REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 3/2008 on information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products on the internal market and in third countries 
Date: 2010-11-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU financing, action programme, agricultural product, application of EU law, consumer information, domestic market, organic farming, report, sales promotion, third country

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 25.11.2010 
COM(2010) 692 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

on the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 3/2008 on information provision and 
promotion measures for agricultural products on the internal market and in third 
countries 

{SEC(2010) 1434 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

REPORT  FROM  THE  COMMISSION  TO  THE  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT  AND  THE 
COUNCIL  on  the  application  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  3/2008  on  information 
provision and promotion measures for agricultural products on the internal market and in third 
countries ..................................................................................................................................... 1 

I. 

II. 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3 

Implementation of the promotion policy 2006–2010................................................... 3 

II.A 

Co-financed promotion programmes ........................................................................... 3 

II.A.1  Changes introduced since the 2006 Report.................................................................. 3 

II.A.2  Budgetary aspects: resources and spending of the available funds.............................. 4 

II.A.3  Analysis of promotion programmes............................................................................. 5 

II.B 

Promotion activities managed directly by DG AGRI .................................................. 8 

II.B.1  High level missions ...................................................................................................... 8 

II.B.2  Promotion campaign for organic food and farming..................................................... 9 

II.B.3  Other expenditure under direct management ............................................................... 9 

III. 

Evaluation .................................................................................................................... 9 

III.A  DG Agriculture and Rural Development’s internal audit and the Court of Auditors’ 

reports........................................................................................................................... 9 

III.B 

Positive and negative aspects of the promotion scheme as reported by the Court of 
Auditors...................................................................................................................... 10 

III.C 

Evaluation at the level of countries/areas or product sectors..................................... 10 

III.D 

Evaluation at the level of co-financed programmes................................................... 12 

III.D.1  Assessment elements introduced after 2006 .............................................................. 12 

III.D.2  First impact assessment of the programmes............................................................... 12 

III.E.  Evaluation of the activities under the Commission’s direct management ................. 12 

III.E.1  High level missions: an evaluation of their impacts .................................................. 12 

III.E.2  Assessment of the organic farming promotional campaign 2006-2009..................... 13 

IV. 

General conclusions ................................................................................................... 13 

EN 

2 

   EN 

I. INTRODUCTION 

The promotion scheme, established in the early 2000s, has since its inception been regularly 
monitored by means of reports presented by the Commission to the Council and the European 
Parliament. Two reports have already been presented, in 2004 and 2006. Article 18 of Council 
Regulation (EC) No 3/2008 requires  the Commission to submit a third report  by  the end of 
20101. 
This report covers the operation of the promotion scheme between 20062 and the first half of 
2010.  It  deals  mainly  with  improvements  in  management  and  impact  assessment  as  well  as 
with simplification aspects (the two distinct regulations targeting, respectively, third countries 
and internal markets were merged into one). It focuses on all Commission Decisions adopted 
since  the  last  report  and  analyses  the  data  available  with  regard  to  the  promotion  of 
agricultural products. 

II. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROMOTION POLICY 2006–2010 

The EU promotion scheme is a horizontal policy covering almost all agricultural sectors and 
emphasising  the  general  characteristics  and  added  value  of  the  CAP:  quality,  safety,  health, 
labelling,  specific  production  methods,  respect  for  the  environment,  animal  welfare,  etc.  It 
complements  national  initiatives  supporting  or  stimulating  private  and  public  promotion 
efforts made at Member State level. 

II.A 

Co-financed promotion programmes 

II.A.1  Changes introduced since the 2006 Report  

The  promotion  scheme  was  improved  in  the  light  of  the  last  report’s  recommendations:  the 
requested  regulatory  consolidation  was  effected  by  merging  the  two  existing  Council 
regulations  into  one  (Regulation  (EC)  No  3/2008,  of  the  Council)  and  the  two  Commission 
regulations  into  another  one  (Regulation  (EC)  No  501/2008,  of  the  Commission)3.  The 
arrangements  whereby  Member  States  declare  expenses  have  also  been  improved,  allowing 
regular  monitoring  of  the  execution  of  the  budget.  The  recommendation  concerning  the 
implementing body has been maintained and, last but not least, clear and robust guidelines for 
preparing  promotion  programmes  have  been  drawn  up  and  adopted.  Many  other 
improvements were initiated by the Commission departments during the reporting period, in 
line with the Court of Auditors’ recommendations, as shown in point III.B below. All these 
adaptations  are  reported  in  Annex 1  to  the  Commission  Staff  Working  Document 
accompanying this report. 

