Blog Post: IIPSJ Attendance at the 52nd WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC)
(March 4 – 13, 2026, Geneva Switzerland)
By Dalindyebo Shabalala, Academic Co-Director and Professor of Law, Suffolk IP Center
Executive Summary
IIPSJ attended the 52nd session of the WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore in March 2026. Represented by Prof. Dalindyebo Shabalala (Suffolk Law IP Center), this was the next step in IIPSJ’s engagement at WIPO, expanding the work already being done by Dr. Metka Potocnik in the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) and the WIPO General Assemblies (see https://iipsj.org/programs/iipsj-international/).
After the long in gestation success of the WIPO Treaty on Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge (see https://www.wipo.int/en/web/traditional-knowledge/wipo-treaty-on-ip-gr-and-associated-tk) this session was the first after a difficult negotiation for renewal of the mandate of the IGC at the WIPO IGC in June 2025 and the WIPO General Assemblies in July 2025. That mandate for 2026-27, asked that
“The Committee will, during the budgetary biennium 2026/2027, in a Member
State driven process, continue its work on the protection of genetic resources (GRs),
traditional knowledge (TK) and traditional cultural expressions (TCEs), with the
objective of finalizing an agreement on an international legal instrument(s), without
prejudging the nature of outcome(s), relating to intellectual property, which will
ensure the balanced and effective protection of TK and TCEs”
The question of the mandate came up as an issue quite quickly, in the structure of the agenda. The session began with Information sessions for the first three days rather than heading straight into text-based discussions, something which was noted by the African Group. While such Information sessions are always interesting, they represent a much earlier phase of the IGC negotiations where evidence gathering and sharing of experiences helped create an evidence base and persuaded member countries of the need for action. There were real concerns that this was an attempt to take a step back rather than build on the success of the WIPO GRATK Treaty. However, the need for a transition was also evident in that the IGC was being led by a new Chair and Vice-Chair as well as new leadership in the Secretariat. This may explain the somewhat slow start e.g. the fully proposed method of work for the session was not sent to all delegations until the first Friday of the session, three days in. However, the US delegation also saw fit to make a proposal for a survey questionnaire to “ascertain the operational aspects of sui generis systems in existence for the protection of TK and TCEs”. This was a relatively transparent effort to use further study to delay taking the next step into treaty text negotiations. IIPSJ provided an analysis and supported other civil society delegations in their response (see Blog Post). This was understood as a delaying tactic rather than a genuine attempt to seek evidence and information. There is already plenty of evidence of countries’ laws and case studies describing what countries are doing to protect traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions. It was opposed by most countries but there was a danger that it would provide an excuse for other delegations such as the EU to delay their commitment to moving forward with negotiations. In the end the proposal was not adopted and it was postponed for discussion at the next session.
Much of the discussion in the second week was held in non-recorded informal session, available via audio to civil society organizations but with participation of the Indigenous Caucus. The discussions went directly into text-based discussions on the draft texts for the protection of traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions. The most reassuring element of these relatively early discussions is how much expertise was apparent on the part of the participants and how much goodwill and support the Chair received. This bodes well for the nature and tone of future discussions.
In terms of outcomes (https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/tk/en/wipo_grtkf_ic_52/wipo_grtkf_ic_52_7.pdf) there were few of any note. Notably:
“The Committee worked, including text-based negotiations, on the basis of documents WIPO/GRTKF/IC/52/4 and WIPO/GRTKF/IC/52/5 and decided to continue this work on the basis of these documents at its next session.”
IIPSJ will be attending the next session to work with and support partner organizations.
Full Report
IIPSJ attended the 52nd session of the WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore in March. Represented by Prof. Dalindyebo Shabalala (Suffolk Law IP Center), this was the next step in IIPSJ’s engagement at WIPO, expanding the work already being done by Dr. Metka Potocnik in the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) and the WIPO General Assemblies (see https://iipsj.org/programs/iipsj-international/).
