Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS) are certification schemes, which offer a guarantee that labelled products comply with a related quality standard. They differ from the prevailing Third-Party Certification (TPC) because in a PGS, food system stakeholders are involved in the decision to award a label. With TPC, a single certification body takes the decision and certification costs may be too high to be borne by smallholder producers. According to PGS guidelines (), shared rights to actively contribute to the inspections, participate in exclusion decisions for certification and to manage the contents of the standard are key features of a PGS. Producers have significantly more rights on the label in a PGS than in TPC. Each PGS has a specific governance structure, which reflects how they have adapted to their respective institutional environments. In this paper, we compare the distribution of power in TPC for the European organic label and four PGS, Nature & Progrès (N&P) in France; Ecovida Agroecology Network (EAN) in Brazil; Certified Naturally Grown (CNG) in the US; and Kilimo Hai (KH) in Tanzania. Drawing on the bundle of rights concept developed by , we discuss how the common property regimes in PGS have potential for bridging the gap between organic labels and their users. We describe each governance structure, by drawing on data from in-depth interviews with key informants and on the analysis of framework documents and regulatory texts specific to each initiative. We show that the distribution of stakeholders’ rights varies considerably between the different PGS. Similar to the commons, these differences can impact the label’s legitimacy, the PGS members’ involvement and mobilization, and the effectiveness of the rules relating to implementation and compliance.

中文翻译：

---

参与性保障体系（PGS）中的共同财产制度：有机标签集体管理中的分担责任


参与式保证体系 (PGS) 是一种认证计划，可保证贴有标签的产品符合相关质量标准。它们与流行的第三方认证 (TPC) 不同，因为在 PGS 中，食品系统利益相关者参与授予标签的决定。对于 TPC，由单一认证机构做出决定，认证成本可能太高，小农生产者无法承担。根据 PGS 指南 ()，积极参与检查、参与认证排除决策以及管理标准内容的共享权利是 PGS 的关键特征。生产商在 PGS 中对标签的权利比在 TPC 中多得多。每个 PGS 都有特定的治理结构，反映了它们如何适应各自的制度环境。在本文中，我们比较了欧洲有机标签在TPC和法国四个PGS、Nature & Progrès (N&P)中的权力分布；巴西 Ecovida 农业生态网络 (EAN)；美国自然生长认证 (CNG)；和坦桑尼亚的 Kilimo Hai (KH)。借鉴 提出的权利捆绑概念，我们讨论了 PGS 中的共同财产制度如何有潜力弥合有机标签与其用户之间的差距。我们通过对关键知情人进行深入访谈的数据以及对每项举措具体的框架文件和监管文本的分析来描述每项治理结构。我们发现，不同 PGS 之间利益相关者的权利分配差异很大。与公地类似，这些差异可能会影响标签的合法性、PGS 成员的参与和动员，以及与实施和合规相关的规则的有效性。