179. The representative of Argentina expressed support for the comments made by the previous speakers. She said that the preceding interventions, particularly those from Costa Rica, the Philippines and Singapore, had shown that any discussion over costs of the system could not just be limited to multilateral administrative costs or fees. Concerns had been voiced about the basic and individual fees from the point of view of non-wine producing countries. Argentina, as a wine producing country, was also not convinced why and under what justification the system to be established should result in costs either for its government or its producers. As indicated by other delegations, Argentina's concerns also touched upon a wider range of issues, such as enforcement, examination or bilateral negotiations, which were all time-consuming and involved financial and human resources.
180. She expressed surprise with the European Communities' point that the costs would be minimized by the fact that the system would make use of existing national structures that had already been set up to comply with the standards under the current TRIPS Agreement. For her delegation, the TRIPS Agreement did not create any obligation whatsoever to establish any kind of structure to examine geographical indications. However, if that were the case, what would happen with those Members, who were the majority of this organization, that did not have such costly structures nor the financial resources to create them? If some member States of the European Communities had such systems, it was not because of the TRIPS Agreement but because they had had them in place for more than a century.
