The main chamber of the Greek parliament.
The Syriza government in Greece could reject both the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) and the United States-European Union Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).
After the Council of the European Union (where national government ministers from each EU country meet to discuss, amend and adopt laws, and coordinate policies) met on May 13, Naftemporiki.gr reported, “The Greek government expressed reservations over the ratification process for [CETA], with the relevant Greek minister outlining Athens’ positions… The Greek side also expressed displeasure over the manner in which negotiations were concluded, pointing to a lack of protection for geographic indicators, which would deonote eponymous agricultural products, for instance. [Greek Economy Minister Giorgos Stathakis] also called for continued dialogue to find a mutually acceptable solution.”
The European Commission has explained, “A geographical indication is a distinctive sign used to identify a product as originating in the territory of a particular country, region or locality where its quality, reputation or other characteristic is linked to its geographical origin. The protection of geographical indications matters economically and culturally. They can create value for local communities through products that are deeply rooted in tradition, culture and geography. They support rural development and promote new job opportunities in production, processing and other related services.”
In a May 2015 blog we highlighted, “Some 300,000 Greek livestock farmers earn their income from feta and Syriza argues that CETA undermines their livelihoods.”
EU Trade Insight has reported, “Under the draft text of the CETA, Canada agreed to the protection of certain European geographical indications. Prosciutto di Parma for example would be protected in Canada once the deal enters into force. …When it comes to feta cheese, Canada has been arguing this is a generic name. And under the terms of the CETA agreed to by the EU Executive, the name feta can be used in Canada ‘by any person, including their successors and assignees, who made commercial use of those indications … preceding the date of 18 October 2013. New producers would have to accompany the name of the cheese by expressions such as kind, type, imitation, or style.”
And Woods LaFortune LLP (a law firm that supports CETA) has explained it as follows: “Greece is threatening to reject the CETA unless it is amended to specify that only Greece can use the term ‘Feta’ to describe salty, white cheese. Currently, CETA Chapter 22, Article 7.6 provides an exception from the rules providing protection for geographical indications that allows Canadian companies that produced ‘Feta’ cheese (and ‘Asiago’, ‘Fontina’, ‘Gorgonzola’ and ‘Munster’ cheese) prior to October 18, 2013 to continue to use these indications for their cheeses.”
This disagreement extends back to December 2013.
At that time, before Syriza formed government, the BBC reported that Syriza promised it would veto CETA because it would mean not only the removal of import tariffs, but also lacks safeguards for Greek feta. BBC noted it is a pivotal issue because the feta industry accounts for more than 70 per cent of Greek cheese exports.
The same issue is now also at play with TTIP.
This week EurActiv reported, “The Greek government is ready to veto [TTIP] unless it ensures increased protection for key agricultural geographical indicators. According to a document from the Greek Ministry of Economy, seen by EurActiv.com, Athens is not optimistic about the pact’s future due to the American rigid stance, even though the country is working towards a mutually accepted solution. …According to the document, the Greek side will not accept an agreement which will not ensure increased protection of geographical indications.”
For more on our campaign to defeat CETA, please click here.
