Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 2702/1999 on measures to provide information on, and to promote, agricultural products in third countries, and Regulation (EC) No 2826/2000 on information and promotion actions for agricultural products on the internal market
Date: 2004-04-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU financing, agricultural product, consumer information, sales promotion, third country

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 5.4.2004 
COM(2004) 233 final 

2004/0073 (CNS) 

REPORT TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 

on the application of 
Council Regulation (EC) No 2702/1999 on measures to provide information on,  
and to promote, agricultural products in third Countries,  
and 
Council Regulation (EC) No 2826/2000 on information and promotion actions  
for agricultural products on the internal market 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

amending Regulation (EC) No 2702/1999 on measures to provide information on, and to 
promote, agricultural products in third countries, and Regulation (EC) No 2826/2000 on 
information and promotion actions for agricultural products on the internal market 

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

PURPOSE OF THE REPORT............................................................................................... 4 

DESCRIPTION OF PROMOTION POLICY............................................................................ 4 

General objectives of the current regime ..................................................................... 4 

Main operational aspects of the system ....................................................................... 6 

2.2.1.  Choice of products and markets................................................................................... 6 

2.2.2.  Types of promotional measures and their financing .................................................... 6 

2.2.3.  Management, controls and evaluation.......................................................................... 7 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF PROMOTION POLICY 2000–2003.................................................. 8 

Application rules by the Commission .......................................................................... 8 

Budget appropriations and expenditure ....................................................................... 8 

Programmes adopted for co-financing in 2001–2003.................................................. 9 

3.3.1.  Accepted and rejected programmes ............................................................................. 9 

3.3.2.  Programmes running on third country markets.......................................................... 10 

3.3.3.  Programmes running on the internal market.............................................................. 11 

3.4. 

Programmes under direct management by DG AGRI ............................................... 11 

4. 

PERSPECTIVES FOR IMPROVEMENT .............................................................................. 12 

4.1. 

Needs for adjustments noted by the Commission ...................................................... 12 

4.1.1.  The European dimension of promotion programmes................................................. 12 

4.1.2.  The quality of proposals and their assessment by the Member States....................... 12 

4.1.3.  Supervision of programmes and promotion materials ............................................... 12 

4.1.4.  Notification under Article 89 of the Treaty................................................................ 13 

4.1.5.  Effectiveness of the promotion strategy..................................................................... 13 

4.1.6.  Size and effectiveness of programmes....................................................................... 14 

4.1.7.  Promotion in the framework of rural development.................................................... 15 

4.2. 

4.3. 

5. 

5.1. 

5.2. 

Findings of an external evaluation of EU-Promotion ................................................ 15 

Proposals by professional organisations .................................................................... 16 

CONCLUSIONS AND ACTION TO BE TAKEN ................................................................... 18 

General conclusions ................................................................................................... 18 

Action to be taken ...................................................................................................... 18 

2 

 
 
  
 
ANNEX 1 – PRODUCTS AND MARKETS ELIGIBLE FOR COMMUNITY CO-FINANCING ............ 23 

ANNEX 2 – PROMOTION MEASURES: FINANCING OPTIONS .................................................. 24 

ANNEX 3 – PROPOSALS RECEIVED FOR THIRD COUNTRIES AND INTERNAL MARKETS ....... 25 

ANNEX 4 – PROGRAMMES ACCEPTED IN 2001–2003 TABLES BY COUNTRY, PRODUCT 

SECTOR, DURATION AND SIZE OF BUDGET................................................................. 27 

PROPOSAL FOR A COUNCIL REGULATION amending Regulation (EC) No 2702/1999 on 

measures to provide information on, and to promote, agricultural products in third 
countries, and Regulation (EC) No 2826/2000 on information and promotion actions 
for agricultural products on the internal market......................................................... 32 

3 

 
 
  
 
1. 

PURPOSE OF THE REPORT 

The  European  Union  has  carried  out  and  co-financed  promotion  activities  for 
agricultural products since the early 1980’s. Until 1999 these activities were carried 
out sector by sector based on varying legal provisions included in the regulations for 
different product sectors. In 1999 these provisions, presented in 12 different Council 
Regulations,  were  harmonised  and  replaced  by  a  coherent  policy  organised  under 
two regulations, one for promotion in third countries and one for promotion on the 
internal market. 

Council  Regulations  (EC)  No  2702/1999  and  (EC)  No  2826/2000  define, 
respectively,  the  provisions  for  Community  support  for  measures  to  provide 
information  on  and  to  promote  agricultural  products  in  third  countries  and  on  the 
internal market. Both these regulations include an obligation for the Commission to 
present to the European Parliament and to the Council a report on their application. 

Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 2702/1999 (third countries) stipulates that 

"Before  31  December  2003,  the  Commission  shall  present  to  the  European 
Parliament  and  the  Council  a  report  on  the  application  of  this  Regulation, 
together with any appropriate proposals." 

Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 2826/2000 (internal market) requires that 

"Every two years, for the first time before 31 December 2003, the Commission 
shall send the European Parliament and the Council a report on the application 
of this Regulation, dealing in particular with the programmes selected and the 
utilisation of appropriations, accompanied by any appropriate proposals." 

The purpose of this report is to fulfil the above obligations. It covers the application 
of both regulations from the time of their entering into force until the end of 2003. It 
includes  a  proposal  for  modifications  of  the  above  regulations,  aiming  at 
simplification and improvement of the functioning of the current promotion regime. 

2. 

DESCRIPTION OF PROMOTION POLICY 

2.1. 

General objectives of the current regime 

To maintain its position on the world markets the European agri-food sector has to 
prepare itself for a future in the global market. Actions targeting the demand for food 
products, informing consumers of and sensitising them to the qualities of European 
agricultural products are an important part of this preparation. The Community can 
assist  in  this  effort  by  implementing  and  supporting  generic  and  institutional 
information  and  promotion  activities  which  are  complementary  to  national  and 
private campaigns. 

In general, Community promotional policy has a horizontal approach, i.e. it covers 
several product sectors and stresses their general characteristics and common themes 
such as quality, safety, labelling and particular production methods as well as respect 
for  animal  welfare  and  the  environment  in  their  production.  It  should  add  value  to 
national and private initiatives by reinforcing or stimulating the Member States and 
private  companies  in  their  own  promotion  measures.  Furthermore,  it  should  enable 
all  producer  Member  States  together  with  their  trade  and  inter-trade  organisations, 

4 

 
 
  
 
including those which have limited financial resources, to undertake promotion and 
information actions in favour of their products. 

The  current  promotion  regime  aims  at  generating  actions  that  boost  the  common 
qualities  and  intrinsic  characteristics  of  European  products,  while  at  the  same  time 
respecting  their  diversity  in  terms  of  their  conditions  of  production,  methods  of 
processing, conservation and utilisation. 

On  the  internal  market,  the aim  of  Community action is generic and institutional 
information provision and promotion, which avoids overlapping with the actions of 
private  companies  and  national/regional  authorities.  It  is  complementary  to  the 
classic  marketing  approach,  and  it  serves  to  create  a  favourable  environment  for 
commercially oriented campaigns. 

Promotion  co-financed  by  the  EU  should  be  a  complement  in  that  it  takes  up 
European level topics which may be of limited interest to the national authorities or 
branded advertising (such as EU systems and legislation for ensuring quality, safety, 
labelling,  traceability,  systems  for  geographical  indications  and  organic  production, 
integrated production etc.), with the aim of upgrading the general image of European 
products in the eyes of consumers. Recent problems (BSE, dioxin, listeria, etc.) have 
increased  the  need  for  supporting  consumer  confidence  in  European  food,  which 
emphasises  the  need  for  factual,  generic  information  on  the  control  systems  for 
ensuring quality and traceability of food products. 

In  the  new  international  environment,  which  emphasises  the  need  to  reduce  or 
abolish  export  refunds  and  greater  liberalisation  of  trade,  Community  actions  can 
serve  to  improve  or  maintain  the  competitive  position  of  EU  products  by  raising 
awareness of their qualities and production and control methods, by promoting their 
image and by creating an environment favourable to Community products. This is a 
specific task for the Community, while national and private campaigns are geared to 
conquering a greater market share for their own products. 

In particular, Community promotion measures in third countries should be involved 
in  informing  consumers  and  the  trade  (importers  and  distributors)  about  measures 
taken at Community level to guarantee the quality and the safety of foodstuffs, the 
supply  of  characteristic,  clearly  identified  products  linked  to  specific  areas 
(PDO/PGI/TSG), and systems to ensure the quality of organic products. 

In  addition  market  studies  and  specific  Community  actions  in  current  or  potential 
export markets, such as high-level trade visits and participation to international fairs, 
can help to develop or open up new markets. EU-level presence in international food 
fairs  or  trade  visits  can  boost  a  positive  European  image  of  agricultural  products, 
preparing ground for more specific, product based or nationally oriented actions.  

The need for an active promotion policy is recognised by our principal trade partners 
(ex.  the  U.S.A.,  Japan  and  Australia),  which  have  equipped  themselves  with  well 
resourced and effective promotion policies in order to maintain and raise their world 
market  shares.  For  example,  various  US  export  promotion  programmes  amount  in 
total  to  some  $  145  million  per  year  of  assistance  by  the  federal  government  to 
promotion  activities.  It  is  therefore  important  that  the  EU  also  plays  a  visible  and 
effective role in export promotion. 

5 

 
 
  
 
2.2.  Main operational aspects of the system 

2.2.1.  Choice of products and markets 

In  the  third  countries  Community  support  to  promotion  targets  products  intended 
for direct consumption or for processing, with priority given to high value added or 
highly differentiated products that, with suitable promotion, have a prospect of being 
exported  without  refunds.  However,  this  should  not  mean  that  products,  which 
currently receive export refunds, are by definition excluded from the scheme. 

The target markets are those with significant real or potential demand and where the 
Community faces strong competition. In accordance with criteria set by Regulation 
(EC)  No 2702/1999  (Articles  3  and  4)  the  Commission  decides  every  second  year, 
after  consultation  and  using  the  Management  Committee  procedure,  on  the  list  of 
eligible  products  and  markets.  Adjustments  can  also  be  made  during  the  two-year 
period. 

The current list of eligible markets and products is presented in Annex 1. 

For  the  internal  market,  the  criteria  defining  the  themes  and  products  which  are 
eligible  for  community  support  are  laid  out  in  Article  3  of  Regulation  (EC) 
No 2826/2000.  On  the  basis  of  these  criteria,  the  Commission  decides,  after 
consultation and using the management committee procedure, on the list of themes, 
sectors and products for promotion programmes. For each of the sectors selected, the 
Commission  defines  guidelines,  which  the  programme  proposals  presented  by  the 
Member  States  will  have  to  follow.  For  the  preparation  of  the  guidelines  the 
Commission  may  consult  the  standing  group  for  Promotion  of  the  Advisory 
Committee for the Health and Safety of Agricultural Products. 

The  current  list  of  eligible  product  sectors  for  internal  market  programmes  is 
presented in Annex 1. 

2.2.2.  Types of promotional measures and their financing 

In  general,  promotion  programmes  are  co-financed  by  the  Community  up  to  50 %, 
with the balance met by professional and inter-professional organisations proposing 
programmes  (30 %)  and  Member  States  (20 %).  If  the  duration  of  a  programme  is 
two or three years, the Community share diminishes from 60 % to 40 %, with a 50 % 
average  of  the  total  budget.  Parafiscal  taxes  can  be  used  to  cover  the  share  of  the 
proposing organisation and of the Member State.  

The  co-financing  approach  was  adopted  in  order  to  ensure  that  the  applicant 
organisations and the Member States will assume responsibility and ownership of the 
programmes they propose and operate.  

