TWN Info Service on Intellectual Property Issues (Jul26/06)
20 July 2026
Third World Network

WIPO: Developing countries call for stock take of CDIP functioning

Geneva, 19 July (TWN) – Developing countries called for a stock taking of the functioning of the Committee on Development and Intellectual Property Rights (CDIP) to assess the impact of its work in fulfilling the Development Agenda mandate of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

They suggested to move beyond mere technical cooperation projects and to prioritize tangible outcomes like technology transfer, norm-setting, and equitable access to knowledge to ensure intellectual property (IP) serves as a true engine for sustainable development.

They emphasized that the CDIP's work must be demand-driven, transparent, and focused on preserving the policy flexibility necessary to address their specific socio-economic and institutional realities.

The Africa Group, through South Africa, welcomed the report presented to the 68^th General Assemblies of WIPO  that took place from 7 to 15 July in Geneva in a hybrid mode.

The Group welcomed “… the continued implementation of practical WIPO initiatives that support inclusive innovation, including the inventor assistant program …” and as a “… region benefiting from the implementation of the inventor assistant program …”.  They commented that “… such initiatives remain important to advancing Development Agenda recommendation 11 and strengthening participation by small enterprises, youth, women, and historical disadvantaged communities in the innovation ecosystem.”

The Group also called for “… a meaningful reflection on the achievements and lessons learned since the adoption of the Development Agenda” as part of the upcoming 20^th anniversary of the WIPO Development Agenda. And in this regard the Group proposed for the Secretariat to prepare “… the Director-General’s report on the implementation of the Development Agenda for next year and on exceptional basis [to highlight] the history and evolution of the Development Agenda over the years.”

South Africa, in its national capacity, aligning with the Group’s position, stated that it believes in “… the importance of building talent, innovative, competitive and sustainable creative enterprises and individuals.” And in this regard, it welcomed  Venezuela’s Artisans’ proposal as it  “… will aid Member States to further develop their craft sector.”

Furthermore, South Africa stated that it “… supports a balanced approach that ensures the Development Agenda project delivered practical measurable benefits for Member States, creators, innovators, small enterprises, indigenous peoples and local communities.”

It emphasized “…the committee’s continued role in advancing an inclusive, balanced and developmental-oriented IP system,” And asked the committee “… to strengthen impact-based reporting, mainstream development across WIPO’s work and ensure that future projects and technical assistance respond to the real needs and priorities of developing countries.”

The Islamic Republic of Iran, taking note of the work of the CDIP stated that “… its central purpose remains fully relevant, ensuring that the International Intellectual Property system contributes to inclusive, balanced and sustainable development.” It stated that the “Development discussion remains concentrated too heavily within the CDIP while other WIPO bodies do not report systematically on how their activities, decisions and normative work advance the Development Agenda. We, therefore, believe that renewed attention should be given to the coordination mechanism in a meaningful and operational manner.”

Iran reminded that “… [t]he Development Agenda was not conceived as a separate collection of projects confined to one Committee. It was intended to guide WIPO’s work across norm setting, technical assistance, strategic planning, services and institutional priorities. For that reason, the coordination mechanism established by the General Assembly in 2010 remains essential.

It also seconded the need for stock taking “…to assess honestly where the agenda has transformed WIPO and where implementation remains incomplete”, in the backdrop of 20th anniversary of Development Agenda.

Iran concluded by reminding that the Committee’s “…success will ultimately be judged not only by the number of projects but by whether the international Intellectual Property system has become more accessible, more balanced and more responsive to the development priorities of its Member States.”

The delegation of Nigeria called for “…institutional reflection…to evaluate two decades of achievements while recalibrating our methodologies to meet emerging global realities” as we achieve the 20^th anniversary of the adoption of the WIPO Development Agenda.

Peru also supported the position that “the Development Agenda should not be understood as being limited to this this Committee but rather as a cross-cutting principle” to make sure “…the international IP system responds in a balanced way to the needs of Member States and their priorities.” It further stated that it is important to “…strengthen the effective implementation of the recommendations for the Development Agenda through transparent system which contributes to strengthening institutional capacities, transfer of technology, encourage local innovation and support micro, small and medium enterprises, universities, research institutes, entrepreneurs, women and youth as well as Indigenous Peoples and local communities.”

Brazil, began by reminding the Assembly that the CDIP’s task is “to promote development in general and the implementation of the WIPO Development Agenda recommendations in particular; CDIP should not be regarded as a forum for technical cooperation activities merely carried out in the territory of developing countries. Rather, development must remain the ultimate objective of every project considered by the Committee.  Project proposals that exclusively serve the interests of rights holders, most of whom originate in developed countries and bearing no real connection with the Committee’s mandate should instead be presented before the other appropriate WIPO bodies or financed directly by the Member States wishing to implement them.”

