GIs toolbox

Bibliography

AUBARD, A., CLERMONTELLE, A., Manual on Geographical Indications for CARIFORUM States, CarIPI. Bordeaux. (2024)

Click here to consult the publication

The CARIFORUM Intellectual Property Rights and Innovation project (CarIPI), has published a manual on regional geographical indications (GI), intended as a comprehensive guide for producers or producer groups, control bodies and IP offices. The manual outlines the necessary steps, requirements and outcomes associated with GI protection. Since 2021, CarIPI has been [...]

Read more

The CARIFORUM Intellectual Property Rights and Innovation project (CarIPI), has published a manual on regional geographical indications (GI), intended as a comprehensive guide for producers or producer groups, control bodies and IP offices. The manual outlines the necessary steps, requirements and outcomes associated with GI protection.

Since 2021, CarIPI has been working on the development of this GI manual through several consultation meetings with stakeholders, IP offices, interested parties and IP experts. The final version of the manual reflects the culmination of this collaborative effort and provides insights into the development and implementation of codes of practice and controls, as well as the registration process of geographical indications in the CARIFORUM region.

The 219-page manual covers key topics, starting with a general overview of what GIs are, highlighting their importance and the potential impact they can have in their respective regions of production. It goes on to cover key aspects such as GI eligibility, the content of GI applications, registration procedures, the day-to-day management of GIs, and the protection and enforcement of GI rights.

The final chapters of the manual are specifically tailored for IP examiners and control bodies, providing them with a detailed overview of the application process and GI control procedures, equipping them with the necessary tools to effectively manage and protect GIs in the CARIFORUM region.

MOVING – Analysis of the implementation of the EU optional quality term “mountain product” (2024)

Click here to consult the publication

As part of the MOVING project, AREPO, in collaboration with Euromontana and Highclere Consulting (HCC), conducted an analysis on the implementation of the EU OQT “mountain product”. The analysis aimed to update existing data, assess its impact on farmers' incomes and local economies, evaluate consumer perception, and explore its relationship [...]

Read more

As part of the MOVING project, AREPO, in collaboration with Euromontana and Highclere Consulting (HCC), conducted an analysis on the implementation of the EU OQT “mountain product”. The analysis aimed to update existing data, assess its impact on farmers’ incomes and local economies, evaluate consumer perception, and explore its relationship with other quality schemes. This analysis builds on Euromontana’s previous studies on OQT implementation, focusing on legislative status and farmer uptake. Through double surveys directed at regional administrations and producers using the OQT “mountain product”, this report presents key findings to inform evidence-based recommendations for strengthening the scheme.

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).

FAO, Using geographical indications to improve sustainability – Lessons learned from 15 years of FAO work on geographical indications. Rome, 2023 (2023)

Click here to consult the publication

It presents best practices and lessons learned drawn from the implementation of a comprehensive approach to GIs for over 10 years. The policy guidance provided through the brief highlights the importance of endogenous interventions that put local producers at the centre of geographical indications processes, as well as the need for [...]

Read more

It presents best practices and lessons learned drawn from the implementation of a comprehensive approach to GIs for over 10 years. The policy guidance provided through the brief highlights the importance of endogenous interventions that put local producers at the centre of geographical indications processes, as well as the need for public institutions to play a key role in the implementation of geographical indications approaches.