QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATION SYSTEM IN TURKEY

INTRODUCTION

Geographical Indications (GI’s) has entered our system for the first time with the Decree Law No. 555 “Protection of Geographical Indications” which was enacted in 1995, and the Implementing Regulations of the Decree Law on the Protection of Geographical Indications in Turkey. Later, the legal basis was strengthened with the Industrial Property Law No. 6769, which has the date of acceptance of 22.12.2016.

GI’s have been described under the Law as “a mark indicating the product identified with the territory, area, region or country of its origin in terms of its distinctive nature, reputation or other characteristics” (Official Gazette, 2017). It may be subject to registration in two different ways; Protected Designation of Origin-Menşei (PDO) and Protected Geographical Indication-Mahreç (PGI). Studies conducted

both in Turkey and in the international arena have examined GI’s with different dimensions and they form an important dynamic especially in the field of local development (Wilson et al., 1999; Treager, 2003; Lopez and Martin, 2005; Treager et al. 2007; Kan and Gülçubuk, 2008; Kan et al., 2010; Orhan, 2010; Çalışkan and Koç, 2012; Kan and Gülçubuk, 2012; Kan and Gülçubuk, 2013; UNCTAD, 2015; Kan et al., 2016;

Çukur and Çukur, 2017; Beletti et al., 2017; FAO, 2018;

ARISE+IPR, 2019). What makes geographical indications important is the fact that local products and flavors can be protected within this system and this can be used as a development tool in local economic development. For this reason, geographical indications appear to be an emerging trend in many countries, especially in European countries, and do not fall off the agenda in terms of ensuring both the protection and sustainability of cultural and local heritage ISSN (Online): 2311-3839; ISSN (Print): 2312-5225

DOI: https://doi.org

/

QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATION SYSTEM IN TURKEY

Mustafa Kan

and Arzu Kan

Kirsehir Ahi Evran University, Agricultural Faculty, Department of Agricultural Economics, Kirsehir, Turkey

*Corresponding author’s e-mail: [email protected]

Geographical Indication (GI), which is an industrial property right, is perceived as a quality mark, differentiated products/goods, identified with the area where it is produced, the contribution of the human element and also a reflection of the culture for origin of the society. The legal regulation started with the Decree Law on the Protection of Geographical Indications numbered 555 in 1995, and then the legal ground has been strengthened with the Industrial Property Law No. 6769 on 22.12.2016. In Turkey, according to the data of the Turkish Patent and Trademark Agency as of 31 May 2020, there are 485 registered geographical indications (Protected Designation of Origin (PDO-Mensei), Protected Geographical Indication (PGI-Mahrec) and Traditional Specialty Guarantee (TSG-Geleneksel Urun), and 510 candidates are at the evaluation stage.

Turkey is among the few countries in the World in terms of wide biodiversity and cultural values. Especially with the new Law, there has been a significant increase in the number of the products registered to GI system in the last 2.5 years. In this case, besides having an effect of the new Law, the increasing interest in such products in the world, changing the perceptions of consumers towards GI products and perceiving such products as healthy products are effective developments. Especially, the GI system is seen as important rural development model for underdeveloped but culturally rich rural areas. It is also a part of sustainable agriculture and reliable food systems. Turkey has gained momentum in the establishment and development of the GI system later than it must have. However, together with the existing system deficiencies, it makes significant contributions to the development of GI system in Turkey. But there are still problems with governance, auditing and ownership in the Geographical Indication system. These situations negatively affect success. The aim of this study is to demonstrate that how the Geographical Indication system has developed, which started to develop with its legal basis in 1995, developed with the new Law and what are the factors that trigger these developments by using qualitative and quantitative analysis techniques?

The main material of the study is the statistics published by the Turkish Patent and Trademark authority on Geographical Indication. As a result, Turkey which has achieved a significant increase in number of new laws, should show the same success in the international arena. It should use its current potential within the scope of sustainable development, not within the scope of the phenomenon of growth. Thus, with this system, while ensuring the protection of cultural values, economic and social achievements can be achieved.

Keywords: Protected designation of origin, protected geographical indication, traditional specialty guarantee, rural development.

(Kan et al., 2012). Today, geographical signs that are evaluated on advantages and disadvantages in many ways (Kan, 2011; Marescotti, 2003; Drahos, 2017) have started to show significant developments in recent years, not only in Europe but also in Asian and African countries.

The Geographical Indication system in Turkey has entered an important process with the Law published in December 2016.

With the new Law, where traditional products (Traditional Specialty Guarantee-TSG) are protected along with GI’s, it can be said that an important step has been taken to evaluate the potential of local products having different characteristics in Turkey. But what important is the qualitative magnitude rather than the numerical majority. Therefore, the whole process from product selection to system installation should be planned very well. To achieve success on a large scale requires sustainability, auditing and time. Significant costs can arise not only for organizational and institutional structures but also for ongoing operational operations such as marketing and legal enforcement. In some cases, limited resources for GI initiatives, especially in developing countries without proper planning and management, may be wasted and no results may be achieved (Kan et al., 2017). Geographical indications are not a viable option, especially for products whose output does not have distinctive characteristics. If the product does not have a distinctive feature, the desired success may not be achieved. Distinctiveness, good governance, a strong auditing structure, a well-prepared database and a willingness to participate in common fiscal responsibility are important indicators for the success and sustainability of the GI system.

