114. The representative of New Zealand did not accept the artificial parallelism between three TRIPS issues. He said that the insistence that process and outcomes on these three issues should be linked was not a negotiating position, but a demand by the proponents based on tactical positioning. He reiterated that Members needed to address each issue on its own merits. His delegation, together with a number of Members, had outlined their concerns in a non paper circulated on 6 June 2008. While this paper did not have the support of 110 Members, it was co-sponsored by a broad cross-section of the membership with a wide geographical spread, including developed and developing countries. He said that there was a mandate for negotiations on the issue of GI register, and therefore his delegation was committed to the successful conclusion of these negotiations as part of the Single Undertaking. By contrast, there was no mandate for negotiations on the issues of GI extension and TRIPS/CBD, and the substance of these two issues was different. Regarding the issue of GI extension, he said that the proponents had failed to justify the need for the GI extension and therefore his delegation rejected the assertion that this issue was ripe for text-based negotiations. Regarding the issue of TRIPS/CBD, he noted the "important common ground on key underlying objectives" indicated in the Director-General's report, and said that New Zealand shared the objective of preventing the misappropriation of biological resources, but was not convinced that an amendment to the TRIPS Agreement was the best way to achieve that objective. He said that Members had been negotiating constructively on the issue of TRIPS/CBD in the Council, and his delegation would continue this engagement. However, his delegation could not accept the proposal in document TN/C/W/52 because it posed real commercial risks for New Zealand and potentially created new barriers to trade. He said that the starting-point for these discussions should be the reports from the Chair of the Special Session of the TRIPS Council (document TN/IP/18), and the Director-General (document TN/C/W/50). These two reports noted the areas where significant divergences and potential convergence existed. He said that his delegation was ready to continue substantive discussions.
