Presentation Transcript

  1. European Commission PDO AND PGI PRODUCTS: MARKET, SUPPLY CHAINS AND INSTITUTIONS FAIR 1 - CT 95 - 0306 Final Report PROTECTED DESIGNATIONS OF ORIGIN AND PROTECTED GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS IN EUROPE : REGULATION OR POLICY ? RECOMMENDATIONS Dominique BARJOLLE* and Bertil SYLVANDER* * * SRVA, Lausanne, Suisse, * * INRA - UREQUA, Le Mans, France J une 2000 Project coordinator :France (INRA - UREQUA) Project partners : France (CRISALIDE) - Greece (NAGREF) - Italy (CRPA) - The Netherlands (WAU) Switzerland (EPFZ) - United Kingdorn (Wye College, University of London).

  2. Table of contents Foreword.........................................................................................................................................................................4 Sum m ary.........................................................................................................................................................................7 Introduction and methodology................................................................................................................................6 1. Questions concerning the European and International legal framework...............................................7 1.1. Legitim acy of regulation 2081/92........................................................................................................................7 1.2. Objectives and procedures relating to regulation EU 2081/92.......................................................................8 1.3. Com m unity and international legal context....................................................................................................11 2. Evaluation of institutional mechanisms and procedures.........................................................................15 2.1. Diversity of institutions and national legal bases...........................................................................................15 2.1.1. The institutions responsible for quality policy in different countries..........................................15 2.1.2. Specialised institutions responsible for PDO and PGI affairs....................................................15 2.2. Disparities in the registration procedures and the im plem entation of the regulation ...............................21 2.2.1. Sim plified procedure: historical disparities.....................................................................................21 2.2.2.. Norm al procedure..............................................................................................................................23 3. Evaluation of results...........................................................................................................................................32 3.1. Agricultural and rural policy objective..............................................................................................................32 3.2. Com petition policy objective.............................................................................................................................34 3.3. Consum er policy objective................................................................................................................................35 Conclusion...................................................................................................................................................................39 Conclusion and Recommendations....................................................................................................................40 Annexes......................................................................................................................................................................43 Annexe 1 : List of protected products by 28/03/00................................................................................................44 Annexe 2 : Table of registrations up to 28/03/00..................................................................................................49 Bibliography..............................................................................................................................................................52 The Spanish PDO-PGI Management System...........................................................Erreur ! Signet non défini.

  3. Foreword This report was undertaken under the FAIR research program m e entitled “ PDO-PGI : Market, Supply Chains and Institutions ”1 and contains final recom m endations for the European Com m ission. Individual reports of recom m endations for national institutions have been sent directly by the research team s of each country. This report only reflects the opinions of the authors2 as it proved difficult to achieve a consensus am ong the research participants concerning the recom m endations to be m ade to com m unity institutions. The report is based on the work of seven research groups in six different countries who followed sim ilar guidelines for the acquisition presentation of results3. The prim ary aim of the research was to understand and analyse m echanism s of m arket positioning, consum er attitude and value attributable to the origin of products recognised as possessing a specific quality linked to their geographical origin and validated by PDO or PGI registration. A consensus was reached am ong the different research team s concerning these analyses. Reports Title Number of reports R1 Guidelines for the com m on m ethodology for supply chain analysis Two guidelines R2 Em pirical analysis - production and m arketing & supply chain Twenty one reports R2B National food quality policy and distribution system (not contractual) One report R3 Consum er survey - qualitative research Six reports R4 Consum er survey - quantitative survey One report R5 Evaluation of the perform ance for each case study Twenty one reports R6 Synthesis by type of product Six reports R7 Global com parison One report R8/R9 Institutional analysis - Recom m endations Six reports R10 Synthesis and recom m endations to EU One report 1 FAIR contract n° CT95 - 0306. The project participants were : Fearne A. & Wilson, N., Wye College (GB), De Roest K & al, CRPA (IT), Galanopoulos K. & M attas, University of Thessaloniki, Fotopoulos C., Vakrou A. & al, NAGREF (GR), Sylvander B. & Lassaut B., INRA-UREQUA, Leusie M., Chrysalide (F), Van Ittersum K. & al., Wageningen (NL), Barjolle D, Chappuis JM, Dufour M, IER-EPFZ (CH). 2 We would particularly like to thank M artine Dufour for her help with the analysis of the com m unications carried out by the European com m unity concerning PDO and PGI (see Chapter 43 and Dufour, 1999). 3 Two Spanish products were also studied, as well as this country's institutions, which increases the num ber of countries to seven. PDO and PGI in Europe : regulations or policy ? Contrat Fair CT 95-306 : PDO and PGI Products 4

  4. Summary On com pletion of the research project, the m ain them e of this final report is that the European Com m ission has not decided between sim ple legal protection of geographical nam es and a policy of product quality and origin. On reading the pream ble to regulation 2081/92 (see table 1), it appears that justification of the regulation is based on general outcom es that relate to various policies: agricultural and rural policy, com petition policy and consum er policy. The regulation is justified by a unified vision that seeks to reconcile these different policies. However, research carried out both within and beyond the fram ework of this project4 shows that a quality policy m ust coherently bring together several highly inter-related factors such as technical defi- nition of production m ethods, the specificity (or typicity) of a product com pared to potential substitutes, and consum er understanding of these factors. The Official Labels of Quality are based on such fac- tors. In contrast, the protection of geographical nam es only requires the establishm ent of institutional mechanisms ensuring effective legal protection and does not need a broad consensus on policy. The term s of future debate concerning European AOC and PGI policy will be based on : ? ? Maintaining a broad quality policy with a m ajor effort to agree on its principles, interpretation and im plem entation throughout the European com m unity. Once quality is a technical and objective reality of products and there are sim ilar institutional m echanism s for achieving it, such a policy will im prove the credibility of consum er inform ation. ? ? Restricting policy to the sim ple legal protection for geographical nam es. The subsidiarity principle will continue to ensure that each m em ber state m aintains a certain freedom of interpretation of the regulation according to national history and context5. In this case the official “ PDO ” and “ PGI ” labels have a m uch m ore lim ited signification. In so far as there is no harm onised im plem entation of the regulation these labels cannot act as an indication to consum ers that the quality of the product is related to its origin. In such conditions, the provisions provided by article having been im plem ented in different ways and a single, general m essage on product characteristics (whether this concerns the quality, age or traditional nature of the product) will tend to m islead consum ers. These alternatives are clearly not com patible with one another. The analyses carried out within the fram ework of our research on twenty-one PDO and PGI supply chains, as well as analyses of institutions at both a national and European level, shows that diverse approaches had been adopted according to the country and product even while the Com m ission was financing a m ajor com m unication program m e aim ed at prom oting the idea of a unique concept am ong consum ers. The role of interprofessional bodies and of the strategic capacity of PDO-PGI product supply chains were clearly identified am ong the conclusions of our research program m e. The competency ofPDO-PGIinterprofessional bodies should be recognised by a particular regulation. 4 See Sylvander & Barjolles (1999), Sylvander, M ainsant & Porin (1998), Valceschini (1999), Lagrange & Trognon (1999) 5 This approach is sim ilar to that developed by C. Béchet, in Sylvander, Barjolles & Arfini (2000) PDO and PGI in Europe : regulations or policy ? Contrat Fair CT 95-306 : PDO and PGI Products 5

  5. Introduction and methodology This report is based on the national analyses of the im plem entation of regulation 2081/92, presented in the R8 reports for each country. Institutional reports sought to identify the objectives and constraints for im plem entation of regulation 2081/92, according to the specific context of the supply chains, regions and countries. They also aim ed to present and explain converging and diverging interpretations of the regulation in relation to the econom ic analysis and legal traditions of different countries, especially the legal protection of tradem arks. On this basis, this report m akes com parisons between countries in order to form ulate guiding principles and assessm ent criteria for the different policies, according to the econom ics of supply chains, regions and countries. The recom m endations for the European Com m ission and the institutions involved seek to contribute to the long term success of the quality policy for PDO-PGI products. Given the research objectives, this report does not pretend to be an exhaustive appraisal of PDO- PGI policy at a com m unity level. By m eans of m ethodologies used for the assessm ent of public policy, it tries to establish relevant com parative criteria in order to form ulate recom m endations. We have been particularly inspired by Daucé (1998, p. 383) who distinguishes between three m ethods of assessm ent6: relative, norm ative and explanatory. We have adopted the first and third approaches because, as em phasised by Daucé, it is still difficult to define a m ethodology to calculate welfare gains due to public intervention (second approach). The second chapter retraces the legal and institutional context of quality policy in Europe as well as the objectives of European regulation 2081/92. The chapter exam ines the legal scope of international accords concerning the protection of geographical nam es for agricultural and food products. The third chapter concerns institutional procedures and organisation. This "procedural" assessm ent, to m ake the link with "procedural" rationality, em phasises according to Sim on (1976) the rationality of the m ethod rather than of the results. This approach can therefore be used to define good policy principles and methods. This type of assessm ent tries to evaluate whether the results were obtained by optim al use of the chosen m ethods. The fourth chapter of our appraisal concerns the effectiveness of PDO-PGI policy by comparing the initial objectives with the results obtained. We have called this part the "substantial" assessm ent (cf. substantial rationality, Sim on 1976). We conclude with a fifth chapter of recom m endations concerning the developm ent of a European policy on quality and origin. 6 “ The first approach refers to an exam ination of declared objectives allowing one to associate the assessm ent and m easure of efficiency by the com parison of initial objectives and the results achieved…A second scenario concerns the gain in social welfare resulting from public intervention. A third approach consists of com paring the conception of the program m e with the conception one has of what should be the implemented policy". PDO and PGI in Europe : regulations or policy ? Contrat Fair CT 95-306 : PDO and PGI Products 6

  6. 1. Questions concerning the European and International legal framework 1.1. Legitimacy of regulation 2081/92 There is a fairly general consensus am ong EU m em ber states on the need to establish a com m on policy to prom ote particular qualities of agricultural and food products. However, the development of common policies on this issue has been clearly impeded by the difficulty of defining what is m eant by "quality". Throughout our research program m e we encountered the difficulty of interpreting the regulation even am ong our group of researchers. This leads us to propose the establishm ent of a com m on term inology for use within the com m unity. The m ain issues of debate concerning the m eaning of the term "quality" are as follows: 1. Does quality refer to a m inim um standard of health and safety that m ust be achieved? If so, the only legitim ate question concerns the health and safety inform ation of a product. This is a "vertical" approach to quality. 2. Does quality refer to a factor differentiating between products? This is a "horizontal" approach to quality. 3. Does quality relate to the geographical origin? How is this relationship to be understood? Does this allow for im itation and/or appropriation of a geographic nam e, or does it im ply the need for legal protection? 4. Is product differentiation exclusively the affair of individual private enterprises or should it be based on a collective approach? How can quality m anagem ent and com m unication be integrated in a collective approach? 5. Is it sim ply a question of legal protection or of "official labels of quality"? Two opposing types of response to these questions lead to very different understandings of the role of consum ers and business in the m arket econom y and the role of public authorities in issues of agricultural, com petition and consum er inform ation policies. ? ? The first understanding of the term "quality" is that it refers to a m inim um standard that acts as a health guarantee for consum ers. In this perspective, product differentiation is the responsibility of individual businesses. This fundam entally questions the justification of public intervention in policies that differentiate products according to qualities relating to their m ethod of agricultural production, their origin or any other distinguishing factor. According to this understanding, the m arket plays a regulatory role. The viability of businesses depends on their ability to adopt to consum er dem and which, with suitable inform ation, is able to assess product quality. The role of the state is lim ited to intervening o nly in respect to health and safety m atters. Official labels of quality, like other protectionist m easures, are highly suspect. ? ? The second understanding of "quality" is based on a wider conception of the term . The quality of agricultural and food products is considered to be m ore com plex with health quality being only one aspect. Superior qualities which cannot be appreciated before purchase, notably the sensorial quality, require specific regulations in order to protect consum ers against unverified claim s and to protect business against unfair com petition. The various aspects of superior quality allow the differentiation of m arketed products. It has long been accepted that the PDO and PGI in Europe : regulations or policy ? Contrat Fair CT 95-306 : PDO and PGI Products 7

  7. protective m easures of several European Union m em ber states are appropriate in m any cases such as organic production and the specialised production of particular regions. The im itation or appropriation of designated nam es exploits the reputation of products produced under costly conditions without being subject to these sam e conditions and hence at lower cost. This practice is perceived as unfair com petition. In this second understanding, the collective dimension of the production of distinctive regional specialities is considered obvious. In regards to the legitim acy of PDO-GPI regulation 2081/92, these two different conceptions lead to m isunderstandings between countries of North and South Europe. In Latin countries (including Switzerland) wide-ranging national legislation on the protection of geographical nam es for agricultural and f ood products has historically led to judicial decrees or rulings7 based on established jurisprudence. The legitim acy of the com m unity regulation, therefore, appears evident to these southern European countries. Despite the opinion of certain analysts in northern European countries, the protection of geographical nam es is not an attem pt to establish restrictive and protectionist trade legislation. Justification for the adoption of regulation 2081/92 is the result of several factors, legal as well as econom ic: ??From the point of view of the law concerning the protection of provenance, system atic PDO and PGI registration is necessary at the level of the European Union in a sim ilar way to the protection of intellectual property. The proliferation of jurisprudence and the existing bases of bi or m ultilateral international agreem ents required a harm onisation on the borders of the Union. This is an im portant point given the increased trade both within the EU and between the EU and other countries. ??From the point of view of competition, the protection of businesses against abusive use of geographical nam es of established reputation becam e a priority upon creation of the single m arket. With frontier controls disappearing between different EU countries, there is a need for controls within each country and a call for protection ex officio of geographical nam es (cf. infra). ??From the point of view of consumer protection, there is a strong dem and for the harm onisation of requirem ents which respect the provenance of established geographical nam es. The consumer has become more demanding in regards to labelling and the respect of good agricultural and industrial practices following the various food quality problem s having health im plications. Transparency and traceability are of increasing im portance. 1.2. Objectives and procedures relating to regulation EU 2081/92 For the procedural and substantial analysis of the policy for protecting geographical nam es, we will begin by the analysis of the pream bles to the regulation. The regulation is the result of negotiation involving diverse national and cultural interests (Rom ain-Prot, 2000) but also interest groups of different econom ic sectors organised on the basis of shared international concerns (solidarity between producers, artisans or industries). 7 In all countries the protection of geographical nam es began with wines and spirits and this intensifies the strength of feeling in southern countries concerning the issue of PDO and PGI protection PDO and PGI in Europe : regulations or policy ? Contrat Fair CT 95-306 : PDO and PGI Products 8