There are some exceptions to the general rule of tripartite financing. For information 
actions  on  the  internal  market  on  the  Community  schemes  for  PDO/PGI/TSG, 
organic  production  and  labelling,  financing  may  be  shared  (50 %–50 %)  between  a 
Member State and the Community if professional or interprofessional organisations 
have  not  presented  proposals  for  such  actions.  One  programme  applying  this 
financing  option  has  been  adopted  so  far1.  In  the  third  countries  such  information 

1 

DK campaign informing about the Danish logo for organic production. 

6 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
campaigns are initiated by the Commission and financed by the Community in their 
entirety.  

In certain exceptional situations no co-financing is required from the Member State, 
but  the  financing  can  be  shared  (50 %–50 %)  between  the  Community  and  the 
proposing organisations. This possibility is reserved, for example, for crisis situations 
on  particular  markets  where  it  is  urgent  to  reassure  consumers  of  the  safety  of  the 
products. This option has not been applied so far. 

Both the third countries and internal market regulations require that actions included 
in the programmes are carried out by implementing bodies selected by the applicant 
through  a  competitive  procedure.  To  ensure  effectiveness  and  high  quality  of  the 
actions,  these  bodies  should  have  proven  competence  in  advertising,  promotion 
and/or  PR  work.  According  to  the  current  regulations  applicant  organisations  are 
excluded from the implementation of the programmes.  

For  olive  oil,  the  possibility  of  entrusting  promotion  programmes  to  the  IOOC 
(International Olive Oil Council) has been maintained in the regulation with a view 
to the positive results achieved in earlier campaigns and the lack of other sector-wide 
structures  comparable  with  the  IOOC.  However,  proposals  from  the  professional 
organisations  of  the  sector  are  also  eligible  under  the  current  application  rules. 
During 2002–2003 no voluntary contribution to the promotion budget of the IOOC 
has been paid because of its internal reorganisation, while a limited number of olive 
oil  programmes  for  third  countries  proposed  by  the  Member  States  have  been 
adopted2. 

2.2.3.  Management, controls and evaluation 

Expenditure  for  co-financing  promotion  programmes  is  classified  as  intervention 
under Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999, which means that the Member States 
are  reimbursed  for  their  expenditure  on  these  actions  according  to  the  general 
procedures of the EAGGF (indirect management). 

The  initiative  for  promotion  activities  lies  mainly  with  the  professional  and  inter-
professional  organisations  representing 
the  sectors  concerned.  They  prepare 
programmes  responding  to  calls  for  proposals  by  interested  Member  States. 
Procedures and dates for presenting proposals are laid down in the application rules 
decided by the Commission (Regulations (EC) No 2879/2000 and (EC) No 94/2002). 

Observing criteria set in the application rules and the guidelines, as supplemented by 
their  national  specifications,  Member  States  select  programmes  that  they  have 
checked  for  suitability  and  value  for  money.  They  present  these  proposals  to  the 
Commission, which checks their conformity with Community rules and the relevant 
guidelines.  The  Commission  takes  a  decision  on  co-financing  within  a  time  limit 
defined in the application rules. 

In view of the expertise required for drafting the guidelines and assessing programme 
proposals, the Commission needs to call on the services of technical assistants and of 
independent communication experts as it does not have specialised staff. 

2 

Two Italian programmes and one multi-country (E, I, F, P) programme including olive oil among other 
products. 

7 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
Since programme management is "indirect" (classified as intervention), the Member 
States  are  responsible  for  the  management,  control  and  payment  of  the  adopted 
promotion programmes. They sign contracts with the professional organisations, and 
supervise the implementation of the agreed measures and budget. 

Monitoring  committees  are  set  up  by  the  Commission  and  the  Member  States  to 
follow up the execution of Third Country promotion. As for all other contracts of this 
type,  the  competent  departments  of  the  Member  States  carry  out  technical, 
administrative and accounting controls to which the Commission may participate. 

Programme  results  will  be  evaluated  by  independent  bodies  chosen  by  the 
Commission, which will select the evaluators through calls for tenders. 

3. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF PROMOTION POLICY 2000–2003 

3.1. 

Application rules by the Commission 

The Commission prepared the application rules for the two Council Regulations after 
consultation  of  professional  organisations,  the  standing  group  for  promotion  of  the 
Advisory  Committee  and  the  management  committee  for  promotion.  It  also 
employed  external  experts  to  define  guidelines  for  the  product  sectors  eligible  for 
internal market programmes. 

The  application  rules  for  third  country  programmes  (Commission  Regulation  (EC) 
No  2879/2000)  were  adopted  on  28.12.2000,  and  the  application  rules  for  internal 
market programmes (Commission Regulation (EC) No 94/2002) on 18.1.2002. 

Both  application  regulations  have  subsequently  been  amended  several  times.  The 
amendments were necessary mainly to add new eligible products and corresponding 
guidelines, to modify the list of eligible target markets because of enlargement and to 
revise  procedures  on  the  basis  of  experience.  Five  amendments  have  been  made  to 
Regulation (EC) No 2879/2000 (third countries promotion): 

– 

Commission  Regulations  (EC)  No  962/2001,  (EC)  No  1955/2001,  (EC) 
No 1854/2002, (EC) No 409/2003, (EC) No 2171/2003.  

Six  amendments  have  also  been  made  to  Regulation  (EC)  No  94/2002  (internal 
market promotion): 

– 

Commission  Regulations  (EC)  No  305/2002,  (EC)  No  434/2002,  (EC) 
No 1186/2002, (EC) No 2097/2002, (EC) No 497/2003, (EC) No 185/2004. 

3.2. 

Budget appropriations and expenditure 

During the application of the current regulations the total EU budget appropriations 
for  promotion  have  varied  between  EUR  70  and  60  million  (table 1).  Until  2001 
expenditure for the VIIth Olive Oil campaign, carried out in direct management by 
the  Commission,  forms  a  major  part  of  the  appropriations  for  internal  market 
promotion  measures;  therefore  only  the  2002–2004  budgets  represent  provisions 
mainly  for 
the  application  of  Regulations  (EC)  No  2826/2000  and  (EC) 
No 2702/1999. 

8 

 
 
  
 
Table 1 – EU budget appropriations for promotion measures (million EUR) 

Budget heading 

Budget* 
line 

2004** 

2003 

2002 

2001 

2000 

EU Internal measures, indirect 

B1-3800 

39,0 

38,5 

External measures, indirect 

EU Internal measures, direct 

External measures, direct  

B1-3801 

B1-3810 

B1-3811 

9,5 

3,0 

8,0 

9,5 

5,0 

7,0 

44,0 

12,0 

6,3 

8,0 

31,0 

7,0 

16,0 

8,0 

43,0 

3,0 

15,0 

6,0 

Total Promotion 

59,5 

60,0 

70,3 

62,0 

67,0 

* = 

In the 2004 budget the lines B1-3800 and B1-3801 are included in line 05 08 04, and budget 
lines B1-3810 and B1-3811 respectively in line 05 08 05. 
** =  Preliminary Draft Budget (EU-15) after 2nd amending letter. 

Execution  of  the  budget  has  been  relatively  low  in  2002  and  2003  (24,0 %  and 
47,1 % respectively, see table 2 below). This is due to a relatively slow start of the 
new regime, 2003 being the first year of full application. In both 2001 and 2002 only 
one  decision  adopting  programmes  was  taken,  while  in  2003  three  series  of 
programmes have been adopted for the internal market and two  for third  countries. 
With  the  cumulation  of  running  programmes  (most  of  them  run  for  3  years)  the 
execution rate is likely to rise in 2004 and 2005. 

Table 2 – EU budget expenditure for promotion measures (million EUR) 

Budget heading 

Budget 
line 

2003* 

2002 

2001 

2000 

1999 

EU Internal measures, indirect 

B1-3800 

17,046 

10,818 

25,267 

37,855 

47,373 

External measures, indirect 

EU Internal measures, direct 

External measures, direct 

B1-3801 

B1-3810 

B1-3811 

5,483 

3,434 

0,266 

0,992 

4,630 

0,409 

0,000 

0,000 

14,585 

12,680 

5,838 

5,381 

0,000 

4,019 

1,340 

Total Promotion 

execution in % 

26,229 

16,849 

45,690 

55,916 

52,732 

43,71 % 

24,0 % 

73,7 % 

83,5 % 

68,5 % 

* = execution until 31.08.2003 + estimates by the MS till the end of the budget year. 

Expenditure  from  programmes  already  decided  can  be  estimated  to  be  about 
EUR 35 million  in  2004  and  about  EUR 28 million  in  2005.  Taking  into  account 
programmes that will be decided in 2004, this is likely to lead to an execution rate of 
about 80 % in 2004. 

3.3. 

Programmes adopted for co-financing in 2001–2003 

3.3.1.  Accepted and rejected programmes 

The  first  proposals  were  received  on  15  June  2001  for  third  country  promotion 
measures and on 15 May 2002 for internal market measures. By the end of 2003 the 
Commission has received three series with altogether 55 proposals for third country 
programmes  and  four  series  with  191  proposals  for  internal  market  programmes. 
Except  for  the  first  series  of  proposals  for  internal  market  programmes,  most 
proposals have been accepted for co-financing (see table 3 below). 

9 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 3 – Programmes adopted and rejected by December 2003 

Decision 

Internal Market 

22/08/2002, C(2002)3116 
20/06/2003, C(2003)1926 
2/10/2003, C(2003)3546 
30/12/2003, C(2003)5257 

Totals 

Third Countries 

12/12/2001, C(2001)4005 
16/01/2003, C(2003)15 
29/09/2003, C(2003)3404 

Totals 

No of 
proposals 
received 

120 
30 
5 
36 

191 

33 
12 
10 

55 

No 

40 
20 
5 
29 

94 

18 
6 
7 
311 

Accepted 

Rejected 

Co-financing 
(EUR million) 

32,1 
19,2 
2,4 
29,2 

83,0 

9,8 
7,0 
5,8 
22,71 

No 

80 
10 
0 
7 

97 

15 
6 
3 

24 

Co-financing
(EUR million) 

39,9 
4,9 
0,0 
4,8 

49,6 

7,2 
2,9 
0,8 

10,8 

1 

one programme was withdrawn after the decision (co-financing €0,13 Mio) 

The  reasons  for  rejecting  proposals  are  based  on  non-conformity  with  the  relevant 
Council  Regulation  or  the  application  rules.  The  most  usual  reasons  for  non-
eligibility relate to the selection of the implementing  organisation: either it had not 
been selected on the basis of a competitive procedure, or no implementing body at all 
had been selected (over half of the rejected proposals). 

Several  programmes  have  been  rejected  because  they  were  oriented  towards  the 
promotion of a commercial label or a product of a particular origin (20 cases). Other 
frequent  problems  leading  to  non-eligibility  have  been  that  the  proposing 
organisation is not sufficiently representative of the sector (13 cases) and that either 
the  Member  State  or  the  proposing  organisation  have  not  committed  themselves  to 
their share of the co-financing (10 cases). Finally, in some cases proposals have been 
rejected  because  they  have  only  consisted  of  a  single  action,  which  does  not 
represent a coherent strategy for achieving specified promotional objectives. 

The details of each series of proposals are presented in Annex 3. 

3.3.2.  Programmes running on third country markets 

Altogether  30  programmes  with  a  total  budget  of  €45  million  have  been  started  on 
the third country markets by the end of 20033. 

Seven Member States participate in these programmes. One third of the programmes 
are jointly operated by two or more Member States, involving France, Italy, Spain, 
Portugal  and  Denmark  (in  one  case).  Seven  Member  States  (EL,  IRL,  L,  A,  FI,  S, 
UK) have not proposed any third country programmes. 

