“Learning from Existing Evaluation Practices on the Impacts and Effects of Intellectual Property on Development”

Geneva6th/7th October2011

Evaluation Section Internal Audit and Oversight Division (IAOD)World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)

Impacts of Geographical IndicationsReview of Methods and Empirical Evidences

Dr Dominique Barjolle / ETH ZurichBased on a research done in collaboration with

Dr Marguerite Paus, AGRIDEA and

Anna Perret, REDD

Introduction

Scope: Geographical Indications, as defined in the strict meaning Madrid and in a broader meaning in the TRIPS Agreements

Objective of the research: assessing the territorial impact (economic, social and environmental) of geographical indication systems

3

1. Evaluation Process

1. Definitions

2. Setting-up the evaluation question

3. Review of existing research answering the question

4. Design and conducting of the case study approach

5. Results

6. Limits of the approach

7. Conclusion and recommendations

4

2. Methodological approach

Definitions and review of literature

Case studiesData gathering through experts (both quantitative and qualitative)

Cross comparison: set-up of a short-list of key-indicators

Evaluation of the indicators by the experts in charge of conducting the case studies

Comparisons and conclusions

5

Methodological approachDefinition of a GI system

A GI system is the set of actors …… who are effectively engaged in creating value and improving the strategic marketing position of the GI product … by spontaneous individual or organized collective action, … and those who are engaged in the activation and reproduction of those local resources (natural resources, knowledge, social capital) which make the GI product specific”

6

7

Methodological approachDefinition of “impact” for the purpose of this research

Impacts Are observed effects …. of the implementation of the Geographical

Indication system / protection scheme ... in three main dimensions of the sustainable rural

development: economic, social and environmental

Input Activity Output Outcome

Higher reputation?

Impact

Traditional product, human

and natural resources

Higher biodiversity ?

Number of plant species in meadow?

GI registration

process

Negotiation of the code of practices

Rules for production methods Use of

traditional/ local breeds

Promotion of local tourism?

Conservation

Policy?

8

“Objective” methods (hard data): a picture of the impact differential between two states or two systems • diachronic evaluation (time series) before / after,

historical approach• synchronic evaluation (cross section) with / without

approach

Methodological approachReview of past research

9

“Subjective” methods : the level of recognition of positive or negative effects of initiatives by external or internal actors (comparison of preferences)

Lickert scales

Retrospective questions

Participative approach

Methodological approachReview of past research

10

How to assess “impacts” for GI systems in progress?

Impossible to assess effective impactsIdentify and assess factors which could potentially be impacted by the GI system / protection schemeThese potential / expected impacts are often congruent with the main motivations of the initiators or the supporters of a GI system / protection scheme

Methodological approachMain difficulty

11

Methodological approachComparative overview among the case studies

Elaboration of a common conceptual framework (establishment of a grid of scoring), in two steps:

1) Selection of relevant items (comparable and assessable),

2) Scoring of each item on the basis of the case study reports, in discussion with the expert responsible for the case study or its review

12

13

Methodological approachAssessment of the expected impacts

Assumption:

as most of the GI systems are new or emerging, almost all the impacts are expected, certain impacts are prevalent in the motivation of the initiators / supporters

Scoring between the modalities0 corresponds to a totally non-relevant item for the considered GI system1 means that the impact is almost not expected6 corresponds to the most expected effect

3. Key- evaluations questions

1st question: Which are the impacts of the Geographical Indications systems on the sustainable development?

= List of possible impacts

2nd question: Which reasons lead to the impacts?= Comparative and empirical approach

14

4. Evaluation Findings and Results

15

Established GIs - Case studies available in SINER-GI project

1. Roquefort (cheese, France)

2. Melton Mowbray Pork Pie (pie, United Kingdom)

3. Tequila (distilled product, Mexico)

16

17

GIs in progress - Case studies in SINER-GI project

1. Paprika of Kalosca (spice, Hungary)2. Rooibos tea (herbal tea, South Africa)3. Argentinean Pampean Beef (fresh meat, Argentina)4. Brazilian Pampean Beef (fresh meat, Brazil)5. Chontaleño cheese (cheese, Nicaragua)6. Pico Duarte coffee (coffee, Dominican Republic)7. Jinhua ham (pork, China)8. Basmati (rice, India and Pakistan)9. Kraljevacki kajmak (dairy product, Serbia)10. Bleuets du Lac Saint-Jean (berries, Canada)11. Florida Oranges (fruits, United States of America)

Answer to the 1st questionExpected / potential impacts

On the economic level

- Market stabilization / increase

- Price premium

- Value added in the region

On the social level

- Local Employment

- Empowerment of producers

- Cultural value / Tradition

On the environmental level

- Local breed / variety

- Extensive farming

- Natural resources

On the food safety

18

Answer to the 2nd questionWhich reason lead to the impacts?

