Kraljevački Kajmak - siner-gi

Transcription

SINER-GI
Task 2: WP5
GI Case Studies
Case Study Report :
Kraljevački Kajmak
Partner n. 4
AGRIDEA (Switzerland)
Authors
PAUS Marguerite
ETH Zurich
ESTÈVE Magali
AGRIDEA
Second Version
5 December 2007
SINER-GI
WP5 Kraljevacki Kajmak Report – v2
Index
1.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................6
2. NATIONAL CONTEXT ANALYSIS: GIS AND THE DYNAMICS OF NATIONAL
AGRIFOOD INTERESTS ....................................................................................................10
2.1.
Main characteristics of the Serbian agrifood system........................................................10
2.2.
Trade and consumer policies ..............................................................................................12
2.3.
Serbian Intellectual Property Rights Policy ......................................................................13
2.4.
Serbia’s position, actions and agreements regarding GI within the international
negotiations .......................................................................................................................................14
2.5.
Geographical Indications and Agriculture in Serbia........................................................15
2.6.
Institutional structure to promote GIs...............................................................................16
2.7.
Serbian trends and evolutions for GIs ...............................................................................17
3.
KRALJEVACKI KAJMAK WITHIN THE SINER-GI PROJECT ..................................21
4.
THE GI SYSTEM TODAY : DEFINITION AND DELIMITATION.................................22
4.1.
Definition of the product and area of production .............................................................22
4.2.
Kraljevacki Kajmak production and processing system .................................................26
4.3.
Markets .................................................................................................................................28
4.4.
Territorial and supply chain organisation.........................................................................32
4.5.
Description of the GI system : the actors and their involvement ....................................35
5.
THE GI SYSTEM TRAJECTORY ................................................................................37
5.1.
Trajectory of the qualification of the product...................................................................37
5.2.
Evolution of the context.......................................................................................................37
6. GI SYSTEM : JOINT ACTION, GOVERNANCE, RULES, REGULATION
(PHYSIOLOGY) ...................................................................................................................38
6.1.
Organization & networks....................................................................................................38
6.2.
Support System ....................................................................................................................38
7.
GI PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT...........................................................................41
p.2
SINER-GI
7.1.
Economic assessment in comparison with main competitors ..........................................42
7.2.
Economic, environmental and social assessments: diachronic comparison ...................43
8.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...........................................................47
8.1.
Trends and perspectives of the GI System.........................................................................47
8.2.
Trends and perspectives: the GI protection scheme.........................................................48
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................50
ANNEXES............................................................................................................................51
Annex 1 - Kraljevacki Kajmak Data Card....................................................................................51
Annex 2 - List of contacts and people met .....................................................................................62
Annex 3 - Maps of Serbia ................................................................................................................65
Annex 4 - Description of the tradition of kajmak production in Serbia.....................................66
p.3
SINER-GI
List of Figures
Figure 1. Main goals for GIs protection in Serbia ................................................................19
Figure 2. Map of Serbia, traditional area of production of kajmak.......................................23
Figure 3. Map of the municipality of Kraljevo and main areas of production ......................25
Figure 4. Supply chain structure in 2006. ............................................................................32
Figure 5. Supply chain structure in 2009 (expectation) .......................................................34
Figure 6. Kraljevaski kajmak system ...................................................................................35
Figure 7. Likert scale to asses the present economic effects and the expectations (pilot
survey) ..........................................................................................................................44
Figure 8. Likert scale to asses the present environmental effects and the expectations
(pilot survey) .................................................................................................................45
Figure 9. Likert scale to asses the present social effects and the expectations (pilot survey)
......................................................................................................................................45
Figure 10. Trends and Perspective of the GI system ..........................................................47
Figure 11. Trends and Perspectives of the GI protection scheme ......................................48
List of Tables
Table 1a. Short overview of the registered GIs in Serbia (products registered under the
former Law on Geographical Indications, April 1995) ..................................................18
Table 1b. Short overview of GIs identified for registration or in process of registration under
the new law (not exhaustive) ........................................................................................19
Table 2. Examples of industrial competitors........................................................................30
Table 3. Internal differentiation in qualities and prices of Kraljevacki Kajmak and cheese.31
Table 4. Research output matrix..........................................................................................41
Table 5. Comparison of the prices in the kraljevacki kajmak production and its competitors
......................................................................................................................................42
Acknowledgements:
The authors would like to kindly thank : Dominique Barjolle, Pascal Bernardoni, Sophie
Réviron, Rémy Reymann, Dragan Roganovic, and particularly Dragana Tar, for their help
on the field and/or its preparation and for their precious comments. Thank you to Claire
Cerdan for the proofreading of the report.
p.4
SINER-GI
List of Abbreviations
AO: Appellation of Origin
EC: European Commission
EU: European Union
GDP: Gross Domestic Product
GI: Geographical Indication
IDA: Ibar Development Association
IP: Intellectual Property
IPO: Intellectual Property Office
IPR: Intellectual Property Rights
NGO: Non Governmental Organisation
PDO: Protected designation of Origin
PGI: Protected Geographical Indication
SEEDEV: South Eastern Europe Development
SIEPA: Serbian Investment and Export Promotion Agency
TRIPS: Trade-Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
USA: United States of America
WIPO: World Intellectual Property Organization
WTO: World Trade Organisation
p.5
SINER-GI
1.
Executive summary
Case presentation
- Name : Kraljevacki kajmak (kajmak of Kraljevo)
- Type of product : dairy product, made by the fat layer, created when the milk is
boiled and then cooled down
- Location : Serbia, Region around Kraljevo
- Size : around 300 tons estimated to be produced in the Municipality of Kraljevo
and marketed (the home-consumption is not estimated)
- Around 600 small producers, 2 dairies (in 2007)
- 35% sold in the region, 65% sold outside in Serbia (Belgrade etc.) and other
Balkanic countries
Protection schemes
• Kraljevacki kajmak is not protected, nevertheless there is an initiative led by a local
NGO working on the protection of the Kraljevacki kajmak as a protected designation
of origin
• The Intellectual Property Office of the Republic of Serbia is in charge of
Geographical Indications issues
• The scope of application of the provisions on appellations of origin of the Law
concerns all goods
• During the examination of requirements for the registration, the IPO of the Republic
of Serbia asks for the opinion of the competent authority (Ministry of agriculture)
• There is no opposition procedure before the final registration
• There is no certification body for PDO / PGI in Serbia
Motivations and stakeholders
Small producers of kajmak (household production) are motivated by better prices,
transparency in the distribution of the value added and stability of prices. Moreover, they
are under pressure regarding the implementation of sanitarian regulations, and are looking
to gain a negotiation power (to discuss with vet authorities) by gathering themselves.
Traders are looking for high quality and long-term distribution channels. They are
potentially in conflict with small producers, although being commercial partners.
The local NGO IDA aims at providing benefits in terms of rural development by supporting
the local initiative of kraljevacki kajmak producers. They are playing the role of facilitator,
notably by organising meetings.
The Ministry of agriculture is financially supporting the NGO IDA, with the objective of
providing an example of GI registration in order to promote the GI system.
Impacts of the GI system / protection scheme on sustainability / economic effects
At the level of producers, several aspects have to be pointed out:
- for producers who deliver milk to dairies that produce kajmak, there is no particular
premium in the production of kraljevacki kajmak in comparison with other artisan
kajmaks. Premiums seem to be more linked to the outlet and the number of
intermediaries than to the origin. We suspect that the Kajmak sold in Zlatibor (and
under this name) is mainly coming from the region of Kraljevo. Kraljevo does not seem
to be attractive enough and is interchanged with Zlatibor which is trendy and wellknown.
p.6
SINER-GI
producers with a high quality of milk (fat level) might be able to get a better price by
delivering the milk to the industry (when industries have techniques to analyse the
quality of the milk),
- if we examine the household production, the remuneration of the kg milk by producing
kajmak is sometimes as small as by delivering the milk. It means that if the producers
are selling their kajmak at 2.8 euros/kg, they are not doing any financial benefits, on the
contrary if we consider the energy and the hard work involved in the production of
kajmak. Many producers (in particular in the mountainous areas) stopped the
production of kajmak, because it was not profitable enough in comparison with the
price of the milk. 260 DN/kg (3.3 euros/kg) is the limit under which producers are losing
money twice in comparison of milk delivery. On the other hand, it can be profitable to
produce kajmak at the household level, if the price of the kajmak is higher than 4.5
euros/ kg.
At the consumer level, the valorization of the kajmak doubles, according to the place it is
sold (from 4.1 euros/ kg on the green market in towns far away from Belgrade and not
touristic, to 8 euros / kg on the green market in Montenegro in summer!)
-
The effects of the protection of the Kraljevacki kajmak are mainly expected in terms of:
- higher prices to producers,
- transparency in the margins,
- stability of the prices and markets
Present effects in marginal areas (processing / retailing and development) are not
convincing. The Kraljevo Municipality is not considered as “marginal area”, nevertheless
there are lateral valleys in the mountains that can be considered as marginal places. A
protection could revival the production in mountainous areas, in combination with a higher
price to producers that could give them an incentive to continue the production. This issue
is not consensual, since it depends if the mountainous areas are going to be included and
if it makes sense for them to market their kajmak as kraljevacki kajmak.
Rural tourism develops in the Kraljevo Municipality (crossroad position) and some actors in
tourism have already very well understood the synergies that are possible with traditional
food.
Impacts of the GI system / protection scheme on sustainability / social effects
Many social aspects are linked to the artisan kajmak in general and not to the kraljevacki
kajmak in particular, nevertheless there are some specific effects that are interesting to
point at.
Artisan kajmak production decreases the (general) consumer’ trust in food. This is mainly
due to the fact that some incidents appear following non-hygienic repackaging and
transport. Kajmak is made with boiled milk and the contamination at the farm level should
be quite easy to eliminate (clean hands when removing the fat layer). Re-packaging and
transport are more problematic, and a better traceability throughout a collective action and
a protection should improve the practices.
Social and cultural identity is already very high, as kajmak (in general) as is it a traditional
product associated to know-how. A protection of the kraljevacki kajmak could increase the
self-esteem of producers (public recognition of their knowledge).
Farmers’ integration is related to several aspects:
- in general, to sell kajmak on green markets is creating social links (much more than to
sell milk to the dairy)
- for the particular case of kraljevacki kajmak, there is a farmers’ integration with the
p.7
SINER-GI
emergence of agro-cluster and then the initiative to protect kajmak. The network is
increasing and expected to increase further: enlargement and empowerment of the
internal network (vertical cooperation) and external one (municipality, researchers etc.).
Moreover the initiative is expected to provide better conditions to small producers so
that some of same can continue their activity (kajmak is an important additional income
for some small producers).
The question of gender; however it is an important issue in the case. Indeed kajmak
production is exclusively a female production (at household level) whereas trade and dairy
production is more a male business.
Exclusion issue has to be taken into account. Like other qualification process, the
protection of kraljevacki kajmak might lead to two exclusion issues:
- exclusion because of geographical delimitation (mountainous areas, villages at the
Kraljevo Municipality boarder)
- exclusion because of the definition of a code of practices (limit artisan/ semi industrial
practices, definition of traditional process, composition of the final product etc.)
Impacts of the GI system / protection scheme on sustainability / environmental
effects
At the time being, environmental issues are not the main stake in the case of the artisan
kajmak production. Livestock activities are made in an extensive way. Nevertheless the
environmentally friendly type of production might be under pressure due to structural
changes (intensification, yield increase, etc). As example, some producers already shifted
to Holstein breed. For that raison, critical points have to be fixed in the code of practices in
order to maintain these positive effects and increase ecological awareness.
Comparison with other cases - initiatives
The kraljevacki kajmak case study is complex due to several aspects:
- no clear geographical limits,
- typicity of the process difficult to defined in comparison with other Serbian artisan
kajmaks, nevertheless it is a real Geographical Indication because of the long tradition
in the region and the reputation associated to it,
- changes in the supply chain (re-structuration, sanitarian norms etc.),
- numerous small producers
Trends and perspectives: GI system (value chain structure/technology/market)
Hygienic requirements are an important pressure. Within three years, important changes in
the processing units structures are expected (small households to middle size dairies). A
network with the institutions could be established, in particular with the sanitarian
inspection to collectively negotiate the implementation of sanitarian regulations. In a later
stage, relations with academics who are working on elaborates are a possibility, as well as
the building of a cooperation with the vet Institute for the question of internal controls?
The structure of the supply chain is changing quickly. The main driver of these changes is
the implementation of sanitarian norms. As it is easier to fulfil the norms in the production
of milk than in the production of kajmak (separate room), many milk and kajmak producers
have already switched to the production of milk only. With these changes, the role of
traders and big farmers is increasing in the supply chain, throughout a new activity:
production of kajmak in small scaled dairies. This underlines the need of having them
strongly involved in the registration process. Former traders know the market and the
quality that is expected by retailers and consumers. Moreover they are now producing
consequential quantities.
Whenever the product is going to be registered, the “by-product” that could gain in
p.8
SINER-GI
importance in the coming years: the white cheese has to be taken into account. Should it
be included in the code of practices? Or separately defined and protected?
Trends and perspectives: GI protection schemes (organization and political
strategies )
Building up a collective action is a long-term project and require energy and patience to go
through potential conflicts. A regional strategy has been chosen to promote the kajmak
and to increase the awareness of both the producers and consumers toward kraljevacki
kajmak and the PDO in general. However, there is a vagueness about the concepts
“branding” and “geografsko poreklo” and the awareness of a need of collective action is
not shared equally among actors.
Whenever the new law is going to be used, for the Kraljevacki Kajmak registration or for
any other product, clear procedure and accurate rules for the registration will be missing. A
coherent national procedure will probably be defined, opening the possibility for opposition.
Furthermore, there is a problem of overlapping between the products registered under the
former law and products that will be registered in the future. Older protected products
should may be examined and reregistered following the new law requirements and
procedures.
As another aspect of the GI protection scheme, the current law does not regulate the
Geographical indications controls and certification and there is no consideration of
adaptation when looking at the sanitary requirements. This is a difficulty that has been met
formerly in EU countries and is also encountered in new EU member countries. Common
national guidelines for the local institutions in charge of the controls and certification are a
core step to implement in order to set up an efficient GI protection scheme. Competences
between the Ministry of Agriculture and local control institutions will probably have to be
more clearly divided.
There is almost no consideration for the sensory evaluation in the protection scheme,
where as it is an important part of the certification procedures when looking at wines in
Serbia. Tasting could be included in the registration procedure.
p.9
SINER-GI
2.
National context analysis: GIs and the dynamics of national
agrifood interests
2.1. Main characteristics of the Serbian agrifood system
48% of the Serbian population is rural. The agricultural population decreased for more
than 1/3 between 1991 and 2002. The active agricultural population represents 16% of the
total active (2002). 87% of land is private ownership and the average size of private farms
is 3.5 ha.
The primary production from agriculture, hunting and forestry accounted for 15% of GDP
(25% with agro-processing). Export of primary agricultural products accounts for 26% of
total export (Bogdanov N. et al.; 2005). At the time being, there is a trade embargo on the
animal products from Serbia to the European Union due to sanitarian reasons.
2.1.1. Agricultural structures
Serbia’s agricultural sector is characterised by a dual structure (Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry and Water Management, 2004). Farms can be categorised as:
- Large corporate farms, with 15% of the total cultivated area (800,000 ha), comprising
Agrokombinats and Cooperative Farms;
- Family farms, with 85% of the total cultivated area (3,600,000 ha). These may be rather
arbitrarily divided into “subsistence farms” and “private commercial farms”.
The corporate farms are important suppliers of marketed agricultural produce, despite their
minority share of the agricultural land. They are the dominant suppliers of pig meat and
eggs, and they share approximately equally the market with the private sector in the major
arable crops, in beef and sheep meat, and in grapes for wine. The private sector
dominates the supply of fruit, vegetables and milk.
Agrokombinats were formed from 1953 onwards as the state confiscated and otherwise
acquired land. They were constituted as “social enterprises”. Over time, some of them
also purchased additional land. Official statistics record that in 2000 there were 411
farming Agrokombinats, with an average size of 1,600 hectares and with a few having
more than 10,000 hectares. As part of the transition process, all of the Agrokombinats are
to be privatised, and confiscated land it to be restituted to its original owners or their heirs.
However, the process has proceeded slowly for a variety of reasons, including institutional
resistance and difficulties in clarifying the original ownership of the land. There is some
reluctance to see these large units broken up, but they are generally much larger than
most commercial farms in Western Europe.
Lately modern types of cooperative farms are being developed, where the producers are
fully involved in decision making and taking the risk of conquering new markets. However,
these cooperative farms still aren’t ready to take over the significant part in market
development. Some of the Cooperative Farms also own processing plants, especially their
own processing capacities, and manage them in the same way as the Agrokombinats.
