Special Report No 11/2011 Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?
Date: 2011-11-17
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: agricultural product, designation of origin, product designation, quality control of agricultural products, quality label

EUROPEAN
COURT OF AUDITORS

4
3
8
0
-
1
3
8
1
N
S
S

I

1
1
0
2

1
1
o
N

t
r
o
p
e
R

l

a
i
c
e
p
S

DO THE DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT OF  

THE GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS SCHEME 

ALLOW IT TO BE EFFECTIVE?

EN

 
 
 
 
Special Report No 11 

 2011

DO THE DESIGN AND 
MANAGEMENT OF THE 
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS 
SCHEME ALLOW IT TO BE 
EFFECTIVE? 

(pursuant to Article 287(4), second subparagraph, TFEU)

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS
12, rue Alcide De Gasperi
1615 Luxembourg
LUXEMBOURG

Tel. +352 4398-1
Fax +352 4398-46410
E-mail: euraud@eca.europa.eu
Internet: http://www.eca.europa.eu

Special Report No 11 

 2011

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. 

It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu).

Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2011

ISBN 978-92-9237-267-5

doi:10.2865/75364

© European Union, 2011

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed in Luxembourg

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

CONTENTS

3

PARAGRAPH

GLOSSARY

I–VI	

SUMMARY

1–11	

INTRODUCTION

1–7	

THE	PRINCIPLES	OF	THE	GEOGRAPHICAL	INDICATIONS	SCHEME

8–11	

THE	ECONOMIC	POTENTIAL

12–16	

AUDIT	OBJECTIVE,	SCOPE	AND	APPROACH	

17–55	

OBSERVATIONS

17–32	

18–22 

23–27 

28–32 

33–38	

33–35 

	SHORTCOMINGS	IN	REGULATORY	PROVISIONS	AND	MONITORING	
OF	THE	MEMBER	STATES’	CHECKS

 THE PROVISIONS FOR CHECKS OF COMPLIANCE OF PDO AND PGI PRODUCTS WITH THE PRODUCT 
SPECIFICATION DO NOT SET MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS

 LACK OF A CLEAR LEGAL DEFINITION FOR THE CHECKS AIMED AT THE DETECTION AND SUPPRESSION OF 
DISALLOWED PRACTICES

 WEAKNESSES EXIST IN THE COMMISSION’S SUPERVISION OF MEMBER STATES’ CHECKS RELATED TO THE 
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS SCHEME

	THERE	IS	A	POTENTIAL	TO	ATTRACT	FURTHER	PRODUCERS,	BUT	IT	IS	AFFECTED	BY	LENGTHY	
PROCEDURES	AND	A	LACK	OF	AWARENESS

 POTENTIAL EXISTS FOR AT TRACTING FURTHER PRODUCERS TO JOIN THE GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS 
SCHEME

36–37 

LENGTHY REGISTRATION PROCEDURES DISCOURAGE POTENTIAL APPLICANTS

38 

THE MEASURE AVAILABLE IS ONLY INDIRECTLY RELATED TO AT TRACTIVENESS

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

	
4

39–55	

	CONSUMER	RECOGNITION	OF	THE	GEOGRAPHICAL	INDICATIONS	SCHEME	IS	LOW	AND	THE	
OPTIONS	USED	ARE	UNLIKELY	TO	INCREASE	IT

39–40 

 CONSUMER RECOGNITION OF THE GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS SCHEME IS LOW 

41–55 

THE OPTIONS USED ARE UNLIKELY TO RAISE AWARENESS OF THE GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS SCHEME

56–62	

CONCLUSIONS	AND	RECOMMENDATIONS

REPLY	OF	THE	COMMISSION	

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

GLOSSARY

55

Applicant	group: An association, irrespective of its legal form or composition, of producers and 
processors dealing with the same agricultural product or foodstuff. It submits the application for 
registration of a product name as a PDO or PGI to the national authority responsible for scrutiny. 

Article	11	checks: Member States’ checks to verify compliance of a PDO or PGI product with its 
product specification before it is placed on the market. The checks are provided for by Article 11 
of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications 
and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs.  

Common	agricultural	policy: A system of EU agricultural aids and schemes.

Competent	authority: Central authority of a Member State responsible/competent for the organi-
sation of official controls for checking compliance of a PDO or PGI product with the product speci-
fication and surveillance of the use of the name in the market place.

Disallowed	practices: Unauthorised use, misuse, imitation or evocation of a protected name or 
other practices misleading the consumer as to the true origin of a product.

EAFRD	measure	No	132: Financial support provided to farmers for costs arising from participa-
tion in food quality schemes, including the GI scheme.

EAFRD	measure	No	133: Financial support provided to producer groups to inform consumers and 
promote products belonging to the food quality schemes, including the GI scheme.

EU	agricultural	product	quality	policy: A set of EU schemes that aim to highlight individual 
product qualities resulting from a particular origin and/or production method.

Geographical	indications	(GI)	scheme: A scheme that intends to protect names that identify 
products whose given quality, reputation or other characteristic are essentially attributable to 
their geographical origin. Depending on the degree and type of association with a specific region, 
it distinguishes between two types of protected names — PDO and PGI.

Product	specification: A document that forms part of the application for registration of a name 
as a PDO or PGI. It sets out important attributes of the product such as the name protected, the 
description of the product, the definition of the geographical area, the method of obtaining the 
product and details bearing out the link between the product and the geographical area. A prod-
uct marketed under a protected name needs to comply with the product specification.

Protected	designation	of	origin	(PDO): Names registered as a protected designation of origin 
describe products having characteristics resulting essentially from the geographical area and the 
abilities of the producers in the area of production. All stages of the production take place in the 
geographical area concerned. There must be a close link between the products’ features and their 
geographical origin.

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

6

Protected	 geographical	 indication	 (PGI):  Names  registered  as  a  protected  geographical  indica-
tion describe products having specific characteristics or a reputation associating them with a given 
geograph ical area where at least one stage of the production takes place. If the products are processed, 
the raw materials may come from another geographical area.

Rural	 development	 programme:  A  key  programming  document  prepared  by  a  Member  State  and 
approved by the Commission for the planning and implementation of the EU’s rural development policy. 
Current rural development programmes cover the period 2007–13.

Single	document: A document that forms part of the application for registration of a name as a PDO or 
PGI and which is scrutinised by the Commission. It sets out the main features of the product specifica-
tion and a description of the link between the product and a particular geographical area.

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

77

SUMMARY

I.
T h e   E u r o p e a n   g e o g r a p h i c a l   i n d i c a t i o n s 
s c h e m e   a i m s   t o   p r o t e c t   t h e   n a m e s   o f 
p ro d u c t s   w h o s e   c h a ra c te r i s t i c s   a re   a s s o c i-
a t e d   w i t h   t h e   g e o g r a p h i c a l   a r e a   i n   w h i c h 
t h e y   a r e   p r o d u c e d .   D e p e n d i n g   o n   t h e 
degree an d t ype of association  wi th  a  spe -
c i f i c   g e o g r a p h i c a l   a r e a ,   i t   d i s t i n g u i s h e s 
b e t we e n   t wo   t y p e s   o f   p ro te c te d   n a m e s   —
P DO an d PGI. 

II.
Th e   g e o gra p h i c a l   i n d i c at i o n s   s c h e m e   p ro -
v i d e s     a   p o t e n t i a l   e c o n o m i c   o p p o r t u n i t y 
fo r   f a r m e r s   a n d   p ro d u ce r s   o f   fo o d   a n d   c a n 
h a ve   a   p o s i t i ve   i m p a c t   o n   t h e   r u r a l   e c o n -
omy. To achieve this objec tive and provide 
t h e   i n t e n d e d   p r o t e c t i o n ,   a n   a p p r o p r i a t e 
E U   f r a m e w o r k   n e e d s   t o   b e   i n   p l a c e .   T h e 
Cour t examined whether the scheme’s con-
trol system is conceptually robust, whether 
t h e   p ro ce d u re s   a n d   m e a s u re s   u s e d   re n d e r 
i t   a t t r a c t i ve   t o   p o t e n t i a l   p a r t i c i p a n t s   a n d 
w h e t h e r   t h e   m e a s u r e s   a v a i l a b l e   a n d   t h e 
Co m m i s s i o n’s   a c t i o n s   h ave   co n t r i b u te d   to 
in creas ing  con sum er awaren ess.

III.
C h e c k s   r e l a t i n g   t o   t h e   g e o g r a p h i c a l   i n d i -
c a t i o n s   s c h e m e   a i m   t o   v e r i f y   c o m p l i a n c e 
o f   a   P D O   o r   P G I   p r o d u c t   w i t h   a   p r o d u c t 
s p e c i f i c a t i o n   a n d   t o   d e t e c t   i n s t a n c e s   o f 
d i s a l l o w e d   u s e   o f   a   p r o t e c t e d   n a m e .   T h e 
a u d i t   s h owe d   t h a t   f u r t h e r   c l a r i f i c a t i o n   o n 
t h e   d e s i gn   o f   t h e   co nt ro l   s ys te m   fo r   t h e s e 
c h e c k s   i s   n e e d e d.  Th e   p rov i s i o n s   i n   t h e   E U 
r e g u l a t i o n   o n   c h e c k s   o f   c o m p l i a n c e   w i t h 
fo o d   a n d   fe e d   l aw,   a n i m a l   h e a l t h   a n d   we l-
fare rules do not set out minimum require -
ments for M ember States’ checks related to 
th e g eographic al in dication s  sc h em e. 

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

8

SUMMARY

IV.
R e g a r d i n g   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n ’s   s u p e r v i -
s i o n   o f   M e m b e r   S t a t e s ’  c h e c k s   r e l a t e d   t o 
t h e   g e o g r a p h i c a l   i n d i c a t i o n s   s c h e m e ,   n o 
s e r v i c e   w i t h i n   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   h a s   s o l e 
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y   f o r   c a r r y i n g   o u t   a u d i t s   o f 
t h e   s c h e m e   a n d   n o   s u c h   a u d i t s   h ave   b e e n 
carried out so far. A systematic desk review 
only recently star ted, revealing incomplete 
infor matio n in M em ber  States’ re p o r t ing.

