Brussels Briefing n. 31
Geography of food: reconnecting with origin in the food
15th May 2013
Evaluation and feedback mechanisms on impact of
geographical indications
Astrid Gerz, REDD
Evaluation and feedback mechanisms
on impact of geographical indications
Expected and Effective impacts/benefits
of IP and product branding strategies in
ACP countries
Astrid Gerz
Associated partner and Project manager at REDD
Structure of the presentation
• Part I What are impacts and why do we
need to assess them?
• Part II Typology of impacts in ACP
• Part III Key findings & Conclusions
Some basics: Why do we need
• Transparency and accountability between
donors and implementers
• Policy and politics
• Science and knowledge
Some basics: Why do we need evaluations?
Development Organisations and Government
• Need to verify assumptions on development
• Means for public and private actors to learn from
their experiences and to incorporate them into
policy and practice
• Robust basis for raising funds and influencing policy
In developing countries, still limited science based
evidences of the benefits of OLP IP and branding
Some basics: Why do we need evaluations?
Dispute between members/countries at
WTO level to widen the scope of the TRIPS
agreement to all food products
• Number of countries try to demonstrate the
benefit of the Geographical Indications,
especially for developing countries and LDC
Some basics: Why do we need evaluations?
Science and knowledge
• Basis for questioning and testing assumptions
• Reveal mistakes and offers paths for learning and
improvements of the overall approach
Need to have impacts assessment for a
quantitative representative sample of products
(SinerGI data base and FAO case studies for
Some basics: impact
• Impacts
 Are observed effects
 …. of the implementation of the Geographical
Indication system / protection scheme
 ... in three main dimensions of the sustainable
rural development: economic (fair distribution
of the created value, better income), social
and cultural (promoting traditions and the
cultural heritage, reinforcing the sense of local
identity, fighting rural exodus, women and
marginal employment), environmental
(preservation or improvement of the natural
resources, landscape, biodiversity)
Some basics: expected impacts
• What are expected impacts? 
objectives/motivations/expectations (positive expected impacts) but also
risks (negative impacts)
Some examples of GIs potential impact on supply chains
effects on quantities sold (increase due to reputation / decrease due to exclusion
of 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 of
- effects on the production concentration (decrease with limitation of yield, size of
the process units / increase due to the size restriction of the area?)
Compilation from Belletti, Marescotti, WP2 Sinergi, 2006
Some basics: expected impacts
difficult to assess
• How to assess “impacts” for systems in progress?
Impossible to assess effective impacts
Identify and assess factors which could potentially
be impacted by IP and branding strategies
• As most of the GI systems are new or emerging,
almost all impacts are expected
• But certain of these impacts are prevalent in the
motivation of the initiators / supporters of a IP and
branding strategy
Some basics: Do not forget to
measure non-expected impacts!!
• Non-expected impacts can be positive or
• Negative impacts can be a threat to the
overall sustainability of the value chain
Do not limit the assessment of impacts to
the objective of the IP and branding strategy
Some basics: More about evaluation
methods and studies of IP and branding
• FAO Quality & Origin programme
• The Effects of Protecting Geographical Indications: Ways and
Means of their Evaluation
• Siner-GI and DOLPHINS for Gis in European Union
All links at
The context of GI in ACP countries:
Example of OAPI
Motivations (expected impacts) for GI protection in OAPI
member states
Fight against unfair competition
Control markets
Rural local development
Preservation of cultural heritage
OAPI: GI initiatives
Wagashi, Huile de Palme de Tsévié
Beurre de Karité de la Sissili
Café et Cacao du Cameroun, Miel
Blanc d’Oku, Poivre de Penja
Riz de Montagnes, Noix de Cajou
des Savanes, Mangue de Côte
d’Ivoire, Attiéké de Grand-Lahou,
Pagnes de Tiébissou, Toiles de
Fakaha, Café et Cacao de Côte
Café du Mont-Ziama, Belle de
Guinée, Piment Mamou, Ananas
OAPI: GI initiatives
Poutargue de Nouahdhibou
Violet de Galmi
Miel de Casamance, Yett du
Riz de Kovié, Igname de
Oignon du pays Dogon
GI in ACP countries: A new concept
Few success stories and not enough experience in ACP
countries, but possible typology
The first class : pepper from Penja (Cameroun), white honey
from Oku (Cameroun), coffee fromMount Ziama (Guinea), Blue
Mountain coffee (Jamaica), which will become show cases as
PDO Comté cheese (France) or PDO Ryebread (Switzerland).
