Recommendations development on gi

1. DEVELOPMENT OF GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS
IN THE AFRICAN UNION COUNTRIES: A
CONTINENTAL STRATEGY TO MOVE FORWARD
VALIDATION WORKSHOP
31 May, 1 and 2 June 2016 – Cotonou, Benin

2. Recommendations from the draft strategy
MONIQUE BAGAL
CATHERINE TEYSSIER

3. An African approach for GIs: linking products,
places and people
GI development in Africa can increase food security, being a driver to address
many development issues, by two means:
 When GI products are for export markets or intra-African trade:
 By improving farmers and other value chain stakeholders income through
linkages to remunerative markets with mechanisms to ensure equitable
sharing of benefit from GIs.
 By improving ‘access to market’ information systems, encouraging mutual
recognition or harmonization of rules between African countries, and
encouraging economic partnerships.
 The African GI approach should integrate as much as possible fair trade
principles and certification, and the two certification systems could be
merged or made compatible.

4. An African approach for GIs: linking products,
places and people
GI development in Africa can increase food security, being a driver to address
many development issues, by two means:
 When GI products are for local or regional markets, the African GI approach
should take into consideration that:
 They are traditional products (linked to local varieties and races, traditional
production methods, traditional recipes, with ethnic know-how…) with very
localized markets (low volume of production)
 They should be accessible to the majority of consumers
 The cost of third certification on local markets, where local communities or public
authorities lack resources, is too heavy: could an African guarantee participative
system be defined and officially recognized?

5. An African approach for GIs: linking products,
places and people
 Transboundary issues: a number of GI products as a result of their link to a large
community or specific to a natural area can be found in different African
countries (ecosystems or sociocultural groups may span over several countries):
could the regional institutions in charge of GIs together with the RECs develop
regional GIs in Africa with a facilitated/specific procedure?
 A specific GI process and framework should be designed for handicrafts, strongly
linked to ethnic or cultural groups that are now dispersed over wide areas (without
a strong link to the physical territory)
 Specific traditional agricultural systems linked to particular ecosystems
(pastoralism, oasis, flood plains agro-fisheries, numerous agro-forestry systems,
etc.): could specific linkages be created between GI strategies and UN projects
for remarkable site or intangible material recognition?

6. An African approach for GIs: raising awareness
and building capacities
 Building on existing experiences and capacities developed and allowing this
knowledge to be spread out, thanks to a permanent dialogue on national,
regional and continental multi-stakeholders and multi-sectorial platforms
(public authorities in different domains –IP, agriculture, food, etc.-, farmers
platforms, market actors, etc.), giving the lead to African stakeholders while
partnering with key players internationally (e.g. oriGIn, Slow food, IFOAM
etc.)
 Raising awareness of the different stakeholders in African countries
(economic actors, public authorities, consumers), disseminating information,
building capacities and encouraging public actors to promote GI processes
as a tool for sustainable rural development (protection and support policies)
by mainstreaming these topics in national policies

7. An African approach for GIs: research,
inclusiveness and pilot projects
 Implementing GI development projects to address general development issues
and GI ones through pilots: importance of inclusiveness (facilitating small holders
organization so they can defend their interests, focus on the roles of women and
young) and of environmental sustainability (preservation of natural resources
necessary for the long run GI process success, importance of climate change
resilience)
 Implementing consultation/negotiation mechanisms, between the various
stakeholders involved in the GI process (including producers, State and local
governments representatives and buyers / exporters) to build a compromise
acceptable for all
 Developing specific research for the African context to help designing
appropriate programs, tools and methods, including identification of GI
products in all the countries (inventories of heritage and potentialities), providing
product and market innovation together with the maintenance of the product
specificity and identity; and encouraging diffusion of these templates through
extension services.

8. An African approach for GIs: legal and
institutional recommendations
 On the framework of protection:
 While States have a lot of discretion about the options of protection for origin-
products provided they are compliant to TRIPS, African States shall ensure
availability of the two main tools of protection of geographical names namely,
sui generis system and trademark law including certification trademark. Such
availability facilitates choices that address the particular need of GI operators.
 Where a separate system on the protection exists (sui generis) attention should
be given to the scope of the protection in order to ensure that the names
cannot be translated or delocalized but also that they cannot become generic.
 As stated before, information on the tools and benefits of GI protection should
be disseminated through various media.

9. An African approach for GIs: legal and
institutional recommendations
 On capacity-building:
 GIs in Africa tend to expand since the last decade. However, Capacity
challenges continue to delay African’s countries attempts to make all their
GI regimes development-friendly.
 From a legal point of view, on the top of a specific service in charge of GI
protection within intellectual property offices, consideration should be
given to enforce an advisory body which could be in charge of informing
industries and producer groups of the potential of a GI, facilitate training of
young people on the principles of GI, create consumer and trade
awareness on GI, backstop the efforts of public authorities on repression of
fraud.

10. An African approach for GIs: legal and
institutional recommendations
 On capacity-building:
 Considering building new capacities for the legal enforcement of GIs in
Africa is costly, it is deemed necessary to assess the feasibility and
relevancy of a renewal fee for sui generis GIs.
 Repression of fraud remains a challenge, among others, on the African
continent. African authorities shall liaise and spell out in detail the role that
they, regional economic communities and the African Union,
should perform. Proposals may range from a common register for GIs to
customs cooperation but also convergence of working methods of local
agencies in charge of repression of fraud.

11. An African approach for GIs: legal and
institutional recommendations
 Regarding international protection:
 Adherence to existing international registers (Madrid, Geneva) and other
alternatives or interesting routes to international protection of African
names (EPA) shall be, where missing, integrated in the strategy of
protection of African names abroad. In this regard, the different interests
have to be carefully balanced.
 It is recalled that Madrid and Lisbon system allow the possibility for
international organizations (OAPI, ARIPO) to become parties to the register
which allows immediate benefits to their member States in one go.

12. Thank you !