To Label or Not? Governing the Costs and Benefits of Geographic Indication of an African Forest Honey Value Chain

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Standard

To Label or Not? Governing the Costs and Benefits of Geographic Indication of an African Forest Honey Value Chain. / Ingram, Verina; Hansen, Maria Ellemann; Bosselmann, Aske Skovmand.

In: Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, Vol. 3, 102, 2020.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

Ingram, V, Hansen, ME & Bosselmann, AS 2020, 'To Label or Not? Governing the Costs and Benefits of Geographic Indication of an African Forest Honey Value Chain', Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, vol. 3, 102. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2020.00102

APA

Ingram, V., Hansen, M. E., & Bosselmann, A. S. (2020). To Label or Not? Governing the Costs and Benefits of Geographic Indication of an African Forest Honey Value Chain. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 3, [102]. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2020.00102

Vancouver

Ingram V, Hansen ME, Bosselmann AS. To Label or Not? Governing the Costs and Benefits of Geographic Indication of an African Forest Honey Value Chain. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change. 2020;3. 102. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2020.00102

Author

Ingram, Verina ; Hansen, Maria Ellemann ; Bosselmann, Aske Skovmand. / To Label or Not? Governing the Costs and Benefits of Geographic Indication of an African Forest Honey Value Chain. In: Frontiers in Forests and Global Change. 2020 ; Vol. 3.

Bibtex

@article{0a14f54b1f1849d38c5452e90c1f5079,
title = "To Label or Not? Governing the Costs and Benefits of Geographic Indication of an African Forest Honey Value Chain",
abstract = "Geographical Indication (GI) has been proposed as a development tool, benefitting producers, consumers and local communities by creating value, improving market access, protecting local knowledge and natural resources and contributing to social cohesion as producers work together to solve common problems. However, scientific evidence on the socio-economic and environmental effects of governing value chains and origin landscapes through this voluntary, market-based arrangement is scarce. Honey appears ideal for GI labeling: having unique, physically identifiable and geographically localizable properties dependent upon the local ecosystem and beekeeping practices. White honey from the Kilum-Ijim forest in the Cameroon Highlands was GI registered in 2013 aiming to guarantee product quality, increase beekeeper selling prices and protect the forest. Long-term panel data from stakeholder interviews, market surveys and participatory action research show the extent to which the GI actually benefited beekeepers, and how the honey value chain and landscape developed since registration. Although honey production and productivity remained steady, profits augmented as prices increased and sales became more nationwide, improving beekeeper{\textquoteright}s living standards, and appear attributable to the GI. Deforestation continued and imposter brands abounded, signaling potential supply shortages, increased input costs and competition which could affect future profits and the GI reputation and changing the distribution of benefits to suppliers rather than beekeepers. These findings suggest that whilst the Oku white honey GI contributed to short-term positive livelihood effects, longer-term positive impacts which support conservation of the landscape have been ineffective, and the durability of the positive economic impacts is questionable. Although multiple arrangements govern the value chain and landscape, even together with the GI these are insufficient to balance the many demands on this productive landscape, suggesting the limits of weak institutions and non-state governance to protect vulnerable landscapes and ecosystems, and producer{\textquoteright}s livelihoods. This reality check of the benefits from the Oku white honey GI highlights the importance of coherent, effective governance of the nexus of both landscapes and markets for products from these landscapes.",
keywords = "Faculty of Science, forest product value chains, Governance, Honey, Africa, Certification, Geographical Indications",
author = "Verina Ingram and Hansen, {Maria Ellemann} and Bosselmann, {Aske Skovmand}",
year = "2020",
doi = "10.3389/ffgc.2020.00102",
language = "English",
volume = "3",
journal = "Frontiers in Forests and Global Change",
issn = "2624-893X",
publisher = "Frontiers Media",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - To Label or Not? Governing the Costs and Benefits of Geographic Indication of an African Forest Honey Value Chain

