One Size Fits all or Tailor-Made? Building Appropriate Certification
Systems for Geographical Indications in Southeast Asia
Figure 1: French system of GI control
Source: Authors’ survey, using initial figure of Certipaq.
Since 2006, in collaboration with
the appropriate GI producer/proces-
sor organization (GI organization), for
each PDO/PGI, the certification body
has been designing a control plan based
on the GI specification drafted by the
GI organization. The certification body
carries out the inspections and, based
on the inspection reports, decides
whether or not to grant certification.
All costs incurred in monitoring com-
pliance with the specification are borne
by producers/processors. The sensory
tests—which mainly involve tasting and
were maintained for PDOs despite be-
ing criticized as subjective—are carried
out by a panel of skilled producers and
experts who can ensure that the inspec-
tion of the product is independent and
impartial. The producer organizations
are responsible for training their mem-
bers and forming these panels, which
still play an important role in charac-
5
terizing the typicity/distinctiveness of
PDOs and in recognizing the know-
how of the producers. In addition to ex-
ternal controls by the certification body,
the control plan includes self-controls
by producers/processors, and internal
controls by the producer organization
(audited by the certification body).
Control by third-party certification
bodies ends INAO’s responsibility and
the practice of delegating the organiza-
tion of controls to GI organizations. In
this process, the philosophy of control
shifts from peer review to third-party
control. 5
2.3 From gray zones to windows
of opportunity
I
t is the French/EU control and certi-
fication model that is now dissemi-
nated to countries implementing GI
protection schemes. Indeed, EU Reg-
A similar shift was described for organic agriculture by Sylvander (1997) and by Muttersbaugh
(2005).
111