India has filed applications for the registration of Basmati rice as a geographical indication (GI) in 19 jurisdictions amid criticism from Pakistan and Nepal, with protection already granted in the UK. India’s minister of state for commerce and industry Hardeep Singh Puri announced the development to India’s parliament in a letter on Wednesday, March 10, according to a report in the Times of India. Hardeep confirmed that the GI mark for ‘Basmati’ and its logo have been registered in four countries, including the UK, South Africa, New Zealand and Kenya. The GI sign is used for products with a specific geographical origin that have qualities based on natural factors within their place of origin. In September, India filed an application for the GI tag in the European Union's (EU) Official Journal, so it could claim exclusive ownership over the product in the EU. The application stated: “‘Basmati’ is a special long grain aromatic rice grown and produced in a particular geographical region of the Indian sub-continent. In India, this region is a part of northern India, below the foothills of the Himalayas forming part of the Indo-Gangetic Plains.” It further added: “In India, ‘Basmati’ is grown and produced in all districts of the states of Punjab, Haryana, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, as well as in specific districts of western Uttar Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir.” Opposition to India’s GI In February, the Rice Exporters Association of Pakistan (REAP) submitted a reasoned statement to the EU after submitting the notice of opposition to India’s claim over Basmati in December, according to Indian news outlet, The Dawn After reviewing both of these documents, the European Commission (EC) declared the notice of opposition and the reasoned statement of REAP admissible on March 5, making REAP a party to the case. Back in October, Pakistan first confirmed plans to challenge India's claim for Basmati rice in the EU. In December, Nepal joined Pakistan in opposing India’s application for a GI for Basmati Rice in the EU, creating the first IP dispute to involve all three south-Asian countries. According to blog, Spicy IP, Nepal cited three reasons for its opposition to India’s application, namely that Basmati is grown and consumed traditionally in Nepal; Nepal has worked extensively with national and international scientists since 1965 to develop different varieties of rice; and that Basmati has social and cultural ties with the Nepalese communities. Pakistan’s new GI status In January, Pakistan attached a GI status to its Basmati to help Pakistan contest India’s claim of exclusive rights, According to the new approved rules, 79 products, including Basmati Rice, Khanpur Khwa, Bahawalpur Chunri, Bhakkar Karna Oil, Khewra Pink Salt, Chitrali Embroidery, Hunza Apricot, Sukkur Dates, have been protected through Pakistan’s GI law. Like Pakistan, Nepal has also claimed a GI right on Basmati in the EU but the country still protects its GIs under its trademarks law as the country does not have a GI regime in place. Following the opposition to India’s EU application, the negotiations between the parties will last until May 6, 2021. In this pre-trial phase, parties are encouraged to reach an amicable solution, The Dawn reported. If no settlement is reached, the next stage of the dispute will be taken to a  tribunal of the directorate-general for agriculture and rural development at the EC.

