The 2016 Inter-institutional Agreement on Better Law-Making provides that the three Institutions agree to systematically consider the use of review clauses in legislation, and that account is taken of the time needed for implementation and for gathering evidence on results and impacts. Based on this, the Commission shall carry out an evaluation no sooner than five years after the date of application of the Regulation. The evaluation will be conducted according to the Commission's Better Regulation Guidelines.

To monitor contribution of GIs to sustainable development and ensure transparency, GIview includes a section for each registered geographical indication where Member State’s authorities will include the sustainability statement.

Agriview dashboards ( European Commission | Agri-food data portal | CAP Indicators (europa.eu) ) provide information on a set of performance indicators in four categories: context, output, result, and impact. The indicators are combined with further information (such as on trade and quality schemes) into 12 thematic presentations at EU and Member States level. Context indicators provide information on agricultural and rural statistics as well as general economic and environmental trends. In this framework, data on the number of registered geographical indications and traditional specialities guaranteed is provided and periodically updated. An upgrade of dashboards is on-going to include data on exports and to link it with e-Ambrosia to ensure a daily update with newly registered names. This monitoring makes also integral part of the Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Framework of the CAP 2023-2027.

Time to register after the receipt of an application

Time to register after the receipt of an application

The table below provides the core monitoring indicators for the main operational objectives.

In the light of the review, the Commission may propose to modify or rescind the delegation or extend the delegation to decisions and registers.

-consistency and quality of the scrutiny of the applications;

2.The impacts of this outsourcing will be reviewed five years after the start of the implementation of the outsourcing.

1.The Commission retains the power to delegate outsourcing up to the step “decision on registration” (option 2.1).

As mentioned in point 8.1, the preferred option is partial outsourcing - option 2, sub-option 2.1. This is according to the analysis not the best-performing option, but one which takes better account of the need to ensure integration of agronomic factors and integration of policy with the common market organisations. In order to check the efficiency gains and better assess the impact of outsourcing, the following steps would be taken:

Up to 30% efficiency gains are expected for Member States’ authorities in managing the files as well as a significant decrease in FTEs at Commission level, which is partially offset against dedicated resources of an agency. A maximum reduction of registration is estimated at 2 to 4 years depending on the chosen sub-option. Besides time savings, producers could benefit from increased transparency of the registration process. No detailed analysis could be carried out at producer level due to lack of quantified data.

Different degrees of potential involvement of an agency for improving the efficiency of the administrative process for the registration and amendment of GIs, including scrutiny procedures at Member States’ and EU level, were also analysed in the context of this report. The analysis put forward a number of options for the GI registration / amendment procedures, with a focus on identifying benefits and improvement vectors, such as efficiency gains and length reduction, burden reduction, improvement of the quality of the GI file assessment, transparency of the scrutiny process, and consistency of the observations. All different ‘agency’ scenarios are explained in detail in Annex 11, and a comparative summary is shown below.

Faster treatment of applications and better monitoring thereof will also be achieved by making the use of the IT-tool eAmbrosia obligatory for all GI products (this is currently not the case for agricultural products and foodstuffs). Further development of the interface portal GIview, in collaboration with EUIPO, provides for better and easier access to GI information. Due to its transparency, the database is an important simplification for producers and authorities in the enforcement of GI rights.

The harmonisation of the Union-level procedures, with the same simplified set of rules for the registration, amendment, cancellation and opposition procedures of all GIs should considerably reduce the complexity of the current system. Streamlined procedures will result in faster processing of the applications and leave room for resource savings both for producers and public authorities. This will be reinforced by guidance and information activities that will help producers and national authorities to draft applications of a higher quality, further shortening registration times.

The actions proposed under the policy option ‘Better define and reinforce’ address these issues.

The SWD on the policy evaluation and information gathered through Member States and stakeholder consultations have identified the efficiency of the administrative process for the registration and amendments of GIs as an area for improvement. The length, complexity and cost of the filing, scrutiny and registration procedures are the main problems considered, both at national and European level, not only from an internal administrative perspective, but also from the perspective of the communication and interaction with producer groups and other actors and stakeholders involved in the process or affected by it.

Finally, as regards the two sub-options for outsourcing the registration procedure to an agency, sub-option 2.1 is preferred. This sub-option involves the agency up to finalising the assessment of the application, including the opposition procedure if launched, but keeping the decision of registering the name or not with the Commission. The advantage of this sub-option is to keep the Commission responsible for taking a decision, assuring the synergies between GIs and the policy instruments of the CAP and of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), while reassuring stakeholders and Member States of the continued alignment of GIs within these policies in the legislative proposal. The efficiency gains would be higher if option 2.2 or 3 were selected. However, given the need for continued CAP and CFP input the Commission acknowledges the necessity to retain the decision-making responsibility. Detailed technical and policy considerations in the specialist areas concerned could also be further secured by having a group of experts advising notably on outstanding agricultural / fisheries issues in the GI applications. An important reason to retain agricultural GIs as part of the CAP instruments that has been mentioned is that GIs are an important driver of the rural economy, and production and marketing of the main CMO products are governed by the CAP.

In case Member States authorities would be prevented from running the national procedure of the registration process, the risk of registering geographical indications not meeting the requirements would increase.

By contrast, the stepwise, voluntary approaches pursued under option 2 would be smoother and could achieve earlier progress, hence being more effective and efficient than option 3.

Whilst the option “Harmonise and upgrade” also scores high, one main disadvantage is that it would systematically increase producers’ costs related to compulsory sustainability requirements. Producers might systematically transfer higher costs in the final price of the products affecting their affordability and consumers’ willingness to pay. Moreover, introducing specific standards for GIs ahead of the definition of the EU framework for sustainable food systems is premature. It would require at least two waves of mandatory adjustments, first specific ones due changes in GI legislation, then possible further changes stemming from the horizontal framework. While the latter will be proposed in 2023, its enforcement will require time, considering co-decision and other steps for implementation. Imposing new EU requirements would also raise issues with non-EU countries and compliance with international obligations (under WTO/TRIPS Agreement), while time is needed to promote the global transition (e.g. external part of the Farm to Fork Strategy and the Trade Policy Review).

This option scores the highest as regards the comparison of costs and benefits for GI producers. While producers will benefit from a faster and better protection, the costs, notably related to the length of the registration procedure and resources needed, will decrease. This could offset costs related to the labelling, under the assumption that higher flexibility of the rules on the EU symbol would be an incentive for wine and spirit drinks’ producers to start using it. Voluntary inclusion by the GI producer group of sustainability criteria in the product specification would entail additional compliance and certification costs that could be partly offset by support measures in the framework of rural development policy and could meet consumers’ expectations for products with a higher ambition in sustainability aspects. Traditional foods will continue to benefit from the TSG scheme, having seen high interest by stakeholders to keep it. Besides, Member States indicated that producers have expressed interest in using the scheme, if its scope and eligibility criteria would be clarified.

Considering all the options above, it seems that option 2 “Better define and reinforce” has the most merits.

The three cross-cutting activities, i.e. communicating about GIs, providing guidelines and digitalisation will be implemented, regardless of the selected policy option.

Each policy option contains a mix of actions that address all of the specific objectives with varying degrees of ambition. The mixing of the different actions under the different options has been designed following the outcome of the consultations with stakeholders and Member States’ authorities.

The proportionality of the options was estimated based on the perception of stakeholders on the proposed reform action. For instance, the proposal of several interventions were perceived by stakeholders as too strict and therefore not proportionate as regards the impacts to be achieved (e.g. investment costs for sustainability). In this respect, the proposed reform actions, which seemed as not proportionate received “+”, while more balanced options received “++”. Implementation risks were estimated linked to the proportionality and taking into account the possible bottlenecks in implementation, also based on the stakeholders’ feedback and internal analysis.

Moreover, the Impact matrix resulting from the ranking of options confirms that Option 2 score the best on effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, proportionality and risks:

The result of the aggregate scoring of objectives for effectiveness and efficiency translated to a summary table shows that amongst the options retained, option PO-2 “Better define and reinforce” and option PO-3 “Harmonise and upgrade” show the highest objectives achievement and cost efficiency:

In addition, the magnitude of impact of the selected criteria is reflected in the respective scoring attributed to each option (0/+1/+2/+3). This scoring is based on the analysis integrating internal qualitative assessments and expert opinion, public consultation (Section 3.2 Objectives), taking into account the expertise and the analysis of direct and indirect impacts of the options, the advantage and drawback elements of the various options as well as the elements of the assessment of estimated costs and benefits.

The estimated weighting of the selected criteria (specific objectives) was established based on the stakeholders’ opinion on expected impacts and costs/ administrative burden, identified in the public consultation on a number of focus areas (Factual summary of the public consultations replies, Section 3.4). As for effectiveness, the share of replies marked as expected impacts to be “positive” and “very positive” were analysed, while for efficiency, the share of replies marked as “negative” and “very negative” regarding the impacts expected for costs/ administrative burden were accounted.

