Arfini, Filippo

Donati, Michele

Mancini, Maria Cecilia

Veneziani, Mario

ARFINI, Filippo

MANCINI, Maria Cecilia

VENEZIANI, Mario

DONATI, Michele

Archivio istituzionale della Ricerca -  Università degli Studi di Parma

Sustainability of GI production systems in the framework of the TTIP negotiations

Filippo Arfini

Maria Cecilia Mancini

Mario Veneziani

Michele Donati

Directory of Open Access Journals

Introduction. Sustainability of GI production systems in the framework of the TTIP negotiations

Firenze University Press: E-Journals

Bio-based and Applied Economics 5(2): 131-133, 2016
ISSN 2280-6180 (print) © Firenze University Press 
ISSN 2280-6172 (online) www.fupress.com/bae
DOI: 10.13128/BAE-17141
Introduction
Sustainability of GI production systems in the framework of 
the TTIP negotiations
Filippo ArFini1, MAriA CeCiliA MAnCini1, MArio VeneziAni1, MiChele DonAti2 
1 Department of Economics, Università degli Studi di Parma, Via J. Kennedy 6, 43125 Parma, Italy
2 Department of Bio-sciences, Università degli Studi di Parma, Parco Area delle Scienze 11/a, 43124 Parma, 
Italy
A vast body of literature has appeared (Barham and Sylvander, 2011) and a number of 
Seminars of the European Association of Agricultural Economists (EAAE) have focussed 
on the “issue of GIs” by highlighting the fundamental characteristics of GI products(Arfini 
and Mora, 1998; Sylvander et al., 2000; Arfini et al., 2012). Two elements identify and 
characterise GI products: the complexity and multifaceted nature of the concept of quality 
and the multifunctional role of GI systems. The quality of GI products derives from the 
close dependence on natural and anthropic local resources, the history of the territory of 
production, the cultural heritage and their own reputation. The reputation of a GI product 
has developed over time and consumers identify it with the concept of typicity (Casabianca 
and Touzard, 2009). The latter is an intrinsic part of the GI quality concept and is perceived 
by consumers as not reproducible. The multifunctional role of GI systems highlights the 
necessity of considering different “dimensions” of GI products at the same time. It also 
helps us to recognize that the GI system is not niche (Sylvander and Baraham, 2011) but a 
wider system which is part of an overall economy (Allaire et al., 2011).
Describing the numerous dimensions of GI products entails adopting a multiplicity 
of approaches to overcome the limits of methodologies used in traditional marketing 
analysis of value chains. This multiplicity is required to evaluate aspects impacting on 
quality such as the natural, productive, recreational and cultural aspects of the territory 
and the multifunctional role of GI systems which shape the rural and local development 
path, system coordination, agricultural and commercial policy dimensions and the 
protection of intellectual property rights related to the use of the geographical name.
In international trade, these aspects become even more problematic because of the 
difficulty of safeguarding and protecting GI systems, which synthesise them into the 
geographical name. Furthermore, the two international organisations, the World Trade 
Organisation (WTO), with its Trade-Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 
(TRIPS) agreement, and the World Intellectual Property Right Organization (WIPO), 
with its Lisbon agreement, that regulate the international trade of food products, have 
adopted different definitions and protection regimes in relation to GI products (Addor 
and Grazioli, 2002):
• The TRIPS agreement (Articles 22.1 and 22.4) reflects a compromise between coun-
tries that have different levels of “sensitivity” to GI products. The compromise gives 
132 F. Arfini, M. Cecilia Mancini, M. Veneziani, M. Donati
“weak” protection for food items and “strong” protection for wines and spirits. In fact, 
Art. 22 gives the burden of proof of usurpation to the party reporting usurpation. On 
the other hand, Art. 23 concerning wines and spirits establishes protection ex-officio 
without placing any burden of proof on the party who reports it;
• The Lisbon agreement regulates the international register of the Designations of 
Origin and offers strong protection for all GI products in countries signing the 
Agreement. These, however, are fewer than the WTO TRIPS signatory countries.
The distinctions brought about by the TRIPS agreements have generated a trade 
war (Josling, 2006) among WTO countries. The trade disputes concerning GIs exported 
from the sui generis to the trademark area are not yet resolved in spite of the multi-
