The first two days of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Diplomatic Conference on Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge kicked off on a generally positive note. This was despite the objections by some member states over the election of Belarus and the Russian Federation into the Conference Drafting Committee.

The WIPO Director-General (DG), Daren Tang, spearheading the conference, set a positive tone in his opening address. He underscored the opportunity the proposed treaty presents: to  advance, in an intentional way, a progressive orientation in WIPO toward a more inclusive intellectual property (IP) system that works for all and not a few. DG Tang notes that the treaty represents a positive interface of the intellectual property system with Indigenous Peoples and local communities who have been historically alienated from the system. According to DG Tang, while treaty negotiations have been ongoing for 25 years, the story of the IP system has remained dynamic. He observed that IP has continued to evolve in alignment with trends in innovation for over 550 years since its origin from municipal laws in Europe. The anticipated treaty on genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge is consistent with that trend, according to DG Tang.

The DG’s remarks set the tone and opened the floor for opening statements of member states (via their high-profile diplomats), the Indigenous Caucus, accredited non-governmental organizations (NGOs), intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), and a handful of industry representatives.

Industry representatives, championed by the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA) are unmistakably uninterested in the anticipated treaty. Their opposition focused specifically on the mandatory disclosure of the origin of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge underlying an innovation in a patent application, which is at the core of the anticipated instrument.  According to IFPMA, albeit without evidence, the cost of new patent disclosure requirements outweighs its benefits. This sentiment aligns with those expressed by the Innovation Council and the Intellectual Property Law Association of America (IPLA). The views articulated by IFPMA and segments of industry representatives were emphatically drowned out by the voices of an overwhelming number of member states, the Indigenous Caucus, and diverse IGOs and NGOs.

State delegates expressed a sense of anticipation for a positive outcome from the deliberations. A cross-section of member states characterized the significance of the anticipated treaty by defining it as a: “threshold of a new era in intellectual property rights” (Indonesia); “transformative development and once-in-a-generation in intellectual property” policy making (South Africa); “historic opportunity to transform the intellectual property system” (India); “product of a long and winding road whose time for conclusion is now” (Guatemala); “unprecedented opportunity to redress the imbalance in the global IP system” (Pakistan); “critical moment and opportunity” (Botswana); and “modest but significant step” (Native American Rights Fund). It was also characterized as: “one of the greatest achievements for multilateral collaboration in 2024 that would send strong signals to other ongoing negotiations in other fora” (Brazil) and as an instrument that “sends clear message to the international community on the seriousness attached to traditional knowledge and genetic resources” (Jamaica).

Against the backdrop of these high expectations, delegates also used the first two days of the Diplomatic Conference to elect the following officers of the Diplomatic Conference: Brazil (President); Australia (Vice President in charge of Committee I on substantive provisions of the draft treaty) and Namibia (Vice President in charge of Committee II on procedural provisions). Also elected were members of the Drafting Committee, which included Belarus and the Russian Federation.

At the end of the second day, delegates commenced in earnest the work of Committees I and II as well as the informal sessions. Early signs from Committee I indicate the tense and Herculean nature of the task before the delegates. These signs clearly appear to fly in the face of the positive tones at the start of the conference. Whether the outcome of these deliberations will affirm the positive expectations and declarations of delegates remains uncertain until the final day of the meetings on May 24, 2024.