Differentiated implementation and European integration: the development of EU food quality labelling

A key challenge for European integration is differentiation. While there has been much study of differentiated integration, interest is now turning to differentiated implementation of EU policies, as there are substantial differences in how EU policies are transposed and put into practice across member states. Such differentiated implementation is legally permitted within EU law (so differing from variations in compliance) and important as much EU regulation and legislation is broad and allows member states great scope to differ in implementing them. It may raise many difficulties for European integration as such differentiation can affect support for the EU and competition within Europe. We examine whether, how and why differentiated national implementation of EU policies affects later European integration. We set out four possible effects: renewed unified vertical integration; differentiated integration; maintenance of the status quo; renationalisation of policy making. For each we identify possible processes for differentiated implementation to affect subsequent integration linked to wider theoretical literatures, notably neo-functionalism, work on differentiated integration and post-functionalist and disintegration studies. The paper looks at the case of geographical indications (GIs), an EU labelling system for food and drink based on place of origin and processes of production. Labelling food and drink is often linked to identity- be this national, regional or local- and to ‘gastro-nationalism’. GI foods and drinks are also a rapidly growing economic domain. Moreover, member states had very different starting points in terms of institutions, leading to diverse national interests and differential implementation. Hence we might expect differential implementation of the EU’s GI scheme to increase pressures for differentiated integration, the status quo or renationalisation, because it would augment divergence of member state interests, especially for an ‘identity’ issue that is open to politicisation and populist positions. Yet we argue that for GIs, the opposite has happened: differentiated implementation has created pressures for unified vertical integration. Despite features such as diverse national interests and gastronationalism, differentiated implementation has resulted in renewed unified vertical integration. The paper identifies and explores three processes: EU legislative requirements; European Court of Justice decisions; the use of free trade negotiations to alter EU rules. We find that the provisions of the initial legislation created strong incentives to establish producer groups, aiding the creation of a pro-GI coalition that also included member states with many GIs and the European Commission. Then to resolve differences in the scope of GIs across member states, cases were taken to the CJEU which made rulings that furthered unified vertical integration. Free trade agreements provided the pro-GI coalition with opportunities to strengthen the GI scheme within the EU. Thus while the integration outcomes are those expected by neo-functionalist analyses, the processes are more institutionally-based. Our overall argument is that through a set of developing and cumulative institutionally-rooted feedback processes, differences in implementation contributed to further unified vertical integration. Differentiated implementation can aid rather than hinder EU integration.