Geographical Indication and Global Agri-Food

Development and Democratization

Alessandro Bonanno, Kae Sekine, Hart N. Feuer, Alessandro Bonanno, Kae Sekine, Hart N. Feuer

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9780429895128
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Biological Sciences
• Subtopic: Ecology
• Index: Biological Sciences

This book addresses the relevance of geographical indication (GI) as a tool for local and socio-economic development and democratization of agri-food, with case studies from Asia, Europe and the Americas.

A geographical indication is a sign used on products that have a specific geographical origin and possess qualities or a reputation that are due to that origin. It provides not only a way for businesses to leverage the value of their geographically unique products, but also to inform and attract consumers. A highly contested topic, GI is praised as a tool for the revitalization of agricultural communities, while also criticized for being an instrument exploited by global corporate forces to promote their interests. There are concerns that the promotion of GI may hamper the establishment of democratic forms of development. The contributing authors address this topic by offering theoretically informed investigations of GI from around the world. The book includes case studies ranging from green tea in Japan, olive oil in Turkey and dried fish in Norway, to French wine and Mexican Mezcal. It also places GI in the broader context of the evolution and trends of agri-food under neoliberal globalization.

The book will be of interest to researchers, policy makers and students in agri-food studies, sociology of food and agriculture, geography, agricultural and rural economics, environmental and intellectual property law, and social development.

Part I

Theoretical assumptions

1 Geographical indication in agri-food and its role in the global neoliberal era

A theoretical analysis

Alessandro Bonanno

Introduction

This book on geographical indication (GI) probes the relevance of GI as a tool to oppose neoliberal globalization and as an instrument for the advancement of local socioeconomic development and the democratization of the agri-food sector. GI has been advocated as one of the strategies for the revitalization of agricultural communities and the production of quality food within the context of the neoliberal creation of global markets. In recent decades, the application of neoliberal policies has promoted enhanced global competition that has often created negative consequences for agri-food communities and actors while facilitating the concentration of political power and economic resources in the hands of a few large transnational corporations (TNCs). In this context, GI has been advocated as a tool for the reappropriation of culture and history in the definition of local agri-food production and practices and as a way to oppose the standardization and generalization of production practices and products associated with corporate agri-food (Allaire, Casabianca, and Thevenod-Mottet 2011; Bowen 2015; Parasecoli 2017). Moreover, GI has been described as an instrument to maintain fair and just competition and protect the well-being of small and medium-size agri-food producers and their communities (Bowen 2015; Sekine and Bonanno 2018; Vandecandelaere 2010).

The effectiveness of GI as an anti-corporate instrument should be also explored because of criticisms that denounce the process of the corporate appropriation of alternative spaces. According to these criticisms, GI has been transformed into a tool largely controlled by TNCs (Parasecoli 2017; Bonanno and Wolf 2018; Zukin 2008). Through the colonization of the state and emphasis on specific versions of the concepts of local and quality food, corporate forces advance discourses and practices that promote their economic interests while appealing to progressive ideals (Bonanno 2018; Sekine and Bonanno 2018). The colonization of progressive discourses is a particularly effective tool that allows TNCs to control life spaces that originally promoted anti-corporate postures (Bonanno and Wolf 2018). Additionally, as Parasecoli (2017, 17) notes, this process “indicates the pervasiveness of neoliberal theories.” Following this scenario, the objective of this chapter is to review the theoretical assumptions and characteristics that define the now-dominant theory of neoliberalism and salient theories that advocate the regulation of markets and competition. The scientific relevance of this objective rests on the ambiguity with which neoliberalism and opposing socioeconomic theories are discussed in pertinent GI literature (Bowen 2015; Parasecoli 2017). Specifically, the regulation of markets and the corporate use of these measures that are identified as part of neoliberalism actually contradict basic tenets of neoliberal theory. Simultaneously, forms of market regulation are promoted as instruments that lead to economic growth. The contradictions associated with these opposing postures and the ambiguous use of neoliberal theory by TNCs constitute the core contributions of this chapter.

It opens with a brief review of the concept of GI and stresses salient historical events that defined its evolution. This section briefly reviews the basic characteristics of, and conditions that allow for, the development of GI-defining protocols such as the Paris Convention, the Lisbon Agreement and the TRIPS Agreement. The following sections illustrate the tenets of neoliberalism and opposing state intervention strategies. Neoliberalism is illustrated through the classic theories of F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman and by their contemporary corporate adaptations. The latter refers to how neoliberal tenets are actually employed by corporate representatives. State intervention in the regulation of the economy is illustrated through instances of the Fordist model and its salient contradictions. The final section offers some comments on the limits of these theories vis-à-vis the phenomenon of GI.

Geographical indication and its evolution: a brief analysis

In pertinent scientific and political conversations, the contemporary definition of GI refers to the use of a name and/or symbol that is associated with and defines a specific agri-food product (Parasecoli 2017). This signifier/signified relationship finds its raison d’être in the desire to associate a particular agri-food product with a location, specific qualities, production procedures, reputation and the cultural milieu that define this product’s existence (Bowen 2015; Echols 2008; Parasecoli 2017; Vandecandelaere 2010). GI stands at the intersection of the capitalism defining processes of standardization of production/product and product differentiation (Parasecoli 2017, 1). Standardization of production/product is part of that continuous tendency in capitalism to find the most efficient forms of production that reduce costs and increase quality and/or output. As prescribed by economic theory, desired forms of production generate competitive advantages as goods are produced at suitable costs and quality (Samuelson and Nordhaus 2009). Over the long run, however, these advantages tend to be eliminated as competitors adopt these production techniques and product characteristics. Accordingly, capitalist markets are characterized by processes of standardization of production as desired product quality, technology and labor use are incorporated into production.¹ The process of relinquishing rent positions (competitive advantages) is problematic socially and politically. Socially, it fosters conflict between those who favor and oppose the existence of competitive advantages. Those endowed with rent positions are generally unwilling to relinquish the benefits associated with competitive advantages. Those who do not enjoy a position of rent call for rent elimination, often in the name of fair competition. Politically, it constitutes a major point of contention among countries and regions because it favors the interests of some and penalizes the interests of others. Simultaneously, market competition promotes product differentiation. Product differentiation refers to the tendency of producers to achieve competitive advantages by enhancing one or more qualities of a product and, in so doing, making it distinguishable from and preferable to competing products. Product differentiation is achieved through a variety of strategies that include different techniques of production, prices, product quality and product availability/distribution. In essence, market competition entails contradictory demands associated with the simultaneous promotion of the standardization of production and product differentiation.

