Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Geographical indications and designations
Date: 2008-03-12
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: agricultural product, designation of origin, location of production, product designation, product quality, quality standard, trade mark

9.8.2008

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
least with a view to
environment and social concerns, not
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
and designations (GI) scheme, the EESC can see a need for

As regards the efficiency of the geographical indications

— 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.

As

regards effectiveness,

1.1.2
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 indepen-
dent, efficient, effective inspections.

the EESC proposes

The EESC therefore recommends that

the necessary
1.1.3
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 guar-
antee that sufficient consensus is reached on complex, contro-
versial 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, parti-
cularly where the countries which have recently joined the EU
and disadvantaged areas in general are concerned.

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 coun-
tries.

(1) International Organisation for Standardisation.
(2) Cf. ECJ Judgment of 26 February 2008 (Parmesan Case).

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-moni-
tored opening for import of GI products from developing coun-
tries, this approach could increase consensus on designations of
origin and encourage multilateral negotiations.

C 204/58

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.8.2008

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 distribu-
tion thereof in the EU and greater demand from the market.

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.

1.1.7
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
research carried out by the various
Commission departments in all the Member States and to all
stakeholders.

successful

The EESC recommends that international trade negotia-
1.1.8
tions on geographical indications and designations be made part
of a wider policy for international cooperation. In this connec-
tion, 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 iden-
tified by the Commission for future policy review (cf. 2720th
meeting of the Council of the EU — 20 March 2006).

One:

‘Identification of protected geographical

1.2.1
indica-
tions 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.

1.2.4
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 proce-
dure for designations, the EESC recommends that, in the case of
PDOs, aspects related to the use of raw materials be more care-
fully assessed, not least given the requirement that all raw mate-
rials must come from the area referred to in the designation.

Five:

‘Criteria used to assess the generic status of a
1.2.5
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.

the Community symbols identifying
‘Design of
Six:
1.2.6
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 consu-
mers, greater graphical distinction should therefore be ensured
between PDOs and PGIs (e.g. different colours). The other Euro-
pean symbols (TSGs, organic), however, should be further differ-
entiated (maybe using different symbols).

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
‘Scope of products covered by the regulation
with particular consideration to be given to salt, mixed herbs,

Three:

The EESC therefore hopes that when discussions are
1.3
the common agricultural policy
resumed on the future of
strategy will
the European Union's overall
towards 2013,
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 funda-
mental pillar for the future of European agriculture as a whole;
and a balanced, sustained natural and energy resources policy.

9.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 204/59

Lastly, the EESC calls on the Member States to build on
1.4
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.

have recently been revised, with Regulations (EC) 510/2006 and
509/2006 of March 2006 respectively.

2. Introduction: The European geographical

indications

and designations scheme: origins and development

2.1
the
In European civil society, consumer awareness of
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 ques-
tions 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 mate-
rials or production methods used within a defined geographical
area.

In European countries

2.3
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,
from pre-existing
national legislation, as is clear from the close link between the
European term protected designation of origin, the French appella-
tion d'origine controlée, the Spanish denominación de origen, and
even the Italian denominazione di origine controllata.

requirements and procedures

The legislative framework consisted of Regulation (EEC)
2.5
indications and
2081/92 on the protection of geographical
designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs,
and Regulation (EEC) 2082/92 on certificates of specific char-
acter for agricultural products and foodstuffs. Both regulations

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 characteris-
ingredients or production
tics which are due to traditional
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).

For

instance, before,

system considerably.

The new legislation on quality designations has simplified
2.9
the
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 asses-
sing the application in line with Community regulations and
guidelines. The Commission's role is merely to assess the main

(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.

C 204/60

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.8.2008

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.

2.14
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 instru-
ment under the new CAP (rapporteur: Ms Santiago) (5). In addi-
tion, in the Opinion on The Future of the CAP (rapporteur: Mr
Ribbe) (6), the EESC stressed the need to focus European agri-
culture on safe, high-quality production.

On 5 February 2007, the Commission held a Confer-
2.10
ence 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
‘All
chance that the first conclusion of the Conference reads:
(European) food, whether EU-produced or imported, meets high
product standards of safety and hygiene’ (4).

It should nevertheless be noted that

2.10.1
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.

In the light of

the results and conclusions of

the
2.11
February 2007 conference,
the Commission has decided to
draw up a Green Paper on Agricultural Product Quality, sched-
uled for October 2008, in which GIs are expected to feature
heavily. The Green Paper may be followed by legislative propo-
sals.

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.

It

is not, however,

The present EESC own-initiative opinion fits into this
2.13
general context.
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.

3. General comments

3.1 Implementation and results of the scheme: efficiency and effective-

ness

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 exces-
sively 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 inde-
pendent 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.

fresh and processed, drinks,

The scheme has proved effective overall. The products
3.1.2
in question come from practically all categories of goods —
animal and vegetable,
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.

(4) See:

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/events/qualityconference/conclu-

sions_en.pdf.

(5) OJ C 284 of 14.9.1998, page 62.
(6) OJ C 125 of 27.5.2002, page 87.

TABLE I: Indications and designations registered by DG AGRI as at 15/12/2007 (http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/qual/fr/1bbaa_fr.htm)

.

.

9
8
2
0
0
8

SE

CO

Tot

179

161

E
N

Fruit, vegetables and cereals

Cheeses

Fresh meat (and offal)

Oils and fats/Olive oils

Meat-based products

Mineral waters

Bread,
biscuits and other baker's wares

pastry,

cakes,

confectionery,

Other products of animal origin (eggs,
honey, milk products excluding butter,
etc.)

3

4

3

1

8

31

4

0

Other Annex I products (spices etc. …)

0

Beer

Fresh fish, molluscs and crustaceans

12

3

0

0

0

TOTAL

69

12

Essential oils

Natural gums and resins

Hay

(*) Caffè di Colombia

DE

AT

BE

CY

DK

ES

3

6

0

1

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

2

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

5

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

34

19

13

20

10

0

7

3

4

0

1

0

0

0

111

FI

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

FR

EL

HU

27

32

45

20

50

0

9

4

0

3

6

7

0

2

1

0

1

26

0

0

1

1

1

0

1

1

2

0

155

85

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

IE

0

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

4

IT

LU

NL

PL

PT

CZ

UK

SK

53

33

2

38

29

0

3

2

4

0

0

1

0

0

165

0

0

1

1

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

2

4

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

6

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

22

12

27

6

28

0

0

10

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

0

1

3

2

0

0

0

1

12

7

0

0

0

0

1

3

2

3

0

0

0

105

10

29

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

SI

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

104

104

86

31

26

24

1 (*)

21

0

0

0

0

0

1

17

13

3

2

1

772

O

f
f
i
c
i
a
l

J
o
u
r
n
a
l

o
f

t
h
e

E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n
U
n
o
n

i

C

2
0
4
/
6
1

C 204/62

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.8.2008

3.1.3
The GI scheme has been discussed in specific studies
and research (see DOLPHINS 1999-2003 and SINER-GI 2004-
funded by DG Research) (7),
2008 projects,
from different
perspectives. These consecutive projects highlighted significant
points with regard to the effectiveness of Community GIs.

by extending GIs to include products of non-agricultural origin
and how this would be fully consistent with longstanding Com-
munity guidelines on rural development (1985 Green Paper;
1988 Communication on The future of rural society; 1995
Cork Declaration).

In this regard, the EESC points out one issue in par-
3.1.3.1
ticular, relating to the organisation and management of GIs
(specific studies and research on the subject have been coordi-
nated by Bertil Sylvander of INRA (National Institute for Agri-
cultural Research) in Paris and Filippo Arfini of the University of
in partnership with the Commission). There are three
Parma,
types of management:

— regional management, which focuses on involving all stake-
holders 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.

that

the commercial
the EESC notes
3.1.3.2 Moreover,
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.

impact of

However, the EESC points out that the effects and
3.1.3.3
the GI scheme cannot be
economic and social
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 agri-
cultural sector.

