World Food Policy
control system is consequently vital to
allow the system to benefit all the par-
ties involved. Failure in the control sys-
tem is likely to significantly reduce the
benefits of GI protection, and to dam-
age the image of the GI product and its
economic prospects, both locally and
abroad. In addition to GI control re-
quirements expressed in national laws
and regulations (when these exist), ex-
porting GI products to foreign markets
may also require compliance with the
requirements of the importing country
(Bramley, Marie-Vivien, and Biénabe
2013). In the EU, while GIs are qualified
as an Intellectual Property Right (IPR),
their control system is increasingly sim-
ilar to those developed for agri-food vol-
untary standards such as “Label Rouge”
(“Red Label” superior quality standard)
in France {Marie-Vivien, 2017 #609} or
Examples of emerging GIs in organic agriculture, in which third-par-
South-East Asia include: Khao Hom ty certification prevails. For example,
Mali and Thung Kula Rong-Hai fragrant in France, GI control must be carried
rice (Thailand), Kampot Pepper (Cam- out by an ISO 17065 accredited certi-
bodia), Nuoc Mam Phu Quoc (Viet- fication body. We hypothesize that EU
nam), or Bolaven coffee (Laos). Despite regulations influence domestic schemes
encouraging developments, challenges for GI controls in countries willing to
to maximizing GI development in the export their products to Europe, for ex-
region persist at institutional and oper- ample in Vietnam, Lao PDR, Cambo-
ational levels. One of these challenges is dia, and Thailand.
Many authors have studied the
to enhance capacity for GI control. A GI
is a signal that a product possesses cer- importance of third-party certification
tain qualities and characteristics, and for voluntary standards such as organic
enjoys a certain reputation related to its agriculture or fair trade, and explain it
geographical origin. Such information in terms of neoliberal governmentality
is described in the GI specification, and (Gibbon and Memedovic 2005; Guth-
compliance with the GI specifications man 2007; Hatanaka, Bain, and Busch
by the value chain operators must be 2005). Third-party certification also
properly controlled to maximize trust appeals to techno-scientific values such
by local and international buyers/con- as independence, objectivity, and trans-
sumers. An independent efficient GI parency in an attempt to increase trust
(Crespi and Marette 2003; Rangnekar
2004; Barham and Sylvander 2011).
Since the implementation of the WTO
Agreement on Trade Related Aspects
of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS
Agreement 1994), GI protection has
expanded remarkably worldwide (Ev-
ans and Blakeney 2006), in particular
in Asia. Despite different econom-
ic contexts and different GI schemes,
Cambodia (François and Prak 2006),
Thailand (Ngokkuen and Grote 2013),
Vietnam (Pick, Marie-Vivien, and Bui-
Kim 2015), and Lao PDR (Marie-Vivi-
en and Chabrol 2014), all have opportu-
nities to develop high-quality products
with a strong geographical identity, and
have already engaged in the identifica-
tion and registration of GIs as a tool to
expand their presence on international
markets.
108