There are over a million private farmers (“private subsistence farms”) with less than ten
hectares of land, most of which has always been in private hands. The majority of these
farms have less than five hectares, usually fragmented into a number of small separate
parcels. Because of their small size, most of these farms produce for their own household
consumption and only market a small proportion of their output, and many farming families
are heavily dependent on non-farming sources of income.
p.10
SINER-GI
Within the private farming sector it is possible to identify an emerging group of more
commercial farms, which produce primarily for the market. Among these producers, there
are two groups: first group is represented by those who own larger estates and are
primarily oriented to farming, the second group represented by those with just a few
hectares dedicated to high quality production of fruit and vegetables.
2.1.2. Processing structures
Regarding the production structure, the processing industry is extremely important for
Serbia, since its intake in the national gross products and employment status is one
quarter. Due to the existing capacities, it represents a significant potential, but at the same
time a significant problem due to the debts, bad management and other problems which
arose in the last decade.
Quite often private farmers carry out their own basic food processing, such as on-farm
slaughtering of animals, production of sausages and cheese, etc. Their produce may be
marketed in a variety of ways: sold informally to friends and neighbours; sold at green
markets, either by the farmer or his family, or through permanent traders; sold to large
processing or trading companies, often attached to a nearby Agrokombinat or Cooperative
Farm. This kind of processing and selling, although difficult to quantify, makes a significant
contribution to national food consumption and accounts for the majority in certain products,
such as fruits and vegetables. This creates one of the biggest challenges for policy
development in that tiny private farms, too small to be regarded as commercial concerns in
most of Europe, marketing through informal channels that often fall far short of EU hygiene
standards, together constitute a significant proportion of the national food supply.
Serbia has an obvious overcapacity in most sectors; the slaughterhouse sector, for
example, is operating at 40 per cent capacity, and there is overcapacity in the milking
sector. Much of the capacity is inherited from the socialist period when high production
levels were a target and profitability was not an objective. Some of the capacity is
technically obsolete and could not be used anyway. The introduction of EU standards into
food production processes is increasing this rate of obsolescence. Finally, even the bestrun processing lines do not attain a 100 per cent capacity rate. Overcapacity in processing
is a political problem. Restructuring can create competitive companies, but the short-term
political cost is often regarded as too high.
2.2.3. Rural development in the agricultural policy
Rural areas are defined as spaces in which the main physical and geographical
characteristic is predominantly the use of land for the production of biomass. According to
the last Census (2002), approximately 50% of total population live in rural areas. About
70% of rural settlements in Serbia are demographically endangered (Bogdanov N. et al.;
2005). Rural development policy in Serbia is the responsibility of the Ministry of
Agriculture, forestry and water management. No concrete policies have yet been
developed, but some rural development activities exist within the wider agriculture policy:
reconstruction and extension of local roads, water pipelines; support of the diversification
of rural economies through promotion of agri-eco-tourism and traditional crafts and
processing, support to young farmers (investments in irrigation, green houses etc).
p.11
SINER-GI
2.2. Trade and consumer policies
The recently adopted National Strategy of Serbia for Accession to the EU develops, inter
alia, the strategic directions for Serbian policy in the trade area, including: adjustment of
the Serbian export structure to EU countries' import requirements; development of new
export comparative advantages, based on technological modernization and improving the
capacity of education, management and organizational knowledge; and implementation of
the export strategy (to be defined) for the following ten years. Also, regarding trade policy,
it recognizes the principles of market competition and that the future trade liberalization
process driven by the World Trade Organization (WTO) accession is limited with a view to
the EU integration strategic goal. The strategy stresses that foreign trade policy is defined
by the requirements of introducing a free trade area with the EU in the context of the
Stabilisation and Association Agreement and sets out the necessary activities to comply
with the future integration processes. Serbia’s national strategy for EU accession states
that the country’s lack of quality infrastructure in the trade area is “one of the main barriers
for joining the EU” (European Agency for Reconstruction, 2006). It mentions further that
the government should support industry in: adopting relevant directives; harmonizing
standards, assessment procedures conformity; and provision of the EC sign for its
products as soon as possible. Framework legislation for veterinary affairs was adopted in
2005 to implement animal registration. The Ministry of Agriculture is in the process of
upgrading the laboratory network for implementing phytosanitary, veterinary and food
safety analytical controls including the reform of management structures.
Serbia’s recent economic reform programme assisted by donors’ funds, remittances and
first foreign direct investment resulted in a positive GDP growth rate. In the period 20012003, the average rate of GDP growth was 4.5%. Although the growth rate has been
declining during that period in 2004 it reached 6% as a result of economic reforms of the
previous years and to a certain extent to higher output in agriculture due to good climate
conditions. The most dynamic growth was in: manufacture of coke and petroleum refinery
products, manufacture of chemicals, manufacture of rubber and plastic products,
communications, domestic trade, steel and iron industry, financial sector and others.
One of the alarming problems of Serbian economy is its large and growing current account
deficit. In 2001 the current account deficit (after grants) was 4.6% of GDP, increasing in
2002 and 2003 to 8.9% and 7.3% respectively, while the deficit rose to 13.1% in 2004
(European Commission; 2005, Progress Report for Serbia & Montenegro, page 27). The
main contributor to this is the rising trade deficit – accounting for 31% of GDP and
amounting to approximately $7.4 billion in 2004 – the trade in goods deficit shows an
average annual growth rate of 31.7% per annum over period 2001-2004. Exports remain
low. They are still concentrated in unskilled and natural resources intensive products
(sugar, furniture, iron, steel, agriculture products, and low processed consumer goods
such as textile, footwear, leather, wood and clothing). There has been a recent shift
towards more skilled labor/technology intensive exports. In 2003, exports of highly
processed goods increased by 27.4%. While the concentration of trade patterns in natural
resources and unskilled labor intensive sectors acted as a short-run cushion for job losses,
the continued reliance on relatively low skill intensive and low value-added exports
constrains the possibilities for the economy to generate new jobs in higher value-added
sectors. Labor costs in Serbia are relatively high: the average wage increased
substantially between December 2000 and December 2003 from 78 euros to 213 euros
per month, which is higher than in other countries in the region. Further wage inflation will
continue to have a negative impact on Serbia’s competitiveness. Therefore, reliance on
unskilled labor-intensive exports, such as textiles and footwear, may not be sustainable in
p.12
SINER-GI
the long run, given the growing competition from low-wage countries, in Asia and
elsewhere. Producers need to comply with new regulations and standards. In the
agricultural sector the animal identification and registration system for bovine animals has
been completed in 2006.
Importantly the sustainability and value of the system to increase trade is dependent on
compliance by farmers/animal product food chains as well as the capacity of the
Veterinary Directorate to enforce compliance.
Serbia is regaining the pace to re-integrate its economy within the international
marketplace through the WTO accession process, and the soon-to-start Stabilisation and
Association Agreement negotiations.
2.3. Serbian Intellectual Property Rights Policy
Serbia is member of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) from 27 April
1992, signatory to the Paris Convention on the Protection of Industrial Property and parties
to the Madrid Agreement on the International Registration of Trademarks from the same
above mentioned date. Originally signed by Yugoslavia on 14 July 1967, ratification date is
11 July 1973, entry into force date is 11 October 1973. Declaration of succession by
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia: 14 June 2001. Serbia is also signatory to the Madrid
Protocol on the International Registration of Marks from 17 February 1998 and to the
Lisbon Agreement on the protection of Appellations of Origins from 1 June 1999. Serbia is
not a WTO Member, it has the status of Observer. Nevertheless, Serbia’s accession to
WTO is on the way. In 2004, the governments of the Republic of Serbia and the Republic
of Montenegro decided to apply individually for accession to the WTO, as two separate
customs territories. The General Council agreed to establish a Working Party to examine
the application from the Republic of Serbia on 15 February 2005. There are no bilateral
agreements between the European Commission and Serbia specific to GIs. On 21 May
2006, the Republic of Montenegro held a successful referendum on independence and
declared independence on 3 June 2006. Thereafter, the parliament of Serbia stated that
the Republic of Serbia was the continuity of the state union, changing the name of the
country from Serbia and Montenegro to the Republic of Serbia, with Serbia retaining
Serbia and Montenegro’s membership in all international organizations and bodies.
Serbia has a Sui generis protection. It appears that some forms of ex officio protection are
available. In case of infringement of a Geographical Indication (GI) or of an Appellation of
Origin (AO), ex officio protection is provided upon request of the consumer associations
and of the public prosecutor (Article 51 of the 1995 Law). The relevant regulatory
framework is composed of the Law on Geographical Indications of 1 April 1995, the
Trademarks Law of 1 January 2005 and the Law on Indication of Geographical Origin of
May 2006. Until the implementation of this new law, the Intellectual Property Office (IPO)
had the right to refuse application. Today, it provides service: it checks the applications,
and asks its opinion to the competent ministry (Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water
Management or Ministry of trade). There are two types of applications: establishment of
GI and establishment of AO. For the time being, it is not known what could happen if the
Ministry of Agriculture provided a negative opinion. The scope of application of the
provisions on AOs of the Law is more extensive than the scope of the EC system
(concerns all goods:
natural, agricultural, manufactured, industrial products and
handicrafts, but not services).
There are two different available means of protection: for wines and spirits on the one
hand and for all kind of products on the other hand. For the time being, the institutional
p.13
SINER-GI
framework functions as such : the Ministry of Agriculture - Department for Primary
production, Processing viticulture and wine production – is in charge of Protected
Denomination of Origin or AO for wines; and the Intellectual Property Office is in charge of
PDO/PGIs for all kind of products. Concerning an expertise given in the frame of the
Serbian GI public policy, for PDO wines, an organoleptic commission gives its evaluation.
It is considered as very expensive by a lot of producers and by observers of the system.
For the other kind of products, there is no commission, the law mentions that the “relevant
institution” is consulted, which happens to be the Ministry of Agriculture for the time being.
Concerning authorisations to use a GI and control issues, for wines, organizations (mainly
firms) have elaborate (or code of practice - “elaborate” being the Serbian term generally
used) to be controlled. It is the organoleptic commission which eventually allows the
producer to use the name. For the other products, the producer must apply to IPO of the
Republic of Serbia and fulfil the requirements of the code of rules already registered.
Nevertheless, there is no opposition procedure.
2.4. Serbia’s position, actions and agreements regarding GI within the
international negotiations
Serbia is interested in GIs for different reasons:
o As former part of the Yugoslavian State: geographic indications already existed with a
law from 1981 but between 1981 and 1990, nothing happened. The developed
concept was Social Property, different from state property, meaning that a traditional
geographic name had to be registered because it belongs to all citizens of the State.
But the users of the products (usually state owned companies) took the wrong
attitude toward the product. There was in fact no obligation covered or implemented
by the State and the IP protection was very low. In the beginning of the 1995, it was
decided to implement a complete revision of the IPR.
o At the time when the Uruguay round was coming to an end, people from the
Intellectual Property Office took this decision on their own, without any attention given
by the government, Serbian officers from the IPO were not allowed to take part in
WIPO meetings. They reshaped the law as a combination of Madrid and Lisbon
Agreement.
Eventually, the new law from 2006 is a compromise between Serbia and Montenegro on
request of USA and EU concerning the WTO accession. This law was the result of certain
institutions’ practical analysis of the Law on Geographic indication of origin from 1995, as
well as the results of necessity to adjust certain regulations with the regulations of the
Regulations of the Trade Aspects of Intellectual Property of the WTO (hereafter referred to
as: the TRIPS Agreement), the Madrid Agreement on Reduction of False or Misleading
Geographic Indications on Products (hereafter referred to as: the Madrid Agreement), the
Lisbon Arrangement on Geographic Indications Protection and their International
Registration (hereafter referred to as: the Lisbon Arrangement) and the adequate
regulations of the EU.
While investigating the current law, the author has been guided by resolutions that
represent an obligation according to the TRIPS Agreement, as well as by resolutions of the
EU Council regulation 2081/92 on the Protection of Geographic Indications and Origin
Indications for Agricultural and Food Products from 1992 and the EU Council regulation
337/79, so-called the ‘Wine Regulation of EU’ and the recommendation of the World
Organization for Intellectual Property. The adjustment with the mentioned international
p.14
SINER-GI
contracts has led to certain changes related to conditions for acquiring the protection, the
procedure of acquiring the protection, relation between geographic indication and other
industrial property, and the scope of protection granted to authorized users has been
considerably broadened.
Special attention has been paid to defining the basic terms – the name of origin and
geographic indication, as well as to their identifying in relation to traditional and historic
names. Geographic homonyms have been protected, in order to regulate protection of
names that denote products from places of identical names.
The list of persons allowed to submit an application for a geographic indication or name of
origin has been extended to associations of producers, chambers of commerce,
associations of consumers and authority bodies interested in protecting a geographic
indication or name of origin.
The process of acquiring the international protection of national geographic indications of
origin has been regulated.1
2.5. Geographical Indications and Agriculture in Serbia
The nature of the main players and their participation in the debate allow us to see how
GIs can be replace in rural development or agricultural issues in Serbia, also on the point
of view of who is handling the subject. The GI policy implementation is a result of this
process.
The GI debate is much oriented toward food safety and European norms. Quality in food
production and food quality policy sounds in Serbia like hygiene norms and standards of
production (such as EUREPGAP or HACCP). Institutional efforts for GIs are indeed made
under Quality standards. The Unit in charge of rural development has not received any
financial support to develop such a policy. Efforts are made on competitiveness but we
have to notice that actors have different views of economic development, which implies
different policies. We can schematise in between those who make a distinction between
competitive agriculture and agriculture which is not competitive any more and those who
still believe that economic life and activities are still possible in rural areas. Globally, GIs
are seen as a tool directed toward markets and the main expected outcome is a better
access to markets. On the field, there are a lot of talks about “branding” World Bank
project including branding of traditional food products or about the role of geographic origin
in branding products.
The agricultural strategy of Serbia aims at moving towards the EU Common Agricultural
Policy. Rural development, together with environmental protection, is one of the main
goals pursued by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water management, among the
re-structuration of producers, ownership and institutions, and the development of market
and market mechanisms. Nevertheless, the most urgent priorities which have been
identified regard rules, regulations and procedures (EU cross compliance), legal standards
(among which: labelling and consumer protection), amelioration of control and legislation
in the area of agricultural market (the Donors, Conference for 2008 international
assistance, 14 September 2007, mentions “the rule on protection of the origin of goods
and geographic indications”).
1
Explanation of the Bill on Geographic indication of origin, 2005
p.15
SINER-GI
2.6. Institutional structure to promote GIs
Political instability in Serbia is not in favor of a sustainable and long term debate on GI.
When a new political party or a coalition (as it is the case now and already was before) is
coming into power, global national priorities are changed and the implementation of
proceeding measures is stopped or tackled down.
2.6.1. The origin of the GI protection in Serbia
Furthermore, talking about the GI issue, how did it come on the agenda as a concern for
agriculture? Until short time, there was no cooperation between the institutions, much
bureaucracy and a lot of procedures. The Intellectual Property Office of the Republic of
Serbia is the only institution to deal with the GI issue on a legal point of view because no
competency to do otherwise, meaning IPO of the Republic of Serbia and the people in
charge of GI were willing to change things and were showing interest for including the
Ministry of Agriculture in the debate. At that time, the Minister of Agriculture started to have
some responsibilities within the Ministry in 2003. He was in contact with founders of
SEEDEV, a new born rural development and agriculture consulting agency, which had
been working and living in the Balkans since seven years. They are “international experts”
who got interested in the issue of GIs as a new tool for rural development and a new field
of expertise. AGRIDEA Lausanne, promoting GI protection abroad and working on
technical expertise mandates, trained them on the topic in 2006. SEEDEV and the NGO
IDA (Ibar Development Association) were awarded by the Ministry of Agriculture, for a
project which aimed at supporting the establishment of a GI system in Serbia, through the
promotion of traditional products in western Serbia. The consulting agency SEEDEV
activated the debate on GI at the national level and promoted the Kajmak of Kraljevo
(among other products) to obtain subsidies from the Ministry of Agriculture for its
protection and promotion, with the support of an external and foreign actor (AGRIDEA).
The project is called: ”Traditional Agricultural Products of Western Serbia and
Geographical Indications’ protection” and leaded on the field by the NGO IDA.
The issue that could be raised in this case study and that may help to compare the case
studies between themselves is whether there is or not a Geographical Indication Public
Policy in Serbia and how it was built. It lets us see through which steps are taken to switch
form a limited public policy (concerning only a few or specific products) linked with boarder
policies to a whole policy, integrated in other policies.
We can use the analysis developed by B. Palier et Y. Surel (2005) which states that any
public policy is made of three variables (the three “i”s) which have a relative influence
according to the different steps of elaboration of the concerned public policy (coming out,
formulation, prioritisation, implementation, evaluation).
