In an attempt to capture a greater share of the symbolic value of coffee in the market, some producers have started to safeguard the geographical names of specific origins through Geographical Indications in their home country, and then subsequently registering Protected Geographical Indications (PGI) under European Union (EU) law. To enable effective value capture, such initiatives require successful collective action. We explain how the need for collective action has manifested within four coffee Protected Geographical Indications in Colombia, Indonesia and Thailand (2 cases). Based on the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework developed by Elinor Ostrom, we examine the cases following a common analytical approach, encompassing: i) contextual setting of product and territory; ii) actors involved; iii) institutional arrangements and action arena; and iv) the outcome of these arrangements. The cases involved a diversity of applicants including a producer association (Colombia), a social foundation and a private company (Thailand), and a government-supported consortium (Indonesia). The process of institutionalizing the GI required powerful, and well-resourced actors to assume a lead role resulting in relatively little participation from actual producers themselves. Therefore, this does not truly satisfy the IAD requirements for effective collective action, such compliance with the EU requirement for collective action was mainly observed as an administrative formality. The design of guiding rules for collective action processes are seen to significantly affect their effectiveness and the distribution of any benefits generated. This article emphasizes how this design is shaped by the positionality and particular interests of the actors involved, their different capacity to exert power and influence, their diverse attitudes towards moral legitimacy, and varying relationships with external actors such as development agents, research organizations and state agencies.

中文翻译：

---

哥伦比亚，泰国和印度尼西亚的集体行动Milieus和受保护的地理标志咖啡的治理结构

为了在市场上获得更多的咖啡象征性价值，一些生产商已开始通过其母国的地理标志来保护特定产地的地理名称，然后在欧洲范围内注册受保护的地理标志（PGI）联盟（EU）法律。为了实现有效的价值获取，此类举措需要成功的集体行动。我们解释了在哥伦比亚，印度尼西亚和泰国的4个咖啡保护地理标志（2个案例）中如何体现了采取集体行动的必要性。基于埃里诺·奥斯特罗姆（Elinor Ostrom）开发的机构分析与发展（IAD）框架，我们按照通用的分析方法研究了案例，包括：i）产品和地区的背景设置；ii）参与的演员；iii）体制安排和行动领域；iv）这些安排的结果。这些案件涉及各种各样的申请人，包括生产者协会（哥伦比亚），社会基金会和私人公司（泰国）以及政府支持的财团（印度尼西亚）。地理标志制度化的过程要求强大且资源丰富的参与者担当领导角色，导致实际生产者本身的参与相对较少。因此，这并不能真正满足IAD对有效集体行动的要求，而这种遵守欧盟集体行动要求的行为主要被视为行政手续。集体行动过程指导规则的设计被认为会显着影响其有效性和所产生的任何利益的分配。