Grit and goodwill.
Those two words have been used to describe what it will take to get Australia's free-trade deal with the European Union (EU) over the line.
Despite Federal Trade Minister Don Farrell coming back empty handed from what was anticipated to be the final round of negotiations in Brussels, Belgium, last week, the government's decision to not accept what has largely been labelled as a substandard deal for Australia has been widely supported by the agricultural sector.
The sticking point in the free trade agreement (FTA) negotiations is believed to be the EU's objective to seek protection for a range of GIs.
For those unfamiliar with the term, a GI is defined on the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) website as "a name used on a product that has a specific geographical origin and possesses qualities or a reputation that are essentially attributable to that origin".
While a FTA with the EU would help unlock an overall market of 445 million people and a GDP of about $24 trillion, the government appears to have understood the brief from Australian producers - that the EU's request to restrict them from using names including feta, mozzarella, parmesan and prosecco would do Australia more harm than good.
A DFAT spokesperson told Farm Weekly the department was unable to comment on the FTA discussions due to the negotiations being ongoing, however Mr Farrell said government officials would continue to narrow down the issues that currently divided the two parties.
"We plan to meet again in August to see if it's possible to finalise an agreement," Mr Farrell said.
"My job as Australia's Trade Minister is to get the best deal that we can for our producers, our businesses and our winemakers.
"Both of our countries - both of our groups want to reach an agreement.
"What I can say is that we haven't bridged the gap between what the European Union is offering and what Australian producers, businesses expect out of a free trade agreement."
Despite this, Mr Farrell said he was optimistic that a deal was getting closer.
"We're prepared to persevere and persist until we get the right result, both for Australia and for Europe," the minister said.
"I believe we'll get there."
National Farmers' Federation (NFF) chief executive Tony Mahar said the group did not want to see any food names taken away from Australia and was pleased the government had stood strong in tough negotiations.
"These are common household names and are now embedded in our food identity," Mr Mahar said.
"They represent a proud cultural connection to the people who brought their food heritage from Europe to Australia.
"It would have been an easier option to fold on some of the sticking points, but the last thing we want is a deal inferior to that of other countries.
"The EU now knows it can't throw its weight around and Australia will not sign off on a substandard deal."
Opportunity for industries to expand EU footprint
While a FTA with Australia's third-largest trading partner would no doubt be a huge opportunity for Australia's farmers, the decision to reject the deal has also been supported by segments of the industry that may look to expand their footprint in the EU in the future, provided a fair deal is reached.
WoolProducers Australia (WPA) chief executive Jo Hall said Australia's wool industry sent about five per cent of its clip to the EU annually and currently has good market access to the EU.
However she said the WPA had made its position regarding the EU FTA well known - that it is not supportive of any agreement to equivalencies in standards regarding a number of issues, including animal welfare.
"We expect that the Australian government will continue to advocate for Australian industries and producers, making the point that our production systems and animal husbandry procedures are appropriate to our geographical, production and climatic conditions," Ms Hall said.
"While an outcome has not been achieved we believe this demonstrates the Australian government's willingness to back Australian producers, rather than accepting a sub-optimal deal."
While the specific details of the potential benefits for Australian grain producers from a future AU-EU FTA deal are not yet known, both Grain Producers Australia (GPA) and GrainGrowers Limited also indicated their support for the Trade Minister's rejection of the EU's most recent proposal.
GrainGrowers chief executive Shona Gawel said although it was disappointing talks had not resolved the issue, the group strongly supported the decision to push back on signing an agreement that would not deliver positive outcomes for Australian agriculture.
GPA chief executive Colin Bettles said the group welcomed any moves to reduce tariffs and artificial, un-scientific trade barriers, to promote more open trade and commerce, but also expected the EU to recognise the opportunity to enhance access to Australian grains.
"Recognising the facts about what Australian producers already do, to produce high-quality agricultural products, with world-leading sustainability practices, is vital to ensure we strike a fair and meaningful trade deal, and continued market access," Mr Bettles said.
GrainGrowers president Rhys Turton said Australian grain had proven its credentials into EU markets over many years.
"Australian canola meets ISCC-EU certification which proves our sustainability qualifications," Mr Turton said.
"We should make sure any trade negotiations affecting grain, recognises the quality grain Australia produces and be sure Australian farmers are rewarded for their efforts."