  8. The issues needing to be reconciled concern different policies according to historical distinctions m ade between agricultural, regional developm ent, consum er protection and com petition policies. The attem pts at reconciliation can be identified in the pream bles to the regulation which are good indications of the settlem ents negotiated between the different parties. In addition to a contextual elem ent, serving as a general justification of the regulation ([pream ble 1 : “ the production, fabrication and distribution of agricultural products and derived food products has a m ajor place in the Com m unity's econom y), we can identify several objectives and a collection of procedures among the preambles. 1.2..1. Objectives of regulation 2081/92 The objectives of the regulation can be classified according to three categories: ??A. An agricultural and rural policy objective which can be broken down into three sub-objectives: ?? A1. Encourage the diversification of agricultural production (agricultural policy) ?? A2. Achieve a better balance between supply and dem and (m arket policy) ?? A3. Prom ote the value of products for the developm ent of rem ote or less-favoured regions, with the secondary aim of stabilising populations and im proving farm incom es (rural development policy) ??B. A competition policy objective: ?? B1. Guarantee equal com petition between the producers of products benefiting from these designations ??C. A consum er policy objective with two sub-objectives: ?? C1. Clarity (“ consum ers m ust, in order to be able to make the best choice, be given clear and succinct inform ation regarding the origin of the product”) ?? C2. Credibility (“to enhance the credibility of these products in the eyes of the consum er”) 1.2.2. .Implementation procedures To achieve these objectives, the regulation defines procedures and rules while leaving it to each m em ber state to appoint suitable institutions. ??Harm onisation of the regulatory fram ework ??Fields of application (exclusion of wines and spirits, agreem ents with third-party countries) ??Conform ity with the general fram ework of Com m unity law (respect of the rights of all individual or legal entities) ??Equal com petition between producers The text of these pream bles is as follows: PDO and PGI in Europe : regulations or policy ? Contrat Fair CT 95-306 : PDO and PGI Products 9

  9. Table 1 : Analysis of the preambles to regulation 2081/92 Substantial Objective 1 : Agricultural policy 2. Whereas, as part of the adjustm ent of the com m on agricultural policy the diversification of agricultural production should be encouraged so as to achieve a better balance between supply and dem and on the m arkets; whereas the prom otion of products having certain characteristics could be of considerable benefit to the rural econom y, in particular to less- favoured or rem ote areas, by im proving the incom es of farm ers and by retaining the rural population in these areas; 7. Whereas, however, there is diversity in the national practices for im plem enting registered designations or origin and geographical indications; whereas a Com m unity approach should be envisaged; whereas a fram ework of Com m unity rules on protection will perm it the developm ent of geographical indications and designations of origin since, by providing a m ore uniform approach, such a fram ework will ensure fair com petition between the producers of products bearing such indications and enhance the credibility of the products in the consum ers' eyes; 4. Whereas in view of the wide variety of products m arketed and of the abundance of inform ation concerning them provided, consum ers m ust, in order to be able to m ake the best choice, be given clear and succinct inform ation regarding the origin of the product; Procedural 5. Whereas the labelling of agricultural products and foodstuffs i s subject to the general rules laid down in Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 Decem ber 1978 on the approxim ation of the laws of the Mem ber States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (4); whereas, in view of their specific nature, additional special provisions should be adopted for agricultural products and foodstuffs from a specified geographical area; 7. Whereas, however, there is diversity in the national practices for im plem enting registered designations or origin and geographical indications; whereas a Com m unity approach should be envisaged; whereas a fram ework of Com m unity rules on protection will perm it the developm ent of geographical indications and designations of origin since, by providing a m ore uniform approach, such a fram ework will ensure fair com petition between the producers of products bearing such indications and enhance the credibility of the products in the consum ers' eyes; 16. Whereas provision should be m ade for a procedure establishing close co-operation between the Mem ber States and the Com m ission through a Regulatory Com m ittee set up for that purpose, 8. Whereas the planned rules should take account of existing Com m unity legislation on wines and spirit drinks, which provide for a higher level of protection; 9. Whereas the scope of this Regulation is lim ited to certain agricultural products and foodstuffs for which a link between product or foodstuff characteristics and geographical origin exists; whereas, however, this scope could be enlarged to encom pass other products or foodstuffs; 15. Whereas provision should be m ade for trade with third countries offering equivalent guarantees for the issue and inspection of geographical indications or designations of origin granted on their territory; 7. Whereas, however, there is diversity in the national practices for im plem enting registered designations or origin and geographical indications; whereas a Com m unity approach should be envisaged; whereas a fram ework of Com m unity rules on protection will perm it the developm ent of geographical indications and designations of origin since, by providing a m ore uniform approach, such a fram ework will ensure fair com petition between the producers of products bearing such indications and enhance the credibility of the products in the consum ers' eyes; Objective 2 : Com petition policy Objective 3 : Consum er policy Harm onisation of the regulation’s fram ework Scope of the regulation Conform ity with the overall legal fram ework Fair com petition PDO and PGI in Europe : regulations or policy ? Contrat Fair CT 95-306 : PDO and PGI Products 10

  10. This analysis justifies our approach as one can clearly see the concerns of the legislator to both fix the objectives of the regulation (in respect to agricultural, com petition, and consum er policies) and to define appropriate procedures and processes to allow their realisation (harm onisation of approaches, fields of application and internal coherence). 1.3. Community and international legal context The protection of geographical nam es designating agricultural products has existed since the end of the 19th century both in the national legislation of certain countries and in m ultilateral agreem ents. The problem is that certain agricultural products and foodstuffs are traditionally identified in every-day language by the geographical nam e of their region or place of m anufacture. From the point of view of intellectual property, the nam e of these products does not fall within the law on tradem arks. In principle, registration of a geographical nam e as a tradem ark reserved for the exclusive use of a private enterprise or com pany is not possible. The geographical nam e distinguishes itself from an im aginary nam e in being a public good and this aspect prevents it from being attributed in a restrictive m anner to a single enterprise as this would be a m onopolisation of a public good. The registration of geographical nam es as tradem arks can however be achieved indirectly according to varying principals in different countries: ??In certain countries, the registration of geographical nam es in any form is ruled out by law and this is also the position defended by the Com m unity Directive on tradem arks which should take precedence in the countries of the European Union. ??In other countries, geographical nam es can be registered in the form of graphical tradem arks. In th is case, several logos bearing the geographical nam e m ay coexist am ong registered tradem arks. ??In som e countries, geographical nam es can be legally registered as "verbal" tradem arks (and not sim ply in the form of a logo) allowing their exclusive use by the holder on condition that it be a "certified tradem ark". This is notably the case in Australia, Canada and the United States. ??Finally, several countries often unknowingly accept registration of geographical nam es as verbal tradem arks because they are unaware that the m ark is a geographical nam e. The authorities responsible for registration can easily identify the nature of a geographical nam e referring to a region or locality of the sam e country, but when a nam e refers to a region of a distant country it is alm ost im possible for them to do so. With increased trade and globalisation, it is increasingly com m on to find in the shops products that have been m anufactured outside of their region of origin and according to very different processes. These products closely resemble genuine products, but do not possess the same characteristics and m islead the consum er about their true origin when the m anufacturer identifies the product using a geographical nam e. This is a particularly im portant problem when the im itation is present in the country or region of origin of the genuine product. The problem needing to be resolved is above all a question of fraud and r equires a sim ilar international approach as that concerning the protection of intellectual property (tradem arks, patents and inventions). The fight against fraud has two aim s: that of protecting business against unfair com petition and that of protecting consum ers against m isleading inform ation. These two aspects (unfair com petition and consum er protection) are regulated at the national, com m unity and international level by num erous com plem entary arrangem ents. We will exam ine here only the protection of geographical nam es used to designate agricultural products and foodstuffs. PDO and PGI in Europe : regulations or policy ? Contrat Fair CT 95-306 : PDO and PGI Products 11

  11. Principal agreements and their scope The Convention d’Union de Paris (1883) was the first m ultilateral agreem ent concerning protected designations and geographical indications and has been m anaged since 1970 by WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organisation). Unfortunately this agreem ent does not respond to all of the problem s concerning geographical indications and in particular to neither the "degeneration" of geographical nam es (which through abuse becom e the equivalent of com m on nam es) nor the use of false indications such as the attribution of a geographical nam e to a product that has no ties whatsoever with the region or locality. The first general m ultilateral agreem ent was the TRIPS8 agreem ent that was reached during the last round of the WTO negotiations. Previous m ultilateral agreem ents, involving only a relatively sm all num ber of countries, were as follows: ??The Madrid Agreem ent (1891) : signed by 31 pays, it established a protection against fraudulent and m isleading indications of provenance. The m echanism for protection is based on confiscation by custom s of im ported goods. This agreem ent has two weak points. Firstly the signatories do not include either the North Am erican or New World countries. Secondly, the abusive use of indications of provenance accom panied by such term s as "type" or "kind" is allowed if the true origin is also indicated. ??The Stresa Convention (1951) : signed by 8 pays, including Switzerland and France, this agreem ent concerns a lim ited num ber of protected designations of origin and denom inations of cheese (two countries recently withdrew from the convention). The protected designations of origin are registered according to the national regulations and can then be listed in Annexe A of the convention. Annexe B is reserved for cheese denom inations for which the use is subject to certain succinct specifications. The scope of protection is greater than that offered by the Madrid Settlem ent since it prohibits the use of term s like "type" or "kind". ??The Lisbon Agreem ent (1958) : this agreem ent was ratified by only 17 countries. Appellations of origin are registered initially with their country of origin and then with the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) in Geneva. The registered nam es are thereby protected against im itation including products m arketed using term s like "type", "kind" or "style" etc. The protection is wide-ranging and accom panied by a strict definition of a protected designation of origin.9 ??The Olive Oil Agreem ent (1963) : signed by 13 olive oil producing countries to ensure fair com petition between olive oil exporting countries, whether producers or not, and to guarantee im porting countries a supply that conform s with the term s of agreed contracts. Several bilateral agreem ents also exist, although having a m ore restrictive scope: ??“ EU-Australian ” wine agreem ent : established reciprocal protection for wine appellations of origin. Australia signed on the 24th January 1994 a bilateral agreem ent with the European Union. Access to the com m unity's m arket for Australian wines was granted in return for the recognition 8 Trade Related to Intellectual Property RightS. In French : ADPIC (Accord relatif aux aspects des Droits de Propriété Intellectuelle qui touchent au Com m erce). 9 A equivalent definition to that of the European regulation (2081/92). PDO and PGI in Europe : regulations or policy ? Contrat Fair CT 95-306 : PDO and PGI Products 12

  12. and respect of appellations already registered in the European Union. Previously, the Australian protection of indications of provenance was based on a conception characteristic of English- speaking nations whereby dam ages due the "passing-off" of product for another m ust be proved by the plaintiff. ??Switzerland-EU free trade agreem ent: established the principle of m utual recognition of appellations of origin and geographical indications. The legal basis for PDO and PGI definition and protection are com parable. ??World trade and developm ent agreem ent between the EU and South Africa. The TRIPS agreem ents open up the possibility of wider and m ore general protection given the 135 states that have ratified the agreem ent. Geographical indications have a place in an agreem ent on the protection of intellectual property that is clearly distinct from that of tradem arks. The definition of geographical indications is also clarified10. However, the current weakness of the agreem ent is that protection is accorded under the understanding that the plaintiff is responsible for proving dam ages (according to the principles of Com m on Law). In the case of abuse, it is the injured party or business that m ust supply proof of dam age11 and obtain com pensation by m eans of a judicial trial and judgem ent. This type of protection is greatly inferior to the protection ex officio accorded to designations of origin and geographical indications throughout the com m unity by regulation EC 2081/92 and in countries having ratified the Lisbon Agreem ent or the Strasa Convention. The distinction between protection ex officio (the conception of PDO and PGI protection held by Latin countries) and private law protection (the conception of protection for indications of provenance in Anglo-Saxon countries) The difference in the scope of protection accorded by the TRIPS agreem ents and that accorded by regulation EC 2081/92 is im portant. The different protection accorded derives from two types of rule. The reason ruleapplies under the conception of the TRIPS agreem ents. The principles established by the international agreem ent open up the possibility of lodging a com plaint against national and international jurisdictions. The court rules after a trial during which the two parties present their case. The plaintiff obtains dam ages on the basis of the dam ages suffered. The rule per se would is a stronger basis for the protection of the injured party. The rule per se allows for different scenarios and perm its the state to sue for dam ages in the absence of any com plaint from the injured party. Certain anti-trust m easures in the United States com e under the rule per se and allow the FTC ( Federal Trade Com m ission) to intervene in order to prevent m onopolies or dom inant m arket positions. For wines and spirits the TRIPS agreem ent perm its the operation of the rule per se for the protection of PDO and PGI designations of these products. 10 The TRIPS agreem ent gives the following definition of geographical indications: “ indications which identify a good as originating in the territory of a M em ber, or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographical origin ” This wide-ranging definition covers both designations of origin and geographical indications as they are understood by regulation 2081/92, including traditional nam es that are not strictly geographical designations. 11 The plaintiff m ust supply three types of proof: deception of the consum er, consum er awareness of product reputation and dam age suffered. PDO and PGI in Europe : regulations or policy ? Contrat Fair CT 95-306 : PDO and PGI Products 13

