157. The representative of Argentina recalled that, at the last meeting in October 2005, her delegation had indicated that the column of the side-by-side paper (TN/IP/W/12) reserved for the joint proposal under this heading was blank, which meant that it would not result in substantial costs nor there would be any need to establish fees. This would be beneficial for the majority of WTO Members, which were developing and least developed countries. On the other hand, the column of that side-by-side paper reserved for the EC proposal under this heading showed how complex this proposal was in this regard, to the point that it would create uncertainties. For example, paragraphs 9.2 et seq. were not clear as to how much the final costs of the system would be. Not even an estimate had been given. There was uncertainty as to whether the intention of paragraph 9.3 of the EC proposal was to establish that the costs of the system would be first borne by the main budget of the WTO and be later reimbursed. Furthermore, there would be serious administrative and financial costs for developing countries since the EC system established a double system of fees: a basic fee and an individual one. She reiterated her delegation's perplexity over the establishment of an individual fee. It appeared that it would be linked to an obligation for many Members to undertake a continuous monitoring of geographical indications. The European Communities had given the assurance that the costs associated with it would be reimbursed. However, it was still not clear how this would work in practice. The complicated structure for fees in the EC proposal was just one element of a whole complex system. This was the reason why it was important to analyse and better understand the broad range of costs and burdens implied in a proposal.
