EN Official Journal of the European Union C 204/57

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Geographical indications and designations

(2008/C 204/14)

On 27 September 2007 the European Economic and Social Committee decided to draw up an own-initiative opinion, in accordance with Rule 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, on

Geographical indications and designations.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 26 February 2008. The rapporteur was Mr CAMPLI.

At its 443rd plenary session, held on 12-13 March 2008 (meeting of 12 March), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 124 votes to one with three abstentions.

1. Conclusions and recommendations

1.1 The EESC feels it would be useful to launch further debate on EU quality policy as a whole, ensuring synergy between regulatory requirements in the area of food safety, the environment and social concerns, not least with a view to creating a potential EU quality mark, and regulations raising the profile of speciality products and foodstuffs from the various EU regions which meet higher standards.

1.1.1 As regards the efficiency of the geographical indications and designations (GI) scheme, the EESC can see a need for — clearer, simpler application procedures; — only public and/or private bodies which are independent and accredited (in line with ISO/EN (1) requirements on the accreditation of certification bodies) to be allowed to perform inspections; — further modification of the legislative framework relating to disputes, to prevent and/or handle these problems and to avoid lengthy, exhausting court battles, for example by requiring Member States to act when Community rules (2) have been breached and providing for arrangements for out-of-court settlement etc. The EESC feels that these dysfunctions were only partially addressed in the review which led to Regulation (EC) 510/06 and that they must be corrected because they could become even more serious as the scheme is extended to non-EU countries.

1.1.2 As regards effectiveness, the EESC proposes that measures be laid down to secure products' reputation on the market, strengthening GI management bodies, and to introduce clear, realistic specifications reinforced with genuinely independent, efficient, effective inspections.

1.1.3 The EESC therefore recommends that the necessary consensus on the content of specifications be ensured when the application is made for registration by applying criteria for representativeness of the applicant association, so as to guarantee that sufficient consensus is reached on complex, controversial aspects.

1.1.4 Still on the subject of effectiveness, the EESC stresses that GIs must increasingly be counted among the essential rural development tools in the Member States, being used in tandem with second-pillar measures at every possible opportunity, particularly where the countries which have recently joined the EU and disadvantaged areas in general are concerned.

1.1.5 Lastly, the EESC feels that the GI scheme — seen as an opportunity for rural development — must meet consumers' growing ethical, social, environmental and other expectations. If it becomes a strategy for partnership with other areas of the world, not least through a well-regulated and properly-monitored opening for import of GI products from developing countries, this approach could increase consensus on designations of origin and encourage multilateral negotiations.

1.1.6 As regards raising the profile of GI products, the EESC feels that greater backing must be given to initiatives to promote Community marks so as to provide operators with more information and make GI products more recognisable to consumers, especially in those countries where they are less common, to achieve an increase in GIs, more uniform distribution thereof in the EU and greater demand from the market.

1.1.7 As regards research and disseminating information on the impact of the scheme on the EU's regions and markets, the EESC recommends appropriate, uniform dissemination of the results of successful research carried out by the various Commission departments in all the Member States and to all stakeholders.

1.1.8 The EESC recommends that international trade negotiations on geographical indications and designations be made part of a wider policy for international cooperation. In this connection, the multilateral negotiating package needs to be relaunched with greater impetus and conviction (extension of Article 23 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) to all GI products; international register; technical assistance for developing countries), alongside effective bilateral negotiations.

1.2 With particular reference to the following six topics identified by the Commission for future policy review (cf. 2720th meeting of the Council of the EU — 20 March 2006).

1.2.1 One: ‘Identification of protected geographical indications and protected designations of origin as ingredients’. The EESC believes it is necessary for all stakeholders which are part of the applicant associations (protection consortia etc.) to agree on the criteria and parameters established regarding the GI-ingredient content required for the PDO and PGI labels to be used on the finished product.

1.2.2 Two: ‘Use of alternative instruments such as trademarks to protect geographical indications and designations of origin’. The EESC feels that the use of trademarks to protect GIs outside the EU is certainly a feasible idea; however, it would not solve the problem of international protection for designations as it would be complex (given the number of countries potentially concerned) and costly (i.e. feasible only for large commercial organisations with sufficient financial resources) while failing to provide full protection.

