Elsevier

World Development

Volume 98, October 2017, Pages 12-24
World Development

Proving Provenance? Geographical Indications Certification and its Ambiguities

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.04.009Get rights and content

Summary

With their historic links to a specific region, GIs are increasingly valued for their endogenous development potential. But precisely what does legal recognition as a GI guarantee? Drawing on the EU’s registration system as a model, this paper investigates the certification of provenance and authenticity by public authorities. Recent empirical findings reveal that considerable flexibility exists within the certification process, which permits the loosening of linkages to a region and dilutes the certification guarantee. The present over-reliance on the system’s ability to certify could be usefully remedied if greater attention is paid to the individual product specification design.

Introduction

For foodstuffs and agricultural products, provenance matters like never before. While an individual’s food consumption choices are a private matter, in the aggregate these choices have considerable social consequences, impacting on economic development, ecological sustainability, global transport systems, and the relationship between urban and rural areas (Morgan, Marsden, & Murdoch, 2006). Geographical Indications (GI) protection systems are legal regimes which facilitate the signaling of this provenance in marketplaces. According to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the “basic concept underlying GIs is simple, and familiar to any shopper who chooses Roquefort over ‘blue’ cheese or Darjeeling over ‘black’ tea… [these are] well-known examples of names associated throughout the world with products of a certain nature and quality, known for their geographical origin and for having characteristics linked to that origin” (WIPO, 2012, p. 8). Registration-based GI certification systems verify the content of these interdependent provenance and quality signals, as a prerequisite to formal legal recognition and protection. Yet what precisely does it mean for a regional speciality product to be legally certified as a GI? What formal guarantees and reassurances are provided by public authorities? And how effective is certification? Motivated by scholarship which has investigated the effectiveness of Fairtrade certification (Steering Committee, 2012, Beuchelt and Zeller, 2011, Ruben and Fort, 2012), this paper critically assesses the extent to which a product’s link to a defined geographical region (provenance), associated quality attributes and adherence to traditional methods of production (authenticity) are verified by this public, as opposed to private, authentication process.

A close study of GI registration systems is rewarding for primarily two reasons. First, certification verifies the existence of a particular type of link with the region of origin. According to Article 22.1 of TRIPS, GIs are “indications which identify a good as originating in the territory of a Member, or a region, or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographical origin” (emphasis added). Certification ensures that only those products which satisfy such a formal legal definition ought to be recognized and protected. This reinforces the credibility of GIs as market signals and mitigates the effects of market failure arising out of imperfect information (Crespi & Marette, 2003). Additionally, drawing on place-based theorizing emphasizing the notion of embeddedness,1 the verification of this close connection to a region is considered crucial for achieving endogenous development goals (Augustin-Jean, 2012, FAO, 2008, Réviron et al., 2009). As Bowen (2010b, p. 210) explains: “Because GIs root production in particular places and protect the unique environmental and cultural resources that have developed over time in these places, scholars and development practitioners have framed them as a means of localizing production within the framework of globalization”. Optimistic appraisals suggest that “GIs may be as close to a comprehensive, equitable and market-oriented rural development package as we have seen” (Giovannucci, Josling, Kerr, O’Connor & Yeung, 2009, p. 5). Registration-based certification mechanisms require this localizing link to be explicitly articulated, which then forms the axis for territorial development strategies. A suitable “link with the geographical origin will constitute the essential point on which an application for registration of a product as a geographical indication will be based” (WIPO, 2003, p. 9). Therefore investigating the extent to which GI registration systems certify this close connection to place is worthwhile.2

The second reason relates to comparatively greater ‘public’ or state involvement in GI protection, which sets it apart as an unusual category of intellectual property (IP). While the preamble to TRIPS confirms that “intellectual property rights are private rights”, by contrast GIs are characterized by their high degree of state or quasi-public involvement (Biénabe, Jordaan et al., 2013, Marie-Vivien, 2010, OECD, 2000). As we will see below, manifestations of this state involvement are evident in the formal examination and certification process conducted by public authorities, within the context of sui generis GI registration systems.3 In pursuing this line of enquiry, the analysis presented here draws primarily on the European Union’s (EU) GI registration system as a model, since it is the most institutionally well-developed regime and an exemplar of prescriptive, sui generis protection in international debates (Gangjee, 2012a, pp. 201–202). If certification by public authorities is proving to be successful anywhere, it should be here. The analysis is supplemented by insights from emerging GI regimes from the global South, which suggests that the findings in this paper are more broadly relevant.

