http://www.fao.org/in-action/quality-and-origin-program/en Lessons learnt from EU and Swiss experiences (english)

1. 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

2. Geographical Indications in Croatia, National Conference, 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

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

4. Geographical Indications in Croatia, National Conference, Zagreb, 6 April 2011
Assumptions impacts of GIs on
the territorial performances
• Economic
• Social
• Environmental

5. Geographical Indications in Croatia, National Conference, Zagreb, 6 April 2011
Economic impacts
• Added-value captured in the area of
production
• Direct and indirect employment
• Premium prices for producers

6. Geographical Indications in Croatia, National Conference, Zagreb, 6 April 2011
Social impacts
• Culture heritage conservation
• Social cohesion
• Social inclusion
• Identity

7. Geographical Indications in Croatia, National Conference, Zagreb, 6 April 2011
Environmental impacts
• Landscape protection
• Natural resources preservation
• Biodiversity

8. Geographical Indications in Croatia, National Conference, Zagreb, 6 April 2011
Performance of different Cheeses
registered as PDO in CH and F
France Switzerland
Beaufort
Comté
Mont D'or
Cantal
Gruyere
L’Etivaz
Vacherin Mont
D’or
Emmentaler
Switzerland
Appellations d’origine contrôlée un outil de propriété
intellectuelle au service du développement rural ?
D. Barjolle

9. Geographical Indications in Croatia, National Conference, Zagreb, 6 April 2011
Effects on income of several PDOs
Beaufort L’Etivaz Mont
d'Or
Vacheri
n Mont
d’Or
Comté Gruyère Cantal Emmen -
taler
Countries F CH F CH F CH F CH
Market 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 33
Barjolle, 20046

10. Geographical Indications in Croatia, National Conference, Zagreb, 6 April 2011
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%

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

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

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

14. Geographical Indications in Croatia, National Conference, Zagreb, 6 April 2011
Gruyère and Comté: High added-value
based on product image and strong
collective organisation
Strong inter-professional organisation who:
•Manages quality
•Promotes product
•Controls produced volumes
•Reduces transaction costs

15. Geographical Indications in Croatia, National Conference, Zagreb, 6 April 2011
Cantal and Emmentaler: lack of image
and weak collective organisation
Weak inter-professional organisation who:
•Prioritises product promotion
•Tends to reduce quality requirements
•Does not controls produced volume 
overproduction and pressure on prices

16. Geographical Indications in Croatia, National Conference, Zagreb, 6 April 2011
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. Geographical Indications in Croatia, National Conference, Zagreb, 6 April 2011
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 4500
Cheese processors 29 215
Ripeners 49 15
Price paid by consumers (Euros/Kg) 8 12,5
Price paid to the producer (euros/kg) (1) 0,28 0,42
Price 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. Geographical Indications in Croatia, National Conference, Zagreb, 6 April 2011
Environmental impacts
Jura mountains, open
landscape, grazed
(Comté area)
Haute Vosges (non-PDO area), closing
landscape
Haute Saône (non-PDO area),
closed

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

20. Geographical Indications in Croatia, National Conference, Zagreb, 6 April 2011
Experience in the southwest Europe
Post-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

21. Geographical Indications in Croatia, National Conference, Zagreb, 6 April 2011
Experiences in the southwest Europe
Protection 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.)

22. Geographical Indications in Croatia, National Conference, Zagreb, 6 April 2011
Experiences in the southwest Europe
Protection 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)

23. Geographical Indications in Croatia, National Conference, Zagreb, 6 April 2011
Experiences in the southwest Europe
FAO 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

24. Geographical Indications in Croatia, National Conference, Zagreb, 6 April 2011
Experiences in the southwest Europe
FAO 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

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

26. Geographical Indications in Croatia, National Conference, Zagreb, 6 April 2011
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)

27. Geographical Indications in Croatia, National Conference, Zagreb, 6 April 2011
Thanks for your attention