Can Geographical Indications Modernize Indonesian and Vietnamese Agriculture? Analyzing the Role of National and Local Governments and Producers’ Strategies
Can Geographical Indications Modernize Indonesian and Vietnamese Agriculture? Analyzing the Role of National and Local Governments and Producers’ Strategies
复制标题
地理标志能否实现印度尼西亚和越南农业现代化？分析国家和地方政府以及生产者战略的作用
DOI：
10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.11.022
复制
发表时间：
2017
影响因子：
6.9
通讯作者：
S. Fournier
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
C. Durand;S. Fournier
本文调查了印度尼西亚和越南国家和地方政府实施地理标志的方式。两国积极参与地理标志发展的各个阶段，从选择地理标志注册的候选产品到监督地理标志的实施。由于来自公共机构的国家专家参与制定了《行为守则》，他们能够推动用“良好做法”（即，大多数是由世界各地的研究中心推荐的那些）。因此，当地理标志更传统地适用于基于传统知识的特定产品时，它们使地理标志为农业现代化服务，然而，《行动计划》的执行以及这一现代化目标的实现取决于生产者对整个地理标志动态的感知利益。事实上，在印度尼西亚和越南研究的案例突出了当地生产者参与地理标志的可变水平。在所研究的四个案例中，COP主要基于专家知识，这与农民和加工商的实际做法不同。此外，地理标志的实施是为了创造或加强声誉，而不是在法律上保护已有的声誉。由于这两个原因，生产者对地理标志认证的投资动机不强，难以进行必要的集体参与。在这两个国家，地方政府参与地理标志建设和管理改变了这种情况。由于他们对当地情况和利害关系的了解，他们比国家专家更有可能确定地方一级最具战略意义的供应链，在地理标志建设中采取参与性办法，并促进当地生产者参与地理标志管理小组。但是，如果在印度尼西亚和越南的法律的框架中赋予了地方政府管辖权，那么在地理标志中中央和省级政府之间的角色分配就没有足够明确的规定。地方公共干预的性质和重要性因情况而异。最后，本文承认国家干预地理标志发展的合法性，至少在生产者对地理标志的认识仍然较低的情况下是如此。然而，这种国家干预不仅应在地理标志治理中为生产者留出足够的空间，而且还应设计一个框架，以激发他们的兴趣和凝聚力，并促进他们的集体参与。具体而明确地下放国家政策的权力可能会促进这一点。
This paper investigates the way Geographical Indications (GIs) are implemented by national and local governments in Indonesia and Vietnam. The two States are active at all stages of GI development, from the selection of the products candidates for GI registration to the supervision of the GI implementation. Thanks to the involvement of national experts from public agencies in the establishment of the Codes of Practices (CoP), they are able to push for the substitution of traditional local techniques with “good practices” (i.e., mostly those recommended by research centers worldwide). Thus, they put GIs at the service of agricultural modernization when GIs apply more conventionally to specific products based on traditional know-how.However, the implementation of the CoPs and thus the achievement of this objective of modernization depend on the perceived interest of producers in the whole GI dynamic. Indeed, the cases studied in Indonesia and Vietnam highlight the variable level of participation of local producers in the GI. In the four studied cases, the CoPs are mainly based on expert knowledge which differs from the actual practices of farmers and processors. Moreover, GIs are implemented in order to create or reinforce reputations rather than legally protecting preexisting ones. For these two reasons, producers’ motivation to invest in GI certification is weak, which makes difficult the necessary collective involvement.In both countries, the involvement of local governments in GI construction and management modifies the situation. Thanks to their knowledge of local situations and stakes, they are more likely than national experts to identify the most strategic supply chains at local level, enable participatory approaches in GI construction and facilitate the involvement of local producers in the GI managing group. But if competences have been given to local governments in the Indonesian and Vietnamese legal frameworks, the distribution of roles between central and provincial governments in GIs are not clearly enough specified. The nature and the importance of local public intervention differ from one case to another.Finally, this paper recognizes the legitimacy of State intervention in GI development, at least as long as producers’ awareness of GIs is still low. However, this State intervention should not only let enough space for producers in GI governance, but also design a frame for arousing their interest and adhesion and for facilitating their collective involvement. That may be facilitated by a concrete and clearly established decentralization of competences in national policies.