After the long in gestation success of the WIPO Treaty on Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge (see https://www.wipo.int/en/web/traditional-knowledge/wipo-treaty-on-ip-gr-and-associated-tk) this session was the first after a difficult negotiation for renewal of the mandate of the IGC at the WIPO IGC in June 2025 and the WIPO General Assemblies in July 2025. That mandate for 2026-27, asked that
“The Committee will, during the budgetary biennium 2026/2027, in a Member
State driven process, continue its work on the protection of genetic resources (GRs),
traditional knowledge (TK) and traditional cultural expressions (TCEs), with the
objective of finalizing an agreement on an international legal instrument(s), without
prejudging the nature of outcome(s), relating to intellectual property, which will
ensure the balanced and effective protection of TK and TCEs”
The question of the mandate came up as an issue quite quickly, in the structure of the agenda. The session began with Information sessions for the first three days rather than heading straight into text based discussions something which was noted by the African Group. While such Information sessions are always interesting, they represent a much earlier phase of the IGC negotiations where evidence gathering and sharing of experiences helped create an evidence base and persuaded member countries of the need for action. There were real concerns that this was an attempt to take a step back rather than build on the success of the WIPO GRATK Treaty. However, the need for a transition was also evident in that the IGC was being led by a new Chair and Vice-Chair as well as new leadership in the Secretariat. This may explain the somewhat slow start and we can see this in that the fully proposed method of work for the session was not sent to all delegations until the first Friday of the session, three days in. However, the US delegation also saw fit to make a proposal for a survey questionnaire to “ascertain the operational aspects of sui generis systems in existence for the protection of TK and TCEs”. This was a relatively transparent effort to use further study to delay taking the next step into treaty text negotiations. IIPSJ provided an analysis and supported other civil society delegations in their response. (see Annex I). This was understood as a delaying tactic rather than a genuine plan to seek for evidence and information. There is already plenty of evidence of countries’ laws and case studies describing what countries are doing to protect traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions. It was opposed by most countries but there was a danger that it would provide an excuse for other delegations such as the EU to delay their commitment to moving forward with negotiations. In the end the proposal was not adopted and it was postponed for discussion at the next session.
Much of the discussion in the second week was held in non-recorded informal session, available via audio to civil society organizations but with participation of the Indigenous Caucus. The discussions went directly into text based discussions on the draft texts for the protection of traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions. The most reassuring element of these relatively early discussions is how much expertise was apparent on the part of the participants and how much goodwill and support the Chair received. This bodes well for the nature and tone of future discussions.
The Chair’s note’s following the IGC (https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/tk/en/wipo_grtkf_ic_52/wipo_grtkf_ic_52_www_657746.pdf) pointed out that informal discussions focused on:
1. Beneficiaries – who are the beneficiaries of the instrument(s) and how can we define them to provide legal certainty while allowing for adaptability at national levels? (Article 4 in both texts);
2. Eligibility criteria – what is the knowledge or cultural expression(s) that is covered by the instrument(s) and how can we define this to provide legal certainty while allowing for breadth of applicability at national levels? (Article 3 in both texts);
3. Objectives – why is the instrument(s) necessary and how does it conceptualise the interaction with other instruments/systems? (Article 2 in both texts); and
4. Scope – how is the knowledge or cultural expression(s) recognized and through what mechanisms? (Article 5 in both texts).
The Chair’s note provides an extensive assessment of the informal negotiations and where he sees significant opportunities for convergence/agreement and reconciling different concerns. On future work the Chair noted the following issues he thought member states should address before the next session:
Beneficiaries
1. Can the Committee:
• Taking note of the separate article(s) on the administration of rights/interests, outline a concept of whom ‘other beneficiaries’ are intended to be?
• Provide textual proposals outlining this concept of ‘other beneficiaries’, while providing Member States with sufficient flexibility to apply it in their national circumstances?
• Find a textual solution to address the remaining need around the term Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities?
Eligibility Criteria
2. Can the Committee:
• Carefully acknowledging differences, consider the questions (within their context above):
o How can we describe the difference between a legitimate innovation that is created by and belongs to an individual who is from an Indigenous People or Local Community, as opposed to an innovation by that same person that belongs to the Indigenous People or Local Community?
o How can we ensure that as Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities continue to develop cultural expressions and knowledge that they, as the holders, are able to determine how and when they are used within 50 years?
• Discuss examples around why there is a need to be able to add further criteria for protection at a national level?
Objectives
3. Can the Committee:
• Following an ‘Evidence-based Sharing Session’, develop a deeper conceptual understanding of the positive protection of traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions. With this, determine if there is a need for textual fine tuning of the positive protection within the objective article(s)?
• Within the defensive protection objective, identify and agree on a technical or general term to replace or add to the “erroneous grant of intellectual property rights” to broaden its meaning to intellectual property rights that are not ‘granted’.
• Move any text relating to ‘direct outcomes’ of the instrument(s) to the Preamble, at this time, or in the future.
Scope of Protection
4. Can the Committee:
• Further explore ways to conceptualise the relationship between measures and rights-based approaches, noting the existing role of the tiered approach.
• Develop choices for the Committee that are less binary in nature to create more negotiating room relating to scope of protection.
• Consider and amend the terminology ‘safeguard’ in Article 5 of both texts.
The Chair has made a good beginning and has appropriately outlined some key next steps. By focusing parties on specific pieces of work, the Chair pushes past the basic question of whether to negotiate in the first place. However, the issues he has identified are also some of the most difficult and contentious and are not likely to be resolved at the next session, let alone by the next biennium. By the end of the next meeting the Chair should present a vision of what needs to be accomplished in terms of progress to present at the next renewal of the mandate.