Urges cabinet to notify TDAP as registrant body to support case against India ISLAMABAD: India has claimed Basmati rice as its brand in the European Union market, but Pakistan is all set to challenge the claim. However, it is alarming to note that Pakistan has not registered Basmati as a brand in Pakistan. The Ministry of Commerce has now come into action to register it in the country after India claimed it as its brand in the EU market. More alarming is the fact that there is no body in Pakistan that can register Pakistani products as its brand under Geographical Indications. In Pakistan, Geographical Indications (Registration and Protection) Act 2020 has been enacted in March this year. However, the year 2020 is nearly over and the commerce ministry has still not been able to register Basmati rice as a Pakistani brand. When the legal battle between Pakistan and India on Basmati claims intensified, the commerce ministry moved a summary to the cabinet seeking approval for notifying the Trading Development Authority of Pakistan (TDAP) as “Registrant” body for Geographical Indication registration. This move is aimed at registering Basmati rice as a Pakistani brand to support a case in EU against India. The Geographical Indications (GIs) are a form of intellectual property rights. They identify a product originating from a specific area, whose quality is attributable to its place of origin. The number of products that have the potential to be protected under the GI tag in Pakistan, include Basmati rice, kinnow, mango, ajrak etc. Section 11(1) of the GI Act says, “The federal government shall be the exclusive owner of all the geographical indications of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.” Section 11(2) further elaborates, “The federal government may allow any statutory body, public body, local or provincial governments, government enterprise or any government organisation, person having area of responsibility covering the geographical indication of Islamic Republic of Pakistan to apply for and register the product under geographical indication.” The “registrant” body is to prepare “Book of Specification” for the GI, approving “authorised users” for further registrations with the relevant division for a cooperation agreement to enable pre-registration processes of geographical indication. It will also arrange consultations with producers and operators in drafting body. TDAP is a statutory body under the administrative control of the commerce ministry. The government has given it mandate to interact and coordinate with private stakeholders and enhance value of the products to enhance export base of the country. The commerce ministry has now urged the cabinet to approve the notification of TDAP as the registrant body for GI registration of Basmati rice. The cabinet is scheduled to meet on November 10. The government has also shortlisted two international legal firms to fight Pakistan’s case at the European Union to protect its own brand of Basmati rice. These two firms are; Messers Altius international law firm and Messers Liedekerke Wolters Waelbroeck Kirkpatrick. The government has to select one of them. India has applied for ‘an exclusive GI (Geographical Indications) tag for Basmati rice under the Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and the European Union’s official registry, the Council on Quality Schemes for Agricultural Products and Food Stuffs. Presently, India has a 65% share of Basmati in the world market whereas Pakistan has a 35% share in the rice trade. Basmati rice fetches Pakistan around $800 million to $1 billion annually. When contacted for comments, the commerce ministry spokesperson said that the Intellectual Property Organisation was working on the whole issue. Published in The Express Tribune, November 8^th, 2020.

Branding rights on Basmati rice: Pakistan prepares response for European Commission  

Once upon, more than two decades ago, Pakistan and India cooperated. In response to a US patent for strains of rice that could be sold as basmati, both countries jointly filed a petition with the World Trade Organisation (WTO) seeking to prevent US-grown rice from being marketed as basmati. About 50,000 people protested outside the US embassy in India against the patent with the tacit understanding that it is only the two countries in the sub-continent that grow and export the premium strand of rice. Eventually, the countries were victorious and both started the process of Geographical Indication (GI) law. In 2010, GI status was granted to basmati rice grown in seven states, excluding Madhya Pradesh. Indian media sources indicate that apex bodies Agricultural & Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (Apeda) and the Indian Council of Agricultural Research blocked MP’s inclusion owing to the state neither having a history nor the specific agro-climatic for growing basmati. Madhya Pradesh has been fighting to be conferred GI status since then though it is feared in India that its inclusion may dilute Indian Basmati rice in terms of characteristics and quality parameters giving Pakistan as an advantage.

‘If the impression is created that it only originates from India, then our exports will definitely take a hit’