1. The Interests, linked with actors and happening in a short period of time ;
2. The Institutions, which happen on a mid-term basis according to the time needed
for their establishment;
3. The Ideas, represented by the evolution of the cognitive and normative matrices, on
a long term basis.
This approach recalls comparison. Indeed, when breaking down a public policy in
identifiable components, the decisive variables can be tested and factors of success
and/or efficiency depending on the different GIs protection schemes can be identified.
In the Serbian case, the actors who had a financial or political interest to see the GI issue
put as a priority on the Institutions agenda succeeded to obtain subsidies but remain
p.16
SINER-GI
efficient only on a short term basis. The political entrepreneurs will have to pursue their
efforts to enlarge this space of political opportunity which they managed to open once.
2.6.2. Place of State and government bodies in the country
At the institutional level, there is a high fragmentation and a lack of coherence in the
implementation. There is a lack of coordination between the IPO of the Republic of Serbia
and the relevant Ministries (Agriculture, Trade). The roles and responsibilities are not
clearly defined concerning the approval of the GI application and the potential
modifications within a code of practice. The recent changes which occurred (new law,
project to promote traditional products, etc.) are going in the direction of a more accurate
institutional framework (PDO-PGI commission, control and certification in line with the EU
framework). Other obvious factors are now at stake: funding on the one hand and a long
term involvement of the institutions on the other hand. The institutions will be increasingly
involved in the subject through the European Integration process and the growing
influence of the EU regulations which will also make the GI institutional framework evolve.
Regarding the actual implementation, the link between rural development and protection is
very low for the time being. The collaboration between the institutions and administrations
is done on a personal and individual/voluntary basis, which does not alloy to work for long
term collaborations. Some civil servants mentioned they did not feel competent on the
subject.
2.6.3. Place of the law in the country
According to the interviews realized, it appears that the law is not used as it could be. It
was mentioned that the courts are not informed about the law. There are problems
regarding the potential users of the registered geographic indications. Market oriented
users do not want to hear about collective protection. The reasons mentioned were that
people do not see the advantages of collective property, that they have an “individual
mentality” and that people do not believe in the system. Institutional rules are not fixed. In
theory, the IPO of the Republic of Serbia could disagree with the Ministry of Agriculture but
they have a lack of technical agro-food competences so in general they agree with the
expertise of the Ministry. The level of trust is therefore quite low. There is a lack of
information to the potential users of the GI system and legal framework. The potential
users see the registration as an administrative procedure more than a legal tool with high
protection implications.
2.7. Serbian trends and evolutions for GIs
2.7.1. Current situation and profile
Geographical names are traditionally used in Serbia to designate agro-food products.
Although the food supply chain and agro-food sector is still very much embedded in a
relational perception of food quality, still leaving an important place for the direct
relationship between producer and consumer. The notion of terroir in Serbia is not used as
such but it is meaningful. It is also linked today with identity claims and “folklorisation” of
the rural areas. Some geographical names, although they refer to the reality of a product,
also connote religious or ethnic dimensions that are not always welcome. Linked with
geographical indications, the question of territories and territorial division of the country
brings to the political power of municipalities in Serbia. The name of the municipalities
p.17
SINER-GI
often overweighs the name of smaller entities whereas wider denominations are also
problematic.
Agro-food products, waters and art crafts (such as carpets) are registered as GIs under
the old legislation (1995). Protections are given to foreign GI as far as they have applied
for protection. The general requirements for GIs are the geographic area, the methods of
production as well as some climatic and soil specificities data. The human factor is
therefore almost not taken into account in the requirements for the protection of a
Geographic Indication. The administrative delimitation is also a major aspect required,
taking into account the importance of the municipalities.
The recognition procedure is done through a formal examination. The “relevant institution”
gives its advice, in an often very technical point of view. The law does not include any
representativity examination. As an example of national product registered as a GI in a
foreign country, we can give the example of Ajvar which was registered in Slovenia. No
conflict arose because the competent people are not aware of the procedures to be
followed.
Table 1a. Short overview of the registered GIs in Serbia (products registered under
the former Law on Geographical Indications, April 1995)
Product
Beef prosciutto of Uzice
Product type
Pork prosciutto of Uzice
Bacon of Uzice
Kulen of Srem (hard sausage)
Domestic sausage of Srem
Meat product (This product is actually being
redefined and is the object of a new application)
Meat product
Meat product
Meat product
Meat product
Salami of Srem
Sausage of Pozarevac
Tea of Rtanj
White cheese of Homolj
Goat cheese of Homolj
Meat product
Meat product
Tea
Milk product
Milk product
Cow cheese of Homolj
Riesling of Banat
Rose of Jagodina (red wine)
Sampion beer of Vrsac
Milk product
Wine
Wine
Beer
Kosovo Polje (Amselfeld Field of the black bird Champ
de merle) wine of Kosovo (Amselfelder)
Wine of Metohija
Wine
Caviar of Kladovo
Water Vrnjci
Jelen beer of Apatin
Aqua Heba mineral water of Bujanovac
Carpets of Pirot
Caviar
Water
Beer
Water
Artifact
Sweaters of Sirogojno
Njeguski prosciutto
Duboka mineral water
Mace pearl island Krokan
Knjaz Milos Bukovicka spa
Artifact
Meat product
Water
Artifact
Water
Wine
Source: Intellectual Property Office of the Republic of Serbia
p.18
SINER-GI
The table above is listing the products that are registered under the former law. This law
also mentions products from Montenegro such as Krstac of Montenegro (white wine),
Vranjac of Montenegro (red wine), Sauvignon of Montenegro (white wine), Cabernet of
Montenegro, Merlot of Montenegro, Chardonnay of Montenegro. Concerning those former
registered GIs, according to the Art. 69 they should automatically be registered under the
new law the previous “Indication of origin” will become PDO and the previous
“Geographical indication” will become PGI. Nevertheless, a lot of them are not significant
anymore. Indeed, it is important to underline that this registration is not associated to an
implementation of the qualification of the product (no controls, no certification procedure).
Table 2b. Short overview of GIs identified for registration or in process of
registration under the new law (not exhaustive)
Product
GI Status (identified or in process)
Product type
Raspberries of Arilje
Identified
Fruit
Cheese of Sjenica
Identified and investigated by a dozen of
researchers between 2002 and 2005
Dairy product
Zlatar Cheese
Kajmak of Uzice/ Zlatibor
Beef prosciutto of Uzice
Identified and investigated by researchers
Identified, in process of qualification
In process of qualification, selected to support the
implementation of a GI system.
In process of qualification, selected to support the
Dairy product
Dairy product
Meat product
In process of registration, selected to support the
Wine / Vermouth
Kajmak of Kraljevo
Bermet of Fruska Gora
Dairy product
Source: Field interviews
The main justifications and objectives mentioned for GIs are listed in the following figure.
Figure 1. Main goals for GIs protection in Serbia
To ensure survival o f a pro duct
M arket ing t o o l t owards consumers : t o generat e t rust
Imp rove access t o d omest ic / int ernat io nal market s
Preserve t rad it io nal kno w how
Preserve a name
Ro o t t he act ivit ies in t he land
Traceab ilit y t o o l, insurance o f q ualit y
Generat e collect ive act io n
M aint ain / develop t he SM Es
Fig ht ag ainst usurpat io ns / imit at ions
Develop individ ual / ind ust rial st rat eg ies
Preserve t he genet ic reso urces
Prot ect io n ag ainst market f luct uat io ns t hro ug h seg ment at io n
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
Source: Paus and Estève, 2007. Eight persons have been interviewed, from the Intellectual Property Office
(1), the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management (3), the consulting agency SEEDEV (3) and
the NGO IDA (1).
p.19
SINER-GI
The most important motivations for public institutions and NGOs are: to ensure survival of
the product (because of the demographic issue in rural area and the implementation of
norms), to provide a marketing tool towards consumers, to generate trust, to improve
access to domestic as well as international markets, and to preserve a know-how. To
preserve the genetic resources seems not to be a stake in Serbia, as well as to protect
against market fluctuations through segmentation.
The main motivations for producers are the market success, to get higher prices and have
less fluctuation in prices.
2.7.2. Trends and perspectives of GI protection in the country
The GI system is seen as a tool for rural development as most of the traditional products
are produced in remote places, nevertheless, numerous rural places are empty today. The
most important outcome expected with the registration of the GI is the economic outcome:
better prices and access to market. The public stakeholders are clearly aware of these
priorities (Ministry of agriculture, Intellectual Property Office) and GIs are seen in the first
place as a tool for capturing a commercial benefit.
2.7.3. Relation between country and case
Illustration of the GI situation in Serbia through the study of Kraljevacki Kajmak
The Kajmak case illustrates quite well the situation concerning GI production in Serbia,
especially concerning the GI chain structure, the GI territoriality, as well as concerning the
play on names. Concerning the GI system itself, the organization of the stakeholders and
their motivations, the strong involvement of a local NGO is not so common when looking at
other Serbian GI.
Kraljevacki Kajmak influences the evolution of the nation-wide GI framework
Clearly, the registration of Kajmak as a protected designation of origin is part of a wider
project leaded by the local NGO IDA which aims at identifying, protecting and promoting
the traditional agricultural and agri-food production. The registration of at least two
products as protected geographic indication under the new law is a clear expected output
of the project and will hopefully contribute, as hoped by the “GI promoters”, in spreading
the GI framework knowledge and use in Western Serbia and all over the country.
p.20
SINER-GI
3.
Kraljevacki Kajmak within the SINER-GI project
The project of registering and protecting Kraljevacki Kajmak as a Geographic Indication in
Serbia is a new strategy. The driving force is external: it was chosen by the Ministry of
Agriculture, and other strategic external stakeholders, as a potential product with which to
start a GI policy in Serbia.
The issues raised by the protection of such a product are various. There are strong
demographic issues linked with rural exodus. The Kajmak area of production combines
remote and quite empty mountainous areas with countryside and more dense areas. It is
also one of the reasons why Kajmak has been chosen as a starting product: the initiators
hope that a collective dynamic will prevent from further depopulation. Social aspects are
also at stake when considering Kajmak production and protection: market and consumer
habits are changing; EU standards are growingly putting peasants under pressure. There
is a high risk to lose collective memories and local know-how in a very quick transition.
Indeed, people are more interested in innovation than in tradition and coupling the two in a
common tool is hard to imagine. In the Kajmak case, two options are open:
industrialization or home-made Kajmak. When semi-industrial dairies try to find a way in
between, they are often discouraged by sanitary services and regulations. Economic
dimensions are certainly the main issues. There are huge changes in the distribution
sector although the personal relationship between consumers and producers stays strong
but only possible on green markets or on the farms. For the time being, consumers do not
give much attention to labels or logos.
The Kajmak case study is particularly relevant for SINER-GI because different (more or
less usual) aspects can be analysed :
- collective organization before registration;
- “mise à l’agenda” of an integrated GI public policy;
- mobilizations and processes developed for the relocalization of a product, recognized
for its quality but not so much for its name;
- production of a by-product “beli sir” (white cheese).
We interviewed more than 40 actors during two field trips (see annex 2).
First field trip : 11 to 30 June 2007
11-13/06 Meetings with institutions and national stakeholders
14/06 visit of Kajmak production outside the Kraljevacki Kajmkak area of production
15-20/06 visit to producer, processors, wholesalers and local NGO representatives and
public officials
25/06 visit to academics, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Belgrade
26 to 30/06 Visit public officials and Kajmak producers in Zlatibor region
Second field trip : 6 to 15 August 2007
6/08 visit of Kajmak production outside the Kraljevacki Kajmak area of production
7-8/08 meetings with local institutions and entrepreneurs
9-10/08 meetings in Belgrade with institutions and shops/ retailers
14-15/08 visit of producers and meetings with local institutions
p.21
SINER-GI
4.
The GI system today : definition and delimitation
4.1. Definition of the product and area of production
Although we are dealing with Kajmak of Kraljevo, it is important to mention that the
traditional zone of production largely overpasses the Kraljevo region. In the first paragraph
of this section, we will deal with traditional kajmak production in Serbia and the different
strategies to protect it.
4.1.1. Definition of kajmak in Serbia and its area of production
Kajmak is a product which has been produced in Serbia, Montenegro and Bosnia and
Herzegovina since ancient time (some people estimated the traditional production of
kajmak has been established at the 18 century)2. It is neither a cheese nor a cream, it is a
category in itself.
The product “kajmak” is defined in a Serbian by-law (in the Book of Regulations on quality
and other requirements for milk, dairy, composite dairy products, 2002) as a product made
from the fat layer or crust, created when milk is boiled and then cooled down.
With the rest of the milk, a white low-fat cheese (beli sir) is produced (rennet is added).
According to the level of maturity, Kajmak can be marketed as young or as matured
kajmak. Indeed if kajmak is left for 15-20 days (in some mountainous regions even for
months), at room temperature, well packed and pressed into a plot, it ferments and turns
into ripened or aged kajmak. In some regions, melted lard is poured over kajmak in the pot
(Hopic, 2005).
Young kajmak and matured kajmak have to fulfil several criteria related to the colour (white
/ yellow), smell and taste (mild / strong), minimum percentage of fat in dry matter (65% /
75%), minimum percentage of salt (2% / 3.5%), maximum acidity (25SH / 50SH)3,
structure (layers with soft bits that are not grainlike or layerlike and spreads well).
Kajmak is traditionally produced in Central and South West Serbia (see map). The
notoriety of this region is very well established. Tradition of old kajmak is linked with
mountainous areas (Northern Montenegro, Goljia, Zlatibor4 ), as it was (and still is) difficult
to market young kajmak due to a lack of infrastructures.
Two main strategies are possible to protect the kajmak:
1) To delimitate the whole traditional region of production with the aim of protecting a
traditional way of production and the artisan product “Serbian kajmak” by defining
rules. Indeed industrial production is increasing very fast, und the production of
home-made kajmak is decreasing as rapidly. The limits between semi-industrial
kajmak production and industrial kajmak production have to be defined.
2) To define several areas of productions and protect the kajmak from those regions
with local geographical names, which are already used (Uzice, Zlatibor, Kraljevo,
Cacak, Ljig, Valjevo, etc…). This strategy is the one on the process. Several
initiatives are flourishing to protect local kajmaks, in particular in Uzice/Zlatibor (with
2
For a description of the tradition of kajmak in Serbia, see Annex 3
Soxlet Henkel degrees: obtained by titrating with NaOH, using phenolphtalein as the indicator.
4
exept Sandjak, which is mostly Muslim: Kajmak comes from the orthodox culture (Reymann, 2006)
3
p.22
SINER-GI
the support of the Chamber of commerce), Cacak (with the support of the faculty of
agronomy of Cacak) and Kraljevo.
Figure 2. Map of Serbia, traditional area of production of kajmak
Vojvodina
Belgrade
Central
Serbia
Traditional
area of kajmak
production
Kraljevo
Municipality
Kosovo
Basemap : www.wikipedia.org
Within the whole region of production, two kajmaks (produced with cow milk) are
particularly reputed and most commonly found on the market in Belgrade and big cities:
zlatiborski and uzicki kajmak (kajmak of Zlatibor/ Uzice) and Kraljevacki kajmak (kajmak of
Kraljevo).
4.1.2. Definition of Kraljevacki kajmak and its area of production
Kraljevo Municipality
Kraljevo is the largest municipality of Serbia, with 121,000 inhabitants, situated 200 km
South West Belgrade. Its territory is divided into two mains geographical areas: the Ibar
valley and its steep mountains (1500 m above see level) in the South towards Kosovo; and
the hilly landscapes and lowlands in the North towards Cacak and Kragujevac.
The city itself counts 83,000 inhabitants, with approximately one quarter of its population
being displaced persons originating from Kosovo. It is the administrative center of the
Raska District.
Natural conditions, fertile soil and ore sites, determined that main economic branches in
Kraljevo region are food production and heavy industry. As more than one half of the
territory of the municipality of Kraljevo is covered with forests (South of the municipality),
timber exploitation is also an important activity. A great quantity of wood with low degree
processing is exported to the Arab countries and the EU countries. The agricultural land is
mainly privately-owned and its total area is around 72,000 hectares, out of which 61%
belong to meadows and pastures, 30% to fields and gardens and 9% to orchards (in
particular plum-, apple- and pear-trees) (www.kraljevo.co.yu). Small farms (3 to 5 ha) with
p.23
SINER-GI
a diversified production (fruits, vegetables, milk and meat) is the prevalent model of
agriculture. 80% of the cows are Simmental breed, 20% are Holstein or crossed
Holstein/Simmental.
The milk production is divided into the production of kajmak and cheeses (homeproduction and small dairies) and industrial production (milk consumption and yoghurts,
dominated by the Imlek company). Imlek established a strategy of collecting the milk by
exploitations with 10 to 15 cows, easily reachable by the roads with collect trucks. A few
exploitations can afford a growth in cattle and lands, and small farms in the periphery are
more and more marginalized (Reymann, 2006). According to a vet, there are only a
hundred farms with 20 cows or more.
