EN    EN EN 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 28.5.2009 
SEC(2009) 671 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
 
accompanying the 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CO MMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF REGIONS 
 
on agricultural product quality policy 
 
Impact Assessment Summary  
  
 
{COM(2009) 234} 
{SEC(2009) 670}  
EN 2   EN COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Impact Assessment Summary  
Agricultural Product Quality Policy 
1. POLICY CONTEXT AND PROBLEM DEFINITION  
Agricultural product quality policy addresse s the market failure caused by asymmetric 
information between farmers and buyers on qualit y aspects of agricultural products. It is 
focussed on the contribution made by farmers and producers of primary agricultural and 'first-
stage' processed product (wine,  cheese, olive oil, meat,…). 
The EC has developed a variety of instrument s concerning the marketing of agricultural 
products that guarantee product charact eristics and farming attributes: 
– marketing standards and product directives, laying dow n agricultural product identity 
(e.g. definitions of ‘drinking milk’, ‘fruit jui ce, ‘wine’), classifica tion of products (class, 
size …), origin and place-of-farming labelli ng, and defining certain ‘reserved terms’ that 
indicate value-adding char acteristics and attributes, such as farming method. 
– EU agricultural product quality schemes . Six schemes are in operation: for geographical 
indications (three schemes), traditional sp ecialities guaranteed, organic farming, and 
product of outermost regions. Two further EU  schemes are under development: extending 
the Ecolabel  to foodstuffs, and an animal welfare labelling scheme. 
In addition, numerous private and national (and regio nal) certification schemes  have been 
developed. These include food assurance certif ication schemes (guaranteeing ‘baseline’ 
standards have been met), and food quality cer tification schemes that ‘differentiate’ product 
on the market by highlighting value-adding produc t characteristics and farming attributes to 
buyers and consumers. 
These instruments (EU measures, private and national), seek to address the fundamental 
market problem which derives from asymmetric information  that would otherwise impede 
the sale and purchase of product at a fair pr ice having regard to it s characteristics and 
attributes. In addition, there ar e difficulties and problems in the operation of each of these 
measures. Globally , EU policy has developed ad hoc and a number of inconsistencies  have 
emerged or are threatened; furthermore, a va riety of initiatives, particularly in the 
environmental sector, are in train and risk fu rther inconsistencies. The diversity of these 
initiatives contributes to the coherence problem  and there is a danger of an uncoordinated 
approach to agricultural product quality policy measures, resulting in confusion for stakeholders and consumers and policy inconsistencies. Specifically , EU schemes are 
excessively complex; the geographical indications meas ure has not achieved sufficient 
visibility and a number of essentially technica l matters have been identified; the traditional 
specialities measure has not filled its promis e, and marketing standards are complex and 
overly-prescriptive. In the priv ate and national sectors, the explosion in the number and 
diversity of certificatio n schemes has led to consumer confusion and questions about the 
proper functioning of the single market. Finally, the ad hoc  approach to place-of-farming 
EN 3   EN labelling has left a fragmented picture where the place must be labelled on beef, but not on 
pork; and on honey, but not on dairy products. 
2. OBJECTIVES  
The general objective  of agricultural product quality policy is to enable farmers and 
producers to meet consumer expectations for product characteristics an d farming attributes 
and communicate them effectively, ensuring:  
– farmers and producers get a fair return re flecting the agricultural product quality; 
– farmers and producers can react to consumer demand for value-added product 
characteristics and farming attributes; 
– consumers can rely on labelling terms to iden tify agricultural produc t characteristics and 
farming attributes. 
The specific objectives  are: 
– to improve communication between farmers and buyers and consumers arising from 
asymmetric information about the qu alities of agricultural product; 
