GIs and origin-linked products for territorial development Lessons learnt from field projects in “developing countries” Emilie Vandecandelaere FAO, Quality & Origin manager

1.Background 2.From the “concept” to the realities: a large varieties of approaches 3.Challenges related to institutions 4.Conclusions

FAO program Quality & Origin Framework: project in 2007 and inter-departemental working group Main objective: to provide guidance and technical support on voluntary standards and schemes, including specific quality (SQ) schemes. SQ linked to geographical origin: to enhance potential for sustainable rural development (remuneration and reproduction of local resources) Means: Sharing information and knowledge: –Regional seminars (Mediterranean, 2 Latin America, Asia, Southeastern Europe) and expert meeting, workshop) –case studies ( 8 Latin America, 3 Eastern European countries, 2 Mediterranean, 6 Asia) Guidance tools ( guide FAO-sinerGI, training material, methodology for identification and inventory ) Technical cooperation projects : Morocco, Tunisia, Turkey (in formulation), Argentina, Brazil, Costa Rica, Chile, Ecuador, Per ú, Asia, Bhutan, Vietnam, Ukraine, Croatia, Mali, Senegal, Guinea Bissau, Sierra Leone, etc.

“GI”: variety of approaches From 1994, a general concept of “GI” as IPR “characteristics, quality or reputation linked to geographical origin” and varieties of definitions at national level… Various visions and approaches in the fields: –Specific quality: objective vs subjective, justification and type of value linked to origin? –Strategies of “building value”: differentiation for export vs territorial development, local identity or market driven? –Objectives: economics vs public goods ; bottom –up vs top down? –Evaluation, ownership and user: public/private, IP/agriculture- development, who does what? –Protection and level of guarantees for producers and consumers  Shift from protecting established value to building one... With important external support (or pushing)  Issues of preserving natural and cultural heritage, including food diversity... Is GI the best tool? (environement practices, indigeneous rights, one product or a basket...)

Issues and challenges… Risk of delusions... Local institutions: –“ stewardship”, appropriation by local actors –building the value chain and the GI organization National institutions and international : –coordination bewteen sectors (IP, agriculture, etc.) –International recognition: need for a common basis, importance of regional approach – Mediterranean! (CoP, representative GI body...) Investment and returns... –Time for learning process –Unexpected impacts

Conclusions Local process: –GI strategy possible if specific quality linked to geographical origin –Preservation of natural and cultural heritage: if part of the specific quality –Conditions for territorial development = identity and appropriation –Impacts depend on local resources and process; not on registration as such –  start with IDENTIFICATION (specific quality, local motivations and local players) to assess the right tool and labelling National: –A sound legal and institutional framework for recognition and protection –Support policies for enabling conditions for territorial development, in support of the process (at 4 steps of virtuous circle)

Thank you