1 
2 
3 

Council Regulation (EC) No 3/2008 of 17 December 2007, OJ L 3, 5.1.2008, p. 1. 
The whole of 2006 is covered by the present report. 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 501/2008 of 5 June 2008, OJ L 147, 6.6.2008, p. 3. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

                                                 
II.A.2 Budgetary aspects: resources and spending of the available funds 

Table 1: Budget appropriations for promotion of agricultural products 

in €

Budget line 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

Promotion actions: 

 05 02 10 01 Shared management 

42 000 000 

38 000 000 

45 000 000 

56 000 000  56 000 000 

Promotion actions: 

 05 02 10 02 Direct management 

10 000 000 

7 295 000 

5 371 000 

2 119 000 

1 210 000 

Total promotion 

52 000 000 

45 295 000 

50 371 000 

58 119 000 

57 210 000 

From 2007 onwards, a significant increase can be seen in the appropriations allocated by the 
budgetary authority to information and promotion programmes for agricultural products. The 
2009 budget appropriation, exceptionally high, was granted in order to take into account the 
higher  accumulated  expenditure  on  multi-annual  promotion  programmes  approved  in  2007 
and 2008 (a greater ‘weight of the past’ given the higher budget of the accepted programmes 
in those years). The same applies to 2010. The above mentioned increase contrasts with the 
fall  in  ‘direct  management’  budgetary  resources.  The  main  reasons  for  their  decline  are  the 
absence  of  a  voluntary  contribution  to  the  IOC4,  the  end  of  the  European  Authentic  Tastes 
programme (EAT) promoting the EU quality labels in North America and China and the end 
of the organic farming promotion campaign. 

Table 2: Budgetary expenditure for promotion of agricultural products 

in €

Budget line 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

Promotion actions: 

 05 02 10 01 Shared management 

34 163 896 

47 873 132 

49 431 246 

46 514 165 

N.A. 

Promotion actions: 

 05 02 10 02 Direct management 

4 733 973 

2 723 506 

3 753 884 

911 554 

Total promotion 

38 897 869 

50 596 638 

53 185 130 

47 425 719 

N.A. 

N.A. 

Implementation rate (expenditure as % 
of appropriations)5 

75 % 

112 % 

106 % 

82 % 

N.A. 

The  trend  in  the  implementation  rate  has  to  be  underlined:  sound  management  of  the 
promotion  sector  helped  put  a  stop  to  the  under-consumption  that  was  one  of  the  main 
features  of  the  sector  up  to  2006.  Nevertheless,  the  2009  budget  year  was  affected  by 
exceptional  and  unexpected  events:  three  promotion  programmes  already  approved  by  the 
Commission  in  2008  were  not  signed,  and  an  inter-sectoral  association  involved  in  the  co-
financing of several ongoing promotion programmes had to cease its activities in 2009, due to 

4 
5 

International Olive Council. 
The over-execution in 2007 and 2008 was covered by transfers. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
                                                 
a  decision  of  the  National  Supreme  Court  in  its  country.  These  events  led  to  an  unforeseen 
decrease in expenditure for that year and in the implementation rate as well. 

II.A.3 Analysis of promotion programmes 

- Promotion programmes accepted and rejected 

During  the  period  covered  by  the  present  report,  all  Member  States  took  part  in  promotion 
efforts, showing a broad interest in the scheme. In all, 430 programme proposals, with a total 
budget of €505.6m, were received by the Commi ssion departments after a first selection by 
the  national  authorities;  183  of  them  were  accepted  for  Community  co-financing  totalling 
€248.6m. Of these, 134 concerned th e internal market and 49 targeted third country markets. 

