Collective Action Milieus and Governance Structures of Protected Geographical Indications for Coffee in Colombia, Thailand and Indonesia

Abstract

In an attempt to capture a greater share of the symbolic value of coffee in the market, some producers have started to safeguard the geographical names of specific origins through Geographical Indications in their home country, and then subsequently registering Protected Geographical Indications (PGI) under European Union (EU) law. To enable effective value capture, such initiatives require successful collective action. We explain how the need for collective action has manifested within four coffee Protected Geographical Indications in Colombia, Indonesia and Thailand (2 cases). Based on the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework developed by Elinor Ostrom, we examine the cases following a common analytical approach, encompassing: i) contextual setting of product and territory; ii) actors involved; iii) institutional arrangements and action arena; and iv) the outcome of these arrangements. The cases involved a diversity of applicants including a producer association (Colombia), a social foundation and a private company (Thailand), and a government-supported consortium (Indonesia). The process of institutionalizing the GI required powerful, and well-resourced actors to assume a lead role resulting in relatively little participation from actual producers themselves. Therefore, this does not truly satisfy the IAD requirements for effective collective action, such compliance with the EU requirement for collective action was mainly observed as an administrative formality. The design of guiding rules for collective action processes are seen to significantly affect their effectiveness and the distribution of any benefits generated. This article emphasizes how this design is shaped by the positionality and particular interests of the actors involved, their different capacity to exert power and influence, their diverse attitudes towards moral legitimacy, and varying relationships with external actors such as development agents, research organizations and state agencies.

Sustainability issues along the coffee chain: From the field to the cup

“…In fact, the collective action of producers in these initiatives is considered crucial for them to defend their intellectual property rights, define their specific rules for the use of the origin label and their own quality standards and social boundaries, and, hence, construct their symbolic quality, avoiding the appropriation of geographical names by large companies that are not linked to these areas and that eventually may damage the reputation of the quality of their coffees (Quiñones-Ruiz et al, 2015;Samper & Quiñones-Ruiz, 2017). Nonetheless, not only producers but also the government, donor agencies, private companies, and other value chain actors (e.g., international buyers) may organize themselves (in collective action) and apply for GI (Quiñones-Ruiz et al, 2020). Quiñones-Ruiz et al (2020) analyzed four cases of Protected Geographical Indications (PGI) from Colombia, Thailand (two cases), and Indonesia, and, in each case, the actors involved in the application and, more particularly, their role in the GI registration process varied according to the regulatory framework of the studied countries.…”

“…Nonetheless, not only producers but also the government, donor agencies, private companies, and other value chain actors (e.g., international buyers) may organize themselves (in collective action) and apply for GI (Quiñones-Ruiz et al, 2020). Quiñones-Ruiz et al (2020) analyzed four cases of Protected Geographical Indications (PGI) from Colombia, Thailand (two cases), and Indonesia, and, in each case, the actors involved in the application and, more particularly, their role in the GI registration process varied according to the regulatory framework of the studied countries. For example, while in the Colombian case the GI registration resulted from a producer-led effort (under the Federation in Colombia), in the Indonesian case the process was initiated by regional government organizations and international donor agencies, which organized themselves in a public-private organizational form (then transformed into a Foundation), and in the Thai cases, one was led by a private for-profit company and the other by a social foundation.…”

“…As demonstrated by the authors, the different cases presented different pros and cons: as cons, for example, while in the Colombian case, the producers needed to convince the other value chain actors (e.g., international roasters and brand owners) to become users of the GI, in the Thai company‐driven GI case, the multiple producers and processers existing in that geographical area, who produced similar quality coffee according to the Product Specification of the GI mark, were not allowed to use it, and, in the Indonesian case, there was low participation of producers and processors in the GI governance (even though they were organized in a consortium to also participate in that) and the Foundation that managed the GI was always strictly linked to local government elites; as pros, for example, in the two Thai cases, the material, symbolic, and in‐service quality attributes of their coffees were promoted and sold in the country, generating value added in the own country, while in the case of Colombian and Indonesian GIs, the coffee was mainly exported. In all cases, as defended in the study, the process of institutionalizing required powerful and reasonably well‐resourced actors to assume a leadership role and hence, a relatively little participation from actual producers themselves (Quiñones‐Ruiz et al., 2020). Therefore, these initiatives may present the same challenges and limitations than others (namely VSS) because the lead actors (who are not always the producers, but instead other local or outside production region participators) are the ones who decide who can be involved and who design the user rules.…”

“…As a consequence, the effectiveness and distribution of benefits can be directed toward their particular interests. In addition, when international roasters and brand owners are not involved in these initiatives, they may not be disposed to pay more for this seal, nor be concerned and willing to communicate to consumers the origin and quality behind the coffee they are selling (as according to the EU legislation for GI, it is not mandatory to include the GI symbol on the package of third‐country GI products) (Quiñones‐Ruiz et al., 2015, 2020).…”

Da governança da indicação geográfica à governança da Cesta de Bens e Serviços Territoriais

“…Fournier et al (2018, p. 141) apontam que, embora as IGs possam também ser compreendidas como bens de clube, sua concepção como comuns pelos atores locais é "um fator chave para o seu sucesso", pois favorece a articulação entre atores e com outras dinâmicas territoriais nos processos de qualificação, monitoramento e sustentabilidade. Com base em estudos na Ásia, África e América Latina, os autores concluem que os principais fatores que desafiam a governança das IGs são a multiplicidade de objetivos, o possível desinteresse dos atores diante da incerteza de benefícios e o risco de apropriação da IG por um grupo restrito.Quiñones-ruiz et al (2016Quiñones-ruiz et al ( , 2017Quiñones-ruiz et al ( , 2020 adotaram o IAD para analisar a ação coletiva no estabelecimento e gestão de IGs. Seus trabalhos apontam que a diversidade de atores nas cadeias produtivas e a heterogenidade de seus interesses dificultam a ação coletiva, mas as IGs que conseguem integrar essa diversidade ao longo do processo de construção de suas instituições têm maiores chances de sucesso no longo prazo.…”