March - April 2011, Craft Revival Trust

...continued from Page 1

Table 1: Category wise registered Gis Category Number of registered products Agriculture 31 Handicrafts 80 Manufactured 7 Food Stuff 2 Total 120 Source: GI Registry Office, Chennai; as on August 2010 Out of the total 28 states and 7 union territories of India (see Table 2), products from only 18 states have been registered under the GI act. Not even a single product has been registered from 10 states and 7 union territories of India. While Karnataka has the maximum products registered (27), the number of registered products from some of the biggest states with rich cultural and traditional knowledge is dismal. Interestingly, only a single product (Peruvian Pisco, a wine from Peru) from outside India has been registered seeking protection with the Indian GI Registry office. Table 2: State/Region wise distribution of Gis in India State/Region Number of registered products West Bengal 7 Kerala 13 Tamil Nadu 18 Madhya Pradesh 4 Maharashtra 3 Orissa 5 Karnataka 27 Rajasthan 5 Andhra Pradesh 12 Himachal Pradesh 3 Bihar 4 Assam 2 Goa 1 Uttar Pradesh 4 Gujarat 4 Chhattisgarh 3 Nagaland 1 Jammu and Kashmir 3 Peru 1 Total 120 Source: GI Registry Office, Chennai; as on August 2010 (Source: GI Registry Office, Chennai); as on August 2010 The trends and patterns in the year wise distribution of Gis in India show (see Figure 2) that while there has been an overall increase in the number of registered GI products, the increase has not been consistent over the last 6 years. Only three (3) products were registered in the first year (2004-2005). Figure 2: Year wise distribution of Gis in India Source: Based on data from GI Office, Chennai; as on September 2010 The number of products registered under GI recorded a significance increase in the year 2005-06. Twenty four (24) new products were registered in the following year (2005-2006) but in the next year 2006-2007, only 3 new products were registered. The year 2008-09 witnesses the maximum number of new products registered (45) .However, in the following year there was again a significant drop in the number of new GI product registration. Only 14 products were registered in the year 2009-10. Issues and Concerns There are a number of issues and concerns in the context of harnessing the potential commercial benefits out of GI registration in India. Perhaps the biggest concern is near complete absence of an effective post-GI mechanism in the country. While domestic registration of a GI is a relatively easy task and there has been some progress on this account over the last seven years, it is important to understand that only registration of goods per se does not fulfil the objectives of the Act, unless it is backed by sound enforcement mechanism both in domestic and export markets. In fact, the enforcement of the Act in other countries is a much more complicated venture as this may pose a variety of constraints including technicalities involved in the registration process in various foreign countries; exorbitant expenses involved in appointing a watch-dog agency to get information on misappropriation; and huge financial resources needed for fighting legal battles in foreign lands (Kasturi Das, 2006). The government’s role is vital in the post- GI mechanism because without government support, most producer groups do not have the wherewithal to effectively defend or promote their GI brand. In India, perhaps only in the case of one good i.e. Darjeeling Tea; the Tea Board has had some success in defending against misappropriation in a few countries because they have the financial capacity to do so. Though the Act defines the cases when a registered GI is said to be infringed, it is silent on the mechanism and provisions to fight against the infringement and this is an area where the government needs to play a larger role. According to Dr. Rajnikant Dwivedi, Director of Human Welfare Association, an association based in Varanasi working with handloom weavers, benefits of GI protection under the GI Act will actually depend on how effective is the post-GI mechanism. “Banarsee saree weavers continue to be a distressed lot, idle looms have not begun functioning and unscrupulous practices of selling imitation products in the name of Banarsee Saree have not been curbed.GI has not delivered its proposed benefits as yet. The moot question is –‘Will GI be helpful in bringing back those thousands of weavers back into this famous craft who gave up weaving as their livelihoods were destroyed due to almost the same reasons GI protection is supposed to address?’ Though it is a bit early to expect so much but even the associated optimism among the weavers seems to be somewhat missing. The above concern highlights the facts that essentially the litmus test for GI is whether it can effectively protect and promote the livelihood interests of the concerned producers or not, especially the poor producers. Mr. Anil Singh, Director-NEED, a Lucknow based organisation and also an applicant in GI registration for Lucknow Chiken Craft says that GI may leave the artisans community completely high and dry as the awareness level on GI, the most basic recipe for success of any policy, is alarmingly dismal. The post-GI mechanism must have adequate provision for promotion and continuous awareness building. Chicken Craft, being an eco-friendly, gender sensitive craft, has huge potential to increase the bargaining power of the producers, however, this potential has not been tapped. Attempts have been made by the State Government to tap this potential by merging GI promotion with the department of tourism, promoting producer companies and other promotional measures. However, these efforts remain restricted to a few areas where civil society is active. One of the key concerns that Mr. Singh points out is that a majority of producers do not have the capacity to report and fight an infringement case. The government also has not made any headway in adoption of strategies for marketing and distribution of the product, its branding and promotion, especially in foreign countries. This again is a herculean task, especially for the stakeholders from a resource-poor country like India. Success in exploiting the economic potential of a GI, to a great extent, depends on effective marketing and promotional efforts to develop consumer perceptions about the ‘niche’ acquired by the product on account of product-place link. Building up reputation about a GI-product is not an easy task, however. It takes a lot of time, patience, money, quality control and a well crafted marketing strategy to create a valuable GI brand. Champagne, for instance, took 150 years to build up reputation and goodwill. Currently, the action related to GI appears concentrated on registration of GI goods and in many states the state Governments are acting in haste. The identification and registration is happening without adequate due diligence. Applicants often do not assess the commercial status/prospect of a GI product in the domestic and export markets; the potential of its GI status in contributing to its future growth; and the socio-economic implications of its GI-protection for the communities involved in its supply chain. As a result, the larger and the real objectives of the Act are bypassed, often leading to frivolous and inconsequential registration. Moreover, as Gis are a collective rights and not an individual right, the registration process offers an opportunity for community level sensitization and awareness. However, in the haste to register Gis, this opportunity is also lost. The awareness and involvement in the registration process of even GI goods remain reduced to the level of a few selected stakeholders. This has in some cases led to seriously erroneous omissions and commissions, defeating the larger purpose of the GI Act. For instance, the map submitted while applying for GI registration of Bagh Print (already a registered GI) excluded some areas where Bagh printing has existed for decades4. Another error has been pointed out in the case of Madhubani painting. Madhubani Painting on paper is registered as GI under Class16 which implies that Madhubani painting on cloth is not protected. Another lacuna is that the definition of ‘Producer’ in the Act does not distinguish between a real producer, retailer or dealer. As a result of this discrepancy, the benefits of the Act may not percolate down to the real producer. Various economically powerful intermediaries may still continue their control over markets and the real producers may still be dependent on these intermediaries for market access. Even if GI protection would yield financial benefits, in such a scenario, firms with superior bargaining positions (located on the upper stream of the supply chain) may end up appropriating a disproportionate share of the economic value generated from securing protection (Ragnekar, 2004). The knowledge underlying a GI remains in the public domain; hence misappropriation of the embedded knowledge is not protected against. For example, in handicrafts, the technical content will not be protected as a technical idea under the GI, while the cultural value as form of expression and its distinctive characteristics do get protection through marks or indications of geographical origin. Hence, GI should be considered as part of a wider set of policies measures that seek to protect and reward indigenous knowledge. If needed, the technical component of the handicraft could also be protected through other IPRs. There is a dearth of literature from an Indian perspective on potential benefits from GI protection. While many studies have been done in Europe on the issue, hardly any systematic assessment has been undertaken by the relevant agencies in India while identifying the products to be accorded GI status. In the Indian context, studies are not available to address some of the pertinent questions related to GI and its development potential such as: What are the price premium consumers are willing to pay for goods protected under GI and given the ground realities, whether and how much the commercial benefits from GI protection will percolate down to the downstream supply chain? What implication will GI protection have in for rural development in India? Recommendations Extensive gaps exist on operationalizing Gis and this is where the focus of