Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Development of Geographical Indication’s supply chains in the Balkans: Outlook and limits 20 years of farming and rural transition in Eastern Europe. What.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Development of Geographical Indication’s supply chains in the Balkans: Outlook and limits 20 years of farming and rural transition in Eastern Europe. What."— Presentation transcript:

1 Development of Geographical Indication’s supply chains in the Balkans: Outlook and limits 20 years of farming and rural transition in Eastern Europe. What have we learned? SFER, Rural’Est, AgroSup Dijon, October 20-21 2011 Magali Estève, Dr. Marguerite Paus (AGRIDEA), Dr. Dominique Barjolle (ETH Zurich), Pascal Bernardoni (SEEDEV)

2 Outline  Research Questions  Geographical Indications: definition and conditions  Context in the Balkans  Case studies:  Cheese from Livno (Bosnia and Herzegovina)  Smoked ham from Uzice (Serbia)  Discussion and conclusions Research QuestionsCase studiesDefinition & ContextDiscussion

3  What are the conditions and the limits of the implementation of the European GI scheme in two countries: Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina?  Relevance of the scheme transfer?  Adaptability in a transition and Europeanization context? Hypotheses:  The implementation of a sui generis system of GI protection – as an institutional transfer - implies:  At national level: 1) a learning process (idea dissemination and expertise production), 2) a network, 3) institutional competence  At local level: negotiation processes (definition of the production methods and geographical limits) Research Questions: Research QuestionsCase studiesDefinition & ContextDiscussion

4 Geographical Indications (GIs) are defined by the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) Agreement as being “indications that 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 attributable to its geographic origin”. Geographical Indications (WTO definition)  Protection of a denomination – IPR tool  No explicit mention of the GIs’ collective dimension (based on shared practices and know-how as well as common reputation). Research QuestionsCase studiesDefinition & ContextDiscussion

5 Research QuestionsCase studiesDefinition & ContextDiscussion

6 Research QuestionsCase studiesDefinition & ContextDiscussion

7 Research QuestionsCase studiesDefinition & ContextDiscussion

8 Geographical Indications: conditions in the EU 1- Specificity/ typicity, linked to a territory (“terroir”), which makes the product clearly distinguishable from its competitors. (promotion of the “terroir”) 2- Consumers' acknowledgment. The product has a name and is trustworthy. Anchored in the past, its reputation has developed progressively. (promotion of the product) 3- A common code of practices and quality control under the responsibility of an external certification body. (promotion of the production methods) 4- A collective organisation (loose or strong), an implicit condition reinforced by the European PDO/PGI regulation and the Swiss law. Research QuestionsCase studiesDefinition & ContextDiscussion

9 Geographical Indications (European approach) Beyond the explicit and implicit conditions to register a GI as a PDO or PGI, the European PDO and PGI regulation and the Swiss law clearly set rural development objectives (e.g. development of unfavoured regions through quality differentiation, cultural heritage maintenance) Research QuestionsCase studiesDefinition & ContextDiscussion

10 Context – Western Balkan WTO access (Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia are observer governments) EU integration (potential candidates) Europeanisation process Harmonisation of legislation Institutional transfer In the framework of the Community Assistance for Reconstruction, Development and Stabilisation (CARDS) programme for the Western Balkans, a project called ‘Industrial and Intellectual Property Rights’ was launched in July 2003. Research QuestionsCase studiesDefinition & ContextDiscussion

11 Context – Western Balkan Transition to a liberalised economy  Withdrawal of State Agrokombinats (former Yugoslavia), role of urban market supplier  New actors in agro-food supply chains (entry of middle-sized processors, traders, retailers & supermarkets)  New organisation of supply chains and markets (coordination) Research QuestionsCase studiesDefinition & ContextDiscussion

12 Context – Western Balkan Geographical Indications and legislation  Sui generis protection  New Serbian law (revisions in 2006 and 2010) / New Bosnian law (2002)  Similar type of legislation (definition and concept of Geographical Indication and Appellation of Origin), but: - the Institute for Intellectual Property is responsible for the register (technical expertise?) - Individuals, private companies, chamber of commerce, local authorities, or the State have the right to submit an application (collective approach is not mandatory), Research QuestionsCase studiesDefinition & ContextDiscussion

13 Context – Western Balkan Geographical Indications and legislation - marginal role of the producers in the management of the protected GIs (the organisation that will manage the GI is not specified), - there is no opposition procedure before the final registration (that would allow third parties to officially oppose to the protection of a product), - no certification and controlling procedures (certification by the State of “authorised users”), - the codes of practice are not public (lack of transparency towards consumers and “non-authorised” producers) Research QuestionsCase studiesDefinition & ContextDiscussion

