Sugar: Saving our Good Name

The high quality of our sugar in from the 18th century onwards led to “Demerara Brown Sugar” becoming the standard for the world. Sugar companies across the world began marketing their brown sugar as “Demerara Sugar” Only the fine print would reveal that it was actually produced elsewhere – and sold at a premium. If we were to retain that brand, our sugar industry would indeed be flying high.
You may very well be asking why we allow others to steal our claim to fame, so to speak. It appears that the colonial power never applied for copyright over the name – since it refined the sugar in any case. Since our involvement in the sugar industry over a decade ago, we pointed out that all was not lost. There was another route that had been opened to us to regain exclusive control over our Demerara brand. For instance, we published the following over three years ago.
“For some decades now, Europe led the way in carving out the right to use a particular name for a product that came from a specific region – and became associated with the name of that region – such as “Bordeaux Wine”. By 1995, it was able to have it incorporated into the WTO Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) as “Geographical Indications (GIs)” protection. The latter were defined by Article 22(1) as “indications which identify a good as originating in the territory of a Member, or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the good is essentially attributed to its geographic origin.” Initially utilised only for wines, it was extended to include other foodstuffs: “Florida” for oranges “Idaho” for potatoes “Washington State” for apples etc. So why not “Demerara Sugar” for brown sugar from Demerara, Guyana?
Well for one it doesn’t appear that Booker Tate, (hired in 1990 when the GI issue rose to the fore) that were earning huge incentive bonuses based on overall production of our sugar, saw it in their interest to expend their resources towards increasing our profitability. Yet one of their selling points was their marketing expertise to the UK/EU.
The Strategic Plan of 1998 for the industry also stressed increased overall total production and mentions possible packaging of our sugar Demerara Gold only for Caricom and local markets.  None of the proposed certifications mention GI’s protection. Implicitly, it appeared to be seeking to protect the value of the “Demerara” name through the trademark route. (Which we lost)
A trademark “is a word, symbol, or phrase, used to identify a particular manufacturer or seller’s products and distinguish them from the products of another for example “Coca Cola” and “Pepsi”.” While there is nothing wrong with pursuing this option it does not have to be at the expense of ignoring the GI’s window of opportunity. Creating a brand name takes time and while we can boast about ours being the “real thing”, it will be very expensive and time consuming to move the fake Demerara Sugar off the lucrative supermarket shelves in the developed countries. In the meantime we cannot sue anyone unless they call their product “Demerara Gold” – especially if some of our products originate from outside the Demerara plantations.
At present, two issues are being debated in the TRIPS Council under the Doha mandate in reference to GI’s: creating a multilateral register for wines and spirits; and extending the higher (Article 23) level of protection presently applying only them, to other products.  GI’s for Article 23 products are absolutely prohibited if they do not originate in the designated place. It is not necessary to show that there is a risk of confusion or unfair competition to prevent such uses, as required under Article 22 TRIPS. A multilateral system of notification and registration for the geographical indications for wines and spirits in Article 23.4 strengthens protection for this category. Our exclusive right to market our sugar as “Demerara Sugar” would obviously be buttressed under this regime.
There are presently three proposals on the table and the one advocating extension is supported by several sugar producers who are abusing the Demerara name such as India and Mauritius. Rather ironically, “they see the higher level of protection as a way to improve marketing their products by differentiating them more effectively from their competitors’; and they object to other countries “usurping” their terms.: They can be hung on their own petard. The EU has always supported extension of protection and its latest proposal reaffirms this position even beyond the scope of the one mentioned above. Guyana would be well advised to negotiate in tandem with them (within the EPA regime?) while simultaneously breaking into their markets.
We raised the issue of our position on GI’s in Parliament in 2003 and were advised that it was being handled by the Caribbean Regional Negotiating Machinery (CRNM) – the same group that delivered us the EPA. They had issued a paper on GI’s in 2002 but I am not aware there was any follow-up activity. For instance, since the WTO agreements specify that GI’s must be used in conformity with the law of the country of origin (re-application of the law of the country of origin) have we enacted the necessary legislation? Since the negotiations on GI’s are still ongoing within the (stalled) Doha timetable, we still have time to get our Act together so that we may have another arrow in our bow to save the Demerara Plantations.”
Here a decade later in 2012 we still don’t know whether we’re trying to obtain that arrow.