In terms of outcomes (https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/tk/en/wipo_grtkf_ic_52/wipo_grtkf_ic_52_7.pdf) there were few of any note. Notably:
“The Committee worked, including text-based negotiations, on the basis of documents WIPO/GRTKF/IC/52/4 and WIPO/GRTKF/IC/52/5 and decided to continue this work on the basis of these documents at its next session.”
The work of this next phase of international work on the protection of traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions. The hurdle of whether or not to seek further outcomes and protections has been overcome. The hope is that it will not take another 25 years to come to another outcome on these issues.
Annex I
Analytical Note on the US Proposal for a “Questionnaire on the use of sui generis protections for Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions, a Summary Report of responses received, and a Presentation of results (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/52/6)”
Top Line Summary
1. If the US believes it needs further information to inform its own actions it should proceed and generate that information itself.
2. The proposal from the US is vague and over-broad and is not technically capable of being completed accurately within the time frame proposed.
3. Other norm-setting processes at WIPO have not been subjected to the same standard of evidence or proof being proposed by the US, and the main issue, establishing the existence of the misappropriation problem, has already been done.
4. The purpose of the proposal is to delay progress on text-based negotiations and will have that effect if adopted, whatever the best intentions of some countries.
I. Introduction
The US has made a proposal for further study to enable ‘evidence- based’ decision-making in moving forward on the treaty texts. While the renewed mandate leaves the door open for further studies, it states that such studies should NOT prevent or delay progress on text-based negotiations. As a matter of realpolitik, the US opposes moving forward on the text-based negotiations. Its proposal would likely have that effect as the US would seek to refer to the study as necessary to be presented before it could commit to further action. The US has made it clear that it believes that the IGC should take a pause to determine the necessity of continuing the work of the committee. While the US is willing to say this somewhat more bluntly, this is something that its partners in Group B may be less willing to state in the same way. This may explain why the US is putting this proposal forward at this time, knowing that it is likely to be opposed by the majority of countries but especially the African group. However, the proposal does enable the US to provide cover and a means for other Group B members, if they so wish, to support further study, with an implied understanding that it will be a means of asking for delays at a later date, to wait for results before moving forward on stronger action. It may therefore be a means by which Group B can maintain some cohesion with the US in the next two sessions. The response then should be aimed at eroding the ability of other Group B members, especially the EU, to use the US proposal as cover. A response should be aimed at weakening the apparent reasonableness and rationality of the proposal such that it is less able to serve as cover and with that in mind, the following potential criticisms can be put forward by member states, indigenous representatives and civil society organizations.
II. Analysis
The United States has made a proposal that it believes there is relevant missing information to inform its positions in the negotiations in the WIPO IGC. The proposal would involve a survey that places a further unplanned and unfunded burden on the secretariat and other member states to generate that information on its behalf. This requires additional financial resources and personnel on the part of the secretariat AND on the part of other member states. Given that there is some gap between member states as to whether such purported information is even required or whether it is actually unavailable, it would seem that the initial burden for showing that such a gap exists should fall on the US. If it believes that such a gap needs to be filled it may be appropriate to expend its own very considerable financial, technical and personnel resources to support such research and surveys. This work can be carried out through institutions such as Fulbright Scholarships, National Science Foundation, National Endowment for the Humanities Funding and Fellowships, Department of State, USAID etc.
Of additional concern is the sheer breadth of the survey.
“instances of compliance with requirements under such systems (e.g., registration of TK and TCEs, recordation of agreements, government approvals), information on the number and details of any adjudications or enforcement outcomes or other forms of dispute resolution occurring under these systems, concrete outcomes delivered by the systems (for TK and TCE holders, governments, interested third parties, and society at large (including commercialization of TK or TCEs)), and financial sustainability (including the costs of administering the systems versus economic benefits generated (e.g., royalties)). “
It presents a methodological challenge requiring capabilities not present in the Secretariat nor necessarily in any particular consultant or set of consultants. The information is not simply available in existing databases or documents but would have to actually be generated as part of the study. The stakeholders who would need to be surveyed at the national level differ immensely and would require significant resources to reach. In each specific area:
1. “registration of TK and TCEs, recordation of agreements, government approvals” – such information is likely in the hands of multiple government agencies not just a specific department of TK and TCEs. The coordination process for generating and identifying such information is extensive. This is a significant study all by itself.
