To Label or Not? Governing the Costs and Benefits of Geographic Indication of an African Forest Honey Value Chain

Abstract

Geographical Indication (GI) has been proposed as a development tool, benefitting producers, consumers and local communities by creating value, improving market access, protecting local knowledge and natural resources and contributing to social cohesion as producers work together to solve common problems. However, scientific evidence on the socio-economic and environmental effects of governing value chains and origin landscapes through this voluntary, market-based arrangement is scarce. Honey appears ideal for GI labeling: having unique, physically identifiable and geographically localizable properties dependent upon the local ecosystem and beekeeping practices. White honey from the Kilum-Ijim forest in the Cameroon Highlands was GI registered in 2013 aiming to guarantee product quality, increase beekeeper selling prices and protect the forest. Long-term panel data from stakeholder interviews, market surveys and participatory action research show the extent to which the GI actually benefited beekeepers, and how the honey value chain and landscape developed since registration. Although honey production and productivity remained steady, profits augmented as prices increased and sales became more nationwide, improving beekeeper's living standards, and appear attributable to the GI. Deforestation continued and imposter brands abounded, signaling potential supply shortages, increased input costs and competition which could affect future profits and the GI reputation and changing the distribution of benefits to suppliers rather than beekeepers. These findings suggest that whilst the Oku white honey GI contributed to short-term positive livelihood effects, longer-term positive impacts which support conservation of the landscape have been ineffective, and the durability of the positive economic impacts is questionable. Although multiple arrangements govern the value chain and landscape, even together with the GI these are insufficient to balance the many demands on this productive landscape, suggesting the limits of weak institutions and non-state governance to protect vulnerable landscapes and ecosystems, and producer's livelihoods. This reality check of the benefits from the Oku white honey GI highlights the importance of coherent, effective governance of the nexus of both landscapes and markets for products from these landscapes.

One step further: application of metabolomics techniques on the geographical indication (GI) registration process

“…GIs create incentives for the preservation of local natural resources and traditions, because of the importance/influence of these resources and traditions on the value of protected products (Charters et al, 2017). GIs impact on the increase of rural employment, producers' income and tourism development, which indirectly prevent rural exodus by bringing value to the place of production (Ingram et al, 2020). These positive outcomes draw the attention of public institutions and governments interested in the development of GIs, as a way to remodel food systems incorporating sustainable and ethical measures (Artêncio et al, 2022).…”

“…Previous studies (Quiñones-Ruiz et al, 2016;Tashiro et al, 2018) have explored some issues involved in already registered GIs. Research on GIs has analyzed and discussed: case studies; their economic performance and impact on trade (Quiñones-Ruiz et al, 2016); consumers' behavior (willingness to pay, preference and trust) and ability in recognizing GI products (Artêncio et al, 2022;Quiñones-Ruiz et al, 2018); the potential of GIs in fostering local socioeconomic development (Ingram et al, 2020); the understanding of construction of boundaries for GIs in different regulatory and food cultural contexts (Hegnes, 2019) and the relationships between the duration of application stages and perceived effects of GI registration (Tashiro et al, 2018). Most of this research body has European GIs and countries as objects of study, considering specific viewpoints (e.g.…”

“…, 2022; Quiñones-Ruiz et al. , 2018); the potential of GIs in fostering local socioeconomic development (Ingram et al. , 2020); the understanding of construction of boundaries for GIs in different regulatory and food cultural contexts (Hegnes, 2019) and the relationships between the duration of application stages and perceived effects of GI registration (Tashiro et al.…”

Examining the development attributed to geographical indications

“…76 The stablished rules (A4) receive different names. For example: "Code of conduct"; 77 "Code of Practice"; 78 "Production agreement"; 79 and "Regulation of Use". 80 These might have variable structure and requirements, but each one is a document with the rules of production established within the defined area, which must be followed if they want to use the GI.…”

Trade Effects of Geographical Indications on Turkish Agricultural Products and Foodstuff

“…Geographical indication (GI) has appeared as one important labelling tool to transmit information regarding the product origin and characteristics to the consumers. A GI, by definition, is a denotation for products with a specific geographical origin and possessing qualities or a reputation that are due to that origin (Ingram et al, 2020). According to TRIP's definition geographical indications 'identify a good as originating in the territory of a Member, or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristics of the good is essentially attributable to its geographical origin' (TRIPs, Article 22.1).…”