1.2.3 Three: ‘Scope of products covered by the regulation with particular consideration to be given to salt, mixed herbs, wicker products, and condiments’. The EESC welcomes the opening-up of the Community system to allow applications for certification of origin of products that are, strictly speaking, non-agricultural (salt, mixed herbs, wicker products, condiments etc.), with a view to promoting the rural culture of an area. At the same time, it recommends that the system be extended to all agricultural products not yet included.

1.2.4 Four: ‘Identification of the origin of raw materials’. In a general context of voluntary industry agreements between all stakeholders as provided for in the current application procedure for designations, the EESC recommends that, in the case of PDOs, aspects related to the use of raw materials be more carefully assessed, not least given the requirement that all raw materials must come from the area referred to in the designation.

1.2.5 Five: ‘Criteria used to assess the generic status of a name’. Inter alia in the light of disputes that have arisen to date, the EESC recommends creating more finely-tuned instruments for establishing more easily the longstanding existence and/or reputation of a name, such as an authority (or adjudication board) which could act as a buffer and/or provide oversight regarding potential PDOs within the EU Member States, or other such forums for out-of-court settlement.

1.2.6 Six: ‘Design of the Community symbols identifying geographical indications and protected designations of origin’. The EESC believes that merging the symbols for PDOs and PGIs may risk creating an inequality between two concepts of equal worth, established and rooted in various geographical areas. In view of the need to make products more recognisable to consumers, greater graphical distinction should therefore be ensured between PDOs and PGIs (e.g. different colours). The other European symbols (TSGs, organic), however, should be further differentiated (maybe using different symbols).

1.3 The EESC therefore hopes that when discussions are resumed on the future of the common agricultural policy towards 2013, the European Union's overall strategy will address, comprehensively and systematically, all the challenges facing European agriculture and food: market policy, which must remain joint and aim to combat the increasing threats to income caused by the volatile nature of increasingly open, globalised agricultural markets; a stronger, more effective rural development policy; a quality policy which is seen as a fundamental pillar for the future of European agriculture as a whole; and a balanced, sustained natural and energy resources policy.

1.4 Lastly, the EESC calls on the Member States to build on their initiative to fully exploit the European PGI and PDO scheme, so as to promote both their agricultural products and the European agricultural model more effectively.

2. Introduction: The European geographical indications and designations scheme: origins and development

2.1 In European civil society, consumer awareness of the properties of agrifood products has been steadily increasing for some time, resulting in a demand for quality products. The EU has responded to this demand with a policy for regulating and raising the profile of quality agrifood products, covering both food safety issues (‘hygiene package’, traceability etc.) and questions relating to the distinctive properties of certain products (quality marks: organic farming, GIs). That is how the term ‘quality’ should be understood in this Opinion.

2.2 In this context, specific EU regulations have been drawn up recognising local specialities associated with a place of origin: local products whose quality or reputation is associated with a particular production area or region or with raw materials or production methods used within a defined geographical area.

2.3 In European countries in the Mediterranean Basin, protection of designations relating to place of origin as a means of identifying a food product dates back to the early twentieth century. It was originally introduced in the wine sector and then extended to other agrifood products.

2.4 In 1992 the Commission adopted for the first time a common legislative framework on agrifood designations, which applied to all EU Member States. The new legislation borrowed definitions, requirements and procedures from pre-existing national legislation, as is clear from the close link between the European term protected designation of origin, the French appellation d'origine controlée, the Spanish denominación de origen, and even the Italian denominazione di origine controllata.

2.5 The legislative framework consisted of Regulation (EEC) 2081/92 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, and Regulation (EEC) 2082/92 on certificates of specific character for agricultural products and foodstuffs. Both regulations have recently been revised, with Regulations (EC) 510/2006 and 509/2006 of March 2006 respectively.

2.6 Regulation (EC) 510/2006 concerns protection of product designations whose specific nature is determined by their geographical origin, i.e. protected designations of origin (PDOs) and protected geographical indications (PGIs).

2.6.1 Products bearing a PDO label possess characteristics arising solely from the natural environment and from the skills of producers in the region they come from. Therefore, where PDOs are concerned, all stages in the production process — production of the raw material, processing and preparation — have to be carried out in the area in question and there must be a very close link between the product's characteristics and its geographical origin. Examples of PDOs are Huile d'olive de Nyons, Parmigiano Reggiano and Shetland Lamb.

2.6.2 Products bearing the PGI label also possess a specific characteristic which associates them with a particular regions, but only one stage in the production process has to be carried out in that area, while, for example, the raw materials used can come from another region. Examples of PGIs are Clare Island Salmon, Arancia Rossa di Sicilia and Dortmunder Bier.

