117. The representative of the United States said that costs were an important issue for his delegation. The cost of the system to governments would obviously depend on the type of system adopted. The joint proposal entailed far fewer costs to governments than other proposals; a mandatory system with a legal presumption as proposed by the EC and their supporters would impose undue burdens on governments and impose obligations beyond the TRIPS Agreement on WTO Members. The cost would include, among other things, that of introducing new legislation and a system for the examination of geographical indications within very tight timeframes as noted by the Secretariat's compilation. With regard to cost to producers, the EC proposal would impose tremendous obligations on producers in WTO Members that did not challenge notifications in a timely manner. Such Members would be required to protect the notified geographical indication, whether or not it merited protection in its territory, adversely impacting producers where protection was not wanted. Like producers, consumers would be adversely affected under the EC proposal, particularly in those WTO Members that did not challenge notifications in a timely manner. Where protection was required in a territory of a Member for lack of challenges even if the geographical indication did not merit protection in that territory, then competition among producers was reduced. Costs to the administering body under the joint proposal would be relatively low and not substantially different from that incurred by the WTO Secretariat in administering existing WTO notification systems. The joint proposal would also satisfy the need for S&D measures for LDCs and developing countries because it was completely voluntary.