2. “information on the number and details of any adjudications or enforcement outcomes or other forms of dispute resolution occurring under these systems” – this would require ensuring that the universe of cases be identified in the courts of first instance, if at all, as well as in other dispute mechanisms, such as customary courts. The cases would have to be reported and published, and have received some type of final adjudication. This would be separate from other dispute settlement mechanisms such as arbitration, which may or may not be published, as well as decisions and dispute settled by regulatory bodies. This, again, is a significant study all by itself, likely lasting at least 2 years in any specific jurisdiction. For example, in the United States, simply gathering the universe of cases especially in tribal jurisdictions would be an extensive task. This would require assessing and summarizing each case for its outcomes, characterizing it as falling into specific categories and then analyzing the structure of the outcomes, among other things. This would likely entail thousands of cases, and the data would likely be incomplete because of the lack of reported cases in US tribal jurisdictions. One can imagine how much more difficult such research would be in other countries with far less resources and structured case reporting systems. A rushed study is likely to generate something that looks like data but will have little statistical validity.
3. “concrete outcomes delivered by the systems (for TK and TCE holders, governments, interested third parties, and society at large (including commercialization of TK or TCEs))” – this is the most vague component of the proposal. Even before attempting to make causal links between legislative changes and broad societal outcomes, there are serious difficulties in defining what the metrics to be measured would be. Experience suggests that conducting such economic studies related to legislative policy changes have taken multiple years and have not always been able to generate useful information. For example, the EU studies on the impact of the Database Directive study which looked JUST at whether the directive resulted in growth of the database industry in the EU took a long time to carry out and still found it difficult to generate highly reliable results and information.
As a matter of research design, the question at the broad level that the US is seeking is better addressed through case or country studies to generate comparative information and in-depth answers that can point to causal relationships. These take time and require significant time on the ground. Once those studies are presented then specific questions about each causal link can form the basis for further analysis. However, this cannot be the basis for determining the necessity for an international treaty. WIPO treaties are formulated to address specific problems, and the WIPO IGC was formed in response to the well documented problem of misappropriation of traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions and these text-based discussions are built in response to that problem. Such solutions are always prospective as they specifically address cross-border problems, NOT whether specific suites of policies of rights and duties are appropriate at the national level. When WIPO agreed on the Lisbon Agreement and its Geneva Act, this was not the required standard for coming to agreement. In fact, in contrast to the over-broad and vague proposal here, the US has recently (February 2026) made a proposal in the Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications (SCT/49/6 – https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/sct/en/sct_49/sct_49_6.pdf), that asks a very specific set of questions in a questionnaire on the legal, administrative, and procedural aspects of examination and registration of certification marks. The US knows how to ask specific questions that are capable of being answered by countries within the framework of WIPO capacities and that can generate information with statistical significance and validity. The danger of the proposal is that it
1. demands evidence
2. designs review and studies that cannot actually find the relevant evidence
3. cite absence of evidence as justification for delaying action
Blog Post: IIPSJ Attendance at the Extraordinary 67th Session of the General Assembly of the World Intellectual Property Organization
(WIPO GA) (Geneva, hybrid, 21 April 2026)
By Dr. Metka Potočnik (she/her/hers), Senior Lecturer in Law, Wolverhampton Law School
IIPSJ attended the extraordinary 67th World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) General Assemblies (GA), in their capacity as the WIPO Accredited Observer. In our fourth year of continuous
attendance, IIPSJ participated in the official hearings at the WIPO Headquarters in Geneva, with the Associate Director for International Programmes, Dr Metka Potočnik, attending the length of the proceedings online. The aim of the extraordinary session was to agree the future leadership of the organization, the re-appointment of, and terms of employment of Director General Tang. This followed the nomination of DG Tang for the position by the Coordination Committee in its 29th Extraordinary Session between 12 to 13 February 2026. The reappointment is for another six years
and begins on 1 October 2026.
In his address, DG Tang briefly took stock of the organization’s key achievements since he took office on 1 October 2020, of which there were several and include also two new, international treaties,
agreed by WIPO Member States by consensus (Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge; and Riyadh Design Law Treaty). Looking forward, WIPO needs to be at the forefront of technological, digital and AI innovation, while not forgetting about the “human touch.” It is also worth noting that DG Tang sees IP as an issue, that should cross streams from specialist areas, to mainstream, where “we will need to aspire for IP to become mainstream, not just as policy priorities for governments and leaders but as something recognized and valued by people everywhere, that when someone talks about technology, brands, designs, art, culture, sports, agriculture, trade, economy, finance and our world, they are aware that IP plays an important role in all of these.”
His address was received warmly by all in attendance, while several WIPO Member States noting that much work remains to be done, in the current oft challenging circumstances.
IIPSJ is continues to contribute to future discussions in WIPO, with the aim of building a more inclusive WIPO eco-system. The IIPSJ team are working towards a meaningful participation the regular, 68th WIPO General Assembly, which is taking place in Geneva (hybrid), between 7 to 15 July 2026. If you are interested in contributing to IIPSJ work in this space, do contact the IIPSJ directly.