EXAMINING THE ROLE OF GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS IN AFRICA'S DEVELOPMENT: A CALL FOR RECONSIDERATION (IRLJ) 5 (3) 2023 No. 80-86

EXAMINING THE ROLE OF GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS IN AFRICA'S DEVELOPMENT: ACALL FOR RECONSIDERATION*

AbstractThis paper argues for the protection and utilization of African agricultural geographical indications. However,geographical indications are not limited to food products and consider the state of legal protection of GIs inAfrica today. This is achieved through examining the sui generis and trademark law approach from the TradeRelated Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement, the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement of 1958,and the regional approaches adopted by the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization andOrganisation Africaine de la Propriété Intellectuelle. As for the future of legal protection for African GIs, thesolution presented in this paper is not to choose between a sui generis or trademark approach. Situations ineach African country are different, as showcased in countries like South Africa and Morocco that use suigeneris and trademark protection. Attention should, however, turn towards technical assistance that could beachieved from the local level to the national and continental levels. This paper discusses the current state ofgeographical indications, highlighting Africa’s current reception of geographical indications. It also discussesthe regulatory framework applicable in African states and recommends addressing specific key emergingchallenges.Keywords: African Geographical indications, Intellectual Property Rights.1. Understanding Geographical IndicationsThere are thousands of registered Geographical Indications (GIs) in the European Union today worth billions ofEuros. Worldwide, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) reports that at least 65,900 protectedGIs exist, accounting for agricultural and non-agricultural products. Unfortunately, Africa has yet to harness thefull potential that GIs offer. GIs offer an approach towards intellectual property rights that does not involve thecreation of a new idea and entails commercializing a unique product owned by a particular group of people,mainly small-scale farmers, to a broader audience for economic gain and rural development, amongst otheradvantages. Like the rest of the world, GIs in Africa are conceptualized through two legal approaches: a suigeneris approach or a trademark approach. The Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property RightsAgreement (TRIPS) guides the two approaches. At the same time, some jurisdictions opt to go further andadhere to the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement of 1958 (Lisbon Agreement). Regionally, the AfricanRegional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) and Organisation Africaine de la Propriété Intellectuelle(OAPI) have taken a practical approach in aiding the registration and the identification of GIs within theirrespective Member States, resulting in the registration of over 20 GIs collectively and a database for potentialGIs. At the continental level, the African Union introduced the Continental Strategy for GeographicalIndications in Africa (2017-2023), intended to aid in developing, promoting, and protecting African GIs. Thestrategy is the first to focus solely on African GIs and serve as a blueprint for the future of GIs on the continent.In terms of Article 22 of the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement,Geographical Indications (GIs) are, ‘indications which identify a good as originating in the territory of amember, or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of thegood is essentially attributable to its geographical origin.’ GIs can simply be defined as distinctive signs placedon goods or services to indicate a characteristic or reputation that is associated with its geographical origin. Thisdefinition by TRIPS stipulates an expanded hypothesis for appellations of origin as per the Geneva Act of theLisbon Agreement of 1958 (Lisbon Agreement), giving validity to the protection of goods that merely derive areputation from their place of origin, without possessing a given quality or other characteristics that are due tothat place.1 Consequently, GIs have become the result of technical, social, and economic interactions involvingthe mobilization of specific local resources such as local knowledge, cultural traditions, and resources from the*By Yvonne Wamuca KIMANI, LLB, PG Dip (Law), LLM, PhD Candidate, Intellectual Property Research Institute,School of Law Xiamen University, China. Email: [email protected]; and* Kujo Elias MCDAVE, LLB, BL, LLM, Former Dean, Faculty of Law, University of Cape Coast, Ghana. Email:[email protected].