1.73. The representative of South Africa said that his delegation, like Canada, had gathered valuable experience in its long history of negotiating certain bilateral instruments with the European Union. South Africa fully subscribed to the joint proposal and to all views expressed and documents circulated in this context. It also rejected the "horizontalization" that the W/52 proposal had introduced into the current debate, and reiterated the view expressed at previous meetings that there was, as stipulated in Article 23.4 of the TRIPS Agreement, no mandate to negotiate on issues other than GIs for wines and spirits.
1.74. Whilst welcoming the draft composite text, his delegation was of the view that certain elements still required clarification, and that positions on many of the technical issues were still far apart as shown by the number of square brackets. The mere fact that the draft composite text of 23 February 2011 had two headings showed that Members still did not agree on a mandate that was obvious. While his delegation was not adverse to the establishment of a voluntary register, it had also raised certain points in relation to the nature and administration of the register, which had been embedded in the draft composite text. His delegation had always indicated that the issues of costs and capacity needed to be taken into account and therefore welcomed the additional provisions on S&D. South Africa had also indicated in the past its substantial difficulty with the issue of legal effects of the register, which had not been conclusively dealt with in the draft composite text. In this regard, his delegation was concerned by the effect that the provisions on the burden of proof and the obligation to consult the register would have on the respect for the territoriality principle and the domestic capability of sovereign countries to impose and inspect conditions they deemed applicable.
