Lessons learnt from EU and Swiss experiences (english)

Geographical Indications in Croatia, National Conference, Zagreb, 6 April 2011

Lessons learnt from EU and Swiss

experiences and projects in southeast

Europe

Zagreb, 6 April 2011


Main objective of this presentation

What are the conditions for Geographic Indications to play a positive role in rural development with focus on economic development


Structure of the presentation

Assumptions on positive role played by GIs

Impacts of different GIs on prices and incomes in Switzerland and France

Encountered situations in southeast Europe and implications

Main lessons learnt


Assumptions impacts of GIs on the territorial performances

• Economic• Social• Environmental


Economic impacts

• Added-value captured in the area of production

• Direct and indirect employment• Premium prices for producers


Social impacts

• Culture heritage conservation• Social cohesion • Social inclusion• Identity


Environmental impacts

• Landscape protection• Natural resources preservation• Biodiversity


Performance of different Cheeses registered as PDO in CH and F

France SwitzerlandBeaufortComtéMont D'or Cantal

Gruyere L’EtivazVacherin Mont D’orEmmentaler Switzerland

Appellations d’origine contrôlée un outil de propriété intellectuelle au service du développement rural ?D. Barjolle


Effects on income of several PDOs Beaufort L’Etivaz Mont

d'OrVacherin Mont

d’Or

Comté Gruyère Cantal Emmen -taler

Countries F CH F CH F CH F CHMarket price to the consumer (euros/kilo)

17 15.4 17 14.8 10 11.5 8 12.5

Average price paid to the producer € /kg

0.48 0.69 0.36 0.55 0.35 0.52 0.28 0.42

Averadge price paid to the producer for industrial milk €/kg

0.28 0.45 0.28 0.45 0.28 0.45 0.28 0.45

Plus-value PDO in % (1)-(2)/(2)

71.4 53.3 28.6 22.2 25.0 15.6 0.0 <0

Part of the Turn over that returns to the producers 31 49 19 33 35 50 34 33Barjolle, 20046


5

6

7

8

9

10

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Comté

Basic hard cheese

20 %46 %

10

Comté Consumer Price (€ / kg)

20%


Comté Milk Price (€ / hl)

20,00

25,00

30,00

35,00

40,00

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

9 %

14 %Comté milk

Basic milk

11


Highest added-value for Beaufort and L’Etivaz

Based on product strong IMAGE and strong COLLECTIVE ORGANISATION, with efficient MARKETING MIX•Added-value due to the very positive image of mountain product•Limited production due to small area•Crucial role played by one cooperative in the marketing and commercialisation


High added-value for Vacherin Mt-d’Or (CH) and Mt-d’Or (F)

Based on the management of the product QUALITY, with special focus on FOOD-SAFETY•High-added value at consumer level due to high typicity•But lower added value to the producer due to weaker marketing mix


Gruyère and Comté: High added-value based on product image and strong collective organisationStrong inter-professional organisation who:•Manages quality•Promotes product•Controls produced volumes•Reduces transaction costs


Cantal and Emmentaler: lack of image and weak collective organisationWeak inter-professional organisation who:•Prioritises product promotion •Tends to reduce quality requirements•Does not controls produced volume overproduction and pressure on prices


The Cantal: a Value Chain dominated by the big industry

• Brand approach • Industrial standards lower quality

requirements• Supply large retailers:

– volumes – Prices

• Produce 5 PDO in the same area


17

Cantal and Emmentaler“Unsuccess Stories”

CANTAL (F) EMMENTALER (CH)

Production 2004 18’828 31’885

Yearly variation between 2000 and 2004 ( %) -1 <0

Milk producers 2900 4500Cheese processors 29 215Ripeners 49 15

Price paid by consumers (Euros/Kg) 8 12,5

Price paid to the producer (euros/kg) (1) 0,28 0,42Price paid to the producer for milk delivered to industry (2)

0,28 0,45

Extra value PDO in % (1) - (2) / (2) = <0

Part of the turnover that goes to the producers 34% 33%


18

Environmental impacts

Jura mountains, open landscape, grazed (Comté area)

Haute Vosges (non-PDO area), closing landscape

Haute Saône (non-PDO area), closed


Experiences in the southwest Europe

• Bi-lateral assistance project in BiH (Livanjski Sir I Sir iz Mijeha)

• FAO Case studies (see http://www.foodquality-origin.org)

• Research projects in Serbia and Macedonia• Product identification survey in Croatia

(Paski sir, Drniski Prsut, Istarski Prsut) • Technical assistance project in Serbia

http://www.foodquality-origin.org/


Experience in the southwest EuropePost-Yugoslav period

• Yugoslav period: Geographical Indications as a intellectual property tool at international level… only !

• Main orientations driven by EU integration• Different pace in reforming the system and

approaches, but all laws reform step by step• GIs become a tool for RD MinAgri role• Difficulties to place the producers at the

centre of the process


Experiences in the southwest EuropeProtection and valorisation of traditional cheeses in Herzegovina

• Activate, protect local resources (sensibilization of the producers and other stakeholders)

• Qualify a product (definition of technical specification of the product, certification, etc.)

• Commercialization (promotion, education on food, events, fairs, etc..)

• Integration with the territory (gastronomic itineraries, inclusion in regional brand, etc.)


Experiences in the southwest EuropeProtection and valorisation of traditional cheeses in Herzegovina

• Bottom-up approach• Investment support to on-

farm processing• Marketing mix • Important lobby of the

project on state and entities authorities to enact coherent policies

• Long-term project (>7 years)


Experiences in the southwest EuropeFAO Case Studies: Diagnosis

• Top-down approach, no need for collective approach and producers organization (CoP, authorized users)

• Normative approach: quality labels perceived as tools to access international markets and organize/control productions as well for implement food safety standards

• Transitional stage as it is emerging interest for rural development and involvement of ministries of Agriculture


Experiences in the southwest EuropeFAO Case Studies: Needs

• Clarification of legal status and roles of institutions

• Networking, coordination between institutions

• Implementation of certification and control to increase GI credibility

• Official seals • Information and promotion to

consumers


Conclusions

The registration itself has no automatic economic, social or environment impact

•No significant impact with GI that make compromise with the quality of the products•Rural development dimension implies an increased role of the institutions in charge of RD (e.g. MinAgri)•No significant impact without strong collective organisations able to act as one unique firm Time and patience


Conclusions

When analyzing an application the commission can/should already sense:•The organisation strength•The importance given to the quality•The stakes between the various stakeholders

To sum-up the registration process should look carefully at the present effects on rural development (economic, social, environmental)


Thanks for your attention

Education

Lessons learnt from EU and Swiss experiences (english)