The analysis of the potential impacts of the different policy options for the future GI policy has been based on the methodology proposed in the Better Regulation Guidelines applying to impact assessment of the Commission up to 2020 . As a first step, specific objectives were assessed in relation to the four different policy options, followed by a primarily qualitative analysis in order to identify the most important impacts of the various options.

-Obligatory use of logo not necessarily supported by all sectors as not seen by all as value added

-If Member States excluded from the registration procedure, loss of expertise and closeness to applicants in the registration procedure

-Unknowns pending the proposal and decision on the forthcoming EU framework for sustainable food systems

-Additional investment and compliance costs for producers who have to comply with sustainability requirements

-A single basic act not necessarily supported by all sectors as they fear loss of specificities per sector

-Increased regulatory burden on EU and Member States to adapt to a single GI Regulation and removal of control provisions from the scope of OCR

+All GI products clearly identified in the market place following obligatory use of uniform EU logo

+Strengthened position of SMEs in the value chain thanks to better management of GI assets

+Reduced administrative burden for national authorities due to one single basic act for all GIs

-Uncertain magnitude of improvements with regard to different sustainability dimensions, including public health, dependant on the undertakings of producers groups

-Obligatory use of logo not necessarily supported in every sector due to increased regulatory burden on producers

+Enhanced contribution to a balanced territorial development and to the social fabric of rural areas due to a higher uptake of GIs and more intensive value chain involvement

+Increased efficiency of procedures due to the involvement of an existing agency (MS level scrutiny maintained)

-Limited contribution to balanced territorial development and to the social fabric of rural areas

-Improvements with regard to different sustainability dimensions are not ensured

+Slight increase in the use of GI labelling by the wine and spirit drinks sector thanks to flexible approach on the EU logo

+Thanks to aligning procedures across the sectors, reduced administrative burden for national authorities, however to a limited extent

Likely advantages and drawbacks of options retained for impact analysis are listed below:

A full digitalisation of the processes has been welcomed by the respondents to the OPC, It would have a positive or very positive impact on securing swift protection of GI producer’s right and on the transparency of the registration process, for 76% and 77% respectively. Business associations and companies/business organisations, and public authorities support a full digitalisation of the GI registration process.

Main aim of GIview is to enhance transparency, the public availability of information and to improve the enforcement of IPR. It is able to display pictures of the GI product, interactive maps, product details, hyperlinks to producer groups' websites, as well as easily updatable contact details of control authorities/bodies and producer groups. It will also give GI representatives an access to the Union’s Intellectual Property Enforcement Portal (IPEP), ensuring among others the possibility to file a customs application for action (AFA) and direct contact with anti-fraud authorities, customs and police.

Member States have expressed the need for improvements in the functionalities and user experience of eAmbrosia. Where these are legitimate impediments to efficiency, the improvement targets should be set out in legislation (probably secondary, but a base and principles will be needed in the basic act) to ensure resources are allocated in time and adequately.

eAmbrosia serves a double purpose. While its ‘public’ module includes the EU register of geographical indications, the tool is also used by Member States to submit applications for registration or amendments of the product specifications to the Commission, and to exchange between both public authorities on these applications. Extension of the obligatory use of this IT tool to all agricultural products and foodstuffs will result in faster treatment of applications and better monitoring thereof.

To make GIs fit for digital age, the Commission has been developing over the last years two digital applications: eAmbrosia and GIview, the latter in collaboration with EUIPO.

Guidelines should lead to better quality applications, which in consequence will shorten the time needed for scrutiny at national level. The registration process should be smoother, with less time-consuming correspondence with the applicant, thereby achieving cost savings.

Written explanations of the registration process and advice on drafting the application would allow producers to check if their product qualifies as a GI and help them and Member States’ authorities with the preparation of GI applications. A toolkit with videos, webinar recordings and stories about GIs should assist producer groups in their decision to apply or not for a registration. Extensive guidelines, available in all EU languages, should facilitate the drafting of the applications and encourage applicants also in non-EU countries to apply for the scheme, especially in cases where applicants may forward their application directly without interference of non-EU Country’s authorities.

In the framework of its external communication policy, the Commission has developed a comprehensive set of activities to inform the general public and interested stakeholders about the system of geographical indications. Nevertheless, the message and meaning of GI/TSG schemes do not seem to reach average consumers (see section 2.1.4). By stepping up efforts in relation to information and communication activities, citizens, consumers and producers will acquire better understanding of the concept and benefits of geographical indications. As for consumers, this could convince them to purchase such products, while better-informed producers could be persuaded to apply for a registration of a product name.

While supporting the orientation towards more sustainable production, Member States in particular have advised against such mandatory approach and in favour of a voluntary one. Half of the respondents to the public consultation considered that GI producers should not be required to respect higher sustainability standards than any other producer (while one-fourth of them supported such approach). They have pointed to sustainability commitments being a process over time and not a one-off action. In addition, the Farm to Fork Strategy announced for 2023 a proposal on sustainability of the food system in a holistic framework, covering general/horizontal sustainability principles/criteria. Pending such framework, anticipating requirements is challenging for GI businesses and policy-making.

Protecting animal welfare: Higher standards of protection of health and wellbeing of animals by GI producers will increase animal welfare and ensure respect of animals in all stages of GI production. This could in turn increase consumers’ interest in GIs as animal-friends products.

Quality of natural resources: Similar as above, obligation to respect higher environmental standards could have positive effect on preservation of water, soil and air quality.

Climate: Thanks to obligation to respect higher environmental standards, positive effects on climate protection could be expected.

Biodiversity, including flora, fauna, ecosystems and services they provide, and landscapes: Sustainability criteria laid down in the legislation will require producer groups to include the sustainability requirements in the product specification. In comparison to the previous option, similar types of impacts on biodiversity can be expected, possibly to a greater extent due to mandatory elements. However, the mandatory nature of the sustainability criteria might at the same time disincentive the GI producers to the point of abandoning the GI certification or not applying for GI protection.

Public health: Once sustainability criteria as regards healthy, sustainable diets are defined EU wide, the contribution of GIs could be specified in clearer way, enabling positive impacts of GIs on health.

Preserving the tradition and cultural heritage: Impacts are assessed to be similar as those described for Option 2 except for protection of traditional product names. By protecting them as geographical indications or appropriate trade marks, they will get higher recognition as intellectual property rights, compared to the TSG status. This should increase the interest of producers in searching for the protection of such traditional products to the benefit of Europe’s culinary traditions and gastronomic heritage.

Employment: Impacts are assessed to be similar as those described for Option 2.

Functioning of the internal market and competition: Unified and harmonised enforcement and control rules for Member States on the control of GIs in the market place and at production level, will create transparency and clarity to the benefit of GI producers. A consolidated set of rules will allow stakeholders’ and authorities’ better understanding and more efficient and effective implementation by the latter, thus contributing to a higher level of GI protection. Improved detection of unlawful practices, accompanied by proportionate and dissuasive sanctions imposed by national authorities should lead to a decrease in the infringement level, assessed in the EUIPO study of 2016 at 9 % of the total EU GI product market. Guidelines on the functioning of GI producer groups will foster the implementation of a shared strategy between the different of stakeholders.

Non-EU countries and international relations: Shorter registration procedure and reinforced protection will have positive effects on non-EU applicants in a similar way as for EU applicants. This will directly address criticisms of inconsistency and delays from representatives of non-EU applicants revealed in the consultation process. Introducing mandatory sustainability criteria for GIs might not be compatible with international commitments of the EU, in particular Article 22 of the TRIPS Agreement which includes a definition of a Geographical Indication (GI), applicable in all territories of members to the Agreement: “indications which identify a good as originating in the territory of a Member, or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographical origin”. This definition does not include any sustainability requirements nor any requirement that conditions beyond legal minima could be the criteria for GI registration. A mandatory inclusion of sustainability criteria in the product specification might be a feasible option for EU producers but it would risk raising complaints from the EU producers being discriminated against foreign GI applicants as those of Non-EU countries in directly competitive sectors. However, some sustainability standards are agreed at United Nations level and these could be used to mark a baseline for GI applications. For example, one area where social sustainability standards could be justifiably imposed as a condition of a GI specification of GIs from both EU and from 3rd countries, is labour standards and notably for products where unpaid labour and other labour conditions in breach of International Labour Organisation standards is shown to be prevalent. In this case an internationally agreed (social) sustainability standard.

Property rights/fundamental rights: The impacts can be considered similar as those under option 2. Streamlined control procedures will lead to more effective enforcement and time saved by the improved management of GI applications is expected to lead to faster recognition of the IPR. As regards the need to respect international commitments of the EU, in particular Article 22 of the TRIPS Agreement, please see the description below on non-EU countries and international relations.