All  target  markets  except  China  included  in  the  list  of  the  eligible  countries  in  the 
application rules are covered by at least one programme, although an overwhelming 
majority  of  programmes  concern  North  America  and  Japan.  In  China  only  one 

3 

Of  the  31  accepted  programmes  one  Belgian  programme  was  withdrawn  before  any  contract  was 
signed. 

10 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
market study (by F) has been carried out so far. However, China will be the target of 
a high-level promotional visit in March 2004 (see chapter 3.4. below). 

The accession countries were included in the list of possible target markets for third 
country  programmes  until  5.3.2003.  They  were  eliminated  from  the  list  by 
Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  409/2003  in  order  to  avoid  situations  where 
programmes would have to be interrupted at the date of accession. From the date of 
accession these countries will be covered by the internal market regulation. 

Altogether 6 programmes have one or several of the accession or applicant countries 
among  their  target  markets.  Poland  and  the  Czech  Republic  are  included  in  five 
programmes  and  Hungary  in  three.  Four  programmes  have  Romania  or  Bulgaria 
among their target markets. 

As for the sectors covered, fruit and vegetables is the one targeted most often. Nine 
out of the 30 programmes concern fresh fruit and vegetables, which are also included 
in many of the multi-sector programmes. The share of the total budget attributed so 
far is, however, larger for the meat sector (€5,7 Mio) than for the fruit and vegetables 
sector (€3,9 Mio). 

An overview of product sectors and target markets is presented in Annex 4. 

3.3.3.  Programmes running on the internal market 

By  December  2003  altogether  94  programmes  have  been  accepted  for  the  EU 
internal market, with a total  budget of €166,2 million and  with EU co-financing of 
€83,1 million. Nearly half of this amount is targeted to the fruit and vegetables sector 
(€75,9  million,  24  programmes).  The  milk  sector  receives  about  11 %  of  the  total 
budget, organic  production about 10 % and the wine sector about 6 %  (statistics  by 
country and by sector in Annex 4). 

All Member States except Luxemburg participate in the internal market programmes. 
Italy has presented the largest number of proposals (17 accepted programmes), and 
France,  Spain,  Germany  and  Austria  also  have  several  programmes  in  process.  On 
the  internal  market  multi-country  programmes  are  exceptional;  only  three  of  them 
have been accepted so far.  

3.4. 

Programmes under direct management by DG AGRI 

As  indicated  above,  certain  actions  can  be  financed  at  100 %  from  the  EU  budget. 
Such  actions  are  initiated  and  managed  directly  by  the  Commission,  and 
implemented with the help of contractors selected through calls for tenders. 

Under Regulation (EC) No 2702/1999 the following actions in third countries have 
so far been started under direct management by the Commission: 

1.  Organisation of a high-level promotional visit to China and participation in the 
SIAL food fair in March–April 2004 in Shanghai. An EU stand with the theme 
"Tasty Europe" will be organised in the SIAL fair. 

2.  Organisation  of  an  information  campaign  in  the  USA  and  Canada  on  the  EU 
regimes  concerning  protected  designations  of  origin  (PDOs),  protected 
geographical  indications  PGIs,  guaranteed  traditional  specialities  (TSGs)  and 
organic farming. 

3.  Organisation of a similar campaign in Asia (China, Japan, Taiwan, Korea). 

11 

 
 
  
 
The  information  campaigns  are  programmed  for  three  years  and  will  start  in  the 
course  of  2004.  These  actions  intend  to  inform  in  particular  importers  and 
distributors of agricultural products of EU quality regimes and the guarantees which 
they give to European agricultural products and foodstuffs. 

The  maximum  annual  budget  for 
EUR 2,8 million. 

the  above  directly  managed  actions 

is 

4. 

PERSPECTIVES FOR IMPROVEMENT 

4.1. 

Needs for adjustments noted by the Commission 

4.1.1.  The European dimension of promotion programmes 

In  order  to  boost  promotion  activities  with  a  European  dimension  both  regulations 
(internal  market  and  third  countries)  make  provisions  for  programmes  presented 
jointly  by  two  or  more  Member  States  and  professional  organisations.  The 
Commission’s  criteria  for  assessing  programme  proposals  give  priority  to  those 
proposed by two or more Member States. 

In practice the multi-country approach has met with some difficulties. According to 
the participating Member States authorities the management of such programmes is 
complicated,  in  particular  due  to  different  administrative  rules  and  procedures 
applied  in  different  Member  States.  Establishing  or  amending  contracts,  verifying 
payment requests or carrying out controls requires more time and coordination than 
in single country programmes. 

Nevertheless,  some  of  the  currently  running  multi-country  programmes  can  be 
judged  to  be  successful  and  good  examples  of  promoting  European  products.  The 
promotion regime should continue to give priority to programmes joining the efforts 
of  several  countries,  and  possibilities  for  facilitating  their  management  should  be 
sought.  The  European  dimension  of  promotion  programmes  should  be  further 
encouraged also by other means, as indicated in point 5.2 below. 

4.1.2.  The quality of proposals and their assessment by the Member States 

In particular at the early stages of the application of the current regime, a large part 
of the proposals presented by the Member States were rejected because they were not 
in  conformity  with  the  regulations.  The  quality  of  the  proposals  submitted  in  the 
latest series has been better, but there is still room for improvement.  

The  quality  of  proposed  programmes  is  mainly  dependent  on  the  applicant 
professional  and  inter-professional  organisations,  which  may  not  always  be  fully 
aware of the requirements of the regulations. The Member States can influence this 
by  sufficiently  clear  instructions  in  their  calls  for  proposals.  Suggestions  for 
measures to improve quality are included in point 5.2.  

4.1.3. 

Supervision of programmes and promotion materials 

The responsibility to verify the conformity of published promotional materials with 
Community  and  national legislation lies with the Member States. During the initial 
period of application of the new regulations for promotion, the Commission included 
in  its  decisions  adopting  programmes  a  requirement  to  send  draft  materials  to  the 
Commission  for  verification.  This  was  considered  necessary  because  of  reactions 

12 

 
 
  
 
from  the  public  on  certain  published  materials,  which  had  erroneous  messages. 
However,  as  the  requirements  of  the  new  regime  are  now  well  established,  this 
procedure has been changed as described in point 5.2 below. 

4.1.4.  Notification under Article 89 of the Treaty  

Where  Member  States’  authorities  subsidise  the  promotion  and  advertising  of 
agricultural  products  covered  by  a  Common  Market  Organisation,  either  through 
direct  financial  contributions  from  their  budgets  or  using  other  government 
resources,  including  parafiscal  charges  or  compulsory  contributions,  the  Treaty 
provisions concerning State Aid are applicable4. Such measures need to be notified to 
the Commission in accordance with article 89 of the Treaty. 

Notification  is  also  required  for  the  financial  contributions  by  the  Member  States 
granted  in  the  framework  of  Regulations  (EC)  No  2702/1999  and  No  2826/2000. 
This  is  an  unnecessary  complication  as  in  this  case  the  financing  provided  by  the 
Member States represents contributions to programmes adopted by the Community. 
Therefore a specific exemption from the notification procedure should be granted on 
the  basis  of  Article  89.  It  should  be  established  in  line  with  the  approach  taken  in 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1257/1999  concerning  support  for  rural  development 
measures5.  The  relevant  amendments  to  Regulations  (EC)  No  2702/1999  and 
No 2826/2000 are proposed in Annex 5. 

4.1.5.  Effectiveness of the promotion strategy 

The current regime can be characterized as a "bottom-up" system, where the contents 
of  the  portfolio  of  programmes  in  process  depends  mainly  on  the  interests  of  and 
initiatives taken by the professional and interprofessional organisations operating in 
different Member States and on the European level. 

A  consequence  of  this  "bottom-up"  system  is  that  the  strategy  expressed  in  the 
guidelines  (internal  market)  is  not  fully  effectively  implemented,  in  particular  as 
regards the distribution of the budget across different product sectors. The guidelines 
for internal market promotion measures foresee a fairly even distribution of activities 
between  different  product  sectors;  however,  the  applicant  organisations  have  been 
mainly interested in fruit and vegetables (46 % of accepted co-financing), while some 
other  eligible  sectors  (wine,  fibre  flax;  graphic  symbols  for  remote  regions)  have 
received no or very little attention. 

Another aspect in which the intended strategy of Community promotion policy has 
not  fully  materialised  is  that  the  number  of  proposals  received  for  third  country 
programmes  has  remained  rather  limited.  Budgetary  appropriations  have  been 
underused  both  for  internal  market  and  third  countries,  but  for  internal  market  the 
number  of  programmes  is  increasing  and  full  execution  rate  will  be  approached  in 
2004. For third countries the Member States and professional organisations have so 

4 

5 

Details  in:  -  Community  guidelines  for  State  aid  in  the  agriculture  sector  (OJ  C  28,  1.2.2000,  p.  2);  
- Community guidelines for State aid for advertising of products listed in Annex I to the EC Treaty and 
of certain non-Annex I products (OJ C 252, 12.9.2001, p. 5). 
See 2nd subparagraph of Article 51(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on 
support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) 
and amending and repealing certain Regulations (OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 80), as amended by Council 
Regulation (EC) No 1783/2003 of 29 September 2003 (OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 70). 

13 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
far  had  less  interest  even  if  this  is  the  area  where  the  added  value  of  EU-level 
activities may be highest. 

Within  the  current  regime  the  Commission  has  relatively  limited  possibilities  for 
taking  initiatives  for  information  or  promotion  measure  in  response  to  market 
developments or crisis situations, or if a need arises to inform consumers and other 
market  actors  on  new  developments  in  Community  legislation  (such  as  labelling 
systems). On third country markets the commission can organise on its own initiative 
(in  direct  management),  and  with  100 %  Community  financing,  certain  measures 
such  as  participation  in  fairs  or  exhibitions,  information  campaigns  on  EU  quality 
regimes,  studies  on  new  markets,  high  level  trade  visits  and  evaluation  studies.  On 
the internal market the Commission’s possibility to act on its own initiative is limited 
to participation in fairs and exhibitions in certain cases and to evaluation studies. 

Considering  the  relatively  limited  interest  shown  by  professional  organisations  and 
Member States to set up promotion programmes in certain sectors and in particular in 
third  countries,  more  flexibility  should  be  provided  for  the  Commission  to  take 
initiatives for information activities and for promotion campaigns of European level 
interest. A proposal for amendments of the two regulations is presented in point 5.2.  

4.1.6. 

Size and effectiveness of programmes 

A  further  aspect  in  which  the  effectiveness  of  the  current  strategy  needs  to  be 
improved  is  the  fragmentation  of  the  available  appropriation  into  a  relatively  large 
number of programmes with a budget which is likely to be too limited to achieve a 
significant impact on the targeted markets or consumer groups. 

An  external  evaluation  carried  out  on  the  Commission’s  earlier  promotion  policy 
confirms (see point 4.2 below) that promotion activities usually need to be continued 
for more than one year and that they need to have a sufficient scope to be effective. 
Therefore  preference  should  be  given  to  programmes  with  a  duration  and  a  budget 
which is sufficient to ensure that an impact on the awareness or attitudes towards the 
product in question can be achieved. 

A  large  part  of  the  current  programmes  are  rather  limited  in  their  scope:  one  third 
have a budget inferior to €600 000; 15 % of internal market programmes and 13 % of 
third  country  programmes  have  a  budget  which  is  inferior  to  €300 000.  Large 
programmes  with  a  budget  of  over  EUR 2  million  represent  about  one  fifth  of  the 
current programmes (Details in Annex 4). 