Table 3: Programmes approved and rejected from July 2006 to July 2010 

Decision

Internal market

C(2006) 3079
C(2006)6458
C(2007)3299
C(2008)3738
C(2009)5583
C(2009)10784
C(2010)4312

7/07/2006
12/12/2006
10/07/2007
22/07/2008
23/07/2009
18/01/2010
29/06/2010

Total

Third countries

C(2006)5987
C(2007)5911
C(2008)8233
C(2009)9404

11/12/2006
7/12/2007
12/12/2008
30/11/2009

Total

Internal market + third countries

Proposals 
received
79
1
56
72
48
16
55
327

28
25
30
20
103

430

Approved programmes

Rejected programmes

Number
31
1
23
31
16
13
19
134

Co-financing
27.660.899 €
2.700.000 €
38.857.435 €
45.699.154 €
27.855.353 €
17.931.027 €
30.299.761 €
191.003.630

10
18
11
10
49

9.079.319 €
19.591.571 €
17.817.101 €
11.105.132 €
57.593.123 €

Number

48
-
33
41
32
3
36
193

18
7
19
10
54

Co-financing
49.942.266 €
-
26.659.129 €
61.087.592 €
51.617.128 €
2.456.414 €
48.566.109 €

240.328.638

20.969.668 €
10.598.650 €
29.895.002 €
16.262.011 €
77.725.329 €

183

248.596.753 €

247

318.053.968 €

As far as the duration of the accepted programmes is concerned, 150 (82 %) of them last for 3 
years (see Graph 1). As can be seen from Graph 2, 20 % of the programmes have a budget of 
less than €1m, 25  % between €1m and €2m, 36  % between €2m and €4m and 19
 % more than 
€4m. 

Graph 1: Number of approved programmes by 
their duration

Graph 2: Number of approved programmes by 
their total budget (million €)

4

29

35; 19%

37; 20%

1 Year

2 Years

3 Years

0-1,0

1,0-2,0

2,0-4,0

>4,0

45; 25%

150

66; 36%

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
 
As can be seen from Table 4 below, almost all products listed in Annex 1 to Regulation (EC) 
No 501/2008  benefited  from  these  promotion  efforts.  Dairy  products  were  the  greatest 
beneficiaries in terms of accepted programmes (36), followed by quality products (PDO, PGI, 
organic  and  outermost  regions:  32),  fruit  and  vegetables,  fresh  and  processed  (30),  meat 
products, including poultry (23), wines and spirits (20), olive oil (8), etc. 

Table 4 

Programmes accepted (internal market and third countries) by sector and budget 

Products 

Total budget (€m)

EU co-
financing (€m) 

% 

No of 
prog. 
approved 

Beef  &  pigmeat  (processed  or 
not) 

Fibre flax 

Fresh fruit and vegetables 

Honey and beekeeping products 

Labelling of eggs 

9.3

3.3

89.0

4.3

1.0

4.6

1.86 % 

1.7

0.67 % 

44.6

17.93 % 

2.1

0.5

0.86 % 

0.20 % 

Milk and milk products 

116.4

56.6

22.76 % 

5

1

24

8

1

36

14

8

15

9

2

15

6

6

11

1

1

2

17.2

6.90 % 

15.5

6.22 % 

17.9

7.18 % 

7.4

7.5

2.99 % 

3.03 % 

19.7

7.93 % 

6.6

8.4

2.67 % 

3.39 % 

15.1

6.08 % 

0.8

0.6

2.1

0.34 % 

0.26 % 

0.84 % 

19.6

7.87 % 

248.6 100.00 % 

18

183

   EN 

Multi products 

Olive oil and table olives 

Organic farming and products 

Ornamental horticulture 

Outermost regions 

PDO, PGI and TSG 

Poultrymeat 

Processed fruit and vegetables 

Quality meat 

Quality poultrymeat 

Seed oils 

Spirit drinks 

Wines 

Total 

EN 

34.3

34.2

35.7

14.9

16.1

39.4

13.3

16.9

30.2

1.7

1.3

4.2

39.1

504.6

6 

The  main  reasons  for  rejection  during  the  reference  period  were:  the  actions  were  not 
described  in  enough  detail  to  give  the  Commission  departments  a  clear  picture  of  the 
programme;  the  budget  was  not  sufficiently  detailed  to  allow  the  programme’s  value  for 
money to be assessed, as required by Council Regulation (EC) No 3/2008, Article 7(2); the 
reasons for proposing the programme were not given; elements proving that the implementing 
body had been well chosen were lacking. In more recent years, another significant ground for 
rejection  was  the  absence  of  SMART6  objectives,  or  of  methods  to  be  used  for  programme 
evaluation and impact assessment. 

