Bridges Trade BioRes • Volume 1 • Number 2 • 6th December 2001
Geographical Indications Hotly Debated In The Wake Of Doha
Geographical Indications Hotly Debated In The Wake Of Doha
The question whether negotiations on the extension of geographical indications (GIs) were officially launched at the Fourth WTO Ministerial meeting in Doha has emerged as one of the most controversial issues in the wake of the Conference. This and other issues related to GIs were also the topic of discussion among government officials and private industry at a recent Symposium organised by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
GIs, as defined in the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), are identifications of the country or region where the quality, reputation or other characteristic of a product is essentially attributable to the geographical region. Additional protection of GIs already exists for wines and spirits (eg Champagne, Bordeaux and Cognac), and some countries (mainly Asia, Europe and Africa) are calling for this protection to be extended to other products (eg Basmati rice, Darjeeling tea or Camembert cheese). Some believe that by giving value to biological resources, GIs can provide an incentive to preserve native varieties, the environment in which the respective resources are grown, and the traditional knowledge associated with them.
Mandated negotiations or exploratory discussions?
While the Doha Ministerial Declaration explicitly launches negotiations on establishing a multilateral system of notification and registration of GIs for wines and spirits (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 22 November 2001), WTO Members are still debating whether negotiations are also mandated for the extension of the protection of GIs for products other than wines or spirits.
While countries opposed to extending GIs, including the US, Argentina and other agriculture exporting countries, argue that no mandate exists, others dispute this conclusion. Switzerland in a communication submitted on behalf of the EC and 13 other countries states that the Ministerial Declaration provides "a clear mandate to launch negotiations" on GI extensions (WT/MIN(01)/W/11). This conclusion was also supported by India which in a joint submission with Bulgaria, Kenya and Sri Lanka asserts that negotiations have been launched on GI extension "as part of the negotiations on outstanding implementation issues" (WT/MIN(01)/W/9). "It is our understanding that no additional consensus is required for the launching of these negotiations," the submission states.
The US, in contrast, stressed in its assessment of the Ministerial Conference’s outcome that ministers "avoided launching negotiations" on GIs. "We have confirmed with the [WTO] secretariat that we do not believe — and they agree — that this [declaration ] mandates negotiations," a US official said. Some have expressed concern that interpreting the Declaration’s provisions as not providing a negotiating mandate for GI extension might set a precedent for the possibility of negotiations on other outstanding implementation concerns.
At the centre of the controversy is para. 12 of the Declaration which provides two options for negotiations on implementation-related concerns (which also include GI extension), namely (a) issues to be negotiated under a specific mandate where such a mandate is provided in the Declaration, and (b) outstanding implementation issues to be addressed by the relevant WTO bodies which will report to the Trade Negotiations Committee by the end of 2002 "for appropriate action". While some Members argue that GI extension should be addressed under (a), others see it as an issue for discussion under (b), ie in the TRIPs Council. Also, among those supporting the latter interpretation, some assert that "appropriate action" could, but does not necessarily imply negotiations, whereas others say that it can only be regarded in the context of negotiations.
While the extension of GIs is listed as one of the developing countries’ implementation concerns, it is in practice not a North-South dispute, but rather pits countries that want to use GIs to promote the export of valuable products and prevent perceived misappropriation against the main agriculture exporting countries that do not want their products to be prevented from using these names. One developing country representative pointed out that in fact, the extension of GIs is likely to lead to new obligations for developing countries while the benefits will mainly go to developed country that are better prepared at the national level to take advantage of GI extensions.
WIPO Symposium on GIs
GIs were also the focus of a WIPO Symposium, held in Montevideo, Uruguay, from on 28-29 November 2001. The meeting brought together representative from governments and private industry to exchange information on GI protection at the national, regional and international levels and on future trends in that area. Divergence on the benefits and drawbacks of GI extensions was also apparent among participants, even though the issue was not discussed in much detail.
Additional Resources
The WTO submissions cited in this article are available on the WTO web site. For further information on the GI debate, see the forthcoming issue of BRIDGES Between Trade and Sustainable Development.
The documents distributed at the WIPO Symposium are available online.