Fearful of breathing a word that could impact Pakistan’s case in court, they refuse to consider any possibility that the country will not emerge victoriously. And they have every reason to believe so. On condition of anonymity, a source in the know gave an example of evidence that Pakistan has to support its claim for basmati rice. In 2006-2007, a case was filed in the Sindh High Court by a local basmati growers association for domestic GI ownership of basmati rice. The claim was contested by the Rice Exporters Association of Pakistan (Reap) asserting state ownership and hence in the hands of Trade Development Authority of Pakistan (TDAP). India’s Apeda became a party to the suit as well. This is significant because it gave us tacit documentation that India accepts Pakistan’s claim of growing the premium rice in our region as well which can be used to contest our rival’s current application in the EU. “It is all about branding for the customer. If the impression is created that basmati rice only originates from India, then our exports will definitely take a hit,” says Yasir Shafi, director of Shafi Gluco Chem, an exporter of rice’s value-added products. “Pakistan’s basmati rice is priced on the higher side because of EU’s pesticide restrictions that edge Indian exports out. Rice is the largest export after textiles. Going forward, the current account deficit may go up again and the rupee will depreciate. We cannot continue to rely on the International Monetary Fund for support. TDAP needs to be more proactive to support exports,” he says. A source in the know agreed that the government has always been reactive and acts on a need basis. While Reap’s application for GI tagging has been languishing for two decades, it has speeded up in the last few years. “In the past, India has said that Pakistan’s basmati is not original, it is a hybrid of two or three different seeds,” says Dr Manzoor Ahmed, former ambassador to WTO talking about his tenure. “We contested it; the case was fought in Brussels and amicably settled in around 2004.” While the purpose at that time was duty-free access and not GI tagging, the European community accepted Pakistan’s claim of basmati. Talking about the process, Dr Ahmed explains that domestic legislation needs to be in place first, defining what is basmati rice and the regions within Pakistan that it is grown. Only then we can go to the EU to contest India’s assertions. While GI law exists in Pakistan, the nuts and bolts are not in place. When questioned about the progress, the Reap’s chairman Abdul Qayum Paracha chose not to comment owing to the sensitivity of the issue, begging the question whether sufficient progress has been made in a law that has been languishing for two decades. Another problem waiting in the wings is provincial politics once GI tagging is in place. A source confirmed that while stakeholders are holding hands and cooperating at the moment, a tiff between the two rice-growing provinces Sindh and Punjab may be brewing. The impression generally is of bated breaths and hope. If India wins, not only will it affect Pakistan’s roughly half a billion dollar exports to Europe, it may start a domino reaction impacting Middle East markets. Given the decades of evidence of Pakistan’s claim as growers of the aromatic rice, however, there is every reason to believe that the worst-case scenario will remain in the realm of nightmares for the rice sector. Published in Dawn, The Business and Finance Weekly, November 2nd, 2020

Last week, BR Research covered the gaps in local Geographical Indications framework and its implementation that could potentially weaken Pakistan’s case at EU against India’s exclusive claim to basmati exports. (For more, read: “Basmati exports under threat” published on October 01, 2020). But it might to help to take into account what is at stake. Compared to Pakistan, India is pretty much a giant when it comes to basmati exports. Out of the total basmati exports from sub-continent, Pakistan’s share has been a puny 15 percent over the past decade. In fact, India’s basmati exports alone during 2018 exceeded Pakistan’s total food group exports that year, which includes all agri commodities such as dairy, fish, fruits, and even red meat! But that makes sense, given the sheer size of our hostile neighbour and irrigated land available to its farmers. Basmati yields across both countries are similar, as is the unit value fetched by exporters of both countries in international market. Consider that in 2019, Pakistani exporters fetched $880 per ton against export of 0.9 million tons of basmati – compared to a marginally higher $1,040 per ton fetched by Indian traders on export of whopping 4.1 million tons.

Basmati exports from both countries are in fact largely commoditized. Pakistani exporters have struggled to build brands, onus of which largely falls on lack of investment in marketing and building brand equity – a fact acknowledged by chairman Rice Exporters Association of Pakistan in an interview with BR Research earlier this year. Thus, the current battle really may appear to be one of export access than brand recognition, which even most fervent patriots would admit is a stronger suit of the hegemonic neighbour, given its greater diplomatic currency and soft power. On that note, Europe is a far less consequential market for India than Pakistan, considering its bulk of exports are to Gulf region. More than 80 percent of Indian basmati exports – in value terms – are to Gulf countries, where Iran is its biggest buyer with annual import of $1.2 billion worth basmati rice every year. This is embarrassing on two accounts: one, Pakistani exporters have land access to Iran as the two countries share a nearly thousand kilometres long border. And two, unlike UAE – which serves as a re-packaging/re-branding stop for basmati from both India and Pakistan – Iran has weaker trade relationships with EU. Consider that India’s annual basmati export to Iran is 1.4 times Pakistan’s total basmati export to the rest of the globe. Iran, then, is the one who got away! What makes India’s obsession to getting Pakistan’s basmati banned from EU all the more frustrating is that until last year, UK and not continental European countries was its biggest basmati buyer. Minus UK, basmati exports from India and Pakistan to continental European countries are very much on equal footing – at $130 million per annum. For India, that’s less than 5 percent of its annual share, but for Pakistan, that is nearly a quarter of its total global basmati market. Pakistan’s prospective loss thus is substantial, especially in relative terms.