V.
The effec tiveness of the geographical indi-
c a t i o n s   s c h e m e   i s   a f f e c t e d   b y   t h e   e x t e n t 
t o   w h i c h   i t   i s   u s e d   b y   p r o d u c e r s   a n d   t h e 
l e v e l   o f   c o n s u m e r   a w a r e n e s s   o f   i t .   Po t e n -
t i a l   e x i s t s   t o   a t t r a c t   f u r t h e r   p r o d u c e r s 
t o   j o i n   t h e   s c h e m e ,   e s p e c i a l l y   w h e r e   t h e 
t a k e - u p   i s   l o w,   b u t   t h e   p r o c e d u r e   f o r   t h e 
scrutiny of applications is lengthy and dis-
co u ra g e s   t h e m .   I n   a d d i t i o n ,   p ro d u ce r s   a re 
o f t e n   n o t   a w a r e   o f   t h e   e x i s t e n c e   o f   t h e 
s c h e m e .   A   s t u d y   c a r r i e d   o u t   o n   b e h a l f   o f 
t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   d e m o n s t r a t e s   l o w   r a t e s 
o f   c o n s u m e r   r e c o g n i t i o n   o f   t h e   s c h e m e’s 
s y m b o l s   a n d   co n ce p t.  Wh i l s t   t h i s   s i t u at i o n 
c a l l s   f o r   a c t i o n   t o   r a i s e   a w a r e n e s s   o f   t h e 
g e o gra p h i c a l   i n d i c at i o n s   s c h e m e,   n o   ove r -
a l l   s t ra te g y   a d d re s s i n g   t h i s   i s s u e   e x i s t s   a t 
E U   l e ve l.   A   s e r i e s   o f   m e a s u re s   a n d   a c t i o n s 
is availab le b u t th ese ap p ear fragm ented.

VI.
The  Cour t reco mm en ds t hat:

 — M i n i m u m   r e q u i r e m e n t s   o n   c h e c k s   o f 
produc t specific ations are laid down  i n 
t h e   l e g a l   p r o v i s i o n s   o n   t h e   g e o g r a p h -
ical indic at ion s sc heme;

 — Fu r t h e r   c l a r i f i c a t i o n s   a r e   g i v e n   o n   t h e 
scope of regular checks aiming at disal -
lowed practices. Mutual assistance rules 
s h o u l d   b e   a d a p te d   to   t h e   n e e d s   o f   t h e 
n ation al  aut hor ities;

 — Th e   Co m m i s s i o n   s h o u l d   i n c l u d e   a u d i t s 
o n   M e m b e r   S t a t e s ’  c h e c k s   o f   t h e   G I 
s c h e m e   i n   i t s   p l a n   o f   r e g u l a r   a u d i t s   i n 
th e M em ber States;

 — A   c l e a r   s t r a t e g y   i s   d e v e l o p e d   f o r   t h e 
p r o m o t i o n   o f   t h e   g e o g r a p h i c a l   i n d i -
c a t i o n s   s c h e m e   t o   p r o d u c e r s   a n d   c o n -
sumers in  orde r to raise awareness. The 
Commission should explore more effec-
t i v e   m e a n s   o f   p r o m o t i n g   t h e   s c h e m e , 
suc h  as  run nin g  a  cam paign  on  i ts   own 
in itiative.

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

1  The GI scheme was first 
established with Council 

Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 

14 July 1992 on the protection 

of geographical indications 

and designations of origin 

for agricultural products and 

foodstuffs (OJ L 208, 24.7.1992, 

p. 1).

2  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

3  Article 2(1)(a) of the 
Regulation.

INTRODUCTION

9

1.	

2.  

3.  

4.	

T H E 	 P R I N C I P L E S 	 O F 	T H E 	 G E O G R A P H I C A L	
I N D I C AT I O N S 	 S C H E M E

T h e   E U   a g r i c u l t u r a l   p ro d u c t   q u a l i t y   p o l i c y   a i m s   t o   h i g h l i g h t 
individual produc t qualities resulting from a par ticular or igin 
an d/ or p ro du c tio n met ho d.  On e of  th e s c h em es, w hi c h for ms 
p a r t   o f   t h i s   p o l i c y   a n d   w h i c h   i s   t h e   s u b j e c t   o f   t h i s   r e p o r t , 
i s   t h e   g e o gra p h i c a l   i n d i c at i o n s   ( ‘ G I ’ )   s c h e m e   fo r   a gr i c u l t u ra l 
pro du c t s and fo ods t uffs. 

T h e   G I   s c h e m e   i s   i n t e n d e d   t o   p r o t e c t   n a m e s   t h a t   i d e n t i f y 
p r o d u c t s   w h o s e   q u a l i t y,   r e p u t a t i o n   o r   o t h e r   c h a r a c t e r i s t i c 
are essentially attributable to their geographical origin. These 
n a m e s   a re   co n s i d e re d   to   b e   i nte l l e c t u a l   p ro p e r t y   r i g h t s.  Th e 
s c h e m e   i s   i n s p i r e d   b y   n a t i o n a l   s y s t e m s ,   s u c h   a s   t h e   Fr e n c h 
appellation d’origine contrôlée (‘AOC’) or the I talian denomina-
z i o n e   d i   o r i g i n e   co n t ro l l a t a   ( ‘ D O C ’ )   w h i c h   gra n te d   p ro te c t i o n 
at  nat io nal l eve l.

The introduc tion of the GI scheme in 1992 aimed to provide a 
fram ewo r k  o f Co mmu nit y r ules  t h at would  al low a s in g le  h ar-
monised EU approach for protec tion of the registered produc t 
names 1. I t is presently governed by Council Regulation (EC ) No 
510/2006 of 20 M arch 2006 on the protec tion of geographical 
i n d i c a t i o n s   a n d   d e s i gn a t i o n s   o f   o r i g i n   fo r   a g r i c u l t u r a l   p ro d -
uc t s a nd fo o dstu ffs  (‘t he R egulat ion’) 2.

The G I s cheme disting uis hes bet we e n t wo t y pes  of protec te d 
names, depending on the degree and t ype of association with 
a specific geograp hic al  area:

(a )  N a m e s   r e g i s t e r e d   a s   a   p r o t e c t e d   d e s i g n a t i o n   o f   o r i g i n 
(‘PDO’) describe produc ts having charac teristics resulting 
essentially from the geographical area and the k now-how 
o f the  p ro ducers  in  t he area of  prod uc t io n 3. All stages of 
t he  p ro du c tio n  t ake  p l ace  in  t he   g e ographi cal  area  con-
cerned. There must be a close link bet ween the produc ts’ 
features and their geographical or igin. Examples of well-
k n ow n   P D O   p ro d u c t s   a re   ‘ Q u e s o   M a n c h e g o ’ ,   ‘ Pro s c i u t to 
di Par ma’,  ‘Grana  Padan o’, ‘Comté’;

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

10

(b)  Names  registered  as  a  protec ted  geographical  indication 
(‘PGI’)  describe  products  having  specific  characteristics  or 
reputation associating them with a given geographical area 
where at least one stage of the production takes place. If the 
products  are  processed,  the  raw  materials  may  come  from 
other geographical areas4. Examples of well-known PGI prod-
ucts are ‘Bayerisches Bier ’, ‘Scotch Beef ’, ‘Pruneaux d’Agen’.

4  Article 2(1)(b) of the 
Regulation.

5  The Commission’s Directorate-
General for Agriculture and Rural 

Development: Annual Activity 

Report 2010, Table 1.2, p. 6.

5.  

6. 	

7. 	

T h e   r e g i s t r a t i o n   o f   a   p r o d u c t   n a m e   u n d e r   e i t h e r   o f   t h e   t w o 
t y p e s   o f   t h e   G I   s c h e m e   i s   p o s s i b l e   fo r   p ro d u c t s   t h at   co n ce r n 
a geographical area within the EU as well as in a third countr y 
w h e r e   t h e   p r o d u c t   n a m e s   a r e   p r o t e c t e d   ( e. g.   C h i n a   a n d   C o -
lomb ia). 

As at the end of 2010, 964 produc t names were registered un-
d e r   t h e   R e g u l a t i o n ,   o f   w h i c h   5 0 2   a s   a   P D O   a n d   4 6 2   a s   a   P G I . 
There  ha s b een  a co ns t ant  inc reas e  i n th e  n um ber  of  produc t 
n a m e s   re gi s te re d   s i n ce   t h e   s c h e m e’s   i n t ro d u c t i o n .  Th e   Co m-
m i s s i o n   h a s   s e t   i t s e l f   t h e   t a r g e t   o f   1  1 0 0   re g i s t e re d   p ro d u c t 
na mes  by t he en d of  2012 5. 

PDO and PGI produc ts may be recognised by means of specific 
E U   s y m b o l s,   w h i c h   a re   i n te n d e d   to   p rov i d e   a   g u a r a n te e   t h a t 
t h e   p r o d u c t s   c o n c e r n e d   r e l a t e   t o   a   p a r t i c u l a r   g e o g r a p h i c a l 
a r e a .  T h e   l o g o   ( o r   t h e   i n d i c a t i o n s  ‘p r o t e c t e d   d e s i g n a t i o n   o f 
o r i g i n’  o r  ‘p ro t e c t e d   g e o g r a p h i c a l   i n d i c a t i o n’ )   h a s   t o   a p p e a r 
on  the  l abe lling  of  p rodu c ts cove re d by  t h e G I s c h eme.

PDO	and	PGI	logos

Source: Annex V to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1898/2006 (OJ L 369, 23.12.2006, 
p. 1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 628/2008 (OJ L 173, 3.7.2008, p. 3).