A minimum and a maximum budget should be set for eligible programmes to avoid, 
on  the  one  hand,  fragmentation  of  appropriations  to  ineffective  programmes  which 
consume  an  unproportionate  amount  of  administrative  resources,  and  on  the  other 
hand  to  avoid  concentration  of  an  unproportionately  large  share  of  the  budget  to  a 
small number of programmes benefiting only some Member States. The risk for this 
is  illustrated  by  tables  5  and  11  in  Annex  4,  which  show  that  35 %  of  the  total 
co-financing  for  internal  market  programmes  is  taken  up  by  six  large  programmes. 
To  avoid  this,  a  proposal  is  made  in  point  5.2  below  to  provide  in  the  Council 
regulations  a  possibility  to  set  a  floor  and  a  ceiling  to  the  acceptable  budgets  for 
co-financed promotion programmes. 

14 

 
 
  
 
4.1.7.  Promotion in the framework of rural development 

In  the  context  of  the  CAP  reform  a  food  quality  chapter  was  introduced  into  the 
Rural Development regime6. One of the new rural development measures establishes 
a possibility to receive Community support for promotion activities in the framework 
of rural development programmes of the Member States. Support can be granted to 
information,  promotion  and  advertising  activities  for  agricultural  products  and 
foodstuffs designated under certain Community or national food quality schemes, up 
to 70 % of eligible costs. The support concerns in particular products with a protected 
geographical  indication,  designation  of  origin  or  certificate  of  specific  character, 
products from organic farming and quality wines, and products participating in food 
quality schemes recognised by Member States. 

The  two  regimes  of  support  for  promotion  are  complementary  and  different  from 
each other because 

– 

– 

– 

support for promotion under rural development is only provided for actions on 
the internal market; 

support  for  promotion  under  rural  development  is  only  granted  for  producer 
groups,  while 
the  beneficiary  organisations  of  generic  promotion  are 
professional  or  inter-professional  organisations  representative  for  the  sector 
concerned; 

support  to  promotion  under  rural  development  targets  promotion  and 
information  campaigns  for  particular  agricultural  products  or  foodstuffs 
produced  under  an  accepted  quality  regime;  support  for  promotion  under  the 
internal  market  Regulation  (EC)  No  2826/2000  concentrates  on  generic 
campaigns for a sector, theme, product or a production method. 

Although the two regimes are different in principle, in practice some of the accepted 
internal market programmes concerning products with a geographical indication are 
close  to  the  type  of  actions  that  could  be  supported  under  the  rural  development 
regime. The risk of overlapping should be minimised as described in point 5.2 below. 

4.2. 

Findings of an external evaluation of EU-Promotion 

In  the  beginning  of  2003  the  Commission  completed  an  external  evaluation  of 
Community  promotion  policy  during  1994–2000.  Even  if  this  study  refers  to  the 
policy applied before the present system was established, some of the findings are of 
interest also for the current regime: 

– 

– 

EU-level  generic  promotion  has  achieved  positive  results  by  improving  the 
image of European products and consumer knowledge of their qualities in third 
countries  (this  concerns  in  particular  olive  oil).  On  the  internal  market  it  has 
contributed  to  creating  a  commercial  environment  which  has  helped  products 
to expand into new markets; 

in certain cases the level of investment in promotional campaigns has not been 
sufficiently high to achieve an impact. In general there is a need for a selective 
approach and relatively high budgets; 

6 

Regulation  (EC)  No  1783/2003  amending  Regulation  (EC)  No  1257/1999  on  support  for  rural 
development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund. 

15 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
– 

– 

– 

– 

in  general,  Community  financed  generic  promotion  campaigns  have  not 
exerted  a  systematic  multiplier  effect  on  private  investment  in  promotion. 
Nevertheless, they have been useful in preparing the ground for private action, 
in  particular  where  markets  for  the  products  in  question  were  in  the  first, 
introductory phase; 

where  the  market  is  dominated  by  private  brands  private  firms  remain 
relatively untouched by Community campaigns. In these cases the added value 
of EU promotion has been limited, as private brands compete to increase their 
relative  market  shares  with  advertising  budgets  well  above  those  of  the 
Community; 

as  regards  synergies  between  national  and  EU-level  campaigns,  some  did 
present  considerable  similarities,  hence  reinforcing  each  other,  while  others 
had clearly different aims and contents; 

ex-post evaluation of the impact of EU promotion is difficult as no systematic 
measurement  of  exposure,  participation,  etc  has  been  carried  out  during  or 
immediately after the campaigns. Measurement of results should be a built-in 
part of promotion actions. 

4.3. 

Proposals by professional organisations 

In the course of the preparation of the report the Commission has heard professional 
organisations  representing  various  agricultural  sectors.  In  particular  the  following 
issues have been emphasised in their contributions: 

•  The administrative burden related to the presentation of proposals and management 

of programmes is too heavy. 

Criticism  is  presented  as  regards  the  length  of  time  from  the  presentation  of 
proposals to the final decision and the level of detail required at this early stage, and 
as regards the transparency of the Commission’s decisions in accepting or rejecting 
proposals.  As  for  the  management  of  running  programmes,  the  obligation  to  have 
draft  materials  verified  by  the  Member  States’  competent  authorities  and  the 
Commission is criticised, as well as the reporting requirements, which are considered 
excessive. 

The Commission agrees with the need to simplify the process of adopting proposals 
for  co-financing  and  the  management  of  running  programmes.  The  relevant 
proposals are included in point 5.2 below. 

As for transparency concerning the reasons for rejecting proposals, the Commission 
presents  its  justifications  in  fact  sheets  which  are  prepared  for  every  proposal  and 
distributed to the Member States representatives in the management committee. It is 
up  to  them  to  inform  their  applicants  on  the  decision  and  its  justifications.  The 
Commission  has  provided  copies  of  these  facts  sheets  on  request  to  the  Standing 
Group  for  Promotion  of  the  Advisory  Committee  on  Quality  and  Health  of 
Agricultural Production.  

•  The requirements for the selection of implementing organisations are too complex. 

According to the current regulations, the bodies implementing the programmes must 
be selected by the proposing organisations before the presentation of the proposal to 
the Member State. The implementing body must be separate and  independent  from 

16 

 
 
  
 
the proposing organisation, and it must be selected through a competitive procedure. 
The purpose of this requirement is to gain control over costs through competition and 
to avoid the situation where a limited number of organisations would have a de facto 
monopoly for the implementation of promotion measures. 

The  professional  organisations  criticise  this  regime  because  it  represents  a  risk  and 
additional  costs  for  the  proposing  organisation,  and  because  in  some  countries  and 
for  certain  types  of  activities  (in  particular  fairs  and  exhibitions),  the  organisations 
making  proposals  are  at  the  same  time  experienced  and  competent  in  the 
implementation of promotion activities.  

The Commission agrees that the requirements concerning implementing bodies and 
their  selection  can  be  simplified  and  clarified.  The  relevant  proposal  is  included  in 
point 5.2 below.  

•  Sufficient  budgetary  resources  should  be  ensured  and  Member  States  co-financing 

should not be obligatory. 

The  professional  organisations  consider  Community  co-financing  to  promotion 
activities  desirable  and  insist  that  it  should  be  maintained,  arguing  in  particular  in 
favour  of  the  internal  market  scheme.  Proposals  were  made  to  increase  budgetary 
resources to take into account enlargement.  

Several  proposals  were  made  for  changing  the  co-financing  rates  between  the 
Member  States  and  the  professional  organisations  as  regards  the  non-Community 
part  (50 %)  of  programme  costs.  The  obligation  for  the  Member  States  to  finance 
20 %  limits  the  possibilities  of  professional  organisations  to  participate  if  the 
Member State has not allocated budget funds for this purpose. 

The Commission agrees that more flexibility could be allowed in the financing of the 
part which is not financed by the Community. The relevant proposals are included in 
point 5.2 below.  

•  The list of eligible products should be expanded. 

The  products  eligible  for  co-financing  under  Regulations  (EC)  No  2702/1999  and 
No 2826/2000  are  defined  in  the  annexes  to  the  corresponding  Commission 
regulations7, which have to be examined every two years. Since the application rules 
were first adopted, the lists of eligible products have already been amended several 
times, adding flowers and live plants to eligible products in third countries, and olive 
oil and linen in internal market. The professional and interprofessional organisations 
and  some  Member  States  have  made  proposals  concerning  products  that  should  be 
added  to  these  lists.  They  also  propose  that  revisions  should  be  made  whenever 
justified by market development. 

The  Commission  agrees  that  the  lists  of  eligible  products  should  be  revised  taking 
into account the evolution of the market situation and needs in different sectors. An 
examination of the relevant annexes to the application rules will be started during the 
first half of 2004. 

7 

See Commission Regulations referred to under section 3.1. 

17 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
5. 

CONCLUSIONS AND ACTION TO BE TAKEN 

5.1. 

General conclusions 

The new promotion policy adopted in 1999/2000 introduced important changes to the 
promotion activities carried out earlier. The main innovations consist of  

– 

– 

– 

switch over to a system of indirect management by the Commission, where the 
initiative  and  management  responsibility  is  in  the  hands  of  professional 
organisations and the Member States, 

harmonised  tripartite  co-financing  for  all  eligible  sectors,  where  financing  is 
shared between the EU, the Member States and the professional organisations, 

emphasis on the generic character of EU promotion, with focus on sectors and 
themes in stead of individual products. 

Implementation  of  the  two  Council  Regulations  establishing  the  new  policy  has 
started  only  gradually  in  2001  for  the  third  countries  and  in  2002  for  the  internal 
market,  with  the  year  2003  being  the  first  year  when  the  system  has  been  fully 
operative.  It  is  therefore  too  early  to  judge  the  results  of  the  promotion  activities 
initiated  under  the  new  regime.  A  second  report  on  the  application  of  the  two 
Regulations (EC) No 2702/1999 and (EC) No 2826/2000 should be presented by the 
end  of  2006,  covering  an  analysis  of  the  functioning  of  the  regime  and  the  results 
achieved.  

The administrative framework for operating the system has now been set up and the 
professional  organisations,  which  have  a  central  role  in  initiating  programmes  are 
gradually  getting  familiarised  with  its  requirements.  On  the  whole,  implementation 
of the regime now proceeds as planned. There are two main problems that need to be 
addressed: 

– 

– 

the  professional  organisations  and  Member  States  have  shown  considerable 
interest to initiate programmes on the internal market. However, part of these 
proposals  are  mainly  of  national  interest  with  limited  European  added  value. 
More emphasis should be put on setting up programmes with EU-level interest 
and on ensuring synergies between national and EU-level activities; 

as  for  the  third  countries,  there  is  less  interest  on  the  side  of  professional 
organisations.  The  number  of  proposals  received  has  remained  limited,  and 
even if some of the current programmes can be judged to be of good quality, 
the portfolio of third country programmes is not sufficiently strong to achieve 
significant  visibility  for  EU  products.  More  efficient  mechanisms  are  needed 
for  setting  up  high  quality  and  high  visibility  export  promotion  programmes; 
the  Commission  should  have  more  possibilities  to  take  initiatives  in  co-
operation  with  the  interested  Member  States  and  their  national  promotion 
organisations. 

5.2. 

Action to be taken 

In  the  Commission’s  view  the  current  regime  for  supporting  promotion  measures 
defined in Regulations (EC) No 2702/1999 and No 2826/2000 should be continued 
and  its  main  features  maintained.  To  improve  its  functioning  and  to  simplify 
management the following  adjustments  are necessary. The corresponding  proposals 
for amendments of the Council Regulations are presented in the attached proposal. 