– to increase coherence of EU agricultura l product quality policy instruments;  
– to reduce complexities for farmers and producers, and consumers. 
In addressing these objectives, four policy issues  were examined:  
– Policy issue 1: Marketing standards, including place of farming labelling 
– Policy issue 2: Geogr aphical indications 
– Policy issue 3: Traditional specialities 
– Policy issue 4: Private, national and new EU certification schemes  
3. POLICY OPTIONS  
3.1. Policy issue 1: Marketing standards, including place of farming labelling 
Two options were discarded after technical screening: 
– introduction of an EU logo indicating complia nce with EU requirements would present 
considerable technical ob stacles and was opposed by almost all stakeholders. 
– No EU action: abolition of marketing standards  from Community legislation would 
leave "the field unoccupied", at the risk that  divergent, national marketing standards may 
be introduced. All stakeholders supported continuation of (simplified) marketing standards. 
Five options were retain ed for further analysis: 
– Option 1.1. Status quo plus: simplification, including harmonisatio n of standards, 
harmonisation of common elements across different sectors, removal of obsolete 
provisions and drafting in line with th e latest legal drafting principles. 
EN 4   EN – Option 1.2. Replacement of specific EU marketing standards by a general base 
standard.  This option foresees complete removal of specific marketing standards from 
Community legislation, accompanied by a new gene ral standard, applicable to all products.  
– Option 1.3. Combined approach.  This option comprises essential requirements or base 
standard in legislation (as in Option 1.2) and technical specifications  in standards agreed 
by stakeholders using a standard s setting body (the CEN framework). 
– Option 1.4. Develop use of reserved terms.  Lay down clear definitions, identities, 
classes, sizes, which have to be respected if used at the st age of placing on the market and 
are voluntary for producer/operato rs (e.g. ‘farmhouse’, ‘free range ’, and particularly if the 
'traditional specialities' scheme instrument is discontinued, the term 'traditional').  
– Option 1.5. Extending existing compulsory  indication of place-of-farming (EU/non-
EU or country) to cover agricultural product . Labelling of EU/non-EU and/or Member 
State/Third country to be c onsidered especially in light of WTO considerations. 
3.2. Policy issue 2: Geographical indications 
Four options were discarded af ter technical screening, namely: 
– Action through a general Directive , delegating to Member States the task of identifying 
and protecting geographical indications is not  consistent with the policy objective of 
having a harmonised applicati on throughout the single market. 
– Options Co-regulation  and self-regulation  which need the involvement of non-
governmental organisations, social and economic partners were discarded due to the highly 
fragmented structure of the sector.  
– No action at Community level (abolition of current legislation)  is likely to lead to the 
creation of 27 different systems in the Member States, with increased burden for producers, confusion to consumer s and risk of misuse, usurpati on, etc. outside the country 
granting the protection.  
– Application of international ru les through the Lisbon Agreement  would be impossible 
to apply in the short term, as an internati onal negotiation to adhere to WIPO would be 
needed as well as some amendments on defi nitions. In the longer-term, however, this 
option should not be ruled out. 
Three options (including three sub-options ) were retained for further analysis: 
– Option 2.1. Status quo plus: Simplificat ion of PDO/PGI schemes and streamlining 
existing procedures . The legal text could be clarified without changing the current legal 
architecture, thereby reducing the time taken to process applications at EU level.  
– Sub-option 2.1.1 Merging PDO and PGI definitions.  In effect, the protected 
designation of origin would be abolished and existing registrations would become 
protected geographical indications. This opt ion would reverse the recent policy of 
enhancing the difference between the two types. 
EN 5   EN – Sub-option 2.1.2 Creation of a single instrument  for registering wines, spirits, 
and agricultural product and foodstuffs woul d enable a more coherent policy, for 
example by using similar criteria an d procedures for registrations.  
