On Wednesday 12 November 2025, the Leveraging Geographical Indications for Sustainability and Fairness Workshop was held at Utrecht University and online. The workshop launched the Follow the Food Signature Project which critically examines if and how GIs can be used as tools for promoting fairness and sustainability in the global food system.

In his introduction to the project and workshop, Principal Investigator Dr. Martijn Huysmans explained that by including smallholder voices and facilitating direct exchange between producers across regions, the project aims to explore how GIs can be redesigned as instruments of empowerment, ecological stewardship, and economic fairness. This first workshop welcomed a series of speakers who shared their interests in food justice and sustainable agriculture, bottom-up governance, post-colonial and post-socialist transitions, climate-related agricultural challenges, and the risks of co-optation in sustainability frameworks.

Community-Led Revival of Strachitunt and the Impact of Small-Scale GI Design

Adele Arigoni Ravasio

Adele Arigoni Ravasio is Sales Manager for CasArrigoni, a family-run cheese seasoning business in Val Taleggio, Lombardy, Italy. Val Taleggio boasts two cheeses with Geographical Indication (GI) certification: Strachitunt, a natural blue cheese, and Taleggio, a soft white cheese, both of which have ancient roots in the valley.

In a tale of two cheeses, Adele described the differences in management and policies around the two GI certification processes, not only regarding production techniques and boundary drawing, but also in terms of the economic and social effects that these policy choices brought to the valley itself. She began with the newest GI certification, that of Strachitunt.

In the wake of the Second World War, Strachitunt production began to decline until it almost fell into extinction. This period was characterized by demographic change in Val Taleggio and the Italian uplands, with many residents moving out of the valleys and into the lowlands, where they took up new jobs in the rapidly industrializing Northern Italy. By the 1990s, only one producer remained. However, the cheese was known and appreciated locally and beyond.

A small group of farmers and affineurs, encouraged by a cheese-monger, decided to try to save the cheese as a pivot for the economy of the valley, its pastures, and the community. Strachitunt’s market positioning was a decisive factor in these development plans, as the matured cheese warrants a medium-high price which brings financial advantages when compared to income from selling milk or low-value cheese. The bet was that profits from small-scale production would be able to sustain a durable mountain-based production system based on local production, avoiding mass-production logic and maintaining its price positioning. The GI was obtained in 2014.

The speaker described the importance of the design of the GI protocol vis-à-vis its ability to generate positive outcomes for the valley, with requirements stipulating the cow breed (Italian Brown), its diet, the production process, and the characteristics of the final product. The production protocol specifies using traditional methods and is designed to keep production artisanal, while the zone of production is tightly drawn within Val Taleggio and some neighbouring municipalities, keeping it local.

Ten years have passed since Strachitunt achieved its GI status, and its outcomes are clear to see. Production has increased by 500%, three new farms have opened within the GI area, and the cooperative cattle shed has been renovated and stocked with 60 new cows, all of which has brought new jobs to the area. The cheese has a good reputation and is well known by cheese connoisseurs abroad, which has brought food tourism to the valley. The Strachitunt consortium is also involved in local policy and territorial development plans.

Adele explained that these developments have brought social sustainability to the community, allowing the valley to keep its primary school and the local pharmacy open as well as restaurants. Depopulation has been reversed, and the tradition of moving the cows up to the higher pastures in the summer (alpeggio) has been maintained, ensuring the maintenance of the landscape as well as being healthy for the cows themselves.

Expanding upon the importance of the management and policy ideas underpinning the GI protocols, Adele reflected upon how scale can seriously impact sustainability, offering the example of the valley’s earlier GI, that for Taleggio cheese. Taleggio received its GI in 1996, underpinned by the aim of expanding its production quantity and area. The GI was developed in a very different way from that of Strachitunt, the production having minimal processual description (the form has to be square, it must be made with cow’s milk, and follow the recognized process) and with a very broad production area in northern Italy.

This results in the cheese sitting within a medium- to low-price range, the realities of which lead to the consortium being managed by big industries due to the need to be competitive in large markets. But this also means that milk receives a low price, making it difficult to maintain herds in the mountains and leading to movement toward the lowlands. These factors favour agro-industry and do not help the community.

The advantages of a GI that works on a smaller scale are clear: exploitation of cows and pastures is lessened; close contact with farmers is maintained; the local economy undergoes gradual responsible growth; large industry and lobbying are not incentivized; local community ties are strengthened; bureaucracy is reduced; skills (production and business) are maintained and shared; democratic decision-making and shared ethical positions are possible; production is aligned with local policies; and fair and equitable compensation for all parties involved can be guaranteed.

