Legal debates surrounding geographical indications.

Thévenod-Mottet, Erik; Marie-Vivien, Delphine

doi:10.1079/9781845933524.0013

Cited by 15 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…According to the structure and to the role played by the GI label, these scenarios are more likely to occur than the scenario where all three main actors (farmers, processors, and retailers) operate within the GI boundaries. Indeed, the GIs' ability to convey information to consumers increases their importance in distant markets [67], where customers have no direct contact with the producer or with the territory, rather than in local shops where sellers and producers can directly raise the buyers' interest in the product. Therefore, the positive results observed in terms of consumers' WTP, as well as market indicators, need to be considered carefully.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

From Geographical Indications to Rural Development: A Review of the Economic Effects of European Union Policy

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the main functions of geographical indications (GIs) is to provide information and quality to consumers. This, in turn, can generate benefits for producers and stimulate rural development processes, as advocated by European Union (EU) legislation. The objective of the present study is to understand if the theorized effects of GIs on local economic development are supported by empirical evidence. Using a systematic approach, we reviewed the literature on the topic and structured the results of the review adopting a supply chain framework. This allows us to better understand how the effects of GIs are distributed among the chain actors and finally arrive at the local territories where GI products originate. Evidence shows that GIs are actually able to generate value added, especially at the consumer and retailer levels, while the effects on the economic performance of producers are more heterogeneous and dependent on specific local conditions. The review also highlighted some drawbacks in the literature that make it difficult to draw robust conclusions about the actual impact of GI policy at the European level. Therefore, despite the GI tool actually showing good potential for improving local economic conditions, more structured and focused research is needed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

From Geographical Indications to Rural Development: A Review of the Economic Effects of European Union Policy

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…During the Middle Ages, the seals of European guilds were considered to be an indicator of the quality of local foods. The expansion of international agri-food trade in the 19th century led to the signing of the 1883 Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, an agreement which gave effect to the first international GI accord [1][2][3][4][5][6]. In 1995, subsequent to international agreements such as the 1891 Madrid Agreement and the 1958 Lisbon Agreement, TRIPS (Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights), which protects GIs registered under a trademark and/or sui generis laws as intellectual property, came into effect between WTO (World Trade Organization) member states.…”

Section: Geographical Indicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Not only considered a means for marketing, branding, or avoiding fraud, GI is also understood as an innovative tool to revitalize rural economies while supporting small family farmers and artisanal food processors, promoting tourism, and mitigating the negative impacts of globalized and industrialized agri-food systems [1][2][3][4][5][6][8][9][10]. In other words, it is expected to connect small family farmers, including IPs, with "sustainable value chains" and deliver socially, economically, and ecologically desirable alternatives to the conventional market system [2][3][4][5][6][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. GI is envisioned as a tool for agri-food producers and their allies to communicate and educate consumers about the linkage between quality agri-food products, the producers with traditional knowledge and knowhow, and the territories with endemic climate, soil, and biodiversity [10].…”

Section: Geographical Indicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Potential and Contradictions of Geographical Indication and Patrimonization for the Sustainability of Indigenous Communities: A Case of Cordillera Heirloom Rice in the Philippines

Sekine

2021

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the Montane areas of Cordillera, the Philippines, the IP (indigenous people) have cultivated native rice for generations on their rice terraces, which were designated a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Cultural Heritage site in 1995 and a Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) World Agricultural Heritage site, Globally Important Agricultural Heritage System (GIAHS) in 2011. This heirloom rice was registered as a collective trademark in 2018 and will be registered as a sui generis geographical indication (GI) in the coming years. Based on the author’s interviews with the stakeholders in heirloom rice production conducted in the Philippines in 2019, this article aims to analyze whether GI and patrimonization contribute to the sustainability of the IP communities in Cordillera. This paper demonstrates that GI and patrimonization exhibit both potential and contradictions in ecological, socio-cultural, and economic dimensions of sustainability in the communities, and the compatibility of these dimensions is challenged. The paper concludes that public policies need to pay particular attention to accompanying IP communities when GI and patrimonization are designed to protect them from over-development of the designated area and over-commodification of their certified agri-food products.

show abstract

“…With the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1994, GIs were included in the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement, which protects GI identified wines (Art. 23) and provides a minimum standard for protecting other food products in national legislations of WTO members (Thevenod-Mottet and Marie-Vivien, 2011). Article 22 defines GIs 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 attributable to its geographical origin.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The governance of geographical indications

Kizos

Koshaka²,

Penker

et al. 2017

BFJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Place-based foodstuffs have gained salience in markets worldwide and geographical indication (GI) products are prominent examples. The purpose of this paper is to focus on the governance (formal and informal institutions) of the European and Japanese GI schemes, discuss the variety of procedures of implementing the features of the governance system (inclusion and exclusion of actors) for six GI cases and reflect on future GI governance. Design/methodology/approach The criteria for assessing the six cases were descriptive and analytical and the information and data come from official documents, literature (scientific and “grey”), interviews, observations and personal communications with key-informants of the GI systems. Three of the cases are categorized as “failures” and are included to provide more insights on the diverse dynamics of GI systems. Findings Registration of GIs seems to be a process rather than a single step, requesting coordination and consensus and an interplay between internal and external actors. “Success” and “failure” are relative and related to self-governance processes and the openness of the social system of the GI to establish transparency on inclusion and exclusion. GI systems require constant management and re-definition of production quality or geographical boundaries to adapt to market, climate or technological change. Originality/value The paper introduces GI systems categorized as “failures” (either products that did not register as GIs in the end or did register but failed to keep the registration) which provides more insights on how to design and manage complex GI systems.

show abstract

Legal debates surrounding geographical indications.

Cited by 15 publications

References 0 publications

From Geographical Indications to Rural Development: A Review of the Economic Effects of European Union Policy

From Geographical Indications to Rural Development: A Review of the Economic Effects of European Union Policy

The Potential and Contradictions of Geographical Indication and Patrimonization for the Sustainability of Indigenous Communities: A Case of Cordillera Heirloom Rice in the Philippines

The governance of geographical indications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About