IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/eurcho/v16y2017i2p34-40.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Geographical Indications and Transatlantic Trade Negotiations: Different US and EU Perspectives

Author

Listed:
  • Maria Cecilia Mancini
  • Filippo Arfini
  • Mario Veneziani
  • Erik Thévenod‐Mottet

Abstract

Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) are an important issue in the negotiations between the United States (US) and the European Union (EU) for a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) currently underway. However, Geographical Indications (GIs) are one of the most disputed topics because, for decades, the US and the EU have each led one of two seemingly irreconcilable camps on how to address the protection of GIs at the international level. Agreeing on GIs protection in international trade raises important issues related to four dimensions of the GI system, which are likely to become ever more relevant as the TTIP negotiations proceed: i) legal and institutional protection; ii) domestic and international trade; iii) rural/local development and sustainability; and iv) consumers, quality and food safety. Although important, GIs represent only one of the many chapters of the TTIP, and it is in the nature of such agreements that the final text will be the outcome of numerous compromises. To date, the details of the negotiations in the public domain are scant and only in the next few months will we discover whether the protection of GIs in TTIP is a mission possible or will remain an illusory hope. Les droits de propriété intellectuelle (DPI) sont une question importante dans les négociations en cours entre les États‐Unis (É‐U) et l'Union européenne (UE) pour établir un Partenariat transatlantique de commerce et d'investissement (TTIP). Les Indications géographiques (IG) sont l'un des sujets les plus controversés car depuis des décennies, les É‐U et l’UE ont mené deux camps apparemment irréconciliables sur la façon de protéger les IG au niveau international. S'accorder sur la protection des IG dans le commerce international soulève des questions importantes liées à quatre dimensions du système d’IG, qui deviendront probablement encore plus pertinentes à mesure de l'avancement des négociations : i) la protection institutionnelle et juridique ; ii) le commerce interne et international ; iii) le développement rural/local et la durabilité ; et iv) les consommateurs, la qualité et l'innocuité des aliments. Les IG sont importantes mais elles ne représentent que l'un des nombreux chapitres du TTIP. Conformément à la nature de tels accords, le texte du TTIP résultera de multiples compromis. À ce jour, les détails sur ses négociations accessibles au public sont maigres et c'est seulement dans les quelques mois à venir que nous découvrirons si la protection des IG dans le TTIP est une mission possible ou si elle restera un espoir illusoire. Das Thema geistige Eigentumsrechte stellt einen wichtigen Punkt in den Verhandlungen zwischen den Vereinigten Staaten (USA) und der Europäischen Union (EU) für das geplante Transatlantische Freihandelsabkommen dar. Zu den strittigsten Punkten gehören jedoch die geografischen Angaben, da die USA und die EU seit Jahrzehnten zwei anscheinend nicht miteinander zu vereinbarende Standpunkte vertreten, wie der Schutz geografischer Angaben auf internationaler Ebene zu behandeln ist. Mit einem Freihandelsabkommen, das den Schutz geografischer Angaben vorsieht, würden wichtige Fragen im Zusammenhang mit vier Aspekten für die Regelung für geografische Angaben aufgeworfen, die mit fortschreitenden Verhandlungen über das Freihandelsabkommen an Bedeutung zunehmen dürften: (1) Rechtlicher und institutioneller Schutz; (2) Binnen‐ und Welthandel; (3) ländliche/regionale Entwicklung und Nachhaltigkeit; (4) Verbraucher, Qualität und Nahrungsmittelsicherheit. Geografische Angaben stellen zwar einen wichtigen Punkt, aber trotzdem nur einen Teil des Transatlantischen Freihandelsabkommens dar, und naturgemäß ist die endgültige Version solcher Abkommen das Ergebnis zahlreicher Kompromisse. In der Öffentlichkeit ist bislang nur wenig über die Einzelheiten der Verhandlungen bekannt, und nur die kommenden Monate werden zeigen, ob der Schutz geografischer Angaben realisierbar ist oder ein Wunschbild bleiben wird.