* Rita Mukundi MUNENE, LLB, PG Dip (Law), MAIR, Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, Nairobi, Kenya. Email:[email protected]1 Lisbon Agreement, article 2.KIMANI, MCDAVE & MUNENE: Examining the Role of Geographical Indications in Africa's Development: ACall for Reconsideration81natural environment and building a product reputation within marketing chains between producers andconsumers.2A GI mark also suggests a type of intellectual property, not only because they are guaranteed under severalinternational conventions and treaties, most notably, the TRIPS Agreement, but because they are regarded ascollective rights as it is often held by producers of a specific good in a defined geographical area, with a specificpositive reputation, to protect themselves from misuse of that geographical name..3 Additionally, GIs are oftenused as a protection tool over products, ensuring there is no misuse or imitation, therefore, guaranteeing the trueorigin of the product. GIs are an important tool for maintaining ‘value-added’ products arising from specificterritories. They have the potential to enhance the reputation associated with the region, encouraging a vastnumber of positive outcomes amongst them, tourism, rural development and biodiversity conservation, sectorsthat has immense potential for developing African nations.4 Official recognition of GI products are seen as ameans to not only protect and assert identity, but also to promote the economic organization while providingadded value.5 However, GIs do not always necessarily come with immediate economic impact, but do have thecapacity to become instruments for policies governing economic impact if they are associated with the relevantrules.6However, the existence of GIs in Africa and other developing countries is still a relatively recent phenomenon.Europe has proved the efficiency of GIs through various frameworks, and the question concerning which marketthey are geared towards is whether they achieve commercial gain and improve rurality. In Europe, for example,GIs and other traditional specialties accounted for an estimated sales value of 77.15 billion euros in 2017 alone.7In Cameroon, the registration of Oku White Honey saw the shift towards niche international markets whilemaintaining its already established domestic markets, and a few years later, it saw the sale prices per kilogramincrease by 40%. Additionally, the sale of a liter of Oku White Honey rose from 1,500 CFA francs toapproximately 4,000 CFA francs in 2014.82. Conceptualizing Geographical Indications in AfricaUnlike the Lisbon Agreement, the TRIPS Agreement requires all WTO member states to incorporate itsprovisions into their existing domestic legislations directly.9 Therefore, each Member State can choose theappropriate way of incorporating its obligations (under TRIPS) into the domestic legislation. Unfortunately, GIimplementation consequently became uncoordinated, in Africa especially, primarily since each jurisdictioncould do as they pleased, leaving the distinction between GI systems as either sui generis (‘registration’) ortrademark (non-registration) protection approaches.Sui Generis ApproachA sui generis approach protects the names of products characterized by the good or service connection with agiven geographical area. It is used to avoid misuse and or misappropriation of distinct products to achieveeconomic gain. This approach encapsulates specific national legislations for geographical indications, withcorresponding regulations. The approach needs to be more widely implemented. African countries with suigeneris legislation for GIs tend to rely heavily on their already established trademark laws, creating an unwantedoverlap. Zimbabwe uses its Geographical Indications Act (2001) and mirrors the TRIPS Agreement definitionof GIs as ‘an indication, however expressed, which identifies a product as originating in a particular area,where some quality, reputation or other characteristic of the product is essentially attributable to its2 G., B., & J., M. A. (2017). Geographical Indications, Public Goods and Sustainable Development: The Roles of Actors'Strategies and Public Policies. WD.3 P, M. D. (2021). Examining the Development Attributed to Geographical Indications. Journal of World IntellectualProperty, 1-20.4 Sautier, D., Estelle, B., & Claire, C. (2011). Geographical Indications in Developing Countries. In E. Barham, & B.Sylvander, Labels of Origin for Food (pp. 138-153). CAB International.5 Ibid at 46 Biosvert, V. (2006). From the Conservation of Genetic Diversity to the Promotion of Quality Foodstuff: Can the FrenchModel of 'Appellation d'Origine Contr?lé? be Exported? CGIAR Systemwide Program on Collective Action and PropertyRights.7 European Commission. (2020, April 20). Geographical Indications- a European treasure worth 75 billion. Retrieved June2023, from European Commission (EC)8 Ibid at 89 TRIPS Agreement, Article 1International Review of Law and Jurisprudence (IRLJ) 5 (3) 202382geographical origin.’ However, the sui generis approach for GIs in Zimbabwe is not unaccompanied as thecountries trademark law and consumer protection laws are also available for GI protection. Morocco similarlyopts for a sui generis approach to GIs with the use of Law No.25-06 on the distinctive signs of origin andquality of food, agricultural and fishery products; Decree 2-08-403 on distinctive signs of origin and quality offood and agricultural fishery products and Decree No. 2-08-404 on the composition and functioning of theNational Commission of Distinctive Signs of Origin and Quality. A GI is defined under Law No.25-06 as ‘aname used to identify a product as originating in a territory, region or locality, where a quality, reputation orany other specific characteristic of that product may be attributed essentially to that geographical origin andthat production and/ or processing and/ or preparation take place in the defined geographical area.’ Moreover,Morocco has a more detailed sui generis law for its GIs, as it simultaneously gives the distinctions between anagricultural label and appellations of origin under Article 2 of Law No. 25-06 and additionally under Article 3 ofLaw No. 25-06 where it provides for the protection of traditional names, geographical or not as well as othercertain geographical designations as either GIs or appellations of origin.10 Morocco is the first African countryto register a GI with Argane and has gone on to conclude an agreement with the European Union concerning theprotection of food and agricultural products that are produced in specific geographical locations and improve thereputation of their unique agricultural products.Trademark ApproachAfrican nations that have adopted this approach have done so primarily since they already had a completedtrademark regulation legal system constituting legislations and regulations to support the administrative anddepartmental functions for trademarks. It allows these jurisdictions to take advantage of existing systems andease the expense of designing new legislation for GIs. Trademarks often consist of a fanciful or arbitrary sign,but a GI is often predetermined by the name of the geographical area where the product is produced. Undertrademark law, GIs are protected as collective, certification marks, or both. The Paris Convention for theProtection of Industrial Property (1883) makes the protection of collective marks under Article 7.The main difference between trademarks and collective or certification marks is that trademarks identify anddistinguish the goods and services of an individual, while the latter identifies and distinguishes the goods andservices of many, i.e., a group of enterprises. The power to decide whether to use a collective mark or acertification mark for GIs lies in the membership of each producer group. A collective mark is controlled by anassociation, while a certification mark is controlled by an individual or a certifying body that sets the rules ofcertification. For countries that have chosen a trademark approach, the use of certification and collective markshas been the suitable approach. Producers of agro-products in Africa tend to be grouped into producer groups,i.e., cooperative societies, since majority is smallholder farmers, and such associations ease the financial burden.Kenya for example, currently opts to secure its GIs through trademark law, with provisions for distinctivenessincluding ‘a word or words having no direct reference to the character or quality of the goods, and not beingaccording to its ordinary signification a geographical name or surname’11 and GI protection specifically fallingunder collective trademarks or service marks.12 Coffee Kenya is registered as a certification mark of origin andis marketed in the international market and is aimed at improving coffee traceability as well as improving thesales for the members of these producer groups. In South Africa, Karoo Meat of Origin for lamb and muttonfrom the Karoo region in South Africa is another example of a certification mark, owned by the Karoodevelopment Foundation.13 As a certification mark, it signals the origin of the product, with aid from SouthAfrican companies and the Intellectual Property Commission, the South African DAFF under the AgriculturalProducts Standards Act, the Consumer Protection Act