2.7 Regulation (EC) 509/2006 concerns agricultural products and foodstuffs recognised as traditional specialities guaranteed (TSGs); this label is used for products with specific characteristics which are due to traditional ingredients or production methods rather than to geographical origin. Examples of TSGs are Jamón serrano, Kriek beer and Kalakukko bread.

2.8 Regulations 509 and 510/2006 were adopted by the Council of the EU on 20 March 2006. At the same meeting, the Commission made a statement on a future policy review of the operation of Regulation (EC) 510 and its future development (3).

2.9 The new legislation on quality designations has simplified the system considerably. For instance, before, applicants submitted the registration application to the relevant authorities in their country, which assessed it and then sent the whole dossier to the Commission, which assessed it thoroughly once again. Now, however, Member States are responsible for assessing the application in line with Community regulations and guidelines. The Commission's role is merely to assess the main components, assembled in a single document which is then published in the OJEC. Another improvement is that producers from third countries can send registration applications straight to the Commission, whereas previously applications had to go through the national authorities, which were not always willing or equipped to assess them.

2.10 On 5 February 2007, the Commission held a Conference on Food Quality Certification, considerably extending the range of questions that can be addressed (certification schemes, quality mark schemes) and including the essential issue of food health, i.e. quality seen as an EU food safety system. It is not by chance that the first conclusion of the Conference reads: ‘All (European) food, whether EU-produced or imported, meets high product standards of safety and hygiene’ (4).

2.10.1 It should nevertheless be noted that the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, made up of the Commission and the Member States, concluded on 20 December 2004 that traceability was a requirement which ‘does not apply’ to food imports. The EESC does not agree with this statement.

2.11 In the light of the results and conclusions of the February 2007 conference, the Commission has decided to draw up a Green Paper on Agricultural Product Quality, scheduled for October 2008, in which GIs are expected to feature heavily. The Green Paper may be followed by legislative proposals.

2.12 At the same time, the Commission (specifically DG Agriculture and Rural Development) is working on an internal assessment of the current system for protection of geographical indications, the results of which are expected by July 2008.

2.13 The present EESC own-initiative opinion fits into this general context. It is not, however, intended to discuss the multiple facets and difficulties of quality policy outlined above but to focus on efficiency and effectiveness of the European geographical indications and designations scheme and on the question of related multilateral and bilateral trade negotiations.

2.14 The work achieved thus far and the EESC's views on the matter are reflected in its Own-initiative opinion on Promotion of local speciality agricultural products as a development instrument under the new CAP (rapporteur: Ms Santiago) (5). In addition, in the Opinion on The Future of the CAP (rapporteur: Mr Ribbe) (6), the EESC stressed the need to focus European agriculture on safe, high-quality production.

3. General comments

3.1 Implementation and results of the scheme: efficiency and effectiveness

3.1.1 The scheme introduced by Regulation (EEC) 2081/92 has proved to be efficient overall. However, as regards operation, the EESC would like to draw the Commission's attention to three problem areas, in particular, which have emerged with the passage of time: — the approval process for specifications, which is often excessively slow and incompatible with applicants' needs (difficult to plan sales, communication strategies etc.), and is therefore detrimental in particular to the designations of origin which have the potential to penetrate the market furthest and to have the highest profile; — inspections, which are sometimes carried out by bodies which may not always be free of conflicts of interests, or, in any case, are not sufficiently independent to perform independent inspections satisfactorily; — the assessment criteria for designations, based in particular on longstanding existence, reputation, dissemination and the question of any generic status, are often problematic in terms of subsequent disputes or court action both within and outside the EU.