GIs registered as trademarks : the Ethiopian fine coffees
(Yirgacheffe, Sidamo etc), Rooibos (South-Africa), violet de
Galmi (Niger), belle de Guinée, traditional maroon craft
products 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 cacao
from Cameroun (REDD actually carries out an impact study), the tea
from Rwanda, Mukono Vanilla or cotton from Uganda, Demerera sugar
from 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 (registration
tentative in France), Rooibos (registration as a mark by an
american enterprsie), Ethiopian coffee (use of trademark coffees
by Starbucks) ; registration tentative of the collective mark
« galmi » at OAPI (case study 2011) ; Blue Mountain Coffee
“Blue Mountain Style” ... from Korea
Source: oriGin, Monique Bagal
GI in ACP countries: Economic impact
LESSONS LEARNED : « better late than never »; protecting the
earliest + protecting in your country as well as in other countries
(territoriality principle of IP-rights)
 Pepper from Penja:
According to OAPI the selling prices have more than doubled since
its 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 trademark
Yirgacheffe and the licensing scheme, farmers income doubled in 2007 compared to their
income in 2006
GI in ACP countries: Social impact
BENEFITS : Better organisation of the producers/supply chain actors,
fixing populations in their territory, strong community based local
initiatives (examples:white honey from OKU, Wagashi)
LESSONS LEARNED : « the union makes the strength»
LIMITS : producers do not have the same resources nor the same
opportunities to access the international market even with the GI :
between large and small producers in market access:
 Discrimination
Regarding the international market (for most European countries), it seems
that no small producer has access (primarily reserved to a few large
plantations. Moreover, smallholders do not have access to double
certification because of the high costs. This opportunity remains thus the
prerogative of the wealthiest farmers.
addition, the creation of the GI resulted in an increase in land prices
 In
making those inaccessible to the poorest.
GI in ACP countries: Environmental impact
Two excellent examples :
ROOIBOS (a program on sustainability and preservation of biodiversityHeiveld-cooperative)
honey from Oku: preservation of the forest Kilum Ijim
(reinforcement of the interlinkages between the product and the specific
natural resources)
Pepper from Penja : GI potentially victim of its success. Risk to give up
other cultures for pepper
This concern applies to all cultures.
GI in ACP countries: Impact on the structuring of the
supply chain
Even before the registration as GI, positive effects in terms of
mobilisation and organisation of the supply chain actors had been
observed during the qualification process of white Oku honey and
pepper of Penja: becoming aware about « what is the real
product », its quality and values, the geographical limits, etc.
A well known example: The success of Argan oil
Price of a liter of Argan
oil has risen from 3
euros in 1996 to 30
euros in 2008
Promotion of women, capacity building
Preservation of traditional landscape
Promotion of regional tourism
Key findings
• Recent studies in Africa and the Carribean
revealed the lack of available data to set up the
expected and effective economic impact and
added value of GIs.
• Lack of knowledge on impacts (different levels) of
IP and branding strategies in developing countries
 Important need of evaluation and research
• Difficulty to assess expected impacts because of
their multi dimension and process long timeframes
Key findings
• The registration of the GI is dedicated or will
dedicate a specificity linked to the origin. Following
this, the social and environmental issues can be a
challenge for GI producers. That’s why a good
lesson can be provided from those of them who
have chosen a double certification allowing to
recognize their compliance with social and
environmental standards on the market...
protected GI which is probably combined with a
Rainforest or UTZ label).
• Linked to « developing countries »
general legal and institutional conditions
– Lack of competences and means at institutional level as well as at
producers level (for example: certification)
– Land tenure insecurity
– Short-term (economic) objectives vs long-term environmental
– Distribution of power in the supply chain
• Specifically linked to GIs
– Lack of specific skills in the public institutions and support
organisations (for ex. delimitation of the region of origin,
determination of core elements of the specificity to be put in the code
of practices)
• Monopoly
– in favour of the most powerful actor in the GI system)
– unfair exclusion of certain actors (delimitation of the
geographical area / technical constraints)
• Additional costs
– Small-scale farmers have to pay certification costs or to fit
with new technical conditions
– Benefits (premium) are captured by out-of-area actors
Conclusions about study results
 Research
studies clearly identify the ability of GIs
production systems to create positive effects on rural
 The protection scheme does not guarantee these
positive effects but may reinforce them
 The registration process should look carefully at the
present effects on rural development (economic, social,
 The positive effects depend on the strategies that the
local and non-local actors undertake
General Conclusions
 Needs
for further research/studies
Needs for further assistance in terms of awareness
raising, training, capacity building
More show cases are needed to learn from best
practices and go forward in implementing GI and other IP
branding strategies for origin products.
Combining GI with other voluntary standards (Rainforest/Fair
trade / Organic …) to strengthen social and environmental
effects and a mutual reinforcement on the market

Presentation -