1. Geographical Indications in Croatia, National Conference, Zagreb, 6 April 2011 Lessons learnt from EU and Swiss experiences and projects in southeast Europe Zagreb, 6 April 2011

2. Geographical Indications in Croatia, National Conference, Zagreb, 6 April 2011 Main objective of this presentation What are the conditions for Geographic Indications to play a positive role in rural development with focus on economic development

3. Geographical Indications in Croatia, National Conference, Zagreb, 6 April 2011 Structure of the presentation Assumptions on positive role played by GIs Impacts of different GIs on prices and incomes in Switzerland and France Encountered situations in southeast Europe and implications Main lessons learnt

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

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

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

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

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

9. Geographical Indications in Croatia, National Conference, Zagreb, 6 April 2011 Effects on income of several PDOs BeaufortL’EtivazMont d'Or Vacheri n Mont d’Or ComtéGruyèreCantalEmmen - taler Countries FCHF F F Market price to the consumer (euros/kilo) 1715.41714.81011.5812.5 Average price paid to the producer € /kg 0.480.690.360.550.350.520.280.42 Averadge price paid to the producer for industrial milk €/kg 0.280.450.280.450.280.450.280.45 Plus-value PDO in % (1)-(2)/(2) 71.453.328.622.225.015.60.0<0 Part of the Turn over that returns to the producers 3149193335503433 Barjolle, 20046

10. Geographical Indications in Croatia, National Conference, Zagreb, 6 April 2011 Comté Basic hard cheese 20 % 46 % 10 Comté Consumer Price (€ / kg) 20%

11. Geographical Indications in Croatia, National Conference, Zagreb, 6 April 2011 Comté Milk Price (€ / hl) 9 % 14 % Comté milk Basic milk 11

12. Geographical Indications in Croatia, National Conference, Zagreb, 6 April 2011 Highest added-value for Beaufort and L’Etivaz Based on product strong IMAGE and strong COLLECTIVE ORGANISATION, with efficient MARKETING MIX Added-value due to the very positive image of mountain product Limited production due to small area Crucial role played by one cooperative in the marketing and commercialisation

13. Geographical Indications in Croatia, National Conference, Zagreb, 6 April 2011 High added-value for Vacherin Mt- d’Or (CH) and Mt-d’Or (F) Based on the management of the product QUALITY, with special focus on FOOD- SAFETY High-added value at consumer level due to high typicity But lower added value to the producer due to weaker marketing mix

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

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

16. Geographical Indications in Croatia, National Conference, Zagreb, 6 April 2011 The Cantal: a Value Chain dominated by the big industry Brand approach Industrial standards  lower quality requirements Supply large retailers: –volumes  –Prices  Produce 5 PDO in the same area

17. Geographical Indications in Croatia, National Conference, Zagreb, 6 April 2011 17 Cantal and Emmentaler “Unsuccess Stories” CANTAL (F)EMMENTALER (CH) Production 200418’82831’885 Yearly variation between 2000 and 2004 ( %)<0 Milk producers29004500 Cheese processors29215 Ripeners4915 Price paid by consumers (Euros/Kg)812,5 Price paid to the producer (euros/kg) (1)0,280,42 Price paid to the producer for milk delivered to industry (2) 0,280,45 Extra value PDO in % (1) - (2) / (2)=<0 Part of the turnover that goes to the producers34%33%

18. Geographical Indications in Croatia, National Conference, Zagreb, 6 April 2011 18 Environmental impacts Jura mountains, open landscape, grazed (Comté area) Haute Vosges (non-PDO area), closing landscape Haute Saône (non-PDO area), closed

19. Geographical Indications in Croatia, National Conference, Zagreb, 6 April 2011 Experiences in the southwest Europe Bi-lateral assistance project in BiH (Livanjski Sir I Sir iz Mijeha) FAO Case studies (see http://www.foodquality-origin.org) http://www.foodquality-origin.org Research projects in Serbia and Macedonia Product identification survey in Croatia (Paski sir, Drniski Prsut, Istarski Prsut) Technical assistance project in Serbia

20. Geographical Indications in Croatia, National Conference, Zagreb, 6 April 2011 Experience in the southwest Europe Post-Yugoslav period Yugoslav period: Geographical Indications as a intellectual property tool at international level… only ! Main orientations driven by EU integration Different pace in reforming the system and approaches, but all laws reform step by step GIs become a tool for RD  MinAgri role Difficulties to place the producers at the centre of the process

21. Geographical Indications in Croatia, National Conference, Zagreb, 6 April 2011 Experiences in the southwest Europe Protection and valorisation of traditional cheeses in Herzegovina Activate, protect local resources (sensibilization of the producers and other stakeholders) Qualify a product (definition of technical specification of the product, certification, etc.) Commercialization (promotion, education on food, events, fairs, etc..) Integration with the territory (gastronomic itineraries, inclusion in regional brand, etc.)

22. Geographical Indications in Croatia, National Conference, Zagreb, 6 April 2011 Experiences in the southwest Europe Protection and valorisation of traditional cheeses in Herzegovina Bottom-up approach Investment support to on-farm processing Marketing mix Important lobby of the project on state and entities authorities to enact coherent policies Long-term project (>7 years)

23. Geographical Indications in Croatia, National Conference, Zagreb, 6 April 2011 Experiences in the southwest Europe FAO Case Studies: Diagnosis Top-down approach, no need for collective approach and producers organization (CoP, authorized users) Normative approach: quality labels perceived as tools to access international markets and organize/control productions as well for implement food safety standards Transitional stage as it is emerging interest for rural development and involvement of ministries of Agriculture

24. Geographical Indications in Croatia, National Conference, Zagreb, 6 April 2011 Experiences in the southwest Europe FAO Case Studies: Needs Clarification of legal status and roles of institutions Networking, coordination between institutions Implementation of certification and control to increase GI credibility Official seals Information and promotion to consumers

25. Geographical Indications in Croatia, National Conference, Zagreb, 6 April 2011 Conclusions The registration itself has no automatic economic, social or environment impact No significant impact with GI that make compromise with the quality of the products Rural development dimension implies an increased role of the institutions in charge of RD (e.g. MinAgri) No significant impact without strong collective organisations able to act as one unique firm  Time and patience

26. Geographical Indications in Croatia, National Conference, Zagreb, 6 April 2011 Conclusions When analyzing an application the commission can/should already sense: The organisation strength The importance given to the quality The stakes between the various stakeholders To sum-up the registration process should look carefully at the present effects on rural development (economic, social, environmental)

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