Kraljevacki kajmak
The definition of the product and its area of production are not perfectly clear in the case of
kraljevacki kajmak, though a well-established reputation of the name exists, linked with the
territory. There is a high variability in the production of kajmaks in general, and the
variability between households production within the Kraljevo area seems as high as the
variability between Kraljevo and Cacak or Valjevo for exemple5. The order of most famous
Kajmak is often listed as such: Zaltibor first and Kraljevo and Cacak second. People
usually say they are not able, by tasting different Kajmaks to identify where they come
from, even though they can describe different qualities.
We can say that the reputation of the Kajmak of Kraljevo comes from its quality and its
proximity to Belgrade. It is produced in a quite dynamic region and is quite present on the
markets, especially in Belgrade. It is often renamed with more famous or “environmental
friendly connoted” names although the quality is good.
Behind the product, the determinant “of Kraljevo” seems to qualify a process of kajmak
production and its degree of maturing (young kajmak). Several producers we met outside
Kraljevo were honestly claiming they were producing kraljevacki kajmak… from Ljig!
Nevertheless, according to the producers, kraljevacki kajmak is linked to the area at
several levels:
• Production of raw material
Raw milk is produced mainly by Simmental race cows and a kind of local Simmental,
called “busa”. The pastures and hay (rich flora and clean environment) are the main
component of animal feedings and there is almost no feeding complement in the form of
concentrates.
• Know-how of the producers
• Process of kajmak (micro flora and fauna in the working room),
• Link with the market (trust in quality)
In the Goljia mountainous area, located in the municipality of Kraljevo, there are some
specificities linked to the climate and the aging (cold nights, movement of the air, no need
of fridge). Kajmak is mainly marketed as matured kajmak (up to six months!) due to
conservation problems (it is not possible to market the kajmak every week because of the
remoteness of the place). In the lowlands, to let kajmak matured turns it bitter.
5
A map of Serbia is inserted in the annex 2
p.24
SINER-GI
The aim is to see how far the GI system is linked with local breeds or vegetal varieties,
how far it is embedded in the region of production. The process is recognized. Some
producers claim the can see the difference between the kajmak of Kraljevo and other
kajmaks. The main differences are likely to be identified in the color and the skin. The
kajmak of Kraljevo is said to be wither and softer than other kajmaks. They recognized the
kajmak of Cacak as very similar. The one from Uzice/Zlatibor is said to be different. But all
have difficulties to explain where the specificities come from.
Scenarios in the area delimitation
Several scenarios are possible in the delimitation of the area. Nevertheless the one based
on the delimitation of the municipality boarders is the most realistic; as it is the strategy
launches by the initiative which aims at protecting Kraljevacki kajmak (see below).
1) Delimitation based on the triangle Kragujevac-Cacak-Kraljevo (area of around 1000
km²):
There is a high legitimacy for producers in the triangle Kragujevac-Cacak-Kraljevo to use
the name “Kraljevo”. The area is quite homogenous (lowlands and resources) and the
process is likely to be the same. In this region, they are mainly marketing young kajmak.
Nevertheless some of them are outside the Municipality of Kraljevo, what could induce
political problems with the use of the name.
Figure 3. Map of the municipality of Kraljevo and main areas of production
Low and hilly lands, large volumes of
production (young kajmak)
Kragujevac
Cacak
Kraljevo
Mountainous areas, small volumes of
production (old kajmak)
2) Delimitation based on the municipality boarders (area of 1530 km²):
Producers located in the Kraljevo Municipality, but situated in the mountainous area, are
traditionally producing mature kajmak (likely to be linked with infrastructures). The
producers we met are interested in the project, but they said they are not using the name
p.25
SINER-GI
“Kraljevo” to market their kajmak and will not use it in the future, even if the kraljevacki
kajmak is protected. Kraljevo is situated in lowlands and they identify themselves to names
located in the mountains around (such as Studenica). This sets the question of the interest
for them to be included in the area of production in terms of marketing. Nevertheless the
interest to include them could consist in the setting of collective organization and
negotiation of the implementation of sanitarian rules as well as protection of a traditional
know-how. IDA (the NGO working on the registration, see below) is strongly aware of a
need to distinguish kajmak from the lowlands to kajmak from the mountains (above 500
m), with particular specifications that could be set in the code of practices.
4.2. Kraljevacki Kajmak production and processing system
In this section, we will refer to the second scenario of delimitation and discuss the situation
in the municipality of Kraljevo.
4.2.1. Volume of production
In the area of the Municipality of Kraljevo, the estimated volume of production of kajmak
that can be found on the market is around 300 tons (200 tons are estimated to be
produced for self-consumption and are not marketing).
4.2.2. Households’ production
Almost each household with cows is producing kajmak. The exact number of producers is
not available, as many of them are producing kajmak for their own consumption. The
estimated number of producers that market the kajmak is around 600.
The households are generally not specialized in the kajmak production and are often
producing other type of products such as pigs, calves but also fruits and vegetables.
Moreover, it happens very often that someone of the family is working outside the farm.
Kajmak is hard work as it is a labour-intensive production and despite it seems a simple
production (“only” boiling the milk), the quality of kajmak presents a high variability due to
the competences of the producer. The production of kajmak requires attention during
several hours (several pots are placed the one after the other on the fire in the household
production system) and is followed by the production of the white low-fat cheese. Kajmak
production is exclusively a female work (wife and mother-in-law are often working
together).
Moreover, the context is unfavorable for the finances of many producers as the
veterinarian inspectors are stricter and stricter and ask for fulfilment of the sanitarian
norms. These norms represents a need from hundreds euros (fridge) to several thousand
euros (separate room).
The alternative of the production of kajmak is the delivery of milk, and many producers are
either producing kajmak or delivering milk, according to the price they can get.
Nevertheless, many producers said milk production is too small money. The average price
for the milk is 18 dinars/kg, whereas, they can valorise the kg of milk up to 40 dinars by
producing kajmak and selling it directly on the green market (at consumer price, 500
dinars/kg). Nevertheless few producers can reach this price as they sell their products to
traders.
p.26
SINER-GI
The uncertainty is very high on prices and there is no contract (see section Governance).
Moreover, kajmak production is a real tradition that people want to keep, and they continue
to produce kajmak for the family when they are not processing all the milk.
4.2.3. Changes in the structure of the production system
The classical unit of production is the household with 2 to 10 cows producing kajmak, and
marketing it either on the green market or through cooperative or traders. Some producers
are also traders and we estimated, there is about 6 traders working as main activity and
collecting to 60 to 70 households each. The average production estimated for the
household production is 10 kg kajmak/week. These units tend to decrease deeply, while
we observe the entry of new actors: small scaled dairies.
The main driver of the changes in the structure of the production is the implementation of
sanitarian norms. As it is easier to fulfil the norms in the production of milk than in the
production of kajmak (need of separate room), many milk and kajmak producers have
already switched to the production of milk only. At the same time, two traders in the area
recently turned to the production of kajmak by implementing dairy and collecting milk. In
several villages, we met producers or traders who plan to build a dairy (when the building
is not already constructed, waiting for equipments and authorizations). They all want to
offer several products (diversification in dairy products) and to produce in a traditional way.
The main differences in the production between home-production and small-scaled dairy
are:
- The systematic cooling down of the milk (lactofreeze) in dairies, whereas home
producers generally mix cool milk with fresh warm milk,
- The pasteurisation of the milk (cookers in dairies, wooden fire by home-producers),
- Round-shape pots (for cooking and cooling down the milk) by households, whereas
square pools are implemented in dairies (point discussed with the sanitary services)
The dairies are still high work-intensive production, and a lot of steps are made by hands.
One of the most important steps is to cut the fat layer and remove it by hands. The
packaging is identical; it consists of plastic box or in bulk.
Imlek (one of the biggest industrial dairy company in Serbia) tried to produce kajmak in
Kraljevo, but they did not manage. Those who tried to produce kajmak at an industrial
scale in other areas (Novi Sad) failed. Indeed, it is often said that is it not possible to
produce real kajmak in an industrial way.
Today, its production is still connected to individual households and small dairies of
traditional character.
p.27
SINER-GI
4.3. Markets
4.3.1. Consumption of kajmak
Kajmak is part of the Serbian culture and there is an emotional link with it. It is usually
enjoyed as an appetizer, but also as a condiment. The simplest recipe is lepinja sa
kajmakom (fresh bread filled with kajmak) consumed for breakfast or as fast food.
In summer, the demand in Serbia is decreasing but is increasing a lot with tourism in
Montenegro. In that period, the price is going up for those who sell to traders that cross
(illegally) the boarder. In Belgrade the prices are going up when the winter is coming, from
October onward. Kajmak is more consumed in winter because it is an “heavy product”
(and white cheese more demanded in summer). On these aspects, we can add that
Kajmak in general is not very trendy or fashionable: it is very fat and hygiene aspects
(transport and re-packaging conditions) are also at stake. On the contrary, beli sir (white
cheese) is much more seen as a healthy product, with a low fat composition.
Producers and people living in the countryside eat it regularly. The average consumption
for a family in Kraljevo has been estimated to half a kg /week. Nevertheless people living
in big cities (Belgrade, Novi Sad) would buy it for specific occasions and celebrations,
especially around the Christmas and New Year period.
Kajmak and beli sir as appetizers
Kajmak packaging for the green market
4.3.2. Outlets of kajmak and market potential
The scope of markets is rather large in the Balkanic countries: Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia
and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Croatia. Illegal trade outside Serbia is a large outlet, but
difficult to quantify and a real problem for sanitarian inspections as well as for control of
other kind of quality (not only sanitarian).
As we observe changes in the production structure, there are changes in the market
channels structure as well. At the time being, kajmak is a product mostly sold on green
markets. It is brought to the markets usually in wooden or plastic baskets of various sizes
(1-5 kg). Small packaging - of 200 g or half a kilo - are very expensive for producers.
Quality of kajmak usually varies, however, producers and traders on the green market
have often their own, regular and known buyers. The purchase decision making still relies
on confidence and proximity with the producer. Moreover, it is possible to taste the kajmak
before buying it.
p.28
SINER-GI
Window of kajmaks in a big
retailer.
It
is
precised:
“Degustacija sireva I kajmaka
nije dozvoljena”: “it is not
possible to taste cheeses
and kajmaks”
Nevertheless, the market share of retailers and shops is increasing. Indeed, due to big
interest and standardization of the product, some bigger store chains, both national and
international (C market, Mercator…) started to purchase and market this product in larger
towns and cities.
Restaurants and hotels are also important market for kajmak, and they buy kajmak from
well-known producers.
There is a big market potential. Kajmak - of high quality! - is demanded and many
producers and traders said they could double their supply. Retailers are likely to increase
their demand of good hygienic quality.
4.3.3. Competitors of kraljevacki kajmak
Several types of competitors are seen on the market. Basically, they can be classified in 2
categories: “cheese spread” (industrial “kajmak”) and artisan kajmaks from other regions of
South-western Serbia.
Artisan kajmaks from other regions of South-West Serbia (Cacak, Zlatibor/Uzice) are real
competitors. We estimated that the kraljevascki kajmak represents between 30 and 40% of
the relevant market (artisanal production of kajmak in Serbia).
Industrial kajmaks are not real competitors of the kraljevacki kajmak, because consumers
know it is not “real” kajmak (the reference market for the kraljevacki kajmak is the artisan
kajmak production). Nevertheless, they are competitors in term of milk supply (see
paragraph 8 on the performance assessment) and moreover, a category of “boarder line”
kajmak is appearing. Those kajmaks are produced in an industrial or semi-industrial way,
have a delay of consumption (young kajmak) highly extended (without additives), so that
the process of production might have been changed. The degree of confusion is high (they
also play on the packaging) and the price at the consumer level is very high (7.25
euros/kg).
p.29
SINER-GI
Table 3. Examples of industrial competitors
Product
1.
Name, description of the product and claim
2.
Price at consumer level
3.
Degree of confusion for consumers
4.
Place of production, place of sale
1.
“Kajmak Spread”, “cheese spread/ kajmak”, “Domaci
kajmak”, “quality products that are not generally
available outside of Yugoslavia”, “authentic flavor of
Europe at your home”, “Home made”
2.
Between 6.83 and 8.75 euros/ kg
3.
No confusion possible. “Margarine” and many other
ingredients in the composition of the product.
4.
Produced in the United States (Vermont, …). Sold in the
United States and all over the world through the web.
http://balkanbuy.com/
http://www.eurofoodmart.com
1.
“A la kajmak” ,“type of Serbian cream”, “Krem sir”,
“Extra fat cheese (creamy consistency) with minimum
70% fat in dry matter”. “Tasty and nutritious, natural and
healthy, from the best quality milk without additives and
conservation”. “Best before: 90 days”.
2.
Between 2.5 and 3.9 euros / kg.
3.
No confusion possible.
products” for consumers.
4.
Produced out of the area of traditional kajmak production
(Mačva district, Vojvodina), sold in Serbia (shops) and
exported.
1.
“Kajmak”. “Kuc company is one of the few Serbian dairy
companies which industrially produces kajmak. Kuc
company is a family processing unit that has succeeded
to
standardized
kajmak
production”;
“classical
production”. Young (up to 2 months conservation) and
old kajmak (up to 6 months conservation).
2.
3,7 euros / kg
3.
No confusion possible, nevertheless a packaging in
wooden bucket could lead to confusion
4.
Produced in the traditional area of kajmak production
(Kragujevac). The milk is partly coming from the
Municipality of Kraljevo. Sold in shops and supermarkets
(but also to restaurants) all over Serbia, and exported to
Montenegro, Croatia, Macedonia .
1.
“Uzicki kajmak”, “Zlatiborski kajmak”
2.
7.25 euros / kg.
3.
The confusion is possible in so far as it is not clear
whether the process of production is industrial or
artisanal.
4.
Produced in the traditional area of kajmak (Zlatibor). Sold
by Mercator, but also in restaurants and hotels. In Serbia
and exported to Macedonia, Croatia and Bosnia
Herzegovina.
Considered
as
A la kajmak, “Mlekara” Šabac
A la kajmak, krem sir, Banatska
industry
“industrial
p.30
SINER-GI
4.3.4. Product qualification and labelling
There is a premium for the artisan products compared with industrial (Kuc, “A la kajmak”).
Kraljevacki kajmak is known but more to define a specific process than to name the
product. We suspect that the Kajmak sold in Zlatibor (and under this name) is mainly
coming from the region of Kraljevo. Kraljevo does not seem to be attractive enough and is
interchanged with Zlatibor which is trendy and well-known by tourists.
Concerning the buying drivers for Kraljevacki Kajmak, we have to deal with several
aspects:
• Names connotation. Geographic names are considered by producers and traders as
good marketing and advertising tools. The main cooperative started to use the name of
Karlejvo to market its kajmak since the 60’s. For example, people produce a Kajmak
somewhere and sell it on the market in Belgrade as Zlatiborski Kajmak (Zlatibor is a
very famous ski resort in South Western Serbia), or under any other name that sounds
clean (from any industrial pollution). This phenomenon also occurs with Kraljevacki
Kajmak sold under Zlatiborski.
• Relational dimension of quality, which is still driving a lot of food consumption
behaviors even though it is now challenged by new large distribution marketing
channels. For local or even national products, the relational dimension of quality is the
main driver. If we talk about industrial milk or processed vegetables, the processing
firms are known. If we talk about foreign products, brands, labels and logos are taken
into account by consumers.
Table 4. Internal differentiation in qualities and prices of Kraljevacki Kajmak and
cheese
Milk
0.23-0.25 euros
Kajmak
2.3 euros
Producer price
Trade/ Wholesaler
price
Consumer price
Local green markets
Shops
Big cities (Belgrade),
export (Montenegro) and
niche market (Zaltibor)
3.5 euros
3.3 - 4 euros
4.4 euros
0.23-0.25 euros
Milk
0.75 - 1.1 euros
Cheese
1.4 - 2.2 2.8 euros
Producer price
Consumer price
Local green markets Shops Big cities (Belgrade),
export (Montenegro) and
niche market (Zaltibor)
5.6 euros
8 euros
Source: Paus and Estève, 2007
The price of milk in Serbia is built according to the level of fat and the altitude (lowlands or
mountainous areas). No criteria is related to the number of bacteria. Producers of
kraljevacki kajmak found the price too low in comparison with other kajmaks and quality
associated. The protection of the name could be a way to reach a minimum price.
p.31
SINER-GI
4.4. Territorial and supply chain organisation
As already explained in the section 4.2, there are important changes in the processing
units’ structure (small households to small scaled dairies).
Figure 4. Supply chain structure in 2006.
