Base Line Scenarios

Sinergi WP6 report. Synthesis of case studies. Draft 2 V1

SINER-GI

TASK 3: Synthesis and policy implication

WP6: Synthesis and scenarios

Start: month 25 (June 2006)

End: month 32 (December 2007)

Synthesis and scenarios

Analysis built on Case Study reports

DRAFT 2

Version 1 (29/10/2007)

Partner responsible: INRA; Assistants: IER/ EPFZ – U. Latvia

Authors: Allaire Gilles, Barjolle Dominique, Paus Marguerite, Tisenkopfs Talis, Thévenod-Mottet Erik, Sylvander Bertil, Wallet Frederic

The activity in WP6 is to develop a comparative analysis based on all the studied cases by SINERGI partners. It started after the reception of the cases reports (to be completed), by the Lausanne meeting (10-13 October), and it will resume by the Budapest plenary meeting and the two regional meetings (Budapest and Santiago de Chile).

INTRODUCTION:WP6 GUIDELINE

General SINERGI work organisation

According to the technical annexe: In reaching the scientific objectives of the project, the following steps will be followed:

1. develop a theoretical model for monitoring and measuring the impact of GIs and evaluating their conditions of success (WP3, drawing from WP1 & WP2)

SEE D3 chapter 5 and more specifically the "grid for evaluation" (pp58-62 of the last distributed version)

2. develop a new knowledge corpus from an in-depth fieldwork:

• build a common reference methodology for analysing case-studies using an integrated approach to assess the multifunctional character of different types of GIs; (WP4)

SEE WP4 report

• perform in-depth analysis of relevant case studies in selected extra-EU countries (with special emphasis on Developing Countries) and comparison to EU case-studies; (WP5)

SEE the template for case study report (Denis Sautier)

3. Elaborate synthesis and scenarios to devise strategies and policy recommendations:

• compare international case-studies and define a typology of GIs protection effects crossed to different legal and institutional systems; (WP6)

SEE NOTE : "base line scenarios" (diffused in June)

SEE the template for Budapest case study presentation (ppt)

• identify likely consequences (in terms of competition, trade, economic growth and income distribution, rural development, environment and culture) of the pursuit of current GI protection arrangements in different EU and non-EU countries, and elaborate recommendations for future improvement of GI institutional and policy frameworks, in EU and non-EU countries, in order to enhance opportunities and benefits, whilst decreasing threats (WP7);

4. Communicate the results and disseminate the information (WP8).

PART I Synthesis

SPECIFIC WP6 OBJECTIVES & REPORT OUTLINES

• International comparison (using case-studies reports) to define a typology of GIs protection effects crossed to different legal and institutional systems

• Identification of "invariant" effects among all GI Cases studied in Task 2

• Definition of long-term scenarios without policies changes for each relevant situation, highlighted by the case studies (baseline scenarios)

How to understand the initial formulation (TA) of the objective?

GI systems are considered according to the system of protection and "legal and institutional framework", meaning both support policies at national (or other) level and trade policies, including political general context. These variables have to be used to determinate relevant "types" to develop the WP6 analysis (see D1). See I- Typology of GIs geopolitical contexts.

Identification of "invariant effects" of GI has to be considered in geopolitical contexts(national and regional) corresponding with types. This identification is to be made considering the framework built up in D2 and the methodology developed in D6 (Report on case study methodology) and activated in the WP5 reports common template. At this stage of the synthesis and general level of analysis, invariant effects have to be identified in general terms and in accordance with the case studies impact assessment (see D7?). See II- Identification of GI types of impacts on sustainable development.

While the policies and even the politics would not change (for example in Europe the UE 512 reg. will stay in action, the trips agreement will stay in operation with its ambiguities, etc.), markets and stakeholders ideas about GI can change. Considering this general framework, the forms of competition in the actual trade regime are the main variable taking in account for forecast exercises based on case studies. Global hypotheses on these forms of competition help to establish baseline scenarios for each case study (see WP6 note on "baseline scenarios").See III- Hypothesis to establish baseline scenarios.

Not only protection schemes for GIs are diverse but also their evolving in the actual period. The cases studies because they focus on new initiatives in the South show that these dynamics are also diverse and offer arguments for the three hypothesis related to the position of GI differentiation in the global market. See IV- Diversity of the institutional and legal frameworks for GI: national/local dynamics.

According to "type" (geopolitical contexts) and to the specific trajectory of each GI system (each case), the tendencies characterising the three general hypothesis regarding the international trade regime we made will be different. According tothe cases, the three scenarios correspond to different evolutions of the configuration of the system of actors and of the power of each type of actors. To describe the trajectory of the system in each case we use the DPSR model. Based on the analysis of each type of trajectory, the forecast exercise consist to identity 3 the scenarios corresponding with the three general baseline hypotheses. See V- System trajectories and baseline scenarios.

The importance and the specific nature of the economic social, and environmental, impacts would likely be different for each scenario in each type of GI and geopolitical context. The particular role of the system of protection has to be considered in assessing in each scenario.See VI- GI System trajectories and impacts on sustainable development.