Another important point about the need to develop a GI system is that it forms part of a sustainable agriculture system because most of the products are agricultural and food products. The Geographical Indication system is on an important upward trend due to the protection of genetic resources, the inclusion of sustainable agricultural practices, the assurance of food reliability and the perception of healthy products in the consumer. With the covid-19 epidemic we are experiencing that the changing consumption structure will increase consumer’s interest in these products much more in the future. European Green Deal declared in December 2019 by European Commission, as well as the “Farm to Fork Strategy” and “EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030”, which have been announced on 20 May 2020, will increase the importance of the GI system in this context (EC, 2020).

The aim of this study is to evaluate the developments in the GI system in Turkey, which started in 1995 and entered a different process in 2016 with qualitative and quantitative analysis techniques. Thus the changes, causes and disruptions in the process will be seen more clearly and will constitute an important resource for the policy makers.

MATARIALS AND METHODS

The main material of the study is the GI statistics published by the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office (Turk Patent, 2020), the registration documents and information about the products, eAmbrosia database of European Union for GI’s (eAmbrosia, 2020) and the results of the national and international studies on GI. The main objective of the study is to demonstrate the changes in the GI system which started with the Turkish code of Law No. 6769 on 22/12/2016 by using quantitative and qualitative analysis techniques. In the study, GI system in Turkey was analyzed in the following headings;

• Changes in PDO and PGI registration numbers and effective factors in these changes

• Changes in product groups subject to GI

• Changes in spatial distribution of GI’s

• Changes in the type of institutions and organizations attempting to register GI’s

• The relationships between GI registration and regional development (SEGE-2011 Index)

• Developments on the governance model of GI system in Turkey

• Developments in Turkey's GI registration initiatives in the international arena

Socio-economic development ranking of provinces and regions (SEGE-2011) data (MoD, 2013) and classification of statistical regional units (NUTS-2) (Planlama, 2019) were used to evaluate spatial data in quantitative analyses. Basic statistical techniques were used in the evaluation of the data.

In this context, frequency, percentage distribution, arithmetic mean and median value were used as descriptive statistics. In addition, to compare the situation before and after the Law,

“T Test” for independent samples and “Pearson Correlation Analysis” were used for parametric tests where normal distribution assumptions were valid, and “Kolmogorov- Smirnov Z” and “Mann-Whitney U” tests were used instead of t test, and “Spearman's Rank Correlation” was used instead of Pearson Correlation Analysis, when normal distribution assumptions were not valid (Kesici and Kocabaş, 2007;

Corder and Foreman, 2014).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In the second book of the section on “Geographical Indications and Traditional Product Name” of Industrial Property Law in Turkey No. 6769 (IPL), GI’s and traditional products that will be the subject of products have stated as

“food, agriculture, mining, handicrafts and industrial products that comply with the requirements in this Book due to a combination of natural and human elements are entitled to the protection of geographical indication and traditional product name providing that its registration” (Official Gazette, 2017).

Two types of registration are mentioned within the Law on Geographical Indication. “The names defining the products originated from a geographically defined territory, region or in exceptional cases originating from the country, getting all or the main features from specific natural and human factors being peculiar to this geographic area, occurring the manufacturing, processing and other operations within the boundaries of this geographical area” have been identified and registered as PDO/Menşei name (Official Gazette, 2017).

Products with the name of PDO, which can gain their qualifications only if they are produced in the region they belong to, are produced only in the geographical region they belong to.

“The names defining the products originated from a geographically defined territory, region or country, identified with this geographical area in terms of its specific quality, reputation or other characteristics, and occurring at least one of the manufacturing, processing and other operations within the boundaries of this geographical area” have been identified and registered as PGI/Mahreç name (Official Gazette, 2017).

At least one of the characteristics of the PGI product must belong to that region. Therefore, unlike the name of PDO, it can be produced outside the region. The product may have only its reputation in connection with the region.

Aydın İnciri (Fig), Ayvalık Zetinyağı (olive oil), İznik Çinisi (a handmade tile), Devrek Bastonu (a type of walking stick),

Finike Portakalı (Orange), Malatya Kayısısı (Apricot), Eskişehir Lüle Taşı (a handmade meerschaum), Akşehir Kirazı (Cherry), Ezine Peyniri (Cheese), Kars Kaşarı (Cheese), İspir Kurufasulyesi (drybean), Taşköprü Sarımsağı (garlic) etc. are able to give some examples for PDO in Turkey. Şile Bezi (a type of weaving), Kayseri Mantısı (Turkish type ravioli), Antep Baklavası (Baklava-Dessert), Zile Pekmezi (grape molasses), Sürmene Bıçağı (handmade knife), Hatay Defne Sabunu (Soap), Adana Kebabı (Kebap) etc. are able to give some examples for PGI in Turkey.

