• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Astrid Gerz: Evaluation and feedback mechanisms on impact of geographical indications
 

Astrid Gerz: Evaluation and feedback mechanisms on impact of geographical indications

on

  • 407 views

Presentation part of the Brussels Briefing "Linking food, geography and people", held on 15th May 2013.

Presentation part of the Brussels Briefing "Linking food, geography and people", held on 15th May 2013.
More on: http://brusselsbriefings.net/

Statistics

Views

Total Views
407
Views on SlideShare
407
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Astrid Gerz: Evaluation and feedback mechanisms on impact of geographical indications Astrid Gerz: Evaluation and feedback mechanisms on impact of geographical indications Presentation Transcript

    • Brussels Briefing n. 31Geography of food: reconnecting with origin in the foodsystem15th May 2013http://brusselsbriefings.netEvaluation and feedback mechanisms on impact ofgeographical indicationsAstrid Gerz, REDD
    • Evaluation and feedback mechanismson impact of geographical indicationsAstrid GerzAssociated partner and Project manager at REDDExpected and Effective impacts/benefitsof IP and product branding strategies inACP countries
    • Structure of the presentation• Part I What are impacts and why do weneed to assess them?• Part II Typology of impacts in ACPcountries• Part III Key findings & Conclusions
    • Some basics: Why do we needevaluations?• Transparency and accountability betweendonors and implementers• Policy and politics• Science and knowledge
    • Development Organisations and Governmentpolicies• Need to verify assumptions on developmentimpacts• Means for public and private actors to learn fromtheir experiences and to incorporate them intopolicy and practice• Robust basis for raising funds and influencing policyIn developing countries, still limited science basedevidences of the benefits of OLP IP and brandingstrategiesSome basics: Why do we need evaluations?Policy
    • Dispute between members/countries atWTO level to widen the scope of the TRIPSagreement to all food products• Number of countries try to demonstrate thebenefit of the GeographicalIndications, especially for developingcountries and LDCSome basics: Why do we need evaluations?Politics
    • • Basis for questioning and testing assumptions• Reveal mistakes and offers paths for learning andimprovements of the overall approachNeed to have impacts assessment for aquantitative representative sample of products(SinerGI data base and FAO case studies forexample)Some basics: Why do we need evaluations?Science and knowledge
    • Some basics: impact• Impacts Are observed effects …. of the implementation of the GeographicalIndication system / protection scheme ... in three main dimensions of the sustainablerural development: economic (fair distributionof the created value, better income), socialand cultural (promoting traditions and thecultural heritage, reinforcing the sense of localidentity, fighting rural exodus, women andmarginal employment), environmental(preservation or improvement of the naturalresources, landscape, biodiversity)
    • Some basics: expected impacts• What are expected impacts? objectives/motivations/expectations (positive expected impacts) but alsorisks (negative impacts)Some examples of GIs potential impact on supply chains- effects on quantities sold (increase due to reputation / decrease due to exclusionof producers?),- effects on prices, incomes (increase due to the willingness to pay of consumers /decrease due to new costs to respect the code of practise? Cost ofcertification?),- effects on the production concentration (decrease with limitation of yield, size ofthe process units / increase due to the size restriction of the area?)Compilation from Belletti, Marescotti, WP2 Sinergi, 2006
    • • How to assess “impacts” for systems in progress?• Impossible to assess effective impacts• Identify and assess factors which could potentiallybe impacted by IP and branding strategies• As most of the GI systems are new oremerging, almost all impacts are expected• But certain of these impacts are prevalent in themotivation of the initiators / supporters of a IP andbranding strategy10Some basics: expected impactsdifficult to assess