Reading of all the case study reports

Discussion with each expert

Evaluation of the indicators

Cross review

Clustering the case studies

Looking for the lessons learnt

19

Established GI systems

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Market stabilization /increase

Value added in the region

Price premium

Cultural value / Tradition

Local Employment

Empowerment Extensive farming

Local breed / variety

Natural resources

Food safety / hygienicrules

Melton Mowbray Pork PieRoquefortTequila

20

“Enthusiastic”

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Market stabilization / increase

Value added in the region

Price premium

Cultural value / Tradition

Local Employment

Empowerment Extensive farming

Local breed / variety

Natural resources

Food safety / hygienic rules

Basmati

Rooibos

Paprika

21

“Socio-environmentalists”

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Market stabilization /increase

Value added in the region

Price premium

Cultural value / Tradition

Local Employment

Empowerment Extensive farming

Local breed / variety

Natural resources

Food safety / hygienic rules

Argentinean Pampean Beef

Brazilian Pampean Beef

22

“Undecided”

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Market stabilization / increase

Value added in the region

Price premium

Cultural value / Tradition

Local Employment

Empowerment Extensive farming

Local breed / variety

Natural resources

Food safety / hygienic rules

Jinhua HamKajmak of KraljevoFlorida OrangesBleuets of Lac st JeanPico Duarte CoffeeChontaleño Cheese

23

Impacts are mainly linked with economic performance of the supply chain or economic-related issues

Access to foreign markets with a certified product fulfilling all hygienic standardsGetting a premium in and outside the region and keeping it as much as possible in the region

Methods are well developed to assess these effects

But… if the economic concerns are the only motives in the implementation of the GI protection schemes, there are some crucial risks (and additionally positive effects on rural development dynamics are more difficult to evaluate)

Results

24

Limits

- Limits related to the method (rigor) • Correlation / causality (importance of other factors such as other

policies which might influence the observed impacts)• Difficult to distinguish what is caused by the protection vs. the GI

system itself

- Limits – measurable effects Exclusion of actors? Potential(s) conflict(s) within the supply chain? Networks / external support? Notoriety of the membership of a „GI family“ Role in the global regional strategy? Synergies with other regional

products?

25

5. Key findings, conclusions and recommendations

Bottlenecks

Risks

Conditions to get positive impacts

26

BottlenecksLinked 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 objectivesDistribution of power in the supply chain

Specifically linked to GIsLack 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)

27

Risks

Monopoly in favour of the most powerful actor in the GI system (Chontaleño)unfair exclusion of certain actors (delimitation of the geographical area / technical constraints)

Additional costsSmall-scale farmers have to pay certification costs or to fit with new technical conditions (Kajmak)Benefits (premium) are captured by out-of-area actors (Tequila)

28

The effects are not obvious: Some conditions must be fullfilled

Collective strategy of the actors (integration to a regional strategy of bundle, typicity and reputation of the origin)

Motivation of the actors

Internal governance and management of the collective organization (democratic desicion making, vertical coordination, low transactions costs, managment of the tensions)

29

The effects are not obvious: Some conditions must be fullfilled

Contents of the code of practices

Certification and control (internal to maintain quality and external against usurpations)

Public supports (public policies, financial, technical, partnerships)

30

6. Evaluation Experience

Insight into my evaluation experience in Intellectual Property

Related to the protection of the geographical indications (origin of the products)

Several evaluations (cross-comparison of GI systems for food, cross-comparison of GI systems for non-food for the European commission, cross-comparison for PDO-cheeses in Europe)

31

Conclusion about methods

The assessment of effects of GI system or protection scheme has become an important research program

No well-established methods (contextual)

Many methodological difficulties

Methodological limits

32

Conclusion about results

Research studies clearly identify the ability of GIs production systems to create positive effects on rural development

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, environmental)

The positive effects depend on the strategies that the local and non-local actors undertake

33

General Conclusion

GI institutional legal frames are Intellectual Property Right-policies but…

To achieve political goals regarding sustainable agriculture and rural development (SARD) : necessity to have a comprehensive policy combining GI legal tool with other support policies

The territorial level defined by the GI is sufficient coherent to host valuable SARD programmes

34

Needs for further research

RepresentativenessNeed of having the impacts assessment for a quantitative representative sample of GI systems (SinerGI data base and FAO case studies for example)

Best practices to enter and achieve a GI schemeIn developing countries, GI collective initiative is an organisational innovationNeed for focused research about the role of various actors playing possibly an active role during the registration procedure

Impacts on trade (local and foreign), estimation of the concerned volumes at international level

35

The whole presentation:

Should take no more than 20 minutes!

Should focus on Evaluation on Intellectual Property!

36