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

11

8. 

9. 

T H E 	 E CO N O M I C 	 P OT E N T I A L

T h e   o v e r a l l   w h o l e s a l e   v a l u e   o f   P D O   a n d   P G I   p r o d u c t s   r e g i s -
tered under the R egulation is estimated to be some 15 billion 
e u r o,   w h i c h   i s   e q u a l   t o   a r o u n d   2 , 5   %   o f   t h e   e x p e n d i t u r e   fo r 
fo o d   c o n s u m p t i o n   i n   t h e   E U 6  a n d   i s   a t   a   s i m i l a r   l e v e l   a s   t h e 
who l es ale   val u e  of  org anic  produc ts.   Graph   1   sh ows  the   per-
ce nt a g e   o f   t h e   to t a l   w h o l e s a l e   va l u e   fo r   t h e   m a j o r   c l a s s e s   o f 
PDO  and PG I p ro du c ts 7.

Studies show that PDO and PGI produc ts usually have a higher 
p ro d u c e r   p r i c e   t h a n   p ro d u c t s   o f   t h e   s a m e   p r o d u c t   c a t e g o r y 
w i t h o u t   p r o t e c t e d   g e o g r a p h i c a l   i n d i c a t i o n s .  T h e   d i f f e r e n c e 
i n   p r i c e s   o b s e r v e d   r a n g e d   f r o m   5   %   t o   3 0 0   % .   A   k e y   r e a s o n 
given in the studies for this difference is the control of quality 
achieved through the protec tion of geographical indications 8.  

6  AND International: ‘Valeur de 
la production agricole sous AOP 

et IGP’ — Final report (August 

2009).

7  Agriculture and Rural 
Development DG newsletter 

on PDO and PGI agricultural 

products (2010).

8  London Economics: Evaluation 
of the CAP policy on the protected 

designations of origin (PDO) 

and protected geographical 

indications (PGI) (2008).

G R A P H 	 1

P E R C E N TAG E 	 O F 	W H O L E S A L E 	VA LU E 	 F O R 	 P D O 	 A N D 	 P G I 	 P R O D U C T S	

Others
13 %

Bread, biscuits, 
confectionery
4 %

Fruit and 
vegetables
4 %

Fresh meats
6 %

Processed meats
16 %

Cheeses
37 %

Beers
20 %

Source: European Commission, Agriculture and Rural Development DG.

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

12

10.  

T h e   R e g u l a t i o n   re c o g n i s e s   t h e   e c o n o m i c   p o t e n t i a l   o f   t h e   G I 
scheme and considers that it can be of considerable benefit to 
the rural economy by improving the income of farmers and by 
retaining the population in rural areas 9. The Commission in its 
co m m u n i c at i o n   a b o u t   t h e   f u t u re   o f   t h e   co m m o n   a gr i c u l t u ra l 
pol ic y (‘C A P ’) emp h asised t hat  the  agr ic ult ural  pro duc t q ual-
it y polic y, including the GI scheme, for ms par t of the C AP 10. I t 
contributes to maintaining the diversit y of agricultural ac tivi -
ties  in ru ral  are as  and enhances  com pet it iven e ss.

11.  

Fi n a n c i a l   m e a s u re s   ex i s t,   re l ate d   to   t h e   G I   s c h e m e,   w h i c h   d o 
not involve significant EU budgetar y expenditure. These meas-
ures aim at promoting food qualit y schemes, including the GI 
sch eme an d at s up p o r tin g far me r s w ho  par t ici pate i n  th em .

9  Recital 2 of the preamble to 
the Regulation.

10  Communication from the 
Commission to the European 

Parliament, the Council, the 

European Economic and 

Social Committee and the 

Committee of the Regions ‘The 

CAP towards 2020: Meeting 

the food, natural resources and 

territorial challenges of the 

future’ (COM(2010) 672 final of 

18 November 2010). 

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

AUDIT OBJECTIVE, SCOPE 
AND APPROACH

13

12.  

The  R eg ul at ion   s tates   t hat   th e  prom oti on  of   prod uc ts  h av in g 
ce r t a i n   c h a r a c te r i s t i c s   c a n   b e   o f   co n s i d e r a b l e   b e n e f i t   to   t h e 
r u ra l   e co n o my.  To   a c h i e ve   t h i s   o b j e c t i ve   a n d   p rov i d e   t h e   i n -
tend ed pro tec tio n,  an ap propr iate  E U f rame wor k n ee ds  to be 
i n   p l a ce.  Th e   a u d i t   t h e re fo re   a i m e d   to   re p l y   to   t h e   q u e s t i o n : 
‘ D o   t h e   d e s i gn   a n d   m a n a g e m e nt   o f   t h e   g e o gra p h i c a l   i n d i c a -
tio ns s ch eme al l ow  it  to  b e effe c ti ve?’ 

11  The product specification 
concerns important aspects, 

such as the name of the product, 

its description, the definition 

of the geographical area, 

the method of obtaining the 

product and details bearing out 

the link between the product 

and the geographical area.

13.  

 The  cr ite r ia us ed  to  rep l y to  th is  ques t ion  are :

(a )  R o b u stn ess  of   t he  system  define d  for   th e  c h ec k s  relate d 
to  t he GI s cheme:  The p roducer who  j oi ns  t he  G I s ch em e 
e x p e c t s   t h a t   t h e   n a m e   o f   h i s   p r o d u c t   i s   p r o p e r l y   p r o -
t e c t e d   a g a i n s t   i t s   u n a u t h o r i s e d   o r   i m p r o p e r   u s e   w h i c h 
m a y   h a p p e n   a s   a   r e s u l t   o f   a   h i g h e r   p r i c e   f o r   r e g i s t e r e d 
p rod u c t s.  The  cons ume r  w ho  b uys   a  P DO   or   P GI   pro duc t 
ex p e c t s   t h at   i t   o r i gi n ate s   f ro m   t h e   s p e c i f i e d   g e o gra p h i -
c a l   a r e a   a n d   c o m p l i e s   w i t h   t h e   p r o d u c t   s p e c i f i c a t i o n 1 1. 
A   rob u st   system  for  th e  ch ec ks  re late d  to  t he   GI  s ch eme 
n e e d s   t h e re fo re   to   b e   d e f i n e d   to   f u l f i l   t h e   e x p e c t a t i o n s 
o f t he t wo p ar t ies;

(b)  A t t r a c t i v e n e s s   o f   t h e   G I   s c h e m e :   T h e   e x t e n t   t o   w h i c h 
t h e   G I   s c h e m e   i s   s u cce s s f u l   d e p e n d s   o n   i t s   a b i l i t y   to   at-
t ra c t   p ro d u ce r s.   I f   t h e s e   h ave   l i t t l e   o r   n o   i nte re s t   i n   t h e 
sc hem e,  it  cannot  have th e  inten d ed  i mpac t;

(c)  C o n s u m e r   a w a r e n e s s   o f   t h e   G I   s c h e m e :   T h e   c o n s u m e r 
p r e f e r e n c e   fo r   a   P D O   o r   P G I   p r o d u c t   r e q u i r e s   t h a t   s / h e 
i s   a w a r e   o f   t h e   e x i s t e n c e   a n d   t h e   p r i n c i p l e s   o f   t h e   G I 
sc hem e,  w hich gu arantee th at t he  prod uc t  come s f rom a 
cer tain geographical area and was made according to the 
p ro du c t sp ec ificat ion .

14.  

The  fo cus   of   t he  au dit  was  t he  re g ulator y   f rame wor k  an d  t he 
ac tivities of the Commission. The Cour t visited the respon sible 
depar tments of the Commission’s Direc torate - General (DG) for 
A g r i c u l t u r e   a n d   R u r a l   D e v e l o p m e n t ,   w h e r e   i n t e r v i e w s   w e r e 
held and documents examined. The Commission’s Direc torate -
G e n e r a l   f o r   H e a l t h   a n d   C o n s u m e r s   w a s   c o n t a c t e d   t o   o b t a i n 
information on its role concerning the Commission super vision 
of  M e mb er St ates’ c hec ks  related  to th e  G I sch e me. 

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

14

15.  

16.  

The responsible ser vices in all M ember States were contac ted 
i n   o rd e r   t o   o b t a i n   f u r t h e r   e v i d e n c e   r e l a t i n g   t o   t h e   o b s e r v a -
t i o n s   m a d e   a t   C o m m i s s i o n   l e v e l   a n d   a d d i t i o n a l   i n fo r m a t i o n 
where available. The information was gathered by means of an 
online sur vey and visits to authorities of the M ember States 12. 
The online sur vey was car r ied out with all M ember States and 
included three questionnaires 13. The response rate was around 
90  % fo r all t hree.

The audit dealt with the situation as at the end of 2009. Where 
c o n s i d e r e d   r e l e v a n t ,   s u b s e q u e n t   d e v e l o p m e n t s   w e r e   t a k e n 
into consideration. Accordingly, in the par t of the repor t pre -
senting conclusions and recommendations, the proposal for a 
n e w   re g u l at i o n   o n  ‘a gr i c u l t u ra l   p ro d u c t   q u a l i t y   s c h e m e s’  h a s 
b e e n   t a k e n   i nto   co n s i d e rat i o n .  Th e   p ro p o s a l   co n ce r n s   t h e   G I 
an d o t her qual it y schemes, which  wi ll be in c lude d in  a si ng le 
reg ul atio n 14.

12  Germany, Greece, Spain, 
France, Italy, Cyprus, Poland and 

Portugal.

13  ‘Member States’ scrutiny and 
assessment’, ‘Member States’ 

controls’ and ‘Financial support/

promotion’. 

14  Proposal for a regulation of 
the European Parliament and 

of the Council on agricultural 

product quality schemes 

(COM(2010) 733 final of 10 

December 2010).

