Since 2010, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) is supporting selected LDCs rural communities in their efforts to promote traditional products through Geographical Indications (GIs). GIs are a trade-related intellectual property right under the WTO TRIPS Agreement. The link between the territory and the uniqueness of the product is the distinctive developmental nature of GIs with respect to other forms of TRIPs.

Evidence from the market and literature shows that the promotion and protection of products under GIs may results in higher economics gains, fostering quality production and equitable distribution of profits for LDC rural communities. GIs encourage the preservation of biodiversity, traditional know-how and natural resources. Leveraging on biological and cultural diversification, the implementation of GIs may represent a unique opportunity to bring together the various players along the value chain supply, including producers, government authorities and researchers.

This study is the result of activities carried out under the UNCTAD project TAAK on market access and trade laws funded by the Italian Government and the Development Account project entitled “Strengthening the capacity of rural communities in least developed countries to utilize the market access opportunities provided by duty-free quota-free and enhancing value added of their traditional products”.

The case studies contained in this publication are based on documents and field missions carried out by teams of international and local experts from 2013 to 2015.

---

Why Geographical Indications for Least Developed Countries (LDCs)?

Limited product diversification and fluctuating market value of traditional products are issues that have been affecting trade flows of Least Developed Countries (LDCs) for decades. In spite of limited product and export diversification, mainly consisting of raw and low value added products (primarily commodities), a valuable array of traditional products and preparations is available in selected LDCs having potential to graduate to products of excellence which can compete globally. However, bringing small local producers upfront in the global value system does not necessarily carry them beyond subsistence. Competition in global markets is fierce, and many LDCs feel the need to develop quality names for the use of food, for instance through the protection geographical indications (GIs), to secure higher returns from sales.

UNCTAD, following its mandate, is currently building capacity based on best practices to be adopted at national level to preserve and protect traditional products by implementing GIs and complying with sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) requirements, such as hazard analysis critical control point (HACCP) systems and the EurepGAP4 protocols. Likewise, UNCTAD promotes the introduction of initiatives and trade policies in development plans of LDCs aimed at preserving and enhancing the commercial and ethical value of their traditional products to maintain biodiversity and to successfully introduce pro-poor policies.

Literature shows that the protection of products (under GIs) results in higher economic gains, fostering of quality production growth and better distribution of profits. GI protection has wider positive benefits on local communities. In particular, GIs encourage the preservation of biodiversity, local know-how and natural resources. Agricultural products and foodstuffs are embedded in plant, forest or animal ecosystems. There are many different practices and forms of knowledge, revealing, as if that were necessary, the inventive capacity of societies. Food products are based on complex systems capable of maintaining various forms of biodiversity, ranging from a landscape to a microbial ecosystem, including plant varieties and local animal breeds. This situation is present in developed and developing nations; however, a differentiation has to be made among developing countries, as the situation of LDCs is rather precarious in terms of institutional transparency, capacities and infrastructure.

Food or handicraft products coming from such environmental endowments should be produced by local communities in a manner that allow LDCs to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals and to benefit from growing international trade. GIs as intellectual property rights (IPRs) can provide an adequate protection for accomplishing these goals in the current context of internationalization. Biological and cultural diversities are fundamental for revalorizing traditional food or handicrafts products having the potential to benefit rural communities, and in that way supporting them to cope with current challenges (e.g. food security). While traditional knowledge of indigenous and local communities has been recognized as being essential for understanding biological and cultural diversities attention should be paid when they access and use biological and cultural diversities to ensure fair and equitable benefits and to contribute to sustainable development. Indeed, GIs can be considered as an opportunity to accomplish the following tasks:

• Protection of local species that serve as raw material (e.g. ingredients) for potential GI products.

• Joint elaboration of Code of Practice/Book of Specifications/Product Specifications aimed at enhancing product quality but also at the design rules to build local awareness about environmental protection in these areas.

• Support of collective management (e.g. of the forest).

• Boost of local cohesion among potential GI users and consumers.

The term “geographical indication” was first used by the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Right (TRIPS) of the World Trade Organization (WTO), which came into force in 1995. Article 22(1)1 of the Agreement defines GIs as “indications which identify a good as originating in the territory of a Member, or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographical origin”. Although the purpose of GIs was not to protect biodiversity but rather the reputation of a product, specific local biological or genetic resources, high degrees of biodiversity, provision of ecosystems, specific landscape functions or good agricultural practices can be major factors explaining such reputation. The registration of GIs would protect biodiversity in the sense that a particular variety or ecosystem, distinct from neighbouring ones, would be maintained. For example, the specificity of a GI product can be closely linked to the use of unique and locally adapted genetic resources, and its governance might include the sustainable management of local landraces or breeds.

But how can farmers from LDCs access and protect GIs? Diverse GI types bear the opportunity to protect products whose specific quality is linked to a geographical origin:

• Protected GIs can be regarded as a type of collective formal certification.

• In some countries, trademarks (TMs) can also be considered as a kind of legally protected GI in which companies usually own the rights (for instance in the United States of America or in Australia, but also in many developing nations such as Sri Lanka, Ethiopia or Kenya, where usually the State is the title holder).

• Some countries also use rather a general country-of-origin labelling as well as a branding strategy. Nevertheless, they do not constitute GIs as defined by the TRIPS Agreement. Some territories develop territorial brands as well, like almost every region in the European Union for promoting a basket of products and services.

In the context of LDCs, evidence shows how GIs can directly contribute to environmental conservation. For instance, according to the Agence française de développement (AFD), the use of a specific local biological resource in Tunisia is promoted for the production of Kebili dates. Additionally, producers of Oku honey in Cameroon preserve local natural resources when making honey in the nationally protected forest of Kilum-Ijim near Mount Oku. On the contrary, excessive intensification when the protected GI becomes a success may lead to great losses in biological biodiversity.

The rationale behind GIs is to valorize traditional specialty products. Nevertheless, if GIs are to contribute to policy objectives such as poverty alleviation and biodiversity conservation, they have to evolve and develop accordingly – not only as an IPR for the use of geographical names in trade, but also as an innovative axis to valorize environmental rich settings, animal welfare or cultural heritage by integrating regional value chains in the context of rural development, and growing suburban and urban populations in developing countries. Policy recommendations at the national level should include – where possible – that local and traditional varieties shall be valorized, e.g. by restricting the protected GI to traditional or rare varieties, land races and breeds or the prohibition of genetically modified organisms.

It is difficult that the GI protection considers all attributes of a product, namely: reputation, tradition, biodiversity, taste and quality. Hence, expectations about GIs should not be exaggerated. GIs can be developed through adaptive governance and co-learning of diverse supply chain actors in developing and developed countries in rural areas. In the best case scenario, the GI implementation should lead to the promotion of local (e.g. rural, suburban and urban) and external market alliances (e.g. to overcome gatekeepers in international supply chains who can prevent consumers from learning about the product origin) and to the inclusion of relevant provisions on environmental rules in the code of practice.