2006
Milk production
Kajmak production
Around 600 small producers = 10 kg per week
200 t
3.5 euros /kg
100 t
5.5 euros/kg
Direct sales
or small
trade in the
region
Green markets, restaurants
ZlatiborK
100 t
7.6 euros/kg
Kuc
30 t
3.8 euros/kg
Trade
Stubal
Export
= 65 t
5.5 euros /kg
Supermarkets,
wholesalers
Green markets, specialized shops, restaurants
Paus and Réviron, 2007
The flows that are taking place in the region of Kraljevo are underlined in yellow. There is a
“vertical integration” in the households, as the milk and the kajmak are produced in the
same household. Some households are already taking the milk from neighbours to
produce more kajmak. The channels of commercialisation are the direct sells on the
market and the traders.
In a short term development, some hypotheses can be formulated:
1- a lot of small kajmak producers will stop production and deliver milk to bigger
processors, due to lack of investment capacity to fulfil hygienic requirements;
2- middle size dairies may obtain a kajmak that can be considered as artisan kajmak;
3- volumes will be maintained with transfer from households production to dairies;
4- those changes will take place within a short term period.
p.32
SINER-GI
Household production
Dairies production
Milking
Milk delivery
Household production of
kajmak
Production of kajmak in a middle-scaled dairy
Final product: young kajmak
Final product: young kajmak
“mljekar”, traditional house for the production of Middle-scaled dairy
kajmak
p.33
SINER-GI
Production of white cheese, “by-product of Production of white cheese, “by-product” of
kajmak
kajmak”
In terms of volume the production is not expected to decrease, but the number of
household producers will decrease for the profit of new middle-scaled dairies (between 20
and 30 tons of kajmak a year), that mostly choose a strategy of diversification (kajmak,
white cheese, other kind of cheeses, yoghourts). In 2007, two traders in the area turned to
the production of kajmak by implementing dairy and collecting milk (one of them is just
starting his activity). We can expect that two other traders switch to this activity in a short
term. Moreover, we identified 4 projects of dairies for the coming years.
Figure 5. Supply chain structure in 2009 (expectation)
Expected 2009
Milk production
Kajmak production
Around 300 small producers
100 t
5.5 euros/kg
Direct sales
or small
trade in the
Stubal
region
R
E
50 t
30 t 30 t
3.5 euros/kg
Green markets,
restaurants
M
T
20 t 20 t 20 t
Kuc
ZlatiborK
M L
100 t
7.6 euros/kg
30 t
3.8 euro/kg
Trade
wholesalers
5.5 euros/kg
Export
= 65 t
supermarkets
Green markets, specialized shops, restaurants
Paus and Réviron ; 2007
The flows that are taking place in the region of Kraljevo are underlined in yellow.
Dairies are often implemented either by former traders who gained the investment capacity
with their trade activity (which is not without causing troubles in terms of confidence with
small producers) or by “big” producers, either focused on the production of good milk
p.34
SINER-GI
quality and willing to gain more added value, or already centred on the production of
kajmak and collecting milk to their neighbours, willing to increase their capacity.
4.5. Description of the GI system : the actors and their involvement
In the present situation, the collective initiative that aims to protect the kraljevacki kajmak
is leaded by the local NGO IDA. IDA is mainly working with small producers by initiating
working groups in the region. The main motivation for IDA is to protect the kraljevacki
kajmak as a tool for rural development.
In the working group formed by IDA, there is a leader : a producer from Obrva village. He
is the president of an agrocluster6, which has been registered under associational status.
This producer is aware of the lack of organization in the supply and the link with low prices.
According to him, there is no future in the production if the relative situation of the small
kajmak producers is not changing. They have a negative position in the share of the
margins. Moreover, the municipality is officially part of the process but they don’t act
concretely.
Figure 6. Kraljevaski kajmak system
Universities
Intellectual
Property Office
SEEDEV
AGRIDEA,
IED
(Switzerland)
Ministry of
Agriculture
Kraljevo region
Regional NGO
IDA
Vet Institute
Vet Station
Kraljevacki Kajmak system
Producers of
milk
Producers of kajmak
(dairies)
Producers of
kajmak (household
production)
Cooperative
Stubal (packaging
and marketing)
Sanitarian
inspection
traders
Facilitator
Information
meetings
communication
Municipality of
Kraljevo
retailers (Delta, Serbian markets: Belgrade,
Novi Sad, Zlatibor, ...
Mercator)
Foreign
markets:
Montenegro,
House consumption and restaurants
Green markets
Croatia, FRY Macedonia,
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Paus, 2007
6
The agro-cluster has been formed in December 2006 at the end of the project of the World Bank,
implemented by World Wide Strategy in Kraljevo Municipality. The agro-cluster consists in an association of
30 farmers. These farmers are producing fruits, vegetables, dairy products, cattle. Several working groups
are formed among several types of production. The aim is to have producers joining and training. The dairy
working group is working on kajmak together with IDA.
p.35
SINER-GI
The main motivations of the producers to join a collective initiative are to get a better price,
to maintain a regional identity, to keep an artisan product and a traditional know-how alive,
and to gain negotiation power with vet institutions and controls.
Nevertheless, with the changes explained above, the role of traders and big farmers is
increasing in the supply chain, due to a new activity : production of kajmak in small scaled
dairies. This underlines the need of having them involved in the collective project. At the
time being, the dairies are playing an individual strategy, but they know the potential of the
product and its name (as former traders), the quality that is expected by retailers and
consumers and are working on a good quality to maintain its reputation. Moreover the
dairies are expected to produce consequential quantities in the coming years.
Small producers and former traders have difficulties to work together, due to the fact that
traders are seen as opportunistic and as those who take the biggest margins. Indeed
traders have a bad reputation, and are called « dealers » or « middle men ».
Consequently and because of the high number of producers, there is no official collective
organization of the supply chain at the time being.
p.36
SINER-GI
5.
The GI system trajectory
5.1. Trajectory of the qualification of the product
Kajmak (name or product) is widespread from the Balkans to Turkey, Iran and Caucasus.
Does it come from the Ottoman empire? We know that it has been developed and adopted
in Serbia, where it is not considered a Muslim product at all. Serbia is the main region of
production of Kajmak in the Balkans, especially Sumadija although the zone of production
may have covered whole South Eastern Europe in the past.
The qualification process of the kraljevacki kajmak was initiated by an external actor:
World Wide Strategy (but the idea came from a vet inspector), but also by local
entrepreneurs who showed interest. World Wide Strategy is an American consultancy
agency, who developed in 2006 in Kraljevo and elsewhere, a programme for employment
and economic development in rural areas, with World Bank funds. In Kraljevo, World Wide
Strategy has identified the agricultural sector as a priority.
The main action was to initiate the creation of producers association or interprofessions.
One of the objectives was the branding (registration under trademark) of the Kajmak. But
the project did not really succeed in so far as the animators were mixing trademarks,
PDOs, PGIs and collective mark without taking into account the accurate laws. The
producers also got fed up with two many meetings and discussions on legal issues.
Although it was not successful, this project allowed the producers and processors from the
region to get confident in the fact that developing kraljevacki Kajmak production could lead
to economic advantages and a higher creation of added value. Traders (some of them are
also producers) were also conscious of the kraljevacki Kajmak potential but were never
taken into account in the World Wide Strategy discussions and meetings as such (as
traders – some are producers and traders).
As explained above, the mobilisation of institutional (Ministry of agriculture) and other
public and private stakeholders (SEEDEV, IDA), is influencing the development of the
kraljevacki kajmak registration and protection as a Geographical Indication. IDA organised
several meetings for information (one big meeting for institutions in April 2007 with 2
representatives of the municipality, one person from the vet station, association of farmers
and regional cooperative union). Later on, they organised several local meetings to inform
producers.
After the informative meetings, IDA set up a household production working group with 20
producers. There are now working on the code of practice.
5.2. Evolution of the context
The institutional context was of crucial importance for the GI system development. A state
of the Art of the existing initiatives was made in 2006. The methodology adopted for the
project was to support already existing initiatives or initiatives in development. To sum up,
the institutional framework influenced a lot the initiatives, although we’ve seen this frame is
unstable and has changed until the beginning of the initiatives. The success or failure of
this initiative - and the project on the whole – will influence the institutional context and
framework. In 2007, sessions of information have been organised and now, a core group
is being constituted to define the code of practice.
p.37
SINER-GI
6.
GI system : Joint Action, Governance, Rules, regulation
(physiology)
6.1. Organization & networks
At the time being, there is no official (registered) organisation among the producers of
kajmak. The NGO IDA plays the role of facilitator with the objective of establishing a code
of practices and have the kraljevacki kajmak registered. IDA is presently working with
households producers.
For most of the producers, the choice of the supply chain partner is driven by the payment
delays and the cash money access more than the quality or the confidence on a long term
basis. Traders don’t pay a lot, but they pay cash, and their delays are often reasonable (12 weeks). There is no fixed contract with traders (mostly oral agreements). In some areas,
traders come whenever they need. Most of the time, prices have to be negotiated every
month, or even every week. Prices in dairies are more regular, but the delay of payment
are bigger. Imlek provides a 5 years contract for its producers.
The delay of payment is a big incentive in the choice of the commercial partner, as in the
choice of the product: The delays are shorter with kajmaks than with milk delivered to the
dairy, or than for matured cheeses. Retailers have big delays (up to 3 months), and traders
often absorb the risk, nevertheless they sometimes report it to producers.
Concerning sanitarian regulations, the delay and the content of the implementation of
sanitarian regulations have to be negotiated collectively with the veterinarian inspection.
The veterinarian inspection clearly mentioned that it is possible to discuss and negotiate
this issue. A vet of one of the satellite field station is very involved in the issue of protecting
kajmak of Kraljevo and could be strongly helpful in the process of negotiation.
6.2. Support System
As shown in paragraph 4.5, figure 6, there are several institutions supporting the GI
system.
6.2.1. Societal support
- International and bilateral donors were, until recent time ago, supporting horizontal and
organisational initiatives which aimed at restructuring the agriculture and agro-food sector.
SMEs support is growing now, as well as local development issues, which progressively
lead foreign public institutions to adopt a supply chain approach. World Wide Strategy
worked in Kraljevo on several issues (World Bank project), among them the establishment
of agro-cluster. The project ended without significant results for the agro-cluster, but it led
to the project of the protection of the kajmak of kraljevo.
- IDA, a local NGO has a very strong role in the initiative. It is actively supporting the
system, playing the role of facilitator and coordinator in the initiative.
- SEEDEV, a consulting agency, activated the debate on GI at the national level and
promoted the Kajmak of Kraljevo (among other products) to obtain subsidies from the
Ministry of Agriculture for its protection and promotion
p.38
SINER-GI
6.2.2. State Support
- The Ministry of Agriculture, Water management and Forestry is leading since March 2006
a working group aiming at promoting a geographical system for agricultural products in
Serbia. The global objectives are to create new dynamics in unfavourable rural areas of
Western Serbia, to identify, protect and promote the traditional agricultural and agro-food
production, considered as one of the more valuable asset of the mountainous and hilly
areas of Western Serbia. One of the activities is the promotion of the traditional products of
Western Serbia. The activity targets the products that could be registered as protected
geographic indication (among which the kraljevacki kajmak) but also the collective
promotion.
- The Intellectual property office provided a legal framework for GIs issues in Serbia.
- Academics and universities are also players in the GIs debate, but their approach is often
very administrative and based on the idea of physical analyses (soil, climate, chemical
composition of the product). There is little consideration of the collective action, decision
making process, as well as the know-how of producers. For the time being, there is no
Serbian university working on the registration of the kraljevacki kajmak.
- The Municipality of Kraljevo officially took part of the World Wide Strategy initiative, but
there were no concrete common actions. They are interested in the process of qualification
of the product. At the time being, they are not providing concrete support (financial,
technical or administrative).
- Sanitarian institutions play a role, because parallel to the qualification process; there is a
standardisation process (fulfilment of sanitarian norms). The support of the sanitarian
institutions is controversial.
The veterinarian Institute is in charge of the Control of food and samples of kajmak and
cheese. It delivers certificates for production. They receive the samples from the vet
stations and the vet inspection when they have a doubt. The sanitary institute is
implementing inspections on green markets and shops through its sanitary control
department. They do controls on kajmak.
Veterinarian stations (one big station over 3 municipalities and 16 local stations) are in
charge of the following tasks: protection of animals: health of animals, prevention and
information about diseases and medicines; selection and improvement of the races; and
finally control of the quality of milk.
Two or three times a year, they control the blood and the milk of animals. They are not
controlling kajmak (vet inspection on farms and sanitary institute on markets). They
organize cattle fairs and exhibitions with producers, edit leaflets. The costs of prevention
and education are paid by the State. But, in general services provided by vets are too
expensive in comparison with the income of producers.
It is important to notice that one vet (employed in a veterinarian station) is member of the
agro-cluster association and takes part of the working group to protect the kraljevaski
kajmak.
Veterinarian inspections are in charge of the following tasks: control on the farm and
control of the kajmak. This means that they are testing row milk (moisture, milk fat, number
p.39
SINER-GI
of bacteria, sugar, cells, albumin, and acidity). They are doing every day controls in
industrial factories. On households, they are doing 4 to 5 controls during the year. Local
laboratories are certified by the State. They are controlling all dairy products (cheese, icecream etc.). They are only controlling where the food is produced (no control on markets).
Kajmak is more and more controlled. 4 vet inspectors are working in the municipality of
Kraljevo. 10 farms are registered! The requests are coming very regularly now. Private
vets are more and more on the field.
They are controlling the implementation of norms in working units. Producers have 3-6
months to fulfil the requirements, but in some households, the inspection has already been
coming 5 times. The investment for the bathroom is the price of 1.5-2 cows. 2000-3000
euros is the necessary farm investment for the implementation of the new regulations.
However there is a room for negotiation. They are doing a protocol and report to the
competent authorities in Belgrade, the conditions they have in the region and are giving
their opinion. They estimate a need of 5 to 10 years to have all households fitting the
norms. The critical point is the financing. Within one year, producers could fulfil the norms
if they had money.
In general, there is a very good cooperation between the veterinarian institute, the
veterinarian stations and the veterinarian inspection.
p.40
SINER-GI
7.
GI Performance assessment
Dealing with the performance assessment of the system, we have to distinguish several
aspects. It is not possible to assess the effects of the protection scheme on the
performance of the karljevacki kajmak, as there is no protection at the time being. It is not
possible to establish a diachronic comparaison with a “before/present time” approach, as
the main critical events (implementation of the sanitarian norms and arrival of a strong
support from an NGO) occurred within the last year (see table 4).
Table 5. Research output matrix
Stage
Topic
2005: cluster
approach World
Wide Strategy
Product &
production
Organization &
networks
Change of leading
persons (engaged
leaders >
consolidators)
Formalization of
organizational
structure
2006/2007: implementation
of norms and NGO IDA
2010
More detailed production
regulations (code of
practices)
Moderate modernization of
production techniques
Increase in horizontal
organization between
producers Increase in
vertical integration
(insourcing or closer
contracts)
Change of leading persons
(engaged leaders >
consolidators)
Formalization of
organizational structure
Refinement of
packaging and labels
Markets
Outside support
Outside support:
From local people
to involvement of
universities,
international NGOs
etc
Outside support: From
local people to involvement
of universities,
international NGOs etc
Public officials: From topdown towards more
professional and dialogue?
Increase in external
contacts at local and
regional level (for
support)?
Joint promotion (paid
with producer fees, or
subsidies)?
Introduction of basic
prices?
Shift from local
consumers to well-todo urban people (price
increase, at least for the
more exclusive part of
the production)?
Outside support: From
volunteers to
governmental support
or sponsors?
Public officials:
Increased expertise
support from Western
countries (bi-lateral
agreements)?
Protection
General context
factors
Public opinion:
Increased identification
with the ‘own’ product
(pride)?
p.41
SINER-GI
Nevertheless, we assessed the performance of the present initiative in comparison with its
main competitors (mainly economic effects), and we assessed the expected effects of the
protection scheme (subjective opinions) with a diachronic approach “present time/ future”.
7.1. Economic assessment in comparison with main competitors
It is not possible to evaluate the value added of the system, as the costs are very difficult
to asses and as the farms are not specialised in the production of kajmak (allocation of
intermediary consumption to the production of several products), we discussed the
performance of the initiative with a comparison of prices at several level of the value chain
as main indicator.
Industrial kajmaks are not real competitors on the consumer market (see paragraph 5.3),
nevertheless the industry can be seen as a competitor if we look at the raw material
disposal (production of milk). Indeed, industries are in competition with kajmak in the use
of milk.
Table 6. Comparison of the prices in the kraljevacki kajmak production and its
competitors
Household
production
Dairy
production
Other artisan kajmaks (Ljig,
Zlatibor)
Household
Dairy
production
production
0.19 - 0.31
f(lowlands,
mountain; fat %)
0.23 - 0.40
0.23 - 0.25
0.23 - 0.50
0.19-0.25
---
2.8 – 5.0
4 - 4.4
2.8 – 6.3
3.8 - ?