- Third countries programmes 

Despite the Commission’s stated commitment to step up promotion in third countries, during 
the reference period these programmes accounted for only 27 % of all proposed programmes 
(49/183).  They  received  23 %  of  the  Community  funds  allocated  to  accepted  promotion 
programmes (€57.6m/€250.5m).  

Fresh  and  processed  fruit  and  vegetables,  wines,  quality  and  dairy  products  were  the  main 
beneficiary  sectors.  North  America  (21),  Russia  (20),  China  (13)  and  Japan  (11)  were  the 
main target areas in terms of the number of accepted programmes. 

Graph 3: EC contribution by product sector (million €) - a pproved programmes in third 
countries

 €

n
o
i
l
l
i

m

12,0

10,0

8,0

6,0

4,0

2,0

0,0

9,8

8,2

5,0

4,6

4,0

3,4

5,2

3,5

2,1

0,8

0,1

Milk and milk products
Olive oil and table olives
Ornamental horticulture
Organic farming and Products
Multi Products
Beef&Pigmeat(Processed or not)
Fresh fruit and vegetables

PDO, PGI and TSG
Quality poultrymeat
Processed fruit and vegetables

Spirit Drinks

10,7

Wines

- Internal market promotion programmes 

From  2006  to  2010,  the  number  of  programmes  accepted  for  the  internal  market  within  the 
annual stream (excluding dairy crisis programmes accepted in 2009) decreased significantly 

6 

SMART: Specific, Measurable, Appropriate, Realistic, Time scheduled. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(see  Table  3).  This  is  because  the  Commission  departments  applied  stricter  criteria  during 
their  selection  evaluation.  However,  as  shown  in  Table  3,  an  increase  in  the  Community 
contribution  took  place,  notably  between  2006  and  2009,  when  it  went  up  by  50.1 %,  from 
€30.4m  to  €45.8m.  The  figures  in clude  programmes  promoting  specifically  poultry  meat 
(1 programme)  and  dairy  products  (13  programmes),  adopted  by  two  ad  hoc  Commission 
decisions, in order to counter crisis impacts in those sectors. This trend is mainly due to the 
fact that broader programmes promoting more than one product were accepted, or that more 
than one organisation from one or more Member States joined to propose a single programme. 

Graph 4: EC contribution by product sector (million €) - a pproved programmes on the 
internal market

 €

n
o
i
l
l
i

m

60,0

50,0

40,0

30,0

20,0

10,0

0,0

48,3

39,6

1,7

2,1

0,5

13,8

12,1

7,3

7,3

7,5

14,5

15,1

6,6

4,9

8,9

0,6

Fibre flax

Milk and milk products
Olive oil and table olives
Labelling of eggs
Ornamental horticulture
Organic farming and Products
Outermost Regions
Multi Products
Fresh fruit and vegetables
Honey and beekeeping products

PDO, PGI and TSG
Poultrymeat
Processed fruit and vegetables

Quality meat

Seed oils

Wines

The  main  beneficiaries  in  terms  of  programmes  accepted  come  from  IT  (17),  FR  (11),  NL 
(10), DE (9). In terms of products the main beneficiaries were dairy products (€48.3m), fresh 
and processed fruit and vegetables (€45m), quality products, including organic and outermost 
regions logos (€35.8m). 

II.B 

Promotion activities managed directly by DG AGRI 

II.B.1  High level missions 

Within the framework set up by Article 2(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 3/2008, 
high  level  missions  or  promotional  events  were  organised  as  follows  from  2007  to 
2010: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

High level commercial mission to India (6-10 March 2007) 

Promotional event in China (14-16 May 2008) 

Promotional event in Cape Town, South Africa (8-10 September 2008) 

High level trade mission to China (18-22 May 2009) 

Promotional event in Hong Kong (4-6 May 2009). 

