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. Monitoring and evaluation of the effects of the protection of Geographical Indications. A Methodological proposal Giovanni Belletti, Andrea Marescotti Department of Economics, University of Firenze (Italy)

3. Introduction • General aim: provide a methodology for the evaluation of economic, social, and environmental effects of the registration/protection of Geographical Indications (GIs). • Many expectations related to the protection of GIs: not only private interests, but also collective and public ones • TRIPS Agreement: growing consciousness and interest in the world • Framework of the study: broad cooperation project on GIs between the Jamaica Intellectual Property Office and the Swiss Intellectual Property Institute • Main objectives of the proposed methodology: • monitoring and evaluating the effects that registering a single GI may have on the “GI production system” and on its delimitated territory • monitoring and evaluating the effects of introducing a GI legal and institutional framework, at national level

4. The object of the analysis: complexity and consequences • Agrofood products identified by a GI are complex objects, due to: • Multiple links with local specific natural and human resources • History and tradition of the product, and links to local population • Collective dimension (many actors involved) and local shared knowledge (production and consumption sides). • GI legal protection should normally be based on collective rights and on shared rules of production (Code of practice) • The legal protection of a GI (especially when there is a Code of Practice): • Impacts on the market performance of the product (prices, volumes, quality levels, marketing channels, ...) • Modifies the competitive balance inside the GI supply chain (exclusion effects, inter-firms relationships…) • Affects social and environmental dimensions (links to natural and human resources, local culture, traditional knowledge…)

5. Survey Building Phase • - Define aims • Stakholders expectations • Chains of causality • - Choosing indicators • - etc. Evaluation - What happened? - Why? - What is GI role? t0 GI picture t1 GI picture Specific enquiries Specific enquiries Evaluation process and methodological approach Complexity of the GI product system, exogenous pressures and difficulty to find counterfactual cases (benchmarking)  diachronic approach • Many stakeholders involved in the GI product, with different points of views and expectations  participatory approach. Evaluation team with local stakeholders, that: • Defines aims of the analysis, areas of impact and pertinent indicators • Shares responsibilities in collecting and organizing data • Participates in data analysis, interpretation and evaluation

6. ... GI-Framework and policies  Input First order Effects  Outputs Second order Effects  Outcomes Third order Effects  Impacts Key evaluation question: What expected effects from GIs? e.g. number of firms registered in the RGI system or using the RGI e.g. prices of the RGI product e.g. impact on biodiversity, preservation of traditional knowledge, on tourism A map of GI potential effects has been prepared

7. Findings - Mapping potential effects of a GI product registration: overview

8. Findings – Special focus on effects on the GI system economic performance

9. Findings – Special focus on Third order effects

10. Findings – Special focus on Third order effects

11. Findings – Indicators for monitoring GI effects • A critical step is the selection of relevant indicators for monitoring each area of impact. Indicators should be: • Relevant • Scientifically consistent • Measurable • Official statistical sources often do not provide specific, useful data for the GI evaluation • Need for specific inquiries and need to have synergies between data collected within administrative procedures (e.g., GI control and certification activities may generate many relevant data at very low cost) Example of indicators for GI effects on prices

12. Findings - Mapping potential effects of a GI legal framework

13. Key findings, conclusions, recommendations • Requirements for the evaluation: • the methodology should be adapted to different GI situations • Use participative methods (information, empowerment and inclusion of all stakeholders) due to the “collective nature” of GIs • Use multiple evaluation criteria (weights can vary according to stakeholders motivations and expectations) • carefully select indicators and data sources, often lacking or incomplete or non-specific • Advantages of the evaluation: • provides the public sector as well as all GI stakeholders with reliable information on the economic, social and environmental impacts of GI protection • At national level: it can help improving the legal framework • At single GI level it helps: • Ex ante: to analyse weather to apply or not, how to draw the Code of Practice (Impact Assessment) • Ex post: to correct rules and (individual and collective) strategies

14. Evaluation experience The methodology has been developed by the Authors in the framework of a cooperation project between the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property and the Jamaican Intellectual Property Office, and reflects their research experience both in the European Union and in some developing countries. The methodology has been partly implemented to Jamaica, both at national level (effects of the introduction of a GI legal framework) and at single GI level: Jamaica Rum, Jamaica Blue Mountain coffee, Jamaica Jerk (seasoning and sauce) The competent Jamaican authorities and Jamaican Producers’ organizations can use this methodology as soon as it will be relevant (i.e. once one or more Jamaican GIs have been registered). Furthermore, this methodology will be available for other cooperation or development projects on GIs. The methodology is published in: Belletti G., Marescotti A., Paus M., Reviron S., Deppeler A., Stamm H., Thévenod-Mottet E. (2011), The Effects of Protecting Geographical Indications. Ways and Means of their Evaluation, Publication No 7, Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property, Bern (http://www.ige.ch)