The South Centre has published an analysis of the 65th series of meetings of the Assemblies of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), highlighting ongoing tensions between developed and developing nations. Tensions at the 2024 WIPO Assemblies included the emphasis on global IP protection versus access to knowledge, the divide over copyright exceptions and limitations, controversy over the Broadcast Treaty, and differing priorities between developed and developing countries on IP. This analysis is republished with permission below:

SouthNews No. 500, 5 August 2024

Unresolved Tensions on the Impact of Intellectual Property and the Role of WIPO at the 2024 Assemblies

The 65th series of meetings of the Assemblies of Member States of the World Intellectual Organization (WIPO) convened from July 6-17, 2024, at WIPO headquarters in Geneva. The sessions brought together 22 assemblies and other WIPO bodies, including the WIPO General Assembly, to deliberate on program, budget, and oversight matters. The meetings aimed to align WIPO’s activities with its Medium-Term Strategic Plan (MTSP) for 2022-2026.

Narrow Focus on IP Promotion

The Assemblies maintained a strong focus on promoting and harmonizing global intellectual property (IP) protection, operating under the premise that robust IP protection fosters innovation and economic growth. However, this approach neglects the adverse effects IP protection may have on access to knowledge and IP protected products, such as medicines, particularly in developing countries. By prioritizing IP enforcement, WIPO may be overlooking the broader impacts of IP on society, particularly the most vulnerable, and development.

Key Outcomes of the Assemblies

Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR):

The General Assembly acknowledged the demand from the Group of Latin American and the Caribbean (GRULAC) Member States to resume biannual SCCR sessions. Although there was general agreement, the decision was left to the discretion of the WIPO Director-General, leaving the future of these critical negotiations uncertain. Despite some developed countries having robust provisions on copyright exceptions and limitations (L&Es), they continue to advocate for the expansion of copyright protection in developing countries and oppose any work program aimed at establishing international legal standards on copyright L&Es. Developing countries have consistently called for such standards to ensure broader access to knowledge, particularly for educational and research institutions, libraries and archives, and for other public interest purposes. The 2024 WIPO General Assembly failed to provide specific guidance to the SCCR on this issue, reflecting the ongoing divide between developed and developing countries on the balance of copyright protections and limitations.

US Criticism of WIPO Proposed Broadcasting Treaty:

The United States (US) argued that the current draft of the WIPO Broadcast Treaty exceeds the General Assembly’s mandate by including new exclusive rights of fixation and transmission of stored programmes, which go beyond the intended signal-based approach for traditional broadcasters. The US supported a “single exclusive right” approach to authorize simultaneous retransmissions of linear broadcast signals, aiming to address signal piracy effectively. From the perspective of developing countries, the main concern with a new treaty for the protection of broadcasting organizations is that granting stronger or additional rights, such as the right to apply technological protection measures, will create additional costs for the public and impair access to broadcast content. Traditional free-to-air and radio broadcasting remains a central mechanism for access to information, knowledge and culture, especially in remote areas and for the poor. Therefore, determining whether and how intellectual property rights should apply to broadcasting is a developmental issue requiring careful balancing. Although the US noted that some countries have voiced concerns over the draft treaty, no other delegation explicitly supported the US position that the current draft is non-compliant with the 2006/07 mandates. The General Assembly did not provide any guidance to the SCCR in this regard.

Reporting to the Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP):

Developing countries successfully pushed for a reminder to all WIPO bodies to report back to the CDIP on activities related to the WIPO Development Agenda, a practice that had lapsed in recent years. In 2010 the WIPO General Assembly had adopted a decision which established the CDIP coordination mechanism principles and instructed “relevant WIPO bodies to include in their annual report to the Assemblies, a description of their contribution to the implementation of the respective Development Agenda Recommendations.” The 2017 WIPO General Assembly had reaffirmed its commitment to the full implementation of this decision. However, implementation of this decision was overlooked by all WIPO Standing Committees in their reports to the General Assembly in recent years.