Section 2 commences by describing the various ways in which there is state involvement in GI protection. The registration-based certification process is the defining framework for state involvement, enabling a catalog of wider interventions by public authorities. It then considers the justifications – as identified by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Commission (EC) – for having such a certification system. These justifications relate to the official guarantee of provenance, quality, and authenticity that benefits consumers. Section 3 then outlines the formal stages of the registration process and the details required by the product specification. Stated briefly, registration is designed to verify information relating to provenance, quality, and potentially authenticity, which facilitates the signaling function of GIs. Section 4 then considers the operation of this regime in practice, drawing on recent empirically grounded reviews of the European GI system. The gaps and flexibilities identified during the certification process expose the limitations of attempts to guarantee origin, quality, and authenticity by public authorities. For instance, there are formally recognized exceptions to the requirement that raw materials must be sourced from within the region of origin. If the raison d’être of GI protection is to guarantee geographical origin, to what extent can such exceptions be reconciled? Formal registration has inherent blind spots, which dilutes the nature of the certification guarantee. Therefore as opposed to relying on this systemic guarantee, Section 5 concludes by drawing attention to the recent interest in the design of individual product specifications and which is framed by insights from collective action theory. The participants involved in such drafting initiatives extend well beyond public authorities, to include NGOs/civil society organizations, networks of academic researchers, and international organizations. This exposes the hybridity of influences that exist between state or market paradigms. The paper therefore concludes by identifying product specification design as a more promising site for interventions that would enable GIs to deliver on their developmental potential.

Section snippets

Mapping state involvement

As a legal regime which regulates the use and misuse of commercially valuable geographical brands in the marketplace, GI protection is often compared with trademark law (Gangjee, 2012a, pp. 291–294). Both regimes are considered by some to be functionally equivalent mechanisms to enhance informational efficiency. By granting exclusive rights to control the use of signs, these legal regimes facilitate uncluttered origin signaling in the marketplace (Teuber, 2011a). While Articles 22–24 of TRIPS

An overview of the certification process

There are four GI-related registration systems in the EU, distinguished on the basis of subject matter: (i) wines; (ii) aromatized wines, (iii) spirits, and (iv) agricultural products as well as food stuffs.

Certification and its ambiguities

As Section 2 has established, certification can redress informational asymmetry and provide credible guarantees to consumers. An effective certification signal is also the prerequisite for achieving a range of broader developmental goals. Section 3 identifies the key stages of registration, where detailed information is provided by the applicant to verify provenance and authentic (i.e., historic and consensually developed) methods of production. The registration process endeavors to verify this

Conclusion: the turn to the product specification

Certification is justified because of its ability to redress informational asymmetries and benefit consumers. For GIs, certification by public authorities under a sui generis regime is considered to be sufficiently rigorous and therefore more appropriate for satisfying consumer preferences as well as achieving territorial development strategies. However the previous Sections of this paper have argued that there are considerable gaps between theory and practice: (1) While individual GI products

Acknowledgements

My thanks to the anonymous referees and one in particular for extensive feedback. I am also grateful to Barbara Pick for comments and to Madhavi Sunder, Anupam Chander, and Mario Biagioli for the opportunity to present a very early draft of this paper at the Brand New World conference, UC Davis in 2013.

References (87)

  • Belletti, G., & Marescotti, A. (2011a). Origin products, geographical indications and rural development. In E. Barham &...
  • G. Belletti et al.

    Monitoring and evaluating the effects of the protection of geographical indications: A methodological proposal

  • L. Bérard et al.

    From localized products to geographical indications. Awareness and Action

    (2008)
  • E. Biénabe et al.

    Private versus public quality schemes for origin-labelled products: Insights from the Karakul pelts and Camdeboo mohair industries

  • E. Biénabe et al.

    Collective action dynamics and product reputation

  • S. Bowen

    Development from within? The potential for geographical indications in the global South

    The Journal of World Intellectual Property

    (2010)
  • S. Bowen

    Embedding local places in global spaces: Geographical indications as a territorial development strategy

    Rural Sociology

    (2010)
  • C. Bramley et al.