It is tough to predict, which way the camel might land. But its consequences are already obvious. First, an exclusive right in EU could serve as a precedence under TRIPs for other markets as well, beginning from North America, to APAC and Mediterranean. However, Pakistan may continue to have its feet inside the European door once the UK exits the single market and refuses to follow EU’s definition in bilateral trade with other countries. But more importantly, Pakistani exporters will have to try even harder to capture the Gulf market, which is both still open, and can serve as a dumping ground to repackage goods under Indian brands. As the Eastern hegemon continues to invest in building brand India, that means further commoditization for Pakistan’s basmati, as the gap between per unit prices fetch by traders in both countries will widen. The MoC then should be far more concerned with the lack of recognition of brand Pakistan, and the precedence this act of hostility creates for the other trading partners. Meanwhile, some introspection might also be in order for losing the other next-door neighbour, Iran.

Islamabad to file opposition against New Delhi claim of geographical indication to have exclusivity on Basmati rice in EU

ISLAMABAD Pakistan announced it will file an opposition against India's claim of geographical indication (GI) tag for Basmati rice in the EU, state-run media reported on Tuesday.  A geographical indication is a sign used for products with a specific geographical origin, possessing qualities or reputation essentially based on natural and human factors of their place of origin. The decision was made in a meeting chaired by Abdul Razak Dawood, the prime minister's advisor for commerce, at the capital Islamabad, according to Radio Pakistan. The meeting was attended by the commerce secretary, chairman of Intellectual Property Organization, representatives of Rice Exporters Association of Pakistan, and government's legal advisors. "Pakistan will vehemently oppose India’s application in the EU and restrain India from obtaining exclusive GI tag of Basmati rice," Radio Pakistan quoted Dawood as saying. The minister ensured the rice exporters to protect their claim of GI for Basmati rice. Exporters informed the minister that Pakistan is a major grower and producer of Basmati rice and that New Delhi's not right in its claim of exclusivity. According to media reports, New Delhi had applied for GI tag in the EU for basmati rice on Sept. 11, claiming exclusivity on it. India in its application had claimed that basmati rice has an Indian origin although the same type of rice is largely produced in Pakistan, local daily The News quoted a Pakistani official as saying. In 2006, the EU under its special rules recognized basmati as a joint product of Pakistan and India. Pakistan exports 500,000-700,000 tons of basmati rice to different parts of the world out of which 200,000 to 250,000 tons are being shipped to EU countries, according to the Pakistani Commerce Ministry data.