Brazil unequivocally stated, in the context of the 20th anniversary of the WIPO Development Agenda, that the “…transformative promise of the Development Agenda remains to a significant extent unfulfilled.” 

India stated its position that “…Intellectual Property when balanced, inclusive and development-oriented is among the most powerful instruments for advancing the Development Agenda. We see WIPO not merely as the custodian of Treaties and registration systems but as a partner in building an innovation ecosystem that uplifts every segment of society”.

India advocated “that development be embedded at the design and reporting stages of projects and equip developing countries to utilize the full range of TRIPS flexibilities.” It further encouraged “…to ensure transparent and accountable implementation of the Development Agenda…all relevant WIPO Committees to fully comply with the Assembly’s reporting requirements by reflecting in their annual reports their respective contributions to the Development Agenda… thereby enabling effective monitoring and informed oversight by Member States.”

Dominica stated “… implementation of the CDIP requires a balanced, inclusive and development-oriented approach that takes into account the diverse realities and priorities of developing countries and small island developing states. While Member States share common objectives, it is essential to acknowledge that development pathways differ according to national circumstances, institutional capacities and socioeconomic conditions. …. Technical assistance, institutional strengthening, capacity building and the sharing of best practices must continue to be guided by the specific needs and priorities identified by Member States themselves.”

The delegation of Dominica stressed “… the preservation of the policy flexibility necessary for developing countries and least developed countries to pursue strategies that are responsive to their respective stages of developments, capacities and national circumstances.”

Meanwhile, developed countries kept pushing the enforcement agenda in the CDIP.

Germany, speaking as Group B Coordinator, expressed their disappointment that the “…project proposal [on the development of strategies and tools to address the cross-border trade and counterfeit trademark goods] by the United Kingdom still could not be adopted despite the many efforts to reflect every concern raised. We would like to request that other groups and Member States give sincere consideration to and constructively engage on the proposal with an aim toward the adoption at the next session.”

The United Kingdom, aligning with the Group B statement, advocated for its proposal by stating that “…an effective IP system requires both strong awareness of IP and effective protection and enforcement of IP rights.”

Japan also expressed its regret that the project proposed by UK could not be adopted and they “look forward to fruitful and constructive discussions on this project in the future CDIP session.”

Knowledge Ecology International asked the Secretariat to convene an expert panel to address the experience of states in permitting non-voluntary use of patents for export purposes. Towards that they also suggested to invite WHO and other parties “… to share recent work on mechanisms to create, expand, and scale incentives to induce voluntary license of patents and know-how, a topic of considerable interest to WIPO members and highly relevant to the work of the CDIP.”

Third World Network (TWN) expressed its disappointment that after close to two decades of adoption, the Development Agenda has delivered limited gains. The CDIP report stands as a testament to its “transformative promise” remaining unfulfilled. It was pointed out that the project-based approach has fallen short to mainstream the Development Agenda in WIPO’s work.

Further, a criticism was levelled that “CDIP projects account for under ten per cent of the Organization's development-cooperation budget, and none addresses the use of IP flexibilities for access, or the prevention of misappropriation of genetic resources and traditional knowledge”. The Committee’s own agenda is being drifted away from public interest. The revised Project on Strategies and Tools to Address Cross-Border Trade in Counterfeit Trademark Goods (CDIP/36/16) stands as an example. Even though it was introduced under the Agenda’s Recommendations 10, 11 and 45, the project essentially advances an enforcement agenda without a “development rationale” which stands as central to the Committee.

TWN highlighted that the proposal is devoid of “Core development concerns, technology transfer, limited manufacturing capacity, strengthening local innovation, … [rather] its outputs, from customs training to operational guidelines, never show how they serve inclusive development or local value creation.”

Further, “TRIPS flexibilities are relegated to a single footnote, when Article 7 requires that they anchor any balanced approach.” TWN stated that “Enforcement belongs in enforcement bodies, not in the development committee.”

It also highlighted that the Independent External Review of WIPO’s technical assistance (CDIP/33/4) reiterates “that assistance still lacks a development orientation,” which the Committee passed with apathy by merely taking note of it. The standing demand was once again raised through the statement to have all WIPO bodies to report their Development Agenda contributions; which has largely remained ignored across most standing committees. TWN concluded its statement by urging “…genuine mainstreaming [of the Agenda], and a firm boundary against enforcement [agenda] creep[ing] into the CDIP”.