These conflicting demands are sources of discussion not only among scholars of capitalism and capitalist markets but, more importantly, among economic actors. In effect, the origins of GI rest on attempts to simultaneously promote and regulate competition. In the 19th century, as innovations and the expansion of markets characterized the growth of capitalism, there was almost no protection to the creation of new products, production processes and product differentiation. This situation was in part compatible with the then-dominant laissez-faire theory in that it contemplated the free circulation of goods and services (Smith 2009 [1716]). Simultaneously, however, classic liberalism advocated for fair competitions that involved the regulation of markets and the recognition of property rights, including those associated with intellectual property.

In this context, although patents existed in many countries, an international system of protection of intellectual property rights was lacking. In practical terms, this situation meant that patent applications had to be made simultaneously in a variety of countries, making the process of protection of intellectual property difficult to execute. It was precisely to address this situation that in 1878 an international conference was held in Paris with the goal of creating a system for the international protection of intellectual property. A draft of a pertinent proposal eventually resulted from the conference. This proposal was the subject of an international negotiation process, and an advance draft of the document was circulated for discussion at a second meeting in 1880. The final version of the proposal was eventually ratified in 1883 by a significant number of countries. This document is known as the Paris Convention: the oldest source of contemporary GI.

The expansion of agri-food markets and the significant growth of international trade that took place in the second half of the 19th century and first part of 20th century enhanced competition among agricultural producers. As competition increased, the demand for protecting local products against foreign competitors also increased, so governments implemented measures to safeguard local products. Despite the general acceptance of laissez-faire as the most appropriate economic theory, this policy was carried out through protectionist measures that were practiced by many countries and justified by the claim of the strategic importance of agriculture and food.² Additionally, the creation of barriers to free competition were also advocated to protect consumers from products of inferior quality (Echols 2008; Parasecoli 2017). It was understood that an efficient agri-food sector could specialize in low-cost commodities, such as those used as inputs for the production of industrial goods and basic foodstuff such as grains. But it could also produce high-quality products for the demand of quality consumers. In this context, the first organized attempt to protect local agri-food production took place in France – a country that to date retains the record for the highest number of GI-protected products – in the early 20th century (1905 and 1919), when the first laws on the protection of origins were passed. In Italy – the country with the second greatest number of GI agri-food products – similar measures were introduced much later, in 1962, whereas in Spain, earlier (1925) attempts to protect wine production in the La Rioja regions were formalized into law in 1970.

Increased efforts to use appellation of origin programs eventually prompted the signing of a more specific international agreement, in 1958. The Lisbon Agreement, as this new protocol was named, created a system whereby appellations of origins established within member countries were honored internationally. It further established the International Register of Appellations of Origins, which consisted of a list of all the products protected by the Lisbon Agreement. Various revisions of the original 1958 document were carried out through the years (1966, 1967, 1979), and by the mid 2010s, the Register included twenty-eight countries and more than a thousand appellations. In 2015, the Agreement was further emended to formally include the protection of GI and allow intergovernmental organizations to be parties in the Agreement. The most recent agreement concerning GI, however, is the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, or TRIPS. Signed in 1994, this document establishes basic standards for the protection and implementation of GI in signatory countries. In particular, it establishes procedures for transparency and accountability in the implementation of GI and guarantees measures against unfair competition. Despite these accomplishments, GI remains contested international terrain characterized by the clashes of two different visions.

These opposing views rest not only on contrasting interpretations of the role of GI but also on different readings of its strategic value as an economic policy. As far as the contrasting views of the role of GI are concerned, the European (EU) approach to GI is based on the established concept of terroir. Terroir refers to the environmental, cultural and historical properties associated with a geographical area. It follows that according to the European interpretation of GI, agricultural products and foods that use GI can be produced exclusively within the spatial and cultural contexts in which they originated and developed. Conversely, the opposing US-based understanding of GI rests of the notion of trademark. In this case, GI is not associated with a place, its culture and history. It is rather the private property of an owner (i.e., a company) that can produce that GI product anywhere it desires. In the case of GI as a form of economic policy, led by the European Union, some countries support the claim that GI is a tool that aids local rural economies, supports small and medium-size farms, safeguards the environment and promotes traditional food, local culture and authenticity in food production and preparation. Additionally, this view sees GI as part of processes that promote alternative forms of agri-food production and consumption (Bowen 2015; Vandecandelaere 2010). Represented by the position of the United States, the opposing view stresses that a system of pure free trade competition is more desirable. Accordingly, the protectionist nature of GI creates more problems than solutions by distorting the free functioning of the market.

Neoliberal theory, free markets, competition and the role of the state: two contrasting views

Neoliberalism has received significant attention since the late 1970...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Acknowledgments
• List of contributors
• Introduction
• Part I Theoretical assumptions
• Part II The Asian context
• Part III Cases from Europe
• Part IV Cases from the Americas
• Index