Businessmen fear losing GI tag would be ‘disastrous’ for exporters

ISLAMABAD: Taking serious notice of the Indian move of demanding exclusive rights of claiming Geographical Indication (GI) tag to Basmati rice in the European Union (EU), Pakistan has decided to oppose the application soon. During a meeting of the Senate Standing Committee on Commerce, Intellectual Property Organisation (IPO) Chairman Mujeeb Ahmed Khan informed that Pakistan is preparing its objection to the said Indian Application and will be submitted within the stipulated time frame. The meeting was attended by Senators Mir Kabeer Ahmad Muhammad Shahi, Zeeshan Khanzada, Nuzhat Sadiq, Dilawar Khan, Rana Mehmood ul Hassan, Advisor to Prime Minister for Commerce, Secretary Commerce and other senior officials of relevant departments. He said India has applied for GI tag in European Union for BASMATI rice under Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs, mentioned in the EU official journal dated September 11, 2020.  According to Mujeeb Ahmed, the Indian application mentions Basmati rice as an Indian origin product, despite the fact that similar rice is widely produced in Pakistan. The application is based on half-truth and frivolous grounds having no legal and factual backing. Pakistan exports 500,000 to 700,000 tons of basmati rice to various countries. Out of that, 200,000 to 250,000 tones are shipped to European countries. The European Union is a massive destination for local rice exporters and therefore it is a crucial issue for Pakistan. EU regulation No 972/2006 of June 29, 2006, lays down special rules for imports of Basmati rice and a transitional control system for determining their origin has recognized Basmati as a joint product of Pakistan and India. Basmati is already recognized as a product of both India and Pakistan under the said European Regulation and its Duty-Free Regime, making it illegal for India to claim exclusive rights of Basmati in the EU. According to EU’s official journal, any country can oppose the application for registration of a name pursuant to Article 10 and Article 50(2) (a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs within three months from the date of publication. On Tuesday, the Ministry of Commerce, according to officials, has also held a meeting on the same subject to discuss the filling of objections in the EU besides taking other steps regarding protecting Pakistani products as per the GI law made by the government this year. Meanwhile, Committee Chairman Senator Mirza Muhammad Afridi also directed the officials of the ministry and IPO to immediately respond to the Indian application as the move may damage Pakistani exports. Discussing another agenda of the meeting regarding smuggling, he said that the illegal trade has reduced substantially due to effective measures for its eradication which has supported the local industry and would be instrumental for promoting economic activities and businesses in the country.  He expressed these views while presiding over the SSC on Commerce & Trade here at Parliament House on Tuesday. Afridi appreciated the measures taken in this regard and said that the sick units need to be facilitated to ensure their revival. The committee was apprised about the problems faced by the farmers due to inadequate prices of tomato and onion despite good production during the current season.  The committee was also briefed about the steps being taken for exploring new markets for dates, tax evasion on computers, laptops and other IT equipment, as well as the issues of under-invoicing. The chairman and members of the committee said that the basic purpose is to protect the local industry and its production for the overall progress of the country.  Senator Mir Kabeer Ahmad Muhammad Shahi said that due to the import of the fruits and vegetable from neighbouring countries, the local farmers from Balochistan do not get adequate prices of apple, grapes, onion and tomatoes. He said that the ministry of commerce and trade should take measures for the protection of local farmers and the utilization of local production before importing such items. The Ministry of Commerce secretary assured the committee that the issues would be resolved in collaboration with the ministry of food security and the committee would be apprised accordingly.  Senator Dilawar Hussain, while talking about Afghan Transit Trade, said that due to the deficiency of trackers, there is huge pressure on transit points. He asserted that an appropriate solution to this should be sorted out.  Afridi said that trade is a backbone of the national economy and an appropriate strategy should be followed to promote business activities in the country. Advisor to the Prime Minister on Commerce Abdul Razzak Dawod apprised the committee that State Bank of Pakistan has been approached for provision of an easy loan through small and medium industries and consultation process for the IT sector is in progress, which will bear positive results.   Secretary Commerce informed the Committee that E-Commerce policy has been introduced and the committee in its next meeting will be informed about a framework in this regard.  Chairman of the committee appreciated these measures, however, he emphasized that sick units need to be supported so as to cater to the local requirements and as well as the export orientation from such units.   Senator Dilawar Khan informed the committee that the Trade and Development Authority (TDAP) could not hold even a single meeting so far.  He further informed that he had sought different details from TDAP which have not been provided yet.  Senator Mirza Afridi said that TDAP is an important organisation, its board should hold regular meetings to proceed on different issues and the people of Pakistan should have access to information.   He further said that question has been raised about Trade and Commercial Attaché posted in different countries.  He said that Pakistan produces high-quality tobacco. Trade and commercial attaché should improve their efficiency and awareness must be created about Pakistan products in foreign countries.  The committee insisted on the provision of facilities and capacity building of the tobacco farmers in Mardan, Charsadda and Swabi districts. The committee was further informed that a project in collaboration with Swabi University has moved ahead.  Senator Dilawar Khan emphasised that all the stakeholders must be taken into confidence as quality tobacco of the country is produced in these areas and national exchequer gets taxes of worth billions of rupees.  About the export of the dates, the committee was informed that 70pc of dry dates were exported to India and due to suspension of trade with India, farmers have to face huge losses. However, efforts are being made to explore alternative markets for export of the dates and different countries have been contacted in this regard.  The chairman of the committee emphasized that these efforts must be expedited to avoid losses to the farmers. Senator Rana Mehmood ul Hassan suggested that a policy for installation of small sugar mills should be introduced to promote compatibility in the market.  Secretary Commerce informed the committee that such a proposal is already under consideration in different ministries.  The committee was also apprised about clearance of containers at Port Qasim as well as money laundering issues in the country. 

