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

“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)
Impacts of Geographical Indications
Review 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
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
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 approach
Definition 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”
Methodological approach
Definition 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
7
8
Input
Activity
Output
Outcome
Impact
Conservation
Policy?
Traditional
product, human
and natural
resources
GI
registration
process
Negotiation
of the code
of practices
Rules for
production
methods
 Use of
traditional/ local
breeds
 Higher
reputation?
 Higher
biodiversity ?
Number of plant
species in meadow?
 Promotion of
local tourism?
9
Methodological approach
Review 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 approach
Review 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 approach
Main 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 approach
Comparative 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
13
Methodological approach
Assessment 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
1. Roquefort (cheese, France)
2. Melton Mowbray Pork Pie (pie, United Kingdom)
3. Tequila (distilled product, Mexico)
17
GIs in progress - Case studies in
SINER-GI project
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
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
Answer to the 1st question
Expected / potential impacts
On the economic level
- Market stabilization /
increase
- Price premium
- Value added in the region
On the environmental
level
- Local breed / variety
- Extensive farming
- Natural resources
On the social level
- Local Employment
- Empowerment of producers
- Cultural value / Tradition
On the food safety
19
Answer to the 2nd question
Which 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
Market stabilization /
increase
6
Food safety / hygienic
rules
5
4
Value added in the region
Price premium
3
2
1
0
Natural resources
Local breed / variety
Extensive farming
Cultural value / Tradition
Local Employment
Empowerment
Melton Mowbray Pork Pie
Roquefort
Tequila
21
“Enthusiastic”
Market stabilization / increase
6
Value added in the region
5
Food safety / hygienic rules
4
Price premium
3
2
1
0
Natural resources
Local breed / variety
Extensive farming
Cultural value / Tradition
Local Employment
Empowerment
Basmati
Rooibos
Paprika
22
“Socio-environmentalists”
Market stabilization /
increase
6
5
Food safety / hygienic rules
4
Value added in the region
Price premium
3
2
1
0
Natural resources
Local breed / variety
Extensive farming
Cultural value / Tradition
Local Employment
Empowerment
Argentinean Pampean Beef
Brazilian Pampean Beef
23
“Undecided”
Market stabilization / increase
6
5
Food safety / hygienic rules
4
Value added in the region
Price premium
3
2
1
0
Natural resources
Local breed / variety
Extensive farming
Cultural value / Tradition
Local Employment
Empowerment
Jinhua Ham
Kajmak of Kraljevo
Florida Oranges
Bleuets of Lac st Jean
Pico Duarte Coffee
Chontaleño Cheese
24
Results
Impacts are mainly linked with economic
performance of the supply chain or economicrelated 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!