18 

 
 
  
 
European dimension of promotion programmes 

•  The  priority  given  to  multi-country  programmes  should  be  continued,  while 
efforts  should  be  made  to  facilitate  their  management.  The  Commission  will 
take measures to this effect, for example by allowing for longer time delays for 
signing contracts, by preparing a differentiated model contract for multi-country 
programmes and by making provisions in the application rules for organisational 
arrangements and costs for their coordination. 

•  A mechanism needs to be set up for facilitating the search for complementarity 
and  synergies  between  regional  and/or  national  and  EU  co-financed 
programmes;  For  this  purpose  the  Commission  will  set  up  a  working  group, 
which  will  gather  authorities  in  charge  of  national  promotion  policy  from  the 
interested  member  States,  public  or  semi-public  bodies  that  operate  national 
level campaigns, other experts and the Commission. 

Such a group would 

– 

– 

– 

make suggestions for developing an EU-level promotion strategy, 

enhance alliances and joint initiatives between the Member States and national 
or European level bodies operative in promotion activities, 

take  initiatives  to  set  up  joint  promotion  programmes  in  third  countries  or 
covering several Member States. 

Quality of proposals 

•  The  Member  States  should  step  up  the  evaluation  of  proposals  with  a  view  to 
rejecting  the  non-eligible  cases  already  at  their  level.  They  should  also  ensure 
that their calls for proposals give sufficiently clear instructions on the eligibility 
of proposals. 

•  The Commission will give guidance on the preparation of proposals and on the 
eligibility of programmes. A structure and minimum content for the presentation 
of proposals will be defined in a guideline to be annexed to the application rules. 

Improving management and simplifying procedures 

•  The Commission will no longer carry out ex-ante verification of draft materials 
to avoid double verification by the Member State and the Commission, criticised 
by  some  professional  organisations.  The  Member  States  competent  authorities 
will  therefore  need  to  ensure  that  sufficient  resources  are  available  for  the 
management  and  control  of 
their 
responsibility.  They  must  ensure  that  the  conformity  and  appropriateness  of 
promotional  materials  published  under  their  authority  is  verified.  To  facilitate 
this the Commission will make available documentation giving guidance on the 
main  elements  to  be  checked  before  giving  permission  for  publication.  Where 
necessary,  it  will  give  advice  on  questions  concerning  the  conformity  of 
materials with European legislation. 

the  promotion  programmes  under 

•  The reporting requirements stipulated in the application rules will be simplified 
by  reducing  the  number  of  reports  to  be  submitted  annually.  The  Commission 
will proceed with a corresponding modification of the application rules.  

19 

 
 
  
 
•  The  Commission  will  carry  out  on-the-spot  checks  where  necessary  and 
participate in the controls of programmes carried  out by  the Member  States as 
foreseen by the application rules for Regulations (EC) No 2702/1999 and (EC) 
No 2826/2000.  

•  Monitoring groups, comprising representatives of the Commission, the Member 
States  concerned  and  the  proposing  organisations,  are  obligatory  for  third 
country programmes. As they are a useful instrument for the supervision of the 
proper  implementation  of  programmes,  they  should  be  included  also  in  the 
regulation  for  internal  market  programmes.  A  proposal  for  the  modification  of 
Regulation (EC) No 2826/2000 is included in the attached proposal. 

•  The Commission proposes amendments to Regulations (EC) No 2702/1999 and 
(EC)  No  2826/2000  in  order  to  establish  an  exemption  from  the  notification 
procedure based on Articles 87 to 89 of the Treaty to the financial contributions 
by  the  Member  States  for  promotion  measures  in  the  context  of  these 
Regulations. 

•  While it is necessary to maintain the general rule that implementing bodies must 
be selected through a competitive procedure, the requirements concerning these 
bodies  and  their  selection  can  be  clarified  and  simplified.  With  certain 
conditions  it  could  be  possible  for  the  proposing  organisation  to  carry  out 
specific  limited  actions  of  a  programme,  and  with  certain  conditions  the 
implementing body could be selected after the proposal has been adopted by the 
Commission.  The  Commission  will  make  the  necessary  modifications  to  the 
application rules.  

A more effective promotion strategy 

•  The  provision  for  organising  information  campaigns  with  100 %  Community 
funding  should  be  extended  to  the  internal  market,  and  in  addition  to 
information on the designations of origin and products from organic farming, it 
should  cover  other  Community  regimes  concerning  labelling  and  quality 
standards. 

•  The  Commission  should  be  able  to  launch  promotion  and  information 
programmes in third countries for sectors, products or themes for which there is 
a  European  wide  interest  or  for  which  the  professional  organisations  and/or 
Member States have not shown interest.  

•  The working group described above will advise on measures to be initiated by 
the Commission. The standing group for promotion of the Advisory Committee 
for Quality and Health of Agricultural Products may also be consulted.  

•  To avoid fragmentation of financing into small and ineffective programmes on 
the  one  hand,  and  to  ensure  a  balanced  distribution  of  the  budget  on  the  other 
hand, Regulations (EC) No 2702/1999 and (EC) No 2826/2000 should provide 
for a possibility to set in the application rules to be defined by the Commission a 
floor  and  a  ceiling  to  the  acceptable  budgets  for  co-financed  promotion 
programmes. 

The proposals for the relevant modifications to Regulations (EC) No 2702/1999 and 
(EC) No 2826/2000 are presented in the attached proposal. 

20 

 
 
  
 
Co-existence with promotion funding under the Rural Development regime 

•  The parallel application  of these two regimes should be followed up carefully, 
and an assessment of their complementarity should be presented in a report to be 
submitted by the end of 2006. 

•  The Commission will amend the application rules for Council Regulation (EC) 

No 2826/2000 so as to avoid overlapping of the two support systems. 

Co-financing rates 

•  The  tripartite  co-financing  of  promotion  programmes  and  the  mechanism  of 
indirect management adopted in the current regime should be maintained as the 
main  mechanism  for  Community  support  for  promotion  and  information 
activities  for  agricultural  products.  However,  while  the  share  of  Community 
financing  should  not  exceed  50 %  of  real  programme  costs,  more  flexibility 
could be allowed as regards the shares of financing for the non-Community part. 

•  The acceptance of parafiscal taxes as a source of financing already implies that 
de facto certain proposing organisations cover the whole of the non-Community 
part  of  financing.  This  possibility  should  be  maintained,  while  the  obligatory 
shares (currently MS 20 % – proposing organisation 30 %) could be relaxed so 
that the Member States could decide case by case of the share of financing they 
allocate to a programme. However, a minimum contribution from the proposing 
organisation  (for  example  20 %)  should  be  obligatory.  Proposals  for 
modifications  of  Regulations  (EC)  No  2702/1999  and  (EC)  No 2826/2000 
corresponding to the above are included in the attached proposal.  

•  Even if the Member State’s share of financing would be low or nonexistent, its 
responsibility  for  supervision  and  control  of  the  programmes  should  be 
maintained.  The  current  regime  of  indirect  management  through  the  EAGGF 
payment  and  control  system,  in  which  the  Member  States  have  a  central 
management  role,  should  not  be  switched  into  a  system  of  direct  subsidies  by 
the  Commission  to  the  proposing  organisations,  even  if  more  flexibility  is 
allowed in the co-financing shares.  

• 

for  degressive  EU-cofinancing  percentages 

In  order  to  simplify  the  preparation  and  assessment  of  proposals,  the  current 
provision 
for  multi-annual 
programmes  (60 %–40 %)  should  be  eliminated,  and  the  Community  co-
financing  should  be  50 %  for  each  year  of  the  programme.  The  relevant 
amendments  to  Regulations  (EC)  No  2702/1999  and  (EC)  No 2826/2000  are 
included in the attached proposal. 

Budget appropriations 

•  Taking into account enlargement, the overall amount of budget appropriations for 
supporting  promotion  under  Regulations  (EC)  No 2702/1999  and  (EC) 
No 2826/2000 should be maintained at least on the current level. However, within 
this  global  allocation  resources  should  be  gradually  shifted  from  the  internal 
market to actions in third countries, taking into account realistic possibilities for 
setting up effective programmes on these markets. 

21 

 
 
  
 
Eligible products and themes 

•  The current mechanism for defining the products and sectors eligible for support 
is sound and should not be altered. Decisions on including or excluding products 
should be based on a global view of their market situation and prospects, on the 
balance of and evolution of imports and exports in the sectors concerned and on 
the need to inform consumers on systems for geographical indications, labelling 
or  quality  assurance  systems.  The  Commission  should  continue  to  define  the 
accepted  products  after  consultation  of  the  management  committee  and  the 
Standing  Group  for  Promotion  of  the  Advisory  Committee  on  Agricultural 
Products, Health and Safety, and with the help of external experts. 

•  The  Commission  will  examine  the  regulations  defining  the  eligible  products, 
sectors and markets during 2004, taking into account proposals presented by the 
professional  organisations  and  Member  States.  The  resulting  list  should  be 
balanced  so  that  it  allows  the  participation  of  all  Member  States  to  promotion 
activities  in  particular  for  products  which  face  tightening  competition  either  in 
third countries or on the internal market by imported products. 

Simplification of legislation 

•  Experience  has  shown  that  the  practical  implementation  of  the  two  regimes 
defined  by  Regulations  (EC)  No  2702/1999  and  (EC)  No 2826/2000  can  be 
carried  out  by  similar  procedures  as  regards  presentation  of  proposals,  decision 
making and monitoring. Proposals for harmonizing the relative provisions in the 
two Council Regulations are included in the attached proposal. 

22 

 
 
  
 
ANNEX 1 – PRODUCTS AND MARKETS ELIGIBLE FOR COMMUNITY CO-FINANCING 

1. 

ELIGIBLE MARKETS AND PRODUCTS (THIRD COUNTRIES) 

(Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  2879/2000  as  last  amended  by  Regulation  (EC) 
No 2171/2003) 

Markets 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Switzerland 

Norway 

Romania 

Bulgaria 

Russia 

Japan 

China 

South Korea 

– 

– 

South-east Asia 

India 

–  Middle East 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

North Africa 

Republic of South Africa 

North America 

Latin America 

Australia and New Zealand 

Products 

–  Fresh, chilled and frozen beef, veal and pig meat; 

food preparations based on these products 

–  Quality poultry meat 

–  Cheese and yoghurt 

–  Olive oil and table olives 

–  Spirit  drinks  with  a  geographical 
traditional 

reserved 

indication  or  a 
description 

–  Fresh and processed fruit and vegetables 

–  Products processed from cereals and rice 

–  Table  wines  with  a  geographical  indication

–  Fibre flax 

Quality wines psr 

2. 

ELIGIBLE PRODUCTS (INTERNAL MARKET) 

(Commission Regulation (EC) No 94/2002, as last amended on 2.2.2004 by Regulation (EC) 
No 185/2004) 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Fresh fruit and vegetables, 

processed fruit and vegetables, 

milk products, 

quality wines psr, table wines with a geographical indication, 

olive oil and table olives, 

flowers and live plants, 

fibre flax, 

beef and veal, fresh, chilled or frozen, 

eggs. 