    • • Non-expected impacts can be positive ornegative• Negative impacts can be a threat to theoverall sustainability of the value chainDo not limit the assessment of impacts tothe objective of the IP and branding strategySome basics: Do not forget tomeasure non-expected impacts!!
    • • FAO Quality & Origin programmehttp://www.foodquality-origin.org/home/en/http://www.foodquality-origin.org/fileadmin/templates/olq/files/MethodologyEN.pdf• The Effects of Protecting Geographical Indications: Ways andMeans of their Evaluationhttps://www.ipi.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/Juristische_Infos/e/publication_no_7_2nd_ed_Effects-of-Protecting-Geographical-Indications.pdf• Siner-GI and DOLPHINS for Gis in European Unionhttp://www.origin-food.org/2005/base.php?cat=10&page=10All links at http://redd.pro/downloadsSome basics: More about evaluationmethods and studies of IP and branding
    • Fight against unfair competitionControl marketsRural local developmentPreservation of cultural heritageMotivations (expected impacts) for GI protection in OAPImember statesThe context of GI in ACP countries:Example of OAPI
    • Wagashi, Huile de Palme de Tsévié BENINBeurre de Karité de la Sissili BURKINA FASOCafé et Cacao du Cameroun, MielBlanc d’Oku, Poivre de PenjaCAMEROUNRiz de Montagnes, Noix de Cajoudes Savanes, Mangue de Côted’Ivoire, Attiéké de Grand-Lahou,Pagnes de Tiébissou, Toiles deFakaha, Café et Cacao de Côted’IvoireCOTE D’IVOIRECafé du Mont-Ziama, Belle deGuinée, Piment Mamou, AnanasManférinyahGUINEE CONAKRYOAPI: GI initiatives
    • Poutargue de Nouahdhibou MAURITANIEViolet de Galmi NIGERMiel de Casamance, Yett duSénégalSENEGALRiz de Kovié, Igname deBassarTOGOMbong GUINEE EQUATORIALEOignon du pays Dogon MALIOAPI: GI initiatives
    • GI in ACP countries: A new concept Few success stories and not enough experience in ACPcountries, but possible typologyThe first class : pepper from Penja (Cameroun), white honeyfrom Oku (Cameroun), coffee fromMount Ziama (Guinea), BlueMountain coffee (Jamaica), which will become show cases asPDO Comté cheese (France) or PDO Ryebread (Switzerland).GIs registered as trademarks : the Ethiopian fine coffees(Yirgacheffe, Sidamo etc), Rooibos (South-Africa), violet deGalmi (Niger), belle de Guinée, traditional maroon craftproducts from Suriname (”Maipafolo” mark), Kenyan tea &coffee (certification marks)
    • GI in ACP countries: A new conceptPromising GIs, not protected yet: the Wagashi from Benin, the cacaofrom Cameroun (REDD actually carries out an impact study), the teafrom Rwanda, Mukono Vanilla or cotton from Uganda, Demerera sugarfrom Guyana, Bahamas straw products, cocoa from Trinidad & Tobago Poor economic data on the success, difficult to assess the impactsHowever, empirically the benefits of GI are obvious
    • GI in ACP countries: Economic impact EXAMPLES OF USURPATION : pepper of Penja (registrationtentative in France), Rooibos (registration as a mark by anamerican enterprsie), Ethiopian coffee (use of trademark coffeesby Starbucks) ; registration tentative of the collective mark« galmi » at OAPI (case study 2011) ; Blue Mountain Coffee
    • “Blue Mountain Style” ... from KoreaSource: oriGin, Monique Bagal
    • GI in ACP countries: Economic impact• LESSONS LEARNED : « better late than never »; protecting theearliest + protecting in your country as well as in other countries(territoriality principle of IP-rights)• HIGHER PRICES: Pepper from Penja: According to OAPI the selling prices have more than doubled sinceits labelling; from 2’500 FCA (5 USD) to 6’500 FCFA (13 USD) (besides the fields) Ethiopian fine coffee : According to WIPO, since the creation of the trademarkYirgacheffe and the licensing scheme, farmers income doubled in 2007 compared to theirincome in 2006
    • GI in ACP countries: Social impact• BENEFITS : Better organisation of the producers/supply chainactors, fixing populations in their territory, strong community basedlocal initiatives (examples:white honey from OKU, Wagashi)• LESSONS LEARNED : « the union makes the strength»• LIMITS : producers do not have the same resources nor the sameopportunities to access the international market even with the GI :CASE OF PEPPER FROM PENJA :Discrimination between large and small producers in market access:Regarding the international market (for most European countries), it seemsthat no small producer has access (primarily reserved to a few largeplantations. Moreover, smallholders do not have access to doublecertification because of the high costs. This opportunity remains thus theprerogative of the wealthiest farmers.In addition, the creation of the GI resulted in an increase in land pricesmaking those inaccessible to the poorest.