2.5 – 3.9
4.1 – 8.0
5.0 – 6.0
5.3 – 7.5
? - 7.3
Green
markets,
restaurants
Shops,
retailers,
restaurants
Type of kajmak
Prices
Price of the milk
(producers)
Euros/ kg milk
Price of the kajmak
(producers)
Euros/ kg kajmak
Price of the kajmak
(consumers)
Euros/ kg kajmak
Main channels
Serbian industrial
“cheese spread”
Shops, retailers
Kraljevacki kajmak
Green
markets,
restaurants
Shops,
retailers
In red frame: integration of the production; in italic caps: hidden prices
Source: Field surveys, Paus and Estève, 2007
At the level of producers, several aspects have to be pointed out:
-
for producers who deliver milk to dairies that produce kajmak, there is no particular
premium in the production of kraljevacki kajmak in comparison with other artisan
kajmaks. Premiums seem to be more linked to the outlet and the number of
intermediaries than to the origin. We suspect that the Kajmak sold in Zlatibor (and
under this name) is mainly coming from the region of Kraljevo. Kraljevo does not seem
to be attractive enough and is interchanged with Zlatibor which is trendy and wellknown.
p.42
SINER-GI
-
-
producers with a high quality of milk (fat level) might be able to get a better price by
delivering the milk to the industry (when industries have techniques to analyse the
quality of the milk),
if we examine the household production, the remuneration of the kg milk by producing
kajmak is sometimes as small as by delivering the milk. It means that if the producers
are selling their kajmak at 2.8 euros/kg, they are not doing any financial benefits, on the
contrary if we consider the energy and the hard work involved in the production of
kajmak. Many producers (in particular in the mountainous areas) stopped the
production of kajmak, because it was not profitable enough in comparison with the
price of the milk. 260 DN/kg (3.3 euros/kg) is the limit under which producers are losing
money twice in comparison of milk delivery. On the other hand, it can be profitable to
produce kajmak at the household level, if the price of the kajmak is higher than 4.5
euros/ kg.
At the consumer level, the valorization of the kajmak doubles, according to the place it is
sold (from 4.1 euros/ kg on the green market in towns far away from Belgrade and not
touristic, to 8 euros / kg on the green market in Montenegro in summer!)
The opportunities for producers are much higher in the industry. Nevertheless contracts
are often not at the benefit of the producer (difficulties to negotiate changes).
7.2. Economic,
comparison
environmental
and
social
assessments:
diachronic
The results we present below are exploratory results, but are already interesting for a first
discussion. We interviewed the facilitator of the kraljevacki kajmak initiative (IDA) and two
members of SEEDEV who work on the kraljevacki kajmak. We used a likert scale7 to
quantitatively asses the impact. We asked these non-producer stakeholders, which are
involved in the kraljevascki system: “What is the present situation and what is the situation
you expected after the protection”. The objective of these stakeholders is to reach
sustainable effects over time.
7.2.1. Economic assessment
As explain in paragraph 7.1., the present economic effects are not particularly developed
in comparison with other artisan kajmaks. Nevertheless, there is a scale effect, as the
Kraljevo region is the most important area of artisan production in term of volumes. We
assessed the turn over of the production that stays in the region around 1.3 millions
euros/year.
The effects of the protection of the kraljevacki kajmak are mainly expected in terms of:
- higher prices to producers,
- transparency in the margins,
- stability of the prices and markets
See Réviron Sophie and Paus Marguerite, 2006. Special report. Impact analysis methods. SINER-GI WP2.
35 p., for the methodological aspect.
7
p.43
SINER-GI
Figure 7. Likert scale to asses the present economic effects and the expectations
(pilot survey)
3.0
Expectations
2.0
1.0
-
-
Present situation
Tou
rism
Mar
gin
dev al area
elop
s
men '
t
to m
ark
et
Acc
ess
add
ed
-1.0
Val
ue
Pro
ces
sing
/
mar retailin
gin
al a g in
rea
s
Pre
miu
mt
o pr
odu
cer
s
0.0
Paus, 2007
Present effects in marginal areas (processing / retailing and development) are not
convincing. The Kraljevo Municipality is not considered as “marginal area”, nevertheless
there are lateral valleys in the mountains that can be considered as marginal places. A
protection could revival the production in mountainous areas, in combination with a higher
price to producers that could give them an incentive to continue the production. This issue
is not consensual (-), since it depends if the mountainous areas are going to be included
and if it makes sense for them to market their kajmak as kraljevacki kajmak (see
paragraph 5).
Rural tourism develops in the Kraljevo Municipality (crossroad position) and some actors in
tourism have already very well understood the synergies that are possible with traditional
food.
7.2.2. Environmental assessment
At the time being, environmental issues are not the main stake in the case of the artisan
kajmak production. Livestock activities are made in an extensive way: no or few
concentrates in the cows’ feeding, Simmental breed and Buša (which is said to be a local
type of Simmental breed), and extensive production (no pesticides or other chemical).
Nevertheless the environmentally friendly type of production might be under pressure due
to structural changes (intensification, yield increase, etc). As example, some producers
already shifted to Holstein breed. For that raison, critical points have to be fixed in the
code of practices in order to maintain these positive effects and increase ecological
awareness.
Farming of marginal areas is not consensual (-), for the same raison as for economic
marginal development (see above).
p.44
SINER-GI
Figure 8. Likert scale to asses the present environmental effects and the
expectations (pilot survey)
3.0
2.0
0.0
-
Pest
-3.0
Present situation
Aw
ecolo areness o
f
gical
issue
s
-2.0
Farm
ing o
fd
Trans
p
ort
-1.0
Expectations
ifficu
lt
areas
-
mana
geme
n
(per h t
a)
Pres
dome ervation o
f
stic s
pecie
s
Biodi
versit
y of w
ildlife
1.0
Paus, 2007
7.2.3. Social aspects
Many social aspects are linked to the artisan kajmak in general and not to the kraljevacki
kajmak in particular, nevertheless there are some specific effects that are interesting to
point at.
Artisan kajmak production decreases the (general) consumer’ trust in food. This is mainly
due to the fact that some incidents appear following non-hygienic repackaging and
transport. Kajmak is made with boiled milk and the contamination at the farm level should
be quite easy to eliminate (clean hands when removing the fat layer). Re-packaging and
transport are more problematic, and a better traceability throughout a collective action and
a protection should improve the practices. Indeed, the expectations are high for this item.
Figure 9. Likert scale to asses the present social effects and the expectations (pilot
survey)
3.0
2.0
Expectations
1.0
0.0
s
l in
Cre
teg
atio
rati
on
no
f ne
w
Co
inc
nsu
om
me
e
r tr
ust
in f
ood
n ce
icit
y
Far
me
rs
' so
cia
com
pet
e
Typ
-2.0
New
Soc
ial
H ea
ide
lthy
ntit
y
foo
dp
rod
Lan
u ct
d sc
ape
aes
the
tic
-1.0
Present situation
Paus, 2007
p.45
SINER-GI
Social and cultural identity is already very high, as kajmak (in general) as is it a traditional
product associated to know-how. A protection of the kraljevacki kajmak could increase the
self-esteem of producers (public recognition of their knowledge).
Farmers’ integration is related to several aspects:
- in general, to sell kajmak on green markets is creating social links (much more than to
sell milk to the dairy)
- for the particular case of kraljevacki kajmak, there is a farmers’ integration with the
emergence of agro-cluster and then the initiative to protect kajmak. The network is
increasing and expected to increase further: enlargement and empowerment of the
internal network (vertical cooperation) and external one (municipality, researchers etc.).
Moreover the initiative is expected to provide better conditions to small producers so
that some of same can continue their activity (kajmak is an important additional income
for some small producers). IDA has the project to make a movie on the production of
kajmak, so that the citizens can be informed on what is happening around the kajmak
production in the Municipality of Kraljevo.
We did not ask the question of gender; however it is an important issue in the case. Indeed
kajmak production is exclusively a female production (at household level) whereas trade
and dairy production is more a male business. In the household production working group
- created with the support of IDA - (20 people), 2 women are taking part. As men are not
producing themselves, they are representing their wife (or mother) at the working group
and have discussions at home. This small percentage of female members might be
problematic when dealing with technical points (women are the know-how keepers), but in
the context of Serbia, it seems to be culturally already a good start.
Exclusion issue has to be taken into account. Like other qualification process, the
protection of kraljevacki kajmak might lead to two exclusion issues:
- exclusion because of geographical delimitation (mountainous areas, villages at the
Kraljevo Municipality boarder)
- exclusion because of the definition of a code of practices (limit artisan/ semi industrial
practices, definition of traditional process, composition of the final product etc.)
In conclusion, the artisan production of kajmak has an impact in the three dimensions of a
sustainable rural development. High expectations are mostly expressed on economic
aspects, as the potential is not valorised enough at the time being. Environmental issues
are not a real stake, but have to be taken into account for the future. Social aspects are
particularly numerous (gender, social identity, additional income, consumer trust) and
might be improved with the protection of the kraljevacki kajmak, apart the exclusion issues
that have to be negotiated and discussed.
p.46
SINER-GI
8.
Conclusions and recommendations
In conclusion, the kraljevacki kajmak case is a difficult one. It is a real Geographical
Indication because of the long tradition in the region and the reputation associated to it.
Nevertheless the uniqueness is difficult to define as there is a high intraregional variability
in the product, as high as the interregional variability (in comparison with Ljig or Cacak).
Kajmak produced in the mountains are recognized as being older and fatter, and this issue
concerns also the Kraljevo region, as there is a small production in the mountainous areas.
There is no premium at the producer level in comparison with other artisan kajmaks. Only
the kajmak coming from Ucize/Zlatibor seems to benefit from a premium, mainly because
of the image of the region (more than because of the uniqueness of the product). Indeed,
we suspect that kajmak of Kraljevo is partly sold on the Zlatiborski and Uzicki markets
under the name of the trendy region.
Producers who market the product are numerous (estimation of 600 household that market
300t /year of kajmak), but it is also an important production for self-consumption. The
delimitation of the area is not obvious: fuzzy boarders with other municipalities concerning
the lowlands kajmak and issue of the mountainous areas, where the kajmak is recognized
to be different.
8.1. Trends and perspectives of the GI System
Hygienic requirements are an important pressure. Within three years, important changes in
the processing units structures are expected (small households to middle size dairies). A
network with the institutions could be established, in particular with the sanitarian
inspection to collectively negotiate the implementation of sanitarian regulations. In a later
stage, relations with academics who are working on elaborates are a possibility, as well as
the building of a cooperation with the vet Institute for the question of internal controls?
Figure 10. Trends and Perspective of the GI system
Competition
Price volatility
Consumer habits :
seasonal demand
Changes in the
market‘ structure
Sanitarian and
vet requirements
Market share of
supermarket increase,
green market
decrease
Traceability
GI system :
main trends
Build up of a
collective
organisation
Need of
investments
1- a lot of small kajmak producers will stop
production and deliver milk to bigger processors
2- Emergence of middle size dairies
3- Potential conflicts
p.47
SINER-GI
The structure of the supply chain is changing quickly. The main driver of these changes is
the implementation of sanitarian norms. As it is easier to fulfil the norms in the production
of milk than in the production of kajmak (separate room), many milk and kajmak producers
have already switched to the production of milk only. With these changes, the role of
traders and big farmers is increasing in the supply chain, throughout a new activity:
production of kajmak in small scaled dairies. This underlines the need of having them
strongly involved in the registration process. Former traders know the market and the
quality that is expected by retailers and consumers. Moreover they are now producing
consequential quantities.
Whenever the product is going to be registered, the “by-product” that could gain in
importance in the coming years: the white cheese has to be taken into account. Should it
be included in the code of practices? Or separately defined and protected?
8.2. Trends and perspectives: the GI protection scheme
Building up a collective action is a long-term project and require energy and patience to go
through potential conflicts. A regional strategy has been chosen to promote the kajmak
and to increase the awareness of both the producers and consumers toward kraljevacki
kajmak and the PDO in general. However, there is a vagueness about the concepts
“branding” and “geografskog porekla” (geographical indication) and the awareness of a
need of collective action is not shared equally among actors.
Whenever the new law is going to be used, for the Kraljevacki Kajmak registration or for
any other product, clear procedure and accurate rules for the registration will be missing. A
coherent national procedure will probably be defined, opening the possibility for opposition.
Furthermore, there is a problem of overlapping between the products registered under the
former law and products that will be registered in the future. Older protected products
should may be examined and reregistered following the new law requirements and
procedures.
Figure 11. Trends and Perspectives of the GI protection scheme
Strategy for
accession to EU :
-legal framework
-hygyenic
requirements
International
proactive
GI Network
Establishement of
a PDO/ PGI law
Controls
„Branding“ trends
GI Institutionnal
issues : main
trends
In project:
-expertise from CH
-local organizations:
testing commissions
Empowerment
of GI network
-Lack of coordination between Intellectual proprety Office
and Ministry of agriculture
-No certification body
-Trainings and „pilot“ products (among them Kajmak)
-Confusion between brands, Trade marks and PDO/PGI
As another aspect of the GI protection scheme, the current law does not regulate the
Geographical indications controls and certification and there is no consideration of
adaptation when looking at the sanitary requirements. This is a difficulty that has been met
formerly in EU countries and is also encountered in new EU member countries. Common
national guidelines for the local institutions in charge of the controls and certification are a
core step to implement in order to set up an efficient GI protection scheme. Competences
p.48
SINER-GI
between the Ministry of Agriculture and local control institutions will probably have to be
more clearly divided.
There is almost no consideration for the sensory evaluation in the protection scheme,
where as it is an important part of the certification procedures when looking at wines in
Serbia. Tasting could be included in the registration procedure.
p.49
SINER-GI
References
Barjolle, Dominique and Klingemann, Anna; 2006. PDO-PGI in Serbia. Mission report.
AGRIDEA Lausanne, Switzerland. October 2006. 21 p.
Bogdanov N., Bozic D., Jovanovic Z.; 2005. Study on rural vitality. First report for Serbia
and Montenegro. European Project Agripolicy “Agro-economic analysis of the New
Member States, the Candidate States and the countries of the Western Balkan”. 20 p.
Donors’ Conference for 2008 international assistance, 14 September 2007.
http://www.evropa.sr.gov.yu/Evropa/Documents/EvropaDocuments/Donors%20conference
%20Agric.rtf
European Agency for Reconstruction, Sector Fiche to Action Programme 2006 for Serbia.
Support for Trade and Agriculture. http://www.ear.europa.eu
European Commission; 2005. Progress Report for Serbia & Montenegro
Hopic, Senad; 2005. On the kajmak cream cheese. News from Terra Madre, 30 november
2005. www.Slowfood.it. Visited in July 2007.
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management. Agricultural strategy, Republic of
Serbia. Belgrade, October 2004. 79 p.
Palier B. and Y. Surel, 2005. Les « trois i » et l’analyse de l’Etat en action, Revue française
de sciences politiques, volume 55, n°1, February 2005, pp. 7-32.
Prigent-Simonin, A.H. ; Hérault-Fournier, C. ; 2005. The role of trust in the perception of
the quality of local food products: with particular reference to direct relationships between
producer and consumer. Anthropology of Food, 4, Mai 2005, Local Foods/Produits
alimentaires locaux. http://aof.revues.org/document204.html
Réviron Sophie and Paus Marguerite, 2006. Special report. Impact analysis methods.
SINER-GI WP2. 35 p.
Reymann, Rémy. Etude de la possibilité de développer des Appellations d’origine
contrôlée et des Indications géographiques pour les produits agricoles et alimentaires en
Serbie. Master thesis, University Paris 1, June 2006. 131p.
Web-sites
http://balkanbuy.com/shop/index.php?action=item&id=320
http://www.ear.europa.eu
http://www.kraljevo.co.yu
http://www.wikipedia.org; 2007. Kajmak. Visited in July 2007.
p.50
SINER-GI
Annexes
Annex 1 - Kraljevacki Kajmak Data Card
Author(s)8
Author 1 : Magali Estève and Marguerite
Paus
Author 2 : Dragana Tar
Institution(s)9
Institution 1 : Agridea, Lausanne /
Institute for Environmental Decisions,
ETH, Zurich
Institution 2 : SEEDEV
Institution's
website
www.agridea.ch ; www.iaw.agrl.ethz.ch
www.seedev.org
Date of last
update
15 August2007
1. Product identification
10
1.1
Popular name(s) of the product
1.2
Official name(s) as registered (if
relevant)
1.3
English name of the product
KRALJEVACKI Kajmak
Kajmak of kraljevo
2. Data on the product
2.1
What is/are the country/ies where
11
the product is produced ?
2.2
Part of the world
2.3
If federal state : mention the name
of the state
2.4
Name of the region13
Serbia
12
Municipality of Kraljevo + area Kragujevac-Cacak-Kraljevo + other municipalities?
(no clear limits)
Name Kraljevo Municipality (SW and N), south-East of Cacak, South-West of
Kragujevac + other areas?
