tries where different standards may be under the responsibility of different ministries , it may be difficult to avoid the multiplication of accreditation and certification bodies , each ministry considering itself as fully legitimate . This is more likely to be the case as the number of voluntary standards increases ( e . g . organic , safe , clean , VietGap , ThaiGap , ASEANGap ).
( 2 ) Control by a “ Board ” or “ Committee ”: the Thai system , which offers the possibility for the GI association to choose its system of control ( accredited certification body , Provincial Committee ), allows the GI to be launched without charging the operators for certification costs from the very beginning . The problem of cost also justifies the choice made in Vietnam . Indeed , in most cases the producers / processors cannot afford such costs at the beginning of the activity , but are able to do so later on once the GI product is better remunerated on the market . These Control boards or Provincial committees bring together experts from DIP / NOIP , local authorities , experts on the product , and experts in control / certification . One possible disadvantage of this control system is that control is not always optimal or may even not work at all because of lack of skilled human resources to conduct inspection and possible difficulties in coordinating such multi-stakeholder boards .
( 3 ) Control by participatory guarantee systems ( PGSs ) 27 are particularly
World Food Policy
27 Defined by IFOAM as “ a quality assurance system for clusters based on an active participation of all the stakeholders and on the establishment of trust , social systems and knowledge exchanges between farmers , consumers and members involved ” ( IFOAM , 20xx ). These alternative certification systems PGS are close to peer-to-peer systems .
122
appropriate for short value chains ( local and domestic markets ) as they enable producers to reduce certification costs and communities to engage in a learning process . They are also a very interesting instrument to raise consumer awareness about issues related to food quality . Indeed , PGSs allow greater communication and learning between farmers and consumers , as well as more information-sharing not only between the farmers themselves , but also with other segments of the value chain . PGSs are currently very popular in Vietnam .
In terms of overall strategy , there seems to be some rationale for the creation of “ one-stop shops for certification ”. Bringing all agri-food certifications under the umbrella of a single certification body ( national or regional ) would make it possible for operators willing to access multiple certifications to benefit from economies of scale , provided that several certifications can be granted after a single inspection ( e . g ., organic , GAP , GIs , mandatory food safety regulations ). This system would also enable inspectors from the certification body to attain a critical mass of activities to be fully operational , and not lose their skills . Such a system already exists for voluntary food standards , with certification bodies proposing certification packages that include a broad range of certifications ( Djama , Fouilleux , and Vagneron 2011 ).
In parallel , and during the transition period until fully operational na-