Fame Without UNESCO, UNESCO Without Fame: Camembert, Canastra and the Governance of Cheese Heritage

Giovanni Molina Aguirre

doi:10.20944/preprints202607.0081.v1

Submitted:

14 June 2026

Posted:

02 July 2026

You are already at the latest version

Abstract

This article examines how different configurations of geographical indication (GI) law and intangible heritage policy shape the governance of cheese heritage, through a comparative analysis of Camembert de Normandie in France and Canastra cheese within the broader artisanal Minas cheese system in Brazil. While Camembert is a globally renowned PDO cheese that remains absent from UNESCO’s Intangible Cultural Heritage lists, artisanal Minas cheeses have recently been inscribed on UNESCO’s Representative List despite their comparatively modest international visibility. Drawing on documentary analysis of UNESCO nomination materials, IPHAN safeguarding dossiers, the EU GI register and selected academic and media sources, the article situates these cases within critical debates on terroir, heritagisation and sustainability. The analysis shows that Camembert exemplifies a mature terroir governance regime centred on PDO institutions and domestic cultural politics, whereas Canastra illustrates a more hybrid landscape in which national and international intangible heritage recognition has overtaken the consolidation of cooperative structures, territorial branding and tourism linkages. The comparison argues that UNESCO’s 2003 Convention functions less as a universal recognition mechanism than as one contingent instrument within national agri‑food and heritage governance assemblages, whose effects depend on pre‑existing institutional fields and community–state. Conceptually, the article contributes to critical heritage studies by problematising “list‑centrism”—the prioritisation of UNESCO inscription over domestic reforms and cooperative governance—and by showing how foodways become key sites where GI regimes and ICH – Intangible Cultural Heritage frameworks intersect, overlap and diverge, producing uneven capacities for producers and regions to mobilise cheese heritage as a cultural and economic resource.

Keywords:

intangible cultural heritage

;

geographical indications

;

terroir

;

heritage

;

governance

;

Camembert de Normandie

;

Canastra cheese

Subject:

Arts and Humanities - Humanities

Introduction

The globalisation of agri-food systems has intensified a double movement in which standardised industrial products circulate through global value chains, while consumers, policymakers and rural actors simultaneously seek to valorise “authentic” local foods rooted in place, history and tradition (Barham, 2003). Within this landscape, cheeses have become paradigmatic heritage foods: they embody terroir, codified know-how and collective identity, and they are often embedded in legal regimes such as appellations d’origine contrôlée (AOC) and Protected Designations of Origin (PDO) (Barham, 2003; European Union Intellectual Property Office, n.d.). Yet not all cheeses occupy the same position in the symbolic and regulatory field of heritage. Some, like Camembert de Normandie, enjoy broad global fame and long-standing PDO protection but remain absent from UNESCO’s lists of Intangible Cultural Heritage; others, such as Brazil’s artisanal Minas cheeses, are comparatively unknown internationally yet have recently been inscribed on UNESCO’s Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity (European Union Intellectual Property Office, n.d.; UNESCO, n.d.; UNESCO, 2024).

Camembert provides a first, striking point of comparison. It is widely recognised as one of France’s most emblematic cheeses and a symbol of national culinary identity (Monaco, 2024). Since the 1990s, “Camembert de Normandie” has been protected under European PDO law, which restricts the name to cheeses produced in specific Norman departments according to defined methods, including requirements related to raw milk, geographic origin and production techniques (European Union Intellectual Property Office, n.d.). The PDO framework situates Camembert within the broader French system of terroir-based quality schemes analysed by Barham (2003), in which spatially delimited products are governed by collective rules negotiated among producers, regulators and other stakeholders. At the same time, contemporary analyses of French cheese production highlight tensions between industrial and artisanal variants, concerns about the erosion of microbial and cultural diversity, and debates over how to balance standardisation with heritage values (Monaco, 2018; Monaco, 2024). Despite its symbolic prominence and legal protection, Camembert does not appear among the elements inscribed on UNESCO’s Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity, underscoring that neither market fame nor PDO status automatically lead to recognition under the 2003 Convention (UNESCO, n.d.).