The level of analysis is "GI systems". The objectives of WP3 and WP4 were to set up analytical grids for the case study analysis in terms of "GI system". In the context of each case study, we expect now to put forward likely evolutions of the system (for example in terms of size, governance or technologies) and their implications in a perspective of sustainable development (considering the three levels of evaluation: social, economic, and environmental effects). Those forecasts have to be replaced in a global framework while the markets are globalising. Because on several aspects a new international trade regimeisdeveloping and can evolve in different ways regarding the position of GI, it is possible to set up several hypotheses regarding base line scenarios of the global context evolution ("without policies changes").To recall what is a GI system: “The GI system is the set of actors who are effectively engaged in creating value and improving the strategic marketing position of the GI product by spontaneous individual or organized collective action, and those who are engaged in the activation and reproduction of those local resources (natural resources, knowledge, social capital) which make the GI product specific” (WP5 template). There are several dimensions of GI system: the market structure, the supply chain organisation, the stakeholders and policies supports, the system management and governance, the technology and qualification procedure… They are the several dimensions in which forecasts have to be developed from the knowledge collected.

In the next WP7 will have to set up policies scenarios in taking in account the trajectory scenarios in the various geopolitical contexts, meaning to identify political stakes as to be able to deliver recommendations corresponding to those stakes and adjusted to the diversity of systems and contexts which will emerge from the WP6 comparative work

I- Typology of GIs geopolitical contexts (to be completed)

GI systems are considered according to the system of protection and "legal and institutional framework".General hypothesis: no major political change regarding international trade regime (WTO), transition in countries like China, South Africa or Serbia, stability of existing regional unions or accords (EU, MERCOSUR[1], NAFTA[2], ASEAN[3]…).

We know that the products, markets and policy features concerning the GIs are fairly diverse in the world. This diversity can be described at many levels (see WP3, WP4, WP5):

• types of products bearing a GI as identifier (origin, local, organic, faire trade, standard products, etc..)
• diversity of initiators / stakeholders and their motives (recover the use of usurped names, improve the access to markets, preserve the biodiversity and fight against biopiracy, protect the traditional know how, support collective development initiatives and enhance the rural development, better regulate market fluctuations, better develop and implement the overall market rules, support the individual firms’ strategies)
• market structures (monopolies, oligopolies, fringes),
• supply chain structures (long/short, coexistence of large/small firms, etc. ),
• governance structures (clubs, channel captains, interprofessionnal bodies),
• consumer behaviour (familiarity, local and remote consumers, generic or connoisseurs, etc. )
• generic systems (firms selling both GIs and trademarks) /specific systems (specialized on GIs)
• age (novel systems / mature systems)
• policy schemes, legal instruments, enforcement devices, public or private justifications, and interpretations of the rules are also quite different.

To establish a typology, the Lausanne group set up (according to previous works) a list of 16 variables which was filled in from the executive summaries or ppt presentations received.

QUESTIONS ANSWERED in TABLE1 from the reports):

(See Synthetic_table1.xls in the "minutes" file). Comments from contributors are welcome.

NB This part is tentative. The list of variables could be put in annex.

1Name

2Country

3Type of product (Cheese, Spice, Cheese, Herbal Tea, Fruit, Fruit, Vegetable, Ham, Spirit, Meat, Coffee, Cheese, and Pork Pie)

4Full process in the area (production of raw material and processing) (yes, no) (distinction can be made between the GI code of practice for GI recognized product and whole supply chain

5why is the case interesting for SINERGI? Main features regarding SINERGI main objectives (WP6 / general objectives of the project)

6Classification(New (red) / Mature (brown) / Emergent (pink) / Evolving / In crisis)

7Market of reference (national / regional / international;Long or short supply chain) (Two markets : Domestic-quality & Export-industrial-generic; National (fresh) / International (frozen); High quality for export & Cheap mix for national market)

8Supply Chain structure (numbers and type of actors)

9Motivations of the actors (who initiate the procedure / why do the actors apply to a GI / objectives of the registration)

10Type of collective organisation and of members of the organisation(No collective organisation, Initiated by local authorities, Inter-professional body (producers and processors), Producers organisations, Processors organisations, Local authorities, Local NGO, Administrative agency)

11Diversity and Coherence of the SCdifferentiation(Several Business Model (BM) but not conflicting, Several BM and conflicting, One BM but conflicting, One market leader no conflicting)

12Conflicts inside the Supply Chain among the actors (conflicts of interest) (yes, no)

13Main current challenges for the SC (not related to GI protection)

14GI Legal framework Protection Status of the product / year of protection

15Regime of protection at country level (Level of protection see D1)

16Public support

These variables (which can also be found in the data cards…) all together allow to distinguish several types of GI systems according to the supply chain structure and stakeholders relations and forms of coordination and their local/ national context. Some will intervene in a first synthetic typology focusing on contexts (see hereafter). The others will help to analyze the trajectories of the systems and to formulate scenarios features in each case (see part IV and V).

Supply chain structure

Several variables related to the supply chain structures and situation (4, 7, 8, 10-13).