the government needs to be. Well-crafted policies and strategies on post-GI mechanisms are required for marketing, distribution, branding and promotion of the Indian GI products to realise the commercial potential of Indian Gis. There is the need for setting up a national level fund for fighting against infringement, brand building and promotional efforts of GI products. Best possible efforts should be made to sensitize and make the concerned GI community aware through a series of workshops and consultations to ensure maximum level active participation in the process for GI registration. This will in turn translate into socio-economic benefits to the community flowing from GI registration post-GI. In the wake of the deadlock existing at the multilateral trade negotiations at the WTO, international trade is shifting towards regional and bilateral free trade agreements and Gis are featuring prominently among the negotiation issues, including in the ongoing Indo-EU FTA. In the light of these developments, rigorous analytical studies on impact and implications will prove to be useful in chalking out negotiating positions for India. Existing empirical studies are predominantly done within the European context and do not provide for the characteristics of origin-labelled supply chains in developing countries. From a policy perspective much empirical work remains to be done to determine the direct and indirect impact of geographical indications in the developing world. Systemic studies need to be undertaken to study the real impact of the registered GI on the producers’ community and the potential impact of GI protection for the goods identified for production. The implications of Gis in the context of rural development in India need to be studied especially for sectors like agriculture, fisheries, crafts and artisanal works that provide livelihood for a large section of the poor in India. The entire supply chain study should be undertaken to examine or understand the socio-economic implication of GI. Without a collective body of empirical evidence on the impact of geographical indications, policy decisions in the developing world will remain uninformed, potentially producing unintended welfare impacts. References Akerlof, A.G., ‘The Market for Lemons: Quality, Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism’. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84 (August): 488-500, 1970. Cerkia Bramley, Estelle Bienbe and Johann Kirsten, The Economics of Geographical Indications: Towards a Conceptual Framework for Geographical Research in Developing countries published in Economics of Intellectual Property Das, Kasturi (2006), Protection of Geographical Indications: An overview of select Issues with Special reference to India, Working Paper, 8;Centad,Delhi Das, Kasturi (2009), Socioeconomic Implications of Protecting Geographical Indications in India, WTO Centre, IIFT, New Delhi. EU Background Note, ‘Why do Geographical Indications Matter to Us?’ available at http://jp.cec.eu.int/home/news_en_newsobj553.php , 2004. Loureiro, M.L. and J.J. McCluskey, ‘Assessing Consumer Response to Protected Geographical Identification Labelling’, Agribusiness 16 (3): 309-20, 2000. Nelson, P., ‘Information and Consumer Behaviour’, Journal of Political Economy, 78 (March-April): 311-329, 1970. OECD, ‘Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications in OECD Member Countries: Economic and Legal Implications’, Working Party on Agricultural Policies and Markets of the Committee for Agriculture, Joint Working Party of the Committee for Agriculture and the Trade Committee, COM/AGR/APM/TD/WP (2000)15/FINAL, Paris, 2000. Pacciani, A., G. Belletti, A. Marescotti and S. Scaramuzzi, ‘The Role of Typical Products in Fostering Rural Development and the Effects of Regulation (EEC) 2081/92’, 73rd Seminar of the European Association of Agricultural Economists, Ancona, Italy, June 28-30, 2001. Rangnekar, D, ‘The Socio-Economics of Geographical Indications: A Review of Empirical Evidence from Europe’,Capacity Building Project on Intellectual Property Rights and Sustainable Development, UNCTAD/ICTSD, October 2003b. Rangnekar, D.,‘The International Protection of Geographical Indications: The Asian Experience’, UNCTAD/ICTSD, Regional Dialogue on Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation and Sustainable Development, Hong Kong, SAR, Republic of China, November 8-10, 2004. WIPO Magazine, “Geographical Indications: From Darjeeling to Doha” July 2007 World Trade Organization, ‘Promoting Agricultural Competitiveness through Local Know-How’ Workshop on Geographical Indications for Middle Eastern and Northern African Agri-Food Products, World Bank Report, Montpellier, June 2004. World Trade Organization, ‘Exploring the Linkage between the Domestic Policy Environment and International Trade’, World Trade Report, available at http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/anrep_e/world_trade_report04_e.pdf , 2004. Zografos, Daphne(2008);Geographical Indications and Socioeconomic Development, Working Paper 3, Iqsensato, U.K Annexure – 1 Handicraft Products registered under Geographical Indications Act S. No Application No. Geographical