  13. The current position in the United States is the result of the system atisation of intellectual property law. In fact, the protection of tradem arks and patents is left to the discretion of the courts. The national and international registration of tradem arks never corresponds with a protection ex officio. In the absence of any kind of adm inistrative intervention or process, the owners of tradem arks or patents m ust lodge a com plaint them selves. In this sense, the current declared European intention of greater protection of AO and GI runs counter to the system atisation of intellectual property law. Nevertheless, the European position is justified by two im portant factors: ??Appellations of origin and geographical indications are separate notions from sim ple indications of provenance. The AO and GI designations apply to goods whose characteristics are tied to and inseparable from their geographic provenance. This designation does not apply to any product whose geographical provenance is indicated if they do not possess any specificity relating to this place of origin. It is a question of requiring respect for accepted and established local custom s (com m ercial practices) of products whose origin is synonym ous in the eyes of consum ers to a certain quality and established characteristics. ??AO and GI products are a collective property. In this respect they are public goods whose m anagem ent is delegated to their users. The intellectual property, both of the nam e used and the intrinsic properties of the goods, includes a patrim onial aspect which justifies public intervention against m isuse. The special case of wines and spirits in the TRIPS agreement Greater protection is accorded by the TRIPS agreem ent to AO wines and spirits. This additional protection (art. 23 TRIPS) allows for: ??WTO m em ber states to establish (by WTO recom m endation) a national system to prevent fraudulent use of a GI even if the true origin is indicated on the labelling. ??the registration of a tradem ark for wines or spirits to be refused or invalidated ex officio if the dom estic legislation so perm its or by request of a third party. ??in the case of hom onym ous indications for wines, the m em ber states m ust ensure that dom estic legislation ensures equitable treatm ent of identical geographical indications so that consum ers are not m isled about the true origin of the product. Beyond the protection of intellectual property, AO and GI protection raises two m ajor questions that have not yet been resolved in international law: ??In so far as the geographical nature of a nam e designating a product confers on this nam e a collective and public aspect, to what extent does this justify special treatm ent for the protection of intellectual property (application of a rule per se rather than reason rule)? ??Does the difficulty of m em ber states to identify those geographical nam es which m erit protection, due to the truly specific nature and long recognised reputation of the product, justify the system atic registration of these nam es at an international level in order to avoid m isappropriation through their abusive registration as com m ercial tradem arks? The attitude of the WTO m em ber states is inevitably influenced by different conceptions of how to prevent unfair com petition and of general com petition policy. PDO and PGI in Europe : regulations or policy ? Contrat Fair CT 95-306 : PDO and PGI Products 14

  14. 2. Evaluation of institutional mechanisms and procedures for the implementation of regulation 2081/92 The institutions and procedures adopted for the application of the regulation vary greatly am ong different countries. 2.1. Diversity of institutions and national legal bases 2.1.1. The institutions responsible for quality policy in different countries Our research project studied seven countries (France, Italy, Spain, Great Britain, Netherlands, Greece, and Switzerland)12. Report 2B13, subm itted after the first year, showed that those countries (Great Britain, Netherlands, Greece, Switzerland) which do not traditionally possess a quality policy based on specific references (such as notions of superior, traditional or specific quality) possess only general institutions. Their objectives are to define a standard quality (largely in term s of health) and to ensure that product labelling inform s and protects consum ers. In these countries no specific institution is responsible for the application regulation 2081/92. Those countries having a broader understanding of quality (Italy, France, Spain, Portugal) also possess specific institutions largely responsible for the application of the regulation14. These institutional differences have without doubt im portant consequences for the application of the regulation. The general problem is to resolve conflicts between health, agricultural, industrial and consum er inform ation policies. Different authorities are generally responsible for the control of labelling, product analysis and com m ercial aspects which allows for the resolution of conflicts. As consum er protection and com petition policy m ay conflict with the protection of designations of origin, one im agines that the resolution of such a conflict would be m ore problem atic if it did not involve separate institutions. The conflict will be resolved within the sam e institution or between different intuitions according to the case. Finally, one observes that particular institutions, or even particular groups within non-specialised institutions, tend to develop their own particular interpretation of regulations and jurisprudence which can lim it the em ergence or strengthening of a specific policy. 2.1.2. Specialised institutions responsible for PDO and PGI affairs The countries of southern Europe have accorded greater im portance and m eans for the support of products of certified origin (France, Italy, Spain et and to a lesser extent Portugal), while northern countries have neither accorded specific aid nor appointed institutions, being happy to act as sim ple adm inistrative interm ediaries between the concerned professions and the European Com m unity. In France, a protection by recourse to justice (through the lodging of a com plaint by the injured party) subsequently led in the 1930's15 to the regulation of designations of origin (Appellations 12 These national analyses were all contractual obligations except for Spain which we added on own initiative. 13 General report on the food quality policies and the food m arketing system s, 1997. 14 Greece, however, is currently developing specialised institutions. 15 cf. protection of Roquefort (1922), Com té (1952) and Cantal (1956). PDO and PGI in Europe : regulations or policy ? Contrat Fair CT 95-306 : PDO and PGI Products 15

  15. d'Origine) firstly for cheeses and then for other agricultural products and foodstuffs16. Designations of origin are m anaged by a public institution (INAO - Institut National des Appellations d'Origine) whose annual budget reached 92 m illion French francs in 1997 and who em ploys over 200 people of which about 150 are based in 26 regional offices. INAO, which is responsible for the investigation and approval of designations, requires applications to be made by local, representative professional bodies who play a key institutional role. Following the law of 3/01/1994, PGI applications were investigated by a joint com m ittee of representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture, INAO and private certified bodies. However, since the agricultural law of 1/01/1999, applications have been handled by INAO alone in respect to the process of PGI recognition and the definition of production zones, and by certified bodies in respect to the control of production conditions Dem ands for PGI recognition can only be m ade by applicants already possessing a Label Rouge or Certificat de Conform ité Produit French quality sign, according to the law of 4/01/1994 and revised by the agricultural law of 01/07/1999. In institutional term s this can be problem atic as the first m ust be collective initiatives (due to the definition of the applicant group) while the second may be individuals. 16 Decree of 1935 which created the AOC designations and the public organisation responsible for m anaging the system (INAO). The law of 28 Novem ber 1955 defined m ore precisely the conditions of AOC recognition of cheeses (Appellations d’Origine From agères or AOF). PDO and PGI in Europe : regulations or policy ? Contrat Fair CT 95-306 : PDO and PGI Products 16

  16. Ministry of agriculture D.G.A.L.* D.P.E.I.* C.N.L.C. * : control plans section C.N.L.C. * : Code of practice section I.N.A.O.* 4th committee 3 Applicant group 2 Inspection body 4 1 1 : Constitution of an association 2 :Control with free choice of an inspection body 3 : Apply for a FQS ( French Quality Sign) 4 : Apply for PGI Actors * DGAL : Departm ent of food policy * DPEI : Direction of econom ics and international policies * CNLC : National com m ission of labels and certifications Scheme 1 : The French PGI Management System * INAO : National institute of designations of origin * DGCCRF : Departm ent of com petition, quality control and repression of frauds

  17. Ministry of agriculture D.P.E.I. INAO regional committee INAO permanent committee 3 Applicant group 2 INAO local centre 4 1 1 : Constitution of an association 2 : Management of the application 3 : Advice 4 : Examination and decision Actors * INAO : National institute of designations of origin perm anent com m ittees : 1st C. : for wines and alcohols Scheme 2 : The French PDO management system 2nd C. : for cheese and dairy products 3rd C. : for other agricultural products and foodstuffs

  18. In Italy, the law of 1954 fixed the fundam ental rules governing the attribution and protection of designations of cheese origin or specificity17. The PDO system for Italian cheeses is still based on this law. This legislation also established a National Com m ittee for the protection of cheeses of designated origin and specificity. This com m ittee is the highest national body advising and supporting a public adm inistration faced by the various interests of the sector. The law charges Consortium s with the responsibility for effecting m andatory cheese quality controls. These voluntary Consortium s, form ed with the approval of the producers them selves, function in a self- regulatory m anner while perform ing a public service of m onitoring products and repressing fraud. The Ministry of Agriculture renders these sam e Consortium s responsible for the m anagem ent of the PDO m ark. In Italy there is an equal involvem ent of the state and the region. The region of Em ilie-Rom agne, for exam ple, finances laboratories and data collection on the biochem ical quality of m ilk used for the production of Parm igiano-Reggiano cheese (Antonello., De Roest, Corradini, 1997). The autonom ous region of Vallée d’Aoste finances, am ong others, the construction of new warehouses as well as a network of paths allowing access to alpine pastures (Antonello, De Roest, Corradini, 1997). of PDO, PGI and TSG products Product Product Product Working Working Working Group Group Group Ministry of Agricultural Policy National Com m ittee for the Valorisation Regione Emilia- Romagna Regione Piem onte Other regions Applicant group Actors 17 Law no 125 of the 10 April 1954. PDO and PGI in Europe : regulations or policy ? Contrat Fair CT 95-306 : PDO and PGI Products 19

  19. In Switzerland, the PDO and PGI designations are the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture. A PDO and PGI federal com m ission was established to exam ine applications. Com posed of about twenty professional representatives and a few independent experts, this com m ission is the sole specialised PDO and PGI institution. The professional bodies involved in PDO and PGI production can receive official recognition granting them the authority to supervise supply chain participants (essentially in respect to tax collection for product prom otion and the definition of m inim um quality criteria). Sales prom otion of PDO and PGI products is ensured by a voluntary body that regroups sim ilar products for prom otion. Prom otion receives a 50% subsidy on condition that an equivalent sum is provided by interprofessional bodies. Certification is the responsibility of private organisations and a public body under the adm inistrative authority of the cantons. In Spain, the Sub-Directorate G eneral of Quality Designations (responsible to the Directorate General of Food which is in turn responsible to the General Secretariat of Food and Agriculture of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food) is the institution charged with the im plem entation of Spanish policy concerning national designations of origin and geographical indications. The registration of Spanish designations takes place at two levels: ??the Autonom ous Com m unities (Directorate General of Agriculture) approve the establishm ent of the Consejo Regulador and the regulation of the designation which is protected throughout the territory of the Autonom ous Com m unity (AC); ??the Autonom ous Com m unity seeks ratification of the application from the Ministry of Agriculture (Madrid). This ratification is published in the Spain's official governm ent journal and thereby receives protection throughout the whole of Spain. European PGI-PDO products are subject to the sam e procedures as Spanish designations with the following additional step (Royal Decree of 22/10/99) : ??the Autonom ous Com m unity supplies the Ministry of Agriculture with the docum ents required under regula-tion 2081/92 (cf. Article 3 of the decree) justifying the registration of the PGI/PDO. ??the Ministry (Madrid) ensures that the application conform s with the requirem ents of regulation 2081/92 and forwards it to Brussels. Consejo regulador provisoire (représentation équilibrée producteurs/transformateurs) si l'aire dépend d'une seule Direction générale de l'agriculture de la Communauté Dossier Communauté autonome si l'aire géographique excède 2 Communautés Décret de la Communauté autonome Sous-Direction du Ministère De l’Agriculture, de la Pêche et de l’Alimentation Ministère de l'Economie Publication au Journal Officiel espagnol d'un arrêté Scheme 3 : The Spanish PDO – PGI Management System PDO and PGI in Europe : regulations or policy ? Contrat Fair CT 95-306 : PDO and PGI Products 20

  20. To conclude, our analysis can be extended to identify the differences in PDO and PGI management among the c ountries studied (Table 2 below). Only two countries, France and Spain, have established entire specialised adm inistrations. Three countries, Italy, Greece and Switzerland, possess specialised com m issions established within m ore general institutions. These five countries are often counted am ong the "Latin" or southern European countries. In contrast, Great Britain and the Netherlands do not (yet ?) have any particular system . The presentation of the situation in the different countries shows that im plem entation of regulation 2081/92 does not show any signs of convergence. In the following section we exam ine whether the interpretation of the fundam ental nature of a protected designation of origin or geographical indication follows sim ilar lines for the different countries and products studied. Table 12 : The institutions responsible for PDO and PGI within the countries studied France GB Italy Specific Dom estic Institutions and Food M arket com petition division national PDO- PGI Private or public Inspection Body ? PDO : Public institution (INAO) public Specialised for PDO – PGI Inspection Body? Institutions in charge of legal actions 2.2. Disparities in the registration procedures and the implementation of the regulation NL Greece No : Com m ittee for PDO-PGI Spain Yes (INDO) CH Yes : INAO No : Ministry of Agriculture No : No : Central Com m odity Board for Agricultural Products No (Federal Com m ission) Com m ittee for Safeguarding and valorisation of PGI : Private (Certification bodies) Private Larges volum es : private Sm all volum es : Private Public so far Private body com ing Public Public and private PGI : Yes PDO : No No : generic institution Yes No : generic institutions (RVV, COKZ, KCB) Not until now but will com e Yes INAO for both PGI and PDO Private lawyers ? ? ? ? Ministry of Justice 2.2.1. Simplified procedure: historical disparities Most PDO-PGI products registered during the first few years followed what was called a "simplified procedure" (article 17 of the regulation) for denom inations that w ere already subject to national protection or, in the absence of a legal base for PDO-PGI, whose use clearly justified registration. This procedure had the advantage of respecting rights acquired before the application stricto sensu of the regulation. In total, 422 products have benefited from this procedure and these are listed in the following regulations: PDO and PGI in Europe : regulations or policy ? Contrat Fair CT 95-306 : PDO and PGI Products 21

