Search

Production location matters to many consumers and regulators and policymakers are pressed to statue on labels about country of origin, local foods and geographical indications (GIs). This paper investigates the incidence of the EU policy on GIs on bilateral trade flows. We develop ttheoretical arguments and provide empirical evidence to analyze heterogeneity in consumer preferences regarding country of origin (domestic versus foreign) and the implicit quality signals from GI logos. The objective of the paper is to investigate whether producing GIs really boots bilateral trade, assuming heterogeneity in consumers’ preference. We first develop an analytical framework of a simple partial equilibrium two-country model through a Cobb-Douglas utility structure to assess the impact of GIs on trade. In addition, we empirically corroborate the analytical findings with a unique data on protected GIs by product and European country. Our main findings indicate that GI-products have ambiguous effect on international trade. Indeed, their trade-impact depends on the importance of product for consumers (i. e., the intensity and the reputation of GI-product considered as deterministic weight in consumers’ preference). As expected, a heterogeneity in consumers’ preference – due to home bias about local or foreign varieties – can increase or decrease trade, despite the presence of GI-products. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The definition of origin and protection methodologies of seafood unique qualities are complex processes. Shoals shifting as well as the identification of consistency grade of the bond between fresh water fishing and the culture of O'Higgins region constitute the most difficult factors in the territory-traditional production relation. In this paper we study the historical assessment of specific kind of fishes from Rapel, Cachapoal and Tinguiririca rivers (bass, mullet and silverside), the mouth of Rapel and the O'Higgins region low tide sections (bass and sea bass) since the 16th until the 21st centuries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary Unlike what is usually thought, the US public institutions play a crucial role in the protection of Geographical Indications (GIs), as trademarks or as AVAs appellations of origin for wines, to guarantee that all legitimate operators have the right to use GIs. Although the US institutions and scholars have often criticized the EU sui generis GI regime, practice shows that the two systems have much more in common than what emerges superficially. Indeed, in the US several collective marks aimed at protecting indications of geographical origin are managed and funded by public bodies or agencies. Furthermore, the US practice often procedurally recalls the European regime of GI protection and, in general, the overall development of the US system shows that it is heading toward a regime that is at least very compatible with, if not similar to, the EU one. Finally, concepts such as “terroir”, that is one of the theoretical pillars of the French–European GI regime, are increasingly accepted in the US context as well. Therefore, the analysis conducted shows how the practical aspects of the management of GIs in the US contrasts with the traditional narrative according to which GI protection in the US, guaranteed by trademarks, the self-regulated system of private law, and the European administrative-based system are substantively different and irreconcilable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary Geographical indications in France are governed since 1935 by a unique mixed public/private Institute set-up on the failure of the State to define GIs. This mixed body, the National Institute of Appellation of Origin, composed of representatives of public authorities and producers’ Organization was weakened due to a moving context in France, Europe, and worldwide. The transfer of activities of control of GIs to private certification organization on the one end and the increased involvement of the EU Commission on the other end questions the future of INAO and affects the attractiveness of GIs and hence rural development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary This paper investigates the way Geographical Indications (GIs) are implemented by national and local governments in Indonesia and Vietnam. The two States are active at all stages of GI development, from the selection of the products candidates for GI registration to the supervision of the GI implementation. Thanks to the involvement of national experts from public agencies in the establishment of the Codes of Practices (CoP), they are able to push for the substitution of traditional local techniques with “good practices” (i.e., mostly those recommended by research centers worldwide). Thus, they put GIs at the service of agricultural modernization when GIs apply more conventionally to specific products based on traditional know-how. However, the implementation of the CoPs and thus the achievement of this objective of modernization depend on the perceived interest of producers in the whole GI dynamic. Indeed, the cases studied in Indonesia and Vietnam highlight the variable level of participation of local producers in the GI. In the four studied cases, the CoPs are mainly based on expert knowledge which differs from the actual practices of farmers and processors. Moreover, GIs are implemented in order to create or reinforce reputations rather than legally protecting preexisting ones. For these two reasons, producers’ motivation to invest in GI certification is weak, which makes difficult the necessary collective involvement. In both countries, the involvement of local governments in GI construction and management modifies the situation. Thanks to their knowledge of local situations and stakes, they are more likely than national experts to identify the most strategic supply chains at local level, enable participatory approaches in GI construction and facilitate the involvement of local producers in the GI managing group. But if competences have been given to local governments in the Indonesian and Vietnamese legal frameworks, the distribution of roles between central and provincial governments in GIs are not clearly enough specified. The nature and the importance of local public intervention differ from one case to another. Finally, this paper recognizes the legitimacy of State intervention in GI development, at least as long as producers’ awareness of GIs is still low. However, this State intervention should not only let enough space for producers in GI governance, but also design a frame for arousing their interest and adhesion and for facilitating their collective involvement. That may be facilitated by a concrete and clearly established decentralization of competences in national policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary The protection of Geographical Indications (GIs) is being explored more and more worldwide as a tool for supporting local sustainable development. Focusing on wine and coffee value chains, this paper will set out in what way GI protection schemes can contribute