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

OBSERVATIONS

15

S H O R TCO M I N G S 	 I N 	 R E G U L ATO R Y 	 P R O V I S I O N S	
A N D 	 M O N I TO R I N G 	 O F 	T H E 	 M E M B E R 	 S TAT E S’	
C H E C K S

17. 	

The GI scheme is intended to protect product names registered 
a s   a   P D O   o r   P G I .   D e f i n i n g   a   r o b u s t   s y s t e m   f o r   t h e   M e m b e r 
States’ checks related to the GI scheme and super vising these 
c h e c k s   i n   a n   a d e q u a t e   m a n n e r   a r e   e s s e n t i a l   t o   a c h i e v e   t h i s 
ob jec tive. Two t yp es  of chec ks are  to be di st in g ui s he d in  t h is 
contex t : 

15  European Standard EN 45011 
specifies general requirements 

that a third party operating a 

product certification system shall 

meet if it is to be recognised as 

competent and reliable.

16  Various forms of disallowed 
practices are mentioned in 

Article 13(1) of the Regulation.

17  Article 10(1) of the Regulation: 
‘Member States shall designate 

the competent authority or 

authorities responsible for 

controls in respect of the 

obligations established by this 

Regulation in conformity with 

Regulation (EC) No 882/2004.’

18  Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 
of the European Parliament and 

of the Council of 29 April 2004 

on official controls performed 

to ensure the verification of 

compliance with feed and 

food law, animal health and 

animal welfare rules (OJ L 191, 

28.5.2004, p. 1).

(a )  A r t i c l e   1 1   o f   t h e   R e g u l a t i o n   r e f e r s   t o   t h e   o b l i g a t i o n   o f 
M e m b e r   S t a t e s   t o   v e r i f y   c o m p l i a n c e   o f   p r o d u c t s   w i t h 
t h e i r   s p e c i f i c a t i o n s   b e f o r e   t h e   p r o d u c t s   a r e   p l a c e d   o n 
t he m ar k et (‘Ar t icl e 11  c he ck s’) .  Th e R eg ulat io n prov ide s 
that a ‘competent authority ’ is responsible in the Member 
St ates for the se c heck s; it  also a llows th es e c h ec k s to be 
c a r r i e d   o u t   by   a n   i n d e p e n d e nt  ‘co nt ro l   b o d y ’  a cc re d i te d 
i n   a c c o r d a n c e   w i t h   E u r o p e a n   S t a n d a r d   E N   4 5 0 1 1 1 5.   T h e 
costs of these checks are usually bor ne by the operators;

(b)  The competent authorities within Member States are also 
responsible for checks, which aim to detec t and suppress 
m i s u s e ,   i m i t a t i o n   o r   e v o c a t i o n   o f   a   p r o t e c t e d   n a m e   o r 
o t h e r   p r a c t i c e s   m i s l e a d i n g   t h e   c o n s u m e r   a s   t o   t h e   t r u e 
o r igin of  a p ro du c t (‘disallowe d prac t ice s’) 16.

T H E 	 P R O V I S I O N S 	 F O R 	 C H E C K S 	 O F 	 CO M P L I A N C E 	 O F 	 P D O	
A N D 	 P G I 	 P R O D U C T S 	W I T H 	T H E 	 P R O D U C T 	 S P E C I F I C AT I O N	
D O 	 N OT 	 S E T 	 M I N I M U M 	 R E Q U I R E M E N T S

18. 	

The Regulation does not provide for minimum requirements to 
be adhered to by the competent authorities and control bodies 
co n ce r n i n g   i s s u e s   s u c h   a s   t h e   cove ra g e   o f   A r t i c l e   1 1   c h e c k s, 
the ir  frequ enc y,  th e  m etho dolog y   for   t h ei r   s ele c ti on   an d  t he 
par ties involved in the different stages of the produc tion and 
d i s t r i b u t i o n   s u b j e c t   to   co n t ro l.   I n s te a d   o f   p rov i d i n g   s p e c i f i c 
i n s t r u c t i o n s   o n   t h e   co n t ro l   s ys te m ,   A r t i c l e   1 0   o f   t h e   R e g u l a-
tion 17 refers to the controls under Regulation (EC ) No 882/2004 
d e a l i n g   w i t h   o f f i c i a l   co nt ro l s   ve r i f y i n g   co m p l i a n ce   w i t h   fe e d 
an d fo od  l aw,  a nimal  heal th  an d  an im al welf are r ule s 18.

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

16

19. 	

20.  

 H o we ve r,   R e g u l a t i o n   ( E C )   N o   8 8 2 / 2 0 0 4   d o e s   n o t   s p e c i f i c a l l y 
d e a l   w i t h   t h e   p ro d u c t   s p e c i f i c at i o n   ( Ar t i c l e   1 1 )   c h e c k s.   M o s t 
o f   t h e   p rov i s i o n s   o f   t h e   re g u l a t i o n   re g a rd i n g   co n t ro l s   a re   o f 
g e n e r a l   n a t u r e   a n d   r e l a t e   t o   f o o d   s a f e t y,   h y g i e n e   a n d   a n i -
mal  heal t h and wel fare.  The y add res s  is sue s s uch a s s ampli n g 
a n d   a n a l y s i s   m e t h o d s,   d e s i g n a t i o n   o f   re fe re n c e   l a b o r a t o r i e s 
o r   t h e   o f f i c i a l   co n t ro l s   o n   t h e   i n t ro d u c t i o n   o f   fe e d   a n d   fo o d 
from third countries. They are therefore not relevant to setting 
minimu m requ irements  for  Ar t icle  11  ch ecks.

Th e al mo st co mp l ete l ack of s uch  info r mat io n spe c if i c to  Ar t-
icle 11 checks in the legal provisions related to the GI scheme 
h a s   re s u l te d   i n   d i s c re p a n c i e s   a m o n g   t h e   co n t ro l   s ys te m s   s e t 
u p   b y   t h e   d i f fe r e n t   M e m b e r   S t a t e s .   A n   e x a m p l e   o f   d i f fe r e n t 
p r a c t i c e s   f o u n d   i n   t h e   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   v i s i t e d   i s   s h o w n   i n 
 Tab le 1.

TA B L E 	 1

CO M PA R I S O N 	 O F 	T W O 	 CO N T R O L 	 S YS T E M S 	 F O R 	 A R T I C L E 	11	 C H E C K S

Characteristics of the control system

Control body (Member State 1)

Competent authority (Member State 2)

Cycle of checks (operators)

Varying: annual or multiannual  
(depending on the product) 

Scope of the check 

Producer

Not compulsory; first check may be carried 
out several years after entering the GI 
scheme

Entry-level check1

Register of operators using a certain 
protected name (population subject 
to control)

Annual checks on each operator

Producer, packaging firms, firms producing 
private label products

Compulsory for approval of the producer

No obligation for operators to be registered  Obligation for operators to be registered

Sampling (selection of operators to be 
checked)

Risk based

Supervision of regional competent 
authorities by national authority 

Despite the existence of separate 
competent authorities at regional level no 
supervision is carried out

All operators are checked on an annual 
basis

There is only one competent authority 
carrying out all checks

1 An entry-level check concerns a producer who starts marketing a product the name of which is protected as a PDO or PGI and aims to verify compliance of 
the product with its product specification.

Source: European Court of Auditors.

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

17

21.  

22.  

Th e   t a b l e   s h ow s   d i f fe re n ce s   i n   t h e   t wo   c o n t ro l   s ys t e m s   o n   a 
num be r of  imp o r tant is su es s uc h  as th e  c yc le  of  ch eck s,  t he ir 
scope and the obligation of entr y-level checks. Differences in 
the control systems were also found as a result of the analysis 
of the replies to the online sur vey. Such discrepancies under-
mine  t he  o b je c t ive  of  es t ab l is hin g  ‘a  m ore  un ifor m  approach’ 
requ ired  by  th e  R eg ul at io n ,  wh ich   i s  ne ce ss ar y  to  e ns ure  fa ir 
com pe t it ion be t ween pro du cers  of  prod uc t s bea r i ng  s uch  i n -
d i c a t i o n s   a n d   e n h a n ce   t h e   c re d i b i l i t y   o f   t h e   p ro d u c t s   i n   t h e 
con sum er ’s  eyes 19.

I n   co nt ra s t,   m o re   i n fo r m at i o n   s p e c i f i c   to   t h e   M e m b e r   S t ate s’ 
chec ks  is  avail abl e  fo r  th e  ch ec ks  relate d  to  oth e r   E U  q ual it y 
sch emes. The  re gul at ion  dealin g   w it h  t he   GI  s ch eme   for   w in e 
pro du c t s  addres s es  is su es  such   as   s e lec tion   of   th e  prod ucer s 
to be checked and the stages of the produc tion process to be 
covered 20. M ore infor mation is also laid down for the M ember 
S t a t e s’  c o n t r o l s   r e l a t e d   t o   o r g a n i c   f a r m i n g ,   w h i c h   i s   o n e   o f 
t h e   E U   q u a l i t y   s c h e m e s.  T h e   p ro v i s i o n s   o f   t h e   re g u l a t i o n   o n 
organic produc tion and labelling of organic produc ts comple -
ment the conditions laid down in Regulation (EC ) No 882/2004. 
Th e y   d e a l   w i t h   i s s u e s   s u c h   a s   t h e   f re q u e n c y   o f   c o n t ro l s,   t h e 
stages of the produc tion process to be covered, the repor ting 
obligations of control bodies and the exchange of information 
wit h co mp ete nt  aut ho r ities from ot h er  M em ber  St ate s 21.

19  Recital 6 of the preamble to 
the Regulation.

20  Commission Regulation (EC) 
No 607/2009 of 14 July 2009 

laying down certain detailed 

rules for the implementation  

of Council Regulation (EC)  

No 479/2008 as regards 

protected designations of origin 

and geographical indications, 

traditional terms, labelling and 

presentation of certain wine 

sector products (OJ L 193, 

24.7.2009, p. 60).