EN 

8 

   EN 

These  visits  offered  the  opportunity  to  carry  out  a  very  busy  agenda  of  activities 
including seminars, meetings with the press, participation in trade fairs, ‘business-to-
business’ meetings and events at the local chambers of commerce. In each case, they 
were  backed  up  by  systematic  public  relations  efforts,  both  during  and  after  the 
mission.  During  the  reporting  period,  the  budget  appropriation  for  high  level 
missions was €
 1 million/year. For 2010, a high level promotional event is planned in 
Moscow as part of the World Food Fair (14-17 September 2010).  

II.B.2  Promotion campaign for organic food and farming 

Work  on  this  campaign  started  in  2006  within the framework set up by  Council  Regulation 
(EC)  No  2826/2000  (later  repealed  by  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  3/2008)  to  follow  up 
Action  1  of  the  European  Action  Plan  for  organic  food  and  farming.  With  a  budget  of  a 
maximum of €
 3 million over 3 years and covering all 27 Member States, the campaign was 
conceived to complement national promotional activities. It was launched on 25 July 2008. 

II.B.3  Other expenditure under direct management 

- External experts for selecting promotion programmes 

- Evaluation studies 

A  detailed  description  of  all  activities  under  direct  management  by  DG  AGRI  is  given  in 
Annex 2 to the Commission Staff Working Document accompanying this report. 

III. 

EVALUATION 

III.A  DG  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development’s  internal  audit  and  the  Court  of 

Auditors’ reports 

In  2009,  the  promotion  of  agricultural  products  scheme  was  the  focus  of  two  audit  reports, 
one by the Court of Auditors and one by DG AGRI’s Internal Audit unit. 

DG  AGRI’s  internal  audit  report  dated  13  May  2009  noted,  among  other  things,  that  ‘the 
systems  in  place  …  comply  with  applicable  rules  and  procedures  in  a  satisfactory  manner’ 
and  that  ‘since  2005,  there  has  been  a  constant  increase  of  the  quality  of  the  selection 
procedure’. 

In its Special report No 10/09 published on 8 July 2009, the Court of Auditors evaluated the 
impact  of  various  programmes  and  found  that  ‘in  most  cases  the  summaries  of  the  work 
carried  out  were  sufficiently  detailed  and  ensured  that  the  money  spent  and  the  measures 
carried out were consistent with the promotion objective’. Furthermore, as regards monitoring 
of the expenditure, the Court found that the Commission had for the previous two years been 
introducing  or  strengthening  procedures  and 
tools  for  monitoring  Member  States’ 
programmes and payment claims. 

However, both reports noted that effectiveness, efficiency and the environmental impact could 
still  be  further  improved.  It  was  also  underlined  that  the  Commission  needed  to  further 
improve several aspects of the promotion scheme. 

The  Court  of  Auditors  also  called  on  the  Member  States  to  contribute  to  improving  the 
selection procedure by verifying the relevance of proposals and increasing selectivity. It also 
urged  Member  States  to  communicate  information  on  existing  national  and  regional 
promotion measures to the Commission. Furthermore, the Member States were encouraged to 
improve  the  public  procurement  procedures  used  for  selecting  the  implementing  bodies, 

EN 

9 

   EN 

avoiding, in particular, tight deadlines, and applying formal procedures in a more systematic 
way, as well as to ensure that proposing organisations comply with the selection criteria. 

III.B  Positive and negative aspects of the promotion scheme as reported by the Court 

of Auditors 

In its report, the Court of Auditors sets out the following conclusions and recommendations 
that  highlight  the  main  strengths  and  weaknesses  of  the  promotion  scheme  as  it  has  been 
operating at least within the period covered by the report: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

The  Commission  has  for  some  years  been  making  improvements  to  the 
management  and  control  arrangements  for  expenditure  connected  with 
information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products. Such 
improvements need to be further consolidated and expanded. 

The system in place does not make it possible to gauge the effectiveness of this 
policy.  The  impact  of  the  policy,  although  it  is  probably  positive,  is  currently 
difficult  to  quantify.  The  policy  objectives  need  to  be  specified  and  suitable 
performance indicators set up, whilst at the same time ensuring that the stated 
ambitions and the budgets that are committed are consistent with each other.  

