Advertisement

Guidelines for Selecting Successful GI Products

  • Cerkia BramleyEmail author
  • Estelle Biénabe
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter seeks to provide criteria for selecting successful GI products. The discussion makes the point that not all origin based products have the potential to benefit equally from GI development and protection. The authors’ experience in selecting products for inclusion in the research project on which this book is based, but also in the subsequent process of designing industry specific GI strategies for two South African GIs (Rooibos and Karoo lamb), has shown that it is possible to identify certain factors which are predictive of an origin product and/or industry’s ability to benefit from GI protection. Drawing on this experience as well as the international literature this chapter seeks to develop guidelines which can be used in Southern countries for evaluating whether a product has the potential to develop into a successful GI and to harness the potential associated with GI protection.

Keywords

Geographical indications Selection criteria Southern countries 

References

  1. Barjolle D, Chappuis JM (2000) Transaction costs and artisinal food products. In: Proceedings of the annual conference of ISNIE (International Society for New Institutional Economics), Tuebingen (D), 22–24 Sept 2000Google Scholar
  2. Barjolle D, Sylvander B (2002) Some factors of success for “origin labelled products” in agro-food supply chains in Europe: market, internal resources and institutions. Économies et Sociétés 25(9–10):1441Google Scholar
  3. Barjolle D, Boisseaux S, Dufour M (1998) Le lien au terroir. Bilan des travaux de recherche. Institute of Agricultural Economics, LausanneGoogle Scholar
  4. Berard L, Marchenay P (1998) Les produits de terroir en Europe du Sud: caractérisation ethnologique, sensorielle et socio-économique de leur typicité; stratégies de valorisation. Final report. European Commission, Brussels, 372Google Scholar
  5. Boccaletti S (1992) Signaling quality of food products with designations of origin: advantages and limitations. Mimeo, Istitutodi Economia Agro-alimentare, Universita Cattolica del S. Couroe, Piacenza, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  6. Bramley C, Biénabe E (2012) Developments and considerations around geographical indications in the developing world. Queen Mary J Intellect Prop 2(1):14–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Canali G (1997) The evolution of food distribution systems and its implications on the marketing of typical products. Typical and traditional productions: rural effects and agroindustrial problems. 52nd EAAE seminar, Parma, Italy, 19–21 JuneGoogle Scholar
  8. Chappuis JM, Sans P (2000) Actors coordination: governance structures and institutions in supply chains of protected designation of origin. In: Sylvander B, Barjolle D, Arfini F (eds) The socio-­economics of origin labelled products in agro-food supply chains: spatial, institutional and co-ordination aspects. Series Actes et Communications, 17(1). INRA, ParisGoogle Scholar
  9. Das K (2009) Socio-economic implications of protecting geographical indications in India. Centre for WTO studies, August 2009Google Scholar
  10. Gereffi G (1994) The organization of buyer-driven global commodity chains: how United States retailers shape overseas production networks. In: Commodity chains and global capitalism G. Eds.: Gereffi G and Korzeniewicz M (1994). Westport, Praeger, pp 95–122Google Scholar
  11. Hughes J (2009) Coffee and chocolate: can we help developing country farmers trough geographical indications? A report for the International Intellectual Property Institute, Washington, DC, p 152Google Scholar
  12. Jain S (2009) Effects of the extension of geographical indications: a South Asian perspective. Asia-Pac Dev J 16(2):65–86Google Scholar
  13. Jena PR, Grote U (2010) Changing institutions to protect regional heritage: a case for geographical indications in the Indian Agrifood sector. Dev Policy Rev 28(2):217–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jenkins T, Parrott N (2000) The socio-economic potential for peripheral rural regions of regional imagery and quality products. In: Sylvander B, Barjolle D, Arfini F (eds) (2000) The socio-­economics of origin labelled products in agro-food supply chains: spatial, institutional and co-ordination aspects. Eds: Series Actes et Communications, 17(1). INRA, ParisGoogle Scholar
  15. Marie-Vivien D (2010) The role of the state in the protection of geographical indications: from disengagement in France/Europe to significant involvement in India. J World Intellect Prop 13(2):121–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Musungu SF (2008) The protection of geographical indications and the Doha round: strategic and policy considerations for Africa. QUNO IP issue paper 8Google Scholar
  17. Ponte S, Gibbon P (2005) Quality standards, coventions and the governance of global value chains. Econ Soc 34(1):1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Prost JA, Casabianca F, De Sainte Marie C (1994) La certification des produits agricoles de Corse. Eléments d’analyse d’une situation paradoxale. In: La Corsica, isola problema tra Europa e Mediterraneo. Atti del Convegno internazionale, Salerno, Università di SalernoGoogle Scholar
  19. Raynaud E, Valceschini E (1998) Competition regulation against quality policy: the label rouge in the French poultry industry. In: Arfini F, Mora C (eds) Typical and traditional products: rural effect and agro-industrial problems. 52nd EAAE seminar proceedings, Parma, 19–21 JuneGoogle Scholar
  20. Sylvander B, Lassaut B (1994) L’enjeu de la qualite sur les marches des produits agro-­alimentaires. In: Multon JL (ed) La qualité des produits agroalimentaires: politique, incitations, gestion et contrôle. Lavoisier, ParisGoogle Scholar
  21. Tregear A, Kuznesof S, Moxey A (1998) Policy initiatives for regional foods: some insights from consumer research. Food Policy 23(5):383–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Vandecandelaere E, Arfini F, Belletti G, Marescotti A (2009) Linking people, places and products. A guide for promoting quality linked to geographical origin and sustainable geographical indications. Rome, Viale Terme di Caracalla, 00153, Italy: FAO/SINER-GIGoogle Scholar
  23. Yeung MT, Kerr WA (2011) Are geographical indications a wise strategy for developing country farmers? Greenfields, clawbacks and monopoly rents. J World Intellect Prop 14:353–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Zografos D (2008) Geographical indications and socio-economic development IQSensato working paper no 3Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agricultural Economics, Extension and Rural DevelopmentUniversity of PretoriaPretoriaSouth Africa
  2. 2.French Research Centre on Agriculture for Development (CIRAD), UMR InnovationMontpellierFrance

Personalised recommendations