to the provision of public goods, and illustrate how this contribution is being threatened by different failures that may occur within both valorization strategies and legal protection policies. By examining how private, collective, and public interventions front these failures, this paper will put forward economic arguments supporting a more comprehensive policy approach, to ensure GIs’ contribution to sustainable development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary Geographical indications (GIs) serve to designate goods with a quality, characteristics, or reputation attributed to its geographical origin. They are increasingly protected in many countries of the South as a tool for economic, social, territorial, and ecological development. Implemented in the wake of the weakly prescriptive WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) of 1995, the choice of the institutional framework for protecting GIs nationally as well as associated public support infrastructure was left open. This led to divergences in overarching approaches and to GI institutionalization that differs remarkably across countries. Twenty years after TRIPs, the purpose of both this paper and of the special issue is to advance our understanding of the institutionalization of GIs, as an IPR, a quality standard, and a policy instrument in harnessing all of the expected benefits of GI protection. Building upon the contributions to this special issue, we use an original multilevel governance framework to analyze all the multifaceted roles of the state, in different empirical situations worldwide. This reflects the experiences of countries that have only recently implemented GI protection, such as Brazil, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Vietnam, South Africa, Kenya, and West African countries, as well as of regions with a long history of GI protection, including the EU and the US. Based on an analysis of the complexity and diversity of all state, we show that global harmonization is underway with a convergence toward a prominent role of the state in GI regulation, in particular for defining GI content, which is specific for GIs when compared to other IPRs or quality standards. We suggest that the intervention of the state is supported by a universal desire to guard against unfair exclusion, and to protect a common heritage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary Geographical Indications (GIs) are increasingly conceived as a development tool. However there are insufficient empirical and conceptual grounds to fine tune their institutionalization. This paper investigates the need for and the role of State intervention in GIs using comparative analysis of the trajectories of Basmati rice and Rooibos tea, emblematic products respectively from India and South Africa. The social relevance of GIs depends on the State’s conception and examination of the link to the origin embodied in the GI. Institutionalization should consider GI as a hybrid between a public quality standard and a specific IPR to protect a heritage-based reputation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary This paper addresses the debate on establishing GIs in weak national institutional contexts. It builds on evidence provided by six case studies in a project implemented by the African Intellectual Property Organization (French acronym OAPI) in Western and Central Africa: Oku white honey, Penja pepper, Ziama-Macenta coffee, Dogon shallots, Galmi purple onions, and Korhogo cloth. Thanks to OAPI’s unique status and an appropriate methodology, three GIs have been registered. We notice a lack of sound and effective state involvement which can limit the successful development of GIs. We identify some decisive factors in successful collective action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary In the context of de-regulation of the coffee sector, the registration of some Geographical Indications (GIs) has recently been implemented. This paper aims at answering to the following research question: how does GIs’ process (protection and management) help to rationalize the role of the state in the coffee sector? In Colombia, the National Coffee Growers Federation took all initiatives for the registration and implementation of Café de Colombia as a GI both in Colombia and in European Union and manages also the GI use. In Kenya, the Coffee Directorate registered the certification trademark “Coffee Kenya, So Rich So Kenyan” and acts as public body in charge of managing the coffee sector. Although both countries conceived different approaches, there is a common strategic line, which consists in attempting to secure downstream value of the long lasting origin coffee branding and in strengthening the quality management system. This paper shows that discrepancies in public intervention in the coffee industry depend on the empowerment of producers in this industry irrespective of the legal tool to protect GIs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary In this article, we analyze the institutional and organizational factors which have influenced the development of policies and mobilizations around “origin” agricultural products in Brazil focusing particularly on the role of networks. We identify the different instances involved in the defense and promotion of origin products situated within the broader politico-institutional context. We then show how these interact through the analysis of an iconic origin product, artisan cheese in Brazil. Two types of networks are identified and their different objectives and implications for the promotion of origin products analyzed. Finally, we relate GIs to the broader trends in Brazilian agriculture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Intellectual Property Regime in India has been a much-debated topic ever since India became a signatory to the World Trade Organization in 1995. This has led to both the enactment of new laws such as the Geographical Indications Act of 1999 (GI Act) and Plant Varieties Protection Act 2001 as well as the amendment of old laws relating to intellectual property in India, such as amendments to Patents Act 1970. Geographical Indications (GIs) are used to identify goods as originating from a particular region as a signifier of quality. Thus, the geography, quality, and reputation of the good are inextricably interlinked. This enables the producer to convey the credentials of their products to the consumers in the context of information asymmetry. This paper throws light on the legal framework for the protection of origin labeled products in India as Geographical Indications and highlights the policy challenges and debates in the use and registration of GIs under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 1999. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The concept of terroir is often included in legal descriptions of Geographical Indicators (GIs). GIs are intellectual property that recognizes a food, beverage, or artisan product as holding distinct properties based on geographic origin. GIs are used to indicate these distinctions while deterring the sale of products carrying similar labels without having the GI determined qualities. Climate change and its effects on aspects of terroir such as rainfall, water availability, soil quality, and temperature is already having an effect on some production aspects crucial to what brings distinctiveness to GI products based on terroir. These factors raise questions as to how conceptions of terroir and the formalized rules underpinning the distinctiveness of GIs are evolving in the face of climatological changes. This paper discusses how climate change may influence how terroir is encoded in legally recognized GIs and how this will influence international regulation, recognition, and trade flows in GI-protected food and beverages. It discusses the relationship between GIs, credence attributes and the legal recognition of terroir. It then explores three options for products with GIs based on terroir that are experiencing climate change: product quality change, definitional change, or re-interpreting the boundaries of terroir relevant to the GI distinction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the Italian agrifood sector, one observes heterogeneity in the types of quality certification processes. This heterogeneity cannot be explained by standard governance theories like transaction costs economics (TCE). We use the governance value analysis (GVA) perspective that synthesizes TCE and a resources-based view (RBV), to suggest that the observed heterogeneity in organizational forms is a result of heterogeneous differentiating strategies that farms have pursued in the face of competitive pricing pressures. To empirically test GVA, data are obtained using a survey methodology on lamb meat produced by local farms in the Abruzzo region of Italy, challenged by price-costs squeeze. Our empirical test evidences the relevance of the adopted approach, enlightening different organizational arrangements, strictly linked to both the strategic positioning and to the farms' resources and core competencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Geographic Indications have been registrable in Indonesia for almost a decade. However, no legal proceedings have ever been brought in Indonesia to pursue alleged GI violations. This article outlines Indonesia's GI laws and seeks to explain why they have been used to register GIs but never to enforce them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the role of African countries in the debates in the WTO concerning the establishment of a system for the registration of geographical indications (GIs). It notes the conflict between 'Old World' and 'New World' countries over the forms which GI protection should take and the attempt of the European countries to enlist African support for its conception of sui generis GI protection. The article notes the recruitment by the WIPO of African support for its revival of the Lisbon Agreement to protect GIs and concludes with the response of Ethiopia on the protection of its coffee brands. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Chilena de Derecho is the property of Revista Chilena de Derecho and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In the context of increasing attention towards sustainable and high quality food products, Italy plays a key role in Europe due to its embedded territorial vocation for locally produced food and alternative agriculture systems helping biodiversity and landscape preservation. Here, we report an overview of Italian agriculture by analysing organic farming (OF) and geographical indication (GI) systems and their contribution to the national agriculture. Land use data highlight that OF and GI contribute around 10% to the utilised agriculture area (UAA), with relevant distinctions in terms of regional distribution. While GIs are mostly in the north-central regions (8.5%), OF products are most frequent in the south and on the islands (5.0% of UAA). This trend was observed on the one hand in Trentino-South Tirol, Veneto and Friuli-Venezia Giulia (%UAA GI/%UAA OF>5.9), and on the other in Calabria, Basilicata and Sicily (%UAA GI/%UAA OF<0.1). Similarly, both systems are widespread in less-favoured areas in terms of agricultural intensification, providing support to preserve agro-systems and reduce land abandonment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As one of the world's most traded agricultural commodities, coffee constitutes a significant part of the overall economy and a major source of foreign revenue for many developing countries. Coffee also touches a large portion of the world's population in the South, where it is mainly produced, and in the North, where it is primarily consumed. As a product frequently purchased by a significant share of worldwide consumers on a daily basis in social occasions, the coffee industry has earned a high profile that also attracts the interest of non-governmental organizations, governments, multilateral organizations and development specialists and has been an early adopter of Voluntary Sustainability Standards (VSS). Responding to the trend of increased interest on sustainability, it is therefore not surprising that coffee continues to be at the forefront of sustainability initiatives that transcend into other agricultural industries. Based on literature and authors' experiences, this article reflects on the VSS evolution and considers a sustainability model that specifically incorporates producers' local realities and deals with the complex scenario of sustainability challenges in producing regions. Agreeing on a joint sustainability approach with farmers' effective involvement is necessary so that the industry as a whole (up and downstream value chain actors) can legitimately communicate its own sustainability priorities. This top-down/bottom-up approach could also lead to origin-based, actionable and focused sustainability key performance indicators, relevant for producers and consistent with the UN's Sustainable Development Goals. The initiative also aims to provide a sustainability platform for single origin coffees and Geographical Indications (GIs) in accordance with growers' own realities and regions, providing the credibility that consumers now expect from sustainability initiatives, additional differentiation options for origin coffees and economic upgrade opportunities for farmers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We conduct a meta-analysis of studies estimating price premiums for agricultural products differentiated by Geographical Indication (GI). Models accounting for differences across product characteristics (food categories) and institutions (PDO, PGI, trademarks) explain a large portion of the variance in estimated premiums. Specifically, GIs capture the highest percentage premium in markets for products with short supply chains and relatively low added value (e.g., agricultural commodities). The premium is lower for wine and olive oil, where alternative means of product differentiation (e.g., branding) exist. Controlling for product characteristics, GIs adopting stricter regulations (PDO) yield larger premiums than less regulated ones (PGI).