In contrast, the traditional ways of making artisanal Minas cheese in Brazil illustrate a different trajectory. The National Institute of Historic and Artistic Heritage (Instituto do Patrimônio Histórico e Artístico Nacional, IPHAN) recognized the “modo artesanal de fazer queijo de Minas” as Brazilian intangible cultural heritage in 2008, focusing on regions such as Serro, Serra da Canastra and Serra do Salitre (IPHAN, 2014). IPHAN’s dossiê documents a production system based on raw cow’s milk, natural starter cultures known as pingo, and family-based dairy farms embedded in specific landscapes and socio-ecological conditions (IPHAN, 2014). Building on this national safeguarding framework, the Advisory Council on Cultural Heritage submitted a nomination to UNESCO in 2023. In December 2024, the Intergovernmental Committee for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage inscribed the “Traditional ways of making Artisan Minas Cheese in Minas Gerais” on the Representative List (UNESCO, n.d.; UNESCO, 2024).

UNESCO’s element description emphasizes that artisanal Minas cheese involves knowledge and techniques developed by small rural producers in the state of Minas Gerais, who use raw milk and pingo, and that making and consuming the cheese “reinforces the feeling of belonging to a place and community” while strengthening local economies (UNESCO, n.d.). Official communication by UNESCO and by Costa (2024) stresses that this is the first time a Brazilian food-making tradition has been recognized as Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity, highlighting both the historical depth of the practice and its ongoing role in family farming systems (Costa, 2024; UNESCO, 2024). In other words, Minas cheese has achieved a form of symbolic centrality in the Brazilian heritage policy field that contrasts with its relatively modest position in global cheese markets.

Within this broader Minas category, Serra da Canastra constitutes a particularly revealing case. As documented by IPHAN (2014) and recent scientific literature, Canastra cheese is produced in a delimited mountain micro-region using raw milk and pingo, and it has obtained both national heritage recognition and a geographical indication (Paciulli et al., 2024; IPHAN, 2014). Recent research argues that the Canastra microregion represents a sophisticated parallel to European heritage cheeses such as Parmigiano Reggiano, combining a distinctive terroir, a long history of artisanal production and multiple layers of institutional recognition, including FAO’s Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) designation and the 2024 UNESCO inscription of artisanal Minas cheese. However, his comparative analysis shows that, unlike Parmigiano Reggiano, Canastra’s heritage status has not yet been translated into a dense territorial system of cooperative governance, integrated tourism and coordinated branding; instead, fragmented producer networks and limited policy alignment constrain the conversion of symbolic capital into broad-based rural development (Author, 2026; Paciulli et al., 2024).

Taken together, these cases reveal an intriguing asymmetry at the intersection of intangible heritage, geographical indications and territorial development. Camembert de Normandie is a globally recognised culinary icon and a legally codified PDO, yet it remains outside UNESCO’s intangible heritage lists; artisanal Minas cheeses such as Canastra, by contrast, have achieved UNESCO recognition as a collective element while still struggling for international name recognition and for effective economic valorisation of their heritage status (European Union Intellectual Property Office, n.d.; UNESCO, n.d.; Costa, 2024; Author, 2026). This suggests that UNESCO inscription should not be interpreted as a simple reward for already consolidated heritage foods, nor as a guarantee of economic success. Rather, it functions as one instrument among others in a complex governance assemblage, whose developmental effects depend on how communities, cooperatives and public institutions mobilise it in combination with existing GI regimes and rural policies (UNESCO, 2015; Iglesias Kuntz, 2020).

By juxtaposing Camembert and Canastra as primary comparative cases, this article examines how different configurations of fame, legal protection and intangible heritage recognition shape the trajectories of cheese territories in France and Brazil. The focus is on the strategic use—and non-use—of UNESCO’s intangible heritage framework as a resource for safeguarding practices, negotiating authenticity and pursuing rural development. In the conclusion, the analysis returns to the broader Minas cheese system recognised by IPHAN and UNESCO, offering recommendations for how other regions covered by the “Traditional ways of making Artisan Minas Cheese” element might benefit from the governance lessons drawn from the Canastra–Camembert paradox (IPHAN, 2014; UNESCO, n.d.; Author, 2026).

