GIs toolbox

Bibliography

This deliverable gather the 5 Policy Briefs elaborated for each of the 5 Clusters of VCs established in WP5: • Cluster S: Social and Demographic aspects • Cluster V: Value and Quality products • Cluster I: Innovation and Infrastructures • Cluster N: Nature and Ecosystem Services • Cluster G: Governance, Cooperation and Territoriality Every documents stand as [...]

Read more

This deliverable gather the 5 Policy Briefs elaborated for each of the 5 Clusters of VCs established in WP5:
• Cluster S: Social and Demographic aspects
• Cluster V: Value and Quality products
• Cluster I: Innovation and Infrastructures
• Cluster N: Nature and Ecosystem Services
• Cluster G: Governance, Cooperation and Territoriality
Every documents stand as an individual one.

MOVING – D5.1 Comparative cross-case report on Mountain Value Chains (2024)

Click here to consult the publication

This deliverable assembles the outcomes of a critical benchmarking process involving the cross-regional analysis of five clusters of mountain value chains. The analysis focused on assessing the contributions of these value chains to the sustainability and resilience of European mountain areas. The examination also delved into the trade-offs between the [...]

Read more

This deliverable assembles the outcomes of a critical benchmarking process involving the cross-regional analysis of five clusters of mountain value chains. The analysis focused on assessing the contributions of these value chains to the sustainability and resilience of European mountain areas. The examination also delved into the trade-offs between the provision of public and private goods by value chains. This work is part of the WP5-Cross-case Comparison and Benchmarking of the MOVING project.

The objective of WP5 was to critically benchmark cross-regional clusters of value chains, focusing on vulnerability, sustainability and resilience criteria and analysing the trade-offs between the provision of public and private goods in mountain areas.
To achieve this objective, the 23 value chains were classified into five clusters addressing key challenges faced by mountain areas: Social and Demographic aspects (Cluster S), Value and Quality Products (Cluster V), Innovation and Infrastructures (Cluster I), Nature and Ecosystem Services (Cluster N), and Governance, Cooperation, and Territoriality (Cluster G). Each cluster grouped five to seven value chains.

Within each cluster, a comparative participatory analysis was conducted, evaluating the contribution of value chains to the sustainability and resilience of mountain areas. This analysis focused on identifying how the value chains within each cluster impacted seven objectives, previously defined as crucial to enhance both aspects: Human Capital, Cooperation, Sustainable Use of Local Assets, Inclusiveness, Adaptive Capacity, Ecological Resilience, and Attractiveness and Wellbeing. Additionally, each cluster identified trade-offs, challenges and solutions, and the provision of public goods by value chains.

In addition to this document, each cluster has elaborated a Policy Brief (D5.2).

Guerrieri F., Governing governance: Collective action and rulemaking in EU agricultural and non-agricultural geographical indications (2023)

Click here to consult the publication

Geographical Indications (‘GIs’) designate a product whose reputation, characteristics and quality are essentially due to their geographical origin. They are identifiers of ‘origin products’, immersed in a specific local natural and socio-cultural ecosystem. Local tangible and intangible assets and the associated reputation are nurtured over time, but they are also [...]

Read more

Geographical Indications (‘GIs’) designate a product whose reputation, characteristics and quality are essentially due to their geographical origin. They are identifiers of ‘origin products’, immersed in a specific local natural and socio-cultural ecosystem. Local tangible and intangible assets and the associated reputation are nurtured over time, but they are also vulnerable to erosion. GIs encourage stakeholders to codify arrangements (product specifications) as a response to this problem.
The importance of collective action issues in GIs has been demonstrated by interdisciplinary scholarship. However, it is mostly considered extraneous in the legal discourse and in policy prescriptions at the European level. Through a transdisciplinary approach this work combines comparative legal and case study analyses, illustrating the diversity of the protection and valorisation strategies of French and Italian agricultural and non-agricultural origin products.
Inspired by the theory and diagnostic frameworks of Elinor Ostrom’s and colleagues for analysing human cooperation for the sustainable governance of tangible and intangible commons, it explores the potential of the conceptual proximity between GIs and the commons reframing key aspects of GI legal theory and embracing the collective action perspective. The analysis of how actors’ interactions in rulemaking for product specification design affects the outcomes, reveals that the interpretation and implementation of national legal rules at the pre-registration and registration phases are not harmonised in Europe. Empirically grounded findings flag legally relevant collective action issues in GI settings and support suggestions for coherent policy transitions, measuring implementation feasibility and avoiding panaceas.

Habli, K.; Dumitras, D.E.; Schmitt, E.; Maglietti Smith, I.; Barjolle, D. Circular Economy in Mountain Value Chains: The Case of Three PDO Cheeses. Foods 2023, 12, 3954 (2023)

Click here to consult the publication

The circular economy (CE) has shown promise for achieving several of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, replacing the linear system and reducing negative impacts on the environment. This research aims to assess the effective adoption of CE principles in three cheeses with geographical indication (GI) through an analysis of [...]

Read more

The circular economy (CE) has shown promise for achieving several of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, replacing the linear system and reducing negative impacts on the environment. This research aims to assess the effective adoption of CE principles in three cheeses with geographical indication (GI) through an analysis of the practices identified in their respective value chains. Qualitative interviews show the persistence of historical practices that preserve the heritage behind the product, maintain autonomy in relation to external inputs and save energy or make intelligent use of by-products. Radical adoption of CE principles requires innovation to reduce the use of new inputs and greenhouse gas emissions. GI food products are generally not constrained by standards beyond those set by law, but their specifications can be modified, while respecting practices consistent with the link to the terroir. However, the remoteness of small businesses in deep rural areas, far from research centers, is slowing down the transfer of knowledge and the adoption of the latest technologies, particularly in mountainous areas. More participatory research and innovative initiatives are needed to ensure the transition to a circular economy for traditional mountain products, which are strongly linked to local culinary traditions and cultural identity.

Sanz-Cañada, J.; Sánchez-Hernández, J.L.; López-García, D. Reflecting on the Concept of Local Agroecological Food Systems. Land 2023, 12, 1147 (2023)

Click here to consult the publication

Despite the extensive literature on Local Agro-food Systems (LAFS), which involves research on local food identity and organisational proximity, the environmental sustainability of these systems has rarely been addressed. This paper develops a new concept called Local Agroecological Food Systems (LAEFS), which focuses the research not [...]

Read more

Despite the extensive literature on Local Agro-food Systems (LAFS), which involves research on local food identity and organisational proximity, the environmental sustainability of these systems has rarely been addressed. This paper develops a new concept called Local Agroecological Food Systems (LAEFS), which focuses the research not only on local food identity, but also on agroecological principles. We aim to conduct a reflexive review of the literature on the conceptual factors attempting to describe the particular characteristics of LAEFS (distinguishing these from LAFS). We explore five axes of analysis: (a) to establish a compromise at the local level between agro-food sectoral specialisation on the one hand and greater cultivated biodiversity and a more diversified economic structure on the other; (b) to geographically and commercially shorten food channels to the fullest extent; (c) to construct new institutional formulae in the fields of logistics, distribution and public procurement for the scaling up of sustainable food; (d) to develop a participatory, bottom-up, multi-stakeholder and multi-level territorial governance; and (e) to reduce the metabolic profile of food systems by reorganising rural-urban linkages. One of the principal objectives of LAEFS should involve redesigning agricultural and food systems at a scale greater than that of the farm (territory or landscape). This requires both a major public policy push and sustainable territorial governance that incorporate an approach based on territory, food systems and agroecology.