In Turkey, the distribution of some products registered as PDO or PGI according to the regions where they are registered is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Some PDO’s and PGI’s in Turkey (Artıyasam, 2020).

Figure 2. Geographical indication (PDO and PGI) and traditional specialty guaranteed (TSG) registration process (adapted from Kiziltepe, 2017).

Turkish Patent and Trademark Agency (TPT) is the responsible organization for GI registration in Turkey. The institutions and organizations and individuals under certain conditions mentioned in the Law can apply for GI registration. These are (Official Gazette, 2017);

• Producer groups

• Associations, foundations, cooperatives that work in the public interest or protect the economic interests of their members,

• Public institutions, organizations and professional organizations in the nature of public institutions related to the geographical area from which the product or product originated,

• If there is a single manufacturer of the product, a producer can apply for GI registration provided to prove it.

It can be said that the GI registration process has become faster, especially with the new IPL, and registration costs have dropped significantly. The registration process has been presented in Fig. 2.

With the Industrial Property Law (IPL) containing significant changes according to the Decree Law No. 555 on the protection of Geographical Indications published in 1995, there has been a significant jump in the registration of GI’s in Turkey. Statistics of the products that received or whose application was examined in Turkey between 1997 and May 2020 are given in detail in Fig. 3.

As can be seen from Figure 2, in total, 485 GI's have been registered in Turkey and 510 candidate GI's are under review.

Most of the products was registered as PDO (37.53%). It is observed that the rate of PDO's in the candidate GI's is gradually increasing. The impact of the new Law on this rise is great because the registration process as TSG is a new process (started with the new law), but the statistical numbers are still low.

Figure 3. Some statistics for products received or under review process for GI registration (compiled and calculated by the authors from the database, Turk Patent (2020).

The periods of registration for GI’s are divided into two section as 1997-2016 (IPL-before-IPL-B) and 2017-May 2020 (IPL-after-IPL-A) to compare the differences between

the situation before and after IPL. One of the differences is the number of the PDO’s, PGI’s and also TSG’s per year.

Between 1997 and 2016, there were 195 products that have received Geographical Indication registration. A further 290 products have been registered after the IPL entered into January 2017. As of May 2020, the number of GI products has increased to 485. As of the same date, 510 products are in the registration phase and application processes are ongoing (Turk Patent, 2020). When we look at the changes in the number of GI registered products (PDO, PGI and TSG), it is observed that 9.75 registered GI’s are calculated per year for IPL-B. This number has increased dramatically for IPL-A as 82.86 DI products per year. The increase in the number of registrations in IPL-B period is an indication of both the ease of registration procedure (published in a bulletin instead of an official newspaper) and increase the consumer and producer awareness and interests for GI’s products (Fig. 4).

According to Figure 4, 57.44% of 195 GI products in IPL-B period were registered as a PGI and 42.56% as PDO. In the IPL-A period, these rates have been 65.52% and 34.14%, respectively (Fig. 4). It is seen that there have been significant improvements in PGI applications, especially in IPL-A period. The reason why the rate is increasing through to PGI registration is that PDO products need specific findings for registration compared with the registration of PGI. PDO products should be well associated with the nature or human resources in which they are located. The source of the differences must be clearly identified and shown in the application file. Because of that it needs specific research and findings for the >PDO products more.

Figure 4. Registration numbers of PDO’s, PGI’s and TSG’s by IPL-B and IPL-A periods (compiled and calculated by the authors from the database, Turk Patent (2020).

The IPL-B period represents the period in which the GI system was protected by the Decree-Law in 1995, and the most important problems in this period were the registration duration and registration costs. In particular, it was determined that the GI registration duration was very long during this period. For the IPL-B period, this duration was determined to be approximately 837 days (Median: 741 days)

for PGI and 904 days (Median: 727 days) for PGI. For the IPL-A period, this duration was calculated as approximately 753 days (Median: 596 days) for PGI, and 764 days (Median:

511 days) for PDO. As normal distribution conditions were not met in comparison of 2 independent groups, Kolmogorov- Smirnov Z (K-S-Z Test) and Mann-Whitney U (M-W-U Test) tests were applied. Between IPL-B and IPL-A periods, there was a statistically significant difference in the 99%

confidence level both PDO and PGI registration durations (K- S-ZPGI=0.22, M-W-UPGI: 7655, p:0.00; K-S-ZPDO=1.64, M- W-UPDO: 2560, p:0.01) (Fig. 5)

Figure 5. Registration duration for PDO’s and PGI’s by IPL-B and IPL-A periods (compiled and calculated by the authors from the database, Turk Patent (2020).

Three product groups are prominent in GI registration in Turkey. These are “Processed and Unprocessed Fruits and Vegetables and Mushrooms (Group 1), Meals and Soups (Group 2), and Bakery and Pastry Products, Pastries, Desserts (Group 3)”. When the situation was examined by the IPL-B and IPL-A, although there was a numerical increase in each 3 groups, the proportional share of Group 2 and Group 3 increased, while the proportional share of Group 1 decreased.