Methods

The article is based on qualitative documentary analysis of policy, legal and media sources related to Camembert de Normandie and artisanal Minas cheeses. For the Brazilian case, the primary corpus consists of the IPHAN safeguarding dossier “Modo artesanal de fazer queijo de Minas: Serro, Serra da Canastra e Serra do Salitre” (Dossiê Iphan, 11) and the UNESCO Representative List entry “Traditional ways of making Artisan Minas Cheese in Minas Gerais” (element 02102), including the nomination file, decision and element description. For the French case, the analysis draws on the Camembert de Normandie entry in the European Union GI register (GIview), relevant national regulations and debates as reported in specialist and general media, as well as secondary scholarship on French cheese governance and terroir. Across both cases, the documents were read comparatively, with attention to how different configurations of GI law, intangible heritage policy and cooperative structures are described, and to the narratives through which state agencies, producer organisations and international bodies frame cheese heritage as a cultural and developmental resource.

Heritage, Terroir and Foodways: Theoretical Framework

The analysis of Camembert and Canastra is situated at the intersection of three overlapping bodies of literature: studies of terroir and geographical indications; critical scholarship on intangible cultural heritage and “heritagisation”; and policy debates on the relationship between ICH safeguarding and sustainable development. Together, these fields provide a conceptual lens for understanding how legal and symbolic instruments such as PDOs and UNESCO listings mediate the relationship between local food practices, markets and territorial governance. Building on these insights, the article uses the Camembert–Canastra contrast to interrogate what I term “list-centrism” in heritage governance: the privileging of UNESCO inscription as a dominant metric of value and success, sometimes at the expense of less visible but potentially more transformative local policies and cooperative arrangements.

First, the notion of terroir and its institutionalisation in labels of origin such as France’s appellations d’origine contrôlée (AOC) and the European Union’s PDO system have been extensively analysed by rural sociologists and geographers. Barham (2003) describes terroir as a biopolitical project that relinks local and global scales by codifying quality, reputation and origin into legally protected designations. In her view, AOC/PDO schemes are not neutral reflections of pre-existing traditions but negotiated constructions that involve producers, state agencies, scientists and marketers; they can both empower rural communities and create new hierarchies within and between regions (Barham, 2003). Subsequent reflections on Barham’s work emphasise that GI regimes operate as arenas where different actors contest the definition of “authentic” practices and the boundaries of legitimate production zones (Barham, 2013; see also references in FAO, 2010). Situating Camembert de Normandie within this framework highlights that its PDO status is the outcome of such negotiations and that conflicts over raw versus pasteurised milk or industrial versus farmhouse production are, in part, struggles over control of the terroir narrative (European Union Intellectual Property Office, n.d.; Monaco, 2018).

Second, a growing literature examines the extension of heritage logics to food practices under UNESCO’s 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. Iglesias Kuntz (2020), writing in The UNESCO Courier, notes that more than fifty traditional culinary practices—from the “gastronomic meal of the French” to Neapolitan pizzaiuolo—have been inscribed on UNESCO’s lists, but stresses that the Convention recognises practices and know-how rather than dishes or products per se (Iglesias Kuntz, 2020; UNESCO, 2026). In other words, intangible heritage listings focus on ways of cultivating, preparing and consuming food, and on the social meanings attached to these practices, rather than on commodified end products. Scholars of food heritage argue that inscription processes often involve a “heritagisation” of everyday foodways, in which states, experts and producer groups reframe ordinary practices as national or regional heritage, sometimes simplifying internal diversity or marginalising certain actors in the process (Romagnoli, 2019; Iglesias Kuntz, 2020). From this perspective, the inscription of artisanal Minas cheese and the potential future nomination of Camembert are not merely technical recognitions but interventions that can reshape how these cheeses are governed and imagined.

