Geneva 6th/7th October 2011

1. “Learning from Existing Evaluation Practices on the Impacts and Effects of Intellectual Property on Development” Geneva 6th/7th October 2011 Evaluation Section Internal Audit and Oversight Division (IAOD)World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)

2. Impacts of Geographical IndicationsReview of Methods and Empirical Evidences Dr Dominique Barjolle / ETH Zurich Based on a research done in collaboration with Dr Marguerite Paus, AGRIDEA and Anna Perret, REDD

3. 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

4. 1. Evaluation Process • Definitions • Setting-up the evaluation question • Review of existing research answering the question • Design and conducting of the case study approach • Results • Limits of the approach • Conclusion and recommendations

5. 2. Methodological approach • Definitions and review of literature • Case studies • Data 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

6. 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”

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

8. Outcome Impact Activity Output Input ConservationPolicy? GI registration process Negotiation of the code of practices Traditional product, human and natural resources Rules for production methods • Use of traditional/ local breeds • Higher biodiversity ? Number of plant species in meadow? • Promotion of local tourism? • Higher reputation?

9. Methodological approachReview of past research • “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

10. Methodological approachReview of past research • “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

11. Methodological approachMain difficulty • How to assess “impacts” for GI systems in progress? • Impossible to assess effective impacts • Identify and assess factors which could potentially be impacted by the GI system / protection scheme • These potential / expected impacts are often congruent with the main motivations of the initiators or the supporters of a GI system / protection scheme

12. Methodological approachComparative overview among the case studies Elaboration of a common conceptual framework (establishment of a grid of scoring), in two steps: • Selection of relevant items (comparable and assessable), • 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

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 modalities • 0 corresponds to a totally non-relevant item for the considered GI system • 1 means that the impact is almost not expected • 6 corresponds to the most expected effect

14. 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

15. 4. Evaluation Findings and Results

16. Established GIs - Case studies available in SINER-GI project • Roquefort (cheese, France) • Melton Mowbray Pork Pie (pie, United Kingdom) • Tequila (distilled product, Mexico)

17. GIs in progress - Case studies in SINER-GI project • Paprika of Kalosca (spice, Hungary) • Rooibos tea (herbal tea, South Africa) • Argentinean Pampean Beef (fresh meat, Argentina) • Brazilian Pampean Beef (fresh meat, Brazil) • Chontaleño cheese (cheese, Nicaragua) • Pico Duarte coffee (coffee, Dominican Republic) • Jinhua ham (pork, China) • Basmati (rice, India and Pakistan) • Kraljevacki kajmak (dairy product, Serbia) • Bleuets du Lac Saint-Jean (berries, Canada) • Florida Oranges (fruits, United States of America)

18. 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 Answer to the 1st questionExpected / potential impacts

19. 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

20. Established GI systems

21. “Enthusiastic”

22. “Socio-environmentalists”

23. “Undecided”

24. Results • 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 standards • Getting 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)

25. 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?

26. 5. Key findings, conclusions and recommendations • Bottlenecks • Risks • Conditions to get positive impacts

27. Bottlenecks • 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 objectives • 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)

28. 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 costs • Small-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)

29. 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)

30. 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)

31. 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)

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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

35. Needs for further research • Representativeness • Need 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 scheme • In developing countries, GI collective initiative is an organisational innovation • Need 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

36. The whole presentation: • Should take no more than 20 minutes! • Should focus on Evaluation on Intellectual Property!