Consumers and households: The obligatory display of the GI logos on each GI product will allow consumers to better distinguish between the different products on offer and select those that are authentic, certified and with a known origin. Indeed, a large majority of the citizen respondents of the OPC believe that reinforced information actions and compulsory use of EU logos could (very) positively impact the consumer awareness of the schemes. The Eurobarometer survey has shown that with the introduction of the obligatory logo on food products in 2012, the knowledge of EU logos amongst citizens has increased on average from 14% to 20%. However, with compulsory sustainability standards, price increases might be more extended than in option 2, sharpening issues of affordability and willingness to pay.

Operation/conduct of SMEs: Thanks to specific guidelines on the functioning of the GI producer groups, SMEs will be assisted in strengthening their position in the GI value chains and allowing for better management of their GI assets. This will complement impacts on ‘operation and conduct of SMEs’ described under the previous option, taking into account that specific guidelines provided under this option will complement actions of the previous option.

Regulatory burden on businesses: The mandatory introduction of sustainability criteria in the product specifications will increase certification costs for GI producers. Case studies of selected GI products show that currently, the average share of additional costs, including control and certification related to GI/TSG varies between 0.57% to 36.5% of the sales value for producers and between 0.94% to 7.03% for processors. Increased certification costs are often transferred to consumers through price increases, which could result in a decreased demand for the GI products. The harmonised GI specific legislation and parallel removal of GIs from the scope of OCR would increase regulatory burden on administration due to the implementation of new legislation and adaptation to new rules - both at EU and Member State levels, with a potential spill-over effect on producers to comply with the new set of rules. Outsourcing of the entire registration process to an agency, in combination with IT improvements, should shorten registration time by a maximum of 48-60 months, depending on the sub-option implemented (see Annex 11). However, full outsourcing faces several limitations. The established relations between the Member States and the Commission would cease. In case Member States are only consulted or would even not be involved, loss of closeness and expertise of national and regional authorities poses a risk, knowing that these authorities have the best knowledge of the situation on the ground. They also provide assistance and advice to GI producer groups, notably in the preparation of applications. In addition, finding the expertise in all regions of Member States would be costly for the agency. As for the choice of an agency, the most logical one would be EUIPO, see explained provided under impacts for option 2.

Overall, inclusion of sustainability requirements in the product specification might be considered too restrictive and can have a dissuasive effect, taking into account that such commitments would have to be certified as part of the product specification, which entails additional costs to those already incurred (see above regulatory burden on businesses).

Protecting animal welfare: Concrete commitments from GI producers to engage into more animal welfare friendly production will ensure a higher level of animal welfare in comparison to option 1.

Quality of natural resources: Impacts are expected to be similar as in option 1; and their amplification could be expected depending on how many GI producers decide to respect higher environmental standards. As some GI production may also have mitigation effects against the rise of temperatures by preserving soils, reducing fires risks and desertification threats, producers’ engagement into environmentally sustainable GI production should increase these positive impacts.

Climate: Thanks to those GI producers who will apply production methods contributing to minimising negative climate impacts, the negative impact on climate could be smaller. GI producers will be encouraged to adapt their production to reduce climate externalities and to mitigate climate change. Legislative measures can facilitate adoption of new techniques specifically to encourage take up of climate compatible production. As with other sustainability impacts, GI farmers and producers will be covered by the important Farm to Fork initiatives in train and, for now, the voluntary/facilitation approach at this point is the best course, for GI producers to achieve impacts in the short term.

Biodiversity, including flora, fauna, ecosystems and services they provide, and landscapes: maintaining and increasing production patterns respecting high sustainability standards will positively contribute to the preservation of habitats and biodiversity, natural flora and fauna, thus maintaining local plant varieties plant biodiversity, and animal breeds adapted to their environment or reviving local ecotype varieties. The option to register the names of traditional plant varieties (the planting material) and local animal breeds (rather than just the meat or milk product) will provide a simple and effective tool to help preserve these valuable biological assets for which formal designation as a protected variety/breed is too complex or costly. This will mostly be of interest to local producers of varieties/breeds that are neither recognised nor exploited outside their area of production. Existing safeguards for other users of breed and variety names would be unchanged, to allow continued use of varietal and breed names that have evaded their original area of production and to prevent registration of the GI in cases where to do so would cause consumer confusion. 86% of the OPC results indicate that sustainable practices are expected to have a positive to very positive impact on the preservation of biodiversity, habitats, landscapes, local plant varieties and breeds. Business associations believe that additional sustainability measures would have a negative impact on the costs for GI producers. For companies/business organisations overall, the impact would be negative to neutral. However, farmers’ decisions are influenced by a combination of financial factors, policy design and degree of fit with existing land management practices, environmental awareness and market developments.

Public health: Providing products that better contribute to healthy and sustainable diets and aligned with national dietary advice, e.g. by introducing decreased levels of sugars, salt and fat into the product specifications, is likely to offer consumers a wider range of sustainable products. GIs have the potential to become an important part of healthy, balanced diets. As evidence suggests that information-heavy approaches are less effective with households having low income, product reformulation, particularly when combined with a simplified front-of-pack nutrition labelling (both considered in the Farm to Fork Strategy), could have positive impacts on a broader range of consumers to make healthier food choices .

Preserving the tradition and cultural heritage: Preservation of traditional production methods, know-how and skills will contribute to social cohesion and the maintenance of the social fabric in rural and often remote areas. Obligatory use of a logo, together with increased powers for producer groups will increase attractiveness of GIs for both producers and consumers, and thus safeguard the cultural heritage. This is confirmed by citizen respondents to the OPC, of which almost three-fourths believe that mandatory use of EU logos would have a positive to very positive impact on the guarantee for product authenticity. Thanks to a clarified TSG scheme, safeguarding traditional recipes and production methods, producers of traditional foods will have increased incentives to register a TSG, which will additionally contribute to preserving tradition and cultural heritage.

Employment: Because of their intrinsic link with the human factors in the place of production (skills and traditions), GIs are a key vehicle for delivering rural growth. GIs have the effect to fix social factors, like rural employment and traditional production methods to the designated area: production cannot be delocalised without losing use of the GI name. GIs have well-known spill over effects extending into tourism, downstream processing as well as cultural events. The actions proposed under this option will empower GI producers to maintain and possibly extend their production in rural areas, notably via improved GI protection and a stronger role of GI producer groups in managing their collective asset.

Economic and social cohesion (specific regions and sectors): Actions under this option should result in an increased number of registered GIs compared to option 1. Analysis by JRC in its Technical Report “Causal estimates of Geographical Indications' effects on territorial development: feasibility and application”, suggests that an increase in the number of registered products’ names has a positive effect on the economic performance of the agricultural sector, when performance is measured by Gross Value Added, the total number of enterprises or the number of persons employed in the agricultural sector. This positive effect is mainly driven by the number of registered food products, rather than wines and spirit drinks, and it is stronger for rural areas compared to urban and intermediate municipalities. This indicates the positive contribution of the GIs policy for a balanced territorial development.

Non-EU countries and international relations: Shorter registration procedure and reinforced protection will have positive effects on non-EU applicants in a similar way as for EU applicants. This will directly address criticisms of inconsistency and delays from representatives of non-EU applicants revealed in the consultation process.

Property rights/Fundamental rights: In comparison to option 1, the protection of GIs would be further enhanced thanks to legal clarifications, such as legislating the relation with plant variety rights, harmonising and correcting legal terms, aligning GI Regulation rules and trade mark Regulation rules, and granting the exclusive right to representative right holders to register names protected by registered GIs as appropriate form of trade mark (in order to establish prior rights in global DNS management systems). This will in turn secure the added value for the producers. An even swifter registration process is expected as the result of the involvement of an existing agency in handling the applications.

Consumers and households: Flexible use of possibilities on how to inform on the label that a product is a geographical indication will allow GI producers to label the product in the way they consider most appealing and effective in reaching consumers, according to their marketing strategies. Stimulating producers to adhere to jointly defined voluntary commitments should also positively impact consumer perception of GIs as well as better meet societal demand and consumer expectations. According to the results of the public consultation, sustainability is deemed to have a positive or very positive effect on increasing consumer awareness of the schemes, for almost three-fourths of respondents. However, increases in costs could translate into higher prices for consumers.

Public authorities: As the guidance and harmonised rules and procedures will provide more clarity and the GIview database more transparency, enforcement authorities and courts will find them easier to apply, resulting in a more efficient and effective respect of producer’s rights and an overall increase of consumer protection. The use of GIview, with its complementary functions, notably IPEP, will make GIs fully fit for digital age.

Functioning of the internal market and competition: Thanks to harmonised administrative enforcement measures currently laid down in sector-specific legislations for GIs, and clarified relationship with the Official Control Regulation, geographical indications will be enforced to the same standard across all Member States. This will on one side increase effectiveness of IP protection and on the other hand ensure a level playing field for all operators in the internal market.

