Protecting the value of Philippine products
The Philippines may have stumbled onto one of its most valuable agricultural opportunities: the world’s growing appetite for ube.
What was once a familiar ingredient in Filipino desserts is now appearing in products around the world. Philippine ube exports reached $3.06 million in 2025, according to the Department of Trade and Industry, with demand growing for powder, purée, halaya, and other value-added products.
But the boom has exposed a problem that goes beyond ube: demand is moving faster than the country’s ability to supply it. In September, the Department of Agriculture indefinitely suspended fresh ube exports to conserve scarce planting materials while domestic production is expanded.
That is an important lesson for Philippine agriculture. It is not enough to discover that the world wants our products. We must also be ready to protect their identity, build their production base, and ensure that Filipino farmers capture a meaningful share of the value.
This is where geographical indications, or GIs, matter. A GI links a product’s quality, reputation or characteristics to a particular geographic origin. The Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) says registration can prevent misleading claims about origin while strengthening consumer confidence, market access, and revenue generation. The Philippines established its current GI registration system in 2022.
Other countries offer a useful demonstration of what can happen when this tool is treated as part of agricultural strategy rather than simply intellectual property administration. The European Union now has more than 3,700 registered GIs, covering products such as Champagne, Kalamata olives and Parmigiano Reggiano. The European Commission says GI products generate more than 75 billion euros in annual sales and account for 15.5 percent of EU agri-food exports.
Costa Rica offers an even more relevant agricultural example. Its “Banano de Costa Rica” GI was registered nationally in 2010 and through the World Intellectual Property Organization the following year. In 2026, the industry employed over 41,000 workers directly with another 100,000 indirectly working in banana production. These workers enjoy the highest minimum wage in the banana sector in Latin America and better social services and working conditions compared to others employed in similar professions in the region. With modern and fair production practices at the heart of its model, the “Banano de Costa Rica” GI has built the confidence of relatively affluent international customers—and the industry is able to command premium prices as a result.
The Philippines has already seen what happens when a valuable product name is allowed to become detached from its origin. Consider the case of the “Manila Mango.”
The name is used for mangoes grown in Mexico, even though the variety has Philippine roots. In 2005, the Philippine intellectual property authorities objected to the use of “Manila Mango” for Mexican-grown fruit, arguing that consumers could be led to believe it came from the Philippines; contemporary reporting noted that the Mexican producer acknowledged that the original seedling came from the Philippines.
Whatever the historical complexities of the mango’s trans-Pacific journey, the episode illustrates the commercial risk clearly: a place name can acquire market value independently of the farmers and territory that originally gave the product its reputation.
There is little reason to wait for another such case. IPOPHL and the Department of Agriculture have identified at least 30 agricultural and fishery products with strong GI potential, including Cordillera Heirloom Rice, Davao Pomelo, Zambales Mangoes, Davao Cacao, Davao Durian, Bonuan Bangus, Quezon Lambanog, Camarines Norte Queen Pineapple, and Oriental Mindoro Calamansi.
Guimaras mangoes already provide a domestic example of the potential: the product was registered as a GI in 2023, and in July 2026 GI-certified Guimaras mangoes were shipped to Europe as part of an effort to promote the product internationally.
Legislators are also moving on the issue. Senate Bills No. 840 and 1392, both titled the Protected Geographical Indications Act, were filed in 2025. SB 1936 followed in March 2026, while House Bill No. 8080 was filed in February 2026. These measures seek a dedicated framework for GI protection.
But legislation should be only one part of the strategy. A GI cannot compensate for low farm productivity, inadequate planting material, poor postharvest systems, or fragmented supply chains. What it can do is give those investments a market-facing purpose: turning a crop into a recognized origin brand whose reputation can be defended and whose value can be built over time.
The Philippines should not wait until the next calamansi, cacao, mango, or heirloom crop becomes an international sensation before asking how its name will be protected and how its farmers will benefit. The lesson of ube is not merely that the world likes Filipino products. It is that when the world does, the Philippines must be ready.
—————-
Moira G. Gallaga served three Philippine presidents as presidential protocol officer and was posted at the Philippine Consulate General in Los Angeles and the Philippine Embassy in Washington.