  21. Table 13 : Registrations under the simplified procedure Regulation number 1107/96 1263/96 123/97 2325/97 Date 12/6/96 1/07/96 23/01/97 24/11/97 Number of Applications 317 64 16 25 Annexe 1 lists the applications by product that have benefited from article 17. The m ain products concerned are cheeses (129 registrations), fruit and vegetables (81 registrations), fresh m eats (76 registrations) and olive oils (42 registrations). This procedure, which was intended to be for a transitory period only, is still in use due to conflicting procedures, conflicts between m em ber states and judgem ents of the court of justice. The m ost controversial cases are Bayerische Bier (Germ any), Avoine (Austria), Cacciatore (Italy) and 300 Germ an m ineral waters (of which the rem oval from the system is currently being negotiated due to incom patibility with the directive on "m ineral waters"). The Feta cheese affair (the application of which was quashed by the European Court of Justice due to opposition from France and Denm ark) is still on-going as a new demand is expected from Greece. In regards to Central and Eastern European Countries, 140 requests from the Czech Republic are currently being processed through the sim plified procedure. One clear problem concerns Budweiser beer which is claim ed as an PDO by the Czech Republic while being a registered as a tradem ark in the USA. The study of this sim plified procedure and its working proves interesting. Firstly, even if the procedure is presented as an exception, its application will certainly influence future registrations within the fram ework of the norm al procedure. Secondly, the products reflect by definition the pre- existing im pedim ents and history of national policies which will also be the cause of divergent applications of subsequent regulation18. In so far as concerns our research project, the products studied were as follows: Table 14 : The 21 PDO-PGI supply chains studied Country France Cantal, Agneau du Quercy, Com té, Pom m es de terre de Merville, Huile d'olive de Nyons Greece Feta, Zagora Mèla, Peza Olive Oil Italy Prosciutto di Parm a, Parm igiano Reggiano, Fontina Netherlands Noord-Hollandse Edam m er, Boeren-Leidse m et Sleutels (cheese), Opperdoezer Ronde (potatoes) UK West Country Farm house Cheddar Cheese, Scotch Lam b, Jersey Royal Potatoes Spain Jam ón de Terruel, Ternasco de Aragon Switzerland Gruyère, Abricot Luizet du Valais 18 It's without doubt the reason for which the com m ission's experts insisted that the 21 supply chains studied by our project should include only those products registered before 1996 (as they could only have been the result of the sim plified procedure of the tim e). Product PDO and PGI in Europe : regulations or policy ? Contrat Fair CT 95-306 : PDO and PGI Products 22

  22. The diversity of products registered under the sim plified procedure results from the fact that the products have been the object of national procedures before harm onisation. Within the fram ework of the sim plified procedure19, the dem ands transm itted to the Com m ission were very varied. As a consequence the registrations themselves correspond tp products possessing vary varied characteristics. 2.2.2.. Normal procedure By the end of 1999, there were 88 existing PDO applications, 29 PGI dem ands and 26 requests for m odification to the Official Specifications. Within each m em ber state, the im plem entation of the regulations continues at several levels. The regulations are for direct application and do not require a national legal base for their im plem entation. Nonetheless, and in accord with the principle of subsidiarity which prevails within the Union, the power of the m em ber states rem ains im portant. In that which concerns the protected designations of origin and geographical indications, the autonom y of m em ber states is im portant within the following dom ains: ??Professional inform ation and the establishm ent of specialised inform ation centres and resources at a national and regional level. ??Verification and approval of applications and their transm ission to Brussels. ??Supervision of certification and control of products. ??Enforcem ent of protected nam es by both diplom atic and legal channels. Each m em ber state should have developed their own procedures, m ostly via pre-existing institutions, but as we have seen in the preceding section these have generally been little prepared for the treatm ent of applications. Our analysis dem onstrates the great disparity in the application procedures of the regulation. Our analysis is presented under five headings: ? ? Interpretation of general principles ? ? Application procedures : applicant group legitim acy ? ? Application processing procedures ? ? Institutions ? ? Inspection bodies ? ? Protection of PDO and PGI against usurpation by third parties The following table shows the differences in m em ber state approaches under each of these five headings. Each of these issues is then exam ined in m ore detail. 19 European regulation 2081/92 foresaw as a initial step a "sim plified" registration procedure for designations benefiting from a national protection before the 26 January 1994, the date on which the m em ber states would notify the Com m ission of those designations: (1) that were the object of protection within a national system or (2) whose use justified their protection should such a system not exist. 4549 products (306 PDO and 153 PGI) were registered under this sim plified procedure. The sim plified procedure im plied that the Com m ission reach ed a decision without any form al procedure for opposition. PDO and PGI in Europe : regulations or policy ? Contrat Fair CT 95-306 : PDO and PGI Products 23

  23. Table 15 : Comparative table of the procedures of each member state France GB Italy NL Greece Spain CH Interpretation of the regulation Interpretation of quality, typicity & specificity PDO : + PGI : under discussion Weak PDO : + PGI : industrial Weak Weak AOC : + PGI : weaker Interpretation of quality - region link PDO & PGI :strict Weak Weak Weak Weak Strict Interpretation of zoning Strict Weak Average Weak PDO : tight PGI : larger For both criteria the ties to the terroir and rights are accepted Application Control of exis-tence? Applicant classification Yes ? Yes No No Yes appointed Yes Control of representativ eness? Yes ? Yes No Yes Yes Application guidelines? No Yes No No No Yes Application file processing Different PDO and PGI procedures ? PDO : INAO PGI : INAO & Certification Bodies No No No No No Application file guidelines? No No No No No Yes Specific national institutions Yes. INAO No : Ministry of Agriculture and Food Market com petition division No : Com m ittee for Safeguarding and valorisation of national PDO-PGI No : Central Commodity Board for Agricultural Products No : Com m ittee for PDO-PGI Yes Regional decision- making institutions and level? No Local consultation INAO No Yes Regional governm ent Special proce-dures in Em ila Rom agna and Piem onte Yes : at regional level No No Yes No Public inquiry and level? Managem ent of opposition PDO : at regional level PGI : Yes No Yes No No Internal or external expert consultation? PDO : external PGI : external Yes internal Yes Yes : internal (CCBAP) Yes : Internal External expert consultation but only on the form and not the detail PDO and PGI in Europe : regulations or policy ? Contrat Fair CT 95-306 : PDO and PGI Products 24

  24. Guideline appraisal PGI: Yes PDO: No No No No No No N° of appraisals Technical Zoning PGI : 1 PDO : 2 (technical and zoning) 1 1 1 1 None Institutions Public or private control body? PGI : Private PDO : Public Private Larges volu- m es : private Small volu- m es : public Private Public so far Private body coming Public Public et private Inspection Specialised control body? Yes No Yes No : generic (RVV, COKZ, KCB) Yes (to com e) Yes Independent accreditation? PGI : Yes (COFRAC) PDO : No Yes Sincert Yes Yes Yes Control of production conditions? PGI : Yes PDO : + or - Yes Yes ? Yes No Yes Control of PDO-PGI product specificity? PGI : No PDO : Yes (AS) No Yes ++ No No Yes PDO-PGI protection Legal protection? INAO in both cases No No No No Ministry Interpretation of general principles 1. Field of application (article 1) The field of application is currently the object of divergent opinions. For certain, the field of "agricultural products" is to be strictly interpreted in so far as annexes I and II list exceptions which include beer and m ineral water. Under such an interpretation, highly processed products (such as cooked and flavoured dishes) are excluded. For others, this type of product is included and such highly industrialised products are reason for which the PGI system was conceived. The legal process m ust therefore treat each case individually by analysing the treaty of Rom e which defines in annexe II those agricultural products destined for hum an consum ption. 2. How are notions of Quality, Origin and Protection dealt with by the member states? Let us go back to the regulation itself (article 2). For the purposes of this regulation : (a) Designation of origin: m eans the nam e of a region, a specific place or, in exceptional cases, a country, used to describe an agricultural product or a foodstuff: -- originating in that region, specific place or country, and -- the quality or characteristics of which are essentially or exclusively due to a particular geographical environm ent with its inherent natural and hum an factors, and the production, processing and preparation of which take place in the defined geographical area; PDO and PGI in Europe : regulations or policy ? Contrat Fair CT 95-306 : PDO and PGI Products 25

  25. (b) Geographical indication: m eans the nam e of a region, a specific place or, in exceptional cases, a country, used to describe an agricultural product or a foodstuff: -- originating in that region, specific place or country, and, -- which possesses a specific quality, reputation or other characteristics attributable to that geographical origin and the production and/or processing and/or preparation of which take place in the defined geographical area. a. The first question concerns the m eaning of the term “quality” in different countries. It is com m on to raise the different conceptions held by the countries of North and South Europe. For northern countries quality is understood by public authorities to refer to health and hygiene aspects, and occasionally nutritional properties, which becom e public norm s. For private enterprise, the term refers to a general approach to quality control based on European and international norm s (CEN and ISO). In this latter case, the essential question is whether a product conform s with the explicit or im plicit needs of consum ers. The term therefore covers not only com m ercial quality but also hygiene quality which m ust be enforced by the public authorities. In the southern, so called "Latin" countries, quality is understood in a m uch wider sense, referring to the sensorial quality which in turn is related to the geographical and hum an environm ent (or terroir), and/or the specificity/typicity of the product. These are in turn considered to be determ ined by the m ethod of production and origin of the product. The divide that separates North and South is all to evident. b. The second question is related to “protection” : why are som e geographically labelled products protected by national and/or EU regulations? Through international negotiations of recent years, and beyond the great North-South divide, two conceptions can be seen to oppose one another. On the one hand the Anglo-Saxon liberal rationale characterises any attem pts to lim it trade or abusively lim it the use of a denom ination relating to origin as protectionism and prevention of com petition (cf. the United States' unrestricted use of the Chablis denom ination for wine). Other countries consider, on the contrary, that such usage is tantam ount to 'passing off' and results in unfair com petition as it consists of gaining undue advantage from a product's reputation built up by substantial, long-term , collective and individual investm ent. The European Com m unity cam e down in favour of this latter view in 1992 by introducing the policy described in EC regulation 2081/92. However, and this is an im portant point, the EC sought to justify this policy by assigning a central place to the link between product quality and the region whose nam e is protected. We shall now look at how this was done in a series of stages so as to get the language straight. c. “Origin Labelled Products” m ust be different from standard products on the sam e m arket since the regulation refers explicitly to their qualities or characteristics. Here we can usefully bring in the idea of differentiation from industrial econom ics, which is like the original m eaning of specificity : the product is said to be differentiated if it has specific characteristics (m easurable in the sense of substantial or intrinsic) and if consum ers perceive it as such. At this point we need to call in the idea of the relevant econom ic m arket delim iting products that consum ers see as substitutes for each other. d. Moreover, the quality policies of various countries have sought to justify the protection of nam es and/or collective brands by arguing that differentiation is based on specific m odes of production (Allaire and Sylvander, 1996). This is true of say organic farm ing, defined on the basis of specifications in various countries, and at European and soon world level in the Codex PDO and PGI in Europe : regulations or policy ? Contrat Fair CT 95-306 : PDO and PGI Products 26

  26. Alim entarius standards. Consequently, in the spirit of the European regulation and that of other national policies on quality (such as the French policy) so-called 'horizontal' differentiation is not enough. Yes, the product to be protected m ust be different but that difference m ust be attributable above all to the m ode of production. e. In the case of “Origin Labelled Products” reference to the m ode of production is further reinforced by the fact that quality is 'due to a particular geographical environm ent with its inherent natural and hum an factors' (for PDOs) or that 'a specific quality, reputation or other characteristics [are] attributable to that geographical origin' (for PGIs) (Reg (EC) 2081/92). This text form s a basis for distinguishing between 'Origin', as defined above and 'Provenance', taken as the place of production of a good without going into its specific m ode of production. It can be seen in this respect that the distinction between 'biens d'origine', meaning goods for which there is a 'sum m ary of shared knowledge' between producers and consum ers (Ruffieux and Valceschini, 1996) is not restrictive enough, since in principle it does not entail any codification of production processes. However, it is true as we shall see that an essential condition for 'Origin Labelled Products' to be successful is that they m ust be well-perceived and even culturally close to consum ers. When these com ponents are officially acknowledged in the context of a regulation aim ed at protecting their geographical denom ination, such products are said to be of 'Protected Origin'. f. France and Italy have gone a step further by referring to the typicity (Scheffer, 2000). Different institutions and countries attribute greater or lesser im portance to this notion. Two approaches to typicity have been proposed : 'typicity 1' is horizontal m eaning that the good is both specific (different) and unique and therefore specifies a given region (typical of…); 'typicity 2' is vertical and supplem ents the form er by em phasising the determ inants of typicity 1, i.e. the com bination of natural and hum an production factors in its m aking (Salette, 1997). The fact that these latter factors are related to hum an know-how, and not readily separable from natural factors (Bertrand, 1975) m ight suggest that they cannot be readily reproduced : while knowledge m ay be passed on (in tim e) under certain circum stances, it is not easily transferable (in space) (Casabianca and De Sainte Marie, 1997). In this sense, the idea takes on a certain cultural content. Terroir can then be defined as a homogeneous and bounded zone where conditions for 'typicity 2' are m et. g. Such a definition of 'Origin Labelled Products' presupposes a two-level agreem ent for the good to be fully characterised, that is : - a local agreem ent between firm s responsible for specificity and typicity which are m obilised together in a project, - a global agreem ent, validated in a clear and well applied quality and origin policy. The need for generality in the definition of a good, as advanced by Thévenot (1995) and supported by Allaire (1995a and 1995b) m akes these two stages inseparable. Of course, generality can be achieved by a forceful, long-term brand policy applied by a large company. However, 'Origin Labelled Products' are often produced in less-favoured regions by networks of sm all firm s. These possess little in the way of resources to have their efforts generally validated without the backing of public policy, allowing a com prom ise between industry and sm all independent producers (Sylvander and Marty, 1999) and to be protected internationally. PDO and PGI in Europe : regulations or policy ? Contrat Fair CT 95-306 : PDO and PGI Products 27