Operation/conduct of SMEs: The recognition of the importance of the collective organisation of GI producer groups across all sectors will strengthen their position in marketing and managing their GI asset. Producers will also be able to set rules for packaging and the use of their GIs as ingredients, thus indirectly increasing the possibility to secure higher incomes due to a decreased risk of fraud. Improved labelling and consumer information will boost knowledge of the scheme and increase the sales, thus supporting GI production. This is reflected in the public consultation results, in which more than two-thirds of respondents expect that reinforced responsibilities for producer groups will have a positive or very positive impact on the competitiveness of SMEs.

For registration, while the national procedure undertaken by Member States’ authorities is maintained, it is estimated that the involvement of an agency in the registration procedure could shorten the time for registration by up to 36 months - national and EU level combined (see Annex 11). Moreover, businesses and Member States will benefit from advanced IT-technology, transparency of the registration process and greater client orientation which would, over a 3-year implementation period, increase quality of applications and consistency of registrations. Outsourcing would be done to an existing agency. The most logical choice would be EUIPO, responsible for managing Union trade mark and the registered Community design. EUIPO has been collaborating closely with the Commission services on trade mark and GI issues for several years.

Regulatory burden on businesses: Producers will be offered more labelling options, depending on the type of the product and in accordance with their information and marketing strategy, while not undermining the objective to inform consumers about the nature of the product. Should they decide for labelling with the EU logo, labelling costs would increase. The integration of more sustainable practices in production and processing methods will entail additional investments and compliance costs for producers. Results of the public consultation show that almost half of the respondent stakeholders consider that higher sustainability standards might increase costs for GI producers. It is expected that such costs could be partly offset by gains on a medium to longer term following increased consumers’ demand and their willingness to pay for embedded environmental/sustainable characteristics of the products, triggered also by improved product information and knowledge of the GI schemes. Inclusion of voluntary commitments in the product specification would be a step further towards a future general framework for sustainability of food systems. The voluntary approach would also help ensure producers increased costs and investments are undertaken in line with consumer behaviour and especially a willingness to pay for sustainability attributes.

Overall, a higher demand for GI products can be expected due to a higher demand from notably environmentally conscious consumers, which should in turn be beneficial for the environment. Higher visibility of the positive aspects of GI production will also throw the spotlight on the production systems used in those GIs where improvements are possible and thereby encourage such improvements.

Protecting animal welfare: Animal welfare will increase thanks to guidelines explaining animal welfare friendly production methods, to better protect their health and wellbeing.

Quality of natural resources: The state of water, air and soil could improve through responsible management, and production of GIs can also contribute to this objective. Thanks to guidelines for GI producers providing advice on how to minimise impact on water, air and soil, quality of natural resources could improve to a limited extent.

Climate: Despite not having much evidence on impacts of the production of GI products on climate, it was estimated that grazed pastures at the origin of many PDO/PGI cheeses provide a net storage of 500 kg carbon/ha/year . Positive external ecological effects originating from meadows such as carbon storage could be achieved thanks to guidelines advising and encouraging producers to apply climate protection production techniques.

Biodiversity, including flora, fauna, ecosystems and services they provide, and landscapes: Positive contribution to biodiversity preservation could be expected in case of those GIs where more environmentally friendly production methods and techniques will be used as a result of consumer/citizen pressure, guidelines and good practices, with legislative facilitation where needed. This would encourage for example the use of autochthonous animal breeds and plant varieties adapted to the environmental conditions (protection of biodiversity) or animal grazing and planting on terraces (landscape protection).

Public health: Incorporated health aspects in GI production because of guidelines containing best practice on sustainable GI production, advice on training and networking could enable consumers to choose products that support healthy, sustainable diets and thus contribute to improved public health. The impact would vary significantly in relation to the degree and ambition of the voluntary integration of relevant aspects.

Preserving the cultural heritage: Culinary traditions making part of the EU gastronomic and cultural heritage, GIs and TSGs help keeping alive traditional production techniques and through their reputation ensure a diversity of authentic foods for new generations. Actions taken under this option, aimed at increased uptake of GIs/TSGs, will help the future preservation of Europe’s cultural heritage.

Employment: Taking into account that GI products enter as inputs into other economic sectors like processing, tourism and cultural events, smoothing the GI application process is expected to slightly increase the number of registrations of new GIs and allow for the creation of new jobs and preservation of existing jobs in such sectors. This could contribute to the revitalisation of certain rural areas able to find a development strategy created around GI production.

Public authorities: Guidelines and harmonised procedural rules for registration of GIs will allow public administrations to process applications somewhat faster and address oppositions at national level more effectively, both to the benefit of the public purse and all operators. The change from an EU to a national system of protection of traditional food names would in the first place cause administrative costs; however, in the end there will be less administrative burden as the EU level procedures would no longer apply.

Property rights/Fundamental rights: The Union is obliged under the Charter of Fundamental Rights (Article 17(2)) to protect intellectual property. The soft law measures foreseen in this option will create better conditions for the protection of GIs and decrease the risk of usurpation, imitation and evocation of GI names, thus contributing to securing producers’ incomes. A more harmonised approach to procedural rules should result in a slightly more efficient registration process, with shorter registration times, thus respecting the Commission’s obligation to handle GI applications impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time.

Consumers and households: Guidelines, training and networking aimed at increasing sustainability aspects of GI production is expected to provide consumers with a better offer of sustainable products and would help raise their awareness of the schemes.

Functioning of the internal market and competition: Specific guidelines for operators and for administrations on enforcement of GI rights, including promoting best practices, will contribute to an increased enforcement of IP rights, reduce profiting from bad faith use of product designations, and ensure a better level playing field across the internal market. Deploying cooperation networks and improved use of communication tools between national authorities, and between GI right holders and national authorities, will contribute to faster and more efficient actions in case of infringements.

Non-EU countries and international relations: Shorter registration procedure and reinforced protection will have a positive effect on non-EU applicants in a similar way as for EU applicants. Non-EU country operators would no longer be able to protect traditional food names in the EU due to the abolishment of the Traditional Specialities Guaranteed scheme at EU level.

Operation/conduct of SMEs: The shortening of the registration procedure is expected to create some savings, freeing time and resources for developing and implementing marketing strategies. This, accompanied by the toolkit/guidelines, should result in a better costs/benefit ratio for GI producers.

Regulatory burden on businesses: Actions proposed under this option such as guidance, information activities and harmonised procedural rules will lead to better quality applications, thereby shortening registration times to some extent and securing swifter IPR protection to the benefit of GI producers. Reduced administrative burden may increase incentives for GI businesses to participate in the scheme. These benefits are not only related to the registration process but will also extend to major amendments of the product specification. Traditional products would no longer undergo EU level procedure, which would moderately decrease regulatory burden on businesses.

Annex 3 summarises who is affected and how, as well as the main costs and benefits. SMEs are key stakeholders: Around 90% of GIs reach a sales value below EUR 50 million and 96% of EU food and beverages enterprises are small, employing less than 50 people. In addition, farms can also considered as SMEs. For the purpose of this impact assessment, Annex 3 considers GI producers, gathering farmers and processors.

Analysis of the different policy options for the future GI policy has been based on the methodology proposed in the Better Regulation Guidelines for impact assessment of the Commission, and is described in detail in Annex 4. Advantages and drawbacks of each option are summarised in section 7. Annex 11 contains an analysis of possible time savings and burden reduction following the involvement of an existing agency in the registration process.

F.3 - Protect traditional food names as trade marks and those that comply with PDO/PGI definition as geographical indications

F.1 - Official recognition of TSGs by Member State authorities based on EU guidelines that clarify certain terms and criteria, and set up an EU database

E.3.2 – Full outsourcing of EU level registration process to an existing agency, with possibility of appeal to an appellate body. Different degrees of Member States’ involvement envisaged

E.2.2 – Partial outsourcing of the registration process to an existing agency; Member States’ procedure is maintained while EU-level scrutiny of applications and oppositions is outsourced to an agency

E.1 - Toolkit for producers and national authorities on rules and procedures, and quick fixes to harmonise EU level procedures

D.3 - Fixed use of the design of the EU symbol; its obligatory use on the label for all GIs

D.2 - Flexible use of the design of the EU symbol; the latter may be replaced by acronym or term

D.1 - Flexible use of the design of the EU symbol; its obligatory use on the label for all GIs

C.3 - Assist development of GI producer groups and GI value chains at national or regional level by providing specific guidelines

C.1 - Empower GI producer groups under Member State’s administrative law to manage GIs and encourage them to highlight the advantages of GIs

B.3 - Sustainability criteria are laid down in the legislation and GI producer groups include them in the product specification

B.0 - Baseline scenario - GI producers comply with the rules laid down in sectoral and horizontal legislation in force

A.2 - Align control rules in sector-specific GI legislation, and re-enforce rules on internet sales, prior rights and relation to trade marks

A.0 - Baseline scenario - status quo with the improved control provisions proposed by the Commission in 2018, notably as regards protection against counterfeiting products sold via internet and those transiting the EU territory

TSG scheme would be abandoned. Those traditional food names that are able to meet the criteria for a PDO or a PGI could be registered as such while other traditional names could be registered as a trade mark.