lateral negotiations of the WTO agreements. Nowadays, bilateral negotiations on trade 
rules between the EU and the USA have been taking place. The TTIP – “Transatlantic 
Trade and Investment Partnership” have the objective of laying down rules and solv-
ing outstanding trade conflicts, including the one on GIs between the USA and the 
EU in order to allow stable trade relations. All these GI related issues have been dis-
cussion topics in the 145th EAAE Seminar (Parma, Italy, April 2015) “Intellectual Prop-
erty Rights for Geographical Indications: What is at stake in the TTIP?”. This section 
includes a selection of three papers presented at the 145th EAAE Seminar. The first one, 
presented by Wirth, examines the legal and policy relationships amongst internation-
al standards for GIs, food safety requirements and voluntary claims related to a food’s 
attributes within the context of international trade agreements protecting GIs, such 
as the 1994 TRIPS Agreement, the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade 
Agreement (CETA) and the chapter on intellectual property and geographical indica-
tions in the TTIP currently under negotiation. The second contribution analyses the 
role of innovation applied to GI products. Mancini and Consiglieri state that innovation 
can make GI products competitive in the logic of the global market provided that infor-
mation asymmetry between producers and consumers is filled. The third contribution 
by Schmitt et al. measures the sustainability of value chains and it is aimed to provide a 
scientific methodology to objectively assess the real benefits and drawbacks of local ver-
sus global value chains. 
Contributions presented at the 145th EAAE agree on the fact that the “GI issue” is not 
limited to the protection of the geographical name but it also has qualitative and socio-
economic implications. Therefore, discussions about TTIP also need to examine the use of 
GIs as a rural development tool and their production model as an example of sustainabil-
ity. Certainly, it is time to cease the “war of terroir” in the interest of the environment and 
society worldwide, as well as consumers and producers. In this spirit, the debate on GIs 
in the TTIP negotiations could be an arena for fruitful discussion, and an opportunity to 
recognise what is really at stake with the GI issue.
References
Addor, F. and Grazioli, A. (2002). Geographical Indications beyond Wines and Spirits – A 
Roadmap for a Better Protection for Geographical Indications in the WTO TRIPS 
Agreement. The Journal of World Intellectual Property 5: 865-897.
133Sustainability of GI production systems in the framework of the TTIP negotiations
Allaire, G., Casabianca, F. and Thevenot-Motted, E. (2011). Geographical Origin a 
Complex Feature of Agri-Food Products. In: Barham, E. and Sylvander, B. (eds.), 
Labels of Origin for Food: Local Development, Global Recognition. Wallingford: 
CAB International. 
Arfini, F. and Mora, C. (eds.) (1998). Typical and Traditional Products: Rural Effect and 
Agroindustrial Problems. Parma: Parma University Press.
Arfini, F., Mancini, M.C. and Donati, M. (eds.) (2012). Local Agri-Food Systems in 
a Global World: Market, Social and Environmental Challenges. Cambridge: 
Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Barham, E. and Sylvander, B. (eds.) (2011). Labels of Origin for Food: Local Development, 
Global Recognition. Wallingford: CAB International.
Casabianca, F. and Touzard, J.M. (2009). Le Projet PRODDIG: Promotion du 
Developpement Durable par les Indications Geographiques. Paris: Agence Nationale 
de la Recherche, Retrieved from <http://www.corte. inra.fr/lrde2/images/files/
PRODDIG%20Rapport%20Scientifique.pdf>
Sylvander, B. and Barham, E. (2011). Introduction. In: Barham, E. and Sylvander, B. (eds.), 
Labels of Origin for Food: Local Development, Global Recognition. Wallingford: 
CAB International. 
Sylvander, B., Barjolle, D.B. and Arfini, F. (eds.) (2000). The Socioeconomics of 
Origin Labeled Products in Agro-Food Supply Chains: Spatial, Institutional and 
Co-Ordination Aspects. France: INRA.
Josling, T. (2006). The War on Terroir: Geographical Indications as a Transatlantic Trade 
Conflict. Journal of Agricultural Economics 57: 337-363. 


http://www.fupress.net/index.php/bae/article/download/17141/18710

Introduction. Sustainability of GI production systems in the framework of the TTIP negotiations

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Archivio istituzionale della Ricerca - Università degli Studi di Parma

Directory of Open Access Journals

Firenze University Press: E-Journals