Third, policy debates within UNESCO explicitly link intangible heritage to sustainable development. An expert meeting on “safeguarding intangible cultural heritage and sustainable development at the national level” proposed analysing ICH policies through four dimensions—economic, social, environmental and governance—and led to the adoption of Operational Directives that frame safeguarding as a contribution to broader development goals (UNESCO, 2015; UNESCO, 2014). The Ethical Principles for Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage, endorsed by the Intergovernmental Committee in 2015, underline that communities should have the primary role in safeguarding their own heritage, that they should benefit from the moral and material interests resulting from it, and that potential negative impacts such as commodification and decontextualisation must be carefully assessed (UNESCO, 2015, Decision 10.COM 15.a). More recent UNESCO materials emphasise that ICH can support sustainable development when safeguarding measures strengthen local livelihoods, promote inclusion and respect cultural diversity, but they caution against instrumentalising heritage solely for economic gain (UNESCO, 2015; UNESCO, 2026).

These frameworks suggest that neither geographical indications nor intangible heritage listings can be treated as purely symbolic “labels” detached from broader governance structures. Rather, they operate as institutional devices that channel resources, authority and visibility, with outcomes that depend on how they are implemented in specific contexts. In the case of Camembert, the combination of PDO status, strong national symbolism and absence from UNESCO’s lists exemplifies a situation in which terroir governance is primarily structured through GI law and domestic cultural politics (European Union Intellectual Property Office, n.d.; Monaco, 2024). In Minas Gerais, by contrast, the recognition of artisanal cheese-making by IPHAN and UNESCO illustrates how intangible heritage instruments can precede or accompany the consolidation of territorial GIs, creating opportunities but also raising questions about who controls the ensuing narratives and benefits (IPHAN, 2014; UNESCO, n.d.; Author, 2026).

Within this theoretical frame, the Camembert–Canastra comparison is not simply about two cheeses but about differing articulations of terroir, heritage and development. Barham’s (2003) insight that labels of origin both “translate” local qualities into global markets and reorder power relations provides a basis for analysing how PDO and GI regimes structure possibilities for Camembert and Canastra producers. The ICH literature’s focus on heritagisation of foodways directs attention to the ways in which UNESCO listings may stabilise certain versions of tradition while marginalising others, and how communities negotiate these processes (Iglesias Kuntz, 2020; Romagnoli, 2019). UNESCO’s own ethical and operational directives, finally, foreground community agency, equitable benefit-sharing and the risk of commodification, offering normative criteria against which to assess whether intangible heritage recognition contributes to sustainable rural development or merely adds another layer of symbolic capital (UNESCO, 2015; UNESCO, 2014).

By grounding the analysis in these debates, the article can move beyond a celebratory or instrumental view of UNESCO recognition. Instead, it can examine how different configurations of GI law, heritage policy and cooperative governance condition the ability of Camembert and Canastra producers to transform symbolic recognition—whether long-standing fame or recent inscription—into durable territorial development, in line with or in tension with UNESCO’s own ethical principles and sustainable development discourse (UNESCO, 2015; Author, 2026).

Comparative Analysis: Camembert and Canastra as Heritage Regimes

The juxtaposition of Camembert and Canastra highlights how different configurations of geographical indications, intangible heritage policies and territorial governance shape the trajectories of cheese regions in France and Brazil. Both cases involve raw-milk traditions rooted in specific landscapes and associated with strong identities. However, their positions within GI and ICH regimes, and the ways in which these regimes interact with rural development strategies, diverge significantly.

Camembert de Normandie exemplifies a mature terroir governance system centred on the PDO framework. Since its registration as a PDO, the name “Camembert de Normandie” has been legally reserved for cheeses produced in a delimited Norman area under codified specifications, including the use of raw cow’s milk and defined technological processes (European Union Intellectual Property Office, n.d.). This institutionalisation reflects the dynamics described by Barham (2003), in which AOC/PDO labels codify origin, reputation and quality into enforceable rules that both protect and reshape local food practices. Contemporary analyses of French cheese regulation note that PDO rules for Camembert have been the site of intense controversy, especially around whether pasteurised-milk industrial cheeses can use the Camembert name, illustrating how GI regimes are arenas of contestation rather than neutral instruments (Monaco, 2018; Monaco, 2024). Yet, despite Camembert’s symbolic centrality and its integration into national and EU quality policy, it has not been inscribed on UNESCO’s intangible heritage lists (UNESCO, n.d.). The main institutional axis through which its heritage is articulated remains the PDO and associated French cultural policies, rather than UNESCO’s 2003 Convention.