This option foresees to fully outsource the registration process to an existing agency, and provides the possibility of an appeal to an appellate body. It allows for various degrees of involvement of Member States: initial national level assessment as under current rules, consultation of Member States or no involvement of Member States.

In addition to the actions provided under the previous policy option, specific guidelines on the functioning of the GI producer groups will strengthen their position in the GI value chains and allow for better management of their GI assets.

Sustainability criteria for GI production would be defined in EU legislation and enforced via their integration in the product specification, making them subject to official controls.

Full harmonisation will be ensured through the creation of a single Regulation containing unified enforcement and control rules. Similarly, provisions related to protection and procedural rules will be streamlined into one single basic act. Use of the prescribed logos is obligatory across all sectors in a format prescribed by legislation. However, harmonisation will not affect GI definitions and will maintain the specificities of particular sectors.

As regards the TSGs, the scheme would be kept while its main elements clarified, notably the scope and the criteria for registration.

·Sub-option 2 – Assessment and decision on registration or rejection by an agency; open right of appeal to the Commission; and management of eRegister with an agency .

·Sub-option 1 - Assessment and publication for opposition by an agency; decision on registration or rejection with the Commission ;

As part of option 2, EU management structures for assessing GIs are to be reinforced via involvement of an existing agency in the registration procedure. While the national level assessment would remain with Member States, the EU-level scrutiny of applications and oppositions would be outsourced to an agency. Two alternatives are considered (on top of built-in IT improvements):

Legislation will benefit from clarifications of the legal terminology, built-in flexibilities regarding the production process and the creation of a single set of simplified procedural rules.

It also defines the role GI producer groups can play, on a voluntary basis, in contributing to addressing the societal concerns on sustainability through inclusion of sustainability criteria in product specifications, and in strengthening the management and enforcement of their GI assets. Differentiated approach should be pursued for GI products compared to other products due to citizens’ expectations that products under quality schemes should pursue the sustainability objective, which is shared by the majority of producers. The specific roles of GI producer groups, recognised by Member States’ authorities, would be extended to all sectors. The use of the logo on the product label is not obligatory and producers can decide on its size and place on the label.

This option reinforces the protection of GIs and improves the level playing field amongst operators through a single set of control procedures for all sectors and the development of detailed rules on the respect of GIs in relation to internet sales.

The TSG scheme is replaced by an official recognition of traditional agricultural products and foodstuffs by Member States’ authorities with a limited list of criteria to be set at EU level while Member States would notify the names of traditional products to the Commission in order to be made public.

Procedures will be improved by aligning them across the sectors. A more flexible approach towards the EU logos is targeting their increased use by producers.

This policy option aims at improving the instruments already in place and providing further support to producers, Member States’ authorities and other stakeholders. Main focus is on guidance (e.g. linked to enforcement, the assessment of files and legal interpretation/clarification), re-enforced co-operation among Member States and capacity building activities, including on sustainability issues.

Since TSG producers are often SMEs, a lighter scheme of optional quality terms (OQT), already defined in Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, could be used instead of the TSG scheme. Under the OQT scheme, a new term would be established for “traditional products”, as it is the case for the term “mountain product”. As the OQT scheme cannot provide protection similar to the one for TSGs, and existing registered TSGs and traditional products under OQT scheme would co-exist under this option, operators could face unequal treatment and consumer confusion could increase. Moreover, stakeholders advised against this approach. A minority of respondents in the public consultation strongly supported this approach and another minority of respondents tended to agree, while Member States also warned against a decreased protection and difficult co-existence of the old and new system.

Over the past years, the Commission has registered PDO and PGI Union symbols as trade marks in over 20 non-EU countries – major trading partners of the EU with considerable share of EU GI exports. While PDO and PGI are part of the same scheme and many consumers fail to understand the difference between them, certain producers are particularly attached to the distinct logo. Having two logos, different in colour but similar in design, helps to distinguish the PDO definition that comprises a stronger link to the terroir. According to the public consultation , replacing current Union PDO and PGI logos by a single one is the least preferred option by citizens to raise consumers’ awareness on the Union logos. Consumers and consumer organisations are somewhat more divided, with a quarter of the consumers considering one single logo to be ‘most relevant’, one third not relevant, and one third expressing a neutral opinion.

One EU symbol for all PDO/PGI/GI products instead of the two currently in place

This option was identified at an early stage, knowing that almost 60% of GIs are sold in the Member State of production. In case of GIs not marketed outside the Member State of production, protection only at national level would be allowed. The protected national names would benefit from an IPR protection in parallel to the Union system (without any link with the application to the EU register), that would only apply to the national market. Despite the fact that this option offers very high margins of subsidiary, it would lead to unequal treatment of GIs in the internal market and undermine the current unitary right and uniform standards uniform standard of GI examination and protection. It would also create complexities at international level as any non-EU GI would need to apply to selected MS and national protection would have to be granted. Loss of Union exclusive competence would also put up barriers to the single market in case the ‘national’ product was traded and would have to be relabelled. Finally, the proposal for national traditional schemes to replace the TSG scheme would cover this ground and provide a mechanism for promotion of traditional product both nationally and across the EU, that is compatible with the single market context.

Digital progress has been made over the last years, with the roll-out of GIview end of 2020 and the creation of one single GI register. However, further development is needed to make GIs ‘fit for the digital age’. The obligation to use eAmbrosia for submission of applications (by Member States) to the EU level will be extended to all sectors (currently only for wine and spirit drinks).

In case the TSG scheme continues as a self-standing scheme, as producers of traditional foods lack knowledge about how to apply for TSG protection, this action envisages specific TSG guidelines. They will cover information about how to prepare a product specification and an application to register a name of a traditional food, and how to ensure controls. In addition, a platform to exchange best practice amongst producers, regional and national administrations and control authorities would aim at informing and learning.

Guidelines for Member States’ authorities to assist them in the scrutiny of applications for registration or amendments.

Toolkit for producers with guidance on how to draft a product specification and a Single Document (which is a summary of the product specification). Both documents make a key part of an application to register a name. In addition, guidelines could also contain a part on how to describe amendments to an existing product specification.

Several outreach activities are envisaged with a specific focus on consumers and low- to medium- user countries, such as a web-based toolkit, organisation of seminars, informative videos, targeted communication on web and social media. These actions will be provided by the Commission services or external contractors; in the latter case they could be financed through the information policy on the CAP.

Under this action, the TSG scheme is repealed. All existing TSGs would be guaranteed protection at EU level directly as PGIs or optional quality terms by the new legislation (‘grandfathering’). Producers that have similar interests of protecting their traditional product as trade marks could apply for IPR protection under Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 on EU trade marks or at national level. A specific procedure for reclassifying existing TSGs into GIs would be implemented, should they meet the GI requirements.

Clarifications of TSG scheme, for example the notions of traditional raw materials, traditional production method and specific product, would notably make eligibility criteria more understandable. Harmonising the use of homonyms (apply Article 6(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2021 also to TSGs) and looking into the possibility to delete the obligation to show the specific character of the product. The possibility to use ‘style’/’type’/’method’ together with the designation without adhering to the scheme would be made possible. Controls would be more effective and harmonised through BTSF trainings and best-practice platform as well as through notification of producers to the competent authority.

Under this action, the TSG scheme is replaced by an official recognition of traditional agricultural products and foodstuffs by Member States’ authorities. Such TSGs complying with a minimum list of criteria set at EU level would be listed for publicity and heritage purposes by national authorities on their websites as European traditional products connected by a database or portal at EU level. Protection of the product name accompanied by “TSG” would be protected, while protection of the name alone would not follow from the listing. Existing national protection and EU mechanisms can be used to protect names (PGIs, trade marks, optional quality terms, etc.). All existing TSGs would be guaranteed protection at EU level directly by the new legislation (‘grandfathering’).

Safeguard the protection of traditional food names better valorise and preserve traditional products and production methods

Three roles can be envisaged for Member States: full scrutiny at national level; consultation of Member States by the agency; and no involvement of Member States at all.

Full outsourcing of the EU-level scrutiny of applications and oppositions to an existing decentralised agency, EUIPO, who decides to register or reject. This action opts out the Commission involvement. Appeal against the decision can be made to an appellate body; technical advice on interpretation issues and policy development can be provided by a GI scientific committee (to be created within the agency).

The harmonisation will not affect GI definitions and will maintain the specificities of the wine and spirit drinks sectors.

GI rules and procedures are harmonised into one single basic act covering both protection and administration issues, such as level of protection, application processes, procedural time limits for administration, criteria for opposition, use of GIs on the market and as identified ingredients in a processed or mixed product.

-assessment by an agency who decides on the registration or rejection – right of appeal against that decision to the Commission.

-assessment by an agency with a decision on registration or rejection to be taken by the Commission;

On top of the elements of Policy action E.2.1, the EU analysis of the applications will be partially outsourced to an existing decentralised agency, EUIPO. The national scrutiny by Member States’ authorities is kept.

