The Council is making the rule changes in a bid to comply with a World Trade Organisation decision that the bloc's GI rules served to bloc foreign competition. The changes need to be decided before a WTO deadline of April 2006.
The bloc's GI system reserves the use of the specified names to designate the origin and geographical location where agricultural products and foodstuffs are produced or processed. The protection can also refer to specific conditions relating to processing, preparation or recipe as defined by the producers.
European members of parliament last week voted on two measures under the GI system, which is broken down into classifications on protected designations of origin (PDO), protected geographical indication (PGI), and traditional speciality guaranteed (TSG) food and drink products.
Under the European Commission proposals being voted on non-EU companies will no longer have to apply for registration under the system through their national governments. The Council, composed of agriculture ministers from the members states, is the highest decision making body on such issues in the bloc.
They will be able to register their specialty foods directly with the European Commission, reducing the time needed for the application and approval process.
The proposed changes would also get rid of the requirement that non-EU applicants must be from countries that make equivalent guarantees on their home market and for third countries to give EU GIs the same protection.
The Commission also proposes to simplify the registration process and clarify the role of member states in making applications. The administrative body plans to publish an outline of all the necessary information needed for registration, information and inspection purposes that will be needed in a well-defined “single document” application.
An additional proposal would require identification of the EU schemes on a food's label by use of either the PGI or PDO reference, or the EU symbol. Similar changes are proposed to the EU system for registering TSG designations.
The Council is expected to adopt the two proposals, according to a Commission brief about the meeting.
A WTO decision last June found that parts of the EU's GI rules serve to unfairly bar outside competitors from the market. The WTO finding was made after the US and other countries complained that the GI rules were a form of trade protectionism.
PDOs, such as granted to Roquefort cheese, must be produced, processed and prepared in a given geographical area using a recognised, specified method. PGIs, such as Newcastle Brown Ale, require a link between at least one stage of production, processing or preparation and the region, place or country of origin.
TSGs, such as the Belgian cherry-flavoured beer Kriek, highlight the traditional composition or a traditional method of processing or preparation of a product.
In the vote at the EU's Parliament last week, MEPs also recommended that the Council "make only those amendments to [the regulation] which are necessary in light of the ruling of the WTO, and to debate without pressure of time those elements of the Commission proposal which are more far-reaching".
MEPs also suggested publishing a register on the Internet, and to clarify the current labelling system by introducing colour-codes for different types of protection.
Although accepting the role private inspection bodies to ensure producers comply with the system, MEPs were concerned that giving member states the role of registering PDOs, PGIs and TSGs would complicate matters.
MEPs called on the Commission to examine "whether a specific agency or one of the existing Community agencies would be better able to ensure that the Community register is administered in an efficient and uniform way".
Under current legislation, a non-EU party can apply for protection of a product from one of its own regions, and therefore gain access to the Community protection system.
In an interview earlier this year with FoodProductionDaily.com Michael Mann, the Commission's spokesperson for agriculture and rural development, told FoodProductionDaily.com that he does not expect the changes to disadvantage EU companies.
EU companies will still go through the lengther process of first gaining the approval of their national governments before the application is passed on to the Commission for final registration and protection.
"I don't think this is an issue," he said. "Although it might be a little more labourous the end result is going to be the same."
The changes relate to the GI rules governing agricultural products, such as feta cheese, specialty olive oils and meats. The EU set up the GI system in 1996 as a means of providing protection for producers making specialty and traditional foods that are linked to specific regions.
Mariann Fischer Boel, the commissioner for agriculture and rural development said the GI system is a cornerstone of the EU's quality policy. The changes must be approved by the EU's Council and Parliament to meet the WTO deadline of April 2006.
"The Commission intends to implement a more efficient and fully WTO-compatible registration procedure for special products of this type,” she stated.
The number of regional and speciality products for which denominations are registered under EU quality schemes now stands at 720. Another 300 applications are under consideration.
Protected names that have gained GI status include those for 150 cheeses, 160 meat and meat-based products, 150 fresh or processed fruits or vegetables and 80 types of olive oil.
The EU wants international recognition for the system and has applied to WTO. That application is being contested by the US, which claims the system is nothing but another form of trade protection.
In their complaint about the system before the WTO the US and others alleged that the EU's GI system discriminated against non-EU producers and therefore contravened an agreement which provides for equal treatment.
Second, the US expressed concern about the impact of GIs on prior trade mark rights, as GIs protect the name of the product itself and also linguistic variations.
In its report, the WTO panel ruled that the GI Regulation was inconsistent with TRIPs on several counts, including that the reciprocity conditions did not treat non-EU companies equally and that it restricts prior trade mark owners from filing protests against registered GIs. They also complained about the requirement that only governments rather than individuals can object to registrations.
The WTO recommended that the EU amend the regulation so the anti-trading conditions do not to apply to the procedures for registration of GIs located in other WTO members.
The Commissions proposals must first be approved by the bloc's Council of Ministers and by the parliament. The WTO will then examine it again if the US and Australia file further protests.
Separate proposals relating to WTO rulings on the classification of spirit drinks under the GI system have also been submitted by the Commission.
The draft defines a policy for spirit drinks based on three product categories rooted in the current product definitions.
The procedure for registering new names originating in the Community has two stages. The first is carried out at national level by the authorities of the member state where the geographical area concerned is located. The second, which is conducted at by the Commission, involves an examination of the application in order to check that it meets the conditions laid down in the GI regulation.
In an application before the WTO the EU wants to make the GI standard recognised at the international level.