  27. 3. Consequences on the interpretation of the regulation The different understandings of the essential concepts, which are part of the culture of each country, lead to im portant differences in the m anner in which applications are interpreted particularly term s of article 2 like “ region ”, “ specific place ”, “ originating ”, “ quality ”, “ characters ”, “ characteristics ”, “ reputation ”, “ owing to ”, “ possibly attributed to”, “ geographical environm ent ”, “ natural and hum an factors ” etc. Applications are not generally founded on a scientific basis as the com m ission principally judges on form al term s the interpretation of which will have been dependant on national adm inistrations. The type of argum ents and evidence put forward in support of an application are therefore very diverse. The link between quality and environm ent can for exam ple be sim ply cited or be based on scientific data, while the "specific place" can be either an adm inistrative region, a cartographic area or a zone determined on the basis of geography, soil and climate. Table 16 : Evaluation of the Specificity for the 21 products studied Products Specificity C Q F D Score Comments C: Characteristics, Q: Perceived Quality, F: Technological Factors, D: Denom ination. Product of daily use; technologically specific but not often perceived as such by consumers. Very specific and perceived as such by the Italian consumers (prem ium price product). Product with a strong denom ination (very positive im age of the region) but with very variable characteristics and a weak typicity. Not perceived by the consum ers as a prem ium price product. Very specific with an current tendency to standardisation. Daily consum ption in Greece, problem with the generic aspect of the denom ination (a lot of im itations all over Europe). Very little differencefrom standard Edam m er cheese, but Polder cheese im age for the NL-consumers Perceived as different by consum ers: farm identity. Other com ponents of specificity are weak, because the characteristics and the technology are not different, and the denom ination is not known outside the area. “Handmade” and “farmhouse-made” are the m ain specificity, unless the product is little known as such by the consum ers. The denom ination is partly generic (Cheddar cheese). Very specific: characteristics are variable due to different terroirs, sim ple craft technology and the denom ination is very specific in Switzerland and perceived by consumers as a premium price product. Very specific. Perceived as specific with norm s of quality Standard product but not very regular. The denom ination is the only factor of specificity seen by consumers. Weak appearance, but norm s of quality and well perceived by consumers. Norm s (altitude); good quality, well perceived. Perceived as particular; norms of quality. Not very different from its substitutes. Not very different from its substitutes but well perceived in Scotland. Not specific. Specific. Specific variety, well-known zone. Not very specific: common variety. Parm iggiano Reggiano + + 2 Fontina + + + 2 Cantal + 1 Com té Feta + + + + + + + 2 2 Noord Hollandse Edam m er + 1 Boeren-Leidse m et Sleutels + + + 2 West Country Farm house Cheddar + 2 Gruyère + + + 2 Jersey Royal Opperdoezer Ronde Pom m e de terre de Merville Abricots Luizet du Valais + + + + + + + + 2 2 1 + + + 2 Zagora Mèla Agneau du Quercy Ternasco de Aragon Scotch Lamb + + + + + + + (+) 2 2 2 1 Prosciutto di Parm a Jam on de Teruel Huile d’olive de Nyons Peza Olive Oil + + + 1 2 2 1 + + + + + + + PDO and PGI in Europe : regulations or policy ? Contrat Fair CT 95-306 : PDO and PGI Products 28

  28. Exam ination and approval procedures The lack of agreem ent concerning the general principles on which the regulation is based leads to weak PDO and PGI policies. These two protective designations are m ost often poorly differentiated and considered as an ensem ble, the responsibility of the sam e institution and subject to the sam e procedures. Whether the PGI should apply to m ore highly processed products, and PDO be restricted to less processed "farm house" products, has not been explicitly addressed outside of France and Italy. Sim ilarly, there has been little discussion of questions about the interpretation of criteria such as the reputation (within what geographical or historical lim its?) or the unique place, or otherwise, of production and processing. Nonetheless, the responses to such questions, whether explicit or im plicit, lead to different definitions of the rapport between PGI and PDO. This has been clearly confirm ed by our study. Initial application procedure The first objective m ust be to verify the legitim acy of the applicant group, such as whether it a representative body or a private business. We observed m ajor differences am ong different countries and products, without doubt due to the lack of previous experience of certain countries and the differences in the interpretation of the aim s and content of the regulation. This situation could lead to a distortion of com petition and unequal treatm ent of applications both within and between m em ber states. A suitable policy could be reached if member states adopted procedures that allowed opposition to an application (see below). In particular, it is im portant to resolve questions concerning the representativeness of the applicant group. Should this be based on the num ber of participants or the volum e of production? Should previous usurpations of a denom ination be addressed or not? How should objections be dealt with from operators outside of the region? Expert consultation We observed that in certain countries particular aspects of an application receive expert exam ination in o rder to judge the geographical coherence of the production zone, justify the criteria chosen as official specifications and assess the link between the hum an and natural environm ent. In other countries, such expert exam ination is very rudim entary and where such consultation exists it is often lim ited to internal experts of the institution concerned which thereby restricts the scope of exam ination. Even within countries such as France, where there is external consultation of experts for both the official specifications and the delim itation of the production zone, experts do not possess any guidelines for their activity and have neither any real status, training or opportunity to m eet-up. Nonetheless, such expert consultation is im portant in the eyes of applicants and other professionals to ensure equal and im partial treatm ent of their applications. A lack of expert advice has m ade it difficult to establish official m ethods for the assessm ent of causal links between quality and natural or hum an regional factors. Such an issue is largely determ ined by the different interpretations previously discussed of the principle notions involved. The lack of any real debate about opposition to applications or about expert consultation prevents the developm ent of a pertinent policy or jurisprudence. PDO and PGI in Europe : regulations or policy ? Contrat Fair CT 95-306 : PDO and PGI Products 29

  29. Finally, the procedures and conditions for nam ing experts and the qualifications required are inadequately defined and there is still a need to establish suitable training of experts. Public inquiries The aim of public inquiries is to record and respond to any potential opposition no m atter the source and reason for this opposition. In France, the PGI inquiry procedure consists of the publication of official specifications with m ention of the applicants, the recording of opposition and their transm ission to the applicants, the obligatory response of the applicants and of the adm inistration to each opponent and the response of opponents. All records are m ade available to experts. In contrast, the PDO procedure is not yet very transparent. While there is a local or regional inquiry, directed by the inquiry com m ission, there is no national public inquiry. This system of public inquiry is not in current use am ong the other countries studied. Finally, it should be noted that the im partiality of the entire public inquiry procedure is put into question if it is run by a regional political body, as is the case in Spain, Italy and Germ any, which could be m ore accom m odating towards an application in order to assist regional developm ent. In this case, what should be entirely im partial body is both judge and party in the inquiry. Certification, control and sanctions The European regulation specified the need of controls by im partial and independent certified bodies to ensure that the official specifications are respected by all participants in PDO and PGI supply chains. Concerned with harm onising the controls on enterprises and products, and in a sim ilar way to that adopted for the control of organic produce, the com m unity required in regulation 2081/92 that the certified bodies (CB) them selves m eet a recognised international standard: EN 45011. This standard refers to the official recognition of CB technical expertise and im partiality by the recognised authorities responsible for accreditation. In principle, the CB is accredited by the relevant national authority20. The CB recognition procedure is both costly and dem anding. Two problem s rem ain unresolved concerning CB accreditation: ??The CB accrediting procedure is not com pletely harm onised in regards to PDO and PGI certification. The requirem ents for the inspection of businesses and the final control of products differs from one Union country to another. ??The regulation allows for accreditation to be optional. What is obligatory is that all CB m ust respect the requirem ents of standard EN 45011. In contrast, accreditation (by an recognised accrediting authority such as COFRAQ in France) is itself optional. The m em ber state has the right to recognise CB that have not followed the "classic" accreditation procedure. This right of m em ber states has its origin in the existence of national or sem i-national bodies responsible for the enforcing of PDO and PGI requirem ents in the m em ber states before the adoption of regulation 2081/92. This leads to differences in certification requirem ents within the sam e m em ber state. 20 The European accreditation authorities are: France (COFRAQ), Germ any (DAR), Austria (BMWA), Belgium (CNAC, BELCERT), Denm ark (DANAK), Spain (ENAC), Finland (FINAS), Greece (ESYD), Ireland (INAB), Island (ISAC), Italy (SINCERT), Norway (Norsk Accreditering), Netherlands (RVA), Portugal (IPQ), United Kingdom (UKAS), Sweden (SWEDAC), Switzerland (SAS). See the European Com m ission Report on the system s of quality in the European Union. PDO and PGI in Europe : regulations or policy ? Contrat Fair CT 95-306 : PDO and PGI Products 30

  30. The credibility of the system depends on certification, particularly in the eyes of consum ers, but also in respect to wholesalers and foreign operators. PDO and PGI certification com prises of three distinct aspects: ??verification of the origin of raw m aterials and that final m anufacture occurs in the defined region requires a com prehensive and reliable system of traceability, ??inspection of businesses to verify that the installations and processes defined by the official specifications are respected, ??final evaluation of products and control of their physical, chem ical and organoleptic (sensorial) properties. These controls of the finished product are in principle (according to standard EN 45011) the exclusive responsibility of control bodies accredited according to standards EN 45001 and 2. Three m ajor disparities were identified by our analyses: ??the costs of control vary greatly according to the country, type of CB (public or private) and product. The principle reasons for these differences are the very different requirem ents in respect to the frequency of inspections or testing of products, the separation of m aterials, and autom atic controls within businesses. The cost of certification and control can discourage PDO and PGI applications from supply chains com posed of sm all businesses or producers with low volum es of production. ??the attention given to controls carried out by PDO and PGI adm inistrative bodies differs between countries due to different national interpretation guidelines for standard En 45011. Certain countries accept or even advocate PDO or PGI adm inistrative bodies to m onitor and ensure the conform ity of businesses (m eaning of the term “ supplier ” in EN 45011). This is not the system atically the case throughout Europe. ??the very different degrees of involvem ent of national authorities in the control of foodstuffs (such as in the repression of fraud) results in unequal enforcem ent of the protection ex officio provided by regulation 2081/92. A harm onisation of fraud repression am ong different m em ber states is clearly an indispensable condition to ensure that the objectives of the regulation are m et. Enforcem ent Finally the enforcem ent of protected designations rem ains the responsibility of national authorities, with no com m on strategy to guarantee a protection ex officio throughout the whole of the com m unity. Only France has a specialised and effective institution for the legal enforcem ent of designations. Given the current international conventions concerning the use of geographical nam es for agricultural products (see chapter 2 above), there is still no active international enforcem ent of protected designations. Conclusion To conclude we would em phasise that the topics covered in this chapter can be regrouped according to the basic requirem ents of standard EN 45011, nam ely im partiality (independence), expertise and efficiency. The elem ents of our analysis can be re-classified according to these term s and will be returned to in the recom m endations PDO and PGI in Europe : regulations or policy ? Contrat Fair CT 95-306 : PDO and PGI Products 31

  31. Table 17 : Analysis of the registration procedure by criteria of impartiality, expert advice and efficiency Impartiality Independence Evaluation of the representativeness of applicant groups Expert advice Efficiency Application procedure Quality of PDO and PGI advice and support Evaluation of the outcom e Regional centres Role of CB ? Expert advice Procedures Approval Procedure Type of responsible Specialised Adm inistration Quality of advice Accreditation Training Approval of control methods adm inistration? National public inquiry Im partiality at a regional level Control & sanctions Monitoring of controls Accreditation Active Adm inistration Adm inistration expertise Enforcement Responsible Adm inistration 3. Evaluation of results Our evaluation will com pare results with the objectives and anticipated effects m entioned previously. We have already seen in the Introduction that the regulation can be evaluated on the basis of the objectives described in its pream ble. Three distinct objectives can be identified: ? ? Agricultural and rural policy objective ? ? Competition policy objective ? ? Consumer policy objective 3.1. Agricultural and rural policy objective This objective can be broken down into three sub-objectives: A1. Encourage diversification of agricultural production (agricultural policy) A2. Achieve a better balance between supply and dem and (m arket policy) A3. Prom ote products for the developm ent of rem ote or less-favoured regions, with the secondary aim s of stabilising populations and im proving farm incom es (rural developm ent policy) Diversification im plies the availability of varied products rather than the m assive production of standardised products through industrial processes. This objective can be met by the use of sm all-scale (craft or farm ) structures and techniques. The balance between supply and dem and refers to the shortage of structural funds which seriously affected the European Com m unity PDO and PGI in Europe : regulations or policy ? Contrat Fair CT 95-306 : PDO and PGI Products 32

  32. during the years 1970-80. Prom otion (or valorisation) of products for the development of less- favoured regions is based on the hypothesis that the specificity of a product is strongly linked to special production conditions defined by the official specifications and that these conditions characterise less-favoured regions where the regulation seeks to assist developm ent. Because of the num ber and com plexity of influencing factors, it is difficult to estim ate to what extent, if any, the regulation has had the anticipated effects. For exam ple, farm income can be targeted by agricultural policies (support to farm ing in m ountainous zones) and countryside protection can be supported by specific m easures (regional parks, habitation classification, territorial zoning). The obvious conclusion is that those products contributing m ost to the desired effects will be produced by small-scale, m ore labour intensive, farm or craft enterprises. Several products do derive from less-favoured zones and due to their higher sales price offer better rem uneration to farm ers (a higher price for m ilk) and sm all-scale cheese makers. Such products (like Parm igiano, Com té, Gruyère, Fontina, Feta, Agneaux du Quercy and Huile d’Olive de Nyons) allow the developm ent of an efficient econom y based on a larger workforce and a higher level of em ploym ent per production unit. The rem uneration due to the higher com m ercial value im proves the viability of farm s and therefore helps protect both a way of life and a countryside till then threatened by the com petitive econom ic conditions. The contrasting circum stances of other products, however, m ake it difficult to reach any general conclusions. Three products clearly do not m eet the declared objectives. The lim ited official specifications for Cantal have allowed cheese production to becom e increasingly concentrated within a few production units. This has led to a very low price for m ilk and the decline of farm s located in less- favoured zones. The Noord-Hollandse Edam er is m anufactured from m ilk produced by intensive m ilk farm s and is produced by a single industrial cheese production unit. Production of Boeren- Leidse m et Sleutels involves only a sm all num ber of producers for whom alternative products have alm ost equal value. To take only a single exam ple, the com parison of the price of m ilk used for the production of Com té cheese, recognised as paying its m ilk suppliers well, with that used for Cantal, whose suppliers are on average m uch less well paid, shows the effect of a coherent PDO policy. For Com té, the production conditions are based on local practices and ensure the specificity of the product (see table 16) while production conditions for Cantal rem ained for a long-time based on intensified standard production. The efforts undertaken over recent years to bring Cantal production m ore in line with PDO principles (use of unpasturised m ilk, prohibition of ensilage) m ay lead to an im proved value in the future. PDO and PGI in Europe : regulations or policy ? Contrat Fair CT 95-306 : PDO and PGI Products 33

