Advertisement

Agroecology and Geographical Indications at the WTO and in the EU Between Magic and Rationality: ‘Reinventing’ Marketing Designations to Preserve Rural Economy, Cultural Heritage and the Environment

  • Rocco Palma
Chapter
Part of the LITES - Legal Issues in Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies book series (LITES, volume 2)

Abstract

Agro-ecology and Geographical Indications (GIs) share the underlying assumption that traditional agriculture, as opposed to agro-alimentary industry, is the most effective production paradigm to keep balanced levels of production while preserving economic value, culture, traditions and the environment. The EU and some DCs and LDCs promote GIs at the WTO (TRIPS Council) as cultural and environment-friendly marketing tools to foster sustainable development and traditional agriculture, also protected as ‘cultural expression’ and ‘intangible heritage’ by the UNESCO Conventions. US, Canada, Australia and some DCs oppose this view claiming that GIs effectiveness as ‘cultural guardians’ and ‘income generators’ or ‘environmental tools’ is unproven. GIs did not prevent in the 1990s both the abandonment of traditional grapes in Tuscany to align local wines to international taste (‘Supertuscans’) and the rise of Australian wine exports at the expense of the European ones. However, a rigorous legal and economic assessment shows that GIs are designations used in global markets to distinguish ‘niche’ products with an essential link with the terroir and that they command an ‘extra-price’ from consumers in exchange for ‘quality’. Thus, economic success and, eventually, traditions and biodiversity preservation are not a legal automatism but depend on public recognition. The decrease in EU world wine exports of the 1990s might be also related, more than to the failure of GIs provisions, to the surge of new wine-producing countries and the wave of Wine Trade Agreements signed by the EU (Australia, Chile, South Africa), providing for the prohibition of free-riding on EU famous names and forcing the use of local designations. A sample review of ‘quality regulations’ of selected EU GIs provides evidence of some excellent standards designed to protect traditions and the environment, but this is not always true. As the normative demand for traditional and environmental standards appears not to be strictly binding in EU GIs law but rather a ‘non easily enforceable’ invitation to act, CSR incentives at EU or Member States level may enhance voluntary adoption of best practices, so as to increase cultural, social and environmental added value in GIs quality regulations (but also geographical collective marks), together with greater coordination of public policies that have a bear on GIs earning potential. This may prove effective also in exceptional cases as part of the policies to face plant epidemics (such as the ‘Xylella’ bacterium in the South of Italy), environmental accidents or excessive urbanization and depletion of agrobiodiversity and as a tool to ease coordination and restructuring of production to face increased competition on the global markets, while counterbalancing negative perceptions by the public.

Keywords

Agro-ecology Intellectual property Geographical indications and appellations of origin PDOs PGIs European Union Terroir theory Traditional agriculture Traditional knowledge Cultural expressions Intangible heritage Cultural diversity Agrobiodiversity Non-trade concerns and general interests WTO TRIPS UNESCO WIPO Wine and free trade agreements CSR Soft law 