and labeling regulations.14 Additionally, protection issimilarly available under common law and statute, thereby allowing those that comply with the rules andprotocol to use the mark.10Morocco’s Law No. 25-06,https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/report/downloadreportbyfilename?filename=Geographical%20Indications_Rabat_Morocco_9-25-2018.pdf11 Kenya’s Trademark Act, Cap 506 Article 1212 Kenya’s Trademark Act, Cap 506 Article 40A (5)13 See https://karoofoundation.co.za/karoo-lamb/ accessed on 20 June 2023.14See, https://sadc-epa-outreach.com/images/files/geographical_indications/introducing-south-africa-iconic-meat-productkaroo-lamb-johann-kirsten-director-bureau-for-economic-research-stellenbosch-university.pdfKIMANI, MCDAVE & MUNENE: Examining the Role of Geographical Indications in Africa's Development: ACall for Reconsideration83Therefore, trademarks are used to sell goods and services which bear the mark and function as a means to anend. This allows customers who have concerns over the quality of the products to have confidence in the qualitythey purchase. The mark is able to communicate to the purchaser that the good or service in question is of aparticular quality, making this approach appropriate for GI protection.3. Africa’s Regional Protection of GIsAfrican Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO)This is the intergovernmental organization that grants and administers Intellectual Property titles on behalf of itsmember states and provides them with information on IP through search services, publications and awarenesscreation.15 Currently there are 21 Member States namely, Botswana, Kingdom of Eswatini, The Gambia, Ghana,Kenya, Kingdom of Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Rwanda, Sao Tome andPrincipe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia andZimbabwe. From its 21 members, there are only a few GIs registered16, for example Ghana with Bolga Baskets,Dzomi red palm oil, Ghana cocoa and Ghana shea butter, Mozambique with Cabrito de tete under sui generisprotection and Kenya having Coffee Kenya, Kenya tea and Taita Basket. Unfortunately, ARIPO’s Regional IPdatabase still does not provide any data for GIs originating from its members and the term ‘geographicalindications’ is also not available on the database. Nevertheless, there is a well detailed database for patents,designs and trademarks that have been filed by each country (ARIPO, 2023). ARIPO relies on members’ choiceof GI protection therefore does not present a unified approach when it comes to GI protection. Each memberregisters their GIs through the system of their choice and then files under ARIPO. ARIPO and OAPI show amore unified IP registration system but not all African countries have chosen to become part of them. Nigeriaand South Africa are two of Africa’s biggest economies and both are not part of either organizations.Organisation Africaine de la Propriété Intellectuelle (OAPI)OAPI is a result of the Bangui Agreement and is the IP filing system for seventeen, mainly francophone Africancountries. Member states share mutual legal protection for intellectual property rights from 1977, as well asguidelines and definitions in regard to GIs.17 Current members include Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, theCentral African Republic, Chad, the Comoros, the Congo, C?te d’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea Bissau,Mali, Mauritania, the Niger, Senegal and Togo. OAPI has more GIs registered than its counterpart ARIPO,having registered GIs with Ananas Pain de Sucre du plateau d’Allada from Benin, Chapeau de Saponé fromBurkina Faso, Oku white honey and Poivre de Penja from Cameroon, Belle de Guinée and Café Ziama Macentafrom Guinea, Bandiagara Jaba from Mali and Tchoukou du Niger, de la peau de la Chèvre Rousse de Maradi,Kilichi du Niger, Oignon violet de Galmi and Tchoukou du Niger from Niger.18The OAPI GI system has been criticized for being propelled largely by its colonial connections as well as itswidespread economic and political dependency on France. For example, the French have offered support for theregistration of most of the GIs registered in OAPI. The IPR system is well streamlined, with members havingthe option of using collective trademarks or a sui generis approach for their place-based products. Additionally,OAPI has collaborated with and received extensive technical assistance from a few French institutions,including the French National Intellectual Property Institute (INPI), French National Institute of Origin andQuality (INAO), French Agricultural Research Centre for International Development (CIRAD) and the FrenchDevelopment Agency (AFD).1915ARIPO. (2023, June). About Us. Retrieved from