A formal procedure for consulting all stakeholders should be introduced so as 
to help define an overall strategy and ensure complementarity with the various 
promotion  measures  that  already  exist.  Following  this  recommendation,  a 
Special  Group  from the  Advisory Committee on Promotion was set up on 28 
September 2009. 

The  Commission  has  become  more  selective  when  approving  programmes  to 
be co-financed. These improvements should be continued, especially as regards 
the requirement for information on the expected impact of the programme and 
the  manner  in  which  it  will  be  measured.  The  Member  States  should  also 
continue to increase their selectivity. 

As  regards  the  implementation  of  the  programmes  and  the  regularity  of  the 
expenditure, efforts should primarily be focused on the still too limited checks 
made  on  the  selection  of  the  implementing  bodies,  which  have  a  key  role  to 
play.  The  Commission’s  subsequent  monitoring  of  expenditure  has  been 
stepped  up,  but  significant  control  weaknesses  persist  in  certain  Member 
States.  These  weaknesses  should  be  followed  up  so  as  to  ensure  speedy 
improvement in these shortcomings. 

III.C  Evaluation at the level of countries/areas or product sectors 

The evaluations of EU co-financed information and promotion programmes mentioned under 
point II.B.3 were carried out between 2006 and 2008 by external consultants under framework 
contracts. 

Four of them concerned the internal market: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Organic sector (November 2006) 

Wine sector (April 2007) 

Fruit and vegetables (November 2007) 

Milk products (September 2008). 

EN 

10 

   EN 

Four others concerned different product sectors within the third countries/areas: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

The United States and Canada (November 2006) 

Switzerland and Norway (May 2007) 

Russia and Japan (November 2007) 

India, China and South-East Asia (December 2008). 

Each  evaluation  focused  on  assessing  the  coherence,  effectiveness,  efficiency,  impact  and 
complementarity  of  EU  co-financed  information  and  promotion  programmes  implemented 
since the year 2002. 

Furthermore, each evaluation was based on a sample of programmes, taken from different EU 
Member  States  and  in  each  case  accounting  for  more  than  half  of  the  funds  committed  per 
sector.  Information  was  drawn  from  different  sources,  mainly  available  documentation  and 
statistics, interviews and workshops with stakeholders, and extensive surveys conducted by the 
team. 

The main recommendations for the internal market were: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Programmes  should  be  based  on  analyses  of  both  the  overall  and  the  targeted 
markets, taking into account their size and including a clear definition of a hierarchy 
of quantified objectives for the proposed information and/or promotion campaign. 

The  intended  impact  on  demand  should  be  determined,  both  globally  and  by 
consumer group, according to specific market characteristics and available resources, 
as  well  as  a  methodology  for  its  assessment  during  implementation  and  after 
completion in accordance with state-of-the-art guidelines. 

The  respective  roles  of  the  Commission  and  the  Member  States  should  be  further 
clarified.  The  procedures  for  final  approval  or  rejection  of  the  programmes  by  the 
Commission  should  be  better  explained  to  both  the  Member  States’  competent 
authorities and the potential proposing organisations. 

The practice of tendering (calls for proposals) in the interest of optimal cost-benefit 
ratios based on national market standards should be continued. 

Ex post and mid-term or ongoing evaluations should be made compulsory for large 
programmes and campaigns, and provision for evaluations should be included in the 
budgets of such programmes. 

More incentives should be provided for synergy and complementarity: between co-
financed programmes of different Member States, and between EU co-financed and 
private sector programmes. 

The main recommendations for third countries are: 

– 

– 

– 

The global objectives of EU promotion measures should focus on enabling European 
producers and trade organisations to export to third countries. 

The  EU  measure  should  better  contribute  to  synergy  between  producers  and 
programmes. 

Some specific provisions should be made to support newcomers. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

– 

– 

– 

Programme  design  and  promotional  activities  should  better  take  into  account  the 
specificities of emerging and/or far-off markets. 

The overall framework of the EU measures should be improved in order to resolve 
ambiguities about the mention of geographic origin and brands. 

The administrative requirements should be adjusted to the programmes’ constraints. 

III.D  Evaluation at the level of co-financed programmes  

III.D.1 Assessment elements introduced after 2006 

In  the  first  years  of  implementation  of  this  scheme,  the  promotion  programmes  co-financed 
were  considered  successful  merely  if  they  were  implemented  as  planned  in  the  original 
proposal: no formal assessment was requested and, consequently, no assessment costs (if any 
evaluation took place) were eligible. 

Several steps have been taken to address this situation: 

- A document setting out guidelines for the evaluation of programmes was distributed to the 
national  authorities  in  October  2007,  for  the  attention  of  the  proposing  organisations.  This 
document  took  into  account  all  recommendations  of  both  the  audit  of  the  sector  and  the 
consultants.  It  was  later  redrafted  and  the  part  concerning  the  assessment  provisions  is  now 
included  in  the  ‘Explanatory  note  for  promotion  programmes  part-financed  by  the  EU’ 
annexed  to  the  application  form.  The  second  part  concerning  the  assessment  itself  has  been 
annexed  to  the  ‘Manual  of  procedures  for  the  examination  and  adoption  of  proposed 
programmes for the promotion of agricultural products’. 

- The model contract put at the disposal of the national authorities has been amended in order 
to  allow  the  results  of  the  programmes  to  be  evaluated  with  the  help  of  an  external  body. 
Furthermore,  the  budget  allocated  to  the  evaluation  of  the  programme  has  been  increased 
from 3 to 5 % (for its final evaluation) and any unused overheads budget can also be added as 
extra funding for this evaluation. 

III.D.2 First impact assessment of the programmes 

Since 2008, an assessment of  the  impact of the programmes  is made when  the programmes 
come  to  an  end  and  is  included  in  the  final  reports  examined  by  the  programme  managers. 
This assessment makes use of indicators such as the budget execution rate or the conformity 
of  the  implemented  programme  with  the  proposed  one.  The  measures  included  in  the 
programmes  are  increasingly  successful.  Up  to  now  the  reports  were  often  drafted  by  the 
proposing  organisations  themselves.  From  2010  on,  the  evaluations  will  be  made  by 
independent assessment bodies. 

A good indicator of the quality of the promotion tools developed during the implementation 
of  the  promotion  programmes,  and  of  their  positive  impact,  is  the  fact  that,  after  many 
programmes  are  completed,  a  request  is  introduced  by  the  proposing  organisation  to  be 
allowed to produce additional quantities of these tools for further use at their own cost. 

III.E.  Evaluation of the activities under the Commission’s direct management 

III.E.1 High level missions: an evaluation of their impacts 

High level commercial mission in India (March 2007) 

The mission fulfilled its ‘pioneering’ role by opening the doors of the relatively new Indian 
market to European exporters while getting across the message of the quality and diversity of 
European products. The visit was very well received in the Indian media (achieving a media 

EN 

12 

   EN 

exposure estimated at €
visit played a crucial role in India’s reduction of its exorbitant import duties on alcohol. 

 1.25 million). The European dimension was particularly noticed. The 

Promotional campaign in China (May 2008) 

The  media  exposure  generated  by  the  mission  was  estimated  at  the  equivalent  of  €
 450 000, 
covering  25 000 000  people.  Several  thousand  visitors  attended  the  EU  stand,  which  was 
located in the centre of the other European pavilions: 967 visitors left their business cards and 
1 127 questionnaires were filled in. 

Promotional event in Cape Town, South Africa (September 2008) 

The  event  primarily  consisted  in  a  public  relations  operation  towards  both  South  African 
officials and European exporters to demonstrate the EU’s support for their efforts to conquer 
new world markets. 

High level trade mission to China (May 2009) 

The  visit  of  the  European  delegation  was  well  received  by  the  media,  generating  a  media 
 1 500 000  for  a  coverage  of  49 600 000  people. 
exposure  estimated  at  an  equivalent  of  €
Several thousand visitors attended the EU stand, which, like the previous year, was located in 
the middle of the other European pavilions. 

