Public policies and geographical indications.

Barjolle, Dominique; Sylvander, Bertil; Thévenod-Mottet, Erik; Barham, Elizabeth Joan

doi:10.1079/9781845933524.0092

Cited by 12 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…From the analysis, producers' willingness to pay for collective marketing for both products was KES 330 (USD 3.3) and KES 207 (USD 2.07) for mango and goat respectively (Table 7). Collective action is a major aspect for the success of GI protection (Barjolle and Sylvander, 2000; Reviron and Chappuis, 2011). By engaging in collective marketing, the producers present a joint product to the market, hence establishing exclusion and exclusion costs restricted to the production region, making it a private good.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Producers' valuation of geographical indications-related attributes of agri-food products from semi-arid lands in Kenya

Maina

Mburu

Ackello-Ogutu

et al. 2019

Heliyon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Arid and semi-arid lands comprise 84% of Kenya's land, characterised by low and erratic rainfall, and increasing human and animal population. The study sought to determine producers' willingness to pay for protection of unique terroir-based agri-food products from semi-arid lands as geographical indications. The sample products comprised two commodities: mangoes from lower Eastern region of Kenya and goats from Baringo in the North Rift region. Using random parameters logit model specification, choice experiments were used to elicit the producers' willingness to pay for attributes related to design of geographical indications (GI) for agricultural products in Kenya. Mango producers attached greater value to having minimum guaranteed payments for their products and receiving price information before the start of the season. Goat producers attached higher value to where to sell the produce as well as use of collective marketing. The producers therefore view GIs as a means to reduce market failures. GIs can enhance collective participation of producers in the semi-arid regions in delimiting the production region responsible for the unique characteristics; hence increase value accruing to producers. The voluntary nature of GI requires effective coordination and governance through GI framework that can limit parallel protection groups of the same product in the same region.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Producers' valuation of geographical indications-related attributes of agri-food products from semi-arid lands in Kenya

Maina

Mburu

Ackello-Ogutu

et al. 2019

Heliyon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We derived relevant benefit categories from GI literature, e.g., vertical and horizontal integration, higher or better accepted quality standards, social learning processes (Sanz-Cañada and Macias-Vázquez, 2005; Giovannucci et al, 2009, 2010; Reviron and Chappuis, 2011; Coulet, 2012; Bagal et al, 2013; Barjolle, 2016), but we excluded benefits that would result from the actual use of the GI (e.g., price premiums, rural development benefits). In the action arena analysis and as explanatory variable of efforts, we also included risks linked to possible failures of the collective GI registration process (unsolvable conflicts, lack of information, unclear regulation) (Barjolle and Sylvander, 2000; Ilbery and Kneafsey, 2000; Giovannucci et al, 2009, 2010; Coulet, 2012; Rangnekar and Mukhopadhyay, 2016). However, we excluded post-registration risks that affect the GI use (e.g., inadequate consumer knowledge of the GI).…”

Section: Theoretical Framework and Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why early collective action pays off: evidence from setting Protected Geographical Indications

Quiñones-Ruiz

Penker

Belletti

et al. 2016

Renew. Agric. Food Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The registration of Geographical Indications (GIs) under the European Union (EU) legislation requires collective action and considerable efforts borne by multiple actors such as producers, processors, public authorities and research centers. We analyze their efforts, risks and benefits by comparing two EU GI registration processes in Italy and Austria, namely the Sorana bean Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) and the Perry from Mostviertel PGI. Results from the institutional and transaction costs analysis suggest that intensive interaction for solving conflicting interests, negotiating quality standards and defining common rules might pay off in indirect benefits and reduced risks. In particular, an inclusion of diverse and heterogeneous interest groups and a high degree of direct enterprise participation along the GI application process (as observed in the Italian case) generate benefits such as trust and social cohesion, which then support the actual use of the GI label and a better implementation of associated quality standards. A supportive legal framework with assistance from public authorities can back up the community of producers not only in technical aspects, but also as mediators when conflicts seem to be difficult to solve. As there seems to be a positive relationship between the intensity and effectiveness of collective action and the likelihood of achieving broadly accepted standards and social cohesion needed for successful GI implementation, the question for future research would not be how to avoid collective efforts but how to effectively organize the interaction among heterogeneous producer groups.

show abstract

“…They concluded that "a spatial planning approach, if successfully developed and enhanced, offers real value in the development of public policy" whereas "space and place are in fact relevant and significant in the development of public policy". Barjolle, Sylvander, & Thévenod-Mottet (2011) find that GI has been instrumental in EU common agricultural policy (CAP) and rural development. They argue, "Producers [of agricultural products] may be at an advantage or a disadvantage by virtue of their geographical location and their proximity to consumer centres".…”

Section: Role Of Spatial Information Within Policy-makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Challenge of Spatial Information Accessibility for Agricultural Policies: Case of Pakistan

Ali¹,

Imran²

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Agriculture is directly linked to the socioeconomic development of every region. Agriculture impacts us all, whether we are seeking food security, better health or striving to conserve natural resources. Goal 2 of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) underlines the significance of agriculture as a means to achieve food security. United Nations in its recently published report titled "World Economic Situation and Prospects 2020"(UN, 2020) has declared agriculture as one of the global priorities for achieving high-quality health care and formal employment opportunities. Agriculture is a spatial subject. Policy makers demand unrestricted access to spatial data of various kinds in order to address agricultural issues and for evidence-based policy-making. Therefore, what types of spatial datasets are required for agricultural policy-making is a relevant question which is the objective of this paper. This paper also explores agriculture in Pakistan, main challenges faced by the agriculture sector of the country, and how many as well as what kind of spatial datasets are required to address these policy challenges.

show abstract

Public policies and geographical indications.

Cited by 12 publications

References 0 publications

Producers' valuation of geographical indications-related attributes of agri-food products from semi-arid lands in Kenya

Producers' valuation of geographical indications-related attributes of agri-food products from semi-arid lands in Kenya

Why early collective action pays off: evidence from setting Protected Geographical Indications

The Challenge of Spatial Information Accessibility for Agricultural Policies: Case of Pakistan

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About