Harmonisation through the creation of a single set of rules with the same simplified procedural rules for registration, amendment, cancellation and objection would apply to all GIs (all sectors). The current separate procedures for the different sectors would be deleted from the sector-specific acts.

·Empowering producer groups to register their GIs in figurative or other appropriate trade marks to defend GIs in the DNS.

·excluding products that can only be consumed in place of production (e.g. restaurants); excluding products stemming from an obligatory use of a private property right unless that right is shared with all eligible producers;

·clarify that product specificity is required (currently only implicit) for GIs in the sense of a defined product but which need not be shown to be unique which would present a too high bar to entry;

·clarifying that the link between product and place for PGIs can be process attributes, such as sustainable or traditional production methods;

·clarifying the terminology in the light of jurisprudence (e.g. aligning terms “similar” vs. “comparable” products);

·streamlining the rules in the sector-specific Regulations by introducing more flexibility regarding the production process (e.g. processing steps to take place outside the demarcated area to have part of the production take place in the ‘immediate proximity’ of the geographical area – possibility currently exists for GI wine products but not for agricultural products - or limitation of sourcing of raw materials);

·extending the protection as a GI to geographical names whether or not the name was in use for the product prior to the application;

·alignment with WTO/TRIPS undertakings in relation to agricultural GIs: extending the scope of GI protection to all agricultural products as defined in the WTO list, subject to specific limitations (e.g. goods that by their nature cannot be traded);

This action provides for updates to the existing legislation:

Guidance on how to interpret enforcement rules regarding the concepts of misuse/imitation/comparable/similar products could also be provided. This action also provides for harmonisation of procedures across the sectors.

The toolkit includes specific guidance for producers to allow preparing better quality applications, and for national authorities to assist them in the examination of the files.

E.1 - Toolkit for producers and national authorities on rules and procedures, and quick fixes to harmonise EU level procedures

Baseline scenario includes a status quo with modernised procedural rules proposed by the Commission in 2018 (see details in point 5.1).

Use of the prescribed logos is obligatory across all sectors in a format prescribed by legislation. As in the previous action, labelling with the relevant GI term or the acronym is also obligatory.

D.3 – Fixed use of the design of the EU symbols obligatory for all GIs

Labelling with the relevant GI term or the acronym or the logo is obligatory for the producers, i.e. the logo can be replaced by the GI terms (e.g. “protected designation of origin”) or the acronyms (e.g. “PDO”). Only the shape of the logo is compulsory, the size and colour can vary depending on the labelling of the product.

D.2 - Flexible use of the design of the EU symbols that may be replaced by acronym or term

The use of the logo on the product label is obligatory while operators can decide on its size. Labelling with the relevant GI term or the acronym is obligatory for the producers.

D.1 - Flexible use of the design of the EU symbols and their obligatory use

This action offers in addition guidelines to ensure proper functioning of the producer group (specifying the roles and responsibilities of each partner, ensuring optimal involvement, reinforcing partners’ representation within the group).

C.3 - Assist development of GI producer groups and GI value chains at national or regional level

This action would increase the powers of the producer groups by extension of the provision on the roles of GI producer groups to all sectors, the choice of bottling and packing rules (option without specific justification) and legal mechanisms by Member States for a legally recognised producer group, if the requisite majority of producers wish. In addition, special rules are created for producers marketing only on their own premises (e.g. control costs limited to cases of non-compliance).

This action would also allow producers to acquire information needed for communication campaign to illustrate advantages of belonging to a GI scheme and receive capacity building packages, such as training, best practices on GIs, including access to funding and cooperation benefits.

Member State would identify the ‘representative producer group’ under national administrative law, indicate it in the interface portal on GIs (GIview database) and thus allow the producer group to access the IP Enforcement Portal (IPEP) of EUIPO. In this way, the producer groups will be able to take enforcement action, for example to file an application for action (AFA) to customs, exchange confidential data with authorities of suspected breaches of GI rules and engage in collective marketing and training provision for actual and potential GI producers.

C.1 - Empower GI producer groups under Member State’s administrative law to manage GIs and encourage them to highlight the advantages of GIs

Define a list of specific criteria in the legislation that EU GI products would have to comply with to ensure higher-than-baseline sustainability. Based on the type of product, the GI producer group includes the requirements to meet the relevant criteria in the product specification.

The proposed action ensures a step-wise approach by introducing sustainability elements in the GI product specification on a voluntary basis without pre-empting a proposal for the future horizontal framework for sustainable food systems planned for 2023.

This action would encourage a GI producer group to jointly define in the product specification a higher sustainability standard than the baseline. In particular, products with less salt/sugar/fat content or using production methods with lower climate impact, described in the product specification, should be encouraged and facilitated in legislation as necessary. These voluntary provisions would be applicable to EU and non-EU registered GIs, and subject to administrative assessment and official controls by the competent authorities or delegated control bodies. Producer groups can provide information on the increased sustainability attributes of their registered GI, with a hyperlink to their own site and in the GIview database. This publicly available information, with illustrative tools (e.g. maps, QR codes, etc.) will facilitate the communication of sustainability aspects of GI product to consumers.

This action aims to adopt guidelines which could include best practice on sustainable GI production, advice on training and networking (AKIS, EIP, future Rural Observatory). BTSF-like training for national/regional administrations could complement the guidelines. In addition, a platform to exchange best practices on sustainable GI production could be created. These optional provisions would be available to EU and non-EU registered GIs, while all producers compliant with applicable legal requirements would nevertheless be entitled to GI registration in line with their rights to IPR protection under the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights and WTO/TRIPS obligations.

Under the baseline scenario, GI producers comply with the rules and good practices laid down in sectoral and horizontal legislation in force at EU or MS level.

Maintain existing provisions for representative producer groups of GIs to be able to register appropriate trade marks (where not excluded by trade mark rules and practice) to defend GIs in DNS systems world-wide.

The creation of a harmonised, GI-specific legislation for controls and enforcement into one single Regulation for all sectors, providing Member States with a unified set of rules for the control of GIs in the market place (including on internet) and at production level to prevent mis-selling and profiting from bad faith exploitation of GIs in EU territory including internet-based uses in so far as they address natural or legal persons in the EU. This would entail a removal of GIs from the scope of the Official Control Regulation (food law).

Control procedures and the development of detailed rules on the respect of GIs in relation to internet sales will be aligned in the GI specific legislation.

• Clarify the obligation on internet platforms and internet traders to respect GI production regarding goods available for purchase by Union customers.

• Advance the Unions’ approach on GIs in approval of domain names through alignment of the Member States’ practices in their ccTLDs and in different international Internet governance fora.

• Recognise GIs as prior IP titles in the management of TLDs covered by Union and MS law (notably the .eu and .ms domains), including in the private arbitration systems as applied under Union or MS law for those domains

• Encourage/support voluntary own-initiative investigations for counterfeit goods in line with the Digital Services Act’s upgraded liability regime for intermediary services. Enhance rules for online marketplaces on the identification and traceability of business users to discourage and help track down sellers of counterfeit.

Harmonise administrative enforcement measures currently laid down in sector-specific legislation for GIs (food, wines, aromatised wine products and spirit drinks) and clarify the relationship with the Official Control Regulation (OCR). Introduce a uniform certification system for GIs and a model of certificate applicable to all sectors. Clarify rules to respect GI production for internet sales:

Align Member States’ control procedures as regards producer compliance at the production level and checks in the market place to guarantee the same standard of verification among the MS and across the sectors.

A.2 – Align control rules across the sectors, and re-enforce rules on internet sales, prior rights and relation to trade marks

Guidelines on GI enforcement (also on internet), including best practices, for Member States and stakeholders. Promote cooperation networks/communication tools (e.g. Administrative Assistance and Cooperation (AAC), confidential networks between the national enforcement authorities and IP Enforcement Portal).

Status quo with improved control provisions proposed by the Commission in 2018, notably as regards protection against counterfeit products sold via internet and those transiting the EU territory (without being released for free circulation on the EU.

As the identified problems are interlinked, a set of actions has been defined for each of the above-mentioned specific objectives, which are then grouped into three policy options.

5.2.Description of actions to be included in the policy options

COVID-19 pandemic is included in the baseline. It has imposed a shock on agricultural markets, with its effects likely to reverberate throughout the coming years, although it is not clear to which extent this will affect the Union’s agricultural output over time. Because of the particular assets of GI production such as product authenticity and local character, GI producers might have an opportunity to mitigate the effects of the pandemic.

A more comprehensive description of the baseline is provided in Annex 8.

-GI supply management, currently available for GI cheeses and hams, is extended to all GI products.