23 

 
 
  
 
 
ANNEX 2 – PROMOTION MEASURES: FINANCING OPTIONS 

Type of activity 

Trade and intertrade 
organisations 

Member 
State 

PR,  advertising  sales 
promotion 

Events, fairs, 
exhibitions 

Info  campaigns  on 
quality wines psr  

Market  studies  (third 
countries only) 

Info  campaigns  on 
PDO, 
PGI,  TSG 
systems  and  organic 
products 

High level visits (third 
countries only) 

Evaluation 

30 % 

50 % 

30 % 

– 

30 % 

30 % 

– 

30 % 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Comment 

exceptional cases 

EU 

50 % 

50 % 

50 % 

100 % 

in certain cases 

20 % 

– 

20 % 

– 

20 % 

50 % 

20 % 

50 % 

– 

20 % 

50 % 

– 

– 

– 

100 % 

in certain cases 

50 % 

50 % 

on the internal market only 

on the internal market in the 
absence of proposals by the trade 

100 % 

in third countries only 

100 % 

100 % 

Articles 2, 7 and 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2702/1999 and Articles 2, 6, 7 and 9 of 
Council Regulation (EC) No 2826/2000. 

24 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 3 – PROPOSALS RECEIVED FOR THIRD COUNTRIES AND INTERNAL MARKETS 

1. 

PROPOSALS FOR THIRD COUNTRY MARKETS 

First series: Decision C(2001) 4005 of 18.12.2001 (third countries) 

– 

– 

– 

– 

33 proposals with a total value of € 50,3 million. 

18 programmes were accepted for co-financing, representing promotion measures for 
€19,6 million and EU co-financing for € 9,8 million. 

Main areas and countries targeted: the Far East, USA and the enlargement countries. 
Products covered; wine, fruit and vegetables, cheeses and pigmeat. 

Of the 18 programmes, 6 run for one year (2002), 3 run for two years and 9 run for 
three years. 

Second series: Decision C(2003) 15 of 16.1.2003 (third countries) 

– 

– 

19 proposals with a total value of € 24,3 million.  

6  programmes  accepted  for  co-financing,  with  a  total  value  of  €  14,1 million 
and EU co-financing for € 7,0 million. 

–  Main  countries  targeted:  Japan,  USA,  Canada,  Russia,  Poland  and  Czech 
Republic.  Products  covered  are:  wine,  fruit  and  vegetables,  cheese  and 
pigmeat. 

– 

One Belgian programme was withdrawn by the applicant before a contract was 
signed. From the remaining 5 programmes, 3 run for two years and 2 run for 
three years (2003–2005). 

Third series C(2003) 3404 of 29.9.2003 (third countries) 

– 

– 

Ten programmes received, with a total value of €13,15 million. 

Seven  eligible  totalling  €11,6  million  and  with  community  co-financing  of 
€5,8 million. 

–  Most of the approved programmes were for multi-product applications.  

– 

Four  of  the  seven  were  Italian  programmes  and  the  remainder  were  all  joint 
efforts by several Member States. 

2. 

PROPOSALS FOR INTERNAL MARKETS 

First series: Decision C(2002) 3116 final of 22.8.2002 (internal market) 

– 

– 

– 

– 

120 proposals with a total value of €154 million. Except for Luxembourg, all 
Member States participated. 

40  programmes  were  accepted  for  co-financing,  with  a  total  value  of 
€64,2 million and EU co-financing of €32,1 million. 

The  main  markets  targeted  are  those  of  the  large  Member  States.  Products 
covered:  wine,  fruit  and  vegetables,  milk  and  cheeses,  organic  products, 
flowers and labelling systems. 

Of the 40 programmes, 7 run for one year, 8 run for two years and 25 run for 
three years. 

25 

 
 
  
 
– 

The  most  common  reasons  why  the  Commission  had  to  reject  such  a  large 
number of these programmes were irregularities in procedures for selecting the 
implementing body (if one was selected at all), promotion of specific brands or 
origins and general failure to follow the guidelines. 

Second series: Decision C(2003) 1926 final of 20.6.2003 (internal market) 

– 

– 

– 

– 

30  proposals  a  total  value  of  €50  million.  Ten  Member  States  presented 
proposals. 

20  programmes  were  accepted,  with  a  total  value  of  €38,4 million  and  EU 
co-financing of €19,2 million. 

The  markets  targeted  are  mainly  the  home  markets  of  the  proposing 
organisations. Products covered: wine, fruit and vegetables, milk and cheeses, 
organic products and flowers. 

Of the 40 programmes, 9 run for one year, 3 run for two years and 8 run for 
three years. 

Third series: Decision C(2003)3546 of 02.10.2003 (internal market, olive oil) 

– 

– 

Olive  oil  was  included  in  the  list  of  eligible  products  by  a  modification  of 
Commission  Regulation  (CE)  No  94/2002  in  March  2003.  To  ensure  that 
proposals could be presented during the same year, a specific date was defined 
for the submission of olive oil programmes. The duration of these programmes 
was fixed to 1 year by the guideline. 

Five  programmes  were  presented  by  Spain,  Greece  and  Italy.  All  five  were 
approved, the total value of the package being €4,9 million with a community 
contribution  of  €2,4  million.  One  of  the  programmes  has  subsequently  been 
withdrawn, the total value of EU co-financing being reduced to €1,1 million. 

Fourth series: Decision (2003) 5257 of 30.12.2003 (internal market) 

– 

– 

– 

36 proposals with total value of € 68,1 million.  

29  programmes  were  approved  with  a  total  value  of  €58,5  million  and  with 
community co-financing of €29,2 million. 

12 different Member States presented proposals. 

26 

 
 
  
 
ANNEX 4 – PROGRAMMES ACCEPTED IN 2001–2003 

TABLES BY COUNTRY, PRODUCT SECTOR, DURATION AND SIZE OF BUDGET 

I. THIRD COUNTRIES 

Table 1 – Accepted programmes 2001–2003 by proposing Member State 

Member State 

Total 

EU-Co-financing 

Budget € million 

No of programmes 
approved 

Belgium 

Denmark 

France 

Italy 

Spain 

Netherlands 

Portugal 

Multi-MS 

Total 

1,6 

1,5 

5,2 

7,0 

3,6 

0,3 

1,4 

24,5 

45,1 

0,9 

0,8 

2,6 

3,5 

1,8 

0,3 

0,7 

12,2 

22,6 

3 

1 

4 

8 

1 

1 

3 

10 

30 

Table 2 – Accepted programmes by target countries  

Target Country 

No of 
programmes 

Participating Member States 

North America 

Japan 

Switzerland 

Poland 

Czech Republic 

Latin America 

Middle East 

SE Asia 

Norway 

Hungary 

Russia 

South Korea 

Romania 

Bulgaria 

China 

Hong Kong 

Australia+ NZ 

India 

North Africa 

South Africa 

15 

14 

5 

5 

5 

4 

4 

3 

3 

3 

3 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Multi (4), B (1), E (1), F (2), I (6), P (1) 

Multi (3), B (2), DK (1), E (1), F (2), I (4), NL (1) 

Multi (1), F (2), P (1), I (1) 

Multi (2), B (2), F (1) 

Multi (1), B (2), F (1), I (1) 

Multi (1), E (1), P (2) 

B (1), F (1), I (1) 

Multi (2), B (1) 

Multi (1), F (1), I (1) 

Multi (1) B (2) 

B (1), P (1), I (1) 

B (2) 

B (2) 

B (2) 

F (1-market study) 

Multi (1) 

I (1) 

Multi (1) 

B (1) 

B (1) 

27 

 
 
  
 
 
Table 3 – Accepted programmes 2001–2003 by Member States and product sector 

Product sector 

Multi-products 

Fruit & Vegetables 

Milk & milk products 

Olives 

Pasta 

Wine 

Meat 

EU 
co-financing 
(€ million) 

No of 
programmes 

7,6 

3,9 

2,4 

0,3 

0,8 

1,9 

5,8 

9 

9 

3 

1 

1 

4 

3 

Participating Member States 

Multi (3), I (4), E (1), P (1) 

Multi (4), F (2), B (1), NL (1), P (1) 

F (2), I (1) 

I (1) 

I (1) 

Multi (2), I (1), P (1) 

Multi (1), B (1), DK (1) 

Total 

22,7 

30 

Table 4 – Duration of programmes 

EU-Cofinancing 

Duration (years) 

No of programmes 

€ million 

1 

2 

3 

Total 

7 

8 

15 

30 

2,3 

7,0 

13,3 

22,6 

% 

10,6 

30,9 

58,5 

100,0 

Table 5 – Accepted programmes by the size of their budget 

Organisation 

Total budget of the programme (€ million) 

0,1 – 0,3 

0,3 – 1,0 

1,0 – 2,5 

> 2,5 

TOTAL 

No of 
progs 

% of 
progs 

Total Budget 

(€ million) 

% of 
budget 

4 

13 

7 

6 

30 

13,3 

43,3 

23,3 

20,0 

100 

0,7 

8,9 

8,9 

26,6 

45,1 

1,6 

19,7 

19,8 

58,9 

100,0 

28 

 
 
  
 
 
  
  
II. 

INTERNAL MARKET 

Table 6 – Accepted programmes 2001–2003 by product sector 

Product sector 

Total 

Fruit & vegetables 

Flowers, plants, trees 

Milk products 

Olive/olive oil 

Organic 

PDO/PGI/TSG 

Wine 

Multi products 

Beef & Veal 

75,9 

10,5 

17,5 

4,9 

16,7 

11,8 

10,3 

5,0 

13,4 

Budget € million 

EU 
co-financing 

38,0 

5,3 

8,8 

2,4 

8,3 

5,9 

5,2 

2,5 

6,7 

% 

45,7 

6,3 

10,5 

3,1 

10,0 

7,1 

6,2 

3,0 

8,1 

No of 
programs 

24 

9 

16 

5 

14 

6 

8 

3 

9 

Total 

166,2 

83,0 

100,0 

94 

Table 7 – Accepted programmes 2001–2003 by proposing Member State 

Budget € million 

Member State 

Total 

Co-financing  % 

No of programs 

Austria 

Belgium 

Denmark 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Ireland 

Italy 

Netherlands 

Portugal 

Spain 

Sweden 

United Kingdom 

Multi MS 

9,6 

3,5 

7,3 

1,2 

38,5 

11,9 

4,8 

0,7 

28,0 

6,9 

0,4 

33,1 

2,7 

4,5 

13,0 

4,8 

1,7 

3,6 

0,6 

19,3 

5,9 

2,4 

0,3 

14,0 

3,5 

0,2 

16,6 

1,3 

2,3 

6,5 

6 

2 

4 

1 

23 

7 

3 

0,4 

17 

4 

0,3 

20 

2 

3 

8 

5 

5 

4 

2 

13 

10 

5 

2 

24 

4 

1 

8 

4 

4 

3 

Total 

166,2 

83,0 

100 

94 

29 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Table 8 – Number of accepted programmes by Member State and product sector 

Member 
State 

Austria 

Belgium 

Denmark 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Ireland 

Italy 

Netherlands 

Portugal 

Spain 

Sweden 

UK 

Multi MS 

Total 

F&V  FPT  Milk  O/OO  PDO  Org  Wine  Multi  Beef  Total 

1 

1 

4 

4 

1 

4 

2 

1 

3 

1 

2 

24 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

9 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

1 

3 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

1 

16 

5 

6 

1 

1 

1 

3 

6 

1 

1 

14 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

5 

5 

4 

2 

13 

10 

5 

2 

24 

4 

1 

8 

4 

4 

3 

1 

1 

1 

3 

1 

1 

1 

8 

3 

9  

94 

F&V = Fruit & Vegetables 
FPT = Flowers, plants, trees 
Milk = milk and milk products 
O/OO = olives or olive oil 
Beef = beef & veal 

PDO = PDO/PGI/TSG 
Org = organic (bio) 
Wine 
Multi = combination of more than one product 

Table 9 – Duration of programmes 

EU-Cofinancing  

Duration (years)  No of programmes 

€ million 

1 

2 

3 

Total 

28 

18 

48 

94 

11,6 

11,3 

60,1 

83,0 

% 

14,0 

13,6 

72,1 

100,0 

30 

 
 