Canastra, by contrast, occupies a more hybrid and incomplete institutional landscape. As part of the broader “artisanal Minas cheese” system recognized by IPHAN in 2008, Serra da Canastra combines national intangible heritage status, a registered geographical indication and inclusion in FAO’s Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (IPHAN, 2014; Author, 2026). The 2024 UNESCO inscription of the “Traditional ways of making Artisan Minas Cheese in Minas Gerais” adds an international layer of symbolic recognition that explicitly foregrounds the role of small rural producers, raw milk and pingo, and the contribution of cheese-making to local identities and economies (UNESCO, n.d.; UNESCO, 2024; Costa, 2024). However, research demonstrates, this multi-layered recognition has not yet coalesced into a consolidated governance regime comparable to that of Parmigiano Reggiano or even to the long-standing PDO system of Camembert. Producer associations in Canastra remain fragmented, territorial branding is inconsistent and links between heritage policies and tourism or rural development programs are only partially developed (Author, 2026; Paciulli et al., 2024).

From a theoretical standpoint, these differences illustrate Barham’s (2003) claim that GI regimes are embedded in particular state traditions and political economies. In France, where AOC/PDO institutions emerged early and have been integrated into national agricultural and cultural policy, Camembert’s heritage governance is primarily mediated through PDO law and domestic debates over authenticity, without recourse—at least so far—to UNESCO’s intangible heritage framework (Barham, 2003; European Union Intellectual Property Office, n.d.; Monaco, 2024). In Brazil, by contrast, heritage recognition of artisanal Minas cheeses has been driven by IPHAN and later by UNESCO, with GI instruments and producer cooperatives developing more recently and unevenly across regions (IPHAN, 2014; UNESCO, 2024; Author, 2026). The sequence is effectively reversed: Camembert moved from fame to PDO, and only then to sporadic discussions about UNESCO; Canastra moved from national ICH recognition to UNESCO inscription while its GI and cooperative structures were still consolidating.

The Camembert–Canastra comparison also brings into focus the dynamics of heritagisation described in the food ICH literature. Iglesias Kuntz (2020) emphasises that UNESCO listings concern practices and social meanings rather than products, and that the process of defining “representative” foodways often involves simplification and strategic framing. In Minas Gerais, the nomination of artisanal Minas cheese required IPHAN and other actors to select and codify certain regional practices—such as raw-milk use, pingo and family-based production—into a single element that stands for a diverse set of regional cheeses (IPHAN, 2014; UNESCO, n.d.). This heritagisation process, while empowering in some respects, also risks privileging specific regions and actors, especially when resources for safeguarding and promotion are limited. Research notes that Serra da Canastra has emerged as a de facto showcase for the Minas cheese heritage, partly because of its existing GI and its visibility in academic and policy debates, even though the UNESCO element encompasses a broader set of territories (Author, 2026). In Normandy, by contrast, any future UNESCO nomination for Camembert would have to grapple with the coexistence of industrial and artisanal variants and with contested claims to authenticity, which could make it difficult to define a single, consensual “traditional” practice (Monaco, 2018; Monaco, 2024).

Finally, the two cases can be read against UNESCO’s own discourse on intangible heritage and sustainable development. Official directives stress that safeguarding policies should contribute to community well-being across economic, social, environmental and governance dimensions, and that communities should share in the moral and material benefits of their heritage (UNESCO, 2014; UNESCO, 2015). Yet UNESCO also warns against treating ICH as a simple tool for tourism promotion or economic branding, emphasising the need to avoid decontextualisation and over-commodification (UNESCO, 2015; Iglesias Kuntz, 2020). In Camembert’s case, the absence of UNESCO inscription suggests that heritage governance has so far been pursued through GI law and national institutions, with debates about economic survival and modernisation taking place largely within those frameworks (European Union Intellectual Property Office, n.d.; Monaco, 2024). In Canastra, by contrast, UNESCO recognition has made the cheese a potential emblem for sustainable rural development policies, but some findings indicate that this potential remains under-realised: without stronger cooperative structures, integrated tourism strategies and coherent territorial branding, the inscription risks remaining largely symbolic, echoing UNESCO’s own caution that ICH status alone does not guarantee development outcomes (UNESCO, 2015; Author, 2026).