GI Development Cooperation in Coffee: Quality Standards, Sustainability, and Market Positioning

Reto Meili

Reto Meili  of the Swiss Institute for Intellectual Property (IPI) presented insights from GI development cooperation, focusing on coffee in Indonesia and describing how IPI implements a number of tailor-made projects that all have GI components.

The speaker explained how these projects represent mandates to instigate bilateral technical cooperation and are perceived as tools for development as well as protection, all within an institutional priority for sustainability spearheaded by the Organization for an International Geographical Indications Network (oriGIn). Partnering with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), oriGIn has recently published a guide and toolkit providing a practical methodology to prioritize local economic, social, environmental, and governance topics, assess current performance through a set of indicators, and improve it through targeted initiatives in partnership with potential allies. The publication can be downloaded here.

Reflecting the realities in the Strachitunt example, Meili presented Kopi Arabika Flores Bajawa (Arabica coffee grown in Bajawa, Flores, Indonesia), describing the added value of a GI for coffee as including both higher achievable prices in comparison with commercial-grade coffee and legal protection against misuse of the name.

He went on to describe a series of challenges associated with coffee as a particular GI product, including the major difference that coffee leaves its origin as a non-finished product (unroasted green coffee). Other notable challenges include the additional costs associated with quality control, complex standards that may be difficult for small farmers to conform to, established business practices for commodities (generic quality and sustainability certification), and limited demand due to difficulties in communicating what the GI guarantees.

The speaker reiterated that the need to differentiate is paramount due to the impossibility of fully decommodifying coffee and the difficulty of moving beyond generic quality standards and sustainability certification. This differentiation requires branding, market strategy, storytelling, and legal protection.

All of the coffee GI protocols discussed include quality aspects in their Codes of Practice, including demarcation of the GI area, growing altitude, the need for shading, species and sometimes variety, harvest conditions, processing method, fermentation time and water quality, drying rules, material for bags used during storage, location of processing (including roasting), labelling and use of the GI logo, and quality control and traceability rules.

Some coffee GIs additionally include other aspects of quality in their Codes of Practice, such as origin of seeds, permitted species of shading trees, a ban on chemical fertilizers and pest control, hulling rules, maximum allowed defects and packaging material for roasted beans. To learn more about the importance of this process watch this video.

The presentation concluded with a series of recommendations, including the following:

– When defining the GI area and product specifications, attention should be paid to including as many producers as possible while still maintaining the specific quality and single-origin character.
– If differences are too large regarding quality, altitude, or characteristics of the coffee, subcategories should be considered.
– It should be decided whether every step of coffee production needs to take place in the GI area for quality reasons or if it can take place outside. Only rules that can and will be verified and sanctioned should be put in the Code of Practice.
– If coffee is to be exported, roasting should not need to take place in the GI area (roasted coffee loses aroma and flavour very quickly).
– An agreement with roasters in the final market should promote keeping the coffee single-origin, ensuring visibility of the GI logo and roast degree. If single-origin is not possible, rules for coffee blends should be agreed upon.
– The maximum altitude of coffee growing should not be limited. Climate change may soon make it necessary to move to higher regions.
– The variety of Arabica should not be defined unless necessary for specific quality reasons. More biodiversity means more resilience against climate change and pests.

Kopi Arabika Gayo: Smallholder Structures, GI Misuse, and Emerging Governance Challenges

Dr. Ari Susanti and Mr Khalid

Dr. Ari Susanti (Gadjah Mada University’s Faculty of Forestry) was joined by Mr. Khalid (representing the Aceh producers, participating from Indonesia) in presenting an Indonesian case study focused on Kopi Arabika Gayo from Aceh.

Indonesia is the third-largest producer of coffee after Vietnam and Brazil, with 9% of Indonesian production coming from Aceh. The producers are 100% smallholders who practice a mixed-production agroforestry technique; there is no monoculture production. This trade creates a variety of supply chains that include middlemen, trading companies, and exporters. The farmers sell cherries (the fruit of the coffee plant), the value of which is small in comparison to processed coffee prices.

Mr. Khalid represents a producer association established in 2009 that now has 10,000 farmer members. The GI for Kopi Arabika Gayo from Aceh was granted in 2010, only after a complicated series of events in which a multinational company first claimed the coffee as their own and registered ownership with the EU. In 2009 the forum was initiated, with the aim of reclaiming ownership, supported by the Indonesian government.

Representatives of the Aceh coffee-producing community travelled to Bali in 2010 to conduct a comparative study with the only GI coffee production in Indonesia at the time, part of a process that culminated in their own GI. The speaker explained how the process was helped by regional, local, and governmental regulations supporting the implementation of GI certification.

Echoing the previous examples, recognition of the GI allows traceability and improves prices. However, as Mr. Khalid explained, it has also been the source of misuse, with farmers in the area sometimes buying coffee from different areas and claiming that it is their own.