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
Table 10 – Indicative budgets in guidelines and accepted co-financing by product sector 

Budget € million 

Guideline 

Decisions 
co-financing 

Product sector 

€ million % 

€ million % 

No progr. 
approved 

Fruit & Vegetables 

Flowers, plants, trees 

Milk products 

Olives/olive oil 

Organic 

PDO/PGI/TSG 

Wine 

Beef & Veal 

Graphic symbol remote regions 

Fibre flax 

Multi products 

9 

4 

6 

6 

6 

4 

6 

6 

3 

1 

18 

8 

12 

12 

12 

8 

12 

12 

6 

2 

38,0 

5,3 

8,8 

2,4 

8,3 

5,9 

5,2 

6,7 

0,0 

0,0 

2,5 

46 

6 

11 

3 

10 

7 

6 

8 

0 

0 

3 

24 

9 

16 

5 

14 

6 

8 

9 

0 

0 

3 

Total 

51 

100 

83,0 

100 

94 

Table 11 – Accepted programmes by the size of their budget 

Total budget of the programme (€ million) 

No of 
progs 

% of 
progs 

Total Budget 
€ million 

% of 
budget 

0,1 – 0,3 

0,3 – 1,0 

1,0 – 2,5 

2,5 – 4,0 

> 4,0 

GENERAL TOTAL programmes 

14 

32 

30 

12 

6 

94 

14,9 

34,0 

31,9 

12,8 

6,4 

100 

3,1 

19,6 

47,0 

38,2 

58,1 

1,9 

11,8 

28,3 

23,0 

35,0 

166,0 

100,0 

31 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
2004/0073 (CNS) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

amending Regulation (EC) No 2702/1999 on measures to provide information on, and to 
promote, agricultural products in third countries, and Regulation (EC) No 2826/2000 on 
information and promotion actions for agricultural products on the internal market 

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  establishing  the  European  Community,  and  in  particular 
Articles 36 and 37 thereof, 

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission, 

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament, 

Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee, 

Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions, 

Whereas: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

In the light of experience gained with the implementation of Council Regulations (EC) 
No  2702/19998  and  No  2826/20009,  analysed  in  the  report  presented  by  the 
Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  in  March  2004,  it  is 
appropriate to revise certain provisions of those Regulations. 

Harmonisation of the provisions concerning the submission and selection of proposals, 
the  monitoring  of  the  programmes  as  well  as  consultation  and  technical  assistance, 
applied in the context of Regulations (EC) No 2702/1999 and No 2826/2000, should 
lead  to  a  simplified  management  of  the  two  regimes;  in  particular  proposing 
organisations  should  be  given  the  possibility  to  implement  certain  parts  of  the 
programmes  themselves  and  to  select  implementation  bodies  at  a  later  stage  in  the 
procedure. 

Fragmentation of financing into small and ineffective programmes should be avoided 
and a balanced distribution of the available budgetary resources should be ensured, by 
providing minimum and maximum effective cost limits for programmes submitted. 

The possibility for initiating promotion and information measures by the Commission 
in  third  countries  should  be  extended  in  cases  where  such  measures  have  a 
Community-wide  interest  or  no  appropriate  measures  have  been  submitted  by 
professional or interprofessional organisations. The Commission should also be given 

8 
9 

OJ L 327, 21.12.1999, p. 7. 
OJ L 328, 23.12.2000, p. 2. 

32 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
the  possibility  to  initiate,  on  the  internal  market,  information  measures  related  to 
Community  regimes  concerning  quality  and  labelling  of  agricultural  products  and 
foodstuffs. 

In  the  light  of  experience  gained  with  the  implementation  of  the  digressive 
contribution  from  60  to  40 %  in  cases  of  multi  annual  programmes,  the  provisions 
concerning  the  Community  contribution  to  such  programmes  should  be  simplified, 
while  maintaining  the  level  of  the  Community  contribution  at  50 %  of  the  effective 
cost of each programme. 

The share of the contribution of the Member State(s) and the proposing organisation(s) 
should be made more flexible, leaving however a minimum obligatory financing to be 
borne by the proposing organisation. 

It is highly important that the materials which are used in information and promotion 
campaigns are checked as regards their conformity with Community legislation. It is 
therefore necessary  to  clarify  the already existing  monitoring  obligations of Member 
States in that respect. 

The  Member  State(s)  contributions  to  programmes  are  made  in  the  context  of  a 
specific procedure. Member States should therefore be exempted from the obligation 
to notify such national contributions as state aid in order to simplify the administrative 
proceedings  concerned,  as  these  contributions  should  not  be  considered  as  state  aid 
within the meaning of Articles 87, 88 and 89 of the Treaty. 

"Ad hoc" working groups of representatives from Member States and/or experts with 
particular  expertise  in  promotion  and  publicity  matters  can  usefully  advise  the 
Commission  in  developing  the  strategy  and  the  implementation  measures  of  the 
regime. The possibility for consulting such groups should therefore be provided for. 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

(10)  Regulation (EC) No 2702/1999 should continue to apply after 31 December 2004. 

(11) 

In order to enable the necessary adaptations for implementing the proposed measures, 
this Regulation should apply from 1 January 2005. 

(12)  Regulations (EC) No 2702/1999 and (EC) No 2826/2000 should therefore be amended 

accordingly, 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

Regulation (EC) No 2702/1999 is amended as follows: 

(1) 

In Article 2, point (c) is replaced by the following: 

"(c) 

information  campaigns,  in  particular  on  the  Community  systems  covering 
protected  designations  of  origin  (PDOs),  protected  geographical  indications 
(PGIs),  guaranteed  traditional  specialities  (GTSs)  and  organic  production,  as 
well  as  other  Community  regimes  concerning  quality  standards  and  labelling 
for agricultural products and foodstuffs, and graphic symbols laid down in the 
relevant Community legislation;". 

33 

 
 
  
 
(2) 

Article 5 is replaced by the following: 

"Article 5 

1. 

2. 

In accordance with the procedure referred to in Article12(2), the Commission 
shall draw up every two years a list of the products and markets referred to in 
Articles 3 and 4 respectively. 

However, this list may be amended in the interim, if necessary. 

In accordance with the procedure referred to in Article12(2), the Commission 
may adopt guidelines defining details concerning the strategy to be followed in 
the proposals for information and promotion campaigns for certain or all of the 
products referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article." 

(3) 

Article 7 is replaced by the following: 

"Article 7 

1. 

2. 

To carry out the measures referred to in Article 2(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) and 
subject  to  Article  6,  the  professional  and/or  interprofessional  organisation(s) 
representing the sector(s) in one or more Member States or at Community level 
shall draw up proposals for promotion and information programmes lasting no 
longer than three years. 

Member States shall draw up a specification laying down the requirements and 
criteria for evaluating the programmes. 

The Member State(s) concerned shall examine the suitability of each proposed 
programme  and  its  conformity  with  the  provisions  of  this  Regulation,  the 
guidelines if use is made of Article 5(2), and the relevant specification. They 
shall also check that the programme offers value for money. 

Once  having  approved  the  programme  or  programmes,  the  Member  State(s) 
shall draw up a list of programmes within the limit of available funds and shall 
undertake to contribute to their funding. 

3. 

The  Member  State(s)  shall  send  the  Commission  the  list  of  programmes  and 
copies of the programmes.  

If  the  Commission  finds  that  a  programme  which  has  been  submitted,  or 
certain actions thereof, are not in accordance with Community provisions or do 
not  offer  value  for  money,  it  shall,  within  a  time  limit  to  be  determined  in 
accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 12(2), notify the Member 
State(s) concerned of the ineligibility of all or part of the programme. Once that 
time limit has been exceeded, the programme shall be deemed eligible.  

The  Member  State(s)  shall  take  account  of  any  observations  made  by  the 
Commission  and  shall  send  the  programmes,  revised  in  agreement  with  the 
proposing  organisation,  to  the  Commission,  within  a  period  of  time  to  be 
determined in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 12(2) 

4. 

The  Commission  shall  decide  which  programmes  it  accepts  and  shall  inform 
the  Management  Committee  referred  to  in  Article  12(1)  of  the  programmes 
accepted and the corresponding budgets at the earliest opportunity. 

34 

 
 
  
 
5.  After  inviting  competitive  offers  by  all  appropriate  means,  the  proposing 
organisation shall select the implementation bodies, which shall implement, in 
whole  or 
the  selected 
implementation bodies implement only part of the programme, the rest of the 
programme shall be implemented by the proposing organisation itself. 

the  programmes.  In 

the  case  where 

in  part, 

6. 

In accordance with the procedure referred to in Article12(2), the Commission 
may  set  minimum  and/or  maximum  effective  cost  limits  for  the  programmes 
submitted under this Article." 

(4) 

The following Article 7a is inserted: 

"Article 7a 

After the Management Committee referred to in Article 12(1) or, where appropriate, 
the Regulatory Committees referred to in Council Regulations (EEC) No 2092/9110, 
(EEC)  No  2081/9211  or  (EEC)  No  2082/9212  have  been  informed,  the  Commission 
shall decide on the following measures: 

(a)  measures referred to in Article 2 (f) and (g) of this Regulation; 

(b)  measures  referred  to  in  Article  2  (a),  (b),  (c),  (d)  and  (e)  of  this  Regulation, 
where  such  measures  have  a  Community-wide  interest  or  no  appropriate 
proposals have been submitted under the procedure established in Article 7 of 
this Regulation; 

(c)  measures carried out by an international organisation as referred to in Article 6 

of this Regulation. 

(5) 

Article 8 is amended as follows: 

(a) 

In paragraph 1, the second and third indents are replaced by the following: 

"– 

the body or bodies responsible for implementing the measures referred to 
in Article 7a;" 

(b)  Paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:  

"4.  The  Member  States  concerned  shall  be  responsible  for  monitoring 
programmes  referred  to  in  Article  7  and  for  making  the  payments  in 
respect thereof. The Member States shall ensure that any information or 
promotion  material  produced  under  an  accepted  programme  complies 
with Community law." 

(6) 

Article 9 is amended as follows: 

(a)  Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 are replaced by the following: 

"1.  Without  prejudice  to  paragraph  4,  the  Community  shall  fund  the 
measures referred to in Article 7a in their entirety. The Community shall 

10 
11 
12 

OJ L 198, 22.7.1991, p. 1. 
OJ L 208, 24.7.1992, p. 1. 
OJ L 208, 24.7.1992, p. 9. 

35 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
2. 

3. 

also fund entirely the cost of technical assistants selected according to the 
first indent of Article 8(1). 

The Community’s contribution to the programmes referred to in Article 7 
shall not exceed 50 % of the real cost of the programmes. In the case of 
promotion  programmes  lasting  two  or  three  years,  the  contribution  for 
each year of implementation shall not exceed that maximum limit. 

The proposing organisation(s) shall fund at least 20 % of the real cost of 
the  programmes  referred  to  in  Article  7,  the  rest  of  the  financing  being 
borne  by  the  Member  State(s)  concerned,  taking  into  account  the 
Community’s  contribution  referred  to  in  paragraph  2.  The  respective 
shares of the Member State(s) and the proposing organisation(s) shall be 
defined  at  the  time  the  programme  is  submitted  to  the  Commission  in 
accordance  with  Article  7(4).  The  payments  made  by  Member  States 
and/or the proposing organisations may come from parafiscal charges." 