  33. Figure 1 : Changes in milk price expressed as francs per litre 2,5 2 Price (francs per litre) 1,5 Cantal Franche Comté France 1 0,5 0 1985 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Year 3.2. Competition policy objective The principle aim was to : B1. Guarantee equal conditions of com petition between the producers of products benefiting from these designations. The evaluation of the conditions of com petition will depend on num erous factors analysed during the course of our research and which m ay affect the supply chains in several ways. Even under identical production conditions, one m ay distinguish com petition concerning the product and the m ore unusual com petition concerning the use of its nam e. This is a type of external com petition. One m ay also exam ine the production conditions and the com petition between production m ethods. This type of com petition is m ore im portant as it m ost often leads to lower production costs. Finally, one m ay exam ine the equality of groups subject to the obligatory controls established by the regulation. The im portance of nam e protection (against the risk of the nam e degenerating) depends on the attractiveness of the nam e for widespread use beyond the traditional area of origin. Products like Parm igiano-Reggiano, Feta and Gruyère have a very high risk of degenerating. Due to their age and their recognition outside of their production region or even abroad, the nam e of these products is very coveted by less scrupulous businesses21. For these products the regulation is a real necessity. 21 in the sam e way that the m ost fam ous tradem arks are those m ost effected by counterfeiting. PDO and PGI in Europe : regulations or policy ? Contrat Fair CT 95-306 : PDO and PGI Products 34

  34. For a second group of products (Fontina, Cantal, Com té, Cheddar, Scottish Lam b, Prociutto du Parm a, Peza Olive Oil), their reputation is m ostly lim ited to a national or regional level. The m ajor risk incurred by these products is the appearance of im itations within their region of production, such as by m odification of traditional m ethods to reduce costs or abusive use of the nam e for products m anufactured in adjacent zones. For these products the regulation is useful even if the risks and consequences are not as im portant as those of products belonging to the first group. Finally, a last group of products are m uch less, or not at all, threatened by the degeneration of their nam es. Often these are products bearing a "com posed" nam e (a generic nam e possessing a geographical qualifier such as Jersey Potatoes, Luizet Abricot, Zagora Apples, Jam on de Teruel, Huile d’Olive de Nyons). For these products the protection of the nam e is not of im portance. Concerning conditions of control, it is clear that there is great disparity between m em ber states and products which leads to unequal control costs. The disparities derive from differences ? ? due to the national decision to opt for public or private control through Certified Bodies. In France for exam ple, INAO offers a public service that is free for beneficiaries of a PDO, while beneficiaries of a PGI m ust pay private certified bodies. ? ? due to the size and specialisation of the certified bodies, with more specialised bodies able to make greater economies and hence set lower prices. ? ? due t o the production volum e as a larger denom ination has greater m eans to m eet control costs. ? ? due to product value. Control costs are the sam e for a highly valued product as for a less specific and lower valued protected product. ? ? due to the choice of a certified body: there is not always adequate com petition operating against a CB whose high-cost service is imposed. 3.3. Consumer policy objective The sub-objectives of this policy are: C1. Clarity (“ consum ers m ust, in order to be able to m ake the best choice, be given clear and succinct inform ation regarding the origin of the product”) C2. Credibility (“ to enhance the credibility of these products in the eyes of the consum er”) Product clarity Consum er protection (against the risk of confusing designated products with sim ilar substitutes) is all the m ore im portant for products where there are sim ilar substitutes on the sam e m arkets. The precise identification of these products allows consum ers to be certain about the nature and the exact provenance of the product. The need for this regulation is therefore very im portant for those products bearing nam es that are com posed of a generic nam e and a geographical qualifier as they allow the differentiation of products by consum ers who would otherwise be ignorant of the exact origin of the product. Consum ers still have need of inform ation that lets them select between the m arketed products. PDO and PGI in Europe : regulations or policy ? Contrat Fair CT 95-306 : PDO and PGI Products 35

  35. Product credibility In principle consum er inform ation should refer directly to objective differences in quality that are perceptible to consum ers and are the sam e across the whole of the European com m unity. Inform ation presented by m eans of a designated sign could therefore be m eaningful. In fact, however, we have seen that such is not the case due to divergent interpretations of the regulation. How to evaluate the community's communication policy ? The com m unity's com m unication cam paigns are based on regulation (EEC) no 2037/93 of the Com m ission dating from 27 July 1993, concerning the application term s of regulation (EEC) 2081/ 92 and m akes prevision “ for a period of five years following the date on which the current regulation22 com es into effect, the Com m ission will take the necessary m easures of com m unication, without the assistance of producers and/or m anufacturers, in order to inform the public about the significance of "PDO", "PGI", "Protected Designation of Origin" and "Protected Geographical Indication" in the com m unity languages." The PDO et PGI23 logos are also defined. The com m unication cam paign launched by the European Com m ission (Directorate General of Agriculture DG VI) across the fifteen countries of the European Union on the them e of “Products with a history” lasted from June 1996 until March 1998, and cost about 8.8 m illion European Ecus. The aim s were: 1. to initially encourage producers to adopt the protection system s for geographical denom inations and traditional specialities24, 2. to subsequently heighten awareness am ong distributors so that they take note of these products, 3. to inform the 373 m illion European consumers. Journalists were also eventually considered as a separate target group to be inform ed and encouraged to pass on the inform ation. The constraints The cam paign was subject to the following constraints: ? ? No denom ination had yet been registered at the start of the cam paign. The indications and logo were not yet visible on the m arket. ? ? Not to prom ote any particular country or product m ore than any other as the cam paign was to be a general prom otion of the notion and acronym s. ? ? The cam paign proved delicate since it was necessary to explain the notions in a balanced way across all fifteen m em ber states without acting as publicity for any product,. ? ? The cam paign had to use a technical or legal vocabulary rather than prom otional language. 22 This regulation cam e into effect on the 26 July 1993. 23 This was based on the regulation of the 23 July 1993 m odifying regulation (EEC) no 2037/93, followed by Com m ission regulation (EEC) no 1726/98 of the 22 July 1998 m odifying regulation (EEC) no 2037/93. 24 European regulation no 2081/92 allows the term “ Traditional Speciality Guaranteed ” (TSG) to be attributed to a product in order to prom ote the traditional com position or m ode of production of a product . This term does not refer to the origin of a product. A product benefiting from this attestation m ay be m anufactured anywhere within the Com m unity. PDO and PGI in Europe : regulations or policy ? Contrat Fair CT 95-306 : PDO and PGI Products 36

  36. The European Com m ission had m eanwhile decided that it was im portant to create a strong opposition between PDO, PGI and TSG products and other existing products. It was also necessary to generally stim ulate the im agination of consum ers without entering into any detail concerning one product or another, or concerning the particularities of individual countries. A "business-like" approach was called for. Various cam paign m ethods and activities were used including the inserts in the professional press, the creation of brochures and sm all posters, a free European telephone num ber for producers giving inform ation on the procedure of registering a product, a letter of inform ation for applicant groups, conferences and press com m unications, inform ation about the principle European distributionm arks, an editorial publication, the setting up of a com petition in each m em ber state, the showing of twenty-six exclusive reports on a private T.V. channel, and a travelling exhibition. Except the m ention of "Protected Designation of Origin" or "Protected Geographical Indication" in the national language, the PDO and PGI logos are the identical and sim ilar to the logo for “Traditional Speciality Guarantee" from which they differ only by the blue colour of the outside dots and the central m otif (a graphical representation of a ploughed field in reference to the PDO and PGI place of origin). Campaign evaluation Initial evaluation of the com m unication cam paign m ounted by the European Com m ission concludes that the actions studied were of varying efficiency. Press relations were very good, while the free telephone num ber targeting producers proved less efficient. Overall however, m ost actions were very efficient. While it is not possible to give exact figures concerning the im pact of the cam paign on the num ber of registration dem ands, it appears that the European system s are today better known am ong producers. Institutions responsible for PDO-PGI applications within each country have been fairly non- com m ittal about the European cam paign ?Dufour, 1999?.. In any case they have m ade few concrete criticism s. After the cam paign, the level of PDO and PGI recognition rem ains low am ong consum ers. The cam paign has only a very slightly, or not at all, im proved awareness. In 1995 7% recognised the term “ Protected Geographical Indication ” and 5% the “PGI ” abbreviation, com pared with 7.5% and 3.6% in 1998. The term "Protected Designation of Origin" was known by 14% in 1995 and its abbreviation by 6% com pared with 13.5% and 6.3% in 1998 ?Eurobarom ètres 44.1 and 50.1?. It should be rem em bered that the cam paign only targeted consum ers during its latter stages since at the start of the cam paign there were no registered products. Awareness of these term s am ong citizens in 1995 varied between countries, with for exam ple 20% of those asked in Portugal and Luxem bourg knowing about the term “Protected Designation of Origin" com pared with only 1% in Sweden and Denm ark. However, the prom otion strategy did not take into account this different awareness, which in our opinion was a weakness of the cam paign. Those responsible for PDO-PGI policy within each m em ber state were also little associated with the cam paign. PDO and PGI in Europe : regulations or policy ? Contrat Fair CT 95-306 : PDO and PGI Products 37

  37. The cam paign should have taken into account not only differences in awareness am ong consum ers but also am ong producers. Producers in North European countries were alm ost entirely unaware of the PDO-PGI system at the start of the cam paign in 1995, while the system was already quite well known am ong producers in Southern Europe (Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy and France). Cam paign m ethods could have been better used to achieve m ore carefully defined aim s such as heightened prom otion am ong North European producers and increased prom otion am ong consum ers in Southern Europe where num erous AOC, PDO and PGI products were already on the m arket. The com m unication cam paign sought to focus exclusively on the system with hardly any reference to the products that lay behind it. This begs the question as to what degree consum ers could understand the system if they could not associate it with products that they knew about. The com m unication cam paign was not able to contact consum ers at the point of sale due to the absence of PDO and PGI products in the shops. Although such a prom otion would have been possible in certain countries where there are already num erous PDO and PGI products, the desire for a com m on strategy for all m em ber states did not allow this fact to be taken into account. It also seem s that it was difficult to involve the m ajor distribution chains in the cam paign. Since the end of the cam paign, inform ation on the European protection system s has only been available from the European Com m ission, responsible institutions in each m em ber state and on the internet site http://europa.eu.int/qualityfood25. Future awareness will depend on how producers m ake use of their protected designation and the accom panying PDO and PGI labels and l ogo, as well as on the inform ation for obtaining protection that is m ade available by professional inform ation centres ?Bilan de Bruxelles Euro RSCG?. Evaluation of the logo The logo was clearly a "compromise" and judged by some to be a poor compromise. Representatives of the fifteen m em ber states had to all agree and this was not easy. The decision of the European Com m unity to adopt a sim ilar logo for all European protection system s, in order to avoid the proliferation of sym bols, was often considered a bad choice. If the logo does not please everyone because it fails to differentiate between the different protection system s of the com m unity, it does at least exist to increase awareness of the PDO and PGI labels am ong consum ers. This com m on sym bol should render the system m ore coherent and is indispensable for inform ing the general public. It rem ains to be seen if the producers will use the logo in order for it to becom e an well-known symbol across the whole of the European Com m unity. While m ost responsible authorities of m em ber states have stated that they want to encourage producers to use the logo, they have yet to define any strategy to do so (Dufour, 1999). 25 This site should allow the consultation of all inform ation on the European system s. It will be rendered m ore attractive and user- friendly in the future by including recipes, anecdotes and photos of the products. PDO and PGI in Europe : regulations or policy ? Contrat Fair CT 95-306 : PDO and PGI Products 38

  38. Comparison of the message with consumer expectations The Europanel opinion poll regularly inform s us about the opinion of European consum ers on quality, origin and their indicating labels. The principle lesson that can be drawn from these polls if that European consum er opinion reflects fairly well the national context of production organisation and regulatory tradition that was presented at the beginning of this report. The differing definitions given by consum ers of a quality foodstuff are particularly revealing. If there is a relative consensus about tasty (43.5 % of responses) and appetising aspects (37 %), other qualifiers are ranked very differently between countries. A “ natural ” character is on average in third place, but holds first place in Spain, second in France and Greece and third in Italy, with other countries all ranking it further down. This agrees with the national differences that we noted at the beginning of this report, with South European countries associating quality with m ethods of production that have been the least possibly industrialised. In contrast, hygiene and control did not score very high as it appears that they are self-evident for such a survey and are considered standards that all foodstuffs m ust m eet. Finally, reference to a region or to the region where the survey was carried out was not considered a criterion of quality. As the understanding of quality varies am ong different countries, and cultural history being what it is, one would expect any reference to quality labels to receive different degrees of recognition. Thus only 16% of Europeans recognise the AOC acronym and 6% the PDO abbreviation with this percentage being very different in France (65 % for AOC), Italy (80 % for DOC) and Sweden (2 % for PDO). The differences observed in the understanding of quality also apply for the notion of origin. If 37% of Europeans associate PDO with origin, 35% consider it a guarantee of quality. It is very significant, however, that certain countries consider it above all a guarantee of quality (France and Italy), others have sim ilar scores for origin and quality (Portugal, Greece, Spain, Luxem bourg, Finland) while others see it only as a guarantee of provenance (English-speaking and m ost North European countries). Conclusion As a general conclusion, one can affirm the need for a European regulation for all of the products studied. The objectives of the regulation in term s of protection and the effects resulting from this protection can be considered to have been achieved. The regulation fills a legal vacuum to prevent the degeneration of traditional nam es of regional foodstuffs and consum er confusion as to the provenance of these products. It is, however, difficult to evaluate the regulation's contribution towards the long-term objectives outlined as possible consequences in the official texts. The sole conclusion from the exam ples studied is that for certain products of less-favoured regions m arket success allows rem uneration of labour-intensive sm all-scale or farm production. Farms in these zones w ould be less viable without this revenue. It would require m uch larger direct paym ents to support such a large num ber of enterprises due to the natural handicaps which greatly reduce their com petitiveness on a m arket where international com petition is still very intense. PDO and PGI in Europe : regulations or policy ? Contrat Fair CT 95-306 : PDO and PGI Products 39