The most important reason for this is that the products in Group 1 have mostly PDO registration, whereas the products in Group 2 and Group 3 have PGI registration. Especially in Turkey, the competition between the provinces on regional food and the micro-nationalism on GI’s have triggered the desire of every province or region to have at least a GI on regional food or meal. This has led to further development, usually with the size of the registration of PGI. The support of Municipalities, Chambers of Commerce and Industry and Commodity Exchanges have important roles at this point.

Table 1. Distribution of GI products by registered product group type and IPL-B and IPL-A periods.

Product groups IPL-B

(%)

IPL-A (%) Processed and unprocessed fruits and

vegetables and mushrooms

27.69 24.48

Meals and soups 15.90 23.45

Bakery and pastry products, pastries, desserts 6.67 18.28

Carpets and rugs 12.82 2.41

Weavings 4.62 5.86

Handicraft products other than carpets, rugs and weavings

7.18 5.17

Non-alcoholic beverages 0.51 1.03

Honey 0.51 1.72

Beers and other alcoholic beverages 4.10 0.69 Chocolate, confectionery and derivative

products

5.13 3.45

Ice Creams and Edible Ice 0.00 1.03

Processed and unprocessed meat products 2.56 1.38

Cheeses 4.10 3.10

Dairy products other than cheeses and butter 0.51 1.03 Fats and oils, including butter 2.05 1.72 Seasonings/flavors, sauces and salt for food 0.00 1.03

Other products 5.64 4.14

Total 100.00 100.00

Source: Compiled and calculated by the Authors from the database (Turk Patent, 2020).

One of the most important indicators in the distribution of GI registration in Turkey is the distribution of GI’s by the NUTS- 2 (Nomenclature D'unités Territoriales Statistiques) regions.

The distribution of GI’s by the NUTS-2 regions and IPL-A and IPL-B periods is presented in Fig. 6. In the IPL-B period, it was determined a significant amount of registered GI’s in the TR33 (Manisa, Afyonkarahisar, Kütahya, Uşak), TR72 (Kayseri, Sivas, Yozgat), TR83 (Samsun, Tokat, Çorum, Amasya) and TRA1 (Erzurum, Erzincan, Bayburt) regions. In the IPL-A period, TRC2 (Diyarbakiır, Şanlurfa), TR90 (Trabzon, Ordu, Giresun, Rize, Artvin, Gümüşhane), TRC1 (Adiyaman, Gaziantep, Kilis) and TR82 (Kastamonu, Çankiırı, Sinop) regions were prominent. One of the most notable results here is that the regions in the IPL-B period stand out in terms of handcrafted goods (carpets and rug and fabrics) and food (processed and unprocessed meat products and cheeses). It is seen that the regions that stand out during the IPL-A period are also regions that have significant potential in terms of gastronomic tourism in Turkey. During this period, “Bakery and pastry products, pastries, desserts”

and “Meals and soups” product groups were pioneered in the regions mentioned.

The relationship between the socio-economic development ranking of the provinces (SEGE Index) and the GI registration numbers of the provinces was examined by correlation analysis. Attempts on GI registration of provinces ranked according to the SEGE index according to the development ranking were tested using Spearman's Rank Correlation 904

837

764 753

727 741

511

596

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

PGI PDO PGI PDO

IPL-B IPL-A

Registration Duration (Days) Mean Registration Duration (Days) Median

Coefficient in the nonparametric analysis techniques. As a result of the analysis, the relationship between the ranking groups and the GI registration numbers of the provinces according to the SEGE index was found statistically significant at the 99% confidence level (Spearman's rho: - 0.876, p:0.000).

From here, it can be said that between 1997 and May 2020, the provinces that are underdeveloped made further attempts at GI registration. In addition, the differences between the SEGE index of the provinces in GI registration according to the two periods determined in the study (IPL-B, IPL-B periods) were examined. The relationship between IPL-B and IPL-A periods was analyzed using nonparametric analysis techniques "Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z" and “Mann-Whitney U tests because normal distribution assumptions were not provided. When Fig. 7 is examined, the relationships between PDO and PGI products registered according to IPL-B and IPL-A periods and SEGE-2011 are found statistically significant at 95% confidence level (K-S-Z=1.57, M-W-U:

22760, p:0.02). It is determined that the SEGE index of provinces in IPL-B period was high, whereas in IPL-A period it was low. Here, it is possible to say that the provinces with

low value of SEGE index received more PGI registration during the IPL-A period. At the same time, it is not wrong to say that there has been an increase in initiatives such as awareness of GI in underdeveloped regions with the new Law (IPL).

Figure 7. The relationship between the SEGE Index of the provinces and registered PDO and PGI by the IPL-B and IPL-A periods (compiled and calculated by the authors from the database, Turk Patent (2020).

Figure 6. Distribution of registered GI’s by IPL-B and IPL-A periods and NUTS-2 regions (compiled and calculated by the authors from the database, Turk Patent (2020).