2
Size around 2500 km
14
2.5
Area of production
2.6
Is the product a food product ?
15
Description The municipality of Kraljevo is the largest of Serbia with lowlands
and mountainous areas. The main economic branches are food production, small
scaled agriculture and heavy industry.
YES
NO
8
Each author (when there are several) is linked to an institution and the institution's website. Add boxes if necessary
Full name, acronym, country
In the native language, please write in phonetic and roman characters (please write the geographical part of the name, or when
appropriate the traditional one, in uppercase)
11
One country can belong to several parts, and more than one country is possible (e. g. Basmati Rice)
9
10
12
Do not fill in. The part of the world the country belongs to will be automatically generated.
Mention the more relevant administrative (e. g. a French department, or NUTS in European Union) or geographical (e. g. a valley or a
historical region)
14
Names of villages, towns, parts of counties, districts, small regions, etc.. South west of…; indication of the area size
15
In articular geographical and socio-economic characteristics
13
p.51
SINER-GI
If NO, which type of non food product?
16
Wool, leather, animal products
Textile
2.7
Vegetal products (incl. tobacco)
Glass and pottery
Other
Metal products
If other, which type?
If YES, which type of food product?17
Vegetable (fresh or preserved)
Wines and vine-based products
Vegetal oils and fats
Spirits and liquors
Cereals
Beers
Bread, pastry, cakes
Other drinks
2.8
Sweets
Cheeses and milk-based products
Tea
Processed meat products
Coffee
Fresh meat
Cocoa
Fresh fish, molluscs and shellfish
Other vegetal products
Other animal products
Mineral products, water, etc.
Fruit (fresh or preserved)
If other, which type?
If YES, what is the production period?
18
During the whole year
2.9
During a limited period of the year (seasonal)
In relation with a single harvest per year
Minimal duration of aging/maturation
19
No aging/maturation
Aging/maturation less than 1 week
between 1 and 3 weeks
between 3 and 8 weeks
2.10
between 2 and 4 months
more than 24 months
16
Please choose in the closed list
19
The aging period may generally be considered from the moment on when the product is shaped (cheeses, sausages) or basically
processed (end of primary fermentation for wines, beers). For some products, several variants can be considered (for example, young
or old cheese). In such a case, please mention the name of the variant in the right column
17
18
p.52
SINER-GI
2.11 Description of the product
2.12
20
Description of the process
21
(different steps)
The kajmak is defined in a Serbian by-law (in the Book of regulations on quality
and other requirements for milk, dairy, composite dairy products, 2002) as a
product made from the fat layer or crust, created when milk is boiled and then
cooled down. Through specific way of processing, maturing and aging, you get a
specific product. According to the level of maturity, kajmak can be marketed as
young or as matured kajmak. Young and matured kajmaks have to fulfil several
criteria related to the colour (white/yellow), smell and taste (mild/strong), minimum
percentage of fat in dry matter (65%/75%), minimum percentage of dry matter
(60%/65%), maximum percentage of salt (2%/3.5%), maximum acidity
(25SH/50SH*), structure (layers with soft bits that are not grainlike or layerlike and
spreads well). In Serbia, kajmak is produced in a large area located South-West of
the country.
The kajmak of Kraljevo is made with cow milk. In the lowlands, it is mainly
marketed as young kajmak, in the mountains as matured kajmak. It is sometimes
sold or presented in a wooden bucket.
* Soxlet Henkel degrees: obtained by titrating with NaOH, using phenolphtalein as
the indicator.
The process of the kajmak of Kraljevo is difficult to be defined specifically from the
process of other kajmaks (the variability within the area seems as high as
between Kraljevo regions and other neighbouring areas). There is a production of
kajmak after each milking (twice a day) or once a day (mix of two milkings). It is
created through flotation of milk fat which, after boiling, accumulates into a web of
denatured proteins (proteins are denatured through intensive thermal processing
– through boiling and through drying during process of cooling). Besides the fact
that boiled milk divides into layers due to gravitation, drying is also an important
factor and it is achieved through airing. After boiling (about 90°C, 10 min), milk is
poured into low pots and stored in aired rooms or fridge, to cool down. The whole
process takes 24 hours. Then kajmak is collected from the surface of milk, and
stacked into pots with each layer being seasoned with salt. The skimming is
specific: the fat layer is cut with a knife or by hands and removed by hands. The
average yield is about 5kg kajmak with 100 kg milk. According to the duration of
the storage, kajmak is marketed as young or matured.
With the rest of the milk, a white low fat cheese is produced (rennet is added).
For all kajmaks in Serbia, it is forbidden to add colours, sweeteners, anti-oxidants
and other additives and enzymes. It is allowed to use inert gasses during
packaging.
Does the raw material originate
2.13 from the designated geographical
area?
If YES, is the geographical origin
of the raw material mandatory
2.14
according to the regulation/code
of practices?
YES
NO
YES
NO
The uniqueness of the product "kajmak" is clear in comparison with other dairy
products. Nevertheless, it is difficult to define the uniqueness of the "kajmak of
What features within the
Kraljevo". Traditional ways of production, local Simmental breed, alimentation of
geographical area contribute to
2.15 the uniqueness of the GI product? the cows (pasture with very rich and diverse flora), particular soil and climate are
mentioned but observed in other areas where the kajmak is produced. As the milk
(10 lines maximum)
is boiled, the micro fauna and flora in the room of production is identified as one of
the key factors that give the features of the product.
Are there specific effects on the
environment or landscape due to
2.16 the production of the GI product?
(10 lines maximum)
Extensive production, maintain of pasture areas.
3. Legal protection at the national level
3.1
Is the GI protected by a specific
legal tool?
YES
NO
20
Describe the product the way it is usually consumed: shape, taste, colour, packaging, fresh or processed, preservation, use in
cooking, ways of consumption, etc. (10 lines maximum)
21
Describe the whole process (from production of the raw material to the aging process) for producing the product, including technical
features, plant varieties, animal breeds, etc. (10 lines maximum)
p.53
SINER-GI
If YES, mention the legal tool(s) protecting the GI
3.2
Individual trademark
Administrative act
Collective trademark
Judicial decision
Certification/guarantee mark
Registration in a specific register for GIs
22
3.3
Date of recognition/registration
3.4
If YES, mention the institutions in
charge of recognition/registration,
control (inspection and
23
enforcement)
3.5
The scope of application of the provisions on appellations of origin (AOs) of the
Law concerns all goods: natural, agricultural, manufactured, industrial products
and handicrafts (no services). The application can be submitted by natural or
legal persons (producers), associations of producers, chambers of commerce,
State and local authorities, associations of consumers to the Intellectual Property
Explain shortly the general
Office. During the examination of requirements for the registration of PDO/PGI the
application procedure for obtaining
Intellectual Property Office asks for the opinion of the competent authority (usually
a GI in the country of origin
the Ministry of Agriculture but it is not mentioned as such). The registration
(10 lines maximum)
procedure does not include an opposition procedure before the final registration
but a request for opposition can be applied by any “interested person” against the
registration of a PDO-PGI or against an authorised user after the final registration
or after the certification of an authorised user. At the present time, there is no
certification body.
3.6
The application procedure is at its early beginning. IDA, the NGO which continues
the work on Kajmak of Kraljevo initiative (after WWS, an American consultant
agency, which started the project in 2006) is in contact with the Intellectual
Property Office and with the Ministry of Agriculture. Since the beginning of the
year 2007, meetings and working groups are organised in particular to solve the
main difficulties for this case that are the delimitation of the area and the
elaboration of the code of practices. Moreover there is an initiative in Uzice for the
registration of the Zatiborski or Uzicki Kajmak by the Chamber of Commerce. We
suspect that the Kajmak sold in Zlatibor (and under this name) is mainly coming
from the region of Kraljevo, regarding the number of producers in Zlatibor area
compared with the quantity sold on markets under this name.
Explain the main issues
encountered in the application
procedure for this product
(difficulties, crucial points,
negotiations, decisions by
courts)
(10 lines maximum)
If NO, what are the available systems of protection?
3.7
24
No appropriate tool
Administrative act
Collective trademark
Registration in a specific register for GIs
Certification/guarantee mark
What are/were the main motivations of the initiators to protect the GI?
25
Fight against misuses/imitations
Enhance the local or rural development
Improve the access to the market
3.8
Marketing tool towards consumers for trust and image
Manage and regulate the relevant market
Preserve the traditional know-how
Preserve specific biological resources
Counter rural exodus from marginal areas
22
Indicate the year of the recognition/registration for the more relevant protection tool
If relevant, the steps of the process of registration may be explained; for the institutions, mention their status, website, etc. (10 lines
maximum)
24
If the producers wanted to get their GI specifically protected, what possibilities would they have, taking into account the available legal
tools and similar cases in the same administrative context? (only one answer)
25
Several possible answers
23
p.54
SINER-GI
Maintain/develop SMEs
4. Data on production and market
26
The relevant market is the Balkan market of artisanal kajmaks. In Serbia, kajmak
is produced in the South-West part of the country but sold in whole Serbia, and
also in Macedonia, Croatia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovinia
4.1
What is the relevant market ?
4.2
Referring to this relevant market
mentioned in the previous
question, what is the product's
market share in percentage
(compared with the relevant
market)?
Has been estimated between 30 and 40%
4.3
What is the closest substitute of
27
the product ?
The kajmak of Uzice/ Zlatibor is an artisan kajmak made in the mountains of the
Zlatibor region. It is reconnised as one of the best on the market, in particular due
to the image of the region linked with a clean environment.
4.4
Mention another substitute
(3 lines maximum)
Artisan kajmaks from Serbian regions: kajmak of Valjevo, Ljig, Cacak or Kacerski,
Sumadijski kajmak... Industrial copies are appearing on the market but are
recognised by consumers as industrial products that are clearly different from
artisan ones.
4.5
Are there imitations of the
product?28
4.7
NO
YES
NO
If YES, describe it/them
(3 lines maximum)
Are there misuses of the GI29?
4.6
YES
If YES, describe it/them
(3 lines maximum)
Yearly volume of production
Volume of products ready for trade
Name of the ingredient
Volume of the main ingredient
Indicate the current unit of the volume
Tons
Production volume in 1995
decrease during the wars
decrease during the wars
26
Example for cheese : All cheeses? Regional cheeses? Farmhouse cheeses? Hard cheeses? Example for oil : All vegetable oils? PDO
oils? Olive oils? The purpose is to refer practically to the market this product is competing on. (3 lines maximum)
27
Describe the substitute(s) : i.e. the main products / types of products which are competing with this product in all possible ways
(variants of the product, other high quality product of the same type, origin product / organic / standard industrial / imitation / usurpation
(same name)? Describe the main differences between the substitute(s) and the GI product (type/quality of the raw material, aging time,
processing methods, taste, nutritional composition, etc.) (3 lines maximum)
28
Product(s) designed deliberately to compete with the GI product, without being necessarily labelled with the same or a similar name.
To be distinguished from substitutes
29
Use of the GI (or similar designation, or very close connotative elements) on products of the same type than the original ones but not
coming from the designated area, or use of the GI on any kind of products not corresponding to the original one, and coming or not from
the designated area
p.55
SINER-GI
Estimation of 300 marketed tons
Over the last five years, has the growth for production volume been :
Negative
Positive
4.8
How can the evolution of the
production volume be explained?
Is/are the market/s
30
Farm production is probably going down but dairy production is likely to increase
as big producers and traders are now starting to open their own dairies, buying
the milk to the farmers that used to sell them their Kajmak. The main reason for
this shift in the production is the implementation of the new sanitary regulations.
:
Local
4.9
4.10
Stable
National
Regional
Export
If export : which countries ?
(3 main countries or regions of the Montenegro, Croatia, Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina.
world)
Product: Milk / Kajmak
Give here the price range of the
Price: 18-21 DN 0.25-0.35 USD /250-400 DN 4.14-6.63 USD (young-old)
31
product (producer price, in US$)
Unit: Kg/ Kg
Give here the price range of the
product (consumer price, in US$)
Is this product economically
4.11 profitable for the producers,
32
compared with the standard ?
Product: Kajmak
Price: 420-500 DN 6.96 USD - 8.29 USD (young - old)
Unit: Kg
Although there is a premium for artisan kajmak at the consumer level, there is no
premium at the level of milk producers. The price of the milk is partly nationally
defined according to the fat level (but few dairies can indeed control the level of
fat) and to the altitude (subsidies from the government: 2 dinars in lowlands, 3
dinars in mountainous areas per kg of milk). For the milk and kajmak producers,
the main economic motivation is the regularity and delay of payments. On-farm
kajmak producers might prefer to work without benefit than to wait for payments.
Nevertheless it is not possible to identify a premium for the Kraljevacki kajmak, as
it is variable from households to households more than from one region to an
other (expect maybe for zlatiborski kajmak that often gets high prices).
5. Supply-chain
5.1
Number of producers in 200533
Around 600
5.2
Number of direct employees in the whole processing
chain34
Equivalent full-time jobs
****
5.3
How many producers are also farm processors35 as well
as on- farm retailers ?
What percentage do these producers represent (%)
Around 200 producers
Around 35%
5.4
Are the firms generally specialised
in that product?
If NO, what is the percentage of
specialised firms?
5.5
YES
NO
50% of the visited dairies are specialized in kajmak production.
Over the last five years has the growth in the number of producers been :
Negative
Positive
Stable
30
Possibility to indicate a rough percentage for each market (optional) (several possible answers)
A producer is : here and after, the one who produces the GI product, whoever he is (not necessarily the farmer); all prices are
indicated in US$
32
Deliberate open and large question. Give some data to back up your statements (maximum 10 lines)
33
Producers of the product designated by the GI
34
Trying to distinguish the GI product amongst the other productions in which producers and processors are involved
35
Farm processors are producers of raw material who also process the final product
31
p.56
SINER-GI
How many basic ingredients are
necessary to produce the
product?
5.6
Mention the two most important
36
ones :
1
A : cow milk
Æ go to 5.7
B : salt
Æ go to 5.8
C : list the other ingredients:
(2 lines maximum)
Please present the ingredient A
Supply chain description37
Recall ingredient name cow milk
Mention here three production/ processing steps
1 : agricultural production (type milk, pork, cereals) : production of raw cow milk
2 : processing step 1 (fruit sender, milk collector/processor, slaughterhouse, cheesemaker..) : production of kajmak
3 : processing step 2 (wholesaler, cheese mature, cooked meat products, ready cooked pr) : packaging and trade
For ingredient A, how many actors operate at every step (fill in with figures in the boxes : four possible
integration structures are provided here)
5.7
Primary
production
Processing
Step1:
kajmak
production
Processing step
2:
traders
Around 400
milk and
kajmak
producers
Around 250 milk producers
Less than
10 kajmak
producers
1 cooperative which collects
and markets the kajmak +
about 10 traders
2 dairies
that
produce
kajmak
Around
200
kajmak
producer
s (direct
sells on
markets),
among
them
some
have
trade
activities
Total producers
(horizontal sum) :
Milk: around 800
Total processors 1
(horizontal sum):
Kajmak : around 600
Total processors 2
(horizontal sum) :
Around 15
Please present the ingredient B supply chain
Recall ingredient name
For ingredient B , how many actors operate at every step (fill in with figures in the boxes : four possible
integration structures are provided here)
Primary
production
Total producers :
Processing
Step1:
Total processors 1:
Processing step
2:
Total processors 2:
5.8
36
A second main ingredient should be mentioned only when it has an important influence on the production process and supply-chain
relations; as an example, salt is generally not an important ingredient in this perspective, even if it is of a general use in many products
37
Four possible cases of partial or total integration were kept for three levels of the supply-chain. Firms that only provide primary
production, or step 1 or step 2 processing ; firms involved in primary production and step 1 processing; firms providing step 1 and step 2
processing ; and firms that realize all production steps of the supply-chain. For the product (or each major ingredient if needed), give the
name of the processing step, the number of firms for each possible case, and the sum for the supply-chain level.
p.57
SINER-GI
In the supply chain, the actors developing the main strategic action (key success actors) are (several possible
answers):
5.9
Agricultural producers
Retailers
Processors of the first step
Other private actors
Processors of the second step
Other public actors
Explain why this kind of actors
5.10 have a strategic position ?
(3 lines maximum)
Dairies are flourishing in the region and are expected to represent half of the
supply within the coming years. Traders have a key position today (link with the
market), but their role is decreasing (switch from trade to dairy production). The
NGO IDA is promoting regional development by setting geographic indications in
South Western Serbia. It can be considered as the animator of the collective
action.
Are there strategic actors outside
the geographical area? Is an
5.11 external actor in a strategic
position? Explain
(6 lines maximum)
The consulting agency SEEDEV activated the debate on GI at the national level
and promoted the Kajmak of Kraljevo to obtain subsidies from the Ministry of
Agriculture for its protection and promotion.