  39. In contrast, the m ain conclusion concerning overall coherence is that the policy choice m entioned at the beginning of this report is fully confirm ed by the attitude of European consum ers. There is therefore no consensus about: ? ? the application of the regulation, leading to very variable specifications of labelled products ? ? the understanding that consum ers have of this type of product, its quality and the m eaning of its designation There is a fundam ental am biguity about whether it is a quality policy issue, which would require a convergence in the interpretation and m echanism s of im plem entation leading to a clear public m essage, or if it is a sim ple issue of a protective regulation which would be equally legitim ate but which is not in agreem ent with the public m essage . Conclusion and Recommendations European Com m unity policy is based on the subsidiarity principle and the m ost im portant point needing to be underlined is the strategic choice to be m ade between either the construction of a real agricultural and rural developm ent policy (within the fram ework of com petition and consum er policy) or the sim ple protection of geographical nam es. If it is this last strategy that is chosen, then the current application of the regulation is satisfactory except in two respects. Firstly, it is im portant to suspend all com m unication with consum ers. Given the varying level of quality and specificity of registered products and their m ethods of production, the current inform ation being com m unicated to consum ers is m isleading. Secondly, the current positions held in respect to the WTO negotiations should be m odified because it will be difficult to counter accusations of protectionism if there is no harm onisation of procedures leading to products clearly differentiated from the standard or if supply chains are not closely enough linked to regional issues. In contrast, if the decision taken is for an agricultural and rural developm ent policy26, PDO and PGI policy should be improved to ensure that member states reach com m on positions on the application of the regulation. To do so , we suggest the publication of a num ber of guidelines. Policy terms: We suggest that the Com m ission publish a sim ple brochure (4 pages) giving the definition of certain basic term s such as the quality of agricultural products and foodstuffs, hygiene quality, standards of food production and m arketing to be respected, sensorial food quality, quality linked to agricultural production m ethods, quality linked to the geographical origin of products and European Union policy objectives on prom oting quality. 26 See the opinion of the Econom ic and Social Com m ittee of the European Com m unities CES 972/98 PDO and PGI in Europe : regulations or policy ? Contrat Fair CT 95-306 : PDO and PGI Products 40

  40. Information to applicant groups: We suggest a guideline treating in a positive way the steps to be followed, taking into account the difficulties encountered in different countries and for different products27. This would lead to a checklist of the principle points to be verified so that an application can be rapidly assessed. Administrative procedures: We suggest that the Com m ission publish guidelines for the adm inistrations concerned that clarifies the two essential issues of expert advice and public inquiries. ? ? Expert advice m ust be independent of national and regional decision-m aking adm inistrations. It m ust be provided by a body of com petent and highly efficient recognised experts. Such a body would require the availability of guidelines, training and inform ation on the different cases encountered across the European Union by m eans of an internet site, expert journal, specialised sem inars etc. ? ? The public inquiry m ust allow any participant, adm inistration or citizen to ensure for him self that the entire procedure has been applied within the rules and that the decisions have been im partial. This m echanism will also assist the on-going training of experts. A well-founded inquiry system would also have the benefit of serving as a basis for negotiation within the fram ework of the WTO negotiations. Certification: We suggest that the Com m ission publishes a detailed guide to the requirem ents to be m et for PDO and PGI certification within the European Union in order to clearly differentiate between PDO and PGI protection while harm onising their respective certification procedures. This would lead to a better guarantee for consum ers and a harm onisation of the requirem ents to be m et by participants in PDO and PGI supply chains. Control #1: Our first proposition is to clearly specify m inim um requirem ents. The frequency of inspections, product evaluation (whether physical, chem ical or sensorial), requirem ents for sensorial evaluation panels and the m eans of controlling traceability of exchanged goods all need to be defined and harm onised at a European level. This approach would have the advantage of im proving the credibility of products on the m arket and of the PDO and PGI system s in international negotiations. Control #2: Our second proposition is to reinforce national and international fraud repression. This is not a problem exclusive to PDO and PGI abuse and m isuse. Fraud repression is the corner stone to resolving problems of labelling, and consum er deception but also problem s of food safety (prohibited m aterials, storage prohibitions, m onitoring of pathogenic m icrobes). 27 This would require the com pletion of the Vade m ecum edited by the European Com m ission (1995) PDO and PGI in Europe : regulations or policy ? Contrat Fair CT 95-306 : PDO and PGI Products 41

  41. PDO and PGI Enforcement: An institution of each m em ber state should be responsible for litigation. When plaintiffs have not the m eans, a litigation service for participants could be provided by the Com m ission. Consumer communication: We suggest waiting until policies begin to converge before launching a second cam paign. It is im perative that this takes account of varying consum er attitudes according to country, region and product to ensure that the m essage is adapted to these differences. It m ay be necessary to specifically treat certain PDO and PGI m arket sectors separately. PDO and PGI in Europe : regulations or policy ? Contrat Fair CT 95-306 : PDO and PGI Products 42

  42. Annexes PDO and PGI in Europe : regulations or policy ? Contrat Fair CT 95-306 : PDO and PGI Products 43

  43. Annexe 1 : List of protected products by 28/03/00 Type of product Country Germany Cheeses Fresh meat Pork meat products Fish, shellfish and crustaceans Fruit, vegetables and cereals Oil Beer, mineral water and other products - Allgäuer Bergkäse PDO - Allgäuer Em m entaler PDO - Altenburger Ziegenkäse PDO - Odenwälder Frühstückskäse PDO - Schwäbisch-Hällisches Qualitätsschweinefleisch PGI - Diepholzer Moorschnucke PDO - Lüneburger Heidschnucke PDO - Am m erländer Dieienrauchschinken PGI - Am m erländer Katenschinken PGI - Am m erländer Knochenschinken PGI - Am m erländer Schinken PGI - Gressener Salam i PGI - Schwarzwälder Schinken PGI - Scwartzwaldforelle PGI - Spreewälder Gurden PGI - Spreewälder Meerettich PGI - Lausitzer Leinöl PGI - Brem er Bier PGI - Dortm under Bier PGI - Gögginger Bier PGI - Hofer Bier PGI - Kölsch PGI - Kulm bacher Bier PGI - Mainfranken Bier PGI - Münchner Bier PGI - Reuther Bier PGI - Rieser Weizenbier PGI - Wernesgrüner Bier PGI - Bad Hersfelder Naturquelle PDO - Bad Pyrm onter PDO - Birresborner PDO - Bissinger Auerquelle PDO - Caldener M ineralbrunnen PDO - Ensinger Mineralwasser PDO - Felsenquelle Beisefoerth PDO - Gem m inger Mineralquelle PDO - Graf Meinhard Quelle Giessen PDO - Haaner Felsenquelle PDO - Haltern-Quelle PDO - Katlenburger Burgbergquelle PDO - Kisslegger Mineralquelle PDO - Leisslinger Mineralbrunnen PDO - Löewensteiner Mineralquelle PDO - Rhenser M ineralbrunnen PDO - Rilchinger Am andus Quelle PDO - Rilchinger Gräfin Mariannen-Quelle PDO - Siegsdorfer Petrusquelle PDO - Teinacher Mineralquellen PDO - Uberkinger Mineralquellen PDO - Vesalia Quelle PDO - Bad Niedernauer Quelle PDO - Göppinger Quelle PDO - Höllen-Sprudel PDO - Lieler Quelle PDO - Schwollener Sprudel PDO - Steinsieker Mineralwasser PDO - Blankenburger Wiesenquelle PDO - Wernigeröder M ineralbrunnen PDO - Wildenrath-Quelle PDO - Aachener Printen PGI - Lübecker Marzipan PGI - Nürnberger Lubkuchen PGI Autriche - Gailtaier Alm käse PDO - Tiroler Alm käse PDO - Tiroler Alpkäse PDO - Tiroler Bergkäse PDO - Tiroler Graukäse PDO - Vorarlberger Alpkäse PDO - Tiroler Speck PGI - Wachauer Marille PDO - Waldviertier Graum ohn PDO - Marchfeldspargel PGI - Steierisches Küerbiskernöel PGI ou huile ? ? ? PDO and PGI in Europe : regulations or policy ? Contrat Fair CT 95-306 : PDO and PGI Products 44

  44. - Vorarlberger Bergkäse PDO Belgium Denmark Spain - From age de Herve PDO - Jam bon d'Ardenne PGI - Beurre d'Ardenne PDO - Danablu PGI - Esrom PGI - Lam m efjord Carrot PGI - Cabrales PDO - Idiazabal PDO - M ahon PDO - Picon Bejes-Tresviso PDO - Queso de Cantabria PDO - Queso de La Serena PDO - Queso M ajorero PDO - Queso M anchego PDO - Queso Tetillo PDO - Queso Zam orano PDO - Quesucos de Liébana PDO - Roncal PDO - Carne de Avila PGI - Carne de Morucha de Salam anca PGI - Cordero Manchego PGI - Pollo y Capon del Prat PGI - Ternasco de Aragon PGI - Ternera Gallega PGI - Dehesa de Extrem adura PDO - Guijuelo PDO - Jam on de Huelva PDO - Jam on de Teruel PDO - Cecina de Leon PGI - Sobrasada de Mallorca PGI - Avellana de Reus PDO - Calasparra PDO - Chufa de Valencia PDO - Nísperos Callosa d'En Sarria PDO - Pim ientos del Piquillo de Lodosa PDO - Uva de m esa em bolsada ‘Vinalopo’ PDO - Arroz del Delta del Ebro PGI - Berenjena de Alm agro PGI - Cerezas de la Montaña de Alicante PGI - Esparrago de Navarra PGI - Faba Asturiana PGI - Judías de El Barco de Avila PGI - Lenteja de La Arm uña PGI - Coco de Paim pol PDO - Chasselas de Moissac PDO - Lentille verte du Puy PDO - Muscat du Ventoux PDO - Noix de Grenoble PDO - Olives cassées de la Vallée des Baux de Provence PDO - Olives noir es de Nyons PDO - Olives noires de la Vallée des Baux de Provence PDO - Pom m es de terre de l’Ile de Ré PDO - Ail rose de Lautrec PGI - Lentille verte du Berry PGI - Melon du Haut-Poitou PGI - Mirabelles de Lorraine PGI - Pom m es de terre de Merville PGI - Pom m es et poires de Savoie PGI - Poireaux de Créances PGI - Olives de table Baena PDO - Olives de table Les Garrigues PDO - Olives de table Sierra de Segura PDO - Olives de table Siurana PDO - Turron de Alicante PGI - Turron de Jijona PGI - Miel de La Alcarria PDO France - Abondance PDO - Beaufort PDO - Bleu d’Auvergne PDO - Bleu des Causses PDO - Bleu du Haut-Jura, de Gex, de Septm oncel PDO - Brie de Meaux PDO - Brie de Melun PDO - Brocciu Corse ou brocciu PDO - Cam em bert de Norm andie PDO - Cantal ou fourm e de Cantal ou cantalet PDO - Chabichou du Poitou PDO - Chaource PDO - Com té PDO - Crottin de Chavignol ou chavignol PDO - Epoisses de Bourgogne PDO - Fourm e d’Am bert ou Fourm e de Montbrison PDO - Laguiole PDO - Langres PDO - Livarot PDO - Maroilles ou Marolles PDO - Mont d’Or ou Vacherin du Haut- Doubs PDO - M orbier PDO - Munster ou Munster-gérom é PDO - Neufchâtel PDO - Ossau-Iraty PDO - Picodon de l’Ardèche ou Picodon de la Drôm e PDO - Pont l’Evêque PDO - Pouligny Saint Pierre PDO - Dinde de Bresse PDO - Volailles de Bresse PDO - Taureau de Cam argue PDO - Agneau de l'Aveyron PGI - Agneau du Bourbonnais PGI - Agneau du Quercy PGI - Boeuf charolais du Bourbonnais PGI - Boeuf de Chalosse PGI - Boeuf du Maine PGI - Porc du Lim ousin PGI - Porc de Norm andie PGI - Porc de la Sarthe PGI - Porc de Vendee PGI - Veau de l'Aveyron et du Ségala PGI - Veau du Lim ousin PGI - Volailles d'Alsace PGI - Volailles d'Ancenis PGI - Volailles d’Augergne PGI - Volailles d'Auvergne PGI - Volailles de Bourgogne PGI - Volailles de Bretagne PGI - Volailles de Challans PGI - Volailles de Cholet PGI - Volailles de Gascogne PGI - Volailles de Houdan PGI - Volailles de Janzé PGI - Volailles de l'Ain PGI - Volailles de l'Orléanais PGI - Volailles de la Cham pagne PGI - Volailles de la Drôm e PGI - Volailles de Licques PGI - Volailles de Loué PGI - Volailles de Norm andie PGI - Volailles de Vendée PGI - Volailles des Landes PGI - Jam bon de Bayonne PGI - Saucisse de Morteau PGI - Coquille Saint-Jacques des Cotes- D'Arm our PGI - Huile essentielle de lavande de Haute-Provence PDO - Beurre Charentes-Poitou PDO - Beurre d'Isigny PDO - Crèm e d’isigny PDO - Beurre des Deux-Sèvres PDO - Crèm e fraîche fluide d'Alsace PGI - Huile d'olive de Nyons PDO - Huile d'olive des baux de Provence PDO Cidres - Cornouaille PDO - Pays d'Auge PDO - Bergam otes de Nancy PGI - Foin de Crau PDO - Miel de Sapin des Vosges PDO - Miel de Corse PDO PDO and PGI in Europe : regulations or policy ? Contrat Fair CT 95-306 : PDO and PGI Products 45