Geographical indications, such as trademarks, do not give the right to produce only for specific producers within the area defined by the registration on the product. Anyone who meets GI standards and requirements can produce them. Some researchers state that using GI as a differentiation tool of the product may benefit rich-upper-layer producers, but lower- layer or poorer producers may not benefit from this system.

Indeed, poorly structured GI system can be detrimental to communities, traditions and the environment. One of the main elements in ensuring the sustainability of the GI system is ensuring good governance. For good governance, horizontal and vertical integration must be achieved between the stakeholders of the registered GI product. Within the GI system, the key point in a good governance model is the producers of the product. In this context, for the use of GI, a

“governance” model, structured in “network” relationships, multi-actor, decentralized, empowering and capable other actors in society, directing and facilitating the orientation of resources rather than doing it itself, is required. Table 2 shows the organization by which GI applications are made in Turkey. Table 2 describes that organizations such as Union/Co-operative/Association formed by producers, which are necessary for good governance, have very little share in the application process (7.63%, the first 2 rows in Table 2).

One of the structural problems of Agriculture in Turkey is the inefficiency of these organizations in all processes of agricultural production, even though the producers have enough organization numerically. In the process of creating a system for geographical indication, the results of this situation are closely observed.

As is known, GI registration is limited to the country of registration. If GI protection is required in another country, it is necessary to apply for GI registration in the country where

the protection is requested. The largest international protection is provided by the European Union (EU). So far, Turkey has applied for GI protection for 21 products at the EU level. 3 of the 21 food products applied for registration at the EU level has been registered and one of these has been accepted and published. The remaining 17 products are still under evaluation. Applied PDO and PGI food products numbers of Turkey at EU level is almost same (10 PDO and 11 PGI) (Table 3).

The application and increase in GI registration is also an indication that the perception of GI products in Turkey is developing in a positive way. In particular, increasing demand for products means that such products are an important quality indicator for consumers. This quality indicator also positively affects consumer’s willingness to pay for such products. In some studies, conducted in Turkey, these results are clearly visible. While the demand for Ayvalık Zeytinyağı (Olive oil) was 58% higher than its competitors without GI, the result was that consumers agreed to pay 82% more for Ayvalık Zeytinyağı (Olive oil) (Zuluğ, 2010). Meral and Şahin (2013) determined that 58.9% of consumers would pay more for GI foods. Topçu and Yalçin (2016) reported that consumers were willing to pay more for Amasya, Isparta and Bayramic apples with price of 4 and 5 Turkish Lira (TL), and for foreign origin apples with price of 2 and 3 TL. Aytop and Şahin (2014) have found that consumers may pay 29.8% more on average for GI Gemlik Zeytini (Olive), because GI registration creates perception on the consumers as better quality, healthier, and more reliable products. A study conducted in Antalya for Finike Portakalı (Orange) and Tavşan Yüreğir Zeytini (Olive) concluded that consumers who know the GI will be more likely to pay for such products (Çakaloğlu and Çağatay, 2017). A study conducted in the Eastern Black Sea region of Table 2. The distribution of organization applied to GI registration in Turkey by IPL-B and IPL-B periods.

Organizations applied to GI in Turkey IPL-B period IPL-A period Total

N % N % N %

Associations / Foundations 6 3.08 10 3.45 16 3.30

Producer Union / Grower Union / Cooperatives 9 4.62 12 4.14 21 4.33

Trade / Industry / Chambers of Commerce and Industry / Other Chambers

64 32.82 112 38.62 176 36.29

Mukhtar/ Province / District Municipality 53 27.18 69 23.79 122 25.15

Commodity Exchanges 15 7.69 29 10.00 44 9.07

District Governorship / Governorships 14 7.18 13 4.48 27 5.57

Provincial Special Administration / Villages Service Association 8 4.10 6 2.07 14 2.89 Provincial / District Agriculture and Forestry Directorate 2 1.03 10 3.45 12 2.47 Culture Tourism / Science Industry and Technology Directorates 1 0.51 10 3.45 11 2.27

Public Education Centers / Schools / Universities 5 2.56 5 1.72 10 2.06

Agricultural Chambers 6 3.08 4 1.38 10 2.06

Private Companies 8 4.10 1 0.34 9 1.86

Development Agencies 0 0.00 6 2.07 6 1.24

Foreign Registrations 2 1.03 3 1.03 5 1.03

Other Official Institutions 2 1.03 0 0.00 2 0.41

Turkey showed that culture and tradition, quality and reliability affect the perception of GI product, and the perception of GI products affects the tendency of the consumers to pay more prices to them (Toklu et al., 2016).

Results from a study conducted with consumers in the Izmir province of Turkey showed that the consumers were willing to pay about 15% more for bryndza produced by traditional methods (Adanacioğlu et al., 2018).

Conclusion: Turkey has the opportunity to have many products that can have their own reputation due to the appropriate climate and environmental conditions. Its climatic advantage allows the production of many agricultural products in different characteristics, while its traditions and culture allow the formation of food and meal culture in different tastes. For this reason, Turkey is in a position to evaluate its local products in the best way due to its geographical location and to establish systems related to them and use them in local development.