In sum, the Camembert–Canastra comparison supports a cautious interpretation of intangible heritage instruments. Camembert shows that long-standing fame and PDO protection do not automatically translate into UNESCO inscription, and that heritage politics can be effectively conducted within GI regimes and national cultural policies. Canastra shows that UNESCO inscription, even when combined with national heritage recognition and GI status, does not automatically generate economic resilience or international visibility in the absence of dense territorial governance. Both cases confirm that labels of origin and intangible heritage listings are best understood as components of broader governance assemblages provided that they are not treated as ends in themselves or as technocratic indicators of success, in line with ACHS-inspired critiques of list-centrism whose outcomes depend on how they are mobilised by communities, cooperatives and states in specific institutional contexts (Barham, 2003; UNESCO, 2015; Author, 2026).

Conclusions and Policy Implications

The comparison between Camembert de Normandie and Canastra cheese underscores that intangible heritage and geographical indication regimes are neither simple rewards for past excellence nor automatic engines of rural development. In Normandy, Camembert illustrates a situation where a globally renowned cheese is governed primarily through a mature PDO system and national cultural policies, yet remains absent from UNESCO’s intangible heritage lists (European Union Intellectual Property Office, n.d.; Monaco, 2024; UNESCO, n.d.). In Minas Gerais, Canastra exemplifies the inverse configuration: artisanal Minas cheeses have achieved national recognition by IPHAN and inscription on UNESCO’s Representative List, but their international visibility and economic conversion remain limited, constrained by fragmented governance and only partially developed links between heritage, GI enforcement and tourism (IPHAN, 2014; UNESCO, 2024; Author, 2026).

In light of these findings, the article advances a more explicit critique of what might be called “list-centrism”: the tendency of states, media and even some practitioners to treat inscription on UNESCO’s lists as the primary, or even sufficient, marker of heritage value and policy success. Such list-centrism matters not only because it misrepresents the 2003 Convention as a universal recognition mechanism, but also because it can generate concrete harms for local communities. First, it risks creating new hierarchies between regions and practices, where inscribed elements are framed as more “authentic” or deserving than non-inscribed ones, despite comparable histories and socio-ecological contributions, thus reinforcing centre–periphery dynamics within national heritage fields. Second, it can encourage governments to prioritise international nomination campaigns over long-term domestic reforms in areas such as rural infrastructure, cooperative governance and land rights, diverting attention and resources away from the structural conditions that shape producers’ livelihoods. Third, by concentrating symbolic value on a finite set of listed elements, list-centrism may narrow public understandings of heritage and constrain communities’ ability to articulate alternative safeguarding agendas that do not pass through UNESCO’s lists. In this sense, the Camembert–Canastra contrast echoes the concerns articulated in the Association of Critical Heritage Studies manifesto, which warns against technocratic and list-driven approaches and calls for heritage practices that foreground social justice, reflexivity and community agency in defining what counts as heritage and for whom.

These divergent trajectories support a broader theoretical point derived from the literature on terroir, GI regimes and heritagisation. Barham’s (2003) analysis of AOC/PDO schemes as negotiated constructions that relink local and global scales helps explain why Camembert’s PDO status both protects and politicises its heritage, without necessarily requiring recourse to UNESCO. Conversely, the inscription of artisanal Minas cheese confirms Iglesias Kuntz’s (2020) observation that UNESCO’s 2003 Convention privileges practices and social meanings rather than products, and that food heritage listings often emerge from deliberate reframings of everyday foodways by state agencies, experts and producer groups. In neither case do labels of origin or intangible heritage listings act as stand-alone solutions; instead, their developmental effects depend on how they are embedded in multi-level governance arrangements, in line with UNESCO’s own Operational Directives and ethical principles on ICH and sustainable development (UNESCO, 2014; UNESCO, 2015).

