ISLAMABAD, Aug 17: The extension of the scope of geographical indications (GIs) to non-wine and spirit products would help enhance the market access for developing countries like Pakistan for agriculture and cottage industry products. This was the consensus of most of the speakers at a two-day seminar on agreement on trade related aspects of intellectual property (TRIPs) and GIs. The seminar was jointly organized by ministry of commerce and Australian government.
They gave the example of famous Basmati case of Pakistan and India in this regard.
Pakistan had already signed an agreement with the EU for exports of its traditional geographical products on zero duty without any quantitative restriction.
These products — made ups of Swati Patti, Ajrak of Sindh, Peshawari Chappal from Charsada –- had potential for exports to EU as traditional geographical products.
Geographical indications identify a good as originating from 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. TRIPs require its members to provide legal tools to protect its geographical indications.
The Executive Officer, International Intellectual Property Section of Australian Government, Geoff Binn said the European Union had understated the costs the government, consumers and industry would bear in view of the proposed changes in the WTO.
Talking to Dawn he said that the possible impact on trade mark holders of GIs registration and systems of IP protection were of more concerns for many countries. In the case of GIs there would be life-long protection as compared to the trade marks, which provided a protection of rights for a limited period for a particular product.
He was of the opinion that problem which we might face in future is that if it is agreed to extend the scope of GIs to non-wine and spirit products would result into more protectionist regime.
“Australia and a number of WTO Members have not been convinced that there is any need to change the system. In fact, the cost to developing countries will outweigh any of the benefits that are being promised,” he remarked.
Mr. Binn said it was important that developing countries ask the European Union for more information about the costs and impact involved in the GIs process. “Failure to do so would indicate that the market receiving the better deal, would be the EU,” he added.
The EU, he said had so far registered around 10,000 wines and spirit GIs and 800 non-wine GIs. While in Australia around 150 wine GIs were registered.
The EU wanted to discuss the GIs provision in the committee on agriculture (CoA) in WTO to which most of the developing countries are against. The developing countries wanted to negotiate this agreement under TRIPs committee.
A study already done in Pakistan under UN Trade Initiates from Human Development Perspective Project, a copy of which available with Dawn conclude that countries like Pakistan would benefit to generate employments in rural areas, if proper marketing arrangement are made available to the small manufacturers.
However, a cautious approach needs to be adopted because GIs provision could only be operationalized when Pakistan enacted its national GIs law.
The study suggested that in the multilateral trade negotiation, we should demand extension of GIs to non-wines and spirit products but it should be considered that for developed countries like EU might not use as a vehicle to provide prohibitive subsidies in to its rural community.
The EU move to negotiate GIs in CoA actually indicates its motive that they wanted to switch most of their subsidies from blue amber box to green box, where countries are allowed to provide full support for rural development and retention of employment and environmental conservation.