3.1.2 The scheme has proved effective overall. The products in question come from practically all categories of goods — animal and vegetable, fresh and processed, drinks, fisheries products, spices etc., as shown in the following table, which contains December 2007 data. According to the table the total number of PDOs and PGIs was 772. Looking, in particular, at the number of products registered between 2000 and 2006, for example, the number of PDOs rose by 22 % and the number of PGIs by 40 %, i.e. a total average increase of 29 % was recorded over just five years. TABLE I: Indications and designations registered by DG AGRI as at 15/12/2007 (http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/qual/fr/1bbaa_fr.htm) DE AT BE CY DK ES FI FR EL HU IE IT LU NL PL PT CZ UK SK SI SE CO Tot Fruit, vegetables and cereals 3 3 0 0 1 34 1 27 32 0 0 53 0 2 0 22 0 1 0 0 0 0 179 Cheeses 4 6 1 0 2 19 0 45 20 0 1 33 0 4 1 12 0 12 0 0 1 0 161 Fresh meat (and offal) 3 0 0 0 0 13 0 50 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 27 0 7 0 0 0 0 104 Oils and fats/Olive oils 1 1 1 0 0 20 0 9 26 0 0 38 1 0 0 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 104 Meat-based products 8 2 2 0 0 10 0 4 0 1 1 29 1 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 86 Mineral waters 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 Bread, pastry, cakes, confectionery, biscuits and other baker's wares 4 0 1 1 0 7 0 3 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 1 0 26 Other products of animal origin (eggs, honey, milk products excluding butter, etc.) 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 6 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 24 Other Annex I products (spices etc. …) 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 7 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 (7) 21 Beer 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 17 Fresh fish, molluscs and crustaceans 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 13 Essential oils 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Natural gums and resins 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Hay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 TOTAL 69 12 5 1 3 111 1 155 85 1 4 165 4 6 1 105 10 29 1 1 2 1 772

3.1.3 The GI scheme has been discussed in specific studies and research (see DOLPHINS 1999-2003 and SINER-GI 2004-2008 projects, funded by DG Research) (8), from different perspectives. These consecutive projects highlighted significant points with regard to the effectiveness of Community GIs.

3.1.3.1 In this regard, the EESC points out one issue in particular, relating to the organisation and management of GIs (specific studies and research on the subject have been coordinated by Bertil Sylvander of INRA (National Institute for Agricultural Research) in Paris and Filippo Arfini of the University of Parma, in partnership with the Commission). There are three types of management: — regional management, which focuses on involving all stakeholders in the region (institutions, businesses, associations etc.); — sectoral management, which only involves operators in the chain (the region is merely a ‘container’); — ‘category’ management, where only some operators in the chain are involved, and may be so purely for their own ends. However, when it comes to effectiveness, there is a distinction between ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ management, where ‘strong’ implies management which can guarantee a product's reputation to the different users and, in particular, consumers.

3.1.3.2 Moreover, the EESC notes that the commercial success of GIs is still limited and is only significant where there is well-structured production of ingredient-rich products further up the chain managed by organisations able to create networks of businesses and effective commercial strategies. Putting across the content, qualities and, where appropriate regional nature of a GI product is, in fact, decisive for the success of a designation of origin. Of course, the longstanding existence of a GI product contributes to this but it does not remove the need for more effective measures to support organisations and communication initiatives.

3.1.3.3 However, the EESC points out that the effects and economic and social impact of the GI scheme cannot be measured solely by using a numerical-statistical indicator of contribution to gross marketable production, as the effects and impact that can be observed in respect of either regions or the balance of trade in a Member State or the EU will affect a wide range of socio-economic operators, far beyond just the agricultural sector.

3.1.4 The EESC believes that one aspect of GIs which is of great interest is the relationship between GIs and rural development. Initially designed as product protection instruments, many marks of origin have become genuine opportunities to promote cultural specialities from an entire geographical area. This gives a clear idea of the opportunities that could be created by extending GIs to include products of non-agricultural origin and how this would be fully consistent with longstanding Community guidelines on rural development (1985 Green Paper; 1988 Communication on The future of rural society; 1995 Cork Declaration).

3.1.4.1 Local specialities, in their role of promoting culture, can and must become drivers for economic recovery in rural areas, especially the most disadvantaged areas. It is not just from a Community perspective that this aspect should be considered, however. The EESC stresses that in the context of the current European scheme and the potential use of EU marks by non-EU countries, the association of the concept of GIs with rural development and their subsequent practical application are particularly appealing to developing countries. Indeed, according to key international authorities (FAO, World Bank), there is a parallel between the concept of GIs and what might be described in developing countries as ‘local knowledge’ or simply as tradition. This is the approach taken in the GI user guides (setting forth Community rules and procedures) which the FAO and the World Bank are drawing up and disseminating in developing countries.

3.1.5 A further point which should not be overlooked is the beneficial impact of GIs on the environment in the regions they come from. Indeed, local specialities are produced using production and/or processing practices which are to a large extent based on procedures which, in line with tradition, use hardly any or no technical processes which could be harmful to the environment, and/or farming systems which are non-intensive and therefore further biodiversity and protection of the countryside and the environment.