African Regional Intellectual Property Organisation, Retrieved fromhttps://www.aripo.org/public/aboutus#:~:text=The%20African%20Regional%20Intellectual%20Property%20Organization%20(ARIPO)%20(hereinafter%20referred,the%20form%20of%20search%20services%2C16 The list of registered GIs in these regions is found in oriGIN’s GI database. It is the only not for profit organization andserves as a global alliance for Geographical Indications from over 40 countries17 See OAPI, https://www.oapi.int/index.php/en/ressources/accord-de-bangui18 OriGIN, (2023, June 20), Advanced Search, Retrieved from Organization for an International Geographical IndicationsNetwork:19 Oguamanam, C., & Dagne, T. (2014). Geographical Indication (GI) Options for Ethiopian Coffee and Ghanaian Cocoa. InJ. D. Beer, C. Armstrong, C. Oguamanam, & T. Schonwetter, Innovation and Intellectual Property: Collaborative Dynamicsin Africa. UCT Press.International Review of Law and Jurisprudence (IRLJ) 5 (3) 202384The AFD funded ‘Project to Support the Establishment of Geographical Indications in African Countries(PAMPIG) received 1 million Euros in funding as well as technical support from CIRAD.20 Majority ofregistered GIs are EU funded with OAPI securing Poivre de Penja, from Cameroon. This attempt was legallyand financially maintained by AfriPI, an institution financially backed by the European Commission andimplemented by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).21 Poivre de Penja is the firstprotected geographical indication from the OAPI region, which holds the greatest number of registered GIs.GIs are used as a legal protection tool under OAPI, but its members have yet to introduce domestic legislativearrangements to implement the protection of GIs.GI producers and consumers in OAPI tend to use names thatare attached to not only the places but also the biodiversity, local production, and or social identities.Establishing a GI system within OAPI regions would acknowledge the multidimensional legal, technical,organizational, and commercial challenges ahead and need to be backed by broader, systemic projects togetherwith proper public agricultural policies and or territorial strategies.4. The African Union’s GI StrategyThe TRIPS Agreement is the catalyst for the inclusion of GI protection within legal frameworks, consequentlyhaving GI protection recognized by the majority of developing countries at the national and regional levels. InAfrica, a number of countries amended their national laws to be in compliance with the TRIPS agreement, andregionally, that saw ARIPO and OAPI step up as recourse for IP filing in Africa. The Strategy was intended as aroadmap for the African Union Commission (AUC) in order to provide a common opportunity with the AfricanIntellectual Property Organization (OAPI), the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO),Regional Economic Communities (RECs), countries as well as significant stakeholders. Additionally, it wasintended to aid in developing, promoting, and protecting African GIs. It was geared towards creating sustainableregional and continental value chains with African GIs. It sought to empower smallholder farmers by helpingthem realize the potential of their rare products by using intellectual property, all while enhancing thecooperation of inclusive and sustainable value chains. The strategy was endorsed by the Secondary OrdinarySession of the Specialized Technical Committee (STC) on Agriculture, Rural Development Water andEnvironment in October 2017 which had a total of six outlined outcomes:22? Outcome 1: An African vision on GIs as a tool contributing to sustainable rural development and foodsecurity and a GI African approach are developed and shared? Outcome 2: Enabling a legal and institutional framework at the national and regional levels for theprotection of GIs.? Outcome 3: The development and registration of GI products as pilots and drivers for rural andsustainable development are supported, to provide learning and demonstrative effects.? Outcome 4: Market development for GI products is promoted through innovative approaches on localmarkets, through regional trade among the RECs and on export markets.? Outcome 5: Research, training programs and extension are encouraged to ensure the identification,development and diffusion of the best African tailored practices and to contribute to the Africanapproach, in a context of climate change? Outcome 6: awareness of all stakeholders, including consumers, is created, communication amongstakeholders and information to a wider audience are insured.Consequently, these outcomes were to be achieved through making available GI training in Africa programs23,the Africa GI web platform24 and offering support