Guerrieri, Flavia

Tangible (environmental) or intangible (knowledge) shared resources can be managed as commons. Recently, scholars theorised that in all socio-ecological systems, community members share knowledge regarding the tangible resource to ensure its sustainable management. However, it appears that sometimes tangible and intangible components can be simultaneously present within the same shared resource, which we identify as ‘hybrid’. This complexity is particularly evident where heterogeneous and entangled resources, traditionally rooted in a specific place, are valued by actors as the expression of their collective identity and as a commodifiable ‘productive heritage’.
This communication analyses a case study involving the management of tangible, intangible and hybrid resources embedded in the Aubrac region. Located in the centre of France, it is well known for its mountain landscapes and cultural heritage. Over time, it has favoured the development of productive activities valorising the local cattle breed, the ‘Aubrac cow’ (namely livestock farming). For almost 60 years, local stakeholders have engaged in collective action strategies to valorise and protect the local productive tangible and intangible heritage, as well as the place-based reputation attached to the name ‘Aubrac’[1]. In parallel, the need of countervailing uncertainty due to economic and ecological perturbations pushed stakeholders to pool new information and existing knowledge to develop innovative institutional and organisational configurations. In this context, we identify five interconnected tangible, intangible and hybrid resources, including the local breed, the place-based reputation and community's long-term capacity to innovate, create and exchange value.
Drawing on original fieldwork data and previous studies [2], we characterise these resources and show the links between them. We then identify the collective action problems affecting these resources and the community-based institutional responses to ensure their sustainability. With this study, we set the frame for a new methodological approach to analyse the long-term governance of localised productive resources.

[1] Guerrieri F., Governing governance: Collective action and rulemaking in EU agricultural and non-agricultural geographical indications (2023), PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam.
[2] Bousquet J. and Dervillé M., Pérennité et renouvellement des exploitations agricoles de l'Aubrac: enjeux individuels et collectifs (2022), 16eme Journée de Recherches en Sciences Sociales.

Origin products result from the interaction between humans and the surrounding ecosystem. They are unique for a combination of factors, including a shared inter- and infra-generational knowledge resulting in specific producers’ choices to manage environmental localised resources. Collective action dynamics aliment the place-based reputation of origin products, the complex and nested shared resource. If exposed to unregulated access and use, this resource suffers from collective action problems potentially leading to its depletion. In Europe, the place-based reputation can be protected through the Geographical Indications (GIs) regime. Applicant producer groups must then engage in rulemaking, regulating the access and use of the resource, while setting sufficient restrictions against free-riding. When this rule system operationalises a commons type of management, market and non-market spillovers are generated for the benefit of the producers and of a wider local community. The coexistence in GI origin products of private and public interests legitimates the intervention of external actors (namely the State and third parties) for ensuring that rulemaking avoids arbitrary exclusions. However, external actors’ involvement is not harmonised as to the procedure, approaches and product classes, even within the same Member State. Therefore, the trustworthiness of the GI as an intellectual property tool characterised by well-defined policy objectives can be jeopardised. In this contribution, I will present the methodological and theoretical implications of using the GKC framework to analyse rulemaking in GI settings. Using a simplifying tool called the ‘Actors-Process-Outcomes’ (A-P-O) approach, I will first discuss the introduction of additional variables in the GKC framework, focusing specifically on those related to external actors. Then I will argue that this addition can be a valuable entry-door for discussing polycentricity from a legal-institutional perspective. Finally, I will show the practical implications of this approach through targeted case studies involving French and Italian GI origin products. [1]

[1] Guerrieri F., Governing governance: Collective action and rulemaking in EU agricultural and non-agricultural geographical indications (2023), PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam.