144. The representative of Costa Rica said that questions from the Chair should be balanced and should aim to stimulate discussion and bring positions closer. Such questions should not be used as a basis for any other process than the one in this Special Session. The technical discussion had to be completed before Members could proceed with any further stage of negotiation.
145. Members should begin by defining what it meant "to facilitate" protection. Paragraph 4 of Article 23 of the TRIPS Agreement clearly stated that the objective of the negotiations was to facilitate the protection, and did not mention the increase of protection. For Costa Rica, the joint proposal represented a tangible effect of such facilitation: it proposed that the national authorities of participating Members provide in their procedures for a consultation of the database. As was indicated by Chile, the consultation of the information in the database would facilitate protection as provided for under Article 23.4. It was important to stress that this facilitating effect did not alter the balance of rights and obligations under the TRIPS Agreement. Costa Rica would reject any proposals seeking to increase protection on the ground that it would facilitate protection. He recalled that in 2003 the Chair of the Special Session had said that "the aim of the multilateral system should not be to improve the level of protection of geographical indications for wines and spirits as provided for in the TRIPS Agreement, but rather the aim should be to facilitate achieving that level of protection". He said that the element of special and differential treatment was inherent in the joint proposal, not only because it was voluntary in nature, but also because it implied minimum costs for Members and was simple to implement. In contrast, the other proposals on the table would generate a great deal of uncertainty as to their effects, such as increased obligations, costs, and difficulty in implementation.
146. As regards special and differential treatment, Members should not confuse the mandates for the different TRIPS issues. The CBD issue, which Costa Rica considered to be an element of the development dimension of the Doha Round, was not part of this Special Session's mandate. His delegation could not accept the claim that there would be special and differential treatment in the register for wines and spirits simply because TN/C/W/52 dealt with the disclosure of origin of genetic resources and benefit sharing. His delegation rejected the parallelism made in TN/C/W/52: each TRIPS issue should be dealt with on its own merits. It strongly reaffirmed that the TRIPS Special Session was not mandated to deal with anything other than the GI register for GIs for wines and spirits.
147. He further expressed surprise at the comments made by some developing country Members that discussing special and differential treatment in these negotiations would be premature. In other negotiations such as agriculture, NAMA and trade facilitation, special and differential treatment was a key element of the negotiations. For Costa Rica, in all the WTO areas of negotiations without any exception, special and differential treatment had to be discussed in parallel with the substantive elements, as it was a fundamental element of the negotiations and of the Doha Development Round.