From a policy perspective, the Camembert–Canastra contrast points to several implications for Minas Gerais that extend beyond the Serra da Canastra without treating other cheese regions as co-protagonists. First, the Minas case suggests that securing UNESCO recognition should be seen as the beginning rather than the culmination of a long-term safeguarding and development process. UNESCO’s element description and the IPHAN safeguarding plan emphasise the need for community-based organisations, training and coordinated measures across regions such as Serro, Serra da Canastra and Serra do Salitre (IPHAN, 2014; UNESCO, n.d.). Drawing on the shortcomings identified in Canastra, state authorities and producer associations could prioritise the consolidation of producer cooperatives capable of enforcing GI rules, articulating shared quality narratives and negotiating with public institutions, thereby avoiding the fragmentation that currently limits the economic conversion of heritage status (Author, 2026; Paciulli et al., 2024).

Second, the Minas experience indicates that UNESCO inscription can serve as a legitimate basis for targeted investments in experiential tourism and landscape-based branding, provided that such initiatives respect UNESCO’s ethical principles and avoid commodifying heritage in ways that undermine community control (UNESCO, 2015; Iglesias Kuntz, 2020). In practical terms, the state government and municipal authorities could support the development of “Minas cheese routes” and festivals that place Canastra as a flagship but also include other recognized regions as complementary destinations, ensuring that safeguarding measures and tourism benefits are shared within the wider Minas cheese cluster (IPHAN, 2014; UNESCO, 2024). Lessons from other food ICH cases—such as Neapolitan pizzaiuolo, where UNESCO recognition has been used to justify training schools, festivals and tourism circuits—suggest that heritage-based tourism can contribute to local livelihoods when it is embedded in cooperative governance and when communities retain significant control over how their practices are presented (UNESCO, 2015; Iglesias Kuntz, 2020).

Third, the comparison invites caution about over-reliance on symbolic instruments in the absence of structural policies. Camembert’s situation shows that even a highly visible PDO cheese faces pressures from industrialisation, regulatory change and shifting consumer preferences, raising questions about long-term resilience despite strong legal protection (Monaco, 2018; Monaco, 2024; Barham, 2003). Canastra’s situation shows that heritage recognition without robust support for rural infrastructure, extension services and market access may do little to prevent rural exodus or to ensure equitable benefit-sharing among small producers (Author, 2026; IPHAN, 2014). UNESCO’s discourse on ICH and sustainable development emphasises that safeguarding should rely on coherent public policies and community participation across economic, social, environmental and governance dimensions, rather than on isolated heritage listings (UNESCO, 2014; UNESCO, 2015). For Minas, this implies aligning ICH safeguarding plans with broader rural development programs, credit schemes and environmental policies that address issues such as land tenure, pasture management and climate risks.

Finally, the Camembert–Canastra paradox offers a useful narrative tool for Brazilian policymakers and cooperatives. The fact that a relatively obscure Brazilian cheese tradition has achieved UNESCO recognition while one of the world’s best-known cheeses has not can be used to draw attention to Minas cheeses in domestic and international arenas, without implying that inscription alone guarantees success (UNESCO, n.d.; Monaco, 2024; UNESCO, 2024). Framing Minas artisanal cheese as part of a global conversation on food heritage, terroir and sustainable development may help Minas producers forge alliances with other heritage foods and attract support from NGOs and research institutions engaged with ICH, provided that such alliances respect community priorities and avoid instrumentalising heritage purely for branding purposes (Iglesias Kuntz, 2020; UNESCO, 2015).

In this sense, the policy recommendations derived from the Camembert–Canastra comparison are directed primarily at Minas actors—state agencies, IPHAN, producer cooperatives and municipalities—who must decide how to use UNESCO recognition as one tool among many in constructing more equitable and resilient territorial economies. Other Minas cheese regions recognised in IPHAN’s dossiê can be seen as potential beneficiaries of these governance lessons rather than as additional case studies in their own right. If implemented with attention to community agency and sustainable development principles, such measures could help ensure that the symbolic capital associated with UNESCO’s inscription of artisanal Minas cheese translates into tangible improvements in livelihoods and territorial cohesion, rather than remaining a largely nominal distinction (IPHAN, 2014; UNESCO, 2014; UNESCO, 2015; Author, 2026).

Addressing list-centrism thus requires Minas actors not only to capitalise on UNESCO recognition, but to invest in the less visible institutional and infrastructural reforms that determine whether cheese heritage can support equitable rural development.