Suggested Citation

  • Maria Cecilia Mancini & Filippo Arfini & Mario Veneziani & Erik Thévenod‐Mottet, 2017. "Geographical Indications and Transatlantic Trade Negotiations: Different US and EU Perspectives," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 16(2), pages 34-40, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:16:y:2017:i:2:p:34-40
    DOI: 10.1111/1746-692X.12131
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12131
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1746-692X.12131?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Matthews, Alan, 2015. "What outcome to expect on Geographical Indications in the TTIP free trade agreement negotiations with the United States?," 145th Seminar, April 14-15, 2015, Parma, Italy 206448, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Inama, Stefano, 2015. "Can GI’s be development friendly? Lessons Learned in Promoting GIs in Least Developed Countries," 145th Seminar, April 14-15, 2015, Parma, Italy 206453, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Mancini, Maria Cecilia & Consiglieri, Claudio, 2016. "Innovation and marketing strategies for PDO products: the case of “Parmigiano Reggiano” as an ingredient," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 5(2), September.
    4. De Rosa, Marcello & Bartoli, Luca & Chiappini, Silvia, 2015. "The Role of Knowledge and Innovation Systems in Supporting Farm’s Strategies in GI Areas," 145th Seminar, April 14-15, 2015, Parma, Italy 200228, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Serra, Raimondo, 2015. "The Protection of Geographical Indications in TTIP: a Mission Possible," 145th Seminar, April 14-15, 2015, Parma, Italy 206447, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Tim Josling, 2006. "The War on Terroir: Geographical Indications as a Transatlantic Trade Conflict," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(3), pages 337-363, September.
    7. Sidali, Katia Laura & Granja, Nelson & Monteros, Alvaro & Wilson, Usiña, 2015. "Geographical Indications in Progress…Do Latin America Countries Represent a Third Path of Development?," 145th Seminar, April 14-15, 2015, Parma, Italy 200345, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Garavaglia, Christian & Mariani, Paolo, 2015. "How Much Do Consumers Value PDO Certifications? Estimates of WTP for PDO Dry-Cured Ham in Italy," 145th Seminar, April 14-15, 2015, Parma, Italy 200376, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Quiñones Ruiz, Xiomara Fernanda & Belletti, Giovanni & Penker, Marianne & Marescotti, Andrea & Scaramuzzi, Silvia, 2015. "Collective Efforts, Risks and Benefits for Registering Geographical Indications in the EU," 145th Seminar, April 14-15, 2015, Parma, Italy 206463, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Santini, Fabien & Guri, Fatmir & Aubard, Audrey & Gomez y Paloma, Sergio, 2015. "Geographical Indications and Territories with Specific Geographical Features in the EU: the Cases of Mountain and Island Areas," 145th Seminar, April 14-15, 2015, Parma, Italy 204145, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Deserti, Riccardo, 2015. "A fresh look at GIs in the TTIP," 145th Seminar, April 14-15, 2015, Parma, Italy 206449, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Vandecandelaere, Emilie, 2015. "Geographical Indications as a Tool for More Sustainable Food Systems," 145th Seminar, April 14-15, 2015, Parma, Italy 206452, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Barjolle, Dominique & Schmitt, Emilia & Cravero, Virginia & Tanquerey-Cado, Anaëlle, 2015. "Sustainability Assessment of PDO Value Chains: The Cases of L’Etivaz and Le Gruyere in Switzerland," 145th Seminar, April 14-15, 2015, Parma, Italy 200318, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. Mattas, Konstadinos & Tsakiridou, Efthimia & Theodoridou, Glykeria, 2015. "Consumers’ purchasing trends of GIs products," 145th Seminar, April 14-15, 2015, Parma, Italy 206462, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. Babcock, Bruice A., 2015. "Common Names or Protected Property? A US Perspective on Strengthening GI Protection," 145th Seminar, April 14-15, 2015, Parma, Italy 206446, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. Angela Tregear & à ron Török & Matthew Gorton, 2016. "Geographical indications and upgrading of small-scale producers in global agro-food chains: A case study of the Makó Onion Protected Designation of Origin," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 48(2), pages 433-451, February.