21  Title V of Council Regulation 
(EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 

2007 on organic production and 

labelling of organic products  

(OJ L 189, 20.7.2007, p. 1).

B O X 	 1

E X A M P L E S 	 O F 	 S H O R TCO M I N G S 	 I N 	T H E 	V E R I F I C AT I O N 	 O F 	 P R O D U C T	
S P E C I F I C AT I O N S	 	

Shortcomings in the control body’s verification of the origin of the raw material for a processed 
PDO product were found in two of the Member States visited. 

The check of the product specification of an olive oil registered as a PDO did not include a plausi-
bility test on the average yield of olives obtained by the olive growers in their parcels. Such a 
test is important to determine whether the quantity of olives delivered to mills and processed 
for the olive oil can actually originate from the geographical area concerned. 

The work of a control body that checked the product specification of a cheese registered as 
a PDO showed shortcomings regarding the verification of the origin of the milk used for the 
production of the cheese. The control body did not include in its check a verification that would 
address the risk that the milk used in the production of the cheese originated from farms and 
cows which are located outside the geographical area defined in the product specification.

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

18

L AC K 	 O F 	 A 	 C L E A R 	 L E G A L 	 D E F I N I T I O N 	 F O R 	T H E 	 C H E C K S	
A I M E D 	 AT 	T H E 	 D E T E C T I O N 	 A N D 	 S U P P R E S S I O N 	 O F	
D I S A L LO W E D 	 P R AC T I C E S

23.   Ar ticle 13 of the Regulation refers to the obligation to protec t 
r e g i s t e r e d   n a m e s   a g a i n s t   v a r i o u s   f o r m s   o f   d i s a l l o w e d   p r a c-
tice s. The Eu ro pean Par l iament i n t h is  contex t h as  dem an de d 
t h o ro u g h   e x   o f f i c i o   p ro te c t i o n   o f   G I s   a s   a n   o b l i g at i o n   fo r   a u -
tho r itie s in al l  M emb er States 22.

22  ‘European Parliament 
resolution of 25 March 2010  on 

Agricultural product quality 

policy: what strategy to follow?’ 

(OJ C 4 E, 7.1.2011, p. 25).

23  Interpretative Note 
No 2009-01.

24.  

 D e s p i te   t h e   re l e v a n ce   o f   t h e   p ro t e c t i o n   o f   re g i s t e re d   n a m e s 
a g a i n s t   t h e i r   d i s a l l o we d   u s e,   n o   p ro v i s i o n s   a re   l a i d   d o w n   i n 
the Regulation as to what checks (if any) are required from the 
M e m b e r   S t a t e s   i n   o rd e r   t o   e n s u r e   s u c h   p r o t e c t i o n .  T h e   o n l y 
information given by the Commission on the checks to be car-
r ied  o u t in  o rder to  detec t  and s uppre ss  d is allowed  prac ti ce s 
i s   t h a t   c h e c k s   o n   G I   p r o d u c t s   f a l l   u n d e r   R e g u l a t i o n   ( E C )   N o 
8 8 2 / 2 0 0 4   a n d   co n s e q u e nt l y   M e m b e r   S t a te s   h ave   to   co n s i d e r 
t h e m   i n   t h e i r   m u l t i a n n u a l   n a t i o n a l   c o n t r o l   p l a n   ( ‘ M A N C P ’ ) 
m e n t i o n e d   i n   t h a t   r e g u l a t i o n 2 3.   H o w e v e r,   t h e   e x t e n t   o f   t h e 
M e m b e r   S t a t e s’  o b l i g a t i o n   t o   c a r r y   o u t   c h e c k s   a i m e d   a t   t h e 
detec tion and suppression of cases of disallowed prac tices on 
a   re g u l a r   b a s i s   re m a i n s   u n c l e a r.  Th e re   a re   n o   i n s t r u c t i o n s   o n 
how  su ch c hec k s (if any) are to be  c ar r i ed  out.

25.   A number of M ember States visited stressed the need to have 
a procedure on mutual assistance in the Regulation that would 
provide for a response to denunciations concerning the disal -
lowe d  us e  of  a  p ro tec ted  name  i n  a  M em ber   State   ot he r   th an 
the Member State of produc tion. This issue puts into question 
t h e   a d e q u a c y   o f   t h e   p ro v i s i o n s   l a i d   d o w n   i n   A r t i c l e s   3 5   a n d 
36 of Regulation (EC ) No 882/2004 dealing with liaison bodies 
an d as sist ance  o n requ est.

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

19

26.   M o s t   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   d o   n o t   c a r r y   o u t   c h e c k s   a i m e d   a t   t h e 
d e t e c t i o n   a n d   s u p p r e s s i o n   o f   c a s e s   o f   d i s a l l o w e d   p r a c t i c e s 
on a regular basis. They usually car r y out checks aimed at the 
detec tion and suppression of disallowed prac tices concerning 
PDO and PGI produc ts only in order to address denunciations 
or as a secondar y par t of hygiene and safet y checks related to 
foodstuffs. Where such checks are carried out, the visits to the 
M e m b e r   St ate s   a n d   t h e   o n l i n e   s u r ve y   s h owe d   a   d i f fe re n ce   i n 
the coverage of PDO and PGI produc ts from other countries. In 
a number of Member States, the checks exclude such produc ts 
an d o nl y nat io nal  p roduc ts  are cove red.

27.  

 B o x   2   p r o v i d e s   e x a m p l e s   o f   d i s a l l o w e d   p r a c t i c e s   f o u n d   b y 
M e m b e r   S t a t e s   w h e n   c a r r y i n g   o u t   t h e i r   c o n t r o l s   r e l a t e d   t o 
fo o d   s a fe t y   o r   fo l l ow i n g   u p   a   s u s p i c i o n   o r   d e n u n c i a t i o n   a n d 
dem ons t rates   t he  high   r is k  of  d is all owe d  prac t ice s  n ot  be in g 
foun d du e to  th e lack  of  regular  ch eck s. 

B O X 	 2

E X A M P L E S 	 O F 	 D I S A L LO W E D 	 P R AC T I C E S 	 F O U N D 	 BY 	 N AT I O N A L 	 AU T H O R I T I E S			

The French authorities found that a butcher had sold lamb meat to restaurants showing in his 
invoices a product name protected as a PGI whilst the meat delivered did not allow him to use 
this name. The restaurants in consequence had made unjustified reference to the protected 
name in their menus.

Samples taken by the Bavarian authorities in shops selling a specific type of cheese protected 
as a PDO showed a number of cases of disallowed use of this name. Most of the cheeses con-
cerned did not originate from the designated geographical area and in one case cow milk had 
been used instead of sheep milk as provided for by the product specification.

Table olives were marketed by a processing and packaging company illicitly  using a name 
protected as a PDO. The documentation examined by the Italian authorities showed that the 
olives packaged by this company were not of the variety required by the product specification. 

During a check carried out by the Greek authorities at a supermarket, the name of a PDO cheese 
was found on the sign of the display fridge. The same name appeared on the weighing label for 
the product and on the purchase receipt. The supermarket should not have labelled the cheese 
using the protected name since the producer was not accredited and therefore not subject to 
product specification checks.

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

20

W E A K N E S S E S 	 E X I S T 	 I N 	T H E 	 CO M M I S S I O N ’S 	 S U P E R V I S I O N	
O F 	 M E M B E R 	 S TAT E S’	 C H E C K S 	 R E L AT E D 	TO 	T H E	
G E O G R A P H I C A L 	 I N D I C AT I O N S 	 S C H E M E	

28.   A d e q u a t e   s u p e r v i s i o n   o f   M e m b e r   S t a t e s ’  c o n t r o l   s y s t e m s 
s h o u l d   co m p r i s e   a u d i t i n g   t h e   c h e c k s   c a r r i e d   o u t   by   M e m b e r 
States  and review ing  the repor t in g  on  t h ei r  cont rol ac ti v iti e s 
on  a reg ul ar b asis.

L a c k  o f c o m m i s s i o n  a u d i t s  o f  t h e  m e m b e r  s t a t e s’  c h e c k s  r e L a t i n g 
t o  t h e  g e o g r a p h i c a L  i n d i c a t i o n s  s c h e m e 

29.  

Th e R eg ul at io n d oes  no t include  spe c if ic  prov is i on s  a s to  th e 
Co m m i s s i o n   s u p e r v i s i o n   o f   c h e c k s   re l a te d   to   t h e   G I   s c h e m e. 
R e f e r e n c e   t o   s u p e r v i s i o n   i s   m a d e ,   h o w e v e r,   i n   A r t i c l e   4 5   o f 
Regulation (EC ) No 882/2004, which requires general and spe -
cific audits of the Member States’ official controls by Commis-
sio n  exp er t s. Whil s t   t he  Foo d  an d Ve ter in ar y   O ff i ce  ( ‘FV O ’)   of 
t h e   H e a l t h   a n d   Co n s u m e r s   D G   n o r m a l l y   c a r r i e s   o u t   a u d i t s   o f 
t h e   M e m b e r   S t a t e s’  o f f i c i a l   c o n t r o l s ,   i t   d o e s   n o t   a s s u m e   e x-
clusive responsibilit y for audits of the GI scheme. I t considers 
that the legislation refers to ‘Commission exper ts’ and, as such, 
the re   is  no thing  to  su ggest   that  t h e  pe r for man ce   of   Com mu-
nit y controls is limited to FVO ac tivities, nor that the FVO has 
so le  res po nsib ilit y  to  car r y out audi ts  in  t h is  are a.

30.  

The Cour t notes that to date no audits have been car r ied out. 
The FVO explained that they have not been carried out due to 
its   l imited  reso u rces  and  its  pr ior it is ati on   of   r i sk s   in   te r m s  of 
fo o d   s a fe t y,   a n i m a l   a n d   p l a nt   h e a l t h   a n d   a n i m a l   we l f a re.   Ac -
cordingly, currently the Commission does not closely monitor 
the  imp le ment atio n o f the G I s che me  i n  th e  M e mber  St ate s.   