Main challengesfor the SC (not related to GI protection) (var 13)

Roquefort: Raw milk potential interdiction on export markets

Paprika: Regain reputation / consolidation of the market

Kajmak: Demography in rural areas / sanitarian regulations / infrastructures

Rooïbos: Mass market at international level

Bleuets du lac St Jean: Stabilise production volumes

FloridaOranges: Maintain production. Pressures / Elimination of the tariffs barriers

Basmati: Delimitation of the geographical area

Jinhua: Increase in cereals prices / decrease of pork breeding / sanitary crisis

Tequila:

Pampean Beef:

Pico Duarte Coffee: Management of the quality / Differentiation of the product on export market / Empowerment of the producers

Chontaleno:Demography in rural areas /sanitarian regulations / infrastructures / empowerment of the producers

Melton Mowbray pork Pies: Regional development

These challenges have to be analyzed in the regard of the driving forces (see DPSR model hereafter).

Classification according to the age of the product and the GI system

Thevariable termed "classification" (var. 6) comes from a usual distinction on "mature" and "new" GIswhich related to the age of the name of the product and of its protection. Generally "mature" GI systems have accumulated social capital. But a mature GI can be in crisis as it is for the Paprika in the present situation. In emergent situation, whenis developing new initiative to set up a GI market and/or scheme of protection, the existence or the deficit of support resources are main factors of success.

The Sinergi case studies generally concern localised systems of production and products bearing some reputation linked with their name and origin, but not necessary identified or protected as GI. In some cases (Florida oranges for example), only a part of the production corresponds with a product able to claim for IG recognition and protection, or only a group of actors is motivated by that perspective and is involved to develop niche markets.

If we consider the reputation issue, all studied products (except Pico Duarte coffee) could be considered as matureGI. But if we consider the issue of the existence of a GI scheme of protection, the majority of the cases correspond with new or emergent GI. For example considering reputation Kajmak isa "mature" product, but a GI system is "emergent". Due to the variety of the geopolitical contexts, the classification offers trouble when mature supply chains (as Florida Orange or Bleuets) are localised and benefit from some kind of protection of their name, but the stakeholders are not interested (except minority) to develop a GI identification.

Policies support

The variable "Public support" (var. 16) not only includes national policies (or European policies) but also NGOs implementing public programmes in the South (corresponding with development aid policies from the North or international programmes). A debate emerged (in Lausanne) on the idea of proposing a typology of the NGOs actions… Because NGOs are generally working through development programmes funded by countries for the North or the World Bank a possibility is to contrast NGOs work by their orientation more or less in favour of GI. It seems that we can contrast two "philosophy" one on US influence (clustering and branding), another on old Europe influence (INAO, AGRIDEA, CIRAD… :-)

For example, as it is noticed by Marguerite Paus, there are some arguments to put together the Serbian Kajmak case and the coffee from Dominican Republic (sorry I did not yet translate Marguerite comments):

- influence des US sur politique IG (la loi serbe sur les IG est un compromis entre système européen et système US)
- grande influence des US sur terrain avec USaid. Les américains ont cherché à dynamiser les zones rurales via la mise en place de clusters (stratégie de développement rural). En Serbie, tout le monde parle de cluster en zone rurale depuis un programme de la Banque mondiale, et des programmes de USAID... qui n'ont pas mené à beaucoup de concret. Mais qui ont eu le mérite de faire germer l'idée de travailler en "pluridisciplinaire" (vétérinaires, municipalité, producteurs, transformateurs, NGO etc)
- confusion entre "branding", trade marks, Geographical indications, PDO/PGI... qui vient du fait que les américains sont attachés au concept de "branding" pour mieux valoriser la production, mais plutôt à travers marque collective, voire marque individuelle.
- l'initiative de se lancer sur une IG pour le kajmak de Kraljevo vient du cluster (idée d'une inspectrice vétérinaire), puis a été repris par une ONG locale (avec financement du ministère de l'agriculture) quand le projet de la banque mondiale s'est terminé... (plus de sous).

Typology of GI geopolitical context

The types have to be defined according to the "legal and institutional framework".

The first dimension takes in account is the types and levels of protection (A,B,C,D, according to D1) (see variables 14&15) associated with the type of policy support (public or NGO support forRural Dev or sectoral support) (see variable 16).

The second dimension is a tentative essay to abstract the market trajectory of the case. This will need some refinements in the following steps of the analysis.

RED: New GI

Pink: emergent (no yet recognized as IG)

Brown: Mature GI

Brown: Mature GI (in crisis)

Types of legal and institutional contexts regarding GIs (Diversity in the interpretations of the GI schemes)

Report D1 enlightens he diverse interpretations of the GI regulations in the world. Following Stern (2000), the D1 report states polarity between two opposite attitudes towards protection, from a permissive to a prescriptive one, taking into account the following criteria:

• Prevention and repression of misleading or unfair use, with an enforcement on private initiative vs / definition of right holders and public enforcement
• From TM to protected and registered GIs, through Certification Trademarks and weak GIs
• From freedom of packaging and labelling to requirements on those items
• From wines and spirits to all kinds of products
• From juridical decisions to administrative ones

Historical trends in recognising and protecting GIs

Source: Thevenod-Mottet et al. (2006)