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 [...]
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).
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 [...]
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.
The Geographical Indications (GIs) scheme is the EU’s primary policy tool for increasing the market values of geographically distinct food products. Although GIs are linked to the landscapes of food production, little is known about the social-ecological values they represent, mainly due to a lack of spatial data. In [...]
The Geographical Indications (GIs) scheme is the EU’s primary policy tool for increasing the market values of geographically distinct food products. Although GIs are linked to the landscapes of food production, little is known about the social-ecological values they represent, mainly due to a lack of spatial data. In this study, we, therefore, mapped all 638 food products labeled as Protected Designations of Origin (PDOs), using NUTS-3 areas as proxies for their actual extent, and correlated their distribution with 13 social-ecological indicators. By compiling this novel dataset, we show that the presence of PDOs strongly overlaps with environmental and cultural values. We reveal positive correlations of PDO frequency with high nature value farmland, semi-natural agriculture, tourism, and cultural heritage indicators. Further, we find that PDOs occur more often in economically weaker areas with older and declining populations. Besides differences in PDO distribution between northern and southern EU countries, we find different correlation patterns across the four largest food categories. For example, cheese and meat products are less correlated to environmental values compared to oils and fats, or fruit, vegetables and cereals. On that basis, we identify the potential of PDOs to support structurally deprived areas and propose PDOs as entry points for sustainable transformation and rural development policies—while simultaneously contributing to the conservation of cultural landscapes and their associated environmental values. As outlined in the Green Deal of the European Union and its Farm to Fork strategy, PDOs should be a part of this transformation. Based on the results of this study, we discuss more specifically for which production systems and under what enabling conditions PDOs are fit for this challenge. We recommend that future governance interventions for a sustainable transformation of EU’s agriculture should take the differences across regions and product categories into account.
The protection of Geographical Indications (GIs) supports producers to define common quality standards while highlighting the geographical origin of food products with specific qualities. Adaptations of quality standards are driven by international competition, new production technologies or environmental change. The purpose of this paper is to analyse the modifications affecting [...]
The protection of Geographical Indications (GIs) supports producers to define common quality standards while highlighting the geographical origin of food products with specific qualities. Adaptations of quality standards are driven by international competition, new production technologies or environmental change. The purpose of this paper is to analyse the modifications affecting the European Union (EU) Protected Designation of Origin-Protected Geographical Indication. It specifically compares the share of amendments in the diverse product classes, years and countries, illustrates specific cases and identifies the factors explaining the probability to amend product specifications.
Official documents of the DOOR Database provide the material for an analysis of changes in product specifications. They also supply the data for four illustrative cheese cases and logistic regression of all EU amendments.
Amendments of GI product specifications are very frequent: 17 per cent of all 1,276 EU GIs had at least one amendment. This happens in particular for processed products (42 per cent more often than for unprocessed ones) and specific countries (GIs in Italy are six times, Spain five times and France four times more likely to have an amendment compared to GIs from other EU countries). As illustrated by contrasting cheese amendments, the diverse modifications in the product specifications range from more flexibility and innovation on the one hand to stricter rules for strengthening the product’s identity on the other hand.
The registration of Geographical Indications (GIs) under the European Union (EU) legislation requires collective action and considerable efforts borne by multiple actors such as producers, processors, public authorities and research centers. We analyze their efforts, risks and benefits by comparing two EU GI registration processes in Italy and Austria, namely [...]
The registration of Geographical Indications (GIs) under the European Union (EU) legislation requires collective action and considerable efforts borne by multiple actors such as producers, processors, public authorities and research centers. We analyze their efforts, risks and benefits by comparing two EU GI registration processes in Italy and Austria, namely the Sorana bean Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) and the Perry from Mostviertel PGI. Results from the institutional and transaction costs analysis suggest that intensive interaction for solving conflicting interests, negotiating quality standards and defining common rules might pay off in indirect benefits and reduced risks. In particular, an inclusion of diverse and heterogeneous interest groups and a high degree of direct enterprise participation along the GI application process (as observed in the Italian case) generate benefits such as trust and social cohesion, which then support the actual use of the GI label and a better implementation of associated quality standards. A supportive legal framework with assistance from public authorities can back up the community of producers not only in technical aspects, but also as mediators when conflicts seem to be difficult to solve. As there seems to be a positive relationship between the intensity and effectiveness of collective action and the likelihood of achieving broadly accepted standards and social cohesion needed for successful GI implementation, the question for future research would not be how to avoid collective efforts but how to effectively organize the interaction among heterogeneous producer groups.