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

24  Belgium, Denmark, Germany, 
Estonia, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, 

Malta, Netherlands, Austria, 

Slovakia, Finland and Sweden.

21

m e m b e r s t a t e s’  r e p o r t i n g  c o n c e r n i n g  t h e i r  c h e c k s  o f  t h e 
g e o g r a p h i c a L  i n d i c a t i o n s  s c h e m e  i s  i n c o m p L e t e   

31.  

 M e mb er  States’ rep or ting on ch eck s re late d to  th e GI sc he m e 
for m s p ar t  o f t he rep or ting und er  Ar t ic l es  4 1  an d  4 4  of  R e g u -
l a t i o n   ( E C )   N o   8 8 2 / 2 0 0 4 ,   w h i c h   r e q u i r e   M A N C Ps   a n d   a n n u a l 
r e p o r t s   o n   t h e i r   i m p l e m e n t a t i o n .  T h e   A g r i c u l t u r e   a n d   R u r a l 
Development DG carried out an analysis of MANCPs and annual 
re p o r t s   fo r   t h e   f i r s t   t i m e   i n   2 0 0 9 .  T h i s   a n a l y s i s   c o v e r e d   fo u r 
M e m b e r   S t a t e s   a n d   d e a l t   w i t h   t h e   e x i s t e n c e   a n d   t h e   e x t e n t 
o f   i n f o r m a t i o n   o n   c h e c k s   a n d   p r o t e c t i o n   o f   p r o d u c t   n a m e s 
registered as a PDO or PGI. The Agriculture and Rural Develop -
ment DG’s analysis showed a clear lack of information on such 
chec ks, w hic h was  eit her mis sing  or   in com plete.   

32.  

 Information available at the Commission on the Member States’ 
c o n t r o l   s y s t e m s   i s   t h e r e f o r e   v e r y   l i m i t e d .   B a s e d   o n   t h i s   i n -
f o r m a t i o n   i t   i s   n o t   p o s s i b l e   f o r   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   t o   o b t a i n   a 
clear pic ture about which authorities carr y out checks in each 
M e mb er St ate  and w hat the res ults  of  th e se  ch eck s a re.

T H E R E 	 I S 	 A 	 P OT E N T I A L 	TO 	 AT T R AC T 	 F U R T H E R	
P R O D U C E R S ,	 B U T 	 I T 	 I S 	 A F F E C T E D 	 BY 	 L E N G T H Y	
P R O C E D U R E S 	 A N D 	 A 	 L AC K 	 O F 	 AWA R E N E S S

P OT E N T I A L 	 E X I S T S 	 F O R 	 AT T R AC T I N G 	 F U R T H E R	
P R O D U C E R S 	TO 	 J O I N 	T H E 	 G E O G R A P H I C A L 	 I N D I C AT I O N S	
S C H E M E

33.  

The extent to which the GI scheme is successful depends on its 
abilit y to attrac t producers. Replies to the online sur vey show 
t h a t   h a l f   t h e   M e m b e r   S t a t e s’  a u t h o r i t i e s   a s s e s s   t h e   t a k e - u p 
in   t heir  cou ntr y  as   either  ‘ l ow ’  or  ‘ ver y   low ’  af te r  cons id er in g 
the potential of produc ts to be registered in their countr y for 
their assessment 24. The main reasons provided for the ‘ low ’ or 
‘ ve r y  low ’ t ake -u p are :

(a ) 

‘O p e r a t o r s   co n s i d e r   t h a t   t h e   p ro c e d u re s   fo r   a p p l i c a t i o n 
are too  t ime - co nsu ming’;

(b) 

‘ Lack  o f t radit io n in t he M embe r  State  con ce r n e d for  t h e 
GI  sc hem e’ ;

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

22

(c ) 

‘ Lack   o f  cons umers’  awarenes s  o f   t he   exis ten ce  of   th e   G I 
sc hem e’;

25  Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, 
Lithuania, Malta and Romania.

(d) 

‘ L a c k   o f   p ro d u ce r s’  aw a re n e s s   o f   t h e   e x i s te n ce   o f   t h e   G I 
sc hem e’.

34.  

35.  

T h e   s p r e a d   o f   r e g i s t e r e d   n a m e s   i n   t h e   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   a s   a t 
t h e   e n d   o f   2 0 1 0 ,   s h ow n   i n   G ra p h   2 ,   co r ro b o rate s   t h e   a s s e s s -
ment made by cer tain Member States that the take -up in their 
co unt r y is l ow /ver y l ow. 

 T h e   g r a p h   s h o w s   a   c o n c e n t r a t i o n   o f   t h e   r e g i s t e r e d   p r o d u c t 
names in a limited number of Member States: 77 % of the prod-
uc t names registered or iginate from only five M ember States, 
wh il st   in  14  M emb er   States   le ss  t h an   f i ve   pro duc t  nam e s  h ad 
b e e n   r e g i s t e r e d   b y   t h e   e n d   o f   2 0 1 0 ,   i n c l u d i n g   s i x   M e m b e r 
States where no produc t name had been registered 25. This un-
eve n  sp re ad  indic ates   a  cl ear  dif feren ce   i n   t h e  attrac ti ve n es s 
o f   t h e   G I   s c h e m e   a m o n g s t   p r o d u c e r s   i n   t h e   M e m b e r   S t a t e s . 
A   p ro b a b l e   e x p l a n a t i o n   fo r   t h i s   s i t u a t i o n   i s   t h a t   s o m e   M e m-
ber  States,  su ch  as   France,   I taly   or   S pain   had   si mi la r   n at ion al 
schemes before the introduc tion of the EU scheme and there -
fo re   p ro d u ce r s   i n   t h e s e   co u nt r i e s   h ave   m o re   e x p e r i e n ce   a n d 
a b et ter  k now l edge and intere st  i n  th e s ch eme. 

G R A P H 	 2

P R O D U C T 	 N A M E S 	 R E G I S T E R E D 	 A S 	 P D O 	 A N D 	 P G I 	 P E R 	 M E M B E R 	 S TAT E 1	  

250

200

150

100

50

0

IT

FR

ES

PT

EL

DE UK CZ

PL AT

BE NL HU SK

IE

SE

LU

FI

DK

SI

CY

1 Two third countries (Colombia and China) had one product each registered as at the end of 2010.

Source: European Commission, Agriculture and Rural Development DG.

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

23

L E N G T H Y 	 R E G I S T R AT I O N 	 P R O C E D U R E S 	 D I S CO U R AG E	
P OT E N T I A L 	 A P P L I C A N T S

36.   One  o f  t he  main  reas ons   p rovide d  for   t he   low/ve r y   low  t ak e -
u p   o f   t h e   G I   s c h e m e   i s   t h a t   o p e r a t o r s   c o n s i d e r   t h a t   t h e   p ro -
c e d u r e s   f o r   a p p l i c a t i o n   a r e   t o o   t i m e - c o n s u m i n g .   T h e   C o u r t 
t h e re fo re   e x a m i n e d   t h e   p ro ce d u re   a n d   t h e   t i m e   t a k e n   fo r   i t . 
Gra ph  3 p res ents th e different  stages of  t h e  proce dure.

G R A P H 	 3

R E G I S T R AT I O N 	 P R O C E D U R E 

Deﬁnition of the product according to a speciﬁcation

Applicant
group

Member
State’s
authority

Commission -
Agriculture 
and Rural
Development
DG -

Scrutiny of the application by the national authority to verify 
its compliance with the conditions of the Regulation

Scrutiny of the single document by 
Commission services should not exceed 12 months

First publication in the Official Journal

6-month opposition period  

Registration

Rejection if application 
considered as not complying 
with EU legislation 

If opposition, appropriate 
consultation between 
interested parties

Source: European Commission, Agriculture and Rural Development DG.

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

24

37.  

38.  

 The Cour t found that both the scrutiny at national and at Com-
m i s s i o n   l e v e l   a r e   l e n g t h y,   t h e   l a t t e r   t a k i n g   o n   a v e r a g e   f o u r 
ye ars 26.  The  main reaso n s fo r these  leng thy  proce dures  foun d 
b y   t h e   Co u r t   we re   a   t h o ro u g h   n a t i o n a l   s c r u t i ny,   i n c o m p l e t e 
applications filed by the applicant groups and the time needed 
by the  natio nal  aut ho r ities to prov id e a ddi ti ona l i nfor mat ion 
concerning the single document at the request of the Agricul -
ture and Rural Development DG. I t addressed the last issue by 
m a k i n g   t wo   d ra f t   g u i d e s   ava i l a b l e   i n   2 0 1 0 ,   o n e   d e a l i n g   w i t h 
the   main  el ements  to  b e  c hec ke d  by   t he   n ati on al  auth or i ti es 
and one for the applicants providing details on the completion 
of the single document. The impac t of these guidelines on the 
len gt h o f t he sc ru tiny  can  on ly be  as se ss ed  i n  th e  future.

T H E 	 M E A S U R E 	 AVA I L A B L E 	 I S 	 O N LY 	 I N D I R E C T LY 	 R E L AT E D	
TO 	 AT T R AC T I V E N E S S

The primar y instrument available to provide financial suppor t 
to  pa r t icipa nt s  in  th e  G I  s ch eme  is   th e  Europe an   Agr ic ult ura l 
Fund for Rural D evelopment (‘EAFRD ’) measure No 132 — Par-
ticipation of farmers in food quality schemes. This measure ad-
dresses the costs incurred by farmers for their par ticipation in 
EU  or natio nal  foo d qu al it y  schem es 27. The  aid is available for 
pro du c t s  intended  for   hu man  con s umpti on   a nd   it s  max im um 
a m o u n t   i s   3   0 0 0   e u r o   p e r   h o l d i n g   ( fo r   a   m a x i m u m   p e r i o d   o f 
5   y e a r s ) .  T h e   m e a s u r e   i s ,   h o w e v e r,   o n l y   u s e d   b y   1 6   M e m b e r 
S t a t e s .   M o r e o v e r,   i t   d o e s   n o t   a d d r e s s   t h e   l a c k   o f   p r o d u c e r s’ 
awareness of the GI scheme, which in the view of national au -
thorities is another main reason for the scheme’s ver y low/low 
t a k e - u p   ( s e e   p a ra gra p h   3 3 ) 2 8.  Th i s   l at te r   i s s u e   i s   ex a m i n e d   i n 
the next par t of this Special Repor t, dealing with the consumer 
awarene ss o f the G I s cheme.