14 Case study: Livanjski Sir (cheese from Livno) documented by Bernardoni and Estève (2008) This protection initiative is carried by a sheep breeders and cheese producers association (the Cincar association).  Facilitation: Italian NGO (UCODEP), financial support from the Tuscany region and the Italian government  Specification: raw milk + definition of the production area by the Cincar association (cf particular ecosystem)  Codification: ewe milk, min 70%, code of practice finalised in 2008  Coordination: Association of household producers, exclusion of dairies  Heritage preservation: specific agricultural ecosystem – polje (valorisation of local resources) Research QuestionsCase studiesDefinition & ContextDiscussion

15 Research QuestionsCase studiesDefinition & ContextDiscussion 840 t50 t1’680 t120 t

16 Case study: Uzicka Goveda Pršuta (smoked beef ham from Uzice) documented by Bernardoni and Paus (2008) IDA, a local NGO is in contact with the Ministry of Agriculture and the Intellectual Property Office. Since 2007, meetings and working groups are organised to establish a new code of practice, shared by most of the Pršuta producers in the area.  Facilitation: Local NGO (Ibar Development Association)  Specification: consensual definition of the production area, negotiation about the origin of the raw material (beef)  Codification: discussion about the pieces of meat to be selected  Coordination: working group, difficult take off of the collective action (former Agrokombinat as single “authorised user”)  Heritage preservation: festival, local livestock Research QuestionsCase studiesDefinition & ContextDiscussion

17 Research QuestionsCase studiesDefinition & ContextDiscussion

18 Local stakes  Exclusion processes through the definition of the geographical area and the production methods  Dilemma: strengthening the link to the terroir and traditional methods (resulting in exclusion process) versus promoting the economic development of the supply chain and the region  dual production (small households vs new processors, and role of supermarkets), new technology, definition of « traditional » production methods, risk of « delocalisation », individual strategy  Potential for small-scale farmers (but certification issue, collective action)  Trade-off Research QuestionsCase studiesDefinition & ContextDiscussion

19 Producers, processors Motivations Legal framework (national) Certification body (quality controls) Local facilitators From S. Réviron, 2007 Former system Intellectual Property Agency Ministry of Agriculture Food Safety Agency Technical Cooperation Programmes Negotiation, cooperation Collective Negotiation Foreign and local NGOs, Foreign Aid Agencies Structural changes New actors ? Consumers WTO access EU integration Rural development objectives Research QuestionsCase studiesDefinition & ContextDiscussion

20 Network building and learning process (national level) Large process of negotiation among diverse political and administrative institutions (power, responsibilities, competence building) Difficulties for the administrative staff to comprehend the structural changes of the agro-food supply chains and markets External pressures for changes within the institutional environment  Need for institutional capacity building  Trainings and study tours for administrative representatives in Italy (Livno cheese case) and Switzerland (ham from Uzice case)  Perception of the “model”, knowledge from solutions applied elsewhere  Exchange with the European “epistemic” community (GIs’ experts and professionals) Research QuestionsCase studiesDefinition & ContextDiscussion

21 Network building and learning process (local level) Emergence of facilitative organisations (e.g. NGO UCODEP, IDA) that link producers and national institutions Creation of a network composed of producers associations, NGO and facilitators, national representatives and foreign experts: negotiation at local and national levels Potential conflicts related to different motivations  Development of local and national networks and competence building  Sustainability of these networks? Short-term financial resources versus long-term and demanding development of the GI framework Research QuestionsCase studiesDefinition & ContextDiscussion

22 Conclusion  Structural changes at local level,  Willingness to rapidly comply with EU requirements versus current institutional context,  Negotiation processes (at all levels), external motivations  Potential vicious circle (loss of commitment at local level/ top-down approach at institutional level),  but potential for rural development and local resources valorisation Research QuestionsCase studiesDefinition & ContextDiscussion

23 Thank you for your attention !

24 Producers, processors Motivations Legal framework (national) Certification body (quality controls) Local facilitators From S. Réviron, 2007 Intellectual Property Agency Ministry of Agriculture Food Safety Agency Foreign and local NGOs, Foreign Aid Agencies Consumers Rural development objectives

25 Raised as one of the top priorities by the EU, the reform of the food safety system became logically for all the countries of the region an issue that is high on the policy agenda. Reference laboratories, veterinarian inspectors, HACCP, milk hygiene, avian flu, brucellosis, etc.; Ministries have to postpone their rural development strategy formulation. Still, the food safety issues are not solved, especially when it comes to the small-scale producers. It is therefore logically that people who have to find solutions to improve on-farm food safety and address traceability for instance, saw suddenly in geographic indications a tool to control processing and food safety. This preoccupation coupled with the fact that food quality in the Balkans is understood as food safety and standardization could reduce and even divert geographic indications’ scope. Other dimension such as socio-economic and environmental stake might be ignored because they do not correspond to the priorities dictated by the EU.


Download ppt "Development of Geographical Indication’s supply chains in the Balkans: Outlook and limits 20 years of farming and rural transition in Eastern Europe. What."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google