By Andres Izquierdo and Katie McGee
The 49th session of WIPO’s Intergovernmental Committee (IGC) concluded with strong debates and unresolved issues dominating the discussions related to the draft texts on traditional knowledge (TK) and traditional cultural expressions (TCEs). Despite efforts to reconcile diverging views, the session highlighted deep-seated challenges in achieving consensus on critical issues.
A key focus of the session was the revised texts on TK and TCEs, which aim to establish legal frameworks for protecting Indigenous and local community rights against misappropriation. Despite the facilitators’ attempts to incorporate diverse proposals, criticism emerged over the methodology. Delegations from the African Group, Like-Minded Countries (LMCs), and GRULAC argued that the texts had become overly bloated, straying from the session’s mandate to narrow gaps and reduce divergences.
Countries including Kenya, Nigeria, and Brazil questioned whether the revised texts advanced the IGC’s goals, as it included the addition of numerous alternatives and unresolved issues exacerbating divisions rather than fostering common ground. Jamaica and Samoa proposed merging the texts into a single document to streamline future discussions and reflect the interconnected nature of these issues. However, others, including India and Brazil, stressed the need to revisit earlier documents, such as the Chair’s nonpaper, which they believed provided a more balanced and coherent starting point for negotiations. Meanwhile, concerns over vague terminology, such as “other beneficiaries,” further complicated matters, with the European Union calling for greater clarity.
The meeting concluded without consensus on transmitting the revised texts to the next session. Delegates widely agreed that the current approach, which sought to reflect all inputs without applying filters or prioritization, had failed to deliver on the Committee’s mandate. Uganda emphasized the impracticality of reviewing over 120 pages of revised texts in the limited time available, calling for a more streamlined and results-oriented approach, a sentiment echoed by India. Pakistan and Bolivia echoed concerns that the lack of clarity and focus in the revised texts hindered meaningful progress.
As WIPO’s IGC prepares for its 50th session, the stakes remain high. The unresolved debates over TK and TCEs reflect broader challenges in balancing the interests of developed and developing countries, Indigenous communities, and other stakeholders. With time running out to achieve the IGC’s ambitious goals, the next session will test whether WIPO’s members can find common ground and move closer to finalizing international frameworks for protection of traditional knowledge and cultural expressions.
Find below the transcript of the country statements with regards the facilitators proposed texts:
“5. Traditional Knowledge/Traditional Cultural Expressions – The Protection of Traditional Knowledge: Draft Articles and The Protection of Traditional Cultural Expressions
CHAIR: It also aimed to capture all proposals that were presented in the plenary during this week.
We went through all the articles and all issues were hence discussed.
I think it happened in a positive atmosphere and with the focus of improving some core issues as well.
I have some technical things that I wanted to clarify still in the documents themselves.
So the both documents apart from containing the proposals that were made made them a little bit lengthy.
At the same time they are also focused on the work that was achieved at 47 session.
So the 47/4 and 47/5 are there, are captured in the facilitators alternative, the first one in those cases where we have two facilitators alternatives.
The purpose of this is to be able to compare the open issues that still need attention in order to get even more support for that facilitators article.
So that the purpose is that we can move ahead with the positive feeling of gaining momentum and using the momentum that we have from this year and from the adoption of the GR/ATK Treaty.
The facilitators also removed alternatives that were not supported by any Member States or even commented on and that is a way to as well address and update let’s say the whole array of views that this Committee has on these two topics.
So with these initial remarks I would like to open the floor for commenting and then for this Committee to take note of those comments as they have been put on the record and then transmit this document to the 50th session of the IGC.
I open now the floor for comments.
I see Group B, Netherlands, you have the floor.
NETHERLANDS, KINGDOM OF THE (GROUP B COORDINATOR): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Group B would like to thank the facilitators for their hard and diligent work.
In this group’s view the revised documents produced as a result of an inclusive process and reflected different views and positions of the membership.
So therefore we would agree to transferring these documents to IGC 50 and our members will gladly put forward more substantive comments on the documents at the next session.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
INDONESIA (LIKE-MINDED COUNTRIES): Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am taking the floor on behalf of the cross-regional coalition of like-minded countries.