References

  1. Akerlof AG (1970) The market for lemons: quality, uncertainty and the market mechanism. Q J Econ 84:488–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altieri M (1971/2002) Agroecology: the science of natural resource management for poor farmers in marginal environments Agric Ecosyst Environ 93:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Are M (1959) Beni immateriali. In: Enciclopedia del diritto. V. Giuffrè, Milano, pp 244–269Google Scholar
  4. Ascarelli T (1949) Funzioni economiche ed istituti giuridici nella tecnica dell’interpretazione. In: Ascarelli T (ed) Saggi giuridici. Giuffrè, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  5. Audier J (1993) De la nature juridique de l'appellation of origin. Bulletin de l’OIV, pp 21–37Google Scholar
  6. Blake J (2006) Commentary on the 2003 UNESCO Convention on the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage. Institute of Art and Law, LeicesterGoogle Scholar
  7. Botana Agra MJ (2001) Las Denominaciones de Origen. Marcial Pons, Madrid-Barcelona, 2001Google Scholar
  8. Broude T (2005a) Culture, trade and additional protection for geographical indications. Bridges 9:21. www.ictsd.org. Accessed 7 July 2015
  9. Broude T (2005b) Taking trade and culture seriously: geographical indications and cultural protection in WTO law. U Pa J Int Econ Law 26:623–692Google Scholar
  10. Calboli I (2006) Symposium: the first ten years of the trips agreement: expanding the protection of geographical indications of origin under TRIPs: “old” debate or “new” opportunity? Marq Intell Prop Law Rev 10:181–203Google Scholar
  11. Chen J (1996) A sober second look at appellations of origin: how the United States will crash France’s wine and cheese party. Minn J Glob Trade 5:29–64Google Scholar
  12. Correa CM (2001) Traditional Knowledge and Intellectual Property, Issues and options surrounding the protection of traditional knowledge. The Quaker United Nations Office (QUNO). https://www.humanrights.ch/upload/pdf/061127_correa_trad_knowledge.pdf. Accessed 7 July 2015
  13. de Nitto A (2002) Giuseppe Pisanelli e la legge. In: Diritto dei giudici e diritto dei legislatori. Argo, Lecce, pp 146–203Google Scholar
  14. De Martino E (2015) Sud e magia, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  15. Deere C (2009) The implementation game. The TRIPS and the global politics of intellectual property reform in developing countries. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Downes DR, Laird SA (1999) Innovative mechanisms for Sharing Benefits of Biodiversity and Related Knowledge, UNCTAD biotrade initiative. http://www.ciel.org/Publications/InnovativeMechanisms.pdf. Accessed 7 July 2015
  17. European Forum on Nature, Conservation and Pastoralism’ (2015) EFNCP response to the EC, Green paper on agricultural product quality: product standards, farming requirements and quality schemes. http://www.efncp.org/download/EFNCPresponseGreenPaper.pdf. Accessed 7 July 2015
  18. Fernandez Novoa C (1970) La Protecciòn Internacional de las Denominaciones Geograficas de los Productos. Editorial Tecnos, MadridGoogle Scholar
  19. Fink C, Smarzynska BK (2002) Trademarks, geographical indications, and developing countries. In: Hoekman B, Mattoo A, English P (eds) Development trade and WTO. A handbook. The World Bank, Washington DC, pp 403–412Google Scholar
  20. Gangjee D (2006) Melton Mowbray and the GI Pie in the sky: exploring cartographies of protection. Intell Prop Q 3:291–309Google Scholar
  21. Gangjee D (2008) Geographical indications and human rights. In: Torremans P (ed) Intellectual property and human rights. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 383–395Google Scholar
  22. Gangjee D (2012a) Geographical indications and cultural heritage. WIPO J 4:92–102Google Scholar
  23. Gangjee D (2012b) Relocating the law of geographical indications. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Garcia de Lujan A (1988) Singularidades de la Viticoltura del Jerez como base de su denominaciòn de origen. In: Proceedings of the Historic Appellation of Origin Symposium, Consejo regulador de la Denominaciòn de Origen ‘Jerez-Xeres-Sherry’, Jerez, pp 55–66Google Scholar
  25. Gramsci A (1966) La questione meridionale. In: Dalla Chiesa N (ed) (2014) Melampo, RomaGoogle Scholar
  26. Habermas J (2001) The postnational constellation: political essays, 1st edn. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  27. Hobsbawm EJ (2002) Introduzione: Come si inventa una tradizione. In: Hobsbawm EJ, Ranger T (eds) L’invenzione della tradizione. Einaudi, TorinoGoogle Scholar
  28. Hughes J (2006) Champagne, feta, and bourbon: the spirited debate about geographical indications. Hastings Law J 58:299–386Google Scholar