Define the organisation of the stakeholders (several
possible answers)
Producers' association only for the GI
5.12 Producers' association not only for the GI
Interprofessional body only for the GI
Organization through a public body only for the GI
Org. through a public body not only for the GI
No collective organization
Interprofessional body not only for the GI
Organisation's role: what are the main actions of the
collective organisation? (several possible answers)
5.13 Definition of the code of practices
Collective promotion
Defence of interests
Quality monitoring
Technical support
IDA is an NGO involved in food security and rural development since the Kosovo
crisis. It is nowadays involved in defining and implementing development
strategies for rural areas in Western Serbia. It was selected to support the
implementation of a geographic indication system in the concerned municipalities
Describe the collective
organisation (history, composition, that have products with a high potential as protected geographic indication. No
clear strategy has been defined but three products were chosen:
5.14 debates, etc.)
Zlatiborski/Uzicka Prsuta, Bermet and Kraljevacki Kajmak. In Kraljevo, the idea of
(10 lines maximum)
"branding" the kraljevacki kajmak emerged within a local "cluster" started in 2006
with a World Bank project. IDA continued the process with a larger informative
phase and some of the stakeholders have been gathered for further actions, such
as the definition of the code of practices.
6. Consumers
6.1
Define the main type of consumers/customers (several
possible answers)
Urban consumers with high income
Urban consumers with low income
Connoisseurs
Local traditional consumers
Diaspora
Consumers are not specific
p.58
SINER-GI
What is the main occurrence of consumption? (several possible answers)
Everyday consumption
6.2
Seasonal consumption
Consumption only for celebrations or special occasions
Consumption as an ingredient
6.3
Cultural context: describe the
historic and present cultural
consumption context considering
its impact on the consumption of
the GI product
(10 lines maximum)
The culinary and food habits are very little normed or classified in the way that the
consumers do not refer to the labels but more to what is home made or
traditional. The relationship between consumers and producers is very
personalised whereas the retailers' sales are anonymous (no mean to know or
check where the Kajmak comes from, packaging little developed for the time
being). The growing market shares of the retailers and the implementation of
sanitary norms on the green markets is likely to change this situation
6.4
Describe the consumption of the
GI product in relation to the
welfare and income contexts
(10 lines maximum)
One of the main questions is related to the Serbian consumers' willingness to pay
for a protected product. There is certainly a positive income context in the cities
(Belgrade, Novi Sad) and in touristic regions. For the time being, Kraljevo does
not seem to be attractive enough and is interchanged with Zlatibor which is trendy
and well-known tourists.
7. Public support38
Financial support from public
bodies
7.1
If YES, describe
(10 lines maximum)
Technical support from public
bodies
YES
NO
The ministry of Agriculture, Water Management and Forestry is leading since
March 2006 a working group aiming at promoting a geographical system for
agricultural product in Serbia. The global objectives are to create new dynamics in
unfavourable rural areas of Western Serbia, to identify, protect and promote the
traditional agricultural and agrofood production, considered as one of the more
valuable asset of the mountainous and hilly areas of Western Serbia. One of the
activity is the promotion of the traditional products of Western Serbia. This activity
targets the products that could be registered as protected geographic indication
(among which Kajmak of Kraljevo) but also the collective promotion.
YES
NO
7.2
If YES, describe
(10 lines maximum)
Administrative support from public
bodies
Vet stations provide information and training regarding livestock (breeds, health
etc.), but it is not specifically linked with the production of kajmak.
YES
NO
YES
NO
7.3
If YES, describe
(10 lines maximum)
Other kind of support from public
bodies
7.4
Describe
(10 lines maximum)
7.5
Summarise and describe the
general level of support to
initiatives given by public
institutions (whatever they are)
(10 lines maximum)
International and bilateral donors were, until recent time ago, supporting
horizontal and organisational initiatives which aimed at restructurating the
agriculture and agrofood sector. SMEs support is growing now, as well as local
development issues, which progressively lead foreign public institutions to adopt a
supply chain approach.
8. General synthesis
38
Public bodies : not only the State, but also regional administrations/councils, research agencies, unions, associations, NGOs …
p.59
SINER-GI
Weaknesses
Strengths
- Reputation of the process of
production in Kraljevo
- White cheese resulting of the
production of kajmak (low fat cheese)
- Changes in the structure of the supply
chain: growing role of dairies
8.1
8.2
Brief SWOT analysis
(3 lines maximum per category)
All issues
(20 lines maximum)
- High variation in the quality of the
product from household to household,
and variation through seasons
- Difficulties to define clear limits of the
area of production
- Low levels of productivity and profits
- Lack of investment capacities
- Conditions of transport
- Production very demanding of work
and qualifications
Opportunities
- Difficulties to make kajmak with an
industrial way of production
- The potential market for high quality
kajmak is estimated as twice as big as
the current market
- Regulations and standards: decrease
variability of the product
- Changes in the structure of the market
(growing importance of shops and
retailers that are more demanding of
traceability than green markets)
- Natural resources and clean
environment
Threats
- Image of Kraljevo less attractive than
other regions (Zlatibor, Uzice). The
product is sometimes renamed
- Regulations and standards: need of
investment capacity
- Change in consumption habits (lower
demand of "fat" products)
- Seasonal consumption
- No certification body
An important aspect of the kajmak production is the white cheese or "beli sir"
production which constitutes an additional income, a destination for the milk left
after the kajmak production. The two productions cannot be thought separately
although the cheese may not be distinguished or recognised as Kraljevacki or
with a particular quality in the region (except in the mountains). It may even be the
contrary insofar as the most famous a Kajmak is, the less good and nutritive the
cheese is supposed to be (because all the milk fat is in the kajmak). Is it relevant
to think about a protection of this cheese in the same time as for kajmak?
It is important to notice that the production and the number of producers has been
relatively stable during the last years, nevertheless, there is today a high dynamic
of changes in the structure of the supply chain, due to the shift of small producers
of kajmak to milk delivery and the flourishing of small scaled dairies that are
estimated to produce half of the volume in the next 2-3 years. One of the main
other issues not directly addressed when looking at the supply chain is the gender
aspects. Indeed, most of the milk and kajmak producers are women, whereas
trade beyond green markets is more a male activity. Those aspects are important
in terms of representativeness although few of the women met were present in
the informative meetings or directly active in the initiative.
9. Information sources
Field work in June and August 2007, interviews with more than 40 stakeholders
Litterature:
Hopic, Senad; 2005. On the kajmak cream cheese. News from Terra Madre, 30 november 2005. www.slowfood.it,
visited in 2007
Reymann, Rémy, 2006. Etude de la possibilité de développer les Appellations d'origine contrôlée et les Indications
géographiques pour les produits agricoles et alimentaires en Serbie. Master thesis, University Paris 1, June 2006.
131p.
Barjolle, Dominique and Klingemann, Anna; 2006. PDO-PGI in Serbia. Mission report. AGRIDEA Lausanne,
Switzerland. October 2006. 21 p.
10. Maps and logos
p.60
SINER-GI
10.1
One or several maps can be
39
inserted
Serbia, Kraljevo Municipality (Wikipedia)
Young kajmak of Kraljevo,
Euro-Milk dairy
10.2
White Cheese ,“by-product” of
kajmak, Euro-Milk Dairy
One or several logos may be
inserted with a legend
Mlad =Young /
Star= Old
Name and
village of the
producer
Young kajmak of Kraljevo, packaged by the cooperative Stubal.
39
Possibility to insert an image or to indicate a web link where such map can be found
p.61
SINER-GI
Annex 2 - List of contacts and people met
SEEDEV consultant agency and IDA NGO
Rémy Reymann
Consultant
SEEDEV
Belgrade
Pascal Bernardoni
Consultant
SEEDEV
Belgrade
Goran Zivkov
Consultant, former Minister of
Agriculture, Forestry and Water
Managment
IDA NGO
Belgrade
Dragan Roganović
Siniša Bošinović
Ivan Vilimonović
IDA NGO
Insurance
Generali
IDA NGO
Kraljevo
Kraljevo
consultant
063/348-097
Remy.reymann@
seedev.org
063/817-26-64
Pascal.bernardoni@
seedev.org
Kraljevo
Omladinska 2/44
+381 63 80 92 202
[email protected]
[email protected]
063/604-847
Delta
Kraljevo
036/443-893, 064/29095-22
Intellectual Property Office, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water
Management, Serbian Investment and Export Promotion Agency (SIEPA)
Miodrag Marković
Assistant Director of Intellectual
Property Office
Belgrade
Darko Jakšić
Head of Departement for
Primary Production and
Processing, Ministry of
Management
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry
and Water Management
Belgrade
Assistant Minister, Ministry of
Management, Sector for rural
and agriculture development
Head of export promotion
department,
Serbian
Investment
and
Export
Promotion Agency (SIEPA)
Belgrade
Export
promotion
advisor,
Serbian Investment and Export
Promotion Agency (SIEPA)
Belgrade
Branislav Raketić
Suzana Đorđević
Milošević
Irena Posin
Olivera Ćurčin Anđelić
Belgrade
Belgrade
011/186-466
mmarkovi@
yupat.sv.gov.yu
011/361-75-95
djaksic@
minpolj.sr.gov.yu
011/3620-773
063/700-93-48
b.raketic@
minpolj.sr.gov.yu
064/823-56-07
Suzana.djordjevic@
minpolj.sr.gov.yu
Vlajkovićeva 3/V,
11000 Beograd
+381 11 3398 607
irena.posin@
siepa.sr.gov.yu
Vlajkovićeva 3/V,
11000 Beograd
+381 11 3398 644
[email protected]
p.62
SINER-GI
.gov.yu
Academics
Prof. Dr Ognjen Maćej
Faculty of agriculture,
University of Belgrade
Belgrade
Prof. Dr Nebojša
Ralević
Dean of the faculty of
agriculture, University of
Belgrade
Teaching assistant, faculty of
agriculture, university of
Belgrade
Belgrade
Sanja Seratlić
011/2612-664
[email protected]
011/2612-664
Belgrade
011/2615-6315
[email protected]
“Pčelar”, Polanice
014/87-524, 063/85-30826
014/87-194
[email protected]
Ljig region (producers of kajmak and NGOs)
Mr and Ms Josipović +
Marina (daughter)
Šlenar (“Bee”) Dairy
Poljanice
village
Ljiliana Milovanović
Zoran
Producer of milk and kajmak
MOBA Association
Biosan
MOBA Association
Biosan
Kozelj village
Ljig
Dragan Cajuć
Ljig
014/84-888
065/65-84-888
[email protected]
Kraljevo
064/334-807
Kraljevo region (institutions)
Tanja Djordjević
Dragutin Jevdović
Former local coordinator for
Worldwide strategies, Ministry
of employment, labor and social
Policy, World Bank
Veterinarian Station, president
of a cow breeders association.
Mirjana Karamarković
Dragan Angelić
Milanko Šekler
Veterinary inspection
Vet station
Director
Veterinary Institute of Kraljevo,
(member of IDA)
Dragan Ivanović
Deputy municipality Kraljevo
Tabnik village,
Kraljevo
Municipality
Kraljevo
Kraljevo
Kraljevo
036/371 022
Zicka 34, 36000
Kraljevo
036/361-361
[email protected]
Kraljevo
Kraljevo region (producers/ processors/ traders in lowlands)
Milosav Markičević
Director of Stubal cooperative
Stojanka Velisavjević
Producer of kajmak (buy the
milk), (they used to produce the
milk)
Producer of milk and kajmak, +
vegetables, president of an
association of farmers
Dairy Mlekara Euro-Milk (former
trader)
Miloš Todorović
Živan Stanisić
Biljana Zucović
Producer of milk and kajmak,
trader of kajmak, fruits, calves
Stubal,
Kraljevo
Municipality
Siria village,
Kraljevo
Municipality
Obrva village,
Kraljevo
Municipality
Obrva village,
Kraljevo
Municipality
36220 Čoukojevac,
036/876-274, 876-248
062/502-073-46-334
36204 Obrva,
064/123-37-49, 063/1850-299
Tabnik village,
Kraljevo
Municipality
p.63
SINER-GI
Dejan and Jasna
Tomašević
Producer of kajmak
Milan Jovanović
Trader, new producer of milk
and kajmak
Zvonko Terzic
Director, Farma D doo Kraljevo
Cvekte village,
Kraljevo
Municipality
Perkom,
Kraljevo
Municipality
Kraljevo, Farm
in Vredila,
village
851-313
064/153-29-78
064/130-80-93
Trg srpskih ratnika br.3,
36000 Kraljevo
065 333 19 59
[email protected]
Kraljevo region (producers/ processors/ traders in mountainous areas)
Miloica and Dragana
Jevremović
Verica Martić
Zorica Andrić
Slavica Baltić
Producers of milk and kajmak,
trader of kajmak, sheep, timber,
(aromatic and medicinal herbs
and plants)
Producer of milk (sell to the
dairy of Raška), (kajmak for
own consumption at the
moment), potatoes
Producer of milk, (kajmak for
own consumption at the
moment), timber, potatoes,
sheep
Producers of milk (they used to
produce kajmak), corn, marble
Laze village,
Rudno,
Kraljevo
Municipality
Rudno village,
Kraljevo
Municipality
Rudno village,
Kraljevo
Municipality
Brezo village,
Kraljevo
Municipality
Kragujevac region (institution and big producer)
Kuč Jezdimir and wife
Director, Kuč dairy
Kragujevac
Jasminka
Jagličić
Director, Regional Agency for
Economic Development of
Sumadija and Pomoravlje
Kragujevac
Luković
034/37-00-98,
063/61-70-68
[email protected]
17 Kralja Petra I St,
Kragujevac
+381 63 404 646
director@redasp
Zlatibor region (institutions and producers)
Snežana Selaković
Director, Regional centre for
development of SMEs and
entrepreneurship
Užice - Zlatibor
Vidosav Glavinić
Vicepresident Regional
chamber of Commerce
Deputy of municipality of
Čajetina
Producers of kajmak, sheep,
chicken, meat for the
processing industry
Director
Mlekara Zlatibor K
Užice
Milan Lazović
Drago Ponjović
Miloš Kostadinović
031/510-098
snezana@
mspue.co.yu
031/514-468, 513-483
Čajetina,
Zlatibor district
Nikojevići
village
064/855-00-02
Šljivovica
village, Zlatibor
Municipality
31244 Šljivovica,
UŽICE
031/830 511
065/870-00-05
[email protected]
064/148-66-56
p.64
SINER-GI
Annex 3 - Maps of Serbia
Source: FAO
p.65
SINER-GI
Annex 4 - Description of the tradition of kajmak production in Serbia
Herzegovina since ancient time (some people estimated the traditional production of
kajmak has been established at the 18 century). In these regions, cattle-breeding has
always been a dominant profession; in some areas it was developed as stationary cattlebreeding, while in others it was semi-nomadic or nomadic cattle-breeding. During time,
there were some significant changes in cattle-breeding in Serbia and Montenegro. Today,
stationary cattle-breeding is the dominant type. Breed structure of cattle has changed:
instead of local breeds; so-called “podolac” and “busa”, there are domestic mottled cattle
of Simmental type.
Historically speaking, in the past, most of the activities connected to processing and
storing of dairy products were established by habit and custom. There was always in every
household one special facility for processing and storing dairy products - it was called
“mlekar” or “mljekar”, and only one woman from that household was allowed to access that
facility (in those days, dominant type of family unit in hilly and mountainous regions was a
community which could have up to 30 members and which consisted of several closely
related families). That one woman who worked with dairy was called “planinka”. (S. Hopic,
2005).
In the past, “planinka” woman involved in dairy processing, after milking of cows would
strain and boil the milk, usually on open fire. After the boiling would start, she would let the
milk slowly boil for a while. After this, the milk would be poured into wooden, low pots
(called “karlice”) with large diameter in order for it to cool down and for kajmak to create on
its surface. These pots were kept in aired, dark rooms, on room temperature, until the milk
cooled down completely and kajmak formed on its surface, put in layers in wooden pots
called “čabrice” in such way that each layer was separately seasoned with salt and the air
was pressed out in order not to be left between layers. Kajmak prepared in this way was
called unripened or “new kajmak”, and if it was left to ferment for some time, then so called
ripened or “aged kajmak” would be produced. It can also be matured in dried animal skin
sacks and this version is called skorup.
After production of kajmak, left-over milk would be very low in fat and it was used for
production of low fat cheese. Kajmak production method has not changed much since
ancient times. (S. Hopic, 2005).
Karlice
Čabrice and Karlice
p.66

Kraljevački Kajmak - siner-gi

Transcription

Similar documents

When I think about Internet

CALCAREA CARBONICA OSTREARUM

HIP-Petrohemija is the largest producer of petrochemicals in the

Milk Barfi

Cobra Courier Kingsville Public

Product Request Form

balkan adventure tour

PSI Presentation - Peaceful Schools International