Traders say Pakistan will not be able to sell rice under basmati brand if India gets it Businessmen have urged the government to apply for geographical indication (GI) tag with the European Union for Pakistani basmati rice immediately citing that India has applied for the same. They voiced fear that once the neighbouring country receives it, Pakistani exporters would not be allowed to sell the aromatic rice under the brand name of basmati. India has applied for GI tag in European Union for basmati rice, confirmed a report in the EU official journal. EU publishes the information on its website so that if a country intends to oppose the application, it can submit request within a specific time. After a delay of almost two decades, Pakistan recently enacted the geographical indication (GI) law for registration and protection of brands, which is still awaiting implementation. India claimed in the application that long grain basmati rice is grown and produced in districts of the states of Punjab, Haryana, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh and a few districts of Uttar Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir. However, the neighbouring country did not mention that the same rice is also grown in parts of Pakistan. If India receives the GI tag, it would trigger a disastrous situation for Pakistani businessmen who would not be able to sell the same rice under the name of basmati. "Pakistan exports 500,000 to 700,000 tonnes of basmati rice to various countries," said Cereal Association of Pakistan Chairman Muzammil Chappal. "Out of that, 200,000 to 250,000 tonnes is shipped to European countries." Although the European Union gives Pakistan preference over India but still the country is unable to make the most out of it. He added that around two to three years ago, the European countries slapped a ban on Indian basmati rice after the pesticide residue level on it was found to be way more than the allowed threshold. Due to the high quality of Pakistani rice, the country often receives premium price in European markets, he said. The European Union is a massive destination for local rice exporters and if India succeeds in receiving the GI tag, it would trigger huge trouble for local exporters, he said. "It is a crucial issue for Pakistan but the government is still inactive," said Union of Small and Medium Enterprises (Unisame) President Zulfikar Thaver. "We urge Adviser to the Prime Minister on Commerce Abdul Razak Dawood to take immediate notice of India's move and motivate the country to apply for GI tag without loss of any more time," said Thaver. Describing the procedure, he said the adviser and Commerce Secretary Muhammad Sauleh Faruqui need to push the Trade Development Authority of Pakistan (TDAP) to expedite the application for the basmati tag with EU. "The EU market has vast opportunities and the basmati rice exporters cannot afford to lose it," he said. "Pakistani basmati rice is superior to Indian basmati." Published in The Express Tribune, September 19^th, 2020.

Leading Pakistani rice exporters have called on the government to immediately oppose the Indian application Islamabad, September 19 Pakistan is facing another potential threat of major damage to its exports as India has applied for an exclusive Geographical Indications (GI) tag to Basmati rice in the European Union (EU). Pakistan on the other hand is still yet to implement the GI law promulgated in March. Despite the fact that Pakistan produces a wide range of Basmati rice in the country and benefits from its export to the EU and other parts of the globe, New Delhi has said that it is an Indian-origin product in its application, published on EU's official journal on September 11. As per the Indian application, Basmati is special long grain aromatic rice grown and produced in a particular geographical region of the Indian sub-continent. It added that this region is a part of northern India, below the foothills of the Himalayas forming part of the Indo-Gangetic Plains (IGP). “The special characteristic of Basmati is grown and produced in all districts of the state of Punjab, Haryana, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand as well as in specific districts of western Uttar Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir,” the Indian application maintained.

Leading Pakistani rice exporters have called on the government to immediately oppose the Indian application