Provenance of Australian Food Products: Is There a Place for Geographical Indications?
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Provenance of Australian food products: is there a place for Geographical Indications? By William van Caenegem, Peter Drahos and Jen Cleary Provenance of Australian food products: is there a place for Geographical Indications? by William van Caenegem, Peter Drahos and Jen Cleary July 2015 RIRDC Publication No 15/060 RIRDC Project No PRJ-009251 © 2015 Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. All rights reserved. ISBN 978-1-74254-806-7 ISSN 1440-6845 Provenance of Australian food products: is there a place for Geographical Indications? Publication No. 15/060 Project No. PRJ-009251 The information contained in this publication is intended for general use to assist public knowledge and discussion and to help improve the development of sustainable regions. You must not rely on any information contained in this publication without taking specialist advice relevant to your particular circumstances. While reasonable care has been taken in preparing this publication to ensure that information is true and correct, the Commonwealth of Australia gives no assurance as to the accuracy of any information in this publication. The Commonwealth of Australia, the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC), the authors or contributors expressly disclaim, to the maximum extent permitted by law, all responsibility and liability to any person, arising directly or indirectly from any act or omission, or for any consequences of any such act or omission, made in reliance on the contents of this publication, whether or not caused by any negligence on the part of the Commonwealth of Australia, RIRDC, the authors or contributors. The Commonwealth of Australia does not necessarily endorse the views in this publication. This publication is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, all other rights are reserved. However, wide dissemination is encouraged. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to RIRDC Communications on phone 02 6271 4100. Researcher Contact Details Name: Professor William van Caenegem Address: 14 University Drive Robina QLD 4226 Phone: (07) 559 52275 Fax: (07) 5595 1011 Email: [email protected] In submitting this report, the researcher has agreed to RIRDC publishing this material in its edited form. RIRDC Contact Details Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation Level 2, 15 National Circuit BARTON ACT 2600 PO Box 4776 KINGSTON ACT 2604 Phone: 02 6271 4100 Fax: 02 6271 4199 Email: [email protected]. Web: http://www.rirdc.gov.au Electronically published by RIRDC in June 2015 Print-on-demand by Union Offset Printing, Canberra at www.rirdc.gov.au or phone 1300 634 313 ii Foreword This report examines the potential advantages of adoption of an Australian regime to allow the registration of Geographical Indications of Origin (GIs) for food products other than wine. The report is important as it examines the potential of such a system to enhance regional investment and jobs. The topic of GIs in Australia has to date been approached through the prism of the potential implications for international negotiations concerning increased protection for GIs, which has been seen as predominantly advantaging established European GIs. There are legitimate concerns in relation to the international trading arrangements around GIs, not the least being the potential for GIs to be used as a means of protection and preventing market access. Australia’s GI registration system for wines substantially came about through negotiations with the EU which offered market access advantages for Australian wines in return for domestic protection of European terms. This report seeks to canvass the potential advantages of a food GI register from the perspective of regional economic development. The study focuses on the question whether higher quality local production of other foods might be encouraged by this particular form of provenance brand protection. Other legal remedies against free riding on provenance brands already exist in Australia, but they have disadvantages of complexity and high thresholds of proof. GIs are not privately owned like standard trademarks, are more permanent in nature, and potentially offer an additional and effective weapon in the armour of local producers who want to invest in and promote the unique character of their iconic local product. This can help them in the domestic market but may also present some advantages in agricultural export markets where imitation of well-known brands is a problem. The potential beneficiaries of a food GI registration option are local producers who can collectively manage their provenance brand and share their investment in high-quality products that consumers come to recognise as uniquely emanating from their particular region. It offers them an additional chance to diversify and distinguish their product and become price-makers rather than price-takers producing a standard commodity product. It may add to their bargaining power up the value chain with distributors and retailers. Capturing more of the value of high-quality products that reflect local conditions, including clean and green source environments, is potentially attractive for producers in many agrifood sectors, from vegetables to fruit, beef to pork, nuts to seafood and cocoa beans to vanilla pods. The report canvasses actors across the diverse business models of many of our rural industries in locations and food industries around the country. The views and information derived from many stakeholder interviews richly inform the conclusions. The report finds that GI registration for food could should be considered as an additional tool for the maximisation of brand value in Australia. With a regulatory structure properly adapted to Australian conditions and legal traditions, the possibility exists for a low-cost, grassroots driven system that is grafted efficiently onto already existing QA and certification models of regulation and inspection. The project has been funded by RIRDC and enabled the research team to thoroughly investigate the research question. The subsequent report makes a valuable contribution to the question of whether Australia should reconsider its current position on maintaining the status quo with regard to GI registration in this country. This report is an addition to RIRDC’s diverse range of over 2000 research publications and it forms part of our National Rural Issues R&D program, which aims to inform and improve policy debate by government and industry on national and global issues relevant to agricultural and rural policy in iii Australia by targeting current and emerging rural issues, and produce quality work that will inform policy in the long term. Most of RIRDC’s publications are available for viewing, free downloading or purchasing online at www.rirdc.gov.au. Purchases can also be made by phoning 1300 634 313. Craig Burns Managing Director Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation iv Acknowledgements Our thanks go to Ella Zauner (LLB) and Paris Gray (LLB Hons), Research Assistants at the Faculty of Law, Bond University, whose tireless work contributed greatly to the completion of our fieldwork and the compilation of this Report. Further thanks go to Liz Gordon of the Bond University Research Office for making all our practical arrangements, and to Tonya Roberts for her administrative and editing work. We also thank the 172 interviewees who gave generously of their time and insights. Many interviewees took time out of very busy work schedules as primary producers to afford us enough time to explore the subject matter of this Report in-depth with them. They contributed many significant insights to our research work and Report. We also wish to thank the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC) for its support, both financial and in substance, to the undertaking of this important research, and Simon Winter in particular for his constructive engagement with the project. We also thank the four anonymous reviewers of this report who gave up their time to comment on it. v About the Authors Jen Cleary is a human geographer with research interests in regional development and agricultural value chain analysis. Jen is based within the School of Commerce at the University of South Australia, and holds an honorary position as Adjunct Associate Professor at the Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis at the University of Canberra. Jen also holds a number of leadership positions in national and international organisations concerned with rural, regional and remote development and is recognised for her expertise, experience and extensive networks in this field. She co-chairs the International Rural Network and is Deputy Chair of Regional Development South Australia. Jen has served as Chair of Regional Development Australia, Far North (RDAFN) from 2009-2014 and has recently been reappointed by the Deputy Prime Minister for a further three-year period. In 2013, Jen joined the National Steering Committee of SEGRA (Sustainable Economic Growth for Regional Australia), a national, independent body that fosters collaboration and formulates policy advice across rural, regional and remote Australia. Peter Drahos is a professor at the Regulatory Institutions Network in the Australian National University and holds a Chair in Intellectual Property at Queen Mary, University of London. He has held a number of visiting professorial positions, including Senior Fernand Braudel Fellow in the Department