to pilot GI projects. It was also presented as a policydocument with an African approach towards GIs. ARIPO and OAPI have been considered effective ways toobtain wide-ranging protection in Africa since both regional offices cover more than 35 countries. Kenya and20 See CIRAD, https://umr-innovation.cirad.fr/content/download/45804/256117/version/1/file/AlistarExpertiseIG.pdf21EUIPO. (2022, March 30). European Union Intellectual Property Office. Retrieved June 2023, from europa:https://euipo.europa.eu/ohimportal/en/web/guest/-/news/-poivre-de-penja-first-protected-geographical-indication-from-theoapi-region?categoryIds=972180722See the African Union document on the continental strategy for geographical indications,https://au.int/sites/default/files/documents/36127-doc-au_gis_continental_strategy_enng_with-cover-1.pdf23 See the Pan-African Geographical Indications information hub for full list of GI training programs, https://africagi.com/en/pan-african-gi/training24 See the Pan-African Geographical Indications information hub GI database prototype, https://ipc-eui.com/africa/gi-search-2/gi1KIMANI, MCDAVE & MUNENE: Examining the Role of Geographical Indications in Africa's Development: ACall for Reconsideration85Ghana similarly received protection for their products prior to the GI Strategy. Mozambique was able to securecertification as a geographical indication in 2018.5. The Future for African GIsWhile the AU’s main aim is to encourage continental integration, the one size fits all approach with regards toGI protection is not practical in the African context. The strategy drew its inspiration from a few African GIssuch as Poivre de Penja, the pioneer registered GI. However, as mentioned earlier, this was made feasible bytheir historical ties to their former colonizers. Admittedly, GIs today are a legal instrument. However, having alegal framework for it is only one part of having successful GIs, especially for smaller communities.Institutional Framework in Africa with regard to GIs is highlighted as a success element but the nonexistence ofinstitutional resources, costs for certification, low enforcement capacity and lack of synergy and coordination atthe national and regional levels are highlighted as general weaknesses (AU, 2018).25 To curb this, according tothe strategy, there is the need for developing a shared African vision, approach and partnerships (includingresearch action) to be able to improve the synergy among countries, partners and technical assistance projects(AU, 2018). This approach is taken because of ARIPO and OAPI being the major institutions that have aided inthe registration of African GIs.However, such support towards different national regulations is still relatively absent. This inclusion for GIprotection is because of having to comply with the TRIPs agreement and not necessarily due to theunprecedented need to place some much-needed attention towards GI protection. Many African nations have notshown a willingness to put their focus on GIs. For example, over the last 10 years, there have been no changesin GI laws within the majority of African countries. Kenya, for example, had tabled a geographical indicationsbill (2007) but has yet to have the bill enacted into law. Moreover, GI projects include the project supportingthe establishment of geographical indications (PAMPIG)for OAPI and ARIPO members and funded by theFrench Development Agency (AFD), and technical support by the International Cooperation Centre ofAgricultural Research for Development (CIRAD) and ran from 2010-2014. This project is what led to theregistering of the first GIs in sub-saharan Africa namely poivre de Penja, Oku White Honey (miel blanc d’Oku)and Ziama macenta coffee (Café Ziama Macenta). The Food and Agricultural Organisation’s (FAO) technicalassistance for Tunisia from 2008 to 2009 for the support of an institutional framework on certification anddevelopment of a number of schemes, the International Trade Centre (ITC) and WIPO project on branding andprotection of the Zanzibar clove, amongst others.26Unfortunately, the majority of AU’s member states have yet to experience the economic benefits associated withGIs, highlighting the poor infrastructure available to have successful GIs within its member states, especiallyregarding technical assistance. The issue to be addressed in the future is what constitutes a more Afrocentricapproach, especially for the next face of the strategy, if there is to be any. It does not go without acknowledgingthat the heavy reliance on its European counterparts has shown to be productive especially for OAPI countries.However, countries such as South Africa have proved that if there are unique products not saturated in themarket, with