Representativeness in Geographical Indications: A Comparison between the State-Driven and Producer-Driven Systems in Vietnam and France

Abstract

This paper explores the issues of representativeness and participation in the collective processes involved in the elaboration of the geographical indications (GI) specifications and the governance of the GI initiatives. The objective is to understand the relationship among collective dynamics, representativeness of relevant stakeholders, and the legal frameworks for the protection of GIs. Using a qualitative methodology based on an analysis of six case studies in France and Vietnam, we show the role of the law in shaping the different ways of understanding and implementing the concept of representativeness in the French producer-led and the Vietnamese state-driven approaches to GI protection. In France, the GI specifications result from negotiations among all legitimate stakeholders, which may prove long, complex, and lead to standards that can continue to be challenged after the GI registration. We also argue that the rules for the representation of all GI users in the decision-making processes do not necessarily lead to fairness. In Vietnam, local stakeholders usually have a consultative role under the authority of the State, resulting in their little understanding and low use of the GI. Their empowerment is further hindered by the involvement of state authorities in the management of the producers’ associations. We conclude by discussing in-between solutions to promote the producers’ representation and participation.

How Successful Is Origin Labeling in a Developing Country Context? Moroccan Consumers’ Preferences toward Local Products

“…The authors found that the use of those techniques represents an interesting tool to enhance and protect the PDOs and PGIs of Italian products. Another study explored the representativeness of relevant stakeholders in the elaboration of GIs in France and Vietnam [12]. They recommended that the state needs to consult a wide range of stakeholders in the process of elaborating GIs, first the value-chain stakeholders, and second those outside the value chain, such as local authority representatives, traders, and consumers.…”

Polycentric structures nurturing adaptive food quality governance - Lessons learned from geographical indications in the European Union

“…The complex interplay of diverse actors' resources, knowledge, interests, needs and worldviews is regulated by constitutional rules that apply to a particular place and time and determine who is involved in decision-making and who is excluded. Coordination among different actors is particularly important for the formulation of GI standards, the elaboration of which is based on knowledge, skills, practices, history, and culture of a community of people in a given geographical area (Allaire et al, 2011;Pick and Marie-Vivien, 2021). When experimenting with (new) food quality standards, such as those for GI, actors have access to certain knowledge, can anticipate and seek feedback on proposed modifications in food production and processing practices, and can learn from the experience of other producer organisations.…”

“…As an antithesis to these international standards, GIslike the sui generis European Union (EU) GI regimeare based on a variety of decentralised defined regulatory frameworks that ensure a link between the product attributes and its place of origin and provide a space for local actors to discuss their own vision of the product (Pick and Marie-Vivien, 2021). In this article, we use France, Italy, and Austria as contrasting cases of GI governance to better understand how differences in governance structures affect the coordination of diverse interests and the adaptability of food quality standards to changing (local) contexts.…”

“…This paper focuses on GIs in the EU, and thus on a producer-led approach to GI protection (Pick and Marie-Vivien, 2021). According to the sui generis GI legislation in the EU (Council Regulations (EU) No 2081/92, 510/2006 and 1151/2012), producers themselves define the rules governing the production process, the characteristics of the final product, and the boundaries of the production area.…”

“…Originally coined by Polanyi (1951), the concept has been broadly applied, e.g., to social-ecological systems, in part with the expectation that polycentricity could make these systems more sustainable, resilient, and adaptable (Andersson and E. Ostrom, 2008). While bottom-up (producer-led) and top-down (state-driven) approaches to GI protection have been analysed (Pick and Marie-Vivien, 2021;Sylvander, 2004), there is a lack of studies taking a polycentricity perspective to compare different GI approaches within the EU in terms of their adaptability. This paper aims to: i) compare three different food quality governance structures in Austria, France, and Italy by unpacking the de jure and the de facto rules that shape the interactions of the actors involved in GI amendments; ii) understand how these patterns might affect the coordination of different interests and the adaptability of food quality standards.…”