  45. - Reblochon ou Reblochon de Savoie PDO - Rocam adour PDO - Roquefort PDO - Saint-Nectaire PDO - Saint Maure de Touraine PDO - Salers PDO - Selles-sur-Cher PDO - Valençay PDO - Em m ental de Savoie PGI - Em m ental français est-central PGI - Tom m e de Savoie PGI - Tom m e des Pyrénées PGI - Anevato PDO - Batzos PDO - Form aella Arachovas Parnassou PDO - Galotyri PDO - Graviera Agrafon PDO - Graviera Kritis PDO - Graviera Naxou PDO - Kalathaki Lym nou PDO - Kasseri PDO - Katiki Dom okou PDO - Kefalograviera PDO - Kopanisti PDO - Ladotyri Mytilinis PDO - M anouri PDO - Metsovone PDO - Pichtogalo Chanion PDO - San Michali PDO - Sfela PDO - Xynom yzithra Kritis PDO - Volailles du Béarn PGI - Volailles du Berry PGI - Volailles du Charolais PGI - Volailles du Forez PGI - Volailles du Gatinais PGI - Volailles du Gers PGI - Volailles du Languedoc PGI - Volailles du Lauragais PGI - Volailles du Maine PGI - Volailles du plateau de Langres PGI - Volailles du Val de Sèvres PGI - Volailles du Velay PGI Greece - Messolonghi Botargo PDO - Aubergine tsakonique de Léonidio PDO - Aegina pistachios PDO - Figues sèches de Kim i PDO - Fthiotida pistachios PDO - Kerasia Tranaga Rodochoriou PDO - Kiwi Sperchiou PDO - Korinthiaki Stafida Vostitsa PDO - Malem e Khania Crete oranges PDO - Megaron pistachios PDO - Mila Delicious Pilafa de Tripoli PDO - Pistache de Phtiotida PDO - Pom m es Zagoras Piliou PDO - Rodakina de Naoussa PDO - Fasolina Gigantes Elefantes Prespon Florinas PGI - Fasolina Plake-Megalos-perm a (Prespon Florinas) PGI - Fassolia Gigantes Elefantes de Kato Nevrokopi PGI - Fassolia Koina Mesoperm a de Kato Nevrokopi PGI - Kum quat de Corfou PGI - Vravronas Markopoulou Mesogion figs PGI - Khios Mastic oil PDO - Archanes Iraklion Crète PDO - Apokoronas Hanion Crète PDO - Olives de table de Kalam ata PDO - Olives de table Konservolia Am fissis PDO - Olives de table Konservolia Atalantis PDO - Olives de table Konservolia Piliou Volou PDO - Olives de table Konservolia Rovion PDO - Olives de table Konservolia Stylidas PDO - Kranidi Argolidas PDO - Krokees Lakonia PDO - Lygourio Asklipiou PDO - Petrina Lakonia PDO - Peza Iraklion Crète (kristis) PDO - Sitia Lasithi Crète PDO - Olives de table Throum ba Thassou PDO - Olives de table Throum ba Chiou PDO - Olives de table Throum ba Abadias Rethym nis Crete PDO - Viannos Iraklion Crète PDO - Vorios Mylopotam os Rethym no Crète PDO - Chania Crète PGI - Hania Crète PGI - Kalam ata PGI - Kefallonia PGI - Kolym vari Hanion Kritis PGI - Olives de table Konservolia Artas PGI - Lakonia PGI - Lesbos PGI - Preveza PGI - Olympia PGI - Rhodes PGI - Sam os PGI - Thassos PGI - Zakynthos PGI - Masticha Chiou PDO - Khios chewing gum PDO - Khios m astic PDO - Tsikla Chiou PDO - Tsikla Chiou PDO - Mastiha Chiou PDO - Cretan biscotte PGI - Menalou Vanilia fir honey PDO - Krokos Kozanis PDO PDO and PGI in Europe : regulations or policy ? Contrat Fair CT 95-306 : PDO and PGI Products 46

  46. -Aprutino Pescarese PDO -Brisighella PDO -Bruzio PDO -Canino PDO -Cilento PDO -Collina di Brindisi PDO -Collina Salernitane PDO -Colline Teatine PDO -Dauno PDO -Garda PDO -Laghi Lom bardi PDO -Monti Iblei PDO -Penisola Sorrentina PDO -Riviera Ligure PDO -Sabina PDO -Terra di Bari PDO -Terra d'Otranto PDO -Um bria PDO -Valli trapanesi PDO -Toscano PGI Italy - Asiago PDO - Bitto PDO - Bra PDO - Caciocavallo Silano PDO - Caciotta d’Urbino PDO - Canestrato Pugliese PDO - Castem agno PDO - Fiore Sardo PDO - Fontina PDO - Form ai de Mut Dell’alta Valle Brem bana PDO - Gorgonzola PDO - Grana Padano PDO - M onte Veronese PDO - Montasio PDO ? ? ? - Mozzarella di Bufala Cam pana PDO - M urazzano PDO - Parm igiano Reggiano PDO - Pecorino Rom ano PDO - Pecorino Sardo PDO - Pecorino Siciliano PDO - Pecorino Toscano PDO - Provolone Valpadana PDO - Quartirolo Lom bardo PDO - Ragusano PDO - Raschera PDO - Robiola di Roccaverano PDO - Taleggio PDO - Tom a Piem ontese PDO - Valle d’Aosta From adzo PDO - Valtellina Casera PDO - Boeren-Leidse m et sleutels PDO - Noord-Hollandse Edam m er PDO - Noord-Hollandse Gouda PDO - Queijo Am arelo da Beira Baixa PDO - Queijo de Azeitao PDO - Queijo da Beira Baixa PDO - Queijo de Cabra Transm ontano PDO - Queijo de Castelo Branco PDO - Queijo de Evora PDO - Queijo de Nisa PDO - Queijo Picante da Beira Baixa PDO - Queijo do Pico PDO - Queijo Rabaçal PDO - Queijo de Sao Jorge PDO - Queijo Serpa PDO - Queijo Serra da Estrela PDO - Queijo Terrincho PDO - Cotechino Modena PGI viande ou charcuterie ? ? - Vitellone Bianco dell'Appennino Centrale PGI - Zam pone Modena PGI viande ou charcuterie ? ? - Capocollo di Calabria PDO - Coppa Piacentina PDO - Culatello di Zibello PDO - M ortadella Bologna PGI - Pancetta di Calabria PDO - Pancetta Piacentina PDO - Prosciutto di Carpegna PDO - Prosciutto di Parm a PDO - Prosciutto di S. Daniele PDO - Prosciutto di Norcia PDO - Prosciutto Toscano PDO - Prosciutto di Modena PDO - Prosciutto Veneto Berico-Euganeo PDO - Salam e Brianza PDO - Salam e di Varzi PDO - Salam e Piacentino PDO - Salsiccia di Calabria PDO - Soppressata di Calabria PDO - Valle d'Aosta Jam bon de Bosses PDO - Valle d'Aosta Lard d'Arnad PDO - Bresaola della Valtellina PGI - Speck dell'Alto Adige PGI - Nocellara del Belice PDO - Pom odoro S. Marzano dell'Agro Sarnese-Nocerino PDO - Arancia Rossa di Sicilia PGI - Cappero di Pantelleria PGI - Castagna di Montella PGI - Clem entine di Calabria PGI - Fagiolo di Lam on della Vallata Bellunese PGI - Fagiolo di Sarconi PGI - Farro della Garfagnana PGI - Fungo di Borgotaro PGI - Lenticchia di Castelluccio di Norcia PGI - Marrone del Mugello PGI - Marrone di Castel del Rio PGI - Nocciola di Giffoni PGI - Nocciola del Piem onte PGI - Peperone di Senise PGI - Pera dell'Em ilia Rom agna PGI - Pera Montavana PGI - Pesca e Nettarina di Rom agna PGI - Radicchio Rosso di Treviso PGI - Radicchio Variegato di Castel-franco PGI - Scalogno di Rom agna PGI - Riso Nano Vialone Veronese PGI - Uva da Tavola di Canicatti PGI - Pane casareccio di Genzano PGI -Bruzio PDO -Cilento PDO -Colline Salem itane PDO -Penisola Sorrentina PDO Netherlands Portugal - Opperdoezer Ronde PDO - Borrego da Serra da Estrela PDO - Borrego Terrincho PDO - Cabrito Transm ontano PDO - Carne Alentejana PDO - Carne Arouquesa PDO - Carne Barrosa PDO - Carne M arinhoa PDO - Carne M aronesa PDO - Carne M ertolenga PDO - Carne M irandesa PDO - Cordeiro Bragançano PDO - Borrego do Baixo Alentejo PGI - Borrego da Beira PGI - Borrego de M ontem or-o-Novo PGI - Cabrito da Beira PGI - Cabrito da Gralheira PGI - Cabrito das Terras Altas do Minho PGI - Cabrito do Barroso PGI - Vitela de Lafoes PGI - Presento de Barrancos PDO - Presunto do Barroso PGI - Cacholeira de Portalegre PGI - Chourica de Carne de Vinhais PGI - Linguica de Vinhais PGI - Chourico Mouro de Portalegre PGI - Chourico de Portalegre PGI - Farinheira de Portalegre PGI - Linguica de Portalegre PGI - Lom bo Branco de Portalegre PGI - Lom o Enguitado de Portalegre PGI - Morcela de Assar de Portalegre PGI - Morcela de Cozer de Portalegre PGI - Painho de Portalegre PGI - Salpicao de Vinhais PGI - Am êndoa do Douro PDO - Am eixa d'Elvas PDO - Ananas dos Açores/Sao Miguel PDO - Azeitona de conserva Negrinha de Freixo PDO - Castanha dos Soutos da Lapa PDO - Castanha Marvao-Portalegre PDO - Castanha de Pradela PDO - Castanha da Terra Fria PDO - Cereja de Sao Juliao-Portalegre PDO - Maça Bravo de Esm olfe PDO - Maracuja de Sao Miguel/Açores PDO - Citrinos do Algarve PGI - Cereja da Cova da Beira PGI - Maça de Portalegre PGI - Maça da Beira Alta PGI - Maça da Cova da Beira PGI - Maça de Alcobaça PGI - Pêssego da Cova da Beira PGI - Azeite da Beira Interior PDO - Azeite da Beira Alta PDO - Azeite da Beira Baixa PDO - Azeite de Moura PDO - Azeite de Tras-os-M ontes PDO - Azeites do Norte Alentejano PDO - Azeite do Ribatejo PDO - M el da Serra da Lousa PDO - Mel da Serra de Monchique PDO - M el da Terra Quente PDO - Mel das Terras Altas do Minho PDO - Mel do Alentejo PDO - M el do Barroso PDO - Mel do Parque de Montezinho PDO - Mel do Ribatejo Norte (Serra d'Aire, Albufeira do Castelo do Bode, Bairro, Alto Nabao) PDO - Mel dos Açores PDO PDO and PGI in Europe : regulations or policy ? Contrat Fair CT 95-306 : PDO and PGI Products 47

  47. United Kingdom - Beacon Fell traditional Lancashire cheese PDO - Bonchester cheese PDO - Buxton blue PDO - Dovedale cheese PDO - Single Gloucester PDO - Swaledale cheese PDO - Teviotdale cheese PDO - White Stilton cheese PDO/Blue Stilton cheese PDO - West Country farm house Cheddar cheese PDO - Exm oor Blue Chesse PGI - Svecia PDO - Orkney beef PDO - Orkney lam b PDO - Shetland lam b PDO - Scotch beef PGI - Scotch lam b PGI - Whitstable Oysters PGI - Jersey Royal potatoes PDO - Newcastle brown ale PGI - Kentish ale and Kentish strong ale PGI - Rutland bitter PGI - Gloucestershire cider/perry PGI - Herefordshire cider/perry PGI - Worcestershire cider/perry PGI Sweden Luxem-bourg - Viande de porc, m arque nationale grand-duché de Luxem bourg PGI - Salaisons fum ées, m arque nationale Grand-Duché de Luxem bourg PGI - Beurre rose de m arque nationale grand-duché de Luxem bourg PDO - Miel luxem bourgeois de m arque nationale PDO PDO and PGI in Europe : regulations or policy ? Contrat Fair CT 95-306 : PDO and PGI Products 48

  48. Annexe 2 : Table of registrations up to 28/03/00 Fresh m eat and offal M eat-based products Cheese Other anim al products Fatty product s Fruits, veg. & cereals Fish, shellfish. & crustac. Other Ann.II products Foodstuffs in Annexe I of 2081/9228 Prod. ann.II of 208129 TOTALS Beers M ineral water Bakery products, patisseries Natural gum & resin Essential Oils Hay PDO PGI PDO PGI PDO PGI PDO PGI PDO PGI PDO PGI PDO PGI PDO PGI PDO PGI PDO PGI PDO PGI PDO PGI PDO PGI PDO PGI PDO PGI Austria 1 6 1 2 1 8 3 11 Belgium 1 1 1 2 1 3 Germ any 2 1 4 4 1 2 1 11 31 3 37 23 60 Denm ark 2 0+1 2+1 3 Spain 4+2 3+1 2 11+1 1 4 4+2 6+1 2 23+4 14+3 44 Finland 1 1 1 France 2 43 0+1 33+1 4 2 1 3 4+3 5+2 0+1 0+2 1 1 1 46+6 54+4 110 Greece 19 1 12 10 21 7 1 0+1 1 2 1 57+1 18 76 Ireland Italy 1 18 6 30 19 1 2 22 1 69 31 100 Luxembourg 1 1 1 1 2 2 4 Netherlands 3 1 4 4 Portugal 11 7+1 0+1 1+12 10+1 9 5 11 7 46+2 15+13 76 U.K. 3 2 8 1+2 0+1 1 1 3 3 12+1 10+2 25 Sweden 1 1 1 Tot. art 17 18 59 21 16 125 8 14 1 45 13 47 50 1 2 3 14 31 8 2 2 1 307 174 483 Tot. art 5 3 2 13 3 2 1 5 4 1 3 14 23 37 TOTAL 18 62 23 29 128 10 15 1 45 13 52 54 1 3 3 3 14 31 8 2 2 1 321 197 518 Legend : 28 Concerning foodstuffs of annexe I of 2081/92, drinks derived from plant extracts have not yet been registered. 29 Concerning agricultural products of annexe II of 2081/92, cork and cochineal have not yet been registered. 1 = 1 denom ination registered in art. 17 1+1 = 1 denom ination registered in art. 17 and 1 in art. 5 0+1 = 0 denom ination registered in art. 17 and 1 in art. 5 PDO and PGI in Europe : regulations or policy ? Contrat Fair CT 95-306 : PDO and PGI Products 49

  49. Annexe 3 : Table of applications accepted under article 17 Fish M eat M eat-based products Cheese Other anim al products Fatty products Olive oils Fruits, vegetables and cereals Cider Beers and m ineral water Bakery products and patisseries Total Spain 4 5 11 1 4 10 2 37 France 45 37 2 3 8 1 96 Luxem bourg 1 1 1 1 4 Portugal 18 1 10 9 5 18 61 United Kingdom 1 5 8 1 3 3 21 Belgium 1 1 1 3 Italy 16 30 14 19 1 80 Denm ark 2 2 Greece 1 20 1 16 21 1 60 Netherlands 2 1 3 Austria 3 1 2 6 Germ any 1 3 4 1 33 3 45 Finland 2 1 3 Sweden 1 1 1 Total 4 76 23 129 14 4 42 81 3 38 9 422 PDO and PGI in Europe : regulations or policy ? Contrat Fair CT 95-306 : PDO and PGI Products 50