GI registration is the registration on behalf of the “real producers” of products that have gained a reputation for their distinctive qualities by originating from a particular geography. Thus, the production method and quality are guaranteed by registration and are maintained through audits.

Registration provides a common right of ownership. They are collective promotional tools that serve the interests of everyone involved with the product, not just the registrars. It

does not give the registrant the right to “block competitors”

or “establish market dominance”.

GI products in terms of economic importance;

• Creating value

• Creates vitality in the fields of employment and production

• Directing quality

• Protects the rural population and contributes to the reduction of migration

• Preserving traditional knowledge and cultural values

• Potential tools that can be used to combat product mimicry The growth in quantitative figures shows that there is an important perception about GI in Turkey. In the last three years, the number of products applied for GI’s at the EU level has increased greatly. This shows that the importance of protecting GI products internationally is understood.

However, the numerical increase in our registered GI product in the EU is still not at the desired level. This is an indication that GI’s are not used at the desired level in Turkey and that the GI system cannot be established at the desired level for success. Sustainability of GI products is only possible with the establishment of the system. It is obvious that if the GI system is not established for the product, this initiative will not be sustainable and will not go beyond a populist approach.

Therefore, it is necessary to develop models owned by producers in the GI system and where producers' organizations are more involved. In order to succeed, it is necessary to establish and manage the GI system, which Table 3. The foods of Turkey registered and applied for GI at European Union level.

Product Type

Name Product category Type Status Application

date

Date of registration

Date of publication Food Antep Baklavasi /

Gaziantep Baklavasi

Class 2.3. Bread, pastry, cakes, confectionery, biscuits and other baker's wares

PGI Registered 10/07/2009 21/12/2013 08/08/2013 Food Afyon Pastirmasi Class 1.2. Meat products (cooked, salted, smoked, etc.) PGI Applied 13/08/2012

Food Afyon Sucuġu Class 1.2. Meat products (cooked, salted, smoked, etc.) PGI Applied 13/08/2012

Food Aydın İnciri Class 1.6. Fruit, vegetables and cereals fresh or processed PDO Registered 11/06/2013 17/02/2016 11/09/2015 Food İnegöl Köfte Class 1.2. Meat products (cooked, salted, smoked, etc.) PGI Applied 17/09/2014

Food Malatya Kayiısısı Class 1.6. Fruit, vegetables and cereals fresh or processed PDO Registered 13/05/2014 07/07/2017 13/01/2017 Food Aydın Kestanesi Class 1.6. Fruit, vegetables and cereals fresh or processed PDO Published 08/09/2015 04/06/2020 Food Taşköprü Sarımsağı Class 1.6. Fruit, vegetables and cereals fresh or processed PDO Applied 04/01/2017

Food Kayseri Mantısı Class 2.5. Pasta PGI Applied 22/05/2017

Food Kayseri Pastırması Class 1.2. Meat products (cooked, salted, smoked, etc.) PGI Applied 22/05/2017 Food Kayseri Sucuğu Class 1.2. Meat products (cooked, salted, smoked, etc.) PGI Applied 22/05/2017 Food Antepfıstığı / Antep

fıstığı Class 1.6. Fruit, vegetables and cereals fresh or processed PDO Applied 21/07/2017 Food Milas Zeytinyağı Class 1.6. Fruit, vegetables and cereals fresh or processed PDO Applied 13/11/2017 Food Bayramiç Beyazı Class 1.6. Fruit, vegetables and cereals fresh or processed PDO Applied 01/02/2018 Food Antep Lahmacunu Class 2.4. Beverages made from plant extracts PGI Applied 12/04/2018 Food Edremit Körfezi Yeşil

Çizik Zeytini

Class 1.6. Fruit, vegetables and cereals fresh or processed PDO Applied 12/04/2018 Food Giresun Tombul

Fındığı

Class 1.6. Fruit, vegetables and cereals fresh or processed PDO Applied 26/04/2018 Food Antakya Künefesi Class 2.4. Beverages made from plant extracts PGI Applied 14/03/2019 Food Maraş Çöreği Class 2.3. Bread, pastry, cakes, confectionery, biscuits

and other baker's wares

PGI Applied 16/03/2020 Food Çağlayancerit Cevizi Class 1.6. Fruit, vegetables and cereals fresh or processed PDO Applied 18/05/2020 Food Maraş Tarhanası Class 2.3. Bread, pastry, cakes, confectionery, biscuits

and other baker's wares

PGI Applied 01/06/2020 Source: eAbrosia, 2020

includes organization, information, network and coordination, database, advertising and promotion activities.

As a result, good governance constitutes the most important point of the GI system. In product-based governance, it is important to act within a consortium before applying for registration. This consortium should be capable of representing the product's stakeholders and should be able to manage the system well together with product certification and ensure governance. The most important thing to remember is that the desired results and success in GI system can only be achieved for the products that are well defined, have a good connection with historical, environmental and human activities, have plans for the future, have a sense of common action and responsibility, are well controlled, traceable, transparent, capable of perception management and self-improvement.