3.1.6 In terms of effectiveness, the ways in which situations could evolve in the future should be borne in mind. The EESC can see signs that situations which have hitherto been deemed immutable might change. Many multinational food distribution chains and industries, for example, are engaging in initiatives to incorporate GIs into their product range, to some extent moving beyond international brand policies and global market strategies which have thus far disputed the need — as well as the grounds — for designations of origin. This is a very interesting precedent, and the way it evolves could be very important when it comes to developing GIs.

3.1.7 In this connection, studies have shown that, following changes in types of domestic production, a chink is now emerging in the United States' opposition to the European GI model (which arose from the fact that their agrifood situation is very different and their commercial strategies are often diametrically opposed to the EU's). Initial cases are starting to emerge in the United States, too, of production firms which have associated the success of their products with places of origin and are now lamenting the absence of proper protection. The well-known case of Napa Valley wines (California) has been joined more recently by other products from various US States and Canada (Florida Orange, Bleuet du Lac Saint-Jean) which are coming up against plagiarism of designations and distortion of competition within those or neighbouring States.

3.1.8 Lastly, the EESC notes a general trend among consumers to attach importance to the place of origin of products, seen as a factor influencing their purchase choices (see, for example, conclusions of the European projects TYPIC — 2005 and DOLPHINS — 2002). In the same way, consumers seem willing to pay a higher price for products certified as being of specific origin, which are generally considered to be higher quality and safer. In this context, the new issues of identification of the origin of raw materials and the use of GI products as ingredients in foodstuffs could also be explored.

3.1.8.1 However, the EESC notes that recognition of European certification schemes and their logos and labels is still inadequate and very patchy. According to a report by the International Centre for Advanced Mediterranean Agronomic Studies — CIHEAM (on Identity and Quality of Mediterranean Foodstuffs, Paris, 2007), 80 % of European citizens have never heard of PDOs and 86 % have never heard of PGIs. However, when the same question was asked with reference to corresponding national designations (e.g. the Spanish denominación de origen or the French appellation d'origine controlée) considerably more people were familiar with them. There is clearly a problem at EU level of promoting products and making them recognisable to the consumer.

3.2 The European scheme and multilateral and bilateral trade negotiations

3.2.1 Strategic interest

3.2.1.1 In September 2003, the proceedings and subsequent negative outcome of the Cancun Ministerial Conference showed that trade negotiations are forums no longer merely for negotiating prices and tariffs to facilitate reciprocal market access, but also, at the same time, for discussion of production models (i.e. production and food types, traditions and histories). Awareness and appreciation of each other's respective production and food traditions are an essential pre-requisite for successful trade negotiations.

3.2.1.2 When the European Community sits at the trade negotiation table, it thus compares its particular social and economic model with other valid models. The EESC therefore feels that, if the Community's negotiation initiatives are to be sufficiently substantial and credible, they must be part and parcel of an external relations policy which also includes negotiations on protection of intellectual property and on trade. If they are part of such a framework, quality policies can form a set of rules which is compatible with a wider, more general approach to international cooperation policy, now increasingly essential for the world's stability.

3.2.2 The regulatory process

3.2.2.1 As is well known, one of the basic principles of the Community legal system is free movement of products on the European single market (Article 23 of the EC Treaty). Difficulties have been encountered in implementing this policy because of Member States' extremely diverse regulations. Moreover, the historical backdrop to these disparities is a complex, contradictory, international framework of clashing rules and agreements, and globalisation makes the situation even more worrying. The need to ensure a level playing-field for economic operators in an increasingly open market therefore becomes essential. Coherent regulation of GIs could help to achieve this.

3.2.2.2 Internally, major steps towards harmonisation have gradually been achieved through the case law established by judgments of the EU Court of Justice originally applying the mutual recognition principle.

3.2.2.3 Internationally, work towards a joint approach on geographical indications formed part of negotiations and agreements on protection of industrial property, initially, and then intellectual property. With the Paris Convention (1883 — 169 member states), the Madrid Agreement (1891 — 34 member states) and the Lisbon Agreement (1958 — 23 member states), the principle that a product was associated with a local place of origin was recognised, albeit in a framework which was wholly unsatisfactory in terms of legal certainty, monitoring and potential for fraudulent imitation.