    The economics of geographical indications: Towards a conceptual framework for geographical indication research in developing countries

    The Economics of Intellectual Property

    (2009)
  • Bromberger, B. F. (2006). Aged, but not old: Local identities, market forces, and the invention of “traditional”...
  • Chever, T., Renault, C., Renault, S., & Romieu, V. (2012). Value of production of agricultural products and foodstuffs,...
  • Commission v. Germany (Case 12/74)(1975). European Court Reports...
  • J.M. Crespi et al.

    Some economic implications of public labeling

    Journal of Food Distribution Research

    (2003)
  • Delhaize v. Promalvin (Case C-47/90) (1992). European Court Reports...
  • A. Deppeler et al.

    Why evaluate the effects of protection of GIs?

  • K. De Roest et al.

    Reconsidering ‘traditional’ food: The case of Parmigiano Reggiano cheese

    Sociologia Ruralis

    (2000)
  • O.C. Deselnicu et al.

    A meta-analysis of geographical indication food valuation studies: What drives the premium for origin-based labels?

    Journal of Agricultural & Resource Economics

    (2013)
  • European Commission. (2008). Green paper on agricultural product quality: Product standards, farming requirements and...
  • European Commission. (2009a). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European...
  • European Commission. (2009b). Staff working document accompanying the communication from the Commission to the European...
  • European Commission. (2010). Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on agricultural...
  • European Commission. (2011). Green paper on promotion measures and information provision for agricultural products: a...
  • European Commission. Guide to applicants for completion of the single document. Available at:...
  • European Court of Auditors. (2011). Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be...
  • European Economic and Social Committee. (2008). Opinion on geographical indications and designations. Official Journal...
  • G. Evans

    The protection of geographical indications in the European Union and the United States under Sui generis and trade mark systems: Signs of harmonization?

    Intellectual Property Quarterly

    (2013)
  • Exportur v LOR SA and Confiserie du Tech (Case C-3/91). (1992). European Court Reports...
  • (FAO) Food and Agriculture Organisation. (2008). Promotion of traditional regional agricultural and food products: A...
  • Identification of origin-linked products and their potential for development: A methodology for participatory inventories

    (2012)
  • D. Gangjee

    Melton Mowbray and the GI pie in the sky: Exploring cartographies of protection

    Intellectual Property Quarterly

    (2006)
  • D. Gangjee

    Quibbling siblings: Conflicts between trademarks and geographical indications

    Chicago-Kent Law Review

    (2007)
  • D. Gangjee
    (2012)
  • D.S. Gangjee

    Geographical indications and cultural heritage

    WIPO Journal

    (2012)
  • D. Giovannucci et al.

    Guide to geographical indications: Linking products and their origins

    (2009)
  • Cited by (58)

    • Predicting agri-food quality across space: A Machine Learning model for the acknowledgment of Geographical Indications

      2022, Food Policy
      Citation Excerpt :

      At the international level, GIs offer protection against counterfeiting and piracy (European Union Intellectual Property Office - EUIPO, 2017). As a result, the idea that GIs constitute a real development opportunities for rural and agricultural areas is now endorsed by scholars and practitioners (Gangjee, 2017). However, not all traditional food and wines will become a GI, and what factors could influence the institutional acknowledgment has been the focus of a significant group of studies (Haeck et al., 2019).

    • Protecting provenance, abandoning agriculture? Heritage products, industrial ideals and the uprooting of a Spanish turrón

      2022, Journal of Rural Studies
      Citation Excerpt :

      One word and its ambiguous interpretation can make all the difference. While the development of these legal frameworks has the potential to be the meeting place of diverse players in the supply chain (Gangjee, 2017b), it can also be dangerously narrow and controlled by an effective oligopoly. “It is not just about identifying the product with sufficient precision but also identifying processes which enable egalitarian participation across the supply chain and informed debate around the product” (Gangjee, 2017b, 21).

    • Geographical indications and trade: Firm-level evidence from the French cheese industry

      2021, Food Policy
      Citation Excerpt :

      They address a market failure and ensure that information is revealed to consumers to mitigate information asymmetry. However, based on stronger state intervention and involving both definition of the methods of production and facilitation of the supply chain coordination, the GI sui generis system differs considerably from the trademark system (Gangjee, 2017; Kireeva and O’Connor, 2010). In the sui generis system, when entry conditions (geographic area and adoption of a GI code of rules) are met, all producers (farmers and processors) can use the associated GI.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text