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 devel-
opment and their subsequent practical application are particu-
larly 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 produc-
tion 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 country-
side 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
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 inter-
esting precedent, and the way it evolves could be very important
when it comes to developing GIs.

range,

The EESC believes that one aspect of GIs which is of
3.1.4
great interest is the relationship between GIs and rural develop-
ment.
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

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

In this connection, studies have shown that, following
3.1.7
changes in types of domestic production, a chink is now emer-
ging 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

9.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 204/63

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.

Lastly, the EESC notes a general trend among consu-
3.1.8
mers 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 Euro-
pean certification schemes and their logos and labels is still
inadequate and very patchy. According to a report by the Inter-
national 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 negotia-

tions

3.2.1 Strategic interest

In September 2003, the proceedings and subsequent
3.2.1.1
negative outcome of the Cancun Ministerial Conference showed
that trade negotiations are forums no longer merely for nego-
tiating 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). Aware-
ness and appreciation of each other's respective production and
food traditions are an essential pre-requisite for successful trade
negotiations.

it

3.2.1.2 When the European Community sits at the trade
negotiation table,
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 nego-
tiations 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 regulator y process

As is well known, one of the basic principles of the
3.2.2.1
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
the
Member States' extremely diverse regulations. Moreover,
historical backdrop to these disparities is a complex, contradic-
tory, 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.

Internationally, work towards a joint approach on
3.2.2.3
geographical indications formed part of negotiations and agree-
ments 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 poten-
tial for fraudulent imitation.

3.2.3 TRIPS: what has been achieved and the gr idlock

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).

The terminology used in international agreements to
3.2.3.2
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 cate-
gorisation of the different kinds of products associated with
regions under the various international agreements was given in
thesis
Sabrina Cernicchiaro (University of Parma)'s doctoral
entitled Analisi della Politica di riconoscimento internazionale delle
indicazioni geografiche (analysis of policy on international recogni-
tion of geographical indications).

C 204/64

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.8.2008

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 short-
comings 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 notifica-
tion and registration system (to the extent that there are still
two different,
rules:
according to one,
the rules are mandatory and binding;
according to the other, the system is voluntary);

conflicting interpretations of

the

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' diffi culties and key points

for proper inter national competition

The EESC points out that the inadequacy of interna-
3.2.4.1
tional
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 Organi-
sation (WTO) member states.

3.2.4.2
The first difficulty is often correctly interpreting the
internal rules of the market in question. Some European produ-
cers 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 consu-
loyalty to the product. In general terms, this situation
mers'
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
system, European producers

In countries with their own specific GI registration
fewer difficulties,
encounter

although substantial problems arise when protection relates to
names used together with terms such as ‘type’ or ‘style’. Gener-
ally 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 substan-
tial difficulties. Indeed, there are often trade marks on interna-
tional 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 under-
taken.) Moreover, even when a mark has been registered, produ-
cers 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 subsi-
dies, 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 negotia-
tions 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.

9.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 204/65

3.2.6 GIs in the Doha Round: proper protection is in

the interest of all stakeholders

3.2.6.1
sets out a differentiated, dual negotiating position:

Point 18 of the Doha Declaration (November 2001)

a) As regards the establishment of a multilateral system of noti-
fication and registration of GIs for wines and spirits, it expli-
citly 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 coun-
tries 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 establish-
ment of this instrument, and then only in the countries which
have set up a domestic legal system for protection of designa-
tions 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 Euro-
pean 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

Brussels, 12 March 2008.

most frequently being wrongfully used on international markets.
The failure of the Cancun Ministerial Conference curtailed nego-
tiations 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 (8). The technical discussions are still continuing, on the
informal documents submitted by the EU, focusing
basis of
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 territori-
ality, 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.

The EESC feels it is necessary to relaunch the nego-
3.2.6.6
tiating package (extension of Article 23 TRIPS to all GI
products;
international register; technical assistance for devel-
oping 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 nego-
tiating table, where a Swiss initiative has given rise to the spon-
taneous formation of the ‘GI friends’ — a group of countries
pushing for a breakthrough.

3.2.6.7
Indeed, the EESC points out that geographical indica-
tions 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.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

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