    17. Kimura, Junko, 2015. "Dawn of Geographical Indications in Japan Strategic Marketing Management of GI Products Candidates," 145th Seminar, April 14-15, 2015, Parma, Italy 200232, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Huysmans, Martijn, 2021. "On Feta and Fetta: Protecting EU Geographical Indications Down Under," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 314978, International Association of Agricultural Economists.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cei, Leonardo & Stefani, Gianluca & Defrancesco, Edi, 2021. "How do local factors shape the regional adoption of geographical indications in Europe? Evidences from France, Italy and Spain," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    2. Peter Slade & Jeffrey D. Michler & Anna Josephson, 2019. "Foreign Geographical Indications, Consumer Preferences, and the Domestic Market for Cheese," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 370-390, September.
    3. Leonardo Cei & Edi Defrancesco & Gianluca Stefani, 2018. "From Geographical Indications to Rural Development: A Review of the Economic Effects of European Union Policy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-21, October.
    4. Duvaleix, Sabine & Emlinger, Charlotte & Gaigné, Carl & Latouche, Karine, 2021. "Geographical indications and trade: Firm-level evidence from the French cheese industry," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    5. Johan Swinnen & Alessandro Olper & Senne Vandevelde, 2021. "From unfair prices to unfair trading practices: Political economy, value chains and 21st century agri‐food policy," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(5), pages 771-788, September.
    6. N. Lalitha & Madhusudan Bandi & Soumya Vinayan, 2021. "Bhalia wheat in Gujarat: Does geographical indication registration have a role in arresting the decline?," Journal of Social and Economic Development, Springer;Institute for Social and Economic Change, vol. 23(1), pages 93-112, June.
    7. Kyriakos Drivas & Constantine Iliopoulos, 2017. "An Empirical Investigation in the Relationship Between PDOs/PGIs and Trademarks," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 8(2), pages 585-595, June.
    8. Sarah Bowen & Tad Mutersbaugh, 2014. "Local or localized? Exploring the contributions of Franco-Mediterranean agrifood theory to alternative food research," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 31(2), pages 201-213, June.
    9. Emlinger, Charlotte & Latouche, Karine, 2022. "Protection of Geographical Indications in Trade Agreements: is it worth it?," 2022: Transforming Global Value Chains, December 11-13, Clearwater Beach, FL 339444, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    10. Luisa Menapace & Gregory Colson & Carola Grebitus & Maria Facendola, 2011. "Consumers' preferences for geographical origin labels: evidence from the Canadian olive oil market," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 38(2), pages 193-212, June.
    11. Teuber, Ramona, 2007. "Geographical Indications of Origin as a Tool of Product Differentiation : The Case of Coffee," Discussion Papers 33, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Center for international Development and Environmental Research (ZEU).
    12. Bruce L., Ahrendsen & Edward. Majewski, 2017. "Protected Geographical Indication Recognition And Willingness To Pay: A Case Of Grojec Apple," APSTRACT: Applied Studies in Agribusiness and Commerce, AGRIMBA, vol. 11(3-4), December.
    13. Harry G. West, 2022. "Terroir products: a movable heritage feast?," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 103(1), pages 1-27, March.
    14. Stephan Marette & Roxanne Clemens & Bruce Babcock, 2008. "Recent international and regulatory decisions about geographical indications," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(4), pages 453-472.
    15. repec:ags:aaea22:335798 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Petit, Michel & Ilbert, Helene, 2015. "Geographic Indicators and Rural Development in North Africa Implications for TTIP Negotiations," 145th Seminar, April 14-15, 2015, Parma, Italy 200231, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Sali, Guido, 2012. "Agricultural Land Consumption in Developed Countries," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126431, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Luke Owen & Donna Udall & Alex Franklin & Moya Kneafsey, 2020. "Place-Based Pathways to Sustainability: Exploring Alignment between Geographical Indications and the Concept of Agroecology Territories in Wales," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-25, June.
    19. Swinnen, J. & Meloni, G. & Haeck, C., 2018. "What is the Value of Terroir? Historical Evidence from Champagne and Bordeaux," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277221, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. Meloni, Giulia & Swinnen, Johan, 2018. "Trade and terroir. The political economy of the world’s first geographical indications," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 1-20.
    21. Koji Domon & Alessandro Melcarne & Giovanni B. Ramello, 2022. "Fake & original: the case of Japanese food in Southeast Asian countries," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 327-347, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:16:y:2017:i:2:p:34-40. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.