– Sub-option 2.1.3 Allowing national syst em of protection of indications in 
parallel to the EU scheme. Protection of those names would then only apply to the 
national market. In parallel, trade (volume and value) criteria could be used as a 
precondition for registration of names in the EU registers.  
– Option 2.2. Abolish the current sui generis PDO/PGI system at EU level and replace 
it by the existing trademark system.  The level of protection of geographical indications 
would be the one ensured by TRIPS, but th e legal means to protect names would only 
apply through the Community trademark system.  
– Option 2.3. Clarifyi ng PDO/PGI rules.  The system in place could be clarified and 
through modification of the regulations and by guidelines. 
3.3. Policy issue 3: Traditional specialities guaranteed  
Four options (including two sub-options) were screened and retained for further analysis: 
– Option 3.1: Status Quo — conti nuation of current scheme, i s not considered viable, but 
is retained as a point of co mparison to the other options.  
– Option 3.2: Simplifica tion of the scheme, by limiting it to one of the two currently 
existing options : either protection with reservation of the name or protection without 
reservation of the name.  
– Sub-option 3.2.1. Registration without reservation of the name. This sub-
option would entail abolition  of protection  of the name. Use of the registered 
name would not be limited unless it appears in combination with the words "Traditional Speciality Guaranteed" or the Community symbol.  
– Sub-option 3.2.2. TSG registration wi th reservation of the name. In this case, 
the name itself would be protected and c ould be used only for products made in 
accordance with the specification.  
– Option 3.3: Protecting the term 'traditional' as a res erved term under marketing 
standards.  This is included under Option 1.4 above. 
– Option 3.4: No EU action: discontinuation of current scheme.  Regulating traditional 
specialities would be left to the privat e sector, Member States and regions.  
3.4. Policy issue 4: Private, national and new EU certification schemes 
One option was discarded after technical screening, namely: 
– a legislative option , laying down rules or a framework for the operation of  food quality 
certification schemes. This option lacks effici ency, effectiveness and coherence with other 
EU policy objectives (e.g., simplification)  as well as stakeholder acceptance. 
Five options were retain ed for further analysis: 
EN 6   EN – Option 4.1: no EU action = status quo (plus further research) . This option is a 
continuation of the present situation, the EU be ing not directly involved in the operation of 
private and national/regional certificati on schemes. This option would include further 
research  to gain a better understa nding of the nature and extent of the problem. 
– Option 4.2: Develop voluntary guidelines fo r the operation of certification schemes, 
which  would highlight best-practice approaches  according to criteria agreed with 
stakeholders. 
– Option 4.3: Developing new EU qualit y schemes for specific policy areas.  The 
Commission has already develope d or is preparing certificati on schemes in several policy 
areas. Each new scheme will have to  be assessed on its own merit. 
– Option 4.4: Establish common criteria for new EU schemes.  As an alternative to Option 
4.3, and given the number of new schemes and proposals coming forwar d, criteria could be 
established to assess the need for new EU certification schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs. 
– Option 4.5: Development of protected reserve d terms corresponding to specifications. 
In cases where direct EU action is justified, a lighter option administ ratively could be to 
develop reserved term protection . This is considered under marketing standards (Option 
1.4). 
4. A
NALYSIS OF IMPACTS  
Options for each policy issue were analysed w ith regard to effectiveness, efficiency and 
consistency as well as in rela tion to the policy objectives. 
For policy issue 1 (marketing standards, including place of farming labelling) , the 
preferred options are option 1.4 (development of use of reserv ed terms); option 1.3 (combined 
approach), subject to future investigation; and, especially  for basic agri cultural products, 
option 1.5 (develop obligatory place of farming labelling). 
For policy issue no. 2 (geographical indications) , option 2.3 (clarification of PDO/PGI 
