FRANCE LOBBIES STATE OFFICIALS ON GEOGRAPHIC INDICATION

UNCLAS PARIS 001173 SIPDIS SENSITIVE SIPDIS BRUSSELS PASS USEU FOR AGMINCOUNSELOR STATE FOR OES; EUR/ERA; STATE PASS USTR FOR MURPHY; USDA/OS/JOHANNS/TERPSTRA; USDA/FAS FOR OA/YOST; LA/CHURCH; OCRA/CURTIS ONA/RIEMENSCHNEIDER FAA/YOUNG; EU POSTS PASS TO AGRICULTURE AND ECON GENEVA FOR USTR, ALSO AGRICULTURE SENSITIVE E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: EAGR ETRD EU FR SUBJECT: FRANCE LOBBIES STATE OFFICIALS ON GEOGRAPHIC INDICATION REF: (A) 2007 State 15811 ¶1. Summary : On March 9 to 13, the Government of France (GOF) invited four state agricultural officials to France to convince them that France's approach to the Geographic Indications (GI) Issue could benefit their constituencies as well. Agricultural officials from Nebraska, South Dakota, Texas and Vermont were exposed to the French GI system, its impact on various agricultural operations and its perceived benefits for agricultural producers. Officials from the French Embassy in WashDC including Christian Berger, the French Agricultural Counselor, accompanied the group. Prior to their arrival, the FAS office in Paris provided the four officials with background information on the U.S. position on the G.I. issue. End Summary ¶2. The delegation included Greg Ibach, Director of the Nebraska Department of Agriculture, Secretary Larry Gabriel of the South Dakota Department of Agriculture, Commissioner Todd Stapples from the Texas Department of Agriculture and Secretary Roger Allbee from the Vermont Department of Agriculture. ¶3. The State delegation visited several regions in France, including Champagne, Poitou Charente (where cognac is produced) and Ile de Re which produces potatoes. ¶4. The visit in Champagne was used to lobby the State officials on the use of semi-generic names for wines in the United States. Future advertising campaigns by French Champagne producers in the United States were shown to the delegation, clearly asserting that the only legitimate champagne is that produced in the Champagne region of France. ¶5. The GOF intention was clearly to make the State officials more sympathetic to France's position on GIs. French officials stressed the benefits for farmers such as higher price and less competition from similar products without the GI. They also stressed that the French GI system is supported by producers themselves as well as by local communities and that the State only intervenes as a guarantor of the rules. ¶6. Finally, French officials openly encouraged the idea of creating GI systems at the state level in the United States: they mentioned that France and the European Union would be happy to protect GIs on American products such as Vermont maple syrup, South Dakota beef or Idaho potatoes, should U.S. producers of those products apply for GI protection in Europe. They also stated that Napa Valley wine producers had applied for GI protection in France to help defend their label against Chinese counterfeiting. ¶7. The group saw the value of the GI system in France. They seemed to recognize that, while adopting such a system could have advantages for their producers, it could also pose threats (i.e. losing the ability to use certain names such as cheddar cheese). At a dinner with the Institute for Appellation of Origin, Secretary Allbee pointed out the problems that might arise, should a GI system be included in WTO trade negotiations. ¶8. Comment : This effort as well as France's frequent courting of African Ag Ministers and farm leaders, indicate that the GOF is willing to dedicate significant resources in order to try to build support for its negotiating positions in multilateral fora. Stapleton