26  The average time needed 
between receiving the 

application and registering the 

product name was 47 months 

for names registered in 2008 

and 46 months for names 

registered in 2009. Amendment 

applications were excluded from 

the calculations.

27  Article 20(c)(ii) of Council 
Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 

20 September 2005 on support 

for rural development by the 

European Agricultural Fund for 

Rural Development (EAFRD)  

(OJ L 277, 21.10.2005, p. 1).

28  As at the end of 2010, 
measure No 132 was included in 

the 2007–13 rural development 

programmes of 16 Member 

States with a total allocated 

amount of 294 million euro. 

The accumulated expenditure 

declared (utilisation by the 

farmers) for all eligible quality 

schemes until the end of 2010 

amounts to 18,6 million euro.

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

25

CO N S U M E R 	 R E CO G N I T I O N 	 O F 	T H E	
G E O G R A P H I C A L 	 I N D I C AT I O N S 	 S C H E M E 	 I S 	 LO W	
A N D 	T H E 	 O P T I O N S 	 U S E D 	 A R E 	 U N L I K E LY 	TO	
I N C R E A S E 	 I T

CO N S U M E R 	 R E CO G N I T I O N 	 O F 	T H E 	 G E O G R A P H I C A L	
I N D I C AT I O N S 	 S C H E M E 	 I S 	 LO W

39.   R e fe re n c e   t o   t h e   c o n s u m e r   a w a r e n e s s   o f   t h e   G I   s c h e m e   w a s 
m a d e   i n   a   re ce nt   s t u d y   c a r r i e d   o u t   o n   b e h a l f   o f   t h e   Co m m i s-
sion 29. This study included an analysis of a sur vey of awareness 
of  t he PDO  and PG I  sy mb o l s.  A si ng le  pa ge  w it h th e  t wo sy m -
bols and three other international food symbols was shown to 
the consumers par ticipating 30. The sur vey included the replies 
o f   1 6   7 1 8   r e s p o n d e n t s   a n d   s h o w e d   t h a t   t h e   r e c o g n i t i o n   o f 
the   sym bo l s  for  P DO  and  P GI  is  l ow.  O nl y   8  %  recognise d  th e 
PDO or PGI symbols. Excluding Greece, which is an outlier, the 
avera g e  EU   re cognitio n  rate  is  on ly   5 ,6  % 31.  As   a  com par is on, 
the same sur vey identified the rate of recognition as 16 % for 
t h e   o r g a n i c   l o g o   a n d   2 2   %   fo r   t h e   Fa i r t r a d e   o n e.   D e t a i l s   a re 
show n  in G ra p h  4.

29  London Economics: Evaluation 
of the CAP policy on the protected 

designations of origin (PDO) 

and protected geographical 

indications (PGI) (2008).

30  The survey covered a 
representative sample in 

each Member State and was 

addressed to the main shopper 

of the household interviewed. 

31  An explanation provided 
by London Economics for the 

high recognition rate in Greece 

is the fact that the registration 

of the product name ‘Feta’ as a 

PDO and the related European 

Court of Justice cases (Joined 

Cases C-465/02 and C-466/02 for 

withdrawal of the registration) 

had large coverage in the Greek 

press. 

G R A P H 	 4

R E CO G N I T I O N 	 O F 	 P D O 	 A N D 	 P G I 	 LO G O 	 P E R 	 M E M B E R 	 S TAT E 1	  

60 %

50 %

40 %

30 %

20 %

10 %

0 %

EL IT PT BE CY SI ET IE LU RO CZ PL SK LT LV FR BG ES DE UK AT DK SE FI NL HU MT

1 The survey in the UK did not include Northern Ireland.

Source: London Economics.

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

32  Information measures 
provided for by Council 

Regulation (EC) No 814/2000 

of 17 April 2000 on information 

measures relating to the 

common agricultural policy 

(OJ L 100, 20.4.2000, p. 7) are 

considered as being of little 

relevance due to the low 

amounts of expenditure related 

to the GI scheme.

33  OJ L 3, 5.1.2008, p. 1.

26

40.  

Th e s ur vey fu r th er s howed t hat  th e re is  la ck  of  k nowle dge  as 
to   t h e   m e a n i n g   o f   t h e   s c h e m e.   O f   t h o s e   w h o   re co gn i s e d   t h e 
log os   o nly   hal f  were  ab l e  to   identi f y  t h at  t he y   im ply   t h at  t he 
produc t has been produced in a par ticular geographical area.

41.  

42.  

43.  

T H E 	 O P T I O N S 	 U S E D 	 A R E 	 U N L I K E LY 	TO 	 R A I S E 	 AWA R E N E S S	
O F 	T H E 	 G E O G R A P H I C A L 	 I N D I C AT I O N S 	 S C H E M E

 Va r i o u s   o p t i o n s   a r e   a v a i l a b l e   t o   r a i s e   a w a r e n e s s   o f   t h e   G I 
s c h e m e ,   s u c h   a s   p r o v i d i n g   f i n a n c i a l   a i d   fo r   m e a s u r e s   w h i c h 
ad dres s t his  issue or  t he Co mmis si on  ta k in g  own  i n iti ati ves.   

 T h e   Co u r t   h a s   e x a m i n e d   w h e t h e r   t h e   fo l l o w i n g   f i n a n c i a l   E U 
meas ure s are likel y to make the  G I sc h e me  bet ter   k now n 32:

(a )  E A F R D   m e a s u r e   N o   1 3 3   —   I n f o r m a t i o n   a n d   p r o m o t i o n 

ac t ivit ies;

(b)  T h e   m e a s u r e s   p r o v i d e d   f o r   b y   C o u n c i l   R e g u l a t i o n   ( E C ) 
No 3/2008 of 17 December 2007 on information provision 
and promotion measures for agricultural produc ts on the 
inter nal  m ar ket  and in third cou nt r i es 33.

m e a s u r e n o 133  i s  u s e d  t o  a  L i m i t e d  e x t e n t  b y  t h e  p r o d u c e r 
g r o u p s   

EAFRD measure No 133 provides financial suppor t to producer 
groups to inform consumers and promote produc ts belonging 
to EU or national food qualit y schemes. The ac tivities eligible 
f o r   s u p p o r t   u n d e r   m e a s u r e   N o   1 3 3   h a v e   t o   b e   d e s i g n e d   t o 
i n d u ce   co n s u m e r s   to   b u y   t h e   a gr i c u l t u r a l   p ro d u c t   a n d   fo o d-
stuffs covered by the food qualit y schemes. They have to draw 
at te nt i o n   to   t h e   s p e c i f i c   fe at u re s   o r   a d va nt a g e s   o f   t h e   p ro d-
u c t   c o n c e r n e d ,   t h e   l e g a l   p r o v i s i o n s   p l a c i n g   t h e r e f o r e   m o r e 
emphasis on the produc t itself than on the GI scheme. The aid 
under this measure is available for 70 % of the eligible cost of 
t h e   a c t i o n   a n d   i s   l i m i t e d   t o   a c t i v i t i e s   t a r g e t i n g   t h e   i n t e r n a l 
mar ket.

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

27

44.   D at a   t h at   wo u l d   a l l ow   a   c l e a r   co n c l u s i o n   to   b e   d raw n   o n   t h e 
degree of success of measure No 133 regarding the GI scheme 
a n d   m o r e   p a r t i c u l a r l y   o n   w h e t h e r   i t   i n c r e a s e d   c o n s u m e r 
awarene ss o f it  cou l d n ot b e prov ide d by  th e  Agr i c ulture  an d 
R u r a l   D e ve l o p m e n t   D G .   D u e   t o   t h e   e x i s t e n ce   o f   a   n u m b e r   o f 
exogenous factors that affect this question, it may not even be 
fea sib le   to   ca r r y   out   s uch  an  an alys is.   H owe ver,  t he   ex te nt  of 
the measure’s uptake by the Member States and the utilisation 
o f   t h e   f u n d s   a v a i l a b l e   r e f l e c t   i t s   a p p e a l   t o   p r o d u c e r   g r o u p s 
and indicate its appropriateness as an option to increase con-
sum er awarene s s.

45.   A s   a t   t h e   e n d   o f   2 0 1 0 ,   m e a s u r e   N o   1 3 3   w a s   i n c l u d e d   i n   t h e 
20 07– 13 rural devel o p ment programme  ( ‘R DP ’)  of  1 4  M em ber 
S t ate s   w i t h   a   to t a l   a m o u nt   o f   2 0 6   m i l l i o n   e u ro.  Th i s   a m o u nt , 
which covers different food qualit y schemes, including the GI 
s c h e m e,   o rg a n i c   f a r m i n g   a n d   n at i o n a l   fo o d   q u a l i t y   s c h e m e s, 
a c c o u n t s   f o r   0 , 6   %   o f   t h e   t o t a l   a m o u n t   u n d e r   A x i s   1   o f   t h e 
M e m b e r   S t a te s’  f i n a n c i a l   p l a n s   ( 3 2  3 6 2   m i l l i o n   e u ro ) .   D e t a i l s 
pe r M emb er St ate are p resented  in  Gra ph  5.

