A new GI regulation for Australia: What is the added value?

Geographical Indications (GIs) are a make or break issue for the European Union (EU) in its trade negotiations. One of the EU demands in current negotiations with Australia is that Australia adopt an EU-style GI sui generis registration system. The government is currently consulting on this proposal.

This online Policy Forum considers what value might be added by introducing such a new regulatory system. It asks what is the demonstrated need or demand for a new regulatory system for food GIs. This draws on information from producers and analysis of current protection systems. It considers, in particular, the case of cheese where Australia’s pattern and distribution of cheese production is very different to that in Europe. This raises the question of the product scope of any new GI regulations. The Forum also stresses the critical need to ensure that any new GI registration system is as streamlined and efficient as possible. There will be substantial opportunity for participation and questions or comments.

The Panel:

Paula Zito, Food Geographical Indications Consultant and Associate Teacher in Law, University of Adelaide;

Charlie McElhone, Group Manager, Trade & Industry Strategy, Dairy Australia;

Hazel Moir, Adjunct Associate Professor at the ANU Centre for European Studies (ANUCES)

 

The first speaker was Dr Paula Zito, Food Geographical Indications Consultant and Associate Teacher in Law at the University of Adelaide. Dr Zito’s research has compared the GI registration systems of the EU, focussing on Italy as a case study, and Australia. She has done intensive work on geographic naming in the Barossa Valley and the Adelaide Hills and has analysed the deficiencies that exist with current Australian consumer protection, trade mark and passing off laws in respect of Australian regional names used to make origin claims on food labels. Dr Zito considers that there would be a benefit to Australia in adopting a sui generis system, but that this would need to be designed differently to the European system.

The second speaker was Charlie McElhone, who leads the Trade & Industry Strategy team at Dairy Australia. He spoke about the issue from an industry perspective. The major industry concern is restrictions on the use of common names. Dairy industry analysis suggests that EU GI proposals could cost the Australian dairy industry $70-90 million a year in the early years of a trade agreement. These costs are not related to the existence of a GI system per se, but rather to one that is populated with EU names through the negotiated outcome. The dairy industry supports an open international trading environment facilitating two-way trade.

Finally Hazel Moir, Adjunct Associate Professor at the ANU Centre for European Studies, reviewed the evidence on what value might be added by a new GI registration system, starting with the quantum of demand by Australian producers and regions for a new GI registration system. Using data from the Trade Marks Register, she discussed the nature of the product definition that might be needed in a GI system designed to suit Australian agricultural conditions. She also looked at potential impacts of the EU’s demand for a higher standard of GI protection.

Discussion at the webinar was broad-ranging and included a contribution from Dr Wenting Cheng on how Chinese producers have navigated GI registration in a country which, until recently, had three different registration systems.

 

The event is part of the ANUCES Jean Monnet project “Third Country Engagement with Changing EU Trade Policy”. This project seeks to explore and improve understanding of the EU’s evolving trade policy and its implications for third countries, including Australia and countries in the Asia-Pacific region.

EU support logo

Date & time

Wed 25 Nov 2020, 12.30–1.30pm

Location

zoom

SHARE

Updated:  9 November 2022/Responsible Officer:  Centre Director/Page Contact:  CASS Marketing & Communications