The term “geographical indications” or GI may sound unfamiliar to many. Simply put, it is a system to protect traditional food products and producing technology which are unique to certain regions by allowing producers to use geographical names as brand names. The system needs more attention, as it can create added value for domestically-produced agricultural products.
Champagne, for example, is a sparkling wine produced under strict rules and regulations, using only grapes grown in specifically designated plots in the Champagne region of France. Other regions are prohibited to use the word Champagne combined with terms such as “style” and “type” in naming their sparkling wines, based on the idea that Champagne deserves a high reputation because it is produced in the Champagne region.
Such intention behind GI makes sense. It is not a system to simply protect brands or geographical names, but a system which respects the tradition and quality developed through years of struggle. Consumers pay the amount which the products deserve, based on GI. Since counterfeits are strictly punished, the system benefits both farmers who produce value-added products and consumers who buy them.
GI will help promote locally-grown brands. The Japanese government states the need to promote GI in its basic plan for food, agriculture and rural areas, and also in its basic policies and action plan for the revitalization of Japan’s food, agriculture, forestry and fisheries. The Japan Agricultural Cooperatives group also places priority on GI in its new agricultural policy proposals aimed at creating new values. Food products which are identified only by prices constantly face competition with other brands including imported products. GI will definitely play a significant role in supporting rural communities’ efforts to create value-added products.
The World Trade Organization also identifies GI as an intellectual property right and demands member nations to respect the system, but a big controversy exists between European countries and countries such as the United States and Australia on the level of GI protection. While European countries, which comprise many regions known for traditional products such as cheese and ham, call for stricter GI protection, the U.S. and other nations are strongly against strengthening GI protection.
The opposing countries worry that if European nations monopolize the rights on well-known brands by making use of their tradition in production technology and their geographical advantages, countries in other continents will have difficulty exporting products. U.S. Congress and Office of the U.S. Trade Representative claimed that European nations are pulling strings to strengthen GI protection through bilateral free trade agreements, and are trying to put the brakes on the Europe’s move through multilateral initiatives such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership free-trade talks.
In Japan, the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries has led the discussions on establishing a Japanese-style GI protection system, but currently the procedure is deadlocked, torn between conflicting pressures from Europe and the U.S.
If the Japanese government believes in the need for stricter GI protection to create value, it should continue discussing the issue and establish rules based on its own determination, without being pressured by foreign countries. Regions which produce traditional products also need to reconsider their agricultural strategies to create new value in line with stricter GI protection. Their efforts, combined with domestic consumers who support value-added agriculture, will become a significant force for rejecting unreasonable foreign pressure.
(July 10, 2013)