Promotional event in Hong Kong (May 2009) 

There  were  50  participants  in  the  seminar  and  200  in  the  festival.  Roughly  8 000  people 
visited the stand. The event generated 7 press articles for an estimated value of €
 6 656 with a 
circulation of 260 000. 

III.E.2 Assessment of the organic farming promotional campaign 2006-2009 

The organic food and farming promotional campaign results have been very positive. With a 
limited  budget,  especially  in  comparison  with  some  larger  national  or  private  campaigns, 
simple  and  effective  marketing  and  information  tools  were  offered  to  a  number  of  different 
target groups. More than 150 pages of text providing information on this sector and promoting 
it to various target groups were also created and translated. 

Evaluation has shown that the tools are accepted and used by the target groups, especially in 
countries where the sector is less developed and there are fewer initiatives at national level. 
Co-financed programmes for the promotion of organic products make use of this new material 
developed  within  the  campaign.  This  allows  those  programmes  to  be  run  with  a  smaller 
budget  than  would  have  been  possible  otherwise,  as  they  do  not  have  to  finance  the 
development of new promotional material for which the equivalent already exists. 

The  statistical  data  on  website  traffic  are  also  very  encouraging.  The  website  is  already  the 
most visited of all DG AGRI sub-sites on Europa, with on average 70-80 000 visits per month 
and  15 000-30 000  downloads  of  material.  For  2008,  in  the  first  five  months  following  the 
launch of the campaign, 186 991 visits to the site were registered and this was considered a 
success.  During  the  whole  of  2009,  the  website  was  visited  1 070 000  times  (this  figure 
represents 63 % of the total visits to the whole of DG AGRI’s site). By scoring high on major 
search  engines,  the  website  has  become  a  point  of  reference  for  all  those  looking  for 
information on organic food and farming. 

IV. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 

The  period  2006-2010  featured  several  amendments  to  the  scheme  of  EU  co-financed 
programmes for the promotion of agricultural products: 

EN 

13 

   EN 

- Simplification: the two Council regulations were merged into one and the two Commission 
regulations into one. 

-  The  selection  procedure  for  the  new  programmes  at  Commission  level  was  improved 
through  the  adoption  of  guidelines  and  the  introduction  of  quantitative  evaluation  methods 
(evaluation grid) and reference costs for the various actions included in the programmes. 

- Improvements were made to the impact assessment of programmes during and at the end of 
their implementation. 

- Sound management: the management of the programmes was consequently improved. The 
implementation  rate  (expenditure/appropriations)  of  the  sector  increased  significantly,  to 
almost 100 %. 

- Last but not least, during the report period, the promotion scheme was also used to counter 
crisis  consequences  in  two  cases:  avian  influenza  (2007)  and  the  crisis  in  the  dairy  sector 
(2008). 

Recent audits by the Court of Auditors and DG Agriculture and Rural Development’s internal 
audit unit have confirmed these improvements. Nevertheless, other improvements still have to 
be made: 

-  The  quality  of  the  programmes  sent  to  the  Commission  departments  needs  to  be  further 
improved. The guidelines already adopted and updated will certainly help in this respect. 

-  The  selection,  monitoring  and  audit  of  programmes  by  the  Member  States’  competent 
authorities  also  has  to  be  further  improved.  Greater  attention  needs  to  be  paid  to  the  tender 
procedures  applied  for  the  choice  of  the  implementing  bodies.  In  this  context  both 
Articles 9(2)(e)  and  12(2)  stress  the  technical  and  financial  capacities  these  bodies  have  to 
possess  in  order  to  ensure  that  the  promotion  actions  are  implemented  as  efficiently  as 
possible. 

- The procedure currently in place to approve co-financed programmes is rather cumbersome. 
Programmes are evaluated twice: at the level of the Member State and then at EU level. The 
whole selection procedure takes seven months. Nevertheless, as can be seen from Table 3 on 
page 6 of this report, more than 50 % of the programmes received are refused. 

The current information and promotion policy will be reviewed in parallel with the discussion 
on the CAP reform after 2013. The promotion instruments should provide EU producers with 
an effective tool whilst attempting at the same time to reduce the administrative burden. 

EN 

14 

   EN