    • GI in ACP countries: Environmental impact• Two excellent examples :ROOIBOS (a program on sustainability and preservation of biodiversity-Heiveld-cooperative)White honey from Oku: preservation of the forest Kilum Ijim(reinforcement of the interlinkages between the product and the specificnatural resources)• LESSONS LEARNED :Pepper from Penja : GI potentially victim of its success. Risk to give upother cultures for pepperThis concern applies to all cultures.
    • GI in ACP countries: Impact on the structuring of thesupply chain• Even before the registration as GI, positive effects in terms ofmobilisation and organisation of the supply chain actors had beenobserved during the qualification process of white Oku honey andpepper of Penja: becoming aware about « what is the realproduct », its quality and values, the geographical limits, etc.
    • A well known example: The success of Argan oilPromotion of women, capacity buildingPromotion of regional tourismPrice of a liter of Arganoil has risen from 3euros in 1996 to 30euros in 2008Preservation of traditional landscape
    • Key findings• Recent studies in Africa and the Carribeanrevealed the lack of available data to set up theexpected and effective economic impact andadded value of GIs.• Lack of knowledge on impacts (different levels) ofIP and branding strategies in developing countries Important need of evaluation and research• Difficulty to assess expected impacts because oftheir multi dimension and process long timeframes
    • Key findings• The registration of the GI is dedicated or willdedicate a specificity linked to the origin. Followingthis, the social and environmental issues can be achallenge for GI producers. That’s why a goodlesson can be provided from those of them whohave chosen a double certification allowing torecognize their compliance with social andenvironmental standards on the market...• EX: CAFE DE ZIAMA (GI / FAIR TRADE,PEPPER FROM PENJA (GI / GLOBAL GAP),COCOA FROM CAMEROON (Will be soon aprotected GI which is probably combined with aRainforest or UTZ label).
    • Bottlenecks• Linked to « developing countries »general legal and institutional conditions– Lack of competences and means at institutional level as well as atproducers level (for example: certification)– Land tenure insecurity– Short-term (economic) objectives vs long-term environmentalobjectives– Distribution of power in the supply chain• Specifically linked to GIs– Lack of specific skills in the public institutions and supportorganisations (for ex. delimitation of the region of origin,determination of core elements of the specificity to be put in the codeof practices)
    • Risks• Monopoly– in favour of the most powerful actor in the GI system)– unfair exclusion of certain actors (delimitation of thegeographical area / technical constraints)• Additional costs– Small-scale farmers have to pay certification costs or to fitwith new technical conditions– Benefits (premium) are captured by out-of-area actors(Tequila)
    • Conclusions about study results Research studies clearly identify the ability of GIsproduction systems to create positive effects on ruraldevelopment The protection scheme does not guarantee thesepositive effects but may reinforce them The registration process should look carefully at thepresent effects on rural development(economic, social, environmental) The positive effects depend on the strategies that thelocal and non-local actors undertake
    • General Conclusions Needs for further research/studiesNeeds for further assistance in terms of awarenessraising, training, capacity buildingMore show cases are needed to learn from bestpractices and go forward in implementing GI and other IPbranding strategies for origin products.Combining GI with other voluntary standards (Rainforest/Fairtrade / Organic …) to strengthen social and environmentaleffects and a mutual reinforcement on the market