific incidents as evidence of this trend.

The first was discussions on the Programme and Budget for 2026–2027, during which development (as an agenda) was, in Brazil's view, inadequately reflected. Secondly, in the consultations surrounding the conditions for nomination of the Director General, one Group B member proposed language stipulating that "the Director General shall perform duties to fulfil the WIPO mandate, namely to promote the protection of intellectual property worldwide", (again) with no reference to development. Brazil called this omission "not trivial", noting that it reflected "a restrictive interpretation of WIPO's mandate that completely disregards its development dimension". Thirdly, Brazil drew attention to the fact that the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Working Group was unable to hold its regular session this year because one delegation objected to the inclusion of an agenda item related to the WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge (notably, the treaty was adopted by consensus). Brazil called this “even more concerning”.

“In the current turbulent global scenario," Brazil's delegate said, "we have been witnessing several attempts to dilute core multilateral commitments and to challenge basic international rules.”

Brazil also raised the failure of the Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications (SCT) to agree on a 2022 African Group proposal for a study on the impact of design protection for graphical user interface designs on innovation, a proposal directly linked to DA Recommendation 15, which requires that any norm-setting initiative be informed by a cost-benefit analysis for Member States at different levels of development.

Beyond this, Brazil reserved its most detailed comments for the revised project proposal on cross-border trade in counterfeit trademark goods (document CDIP/36/16), tabled by the United Kingdom and co-sponsored by Lesotho, Moldova, Saudi Arabia, and Thailand. While acknowledging the revised version of the proposal, Brazil said it remained “convinced that document CDIP/36/16 continues to reflect an imbalanced enforcement approach”. Despite references in the document to DA Recommendations 10, 11 and 45, Brazil argued that the project “shifts the Committee's focus away from the structural and systemic challenges identified by developing countries towards instead an enforcement agenda that does not reflect the development rationale of this Committee”.

Brazil noted that core development concerns (technology transfer, limited national manufacturing capacities, the need to strengthen local innovation) are absent from the proposal. The project's proposed outputs, including case studies, operational guidelines and capacity-building programmes for customs officials, fail to articulate “how these activities will contribute to inclusive development and local value creation”, it said.

Crucially, Brazil criticised the treatment of TRIPS flexibilities in the proposal. “The right of Members to fully use TRIPS flexibilities and safeguards has been relegated to a single footnote”, referring only to the commercial-scale aspect of infringement and overlooking due process, proportionality, parallel imports, and environmental considerations. Brazil insisted that “any enforcement-related initiative must explicitly reaffirm that flexibilities are essential components of a balanced approach, as mandated by Article 7 of the TRIPS Agreement”.

Brazil added that effective responses to counterfeiting require more than enforcement and border measures. “They demand comprehensive cross-sectoral strategies that tackle the economic conditions sustaining illicit trade. Without addressing structural factors, IP infringements will continue to persist, not merely as acts of criminal intent, but often as acts of economic necessity.” Brazil said it remained ready to engage constructively with proponents and the Secretariat to explore “other appropriate forums” for the project.

Brazil also strongly critiqued the DA Implementation Report focus on specific gaps. It expressed concern that the section on flexibilities in the IP system had been reduced to a "two-sentence paragraph", despite the broad scope of DA Recommendations.

Tunisia and Indonesia echoed the call for systematic monitoring of DA implementation to ensure technical assistance remains demand-driven and properly addresses Member States' diverse needs.

Algeria and Rwanda similarly championed the vital role of TRIPS flexibilities, limitations, and exceptions in maintaining a balanced global IP system that enables equitable access to technology and knowledge.