Data Availability Statement

This article is based on publicly accessible documentary sources. The IPHAN safeguarding dossier “Modo artesanal de fazer queijo de Minas: Serro, Serra da Canastra e Serra do Salitre” (Dossiê Iphan, 11) is available through the IPHAN digital library. The UNESCO Representative List entry “Traditional ways of making Artisan Minas Cheese in Minas Gerais” (element 02102), including the nomination file and decision, is available on the UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage website. The Camembert de Normandie GIview entry and associated EU regulations are accessible via the European Union Intellectual Property Office’s online database. Full bibliographic details and URLs for all documents analysed are provided in the References section.

References

Alivizatou, M. Intangible heritage and the museum: New perspectives on cultural preservation; Routledge, 2016. [Google Scholar]
Barham, E. Translating terroir: The global challenge of French AOC labelling. J. Rural Stud. 2003, 19(1), 127–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Bortolotto, C. Globalising intangible cultural heritage? Between international arenas and local appropriations. In Heritage and globalisation, 1st ed.; Labadi, S., Long, C., Eds.; 2010; pp. 111–128. [Google Scholar]
Costa, G. Unesco reconhece Queijo Minas Artesanal como patrimônio imaterial. Agência Brasil. 2024. Available online: https://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/cultura/noticia/2024-12/unesco-reconhece-queijo-minas-artesanal-como-patrimonio-imaterial.
European Union Intellectual Property Office. Camembert de Normandie (GIview entry). n.d. Available online: https://www.tmdn.org/giview.
Iglesias Kuntz, L. Food and intangible heritage: A flavourful relationship. In The UNESCO Courier; 2020; Volume 2, pp. 16–18. Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000393380_eng.
IPHAN - Instituto do Patrimônio Histórico e Artístico Nacional. Modo artesanal de fazer queijo de Minas: Serro, Serra da Canastra e Serra do Salitre (Alto Paranaíba) (Dossiê Iphan, 11); Iphan, 2014. [Google Scholar]
Author. 2026.
Monaco, E. The end to a French cheese tradition? BBC Travel. 19 June 2018. Available online: https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20180618-the-end-to-a-french-cheese-tradition.
Monaco, E. Is the future of French cheese at stake? BBC Travel. 3 November 2024. Available online: https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20241101-is-the-future-of-french-cheese-at-stake.
Paciulli, S. O. D.; Teran-Silva, M.; Silva, V. A.; Nascimento, A. F.; Terán-Ortiz, G. P.; Nogueira, T. S. Geographical demarcation of the manufacturing territory of the new varieties of traditional artisanal Canastra cheese. Braz. J. Food Technol. 2024, 27, e2023089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Pineda, A. P. A.; Campos, G. Z.; Pimentel-Filho, N. J.; Franco, B. D. G. M.; Pinto, U. M. Brazilian artisanal cheeses: Diversity, microbiological safety, and challenges for the sector. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 666922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Romagnoli, M. Gastronomic heritage elements at UNESCO: Problems, reflections on and interpretations of a new heritage category. Int. J. Intang. Herit. 2019, 14, 158–171. [Google Scholar]
UNESCO. Operational Directives for the implementation of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (as amended); UNESCO, 2014; Available online: https://ich.unesco.org/en/directives.
UNESCO. Intangible heritage and sustainable development: Towards new Operational Directives (Decision 10.COM 15.a); UNESCO Intergovernmental Committee for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, 2015; Available online: https://ich.unesco.org/en/Decisions/10.COM/15.a.
UNESCO. Traditional ways of making Artisan Minas Cheese included in UNESCO’s Intangible Cultural Heritage list. UNESCO, 4 December 2024. Available online: https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/traditional-ways-making-artisan-minas-cheese-included-unescos-intangible-cultural-heritage-list.
UNESCO. Food and intangible heritage, a flavourful relationship. The UNESCO Courier. 3 June 2026. Available online: https://courier.unesco.org/en/articles/food-and-intangible-heritage-flavourful-relationship.
UNESCO. Traditional ways of making Artisan Minas Cheese in Minas Gerais (Representative List entry, element 02102). UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage. n.d. Available online: https://ich.unesco.org/en/RL/traditional-ways-of-making-artisan-minas-cheese-in-minas-gerais-02102.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.