Indications Goods State FROM APRIL 2004 – MARCH 2005 1 3 Aranmula Kannadi Handicraft Kerala 2 4 Pochampalli Ikat Handicraft Andhra Pradesh FROM APRIL 2005 – MARCH 2006 3 5 Salem Fabric Handicraft Tamil Nadu 4 7 Chanderi Fabric Handicraft Madhya Pradesh 5 8 Solapur Chaddar Handicraft Maharashtra 6 9 Solapur Terry Towel Handicraft Maharashtra 7 10 Kotpad Handloom fabric Handicraft Orissa 8 11 Mysore Silk Handicraft Karnataka 9 12 Kota Doria Handicraft Rajasthan 10 15 Kancheepuram Silk Handicraft Tamil Nadu 11 16 Bhavani Jamakkalam Handicraft Tamil Nadu 12 19 Kullu Shawl Handicraft Himachal Pradesh 13 20 Bidriware Handicraft Karnataka 14 21 Madurai Sungudi Handicraft Tamil Nadu 15 22 Orissa Ikat Handicraft Orissa 16 23 Channapatna Toys & Dolls Handicraft Karnataka 17 24 Mysore Rosewood Inlay Handicraft Karnataka 18 28 Srikalahasthi Kalamkari Handicraft Andhra Pradesh 19 31 Kasuti Embroidery Handicraft Karnataka 20 32 Mysore Traditional Paintings Handicraft Karnataka FROM APRIL 2006 – MARCH 2007 21 37 Madhubani Paintings Handicraft Bihar FROM APRIL 2007 – MARCH 2008 22 44 Kondapalli Bommallu Handicraft Andhra Pradesh 23 47 Thanjavur Paintings Handicraft Tamil Nadu 24 53 Silver Filigree of Karimnagar Handicraft Andhra Pradesh 25 54 Alleppey Coir Handicraft Kerala 26 55 Muga Silk Handicraft Assam 27 65 Temple Jewellery of Nagercoil Handicraft Tamil Nadu 28 63 Thanjavur Art Plate Handicraft Tamil Nadu 29 76 Ilkal Sarees Handicraft Karnataka 30 73 Applique – Khatwa Patch Work of Bihar Handicraft Bihar 31 74 Sujini Embroidery Work of Bihar Handicraft Bihar 32 75 Sikki Grass Work of Bihar Handicraft Bihar 33 52 Nakshi Kantha Handicraft West Bengal 34 60 Ganjifa cards of Mysore (Karnataka) Handicraft Karnataka 35 61 Navalgund Durries Handicraft Karnataka 36 62 Karnataka Bronze Ware Handicraft Karnataka 37 77 Molakalmuru Sarees Handicraft Karnataka 38 94 Salem Silk known as Salem Venpattu Handicraft Tamil Nadu 39 93 Kovai Cora Cotton Handicraft Tamil Nadu 40 92 Arani Silk Handicraft Tamil Nadu FROM APRIL 2008 – MARCH 2009 41 83 Bastar Dhokra Handicraft Chattisgarh 42 84 Bastar Wooden Craft Handicraft Chattisgarh 43 91 Nirmal Toys and Craft Handicraft Andhra Pradesh 44 59 Maddalam of Palakkad Handicraft Kerala 45 58 Screw Pine Craft of Kerala Handicraft Kerala 46 64 Swamimalai Bronze Icons Handicraft Tamil Nadu 47 82 Bastar Iron Craft Handicraft Chattisgarh 48 87 Konark Stone carving Handicraft Orissa 49 88 Orissa Pattachitra Handicraft Orissa 50 90 Machilipatnam Kalamkari Handicraft Andhra Pradesh 51 57 Brass Broidered Coconut Shell Crafts of Kerala Handicraft Kerala 52 66 Blue Pottery of Jaipur Handicraft Rajasthan 53 67 Molela Clay Work Handicraft Rajasthan 54 68 Kathputlis of Rajasthan Handicraft Rajasthan 55 97 Leather Toys of Indore Handicraft Madhya Pradesh 56 98 Bagh Prints of Madhya Pradesh Handicraft Madhya Pradesh 57 100 Sankheda Furniture Handicraft Gujarat 58 101 Agates of Cambay Handicraft Gujarat 59 102 Bell Metal Ware of Datia and Tikamgarh Handicraft Madhya Pradesh 60 103 Kutch Embroidery Handicraft Gujarat 61 51 Kani Shawl Handicraft Jammu & Kashmir 62 79 Chamba Rumal Handicraft Himachal Pradesh 63 86 & 108 Pipli Applique Work Handicraft Orissa 64 89 Budiiti Bell & Brass Craft Handicraft Andhra Pradesh 65 96 Thanjavur Doll Handicraft Tamil Nadu 66 104 Santiniketan Leather Goods Handicraft West Bengal 67 105 Nirmal Furniture Handicraft Andhra Pradesh 68 106 Nirmal Paintings Handicraft Andhra Pradesh 69 107 Andhra Pradesh Leather Puppetry Handicraft Andhra Pradesh 70 46 Kashmir Pashmina Handicraft Jammu & Kashmir 71 48 Kashmir Sozani Craft Handicraft Jammu & Kashmir 72 119 Lucknow Chikan Craft Handicraft Uttar Pradesh 73 122 Uppada Jamdani Sarees Handicraft Andhra Pradesh FROM APRIL 2009 – MARCH 2010 74 128 Puneri Pagadi Handicraft Maharashtra 75 99 Banaras Brocades and Sarees Handicraft Uttar Pradesh 76 127 Tangaliya Shawl Handicraft Gujarat 77 138 Santipore Saree Handicraft West Bengal 78 144 Cannanore Home Furnishings Handicraft Kerala 79 147 Sanganeri Hand Block Printing Handicraft Rajasthan 80 152 Balaramapuram Sarees and Fine Cotton Fabrics Handicraft Kerala Note: This paper is a shorter version of the GI policy brief printed, published and disseminated by AIACA. Foot Note References Intellectual property Rights, very broadly, means the legal rights which result from intellectual activity in the industrial, scientific, literary and artistic fields. Countries have laws to protect intellectual property for two main reasons. One is to give statutory expression to the moral and economic rights of creators in their creations and the rights of the public in access to those creations. The second is to promote, as a deliberate act of Government policy, creativity and the dissemination and application of its results and to encourage fair trading which would contribute to economic and social development. (WIPO Intellectua;l Property Handbook; Policy, Law and Use) The six IPRs are patents, copyrights, trademarks, Geographical indications, Industrial Designs and Trade secrets. As defined in realm of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Pointed by Mr. Chinmaya Mishra in a planning Commission meeting held recently