EN Official Journal of the European Union C 218/114

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on agricultural product quality schemes’

COM(2010) 733 final — 2010/0353 (COD)

2011/C 218/22

Rapporteur: Mr ESPUNY MOYANO

On 18 and 27 January 2011 the European Parliament and the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 43(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, on the

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on agricultural product quality schemes

COM(2010) 733 final — 2010/0353 (COD)).

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 6 April 2011.

At its 471st plenary session, held on 4 and 5 May 2011 (meeting of 5 May), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 82 votes with three abstentions.

1. Conclusions and recommendations

1.1 The EESC supports the initiative by the European Commission to gather all EU legislation relating to the quality of agricultural products together in the Quality Package. This will provide a more coherent overall policy in this area, as a first step towards building a stronger and more dynamic European agrifood sector. The Committee draws attention to the importance of boosting the quality and added value of European products and providing more information to consumers, by improving Union instruments and provisions in this sphere.

1.2 The Committee appreciates the existing EU quality schemes (Protected Designation of Origin, Protected Geographical Indication and Traditional Speciality Guaranteed), and acknowledges that they represent excellent means of promoting European products. The EESC believes that the certification of certain products in this way lends significant added value to the local area and to the farmers and producers involved, and is also of benefit to the final consumer. It also shares the Commission's view that they contribute to rural development policy. However, the Committee would point to the importance of the quality of European products and the relevant production model being recognised not only on the internal market but also – and above all – on the external market, and of such quality being fostered. The EESC calls for a rigorous approach to be applied at all levels in recognising agrifood products and monitoring their marketing (1).

1.3 The EESC welcomes the continuation of the differentiated Protected Designation of Origin and Protected Geographical Indication schemes, although it considers that the proposed definitions are less clear than those set out in Regulation 510/2006. It however regrets that the new text makes no distinction between the three production stages (farm or livestock production – processing – preparation), referring only to the ‘production steps’.

1.4 Regarding the requirements for certifying a product as a TSG, the EESC considers that a given product's tradition is associated not only with its duration over time as laid down in the proposal, but also with other parameters such as the specific characteristics of the raw material, the production or processing method, the area's culture and other qualities and factors. Moreover, TSGs are in a constant state of flux and as a result the EESC does not agree that the number of years should be the key parameter for including a product within this category.

1.5 The EESC believes that restricting the TSG scheme to registrations with reservation of name may not only substantially reduce the number of registrations, but could also do away with an instrument that rewards diversity and those who choose to produce a particular foodstuff in accordance with tradition. In this regard, the EESC suggests that at the end of the transitional period, the Commission should propose a scheme allowing TSG registration without reservation of name to continue before the entry into force of the present regulation.

1.6 The EESC calls for new thought to be given to the possibility of recognising and including mountain products as optional quality terms (2).

1.7 The concept of quality should be more broadly framed in future, and consumers should be able, as they already can in the case of eggs, to make a clearer distinction between different forms of livestock farming. Also, suggestive advertising on packaging (such as images of grazing cows or descriptions like ‘Alpine milk’) should match the product content. The EESC expects the Commission to adopt appropriate specific proposals.

1.8 The EESC urges the Commission to put forward appropriate follow-up measures in order to facilitate compliance with the technical requirements involved in belonging to EU quality schemes.

1.9 The EESC agrees that the additional rules being proposed by the Commission to supplement the specification for adopting a PDO or PGI, as well as with regard to optional quality terms, should be adopted by means of delegated acts.

1.10 With regard to farming and/or origin labelling for farming and livestock products in accordance with the marketing standards, the EESC calls for the costs and benefits to be specified in the impact assessments to be made in each case. At the same time, work is proceeding on the obligatory nature of indications of origin for certain agri-food products under the proposal for a consumer information regulation. The most recent documents on this subject refer to the need for case-by-case assessments. The EESC calls for work to continue on defining and ensuring consistency between the two legislative packages, and avoiding any overlap between them.

1.11 Regarding the guidelines on the labelling of products using PDOs and PGIs as ingredients, and on best practice applicable to voluntary certification schemes, the EESC underlines the importance of such initiatives and urges compliance with them.

2. Summary of the communication

2.1 The aim of the Quality Package is to improve EU legislation in the field of agricultural product quality, as well as in the operation of national and private certification schemes, in order to make them simpler, more transparent and easier to understand, adaptable to innovation, and less burdensome for producers and administrations.

2.2 In 2009 the Commission published Communication COM(2009) 234 on agricultural product quality policy, containing the following strategic orientations:

— Improving communication between farmers, buyers and consumers on the quality of agricultural products

— Increasing the coherence of EU agricultural product quality policy instruments

— Reducing complexity to make it easier for farmers, producers and consumers to use and understand the various schemes and labelling requirements.