REFERENCES

ARISE+IPR. 2019. Geographical Indications in The AESEA Region, A Booklet on ASEAN Geographical Indications Procedure and Products. Available online at https://euipoeuf.eu/sites/default/files/arise-

docs/2019/ASEAN_GI-Booklet.pdf

Adanacıoğlu, H., F. Çobanoğlu and H.İ. Yılmaz. 2018.

Tüketicilerin geleneksel peynirlere ödeme istekliliği:

tulum peyniri örneği. Uluslararası Tarım, Çevre ve Sağlık Kongresi, 26 - 28 Ekim, Aydın, Turkey. pp.331- 340.

Artıyaşam. 2020. Türkiye’nin Yöresel Yemekleri. Available online at https://www.artiyasam.com/illere-gore- turkiyenin-yemek-haritasi/turkiyenin-hangi-sehrinin- hangi-yemegi-meshurdur/

Aytop, Y. and A. Şahin. 2014. Coğrafi işaretli Gemlik Zeytini’ne İlişkin tüketici tercihleri: Kahramanmaraş kent merkezi örneği. XI. Ulusal Tarım Ekonomisi Kongresi 3-5 Eylül, pp.1301-1308.

Beletti, G., A. Marescotti and A. Brazzini. 2017. Old world case study: the role of protected geographical indications to foster rural development dynamics: the case of Sorana Bean PGI, pp.253-276. In: W. Van Caenegem and J.

Cleary (eds.), The Importance of Place: Geographical Indications as a Tool for Local and Regional Development, Springer International Publishing AG.

Corder, G.W. and Foreman, D. I. 2014. Nonparametric Statistics: A Step-by-Step Approach, 2^nd Ed. Wiley.

p.288.

Çakaloğlu, M. and S. Çağatay. 2017. Coğrafi İşaretler ve değişen tüketici algısı: Finike Portakalı ve Antalya Tavşan Yüreği Zeytini örnekleri. J. Agr. Econ. Res. 3:52- 65.

Çalışkan, V. and H. Koç. 2012. Türkiye'de coğrafi işaretlerin dağılış özelliklerinin ve coğrafi işaret potansiyelinin değerlendirilmesi. Eastern Geog. Rev. 28:193-214.

Çukur, F. and T. Çukur. 2017. Coğrafi İşaretli ürünlerin kırsal kalkınma açısından değerlendirilmesi: Muğla ili örneği.

Turkish J. Agr. Econ. 23:187-194.

Drahos, P. 2017. Sunshine in a Bottle? Geographical indications, the Australian wine industry, and the promise of rural development. the promise and problems of geographical indications for local and rural development, pp. 257-436. In: I. Calboli and W. Ng-Loy (eds.), Geographical Indications at the Crossroads of Trade, Development, and Culture: Focus on Asia-Pacific.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

eAmbrosia. 2020. European Comission eAmbrosia–the EU geographical indications register database. Available online at https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming- fisheries/food-safety-and-quality/certification/quality- labels/geographical-indications-register/#

European Commission (EC). 2020. European Green Deal.

Available online at

https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019- 2024/european-green-deal_en

FAO. 2018. Strengthening Sustainable Food Systems Through Geographical Indications; An Analysis of Economic Impacts. Available online at http://www.fao.org/3/I8737EN/i8737en.pdf

Ministry of Development (MoD). 2013. İllerin ve Bölgelerin Sosyo-Ekonomik Gelişmişlik Sıralaması Araştırması (SEGE-2011). Bölgesel Gelişme ve Yapısal Uyum Genel Müdürlüğü, Ankara. Available online at https://www.ab.gov.tr/files/ardb/evt/2_turkiye_ab_iliskil eri/2_2_adaylik_sureci/2_2_8_diger/tckb_sege_2013.pd f

Kan, M. and B. Gülçubuk. 2008. Kırsal ekonominin canlanmasında ve yerel sahiplenmede coğrafi işaretler. J.

Agr. Fac. Uludag Univ. 22:57-66.

Kan, M., B. Gülçubuk, A. Kan and M. Küçükçongar. 2010.

Coğrafi işaret olarak Divle Tulum Peyniri. KMU J. Soc.

Econ. Res. 12:15-23.

Kan, M. 2011. Yerel Düzeyde Ekonomik Kalkınmada Coğrafi İşaretlerin Kullanımı ve Etkisi: Akşehir Kirazı Araştırması. Ph.D. diss. Ankara Üniversity, Grad. Sch.

Nat. and Appl. Sci. Dept. of Agr. Econ., Ankara-Turkey.

Kan, M., B. Gülçubuk and M. Küçükçongar. 2012. Coğrafi işaretlerin kırsal turizmde kullanılma imkanları. KMU J.

Soc. Econ. Res. 14:93-101.

Kan, M. and B. Gülçubuk. 2012. Are geographical indications an opportunity for local economic development; a case of Aksehir Kirazı (Cherry of Aksehir). International Interdisciplinary Social Inquiry Conference, 17-21 June 2012, Bursa-Turkey.