(b)  The following paragraph 5 is added: 

"5.  Articles  87,  88  and  89  of  the  Treaty  shall  not  apply  to  the  financial 
the  financial 
contributions  provided  by  Member  States  and 
from  parafiscal  charges  or  compulsory 
contributions,  coming 
contributions,  provided  by  Member  States 
and/or  proposing 
organisations, for the programmes subject to Community support within 
the  scope  of  Article  36  of  the  Treaty  and  which  the  Commission  has 
decided to accept in accordance with Article 7, paragraph 4." 

to 

(7) 

The following Article 12a is inserted: 

"Article 12a 

Before  drawing  the  list  and  guidelines  referred  to  in  Article  5,  or  accepting 
programmes  referred  to  in  Article  7,  or  deciding  on  measures  in  accordance  with 
Article 7a, or adopting implementation measures in accordance with Article 11, the 
Commission may consult: 

(a) 

(b) 

the Standing Group on the Promotion of Agricultural Products of the Advisory 
Committee on Agricultural Product Health and Safety ; 

technical "ad hoc" working groups composed of members of the Management 
Committee referred to in Article 12(1) and/or experts with particular expertise 
in promotion and publicity." 

In Article 13 the date of "31 December 2003" is replaced by "31 December 2006". 

In Article 15, the second paragraph is deleted. 

(8) 

(9) 

36 

 
 
  
 
Article 2 

Regulation (EC) No 2826/2000 is amended as follows: 

(1) 

In Article 2, point (c) is replaced by the following: 

"(c) 

information  campaigns,  in  particular  on  the  Community  systems  covering 
protected  designations  of  origin  (PDOs),  protected  geographical  indications 
(PGIs),  guaranteed  traditional  specialities  (GTSs)  and  organic  production,  as 
well  as  other  Community  regimes  concerning  quality  standards  and  labelling 
for agricultural products and foodstuffs, and the graphic symbols laid down in 
the  relevant  Community  legislation,  including  the  graphic  symbol  for 
extremely remote regions ;" 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

In Article 4, paragraph 2 is deleted. 

In Article 5, paragraph 2 is deleted. 

Article 6 is replaced by the following: 

"Article 6 

1. 

2. 

To  carry  out  the  measures  referred  to  in  Article  2(a),  (b),  (c)  and  (d)  and  in 
accordance with the guidelines referred to in Article 5, the professional and/or 
interprofessional  organisation(s)  representing  the  sector(s)  in  one  or  more 
Member States or at Community level shall draw up proposals for promotion 
and information programmes lasting no longer than three years. 

Member States shall draw up a specification laying down the requirements and 
criteria for evaluating the programmes. 

The Member State(s) concerned shall examine the suitability of each proposed 
programme  and  its  conformity  with  the  provisions  of  this  Regulation,  the 
guidelines in Article 5 and the relevant specification. They shall also check that 
the programme offers value for money. 

Once  having  approved  the  programme  or  programmes,  the  Member  State(s) 
shall draw up a list of programmes within the limit of available funds and shall 
undertake to contribute to their funding. 

3. 

The  Member  State(s)  shall  send  the  Commission  the  list  of  programmes  and 
copies of the programmes.  

If  the  Commission  finds  that  a  programme  which  has  been  submitted,  or 
certain  actions  thereof,  are  not  in  accordance  with  Community  provisions  or 
with the guidelines referred to in Article 5, or do not offer value for money, it 
shall,  within  a  time  limit  to  be  determined  in  accordance  with  the  procedure 
laid  down  in  Article  13(2),  notify  the  Member  State(s)  concerned  of  the 
ineligibility  of  all  or  part  of  the  programme.  Once  that  time  limit  has  been 
exceeded, the programme shall be deemed eligible. 

The  Member  State(s)  shall  take  account  of  any  observations  made  by  the 
Commission  and  shall  send  the  programmes,  revised  in  agreement  with  the 
proposing  organisation,  to  the  Commission,  within  a  period  of  time  to  be 
determined in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 13(2). 

37 

 
 
  
 
4. 

The  Commission  shall  decide  which  programmes  it  accepts  and  shall  inform 
the  Management  Committee  referred  to  in  Article  13(1)  of  the  programmes 
accepted and the corresponding budgets at the earliest opportunity. 

5.  After  inviting  competitive  offers  by  all  appropriate  means,  the  proposing 
organisation shall select the implementation bodies, which shall implement, in 
whole  or 
the  selected 
implementation bodies implement only part of the programme, the rest of the 
programme shall be implemented by the proposing organisation itself. 

the  programmes.  In 

the  case  where 

in  part, 

6. 

In accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 13(2), the Commission 
may  set  minimum  and/or  maximum  effective  cost  limits  for  the  programmes 
submitted under this Article." 

(5) 

Article 7 is amended as follows: 

(a)  Paragraph 3 is replaced by the following: 

"3.  For  the  purposes  of  the  Commission’s  examination  of  the  programmes, 

Article 6(3) and (4) shall apply." 

(b)  The following paragraph 4 is added: 

"4. 

In  accordance  with  the  procedure  referred  to  in  Article  13(2),  the 
Commission may set minimum and/or maximum effective cost limits for 
the programmes submitted under this Article." 

(6) 

The following Article 7a is inserted: 

"Article 7a 

After the Management Committee referred to in Article 13(1) or, where appropriate, 
the  Regulatory  Committees  referred  to  in  Regulations  (EEC)  No  2092/91,  (EEC) 
No 2081/92 or (EEC) No 2082/92 have been informed, the Commission shall decide 
on the following measures: 

(a)  measures referred to in Article 2(e) of this Regulation; 

(b)  measures referred to in Article 2(b), (c) and (d), of this Regulation where such 
measures  have  a  Community-wide  interest  or  no  appropriate  proposals  have 
been  submitted  under  the  procedures  established  in  Articles  6  or  7  of  this 
Regulation. 

(7) 

Article 8 is replaced by the following: 

"Article 8 

The  Commission  shall,  on  the  basis  of  an  open  or  restricted  invitation  to  tender, 
choose: 

(a) 

(b) 

any  technical  assistants  needed  to  evaluate  the  proposed  programmes, 
including the proposed implementing bodies; 

the  body  or  bodies  responsible  for  implementing  the  measures  referred  to  in 
Article 7a." 

38 

 
 
  
 
(8) 

Article 9 is amended as follows: 

(a)  Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 are replaced by the following: 

"1.  The Community shall fund the measures referred to in Article 7a in their 
entirety.  The  Community  shall  also  fund  entirely  the  cost  of  technical 
assistants selected according to Article 8 (a). 

2. 

3. 

The  Community’s  contribution  to  the  programmes  referred  to  in 
Articles 6 and 7 shall not exceed 50 % of the real cost of the programmes. 
In  the  case  of  promotion  programmes  lasting  two  or  three  years,  the 
contribution  for  each  year  of  implementation  shall  not  exceed  that 
maximum limit. 

The proposing organisation(s) shall fund at least 20 % of the real cost of 
the  programmes  referred  to  in  Article  6  the  rest  of  the  financing  being 
borne  by  the  Member  State(s)  concerned,  taking  into  account  the 
Community’s  contribution  referred  to  in  paragraph  2.  The  respective 
shares  of  the  Member  State(s)  and  proposing  organisation(s)  shall  be 
defined  at  the  time  the  programme  is  submitted  to  the  Commission  in 
accordance  with  Article  6(3).  The  payments  made  by  Member  States 
and/or the proposing organisations may come from parafiscal charges." 

(b)  The following paragraph 5 is added: 

"5.  Articles  87,  88  and  89  of  the  Treaty  shall  not  apply  to  the  financial 
contributions  provided  by  Member  States  and 
the  financial 
contributions,  coming 
from  parafiscal  charges  or  compulsory 
and/or  proposing 
contributions,  provided  by  Member  States 
organisations, for the programmes subject to Community support within 
the  scope  of  Article  36  of  the  Treaty  and  which  the  Commission  has 
decided to accept in accordance with Article 6(4) or Article 7(3)." 

to 

(9) 

In Article 10, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following: 

"2.  A  monitoring  group,  comprising  representatives  of  the  Commission,  the 
Member  States  concerned  and  the  proposing  organisations  concerned,  shall 
supervise the proper conduct of the programmes referred to in Articles 6 and 7. 

3. 

The Member States concerned shall be responsible for monitoring programmes 
referred to in Article 6 and 7 and for making the payments in respect thereof. 
The  Member  States  shall  ensure  that  any  information  or  promotion  material 
produced under an accepted programme complies with Community law." 

(10) 

The following Article 13a is inserted: 

"Article 13a 

Before drawing the list referred to in Article 4, or laying down the guidelines referred 
to in Article 5, or approving programmes referred to in Articles 6 and 7, or deciding 
on  measures  in  accordance  with  Article  7a,  or  taking  implementation  measures  in 
accordance with Article 12, the Commission may consult: 

(a) 

the Standing Group on the Promotion of Agricultural Products of the Advisory 
Committee on Agricultural Product Health and Safety; 

39 

 
 
  
 
(b) 

technical "ad hoc" working groups composed of members of the Management 
Committee referred to in Article 13(1), and/or experts with particular expertise 
in promotion and publicity matters." 

(11) 

Article 14 is replaced by the following: 

"Article 14 

Before 31 December 2006, the Commission shall present to the European Parliament 
and  the  Council  a  report  on  the  application  of  this  Regulation,  together  with  any 
appropriate proposals." 

Article 3 

This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of its publication in 
the Official Journal of the European Union. 

It shall apply from 1 January 2005. 

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. 

Done at Brussels,  

For the Council 
The President 

40 

 
 
  
 
 
 
FINANCIAL STATEMENT 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

BUDGET HEADING: 
05 08 04 01 

APPROPRIATIONS:
EUR 48.5 million 

TITLE:   
Proposal  for  a  Council  regulation  amending  Regulation  (EC)  No  2702/1999  on  measures  to  provide 
information  on,  and  to  promote,  agricultural  products  in  third  countries,  and  Regulation  (EC) 
No 2826/2000 on information and promotion actions for agricultural products on the internal market. 

LEGAL BASIS: 
Articles 36 and 37 of the Treaty 

AIMS: 
Improve the operation of the current promotion and information regimes on the internal market and in 
third countries 

5. 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 

12 MONTH 
PERIOD 

(EUR million) 

CURRENT 
FINANCIAL 
YEAR  2004 
(EUR million) 

FOLLOWING 
FINANCIAL 
YEAR  2005 
(EUR million) 

5.0 

CHARGED TO THE EC BUDGET 

EXPENDITURE 
– 
(REFUNDS/INTERVENTIONS) 
– 
– 

NATIONAL AUTHORITIES 
OTHER 

5.1  REVENUE 

OWN RESOURCES OF THE EC  

– 
(LEVIES/CUSTOMS DUTIES) 
– 

NATIONAL 

5.0.1  ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE 
5.1.1  ESTIMATED REVENUE 

5.2  METHOD OF CALCULATION: 

– 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

6.0  CAN THE PROJECT BE FINANCED FROM APPROPRIATIONS ENTERED IN THE 

RELEVANT CHAPTER OF THE CURRENT BUDGET? 

6.1  CAN THE PROJECT BE FINANCED BY TRANSFER BETWEEN CHAPTERS OF 

THE CURRENT BUDGET? 

6.2  WILL A SUPPLEMENTARY BUDGET BE NECESSARY? 

6.3  WILL APPROPRIATIONS NEED TO BE ENTERED IN FUTURE BUDGETS? 

YES / NO 

YES / NO 

YES / NO 

YES / NO 

OBSERVATIONS: 

No  financial  implication  because  these  Council  Regulations  are  adapted  in  order  to  implement  a  number  of 
recommendations which would lead to an improvement of the technical operation of the promotion regime. 

41