2.3 The Package includes:

2.3.1 a proposal for a regulation simplifying administration of quality schemes, bringing them into a single legislative instrument. This regulation ensures coherence between the instruments and makes the schemes more readily understandable for stakeholders;

2.3.2 a proposal for a regulation on marketing standards increasing transparency and simplifying the relevant procedures;

2.3.3 guidelines setting out best practice for the development and operation of certification schemes relating to agricultural products and foodstuffs;

2.3.4 guidelines on the labelling of foodstuffs using Protected Designations of Origin (PDO) and Protected Geographical Indications (PGI) as ingredients.

2.4 Designation of Origin and Protected Geographical Indication:

the proposal maintains and reinforces the quality scheme for agricultural products and foodstuffs, without prejudice to the geographical indication schemes for wines, for aromatised wines, or for spirits. The current registration process shortens time delays; minimum common rules on official controls are laid down, and the scope of the regulation is maintained (products for human consumption and other products).

2.5 Traditional specialities guaranteed:

this scheme for reservation is maintained, but the option of registering names without reservation is discontinued. The registration process is simplified, the criterion of tradition is extended to 50 years and the scheme is restricted to prepared meals and processed products.

2.6 Optional quality terms:

it is proposed to bring these terms into the present regulation in order to highlight value-adding attributes and support specific marketing standards (free-range poultry, honey of floral origin, olive oil from first cold pressing), with adaptation to the legislative framework of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

2.7 Marketing standards:

the proposal establishes that the Commission is, as a general rule, to adopt marketing standards by means of delegated acts. A legal basis is introduced for all sectors, with mandatory labelling of place of farming in accordance with each sector's specificity. Each case will be examined individually, starting with the dairy sector.

2.8 Principle of subsidiarity:

this is established with the purpose of ensuring that value-adding names and terms under the schemes receive the same level of protection in all EU Member States, preventing consumers from being misled and intra-EU trade from being impeded. The effective and efficient determination of such rights across the European Union is to be carried out at EU level. The processing and analysis of applications, on the other hand, will be performed at national level, as this is where these tasks can most efficiently and effectively be undertaken.

2.9 Principle of proportionality:

in order to underpin the credibility of the schemes and effectively guarantee compliance, producers must commit themselves to assuming the burdens and quality commitments involved, at the same time as they are entitled to access the scheme if their choice. These participation and control conditions are proportional to the corresponding guarantee of quality.

3. General comments

3.1 For the first time the Quality Package introduces an overall policy for Community schemes and terms describing the value adding characteristics of agricultural products, as well as marketing standards. It also contains two guidelines on voluntary certification schemes and the use of PDOs and PGIs as ingredients. The EESC appreciates the Commission's efforts over the last three years to set up this single, ambitious scheme on the basis of the numerous existing legislative texts that had been prepared in a fragmentary, sector-by-sector way.

3.2 The Commission holds that the strength of Europe's agri-food production lies in its diversity, the know-how of its producers and in the land and territories where production takes place. The EESC agrees with this view. It also argues that EU quality schemes should promote diversification of production, guard against product misuse or imitation, and help consumers to be aware of product properties and attributes. The EESC agrees that the various quality schemes represent excellent means of promoting European products. However, the Committee points to the importance of the qualities of these products being recognised at international level. If Europe's agriculture and its food processing industry are to survive and flourish, internal market awareness of European quality is not enough: this must also be fostered on other markets. In this respect, the EESC emphasises the importance of upholding the European production model, and the need for a level playing field for marketing EU and third country products in terms of quality, health, the environment and animal welfare, as recognised by the Council Presidency in its conclusions on the Commission from the European Commission on The CAP towards 2020.

3.3 Agricultural product quality schemes bring added value to the regions where they are produced, thereby contributing to the goal of maintaining the diversity and increasing the competitiveness of the farming and processing sectors. In this way, they help to achieve the objectives of rural development policy as set out in the Communication from the Commission on The CAP towards 2020 (COM(2010) 672). The EESC welcomes the consistency between the two policies, and calls for similar consistency between the Regulation on agricultural product quality schemes and the priorities of other policies such as the Europe 2020 strategy (creating value, driving innovation, enhancing product competitiveness, care for the environment, efficient use of resources, etc.). It also calls for the regulation to be responsive to the challenges of the single market (robust, sustainable and fair growth for businesses and smoother internal market functioning), and to comply with the aims of policies geared to consumer protection and information, competition and the external market.

3.4 Turning to the guidelines for labelling foodstuffs using PDOs or PGIs as ingredients (2010/C 341/03), the EESC underlines the importance of this initiative and urges compliance with them.

3.5 The Committee also welcomes the Commission's proposed best practice guidelines for voluntary certification schemes (2010/C 341/04). Recent years have witnessed increasing sales of agricultural products with non-regulatory labels, prompting consideration of ethical, social and environmental requirements. Similarly, and as pointed out by the Commission, greater reliability, transparency and clarity are needed in supply chain agreements. The Committee previously called on the Commission to draw up these guidelines (3) and consequently urges all organisations currently operating certification schemes for agricultural products to review their procedures in order to achieve a high degree of compliance with the best practice guidelines.