Madam Chair, at the start of this 49th session the LMCs came with the firm intention to engage with every effort in narrowing gaps and advancing discussions on the draft legal text on TK and TCEs. The group arrived with optimism renewed by the possibilities offered as you mentioned by the two new Treaties which we believe should have brought many lessons learned and a refreshed process to our negotiations. Yet over the course of this week and upon receiving the revised text the group has had to reconsider and reflect. To reflect on what this committee has now before us, to reflect on a methodology that focuses more on capturing comments rather than reflecting on what would narrow gaps and divergences. To consider revised text that now have more facilitators alt and alternatives than what we started with at the start of the session, a text that we feel is taking this committee backwards rather than moving us forward. So upon reflecting we have asked ourselves the following questions: Is this committee making progress? Is the methodology working? And are we as a committee narrowing the gaps as mandated? And upon reflecting on these questions and having viewed the revised text we have before us, the LMCs would like to state for the record that it would not be in a position to agree for the revised text to be forwarded or transferred to the 50th session. And the details, rationale and specific comments regarding the text will be provided by the LMC Member States.
EU (European Union): Chair, we would like to congratulate you for your effective leadership on this session and we would also like to thank the facilitators for the work undertaken in the preparation of the revised text. We see the outcome of discussions reflected in a balanced text including proposals that reflect the various views expressed during the session. We welcome that the proposals not supported by any Delegation have been deleted which helped cleaning up and updating the text. And we also welcome that Indigenous Peoples have been capitalized and it is included in a consistent manner throughout the text. However, we are not so keen on the inclusion of other beneficiaries in numerous points of the text as we see that this term leads to uncertainty and it has not been sufficiently clarified what it is meant by other beneficiaries and who will be included in this category. Now it is time to go back to our capitals and to reflect on the text that had been proposed in preparation for the next IGC session. And we will be happy to continue discussing the new text versions proposed by the facilitators in IGC 50.
KENYA (AFRICAN GROUP COORDINATOR): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
The African Group wishes to thank the facilitators for their hard work and efforts to come up with the two revised texts. We understand the lengths that they have gone into to try to come up with the revised documents. We also thank the Secretariat for the support rendered in these efforts.
Madam Chair, the African Group has considered the two new texts within the very short time that was available. And though we are yet to make a comprehensive analysis of the documents, we wish to make the following preliminary observations. First, the group regrets that the gallant efforts of the facilitators have unfortunately not helped in delivering the mandate of this IGC session which is to close the gaps and reduce the divergences in the current text. On the contrary, the resultant text is quite bloated with additional texts and alternatives. We believe this is the result of a problem with the implementation of the methodology which lay emphasis on collecting further comments rather than focusing on narrowing the gaps. We will be coming up with further comments as we study the documents but at this point we want to make it clear that the African Group is not in a position to support the forwarding of the two facilitators’ alternatives to the 58th session of the IGC. The African Group also aligns with the statement delivered by the Distinguished Delegate of Indonesia on behalf of the LMC.
CHILE (GRULAC COORDINATOR): Chile is taking the floor to represent GRULAC.
Obviously we would like to genuinely thank the facilitators for their work. We know it is not easy to facilitate Delegations in a Committee such as this one where positions are very complex. However, Madam Chairman, we do have some concerns with respect to these texts presented. The main one is to whether these texts have achieved in fact the purpose of narrowing the gaps if the text is making progress or is in fact going backwards. We know at least we consider that narrowing gaps can be subjective when a proposal reduces gaps and as to when it broadens the gap can depend on the person observing it. But in this case from our standpoint it is not complying with narrowing the gaps and we would also like at the same time review the proposals to at least know the ideas of the facilitators when they accepted some proposal and some discarding others which like to know what they had in mind, particularly in regard to the mandate that we have at this session. This being said, and also GRULAC members consider that their positions were not satisfactorily covered and therefore we consider that this is not the best basis to pursue our discussions. We would certainly like to stay open to working on different texts.
So we would say we would not like to transmit this text for the next session as a basis for our further work.
Thank you.
MAURITANIA: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I very much agree with the African Group and also what was said by Kenya. We would like to endorse the proposals made by the African Group. This is our position at the present time.
Thank you.
