Proving Provenance? Geographical Indications Certification and its Ambiguities

Gangjee, Dev

doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.04.009

Cited by 62 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With few notable exceptions (see Chambolle and Giraud‐Heraud, ; Josling, ; Marette et al ., ), the analysis of the GI trade effect has been mainly focused on the legal issues of intellectual property rights protection (e.g. Kireeva and O'Connor, ; O'Connor, ; Matthews, ; Biénabe and Marie‐Vivien, ; Calboli and Wee Loon, ; Gangjee, ). However, more recently a few contributions investigate empirically the extent to which GIs affect trade flows (Agostino and Trivieri, ; Sorgho and Larue, , ; Duvaleix‐Treguer et al ., ).…”

Section: Related Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Trade effects of geographical indication policy: The EU case

Raimondi¹,

Falco²,

Curzi³

et al. 2019

J Agricultural Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using a new detailed dataset on country‐product information on European Union (EU) Geographical Indications (GIs), we study the impact of this food quality policy on trade margins over the 1996–2014 period. We consider the effect of GIs on both intra‐ and extra‐EU trade margins (extensive and intensive), as well as on export (and import) unit values. Our main results show that GIs affect trade flows differently depending on whether GIs are produced by the exporter or importer country. The presence of GIs in the exporter country systematically exerts a positive trade effect on both the extensive and intensive trade margin. When registered only in the importer country, GIs seem to act weakly as a trade‐reducing measure, at least at the intensive trade margin. In addition, GIs positively affect export prices, consistent with the idea that GI products are perceived by consumers as higher quality goods. Importantly, extra‐EU trade margins react similarly to those on intra‐EU trade. These results have clear and interesting implications concerning the EU strategy of promoting the protection of GIs worldwide.

show abstract

Section: Related Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Trade effects of geographical indication policy: The EU case

Raimondi¹,

Falco²,

Curzi³

et al. 2019

J Agricultural Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…That uniformity then serves as a proxy for particular qualities in food products emanating from that area. The success or failure of that declared GI will in part depend upon whether that uniformity of geography genuinely contributes to a truly differentiated product in the eyes of consumers (Gangjee, 2017). Then it is up to each individual producer to make additional expenditures to compete above the bottom line standard, developing VAN CAENEGEM AND NAKANO | 651 their own product's distinctive character and promote consumer understanding of its link to "terroir".…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Standard trade marks, geographical indications and provenance branding in Australia: What we can learn from King Island

Caenegem

Nakano

2020

World Intellectual Property

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The topic of food geographical indications (GIs) in Australia is crucial to the free trade agreement negotiations currently proceeding between Australia and the EU, as the latter is seeking exclusive rights to use European GIs in Australia. Australia does not currently have a sui generis GI registration scheme for food products (other than wine) therefore we sought to contrast the standard trade mark system in operation with a hypothetical food GI scheme. We identified King Island (KI), Tasmania, as a suitable case study because the KI provenance brand is well known in the beef, dairy and lobster industries. We conducted desktop research, and interviews with producers in all industries on the Island. Our analysis suggests that food GIs could provide base-line certainty about provenance while allowing competition around individual trade marks to proceed to the benefit of consumers and the Island community as a whole. Our study tends to reinforce the case favouring Australian legislative changes which would enable local producers to seek registration of food GIs around uncontroversial specifications.

show abstract

“…reputation than on origin [15]. If the fruit, for example, is unable to reach its full aromatic profile and be distinguishable by taste, or if it simply falls short of customer expectations, it could degrade the reputation of all Corsican citrus fruits.…”

Section: Using the Gi Cop To Comply With Conventional Standardsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If the fruit, for example, is unable to reach its full aromatic profile and be distinguishable by taste, or if it simply falls short of customer expectations, it could degrade the reputation of all Corsican citrus fruits. Thus, there are high stakes for specifying the GI Corsican grapefruit, collectively, to strengthen the link to its terroir [15,17].…”

Section: Using the Gi Cop To Comply With Conventional Standardsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Product Qualification as a Means of Identifying Sustainability Pathways for Place-Based Agri-Food Systems: The Case of the GI Corsican Grapefruit (France)

Millet

Keast²,

Gonano

et al. 2020

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Existing frameworks offer a holistic way to evaluate a food system based on sustainability indicators but can fall short of offering clear direction. To analyze the sustainability of a geographical indication (GI) system, we adopt a product-centered approach that begins with understanding the product qualification along the value-chain. We use the case of the GI Corsican grapefruit focusing on understanding the quality criteria priorities from the orchard to the store. Our results show that certain compromises written into the Code of Practices threaten the system’s sustainability. Today the GI allows the fruit to be harvested before achieving peak maturity and expectations on visual quality lead to high levels of food waste. Its primary function is to help penetrate mainstream export markets and to optimize labor and infrastructure. Analyzing the stakeholders’ choices of qualification brings to light potential seeds for change in the short run such as later springtime harvests, diversification of the marketing channels, and more leniency on the fruit’s aesthetics. These solutions lead us to reflect on long-term pathways to sustainable development such as reinforcing the fruit’s typicality, reducing food waste, reorganizing human resources, and embedding the fruit into its territory and the local culture.

show abstract

Proving Provenance? Geographical Indications Certification and its Ambiguities

Cited by 62 publications

References 33 publications

Trade effects of geographical indication policy: The EU case

Trade effects of geographical indication policy: The EU case

Standard trade marks, geographical indications and provenance branding in Australia: What we can learn from King Island

Product Qualification as a Means of Identifying Sustainability Pathways for Place-Based Agri-Food Systems: The Case of the GI Corsican Grapefruit (France)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About