Developed Countries’ Perspectives

The regional and cross-regional groups of developed countries in WIPO made the following general statements:

Netherlands (Group B) and Moldova (CEBS): The Netherlands on behalf of the Group B reiterated the need to move the Assemblies back to fall and highlighted support for Ukraine’s IP sector amidst the ongoing conflict with Russia. They praised WIPO’s financial performance and the consensus on the normative agenda, affirming IP’s role in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These views were echoed by Moldova on behalf of the group of Central European and Baltic States (CEBS).

Hungary (European Union): Hungary on behalf of the European Union emphasized continued support for Ukraine’s IP sector and expressed concerns over WIPO’s office in Russia. They stressed their commitment to advancing IP systems focusing on sustainability and digital transitions.

Tajikistan (CACEEC): Tajikistan on behalf of  the group of Central Asia, Caucasus and Eastern Europe countries (CACEEC) underscored the need for equitable geographic representation within WIPO and advocated for the inclusion of Russian as an official language. They praised the new treaty on IP, Genetic Resources, and Traditional Knowledge.

Developing Countries’ Perspectives

In their general statements, regional groups of developing countries  put emphasis on a more inclusive and equitable approach to WIPO’s activities. They collectively stressed the need for WIPO to adhere more strictly to its Development Agenda, ensuring that IP systems are accessible to small and medium enterprises, marginalized groups, and developing countries. Additionally, they highlighted the importance of better geographical representation within WIPO’s governance, procedural efficiency, and balanced IP systems that facilitate access to knowledge and technology, particularly in digital environments and artificial intelligence (AI). The regional groups made several statements:

Kenya (African Group): Kenya on behalf  of the African Group emphasized the need for WIPO to adhere more strictly to its Development Agenda, calling for increased accessibility of IP to small and medium enterprises, women, youth, and individuals with disabilities. They stressed the importance of technology transfer and capacity building, particularly in artificial intelligence.

Iran (Asia and the Pacific Group): Iran on behalf of the Asia and the Pacific Group highlighted concerns over the inadequate representation of its members in WIPO’s governing bodies and criticized procedural inefficiencies. They urged for a more systematic approach to integrating geographical representation in WIPO activities and decision-making processes.

Chile (GRULAC): Chile on behalf of GRULAC advocated for a balanced IP system that protects rights holders while facilitating access to knowledge and technology. They supported the implementation of WIPO’s Development Agenda recommendations and called for biannual SCCR sessions to address issues like digital environments and AI.

South Centre Statement

The South Centre congratulated WIPO Member States on adopting the WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources, and Traditional Knowledge. It urged rapid adherence to the treaty and related amendments to the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). It called for increased commitment to copyright limitations and exceptions in WIPO’s normative work. The South Centre emphasized WIPO’s responsibility as a United Nations (UN) specialized agency to uphold the Development Agenda and expressed concern over a side event co-hosted by WIPO with major pharmaceutical corporations. It urged the General Assembly to instruct all WIPO bodies to resume reporting on the implementation of the Development Agenda. The South Centre also expressed solidarity with the State of Palestine, condemning actions against civilians and cultural heritage, educational, health, and other institutions. (1)  

Final Remarks

The WIPO Assemblies of 2024 transpired once again the unresolved tensions between developed and developing countries regarding global IP protection and WIPO’s role. While developed countries focused on IP enforcement and financial sustainability, developing countries emphasized equitable access, geographical representation, and adherence to the Development Agenda. The differing priorities underscored the need for a more inclusive approach to global IP governance.

Endnote:

(1) The South Centre held a preparatory briefing for delegations on 25th June to provide a platform for developing countries to exchange views on key issues to be addressed in the discussions at the WIPO Assemblies.

Author: Nirmalya Syam is Senior Programme Officer of the Health, Intellectual Property and Biodiversity Programme (HIPB) of the South Centre.