Editorial: Gearing up for geographical indications battle

IT’S when demands shift from legitimate regional claims, to trying to protect what most accept as generic terms that conflict arises.

WELL, there it is. In no uncertain terms, Europe has made clear there will be no free-trade deal with Australia without concessions on geographical indications.

To most in industry, or who have been paying attention to the rough and tumble of world trade negotiations, the blunt assessment from the European Commission’s John Clarke will come as no surprise.

The Europeans have been playing hardball on GIs for years now and Aussie producers have been gearing up for a battle on this issue, particularly those in wine and dairy.

A cursory glance around the globe indicates just how tough this will be. Negotiations between Mexico and the EU stalled over manchego cheese last month, while Canada — which, like Australia, was the price-taker in its EU negotiations — settled on almost 150 product names.

The EU’s negotiations with other countries on GIs already affect Australian exports. Australian feta, for example, is marketed in South Korea as “white cheese” because of that country’s EU agreement.

No Australian producer objects to the concept of GIs, in and of themselves.

READ MORE: FOOD AND WHINE

Products with the labels can command up to three times the price, and they can be crucial in protecting a region or product’s reputation.

It’s when the demands shift from legitimate regional claims, to trying to protect what most accept as generic terms that the conflict arises.

Trade negotiations are always a game of give and take. Europe has also said it wants acknowledgment of its excellent biosecurity regimen as equivalent to Australia’s, but that it may be reluctant to opening its sensitive markets such as beef and rice too far.

How much give will there be?