145. The representative of Argentina said that regarding the issue of costs it was evident that no delegation had denied that there were implicit costs coming from extension. Evidently, some had downplayed these costs and others had highlighted them. There was still confusion regarding this issue. It seemed that many delegations had lost track of the fact that what was being discussed were IPRs, i.e., granting of exclusive rights to producers. While patents rewarded inventors and, at the same time, guaranteed that the whole of society would benefit from the disclosed knowledge, GIs were a non-technological innovation with a permanent monopoly. Some had stated that extension could indeed result in costs for consumers or producers but these costs could well be borne by governments. This would depend on the model of production that each country possessed. The Argentinean agricultural or agro-industrial model, for example, did not necessarily function through subsidies. In this system those costs would necessarily be borne by producers and consumers.
146. The consumer surveys presented by the European Communities were not helpful because they concerned the Communities only. She wished to know how much the policy of promoting of GIs within the EC market cost the Communities. When analysing such surveys one should take into consideration the special sensibilities of the European consumer vis-à-vis the conditions of production and the resulting quality. In Europe, special sensibilities existed due to serious sanitary problems that had emerged as a result of a distorted model of production. Hence, it was not strange that the European consumer paid attention to labels and wanted to know what the origin of the product was. It seemed that what had been discussed was the concept of a GI as including origin, quality and process. She believed that if one would be talking about origin, quality and process one would not be talking about IPRs or issues related to the TRIPS Agreement. One would instead be talking about issues related to the traceability that had been discussed in the negotiation of the codex.
147. As to the "Cava" wine example and the statistics of how exports of this product had soared after this new name was introduced, she said that this data was not convincing because statistics were relative and one would always be able to come up with numbers proving the contrary. Additionally, she asked what the conditions negotiated with the "Cava" producers were that convinced them to stop using the name "Champagne". She also asked if any kind of help was offered by governments or the European Communities. Were there any expenses in marketing, selling, and publicity? She asked the European Communities to provide information about the relation between the expenses related to this new product ("Cava") and the expenses related to the old product ("Champagne"). Were the costs covered by the producers or some organization? She believed this data would help her delegation to evaluate more objectively the situation. Finally, she reminded delegations from non-Spanish speaking countries that "cava" meant in Spanish "wine shop" and that this was evidently not a geographic name.