4. Specific comments

4.1 Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) and Protected Geographical Indication (PGI)

4.1.1 The EESC is pleased to see that both quality schemes have been retained, but regrets that the reference to the three production steps (farm or livestock production – processing – preparation) no longer appears in the newly-proposed definition.

4.1.2 The EESC recognises the contribution made by these agricultural products to maintaining traditional production methods and safeguarding the environment, with the ensuing benefits not only for producers and processors, but also for consumers. Recognising these quality schemes also contributes to the development of the rural areas concerned, by helping the local population to remain, improving their living conditions and quality of life, consolidating and promoting job and business opportunities, while encouraging the profitable use of natural resources.

4.1.3 To be eligible for a PDO or PGI, producers must comply with a specification. Depending on the proposal, and in order to ensure that the specification provides relevant and succinct information, the Commission may, by means of delegated acts, lay down further rules as to the content of a product specification. With regard to Protected Geographical Indications, the EESC considers that whenever the place of production of the agricultural product used is different to the place of origin of the processed foodstuff, this must be indicated on the label.

4.1.4 The EESC strongly agrees that it should be the Member States that take administrative and judicial steps to prevent or avoid the unlawful use of PDOs or PGIs, as well as at the request of a producer group.

4.2 Traditional Specialities Guaranteed

4.2.1 The EESC welcomes the continuation of TSGs as one of the quality schemes for certain products, since TSGs represent the only means of recognition for traditional products originating from a Member State.

4.2.2 Regarding the requirements for certifying a product as a TSG, the EESC considers that restricting the TSG scheme to registrations with reservation of name may not only substantially reduce the number of registrations, but could also do away with an instrument that rewards diversity and those who choose to produce a particular foodstuff in accordance with tradition. In this regard, the EESC suggests that at the end of the transitional period, the Commission should propose a scheme allowing TSG registration without reservation of name to continue before the entry into force of the present regulation. Moreover, a given product's tradition is associated not only with its duration over time as laid down in the proposal, but also with other parameters such as the specific characteristics of the raw material, the production or processing method, the area's culture and other qualities and factors. The Committee therefore proposes that a set number of years should not be the only applicable parameter for identifying a product as a TSG.

4.3 Quality scheme indications and symbols and role of producers

4.3.1 The proposal for a regulation provides that groups are entitled to contribute to guaranteeing the quality of their products on the market, to carry out information and promotion activities, ensure compliance of products with their specifications and take action to improve the performance of the schemes. The EESC welcomes this improvement to the scheme, which strengthens and clarifies the role of such groups, and supports greater involvement of these groups in terms of both market supply management and the use of PDOs and PGIs as ingredients. However, it urges that this entitlement should not undermine the specific provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 on producer and inter-branch organisations. On the other hand, the EESC notes with satisfaction that operators preparing and storing TSGs, PDOs or PGIs or placing them on the market will be subject to official controls.

4.4 Additional information for a more comprehensive quality policy

4.4.1 The EESC considers that in future more specific information should be required to back up claims to ‘quality’, e.g. regarding the conditions under which animals are kept (free range, straw etc.). It would make sense to differentiate in this way, as consumers would then be able to make a more informed choice between different forms of production. It is also necessary in order to distinguish between industrial and traditional forms of production. The new system of labelling for eggs is a positive example of this and the Commission is asked to make proposals for other areas of livestock farming.

4.4.2 Also, at present packaging may still carry indications which suggest a particular kind of quality to the consumer, although the product does not in fact have these characteristics. For example milk packaging may carry images of grazing cows without any guarantee that the milk actually comes from free-range cows, or it may be marketed as ‘Alpine’ milk, although it is not produced in the Alps, but rather, for example, in Hungary. The same is true of ‘Black Forest ham’, where smoking is virtually the only process which takes place in the region, not the production of the meat. The EESC considers this to be misleading; it means laying claim to quality which is not provided and is thus misleading to consumers. The Committee cannot find any clear statement in the Commission proposals which would put an end to this kind of practice.

4.5 Application and registration processes

4.5.1 The Commission puts forward a number of proposals with the aim of shortening the registration process, and the EESC agrees that they may bring some improvements. Nevertheless, with regard to the discontinuation of monthly publication of applications, the EESC urges that consideration be given to retaining this publication, in order to facilitate follow-up, also bearing in mind that it is proposed to reduce the deadline for opposition to only two months.

4.5.2 In contrast, the EESC feels that where the guarantee that generic designations cannot be registered as a PDO or PGI is concerned, the proposal should be bolstered by proper evaluation at national and EU level.

Brussels, 5 May 2011. The President of the European Economic and Social Committee Staffan NILSSON

(1) OJ C 18, 19.1.2011, pp. 1-4, Strengthening the European agri-food model, and OJ C 18, 19.1.2011, p. 5, Agricultural production quality communication.

(2) OJ C 120, 16.5.2008, pp. 47-48, Agriculture in areas with specific natural handicaps.

(3) OJ C 28, 3.2.2006, pp. 72-81, opinion on Ethical Trade and Consumer Assurance Schemes.