unique characteristics, such smallholder groups with the right support would harness the economicbenefits of having a GI. Even with the aid from the European Union, protection of African GIs, save for SouthAfrica, have secured GI protection within the EU. According to the European Union Intellectual PropertyOffice, South Africa has secured protection for 106 GIs, with only 4 of them being categorized under foodproducts and the rest being categorized under wines.27 The four food items areHoneybush/Heuningbos/Honeybush Tea/ Heuningbos Tea, Karoo Meat of Origin. This is a result of wellnegotiated bilateral agreements.There is also a deficit within ARIPO and OAPI in boosting the technical infrastructure for GIs within itsmembers; there is also potential for a community-based approach, as countries such as Kenya have widely usedcooperative movements to mobilize smallholder farmers. Since ARIPO and OAPI have both been successful in25 AU. (2018, June). African Union. Retrieved from Continental Strategy for Geographical Indications in Africa 2018-2023:https://au.int/sites/default/files/documents/36127-doc-au_gis_continental_strategy_enng_with-cover-1.pdf.26 The Continental Strategy highlights the 10 GI projects initiated in the continent, all financed by international institutions27 OriGIN, (2023, June 20), Advanced Search, Retrieved from Organization for an International Geographical IndicationsNetwork: https://www.origin-gi.com/worldwide-gi-compilation/?or-global_search=&orcountries_of_origin%5B%5D=BF&or-world_region=&or-legal_protection=&or-product_tags=&orthird_countries_of_protection=&orderby=name-asc&numberpage=20&filters-submit=Filter#gi-tablInternational Review of Law and Jurisprudence (IRLJ) 5 (3) 202386the registration of GIs, albeit with heavy reliance on their European donors, this should not be understood as adisadvantage, as each group that benefited has recorded positive results in regard to sustainability, povertyalleviation, and rural development amongst other upticks from the UNCTAD’s sustainable development goals.Since the presentation of the strategy for GIs in 2017, there have only been a handful of GIs registered byARIPO and OAPI, and a total of 81 GIs have been registered collectively from all its 55 members.6. ConclusionAfrica is endowed with unique products naturally occurring on the continent, and what is left is to market itsproducts with the help of intellectual property rights. Although there has been a clear overdependence on the EUand other Western nations, it has resulted in the registration of GIs on the continent and the experience of thenumerous potential African GIs. For example, the- African Database of Potential GIs has been developed by theIntellectual Property Offices of the African Union Member States with the support of the Intellectual PropertyRights Action for Africa project and administered by the European Union Intellectual Property Office(EUIPO).28 AfCTA provides a practical solution for such communities and a chance to change their focustowards participation in technical support programs, as this is the most important aspect of GIs. As for thecountries that are not a part of ARIPO or OAPI, AfCTA offers the same reprieve, and each State is able to adjustaccording to its current GI protection status. OAPI’s success is apparent, but its continuous reliance on Westernfunding and influence seems to contradict AU’s policy towards self-sustenance.29 All in all, GIs are a win forAfrica. The studies behind initial pilot GIs have been a great resource, and now it’s time to place more emphasison implementing a more community-based approach and ways of securing funding for technical assistance thatwill empower such groups that will consequently take advantage of the trade revolution that AfCTA has thepotential to offer. The future of African GIs is in its internationalization of GIs as it is an important issue withindeveloping African countries. Within the wide framework set by the World Trade Organization (WTO) as wellas Africa’s regional bodies and trade agreements such as AfCTA, the pertinence and feasibility of GIs rely onvery diverse processes, justifications, stakeholders, and markets that could be on the continent or across thepond. GIs seem to be one of the potentially beneficial tools that producers could use to control the intellectualproperty rights (IPRs) associated with the identity of their products.3028 See the Pan-African Geographical Indications information hub, https://ipc-eui.com/africa/29 See the African Union Objectives, https://au.int/en/overview30Sylvander, E. B, (2011), Labels of Origin for Food. In D. Sautier, & E. B. Cerdan, Geographical Indications in DevelopingCountries (pp. 138-153). CAB International