3.2.3 TRIPS: what has been achieved and the gridlock

3.2.3.1 The TRIPS Agreement, established in 1994, includes a section on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights which is devoted to geographical indications: a) definition of GIs (Article 22); b) general protection standards for GIs for all products (Articles 22(2)-22(4)); c) additional protection for geographical indications for wines and spirits (Article 23); d) future negotiations and exceptions (Article 24).

3.2.3.2 The terminology used in international agreements to describe the link between a ‘place’ and a ‘product’ denotes increasingly close links: indications of source (Madrid, 1891), geographical indication (TRIPS, 1994), designation of origin (Lisbon, 1958). Essentially it could be said that all designations of origin are geographical indications, while not all geographical indications are designations of origin. An account of the categorisation of the different kinds of products associated with regions under the various international agreements was given in Sabrina Cernicchiaro (University of Parma)'s doctoral thesis entitled Analisi della Politica di riconoscimento internazionale delle indicazioni geografiche (analysis of policy on international recognition of geographical indications).

3.2.3.3 While the TRIPS Agreement was a milestone in the history of agreements on the protection of intellectual property of products in international trade, it did leave many key points unresolved. It introduced a joint definition of GI which now applies to 151 member states and set forth a single dispute settlement system. At the same time, at least three major shortcomings should be pointed out: a) introduction of a principle of negative protection (member states are able to prevent improper use of GIs); b) hesitant, uncertain introduction of the multilateral notification and registration system (to the extent that there are still two different, conflicting interpretations of the rules: according to one, the rules are mandatory and binding; according to the other, the system is voluntary); c) the existence in practice of disparities in treatment (with reference to the same legal source!) — general protection of agricultural products and additional protection.

3.2.3.4 There are also other regional agreements relating to the protection of GIs, such as the African Intellectual Property Organisation (AIPO) Agreement of March 1977; and the African Regional Intellectual Property Organisation (ARIPO) Banjul Protocol on Marks of March 1997.

3.2.4 European producers' difficulties and key points for proper international competition

3.2.4.1 The EESC points out that the inadequacy of international rules is causing substantial difficulties for European producers of GI products. The growing abuse of geographical indications and a legal framework for the protection of GIs which varies greatly from country to country are severely distorting competition and trade between World Trade Organisation (WTO) member states.

3.2.4.2 The first difficulty is often correctly interpreting the internal rules of the market in question. Some European producers of GI products have succeeded in obtaining protection for their name outside the EU but there are still instances of abuse, counterfeiting and major red-tape difficulties even in these cases. Abuse is directly proportionate to how well known the GI product is: great financial damage is caused and the European business cannot employ any marketing strategy to secure consumers' loyalty to the product. In general terms, this situation constitutes fraud in respect of consumers in third countries and is damaging to the European agricultural and food model's overall image.

3.2.4.3 In countries with their own specific GI registration system, European producers encounter fewer difficulties, although substantial problems arise when protection relates to names used together with terms such as ‘type’ or ‘style’. Generally speaking, European producers have to face heavy costs and serious legal difficulties to prove that their GI is not a generic name.

3.2.4.4 In the absence of a clear, recognised international framework, European producers continue to access markets with protected marks (private company marks, collective marks and certification marks). This strategy, too, encounters substantial difficulties. Indeed, there are often trade marks on international markets which already contain the name of the GI which European producers want to register. (In this case, the arduous task of legally disputing the use of the mark needs to be undertaken.) Moreover, even when a mark has been registered, producers can lose its protection if the market in question is closed on health grounds and the mark cannot be used continuously.

3.2.5 Bilateral negotiations and agreements

3.2.5.1 In the face of the crisis or gridlock in multilateral negotiations — where a breakthrough is imperative — bilateral agreements are gradually taking centre stage in international trade negotiations. There are around 300 bilateral agreements, and this figure could reach 400 by 2010. The situation is cause for concern as this kind of agreement should by its very nature dovetail with WTO multilateral agreements, with each type of agreement dealing with particular kinds of issues: multilateral negotiations should cover highly complex issues such as subsidies, anti-dumping and intellectual property protection rules; bilateral negotiations should deal with simpler matters and the adoption of preferential criteria in trade between countries.