RUSSIAN FEDERATION: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I would like to ask the Secretariat and you, Madam Chair, a technical question. What happens with the two texts which we see now before usr If the Committee does not support their transfer to the next session, thank you very much for your clarification in advance.
Thank you very much for the Russian Federation’s question.
CHAIR: So to clarify, if this text would not be transmitted to the next session, the documents 49/4 and 49/5 would remain as such. So we would lose all the work that we have done this week. Next speaker, Nigeria followed by Jamaica.
NIGERIA: Thank you, Madam Chair. Nigeria joins all the speakers before her to commend the facilitators for taking a very challenging job head on and for all their trouble and efforts. Nigeria would like to identify with the representation made by Kenya on behalf of the African Group and made by Indonesia on behalf of the group of like-minded states. Nigeria would restrain from getting into specifics as to why Nigeria is aligning with those statements, but we will make a kind of global remark at this point in time. Madam Chair, the rev documents by facilitators for the 49th session is fundamentally flawed because of the fundamentally flawed process that it did.
We didn’t identify the unresolved issues or the cross-cutting issues in any intentional manner aimed at narrowing gaps. And I’m speaking directly from our mandate. We did not consider options for draft legal instruments, juxtaposition of these two instruments, TKs in one side, TCEs in another.
We have done this before and we thought that moving forward we were going to consider more concretely what the options before us were, and that is to say we had an earlier document from this session where those documents have been merged in a synergistic manner and gave us some seamless sense of how to proceed. So Madam Chair, our Delegation believes that we have totally failed on the mandates of this IGC session and the evidence to back that up is reflected in the bloated rev documents from the facilitators.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
JAMAICA: Thank you for giving me the floor, Madam Chair. As it is the first time that Jamaica is taking the floor, I congratulate you and the Vice Chair on your election and thank you for guiding the discussions at this, the 49th Intergovernmental Committee. Heading into the sessions this week, it was understood that Delegations would strive to build convergence on the draft provisions in relation to traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions. These discussions would compliment the arduous work undertaken in previous IGCs to produce text that is balanced despite requiring continued reflections on matters that are yet to be agreed. Instead of building bridges and moving forward closer to our targets of having a fully agreed text, however, it is seen where the process has been bombarded with obstacles in the form of a multiplicity of proposals and the reopening of previously agreed text. These practices appear to contradict the very premise of convening this IGC. Jamaica, therefore, aligns with the statements delivered by GRULAC and the group of like-minded countries. We further suggest that we revisit the current working methodology and propose that consideration be given to previous work undertaken, including the consideration of the former Chair’s text in advancing future discussions in the IGC. Earlier in the week, we heard some Delegations express the desire to merge the two texts as traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions should not be viewed in silos but as complimentary elements of the protections to be given to indigenous peoples and local communities. In the spirit of consensus building and noting the plight of indigenous peoples and local communities during this IGC, Jamaica encourages the merging of the two texts to advance the consensus building process. Jamaica remains committed to multilateralism as the vehicle to achieve our collective Intellectual Property objectives and reiterates its commitments to constructively contributing to the negotiations to unfold.
I thank you, Madam Chair.
.
GHANA: The Delegation of Ghana aligns itself with the statement delivered by Kenya on behalf of the African Group and Indonesia on behalf of the LMCs. Thank you.
NIGER: Madam Chair, thank you very much for giving me the floor. First of all, I should like to congratulate the facilitators on their tremendous work and the efforts they have undertaken to synthesize the texts. Second, I said previously I think that since the start of the negotiations we have called into question the methodology because the methodology as adopted has led necessarily to worsening the differences. The same reasons produce the same effects because this has led to a juxtaposition of the various points of view which has in turn worsened the divergences that exist.
We do not have the time to illustrate what we mean but let’s look at the case of the provision on the beneficiaries. With regard to the position that we had before, this methodology has worsened the differences and the divergences. These differences are more striking if you look at the case of exceptions and limitations. By allowing exceptions in a detailed fashion, in particular exceptions of a general nature, specific exceptions which in any case are detailed on several pages, this destroys and ruins all of the rights which are conferred in the two texts. This is the comment that my Delegation would like to make at this level. As we proposed on previous occasions, we feel that even if the texts of the former Chair is considered to be a so-called nonpaper, this text has the benefit and a number of major benefits.