-applying the GI rules for agricultural products and foodstuffs (Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012) to aromatised wine products instead of having a separate Regulation (one Regulation “out”);

-simplification and modernisation of certain registration, amendment and cancellation provisions, including alignment of certain procedures in food sector with those already existing in wine sector;

-improved level of protection of GIs on on-line sales and against products that are in transit in the EU territory but not released for sale in the internal market;

-clarification of the definition of PDO/PGI wines, and clarification that the human factor present in the geographical area of the GI needs to be described in the product specification where relevant;

The baseline therefore includes the following main changes of the co-legislators agreement on amendments to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 on the Common Market Organisation:

The baseline is a "no policy change" scenario, which includes all relevant Union-level and national policies and measures, which are assumed to remain in force. Besides this, the baseline includes also the amendments to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 on the Common Market Organisation which entered into force in December 2021.

5.1.What is the baseline from which options are assessed?

SO-6: Safeguard the protection of traditional food names to better valorise and preserve traditional products and production methods.

SO-5: Streamline and clarify the legal framework to simplify and harmonise the procedures for application for registration of new names and amendments to product specifications.

SO-4: Increase correct market perception and consumer awareness of GI schemes and logos to enable consumers to make informed purchasing choices.

SO-3: Empower producers and producer groups to better manage their GI assets and encourage the development of structures and partnerships within the food supply chain.

SO-1: Improve enforcement of GI rules to better protect IPR and better protect GIs on the internet, including against bad faith designations and uses in the domain name system (DNS), and combat counterfeiting.

Six specific objectives (SO) have been formulated to address the identified problems, all contributing to the general objectives.

While the production of quality agricultural products is a clear strength of the European agriculture, there are clear geographical imbalances when it comes to the level of registered GIs across the EU. These reflect different ‘starting points’ and experience in preserving the gastronomic and cultural heritage of different Member States. The GI revision should pay particular attention to increase take-up in those Member States where the use of GIs is under-exploited. Quality schemes reward producers for their efforts to produce a diverse range of quality products, which in turn can benefit the rural economy. This is particularly the case in less-favoured areas, in mountain and in the most remote regions, where the farming sector accounts for a significant part of the economy and where production costs are high. A reasonable objective is to increase the number of registered GIs for each lower-user Member State to the EU average on a per population basis at the date of a fixed starting point. Excluding wines, that are not relevant for the non-wine producing Member States, the average is currently 3.9 GIs per million population).

The overall objective of the GI schemes, stemming from the legislation, is to provide adequate IP protection of GIs. The initiative to review the GI schemes has been triggered by President Von der Leyen’s request to “look at ways to strengthen the system of GIs” , thus contributing to the Treaty objective “to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community”.

The proposed revision to strengthen the GIs seeks to address the following general objectives:

Increasing the uptake of GIs across the EU to benefit the rural economy.

Ensuring effective protection of IP rights in the EU, including efficient registration processes, to fairly reward producers for their efforts.

For TSGs, the promotion element of a traditional product can be done effectively at the level where it is produced – national or regional. Most TSGs are limited to certain countries or contiguous regions and the consumer may be confused to see a traditional product expressly described in the tradition of one country produced in another. The protection of TSGs under the terms of the current regulation can be justified at Union level where Union’s commerce is concerned. There are however national instruments notably trade marks at national level that can be appropriate at least for the TSG of a particular operator or organised group. At Union level, TSGs can be protected under other instruments notably the PGI which allows non-geographical names to be registered where they identify a traditional product emanating from a defined geographical area.

In line with the Official Controls Regulation, controls of all schemes are in the first place the responsibility of national competent authorities. Supervision of Member State control activities needs to be undertaken at Union level in order to maintain credibility in the food law schemes across the European Union.

The processing and analysis of an application to register a name is a task that does not need to be performed at Union level, except in so far as certain elements are concerned. These elements include assessing eligibility for the protection of names across the European Union, upholding the rights of prior users of the names (especially those outside the Member State of application), and checking applications for manifest errors. The primary detailed analysis of an application is however undertaken at national level.

The GI schemes provide for the protection or reservation of value-adding names and terms throughout the Union’s territory. If protected by Member States individually, the terms and names would enjoy different levels of protection in each Member State or might even not enjoy protection at all, which could mislead consumers, impede intra-Union trade, and make way for unequal competition in marketing products identified by quality names and terms. The determination of IPR across the European Union can only be done effectively and efficiently at Union level. Over 40% of the value of GI products are traded outside their Member State of origin and rely on the intellectual property protection given by the Union-wide scheme.

TSGs are not covered by the WTO TRIPS agreement, they are not an IPR; there is no obligation from the Charter nor internationally to provide the protection (although once provided, it must be open to operators in all WTO members). Union level action is justified to ensure the operation of the single market, including the designations under which products are marketed.

The Union has a particular responsibility to ensure protection of citizens’ IPR in their GIs, as this is mandated under Article 17(2) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Geographical indications being an exclusive Union competence, the benefit to cross-border commerce of protecting product designations throughout the single market and beyond should be maintained.

As regards the CAP, requirements and rules for the placing of agricultural products, foodstuffs, wines, aromatised wine products and spirit drinks on the internal market and ensuring the integrity of the internal market are matters essentially of Union competence.

The proposed GI initiative falls within the scope of the common agricultural policy (CAP, Article 43 TFEU ) and intellectual property rights (IPR, Article 118 TFEU).

After 28 years of operation, it is likely that without changes to the TSG scheme, it might become even less attractive to both producers and consumers. The low recognition by consumers of the scheme and logo reinforces a vicious circle with producers not being properly rewarded for their investments, nor protected against unauthorised uses of the name. Current support measures seem also inappropriate to increase consumers' awareness and producers' interest.

The discrepancies between the Regulations with varying legal terminology will remain, thus leading to divergent interpretations of the rules and scope of protection creating uncertainty and costs, as well as administrative burden for stakeholders. The CAP reform agreement included the proposed repeal of the GI rules for aromatised wine products which will be covered by the rules for agricultural products and foodstuffs instead. Upon the planned entry into force in 2023, GI rules will thus be spread over three Regulations instead of four. Without further intervention at EU level, the complexity of the procedures and the lengthy application process will persist. Without a change of the legal framework, it is very likely that no improvements could be made to harmonise the procedures and shorten them.

The trend over the period 2012 - 2020 shows that the awareness of the PGI logo has gained ground (+6 percentage points), while percentages have remained more or less stable for the PDO and TSG logo. If the issue is not addressed, the low level of recognition and understanding of the GI logos will persist and the benefits of logos, serving multiple purposes (including information and communication, quality recognition, triggering collective identity among producers and being useful in enforcement), not exploited. Considering the multiple national and regional quality schemes and the increase in labels and labelling information, the recognition of GI logos may even decline over time, especially in countries with low uptake of GIs.

GI producers are competing with bigger companies and producers of comparable products or of products under other quality schemes (e.g. national, organics). If tools aimed at strengthening the role and powers of GI producer groups are not provided, the GI producers risk losing the market share or even leave the market.

If GI producers fail to respond to societal expectations, lack of integration of sustainable practices in GI production may damage the image of GI products, as they are presented to consumers as ‘quality’ products, and affect negatively the demand from consumers. In times of change, with fast developments of internet and social media, proper communication on the sustainable attributes of GI products is also key. Without it, GI producers risk to face stagnating and even declining market shares.

As identified in the Farm to Fork strategy, people pay increasing attention to environmental, health, social and ethical issues and they seek value in food more than ever before. GI producers receive and respond to these messages as other producers. Under the status quo scenario, this process will continue with some, not all, GI groups addressing sustainability concerns and better valorising sustainability attributes. However, innovations particularly concerning nutritional composition may be held back by amendment procedures and any perceived conflicts between tradition and new techniques. The current ban on dealcoholized GI wines is a case in point – that the legislature has addressed in the CAP reform: without this reform, long argument might ensue whether alcohol is ‘intrinsic’; to the traditional characteristic of a GI wine and thus prevent the (healthier) innovation. Comparable arguments may arise in relation to climate and other sustainability changes.

Without further intervention at Union level, the identified problems are likely to persist. Without action towards harmonisation of the rules, Member States will apply an individualised approach making cross-border enforcement of GI rights more difficult and exposing GI right holders to increased costs and extensive proceedings. Due to e-commerce growth, in particular in the context of the COVID pandemic, GIs are exposed to increasing abusive practices on internet, which is aggravated by the lack of efficient tools to obtain the removal of counterfeit goods from online platforms. If no adequate GI protection mechanisms are in practice available under the domain name systems, GI names will not only continue to be unduly exploited, but the problem will further escalate due to the imminent expansion of top level domain name allocations. The economic extent (extent of the economic loss, amount and size of companies facing this problem, etc.) is not known, while the failure to protect the intellectual property in GIs is undisputed and is a clear breach of Article 17 of the EU charter on fundamental rights.

As TSGs are not intended to be rooted to a determined geographical area, their control is difficult to implement as it has to be ensured that producers across the EU are known to the control authorities. Moreover, producers who promote their TSGs bear the promotion costs but do not have an exclusive right on the name.