rules), and option 2.1.2 (merging of wine, spirit s and agricultural produc ts systems) present 
high effectiveness and consistency.  Further analysis is needed to address the efficiency of 
option 2.3 (clarifying PDO/PGI rules). 
For policy issue no. 3 (Tra ditional specialities) , the preferred option is 3.3 (protecting the 
term "traditional" as a reserved term unde r marketing standards), followed by option 3.2 
(simplification of the scheme). 
For policy issue 4 (private, national and new EU schemes) , the preferred options are 4.2 
(guidelines) and 4.4 (criteria for new scheme s), which are combinable. Option 4.5 (develop 
use of reserved terms), which scor ed very high in all criteria, is dealt with under policy issue 1 
( marketing standards). 
EN 7   EN  
5. OVERALL POLICY COHERENCE AND SYNERGIES BETWEEN PREFERRED OPTIONS  
The table below (preferred options) shows how  the preferred options contribute to the overall 
policy approach , the synergies  created between different instruments, and legal and 
procedural clarifications  identified. 
Policy Preferred options 
towards private and national 
certification and schemes  Option 4.2: guidelines for operation of certification 
schemes 
to ensure coherence in development of new EU schemes Option 4.4: criteria for new EU schemes Overall policy approach coherent development of EU 
marketing standards Option 1.3: combined approach (replacing 
marketing standards by a general standard and 
developing detailed rules in a CEN) 
Option 1.4: Develop reserved terms for horizontal 
quality labels (such as 'low carbon')  
greater use of 'reserved terms' 
(from marketing standards)  Option 3.3: Protect 'traditional' as a reserved term 
(as replacement for traditional specialities scheme) 
Option 2.1.1: streamlining procedures for 
geographical indications scheme and merging wine, 
spirits and agricultural products and foodstuff 
registers into one system common use of certification 
systems for similar schemes 
Option 2.3 : Clarification of PDO-PGI rules Synergies 
coherent implementation of 
obligatory place-of-farming 
labelling Option 1.5: place of farming labelling on sector-by-
sector approach 
Table: Preferred options 
The preferred options are combinable and repr esent together a complete package for the 
development of agricultur al product quality policy. 
Increased use of 'reserved terms', in particular  as a replacement of the traditional speciality 
scheme, would provide major s ynergies. Also guidelines for private and national schemes, 
which could also be applied to the EU schemes,  would have synergies. The criteria for new 
EU schemes should prevent inconsistencies with existsing EU schemes and marketing 
standards. Linkages arise from the proposed common certification syst em for geographical 
indications and from the proposed coherent implementation of obligatory place-of-farming 
labelling across sectors in marketing standard. 
EN 8   EN  
Options Marketing 
standards Geographical 
indications Traditional 
specialities Private, national 
and new EU 
schemes 
Option 1.3: 
combined approach   
X    
Option 1.4: 
reserved terms for 
horizontal quality 
labels   
X  Linkage: protect 
"traditional" as 
reserved term in 
marketing 
standards Linkage: 
proposals for new 
schemes could 
include reserved 
terms 
Option 1.5: place 
of farming 
labelling   
X Linkage: will 
apply to PGIs if 
raw material 
from different 
place than PGI   
Option 2.1.1: 
streamlining 
geographical indications scheme 
and merging  
 
 
X   
Option 2.3 : 
Clarification of PDO-PGI rules  
 
X   
Option 3.3: 
Protect 
'traditional' as a reserved term Linkage: use of 
marketing 
standard 
mechanism   
X  
Option 4.2: 
guidelines for 
operation of 
certification 
schemes  Linkage: 
guidelines also to 
apply to EU 
scheme Linkage: 
guidelines also to 
apply to EU 
scheme  
 
X 
Option 4.4: 
criteria for new 
EU schemes Linkage: will 
avoid inconsistent 
labelling 
initiatives from 
new schemes Linkage: will 
minimise 
inconsistency 
with existing 
scheme Linkage: will 
minimise 
inconsistency 
with existing 
scheme  
X 
Table: Linkages of the preferred options  
6. MONITORING AND EVALUATION  
This impact assessment is in the contex t of a Communication se tting out strategic 
orientations. Thus, in the immediate future, th e test of progress will be development and 
adoption of these orientations. 
For the progress of the policy itself, seve ral core progress indicators are proposed 
provisionally and will be developed dur ing preparation of each initiative.