The speaker described possible challenges for the future, proposing the need for further requirements in the GI certification. One example was that the protocol should state that production could not be monoculture. Given the added value the GI offers, producers sometimes bend protocol rules, raising questions about whether subsidies should be considered, given the high price of organic fertilizer and the low productivity of the land.

Farmers also note that the GI protocol is very specific, with spacing and shading factors all determined, while in Brazil producers have more flexibility in their techniques allowing greater production levels. This raises questions about the need for such specificity in the requirements. Additionally, as much of the added value is in the processing, questions arise about how some of this could return to the farmer. The difficult question of who should pay for certification also remains.

Mr Khalid also sees challenges due to political changes, which sometimes bring legislative changes causing delays.

Apricot GIs in Central Asia: Post-Socialist Legacies and Opportunities for Fruit-Based Geographical Indications

Dr Flora Roberts

The final speaker was Dr. Flora Roberts, who added an analytical dimension by asking to what extent the post-socialist landscape in Central Asia (Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan) presents an obstacle or an opportunity for the development of GIs for fruits.

As regular readers might remember, Dr. Roberts is known for her work on apricot farmers in the area. Her presentation tied in with previous examples as she analyzed the extent to which apricots could represent the most likely candidate for GI experimentation.

The speaker set the context by describing how both Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan are landlocked, feature high mountain terrain, and have a shortage of arable land. They are vulnerable to natural hazards magnified by climate change (planting orchards can be seen as a possible mitigation tool) and share a history of land collectivization followed by partial privatization. Similarly to Indonesia, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan share the experience of colonialism, which to some extent sets parameters for export, with other former Soviet states being the most important markets for fruit exports.

During the Soviet era, production was collectivized, the area being largely divided into monoculture farming, with cotton being the most common crop. This top-down commodity-producing economy coexisted with an informal food system, with most food produced in small local plots that were distributed as part of participation in the joint production process.

The Ferghana Valley crosses southern Kyrgyzstan and northern Tajikistan as well as Uzbekistan, and is known as one of the most fertile zones in Asia. The valley is the home to particular apricot types that have been historically well appreciated locally, as they are indeed today. Locally known and culturally significant varieties such as the kandakand Subhani apricots were mentioned in the Baburnama as far back as the 1500s.

There has been mixed reaction to attempts to widen exports of this local delicacy, however. Geographic factors make transport over long distances difficult, and progress is hindered by lack of local experience and mistrust of certain types of contracts. Local farmers do not like contracts that fix a price for their produce, preferring to pull out of agreements and not honour them if prices vary positively. Furthermore, processing of the apricots is carried out locally in a traditional manner. They are sun-dried in a process that produces hard apricots that do not resemble those (much softer) known in Europe (which are almost exclusively imported from Turkey). New methods that could produce something more similar to those appreciated in Europe would have to be learned for European exports to flourish.

Finally, the speaker explained that the legal groundwork has been laid to recognize GIs in both Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, and there is a regional precedent for a GI fruit: Kazakhstan’s Almaty Aport apple, registered in the State Register of Geographic Indications in October 2023.

Conclusion

The workshop and launch event ultimately underscored how complex and context-dependent the promise of geographical indications can be. Addressing the principal research aims – which revolve around GIs as instruments of empowerment, ecological stewardship, and economic fairness – there are some contradictions visible between different approaches. While higher prices for added value are often cited as the chief incentive for GI certification, the presentations made clear that products occupy very different positions within the value chain. A cheese like Strachitunt can leave its valley as a fully finished product, carrying its added value with it, while coffee departs in a semi-raw state, with much of the value created later—often far from the communities that grew it. One unanswered question relates to how GIs could be designed to bring added value back to the community if the product leaves the GI area unfinished.

Debates over how tightly or loosely to draw GI boundaries also revealed similar tensions. In some regions, as with Strachitunt, strict protocols and smallness of scale safeguard heritage and quality. In others, such as Aceh’s coffee-producing highlands, rigid standards could make it impossible to produce specialist coffee at the level of giants like Brazil, or push producers toward bending the very rules designed to protect them. Historical context giving meaning to the production protocol, scale, and positioning in global logistics and value chain—all too often underestimated—emerged as essential factors for anyone considering an experimental GI.

From the perspective of the Bassetti Foundation, if the event offered one crucial lesson, it was that GIs work best when rooted in shared ethical commitments among the producers themselves. That sense of collective purpose may ultimately determine whether a GI becomes a tool for local empowerment or just another label in an already crowded market.

We will further follow the project’s progress on the Foundation website and very much hope you can join us. Readers who would like to be informed about the progress on this project can join the mailing list by emailing r.petizdasilvadireito@uu.nl.