  29. Khoury CK (2014) Increasing homogeneity in global food supplies and the implications for food security. Proc Acad Sci USA 11:4001–4006. http://www.pnas.org/content/111/11/4001.full.pdf. Accessed 7 July 2015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ladas SP (1975) Patents, trademarks, and related rights. National and international protection, vol III. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  31. Land M (2014) Adjudicating TRIPS for development. In: Ghidini G, Peritz RG, Ricolfi M (eds) TRIPS and developing countries. Towards a new IP world order? Edward Elgar, Cheltenham-Northampton, pp 142–162Google Scholar
  32. Landes WM, Posner RA (2003) The economic structure of intellectual property. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  33. Laudan R (2013) Cuisine and empire. Cooking in world history. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  34. Lehmann M (1986) Unfair use of and damage to the reputation of well-known marks, names and indications of source in Germany. Some aspects of law and economics. Int Rev of Intell Prop Comp Law 6:746–767Google Scholar
  35. London Economics, ADAS, Ecologic (2008) Evaluation of the CAP policy on protected designations of origin (PDO) and protected geographical indications (PGI), Final report. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/pdopgi/report_en.pdf. Accessed 7 July 2015
  36. Lorvellec L (1996) You’ve got to fight for your right to party: a response to Professor Jim Chen. Minn J Glob Trade 5:65–81Google Scholar
  37. McCarthy JT (2006) McCarthy on trademarks and unfair competition. Thomson West, EaganGoogle Scholar
  38. Montanari M, Sabban F (eds) (2006) Storia e geografia dell’alimentazione. Risorse, scambi, consumi. I. Utet, TorinoGoogle Scholar
  39. Mosoti V, Gobena A (2007) International trade rules and the agriculture sector. Selected implementation issues. FAO Legislative Study 98, RomeGoogle Scholar
  40. Niola M (6 August 2015) series ‘Mangiare I simboli: il caffè’, La RepubblicaGoogle Scholar
  41. OECD (2000) Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications in OECD Member Countries: Economic and Legal Implications, COM/AGR/APM/TDWP(2000)15/FINALGoogle Scholar
  42. Olszak N (2001) Des appellations d’origineet indications de provenance. Tec&Doc, Londres-Paris-New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Paus M, Reviron S (2011) Evaluating the effects of protecting geographical indications: scientific context and case studies. In: Bettelli G, Marescotti A, Paus M, Reviron S, Deppeler A, Stamm H, Thévenod-Mottet E (eds) The effects of protecting geographical indications, ways and means of their evaluation. Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property, Bern. http://www.ige.ch. Accessed 7 July 2015Google Scholar
  44. Pavoni R (2006) Biodiversity and biotechnology: consolidation and strains in the emerging international legal regimes. In: Francioni F, Scovazzi T (eds) Biotechnology and international law. Hart, Oxford, pp 29–57Google Scholar
  45. Roubier P (1954) Le droit de la propriété industrielle, Partie speciale II. Sirey, ParisGoogle Scholar
  46. Schamel G, Anderson K (2003) Wine quality and varietal, regional and winery reputations: Hedonic prices for Australia and New Zealand. Econ Rec 79:357–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schiller H (1976) Communication and cultural domination. M.E. Sharp, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. Shapiro C (1982) Consumer information, products quality, and seller reputation. Bell J Econ 13:20–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Shapiro C (1983) Premiums for high quality products as a return to reputations. Q J Econ 98:659–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shiva V (1996) Protecting our biological and intellectual heritage. In: Drahos P (ed) (1999) Intellectual Property, International library of essays in law and legal theory. Second series. Aldershot, Ashgate Dartmouth, pp 141–170Google Scholar
  51. Spada P (2012) Il diritto industriale. Parte generale. In: Auteri P, Floridia G, Mangini V, Olivieri G, Ricolfi M, Spada P (eds) Diritto Industriale, Proprietà Intellettuale e Concorrenza. Giappichelli, Torino, pp 3–53Google Scholar
  52. Ullrich H (2006) Traditional knowledge, biodiversity, benefit sharing and the patent system: romantic v. economics? In: Francioni F, Scovazzi T (eds) Biotechnology and international law. Hart, Oxford, pp 201–229Google Scholar
  53. Vanzetti A (1961) Funzione e natura giuridica del marchio. Riv di dir comm, I:17–88Google Scholar
  54. Von Schorlemer S, Stoll P (2012) The UNESCO Convention on the protection and promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions: explanatory notes. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Voon T (2009) Geographical indications, culture and the WTO. In: Ubertazzi B, Muniz Espada E (eds) Le indicazioni di qualità degli alimenti. Diritto internazionale ed europeo. Giuffrè, Milano, pp 300–311Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rocco Palma
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Economic StudiesCatholic University of Sacred HeartRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations