Figure 1
Sequence of Action Situations in the Management and Transition Framework. Source: Pahl-Wostl et al. (2010, 578).
Figure 2
Potential GI learning processes. Source: Based on Pahl-Wostl et al. (2010).
Table 1
Data sources of the case studies.
| France – Laguiole | Italy – Bitto | |
|---|---|---|
| Documents | Amendment approvals, applications, original and current Product Specifications (from Door database and organizations of selected countries (Ministry of Agriculture, Chamber of Commerce, Consortia)), case-specific documents (e.g., statutes, written opposition papers, newsletters) | |
| Interviews and affiliations | 1 PDO farmer-processor (LP1) 2 PDO producers (LP2, LP3) 1 local cooperative (LC) 1 local organization of farmers and processors (LODG) 1 staff from local INAO (INAOLL) 1 local expert/researcher (LE) 1 staff from INAO in Montreuil, Paris (INAOP) | 2 PDO producers (BP1, BP2) 1 PDO ripener/marketing cooperative (BMC1) 2 representatives of the Bitto Consortium (BC1, BC2) 1 producer outside PDO (BOP) 1 representative of association outside PDO (BA1) 1 local organization of farmers (BF) 1 local organization of breeders (BB) 1 local retailer (BR) 1 researcher (BU1) 1 Regional Administration Representative (BADM) |
Figure 3
Laguiole PDO amendment process. The original Product Specification obliged farmers to use milk from “traditionally adopted breeds”. Through experiences on regional, national or even international level and from within the GI production system, a debate about breeds started. It was fueled through further experiences and support and eventually led to an amendment authorizing only cows from the Simmental and Aubrac breed.
Figure 4
Bitto PDO amendment process. Increasing production costs and new breeding developments led to a debate on feed and starter cultures. Due to the fear of losing traditional taste some producers left the PDO and founded the Slow Food-supported Bitto storico group that later turned into the Storico Ribelle group. This triggered a debate on internal differentiation within the Bitto PDO. Now, producers with stricter production methods can indicate the name of the mountain pasture on the package.
Table 2
Comparison of the case studies.
| Laguiole (France) | Bitto (Italy) | |
|---|---|---|
| National legal framework | INAO facilitates amendment process, supports strong exchange among GI producer groups and provides technical assistance and advices | Regional Administration facilitated participatory amendment processes, allowing the emergence of different opinions about the Product Specifications and amendments |
| Knowledge exchange |
|
|
| outcome/direction of amendment process | amendment trying to align/integrate internal and external knowledge, striving for a production system with strong links to local resources and traditions | consensus to introduce an internal differentiation (with/without indication of Alpine pasture) to allow more traditional producers to refer to a very specific terroir |