The first benefit is that this text merged the two topics, i.e., traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions. I believe that many Delegates here have mentioned this. It is an opportunity to reiterate that point, but the major benefit of this text is that this text has reduced the differences in keeping with the negotiation mandate which will allow us to make headway. Our proposal is to propose this document as a negotiation document for the next session of the Committee.
I thank you for your kind attention.
MEXICO: During this week Delegations presented their proposals orally and some of them made a considerable number of proposals. However, not having these proposals in writing for a more detailed analysis, many of us were not able to speak on these matters in real time. This obviously limited our understanding on the part of the Delegations as well as that of the Facilitators as to the proposals and presentations themselves. We think the text presented yesterday by the Facilitators reflect this ambiguity.
Our concern lies with the fact that due to the lack of clarity of our working methods followed in this session, we might arrive at the next meeting with a basic text that includes amendments and additions that do not meet with clear backing or do, in fact, reflect a true balance of what we what was stated. The explanation received yesterday as to the criteria used by Facilitators was very brief and insufficient given that many Delegations were not able to express their opinion as to these new proposals.
We think that the Facilitators did not have sufficient elements to allow for a better informed opinion.
This is why we would associate ourselves with the position expressed by Chile on behalf of GRULAC.
Thank you very much.
KENYA (AFRICAN GROUP COORDINATOR): Thank you very much, Madam Chair and a very good morning to you and the team. Thank you for giving Kenya the capacity to speak as the Delegation of Kenya. Thank you to the Facilitators, Ms. Aurelia Schultz and Professor Kuruk for the adverse task of trying to come up with a text that would be favorable to Member States. Madam Chair, we want to, as the Delegation of Kenya, support the sentiments expressed by the African Group coordinator. We do support comments and views expressed by previous speakers in support of this matter, specifically the LMCs and GRULAC. We must guide the integrity of the text and continue to narrow gaps.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
UGANDA: Thank you, Chair. The Delegation of Uganda on the outset associates itself with the statement made by Delegation of Indonesia on behalf of LMCs and Kenya on behalf of the African Group. We received over 120 pages of text yesterday, if you look at the track, one with track changes and the other with the clean text. And we are required to make a decision on noting, if I got you correctly, we do not believe, Chair, that it is reasonable, practical, to take this kind of course of action to proceed with the documents which we do not know what they say or do not say simply because of the time constraints that are obtaining. So noting these limitations in time and particularly in terms of the IG sessions that are coming up, I think two of them before the next General Assemblies, we request you, Chair, that you consider suitable methodology that reflects the mandate of this Committee, particularly ensuring that we narrow the gaps but also that our work is result oriented.
Thank you, Chair.
ALGERIA: Thank you, Madame Chair. Algeria aligns itself with the statement delivered by the Distinguished Delegate of Kenya on behalf of the African Group. We also support the intervention made by the Distinguished Delegate of Indonesia on behalf of the like-minded countries. We fully support the two groups in all the concerns which have been raised in their statement.
I thank you.
BRAZIL: Thank you, Madame Chair. This Delegation aligns itself to the statements provided by GRULAC and the like-minded countries. Madame Chair, the revised texts after a careful analysis are not in harmony with the mandate that we together drafted for this session, especially in terms of narrowing existing gaps towards common understanding. Although fruitful, our discussion were captured in a way that no filters were applied according to the mandate. And that could be provided as well objectively and technically along the day today to the Secretariat or to the facilitators to explain why we are coming to that conclusion. Well, the outcome is a product of the work methodology and the failure of the work methodology adopted in this sense. And it is the impression of this Delegation that work methodology for the next session should be revised, including rescuing a more balanced basis for text negotiations.
In conclusion, Madame Chair, it is time for us to reflect and to seek for solutions and I do think we, especially because of such an important year for this organization and all the Member States in which we were able to extract consensus from subject matter that for so long have been taking us apart from each other. So let’s take those examples as the perspective that should guide us today in terms of salvaging the work that we have done this week and securing the way forward for the 50th session of the IGC.
Thank you very much.