Sake is a cultural product which, in Japan, has reached a high level of quality. Is it possible, as with wine, to adopt geographically specific labels for this beverage? This study uses a geo-historical approach, starting with the first appearance of production areas through to current practices in the use of origin labels. It shows that appreciation of sake’s quality, which during Japan’s modernization period focused on production standards, is now being challenged by new demands from consumers who increasingly associate quality with geographical origin. The link between place of origin and quality thus appears to be an important factor once again, suggesting the possibility of applying the French notion of terroir to Japanese rice wine.

Ever since pre-Bible time typical products have been considered as a cultural heritage of people and countries. This is demonstrated by the records found in several geographical locations. As such they have been protected by legal means adequate to the time and space of their existence. The term of typical products as the objects of intellectual property was first introduced in 1883, when the first multilateral treaty-Paris Convention for protection of geographical indications was signed. Since then series of documents governing the right to dispose and trade with typical products have been signed.All current variations and sub-variations of methods to protect geographical indications classify countries into three groups: (1) Countries that protect geographical indications by special law, the so-called sui generis system, (2) Countries which protect geographical indications as trademarks, certification marks, collective marks, or other legal means, (3) countries that do not formally recognize and protect geographical indications. Globally, 111 countries, including 27 EU countries, protect geographical indication of origin by sui generis system. 56 countries protect geographical indications through trademarks, certification marks, or collective marks, which include Australia, Canada, Japan and the United States. A number of countries, in addition to a sui generis system, has the additional option of protection geographical indications as trademarks as in the case of China.

The article discusses the issues connected with the EU entering and conducting negotiations with the US on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. These issues relate to institutional risk due to the necessity to change the agricultural policy statement of the parties and to implement new legal instruments or amend those that already exist. The article aims at analysing the proposed organisational and legal solutions relating to agriculture in the face of negotiations of the contents of the partnership. It also intends to indicate essential diff erences between the parties relating to agriculture and food production, to determine the direction of amendments in the event of joining the partnership, and to assess its potential consequences from the perspective of EU agricultural producers and food consumers.

This paper examines the legal and policy relationships amongst international standards for GIs, food safety requirements, and voluntary claims related to a food’s attributes. The paper addresses those relationships within the context of international trade agreements protecting GIs, such as the 1994 TRIPS Agreement, the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), and the chapter on intellectual property and geographical indications in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) currently under negotiation. Trade agreements also discipline food safety measures and non-GI indications of quality or safety such as “organic” and “GMO-free.” Accordingly, the paper also considers the extent to which international trade agreements such as the WTO Agreements on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards (SPS Agreement) and Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) might interact with the analysis.

For many years coffee has been regarded as a commodity. Recently, new trends both at consumption and production level created new opportunities for de-commodifying the coffee market, by a differentiation based on social, environmental and territorial resources, and consequently for strengthening local agro-food systems and improving the position of farmers in the value chain. In this perspective, territorial origin is one promising lever of differentiation, and there is a growing number of initiatives trying to develop protected Geographical Indications in coffee value chains. This work aims at identifying the different logics surrounding the construction of protected Geographical Indications (GIs) in the coffee industry in Latin America, and to discuss the role of history and tradition in relation to the link to specific local resources. Our analysis highlights a variety of typologies of GI initiatives, which follow different logics and strategies, and interpret the concept of “origin” in different ways, especially when compared to the European Union one. However the role that history and traditions play in American coffee GIs is not yet relevant.