Collective Brand for Vietnam’s Fisheries Needed

Vietnam is considered a bright spot which is world-famous for producing and exporting seafood products. The development and expansion of import markets have clearly demonstrated the suitability and capabilities of Vietnam’s fisheries sector to meet the requirements. It’s time seafood producers and exporters seriously considered building up and developing a collective brand for this sector.

 

The case in which Vietnam exporters were sued for dumping of “tra” and “basa” (pangasius ) happened to be not only a big chance for promoting the image and brand of Vietnam’s fisheries sector, but also a suggestion to develop a collective brand. The latter action does not merely promote products and generate export opportunities, its first and more important aim is to protect the trademark of Vietnam’s fisheries sector. Although the government programme “Development of intellectual property in enterprises” (Programme 68) launched in 2006 by the Ministry of Science and Technology has concentrated on creating, managing and developing collective trademarks/brands, the number of collective trademark projects for seafood sector is still quite modest. In a glance, regarding seafood products alone, Vietnam has currently taken the first steps to create and develop several collective brands such as Phu Quoc fish sauce (a protected collective brand with geographical indication), Phan Thiet fish sauce (a brand built up according to  Programme 68), and Vietnam pangasius (Top Quality of Pangasius from Vietnam).

 

However, the actual brand development work shows a low effect. As links among members are not strong, brand infringement and appropriation are quite common as there are still no effective measures to prevent them. Moreover, ineffective market management activities of authorities have led to a situation in which many enterprises have supplied fake, low quality products to the market, and therefore have lowered the prestige of collective brands.

 

As for products of pangasius, although there are currently nearly 300 enterprises involved in exporting pangasius, half of them are not members of Vietnam Association of Seafood Exporters and Producers (VASEP). Vietnam catfish products are available in 125 markets in the world but in fact, most of them have to exist under the brands of importers. Therefore, consumers are unlikely to know about the specific products of Vietnam.

Since 2006, the decision of Ministry of Fisheries (now the General Department of Fisheries) approving the program “Quality and brand of Vietnam’s catfish in period of 2006-2010” has emphasized issues concerning building up a national brand of catfish called “ Top Quality Pangasius from Vietnam”. Accordingly, products which meet necessary requirements of the programme can be titled the collective brand “Top Quality Pangasius from Vietnam” along with their enterprise brands. However, the application is still very controversial and not really consistent.

 

In order to urge building up collective brands for seafood products, Vietnam should develop long-term and practical strategies. From the viewpoint of brand management, according to Dr Nguyen Quoc Thinh from Brand Centre, University of Commerce, it is necessary to improve awareness of enterprises about the necessity of building up brands for products. It is a fact that after the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) put catfish on the “Red Book”, Vietnam’s catfish turned out to be more well-known. Therefore Vietnam’s enterprises should take advantage of this opportunity to accelerate brand creations for catfish in particular and for Vietnam’s seafood products in general. 

 

Moreover, Vietnam should establish brand names in order to proceed quickly for registration in import markets. Any delay can lead to losing the opportunity to register brand names, as in the case of Phu Quoc fish sauce or many other Vietnam’s brands. When building a collective brand, it is important to establish a mechanism for managing and exploiting the brand. This depends not only on the collective brand owners, but also on the participation of local and State management agencies. According to Dr Thinh, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, and particularly the General Department of Fisheries, should stand a coordinator to support building regulations on collective brand management and exploitation, to call funding from various sources and to realize scientific research for the purpose of establishing and developing collective brands for Vietnam’s fisheries sector.

 

 More importantly, Vietnam has to strictly enforce rules and rigorously manage the planning of farming, using of high-quality seed sources without disease, care schemes, harvesting and processing products. It is time for associations, local governments and the State to closely monitor and strictly handle cases of fraud, using prohibited ingredients in producing and processing seafood products, to avoid the deterioration of Vietnam fisheries’ brand image.

 

Building up collective brands for Vietnam’s fisheries is a necessary action, but not an easy one. It requires great efforts of many enterprises and of the State management agencies. Because of the fact that enterprises are still afraid of an overwhelming collective brand over their own brands, the promotion of this activity has not spread widely yet. Vietnam needs more practical measures to build up its prestige and image through collective brands and create sustainable competitive advantages in world markets.