DISCUSSED CONCERN OVER EC/SWISS POSITIONS ON GEOGRAPHICAL

UNCLAS STOCKHOLM 000666 C O R R E C T E D C O P Y (ADDING ADDR) SIPDIS DEPT PLEASE PASS TO USTR FOR TANUJA GARDE AND DAWN SHACKLEFORD SENSITIVE ENTIRE TEXT E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: ETRD PREL EU SW SUBJECT: DISCUSSED CONCERN OVER EC/SWISS POSITIONS ON GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS WITH SWEDISH TRADE DIRECTOR Ref: STATE 104985 ¶1. (SBU) Summary: The GOS has come to the conclusion that the Geographical Indications issue (GIs) is hugely important to some five EU Member States; it is perhaps the primary Doha issue for some MS. The GOS determination is that it can "stomach it", as a necessary component of an EU-wide compromise. Trade policy Director Ambassador Teppo Tauriainen urged the USG to be creative in helping the Commission to find a compromise solution on GI's. In the view of the EC, this is not a large stumbling block. On a positive note, the GOS feels that the EU as a whole is more positive to a Doha deal than it was in 2008, partly due to the effects of the financial crisis. End summary. GI's -------------- ¶2. (SBU) On October 22, we met with Ambassador Teppo Tauriainen, Director of MFA's Division for International Trade policy. He was sympathetic to our concerns and explained that Sweden is not pushing the issue of GIs but that the issue is very important to some 4-5 EU member states (France, Italy, Greece, Spain, and Portugal). However, his assessment is that a Doha deal needs to offer something on the GI issue, otherwise 4-5 Member states will refuse to sign on. In a negotiation, you need to give them something (although Sweden would be happy with "nothing," but it will not work, in Tauriainen's opinion). Tauriainen urged the USG to be creative in helping the Commission to find a compromise solution on GI's. ¶3. (SBU) Sweden was pleased with the developments in the G8, G20, and the Delhi meeting this summer, feeling that momentum was gained. However, since then, the GOS has been disappointed to see that not much has resulted in Geneva. At this rate, it is not really realistic to conclude by 2010. Ambassador Tauriainen said he hopes to see the EU urge the U.S. to actively engage -- together with the EU. ¶4. (SBU) The EC is trying to down-play the importance of the GI issue, and instead focus on potential gains in market access -- in NAMA and Agriculture. There is a difference in views about what is on the table, according to Tauriainen. Currently, the EU is more positive than the U.S. Sweden is very positive about the systemic effects of a concluded round, and feels that a concluded Doha round would be a very important contribution to economic recovery. ¶5. (SBU) The level of expectations has changed over the last year, with the effects of the financial crisis. In the Swedish view, to lock down commitments, given the difference between bound and implemented levels of tariffs, would be an improvement over where we are today. Sweden and the EU are afraid that there will be a roll- back of the implemented levels to the bound levels, something which would hurt all of our economies. Patent issues -------------- -------------- ¶6. (SBU) Tauriainen told us that Sweden is proposing and supporting an alternative sanction on the disclosure requirements. Although sanctions would be needed for the patent disclosure, such sanctions could be limited to fines. Possible sanctions would thus not include nullification of the patent. This is an alternative that is "in the back of the minds" of all EU member states. The disclosure proposal tabled in WIPO in 2005 is the bottom-line for what EU Member states can accept, according to Tauriainen. ¶7. (SBU) Tauriainen said that Sweden, like the U.S., is not keen on compromising patent rights. Therefore, Sweden is focusing on trying to find alternative solutions that would prevent us from compromising patents. This is also a central issue in the climate negotiations. ¶8. (SBU) According to Tauriainen, it is important to many developing countries to establish compulsory licensing and create more transparency. Sweden is focusing on alternative means of facilitating technology transfers, which they believe is the developing countries' main goal. Our Swedish interlocutors warn that if we do not listen to developing countries we risk a clash. Sweden is trying to find a way to avoid a clash without undermining IPR. Sweden expressly mentions that they have no intention of undermining patent rights. Multilateralism vs. bilateral negotiations -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ¶9. (SBU) We discussed U.S. efforts to push for market access via bilateral talks. Tauriainen responded that Sweden believes in multilateral agreements, but to reach multilateral agreements it is necessary to take advantage of bilateral talks. Tauriainen said he does not see a conflict -- it is really the same thing. Although China says they want no bilateral talks, Sweden believes that the Chinese are in reality prepared to talk one on one. Multilaterals would otherwise not be possible, you cannot have 153 states talking to each other at once. BARZUN