The registration procedure is seen as complex and demanding as the same application procedures apply as for GIs, however, without conferring IPR protection to TSGs once registered.

Although the evaluation support study concluded that vast information regarding GIs and TSGs is available to consumers both at EU and national level, replies to the public consultation identified lack of information and publicity of the schemes as the most relevant or very relevant cause for the low recognition and understanding of the schemes. More specifically, results of the public consultation show that citizens, companies/business organisations and public authorities’ categories believe it is an important, very important or most important underlying issue.

In addition, Member States’ and regions’ authorities have created numerous national/regional quality schemes which function in parallel to the GI/TSG schemes.

Today, consumers are confronted with a multitude of labels, allegedly making it hard for them to make informed choices when shopping. The labelling of food products is difficult to understand for consumers also because of this proliferation of logos . In this context, the GI/TSG logos do not fulfil their information role; they are not intuitive or self-explanatory.

In the framework of the public consultation on the revision of GIs, trade unions said that giving producer groups greater powers and responsibilities is the most important challenge for the revision of the GI scheme. Business associations and companies/business organisations confirmed that reinforcing the responsibilities for GI producer groups would have a positive impact on the competitiveness of SMEs.

Lack of a clear definition regarding the structure, legal capacity and roles of GI producer groups hampers their members from exerting collective rights in the management of GIs and in promoting, marketing and protecting their collective GI asset. This difficulty to bring producers together in an active organisation, especially in the case of small producers, also came out strongly from the replies to the targeted questionnaire for Member States.

A GI producer group is defined in the agricultural product and foodstuff GI scheme as ‘any association, irrespective of its legal form, mainly composed of producers or processors working the same product’ designated as a GI. However, no such definition is included in the other three sectoral legislations.

The lack of shared capacity and ownership vested in GI producer groups (see driver 3) also affects the possibility to maintain, improve and communicate sustainability attributes.

The response of citizens to the public consultation on the revision of GIs found that societal concerns and consumer demand for sustainable products are one of the most important issues to be addressed by GI schemes. This reflects the fact that as products of the terroir are steeped in traditional and local practice, GI products are often seen as appropriate vehicles to deliver the kind of sustainability guarantees consumers are looking for. GI producers, as many general farmers and producers, face issues of pollution or animal welfare standards, etc. that are lawful but do not meet citizen’s expectations. Several GI producer groups have started to respond by integrating concerns in relation to environmental sustainability and animal welfare into the product specifications. The producer group has the task to convey attributes (whether newly adopted or long-held) to consumers in an effective way.

Civil society is becoming more and more concerned about the sustainability of food systems, including food products under the GI schemes, while there is no specific extra ‘GI concern’ registered by civil society.

The respondents to the public consultation on the revision of GIs found that a single Regulation and full digitalisation of the processes would be positive or very positive for the transparency of the registration process according to public authorities.

Procedural rules for registration of the names and amendments to product specifications are not fully harmonised among the different basic acts , adding complexity to the examination and leading to different assessment standards.

The sector specific Regulations on GIs also impact the GI logos, their use only being mandatory on agricultural products and foodstuffs, creating confusion for consumers. Moreover, labelling particulars vary for the different sectors.

When it comes to the scope of protection of GIs, the main provisions set out in the four EU Regulations are characterised by legal textual heterogeneity.

With regard to enforcement, lack of a consolidated set of rules results in various systems being implemented among the Member States, causing primarily difficulties for enforcing producers’ IPR outside the Member State of production . This is further complicated by the fact that the framework for administrative cooperation among Member States’ authorities in addressing cross-border issues is underused and that GIs are covering a wide range of products and are being sold through various outlets (including online sales).

Rules and procedures for GIs are laid down in four sector specific EU Regulations, affecting their enforcement, publicity, management as well as the functioning of the GI producer groups.

Despite of the minor nature of the TSG scheme, the relatively few comments that were made confirmed that it has a valid place in the EU agricultural food quality system. Consultation with stakeholders in the framework of the Civil Dialogue Group held on 9 March 2021 showed that those stakeholders who responded are in favour of keeping the current TSG scheme essentially unchanged.

TSG names are often rooted in a specific region or Member State, and can be overlapping with GIs . Amongst TSGs, ‘prepared meals’ are also eligible for protection. This is causing difficulties notably from the point of view of enforcement and controls as such meals are prepared in numerous restaurants.

Traditional products are not properly recognised and valorised through the scheme as the objective of “safeguarding traditional methods of production and recipes” of this scheme is not met. Main obstacles for the low success are the complexity of the system with similar heavy procedures for GIs and TSGs but without IPR protection for TSGs. This entails that TSG producers do not have access to all enforcement tools accessible to IPRs placed on the market. In addition, the TSG logo is only recognised by a small minority of consumers. Eurobarometer data show that only 14% of Europeans know this logo, not confirming the attractiveness of the scheme.

Notwithstanding the Union’ famed reputation for traditional products, TSGs have shown low attractiveness for producers who follow traditional methods or use traditional raw materials. In contrast to the high number of traditional products that could potentially register as a TSG, only 65 product names were registered under TSG scheme during 28 years of its existence, with applications for seven more names ongoing. TSGs are more popular in the Member States that acceded since 2004 (33 TSGs from these Member States) while, for historical reasons, GIs tend to be more used to protect and promote the element of ‘tradition’ in Western and Southern Member States.

All producers applying for a GI or TSG protection are affected by the long registration and amendment process. GI producers are, like all EU citizens, entitled to have their affairs handled within a reasonable time by the EU institutions under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (see Annex 6). Administrative burden is the third main disincentive raised by producer groups (69% of responses of the producer groups’ survey) in the context of the above-mentioned evaluation, just after control costs and costs for complying with production rules. Case studies in the framework of the same evaluation showed that more than such costs, the length of the procedures is the main concern of producers. The need for simplification of the GI registration was also identified as an important challenge by respondents (‘most important’ and ‘very important’ combined) to the public consultation on the revision of GIs. However companies/business organisations category considered it not important or not so important. The public consultation shows that efficient GI procedures through clear and coherent rules would help strengthen the scheme – notably for business associations, companies/business organisations and public authorities.

The national stage involves a number of steps for which the length can vary considerably among Member States. The whole process of elaborating a product specification by the producers, preparing the application, examination by Member States’ authorities, publication for opposition (and solving the objections, if any) can take up to several years. At Union stage, the usual time between lodging an application with the Commission to the registration by Commission Regulation is between 22 and 26 months. In case of oppositions, another 12 months should be added. While Member States acknowledge the long delays in registering a GI and the necessity to introduce further simplification, they also expressed the view that an accurate examination should precede over speed.

As regards the procedures, the application process to register a name in itself has not appreciably changed since the first legislation governing a GI register for agricultural products and foodstuffs in 1992. The procedure for registration of the name is composed of two stages, at national and at Union level, and is concluded by the Commission decision registering (or not) the name. The evaluation support study has indicated an estimated average of 5 to 6 years for the whole registration procedure and between 3 to 5 years for an amendment procedure (national and Union stage combined). The long period may reflect the complex process of registering a GI, but is a substantial time for the producers to wait for their GI to be delivered. For international applicants, the delays are frequently cited in international fora, which is detrimental to the Union’s reputation.

The GI – as an IP right identifying a specific product with inherent qualities due to its geographical origin – often interplays with trade marks identifying the commercial origin. The provisions regarding the intersect between GIs and trade marks are not aligned across the Regulations. Recent case-law on trade marks, has put into question the capacity for producer groups to protect certain GIs name this way on the basis that it lacks the necessary distinctiveness.

Similarly, clarification would be beneficial in the field of compound GI-names containing a common (non-geographical) name for the product in the Union and those containing ordinary adjectives and terms unrelated to a food product category (such as the colour ‘rose’).

The four EU Regulations contain similar, yet different wording concerning the scope of protection of GIs. Legal uncertainty arises as the rules on GIs for the different sectors are complex and slightly diverging in legal terminology (see Annex 10). For example, the concepts of ‘comparable goods’or ‘reputation’, which are crucial in determining the extent of protection, would benefit from clearer definitions.

More than half of the respondents to the public consultation related to the revision of GIs found the lack of awareness of the logos to be the most relevant challenge the schemes are facing. All the citizens who contributed to the public consultation considered the challenge of increasing consumer awareness of the GI logos as most important, very important or important. Consultation with stakeholders in the framework of the Civil Dialogue Group held on 9 March 2021 revealed mixed views on the extent to which Union logos help consumers make informed purchasing choices and on the use of obligatory logos for the GI wine sector.

The Strength2Food study confirmed that most consumers have little knowledge about the European labels of geographical origin or tradition (PDO, PGI and TSG) and do not seem familiar with their logos. Results from the same study suggest also a confusion in the understanding of the different types of schemes (PDO, PGI, TSG), which was confirmed by the evaluation support study (no distinction between PDO and PGI for 42% of consumers), pointing to