AU - Ingram, Verina

AU - Hansen, Maria Ellemann

AU - Bosselmann, Aske Skovmand

PY - 2020

Y1 - 2020

N2 - Geographical Indication (GI) has been proposed as a development tool, benefitting producers, consumers and local communities by creating value, improving market access, protecting local knowledge and natural resources and contributing to social cohesion as producers work together to solve common problems. However, scientific evidence on the socio-economic and environmental effects of governing value chains and origin landscapes through this voluntary, market-based arrangement is scarce. Honey appears ideal for GI labeling: having unique, physically identifiable and geographically localizable properties dependent upon the local ecosystem and beekeeping practices. White honey from the Kilum-Ijim forest in the Cameroon Highlands was GI registered in 2013 aiming to guarantee product quality, increase beekeeper selling prices and protect the forest. Long-term panel data from stakeholder interviews, market surveys and participatory action research show the extent to which the GI actually benefited beekeepers, and how the honey value chain and landscape developed since registration. Although honey production and productivity remained steady, profits augmented as prices increased and sales became more nationwide, improving beekeeper’s living standards, and appear attributable to the GI. Deforestation continued and imposter brands abounded, signaling potential supply shortages, increased input costs and competition which could affect future profits and the GI reputation and changing the distribution of benefits to suppliers rather than beekeepers. These findings suggest that whilst the Oku white honey GI contributed to short-term positive livelihood effects, longer-term positive impacts which support conservation of the landscape have been ineffective, and the durability of the positive economic impacts is questionable. Although multiple arrangements govern the value chain and landscape, even together with the GI these are insufficient to balance the many demands on this productive landscape, suggesting the limits of weak institutions and non-state governance to protect vulnerable landscapes and ecosystems, and producer’s livelihoods. This reality check of the benefits from the Oku white honey GI highlights the importance of coherent, effective governance of the nexus of both landscapes and markets for products from these landscapes.

AB - Geographical Indication (GI) has been proposed as a development tool, benefitting producers, consumers and local communities by creating value, improving market access, protecting local knowledge and natural resources and contributing to social cohesion as producers work together to solve common problems. However, scientific evidence on the socio-economic and environmental effects of governing value chains and origin landscapes through this voluntary, market-based arrangement is scarce. Honey appears ideal for GI labeling: having unique, physically identifiable and geographically localizable properties dependent upon the local ecosystem and beekeeping practices. White honey from the Kilum-Ijim forest in the Cameroon Highlands was GI registered in 2013 aiming to guarantee product quality, increase beekeeper selling prices and protect the forest. Long-term panel data from stakeholder interviews, market surveys and participatory action research show the extent to which the GI actually benefited beekeepers, and how the honey value chain and landscape developed since registration. Although honey production and productivity remained steady, profits augmented as prices increased and sales became more nationwide, improving beekeeper’s living standards, and appear attributable to the GI. Deforestation continued and imposter brands abounded, signaling potential supply shortages, increased input costs and competition which could affect future profits and the GI reputation and changing the distribution of benefits to suppliers rather than beekeepers. These findings suggest that whilst the Oku white honey GI contributed to short-term positive livelihood effects, longer-term positive impacts which support conservation of the landscape have been ineffective, and the durability of the positive economic impacts is questionable. Although multiple arrangements govern the value chain and landscape, even together with the GI these are insufficient to balance the many demands on this productive landscape, suggesting the limits of weak institutions and non-state governance to protect vulnerable landscapes and ecosystems, and producer’s livelihoods. This reality check of the benefits from the Oku white honey GI highlights the importance of coherent, effective governance of the nexus of both landscapes and markets for products from these landscapes.

KW - Faculty of Science

KW - forest product value chains

KW - Governance

KW - Honey

KW - Africa

KW - Certification

KW - Geographical Indications

U2 - 10.3389/ffgc.2020.00102

DO - 10.3389/ffgc.2020.00102

M3 - Journal article

VL - 3

JO - Frontiers in Forests and Global Change

JF - Frontiers in Forests and Global Change

SN - 2624-893X

M1 - 102

ER -

ID: 249587279