3.2.5.2 However, the EESC feels that the EU must not be a bystander while major world leaders negotiate and decide on key points of rules and trade bilaterally. As regards agrifood, in particular, it is generally observed that the flexibility of bilateral relations makes them a good starting point for entering into negotiations and achieving an acceptable, verifiable solution. Moreover, experience shows that these results are achieved partly because bilateral relations include technical assistance in drawing up the necessary legislative acts for the administrative systems of some countries signing such agreements, whose systems are still inadequate. Moreover, there is also a need for this in multilateral negotiations.

3.2.5.3 The EU started some time ago to enter into negotiations and sign bilateral agreements on GI agrifood products. These have now been launched with almost all non-European trading partners, for every category of foodstuff. The issue of protection of GIs is now systematically included.

3.2.6 GIs in the Doha Round: proper protection is in the interest of all stakeholders

3.2.6.1 Point 18 of the Doha Declaration (November 2001) sets out a differentiated, dual negotiating position: a) As regards the establishment of a multilateral system of notification and registration of GIs for wines and spirits, it explicitly provides (‘We agree to negotiate … by the Fifth Session of the Ministerial Conference …’) for this to be included on the agenda of the TRIPS negotiations; b) however, as regards extending the protection of GIs to products other than wines and spirits, the declaration merely refers discussion on the matter to the Council for TRIPS (‘We note that issues related to the extension … will be addressed in the Council for TRIPS’).

3.2.6.2 With regard to the first point, no action has been taken to implement the negotiation commitment made in Doha, despite the Commission's negotiating endeavours. There are still two conflicting interpretations of the declaration: on the one hand, the EU, Switzerland, India, Turkey and some other countries consider that an agreement needs to be concluded on the mandatory introduction of the register in all WTO member states; on the other, the USA, Australia, New Zealand etc. want to limit the negotiations and agreement to voluntary establishment of this instrument, and then only in the countries which have set up a domestic legal system for protection of designations of origin — a sort of database.

3.2.6.3 With regard to the second point — extending the protection of GIs to products other than wines and spirits — proper negotiations have yet to be launched.

3.2.6.4 Just before the 2003 Cancun Conference, with no real prospect of progress in the TRIPS negotiations, the European Union made an unsuccessful attempt to place on the agenda for agriculture negotiations the multilateral protection of 41 designations of origin with a view to re-establishing legal protection in market access for foodstuffs whose names were most frequently being wrongfully used on international markets. The failure of the Cancun Ministerial Conference curtailed negotiations at that point.

3.2.6.5 The WTO's most recent formal attempts to make progress in the area of multilateral negotiations and in extending greater protection for wines and spirits to other products were in 2005 (9). The technical discussions are still continuing, on the basis of informal documents submitted by the EU, focusing mainly on the proposal that inclusion in the multilateral register should imply that the GI is protected in all the other countries, with a timeframe of 18 months within which to object. Under this arrangement, the burden of proof to the contrary would lie with the objector. There are two objections in particular to the register: the United States and other English-speaking countries see its legal effects as conflicting with the principle of territoriality, while developing countries' problem is the administrative difficulty of observing the deadline for opposing inclusion on the register, which they consider to be too short. In December 2007, the Commission formally called for a text which could form the basis for an international register to be presented.

3.2.6.6 The EESC feels it is necessary to relaunch the negotiating package (extension of Article 23 TRIPS to all GI products; international register; technical assistance for developing countries), trusting in the new interest being shown in products bearing a label of origin which are emerging on the domestic markets of some third countries and in developing countries. Moreover, things have started to move at the negotiating table, where a Swiss initiative has given rise to the spontaneous formation of the ‘GI friends’ — a group of countries pushing for a breakthrough.

3.2.6.7 Indeed, the EESC points out that geographical indications are the only form of intellectual property that can be owned by local communities throughout the world. A north-south division in the WTO on this point would therefore make no sense.

Brussels, 12 March 2008. The President of the European Economic and Social Committee Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

(1) International Organisation for Standardisation.

(2) Cf. ECJ Judgment of 26 February 2008 (Parmesan Case).

(3) See document of the Council of the EU No 7702/06 ADD 1 (Addendum to draft minutes; 2720th meeting of the Council of the European Union (Agriculture and Fisheries), held in Brussels on 20 March 2006.

(4) See: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/events/qualityconference/conclusions_en.pdf.

(5) OJ C 284 of 14.9.1998, page 62.

(6) OJ C 125 of 27.5.2002, page 87.

(7) Caffè di Colombia

(8) See: www.origin-food.org.

(9) WTO document ref. TN/IP/W/11 of 14 June 2005.