Kan M. and B. Gülçubuk. 2013. Coğrafi işaretlerin yerel kalkınma potansiyelinin değerlendirilmesi; Akşehir Kirazı araştırması bulguları. Ulusal KOP Bölgesel Kalkınma Konferansı, 14-16 November.

Kan, M., A. Kan, B. Gülçubuk and K. Peker. 2016.

Türkiye’de yerel ürünlerin bölgesel kalkınma dinamikleri içindeki önemi, pp.231-280. In: A.E. Peker, Bölgesel Kalkınma, Paradigma Akademi – November 2016, Çanakkale-Turkey.

Kan, M., B. Gülçubuk, A. Kan and H.G. Doğan. 2017.

Türkiye’de coğrafi işaretlerle ilgili uygulamada yaşanan sorunlara Sınai Mülkiyet Kanun Tasarısı çerçevesinden bir bakış. Hasan Kalyoncu Üniv. J. Law Rev. 13:129- 145.

Kesici, T. and Z. Kocabaş. 2007. Biyoistatistik. Ankara Üniversitesi Eczacılık Fakültesi, Yayın No: 94, Ankara.

Kızıltepe, H. 2017. Coğrafi işaret kavramı ve Türkiye için önemi. Türk Patent ve Marka Kurumu. Available online at

https://www.turkpatent.gov.tr/TURKPATENT/resource s/temp/70482589-E0CD-4F6C-B820-

0F703C5E529E.pdf

Lopez, X.A.A. and B.G. Martin. 2005. Tourism and quality agro-food products: an opportunity for the Spanish countryside. Tijdschr Econ. Soc. Geogr. 97:166–177.

Marescotti, A. 2003. Typical products and rural development;

who benefits from PDO/PGI recognition? pp:1-17. 83rd EAAE Seminar. Food Quality Products in the Advent of the 21^st Century: Production, Demand and Public Policy 4-7 September, 2003 - Chania, Greece. Available online at

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/olq/documents/

documents/cherry%20of%20Lari%20marescotti.pdf Meral, Y. and A. Şahin. 2013. Tüketicilerin coğrafi işaretli

ürün algısı: Gemlik Zeytini örneği. KSU J. Nat. Sci.

16:16-23.

Orhan, A. 2010. Yerel değerlerin turizm ürününe

dönüştürülmesinde “coğrafi işaretlerin” kullanımı: İzmit Pişmaniyesi örneği, Anatolia: J. Tourism Res. 21:243- 254.

Planlama. 2019. Türkiye’deki İstatistiksel Bölge Birimleri s http://www.planlama.org/index.php/tuerkiyede- boelgesel-kalknma-ajanslar/tuerkiyedeki-statistiksel- boelge-birimleri-bb

Official Gazette. 2017. 22.12.2016 tarih ve 6769 Sayılı Sınai Mülkiyet Kanunu (Industrial Property Law). Publication date: 10 January 2017. Available online at https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.6769.pd f

Toklu, İ.T., E. Ustaahmetoğlu and H. Öztürk Küçük. 2016.

Tüketicilerin coğrafi işaretli ürün algısı ve daha fazla fiyat ödeme isteği: yapısal eşitlik modellemesi yaklaşımı.

Celal Bayar Univ. J. Manag. Econ. 23:145-161.

Topçu, Y. and S. Yalçın. 2016. Tüketicilerin bölge orijinli/coğrafi işaretli elma tüketim tercihleri için ödeme istekliliği. XII: Ulusal Tarım Ekonomisi Kongresi, pp.475-484.

Treager, A. 2003. From Stilton to Vimto: using food history to re-think typical products in rural development. Sociol.

Rural. 43:91-100.

Treager, A., A. Filippo, B. Giovanni and A. Marescotti. 2007.

Regional foods and rural development: The role of product qualification. J. Rural Stud. 23:12-22.

Turk Patent. 2020. Geographical Indication Database of Turkish Patent and Trademark Office. Available online at https://www.ci.gov.tr/

UNCTAD. 2015. Why Geographical Indications for Least Developed Countries (LDCs)? Available online at https://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/aldc2015d4_e n.pdf

Wilson, N., K. Vanittersum and A. Fearne. 1999. Co- Operation and co-ordination in the supply chain: a comparison between The Jersey Royal and The Opperdoezer Ronde potato, pp. 96-102. In: B. Sylvander, D. Barjolle and F. Arfini (eds.), The Socio Economics of Origin Labelled Products in Agri-food Supply Chains:

spatial, institutional and co-ordination aspects (Le Mans, 28-30 October 1999) 67^th European Association of Agricultural Economics Seminar, Le Mans, France.

Zuluğ, A. 2010. Coğrafi İşaretli Gıdalara İlişkin Tüketici Tercihleri Üzerine Bir Araştırma: İstanbul Örneği. Ph.D.

diss. Ege Üniv. Grad. Sch. Nat. Appl. Sci. İzmir-Turkey.

[Received 2 Mar. 2020; Accepted 1 May-2020; Published 3 Jul. 2020]