ETHIOPIA: Thank you, Chair. My Delegation aligns itself with the position presented by Distinguished Delegate of Kenya as African Group and as a like-minded group presented by Indonesia. We look forward for a better engagement and methodology to narrow the gaps among Member States.
Thank you.
EGYPT: Thank you, Madam Chair. At the outset, Egypt Delegation would like to express its thanks to the facilitators for their efforts and work. Our Delegation aligns itself with the statement delivered by Kenya on behalf of the African Group and Indonesia on behalf of the LMC Group. We do believe that the outcome as presented by the two rev documents are not consistent with the main goal of our meeting of this ICG session which is mainly just with the focus to narrow the gaps. Therefore, our Delegation is not in a position to accept submitting the two rev documents to the coming session.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
INDIA: Madam Chair, thank you for giving me the floor. On this, these two rev drafts that have been presented, we first of all would like to align with what our colleagues from the LMC explained. Also, I must admire all those Delegations who have been able to utilize the short period of time to do a very careful examination because, frankly speaking, it is still in the works as far as we are concerned.
It is definitely a lot to take in after doing all these sessions. When I look at the documents briefly, I definitely agree with some of the concerns expressed by some of our Delegations, which includes one about not following the working method, not adhering to the idea of narrowing the gaps and actually presenting a text that is actually much more bloated than the original text. I can also say on behalf of my Delegation that at places where we had preferred a certain text in one of those articles, many of those have been struck through. As we go through the process, I can see it happening at several places. So in a sense, yes, this is a Herculean task. It is a difficult task to bring all the opinions on board. But what this text has actually done is rather than narrowing the differences, it appears to magnify the differences and it appears to magnify those gaps. We also see the value in looking at the Chair’s text which is attached as a nonpaper as we went through the 49th IGC. So we do see the value in also having a careful assessment of the Chair’s text. But at the end, the only thing I would like to say is that our Delegation is not convinced for getting these revised texts to be taken up for further examination in the next session.
Thank you.
SAMOA: Samoa has always maintained that TKTCEs and Genetic Resources are inseparable.
Genetic Resources are necessary to expressing our cultures, whether it be costumes, artifacts to express our cultures and traditions or with regard to traditional medicines. This was the basis for Samoa’s position in the DLT to include Genetic Resources as part of the text. But we note the gist of the current positions by LMCs, the African Group, GRULAC and Nigeria as well and we are in support. We also support the sentiments with regard to merging the two texts in the future. We see this as important in narrowing gaps.
We also strongly support the proposal by Jamaica to elevate the status of the Chair’s text from nonpaper to a working document in IGC also in the interest of narrowing gaps in the future. I thank you, Madam Chair.
PAKISTAN (APG COORDINATOR): I deliver the statement in my national capacity. The Delegation of Pakistan aligns itself with the statement delivered by the LMCs. We thank the facilitators for their hard work in producing a revised version of the TK and TCEs’ texts. However, similar to what has been stated by several Delegations before us, we take the floor to convey our concerns on whether this meeting has sufficiently fulfilled the task before it in line with the mandate of the IGC. In our view, there is a need to converge all the efforts concerning Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions towards a single text which can form the basis of convening a Diplomatic Conference. My Delegation is not convinced that the revised texts are ready to be transmitted to the next session of the IGC.
I thank you.
LESOTHO: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I would like to appreciate the work of facilitators and I support and align myself, Delegation of Lesotho, to support an alliance with the statement made by African Group and the MLC and we will not agree with the revised text being forwarded to the next IGC session. Thank you.
BOLIVIA, PLURINATIONAL STATE OF: Thank you, Chairman. We would just like to associate ourselves with the comments of Chile on behalf of GRULAC as well as Indonesia on behalf of the LMCs. We think it’s important to have clear working methods and that they reflect the true mandate of the IGC. For our countries it’s very important, it’s one of the primary approaches, should be narrowing the gaps. So we thank them for the work done, but we think it’s very clear to present the positions of states and these positions should be clearly identified when they introduce a new text. We think we still have to study and keep in mind our methodology which is so important for the next session. In this sense, the text presented to us by the facilitators do not seem to be correct in terms of transmitting them to the next session.”
[End of document]