46.   Wi th  t he   excep tio n  o f  the  UK ,  t he   13   M e mber   States   t hat  di d 
n o t   i n c l u d e   m e a s u r e   N o   1 3 3   i n   t h e i r   R D P   h a d   n o   o r   o n l y   a 
small number of product names registered as a PDO or PGI (see 
G ra p h   2 ) .   An   o bv i o u s   re a s o n   w i t h   re g a rd   to   t h e   G I   s c h e m e   i s 
that in these Member States there are no or only few producer 
g r o u p s   m a r k e t i n g   P D O   o r   P G I   p r o d u c t s   w h i c h   c a n   a p p l y   f o r 
co -fina nc ing  un der meas ure No 1 3 3 .   

G R A P H 	 5

CO M M I T M E N T S 	 U N D E R 	 M E A S U R E 	 N O 	133	  

o
r
u
e
n
o

i
l
l
i

m
n

i

d
e
t
t
i

m
m
o
c
s
t
n
u
o
m
A

100

80

60

40

20

0

IT

ES

PL

EL

FR

DK

PT

AT

SI

DE

CY

NL MT

BE

Source: European Commission, Agriculture and Rural Development DG.

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

 
 
 
 
28

47.  

The cumulative expenditure declared (utilisation by producer 
gro up s)  fo r  al l   el igibl e  qu al it y   s c h em es   unti l  th e  e nd  of   2 0 1 0 
amounts to 16,2 million euro and represents 7,8 % of the total 
amount in the Member States’ financial plans for the program-
m i n g   p e r i o d   2 0 0 7 – 1 3 .   B a s e d   o n   i n fo r m a t i o n   p rov i d e d   i n   t h e 
o n l i n e   s u r v e y   c o n c e r n i n g   e x p e n d i t u r e   f o r   t h e   G I   s c h e m e   i n 
t h e   p r e v i o u s   p r o g r a m m i n g   p e r i o d ,   t h e   Co u r t   e s t i m a t e s   t h a t 
t h e   t o t a l   a m o u n t   t h a t   w i l l   b e   s p e n t   fo r   t h e   E U   G I   s c h e m e   i n 
the   c ur rent  p rogramming   p er iod  w ill  be   about  2   mi llion   euro 
(0 ,3  mil lio n euro  on averag e per  ye ar ).

p r o m o t i o n  p r o g r a m m e s  h a v e  h a d  L i m i t e d  i m p a c t  o n  t h e  a w a r e n e s s 
o f  t h e  g e o g r a p h i c a L  i n d i c a t i o n s  s c h e m e

48.   Pro mo tio n  pro gramm es  u nder   R eg ulat ion   ( E C )   N o  3 /2 00 8  are 
usually initiated by trade or inter-trade organisations to draw 
up information campaigns targeting producers and processors 
an d need to  be  ap proved by the Agr icult ure an d R ural D e vel -
opment DG. With respec t to the GI sc heme, t hey should focus 
on its charac teristics and address the k nowledge amongst tar-
ge t group s, inc l uding th e con sume r s  an d prod ucer s. 

49.   R e g a r d i n g   t h e   a v a i l a b i l i t y   o f   d a t a   t h a t   w o u l d   a l l o w   a   c l e a r 
con cl us ion  to  be  draw n  on   the  succe ss   (or   n ot)   of   prom oti on 
pro gram mes co n cer ning  the G I sc h em e a nd  more  par t icular ly 
w h e t h e r   t h e y   i n c re a s e d   aw a re n e s s   o f   i t ,   t h e   s a m e   l i m i t a t i o n 
a p p l i e s   a s   fo r   m e a s u re   N o   1 3 3   ( s e e   p a r a g r a p h   4 4 ) .   H o we ve r, 
the   us e  made   by   t rade  org anisat ion s   of   t h e  promot ion   m ea s -
u r e   u n d e r   R e g u l a t i o n   ( E C )   N o   3 / 2 0 0 8   i s   a n   i n d i c a t o r   o f   i t s 
a p p ro p r i a te n e s s   fo r   t h e   p ro m o t i o n   o f   t h e   G I   s c h e m e   a n d   fo r 
ad dres sing  the awarenes s o f the  GI  sc h e me.      

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

29

50.  

In the period 2005–09, the Agriculture and Rural Development 
DG  a pp roved  25   p rogramm es  rel ated  to  P DO   or   P G I  prod uc ts 
with the following commitments and accumulated expenditure 
decl are d until  th e end o f S eptem ber   2 0 1 0 :

34  Another 27 programmes 
related to PDO and PGI were 

rejected in the same period.

35  OJ L 147, 6.6.2008, p. 3.

TA B L E 	2:	 CO M M I T M E N T S 	 A N D 	 E X P E N D I T U R E 	 U N D E R	
P R O M OT I O N 	 P R O G R A M M E S	 	

Member State 

Number of 
programmes

Amounts committed 
in million euro 

Expenditure declared 
in million euro

Italy

Greece

France

Spain

Italy-Portugal

Poland

Portugal

Germany

Total

12

5

2

2

1

1

1

1

25

11,7

6,2

4,8

3,6

1,8

0,8

0,5

0,4

29,7

7,8

3,3

4,2

2,8

1,3

0,7

0,0

0,4

20,6

Source: European Commission, Agriculture and Rural Development DG.

51.   Table 2 shows that the uptake in the period examined was rela -
tive ly  l ow  wit h 25 p ro grammes  ( f ive  on ave rag e pe r  year )  an d 
to t a l   e x p e n d i t u re   a m o u nt i n g   to   s o m e   2 1   m i l l i o n   e u ro   by   t h e 
end of S eptember 2010 (about 4 million euro EU co -financing 
pe r year o n averag e) 34. 

52.   One of the reasons for the low number of programmes under-
t a k e n   i s   t h a t   p r o m o t i o n   p r o g r a m m e s   f o r   p r o d u c t s   w i t h   l o w 
e c o n o m i c   v a l u e   u s u a l l y   c a n n o t   f u l f i l   t h e   r e q u i r e d   c o n d i t i o n 
o f   a n   a d e q u a t e   c o s t / b e n e f i t   r a t i o   r e fe r r e d   t o   i n   A r t i c l e   8   o f 
Commission Regulation (EC ) No 501/2008 of 5 June 2008 laying 
down detailed rules for the application of Council R egulation 
( E C )   N o   3 / 2 0 0 8 3 5.  T h e re fo re,   t h e   p r o m o t i o n   p r o g r a m m e s   a p -
proved are mostly those presented by organisations represent-
in g p ro du c ts  w ith a h igh econom ic  value.

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

	
30

53.  

54.  

 The 12 programmes concerning the EU internal market concen -
trate d o n a fe w M emb er States, in  par ti c ular  G e r m any,  Fran ce 
a n d   I t a l y.  Th e   o bv i o u s   re a s o n   i s   t h at   t ra d e   o rg a n i s at i o n s   t a r-
ge t the  b ig gest  mar ket s w ith t h ei r  c am paign s. Con se quentl y, 
awarene ss is address ed on l y in  a fe w M e mbe r  State s.

 The Cour t noted, for the applications coming from the Member 
S t a t e s   w i t h   t h e   h i g h e s t   n u m b e r   o f   P D O   a n d   P G I   p r o m o t i o n 
p ro gra m m e s   a p p rove d,   a   s t ro n g   fo c u s   o n   p ro m o t i o n   i n   t h i rd 
cou nt r ies 36.  The  Agr icu lt u re and Rural D eve lopme nt DG  i n re -
sponse to the question of the success of this promotion meas-
ure provided a ser ies of evaluation studies, related to promo -
tion in third countries 37. These studies indicate low awareness 
in  near l y all  t he co untr ies  covered.  S om e of  t he  st ud ie s point 
out the ver y limited effec t of EU campaigns in third countr ies 
(S ee  B ox   3). 

t h e c o m m i s s i o n  t a k e s  L i m i t e d  o w n  a c t i o n s  t o  p r o m o t e 
s p e c i f i c a L L y  t h e  g e o g r a p h i c a L  i n d i c a t i o n s  s c h e m e   

55.  

Th e   Co m m i s s i o n   f re q u e n t l y   t a k e s   i n i t i a t i ve s   to   p u b l i c i s e   t h e 
C AP,   e. g.  by   par tic ip ating  in  fair s  or   org an is in g   s e min ar s. Th e 
GI  sc heme   is   p ar t   o f  thes e  in it iati ves,   but   t he re   is   n o  spe cif ic 
e m p h a s i s   o n   i t,   n o r   h a s   t h e re   b e e n   a ny   p ro m o t i o n   a n d   i n fo r-
m a t i o n   c a m p a i g n   e xc l u s i v e l y   fo r   t h e   s c h e m e   i n   t h e   l a s t   fe w 
y e a r s 3 8.   W h e n   a s k e d   i n   t h e   o n l i n e   s u r v e y   f o r   a n y   a d d i t i o n a l 
com ment s o n t he GI  sc heme, five M e mbe r  St ates  st re ss ed t h e 
ne ed  fo r it s  f ur ther p romotion.

36  Seven out of 12 Italian 
programmes, four out of five 

Greek programmes.

37  Euréval carried out a series of 
evaluation studies of promotion 

measures in third countries, 

namely in Switzerland and 

Norway, China, India and south-

east Asia, Russia, Japan as well as 

the USA and Canada.

38  In the past, there was 
only one information and 

promotion programme that 

was initiated and financed 

100 % by the Agriculture and 

Rural Development DG. The 

European Authentic Tastes 

(‘EAT’) programme was a 3-year 

programme (2004–07) with a 

6 million euro budget. It aimed 

at informing the North American 

and Asian public about the EU's 

quality schemes including the GI 

scheme.

B O X 	 3	

Q U OTAT I O N S 	 CO N C E R N I N G 	T H E 	 L I M I T E D 	 E F F E C T 	 O F 	 P R O M OT I O N	 	
P R O G R A M M E S	 		

‘... the European promotion campaigns had almost no effect on the awareness of the European 
designations and logos ... Even the professionals rarely recognise the logos when they are 
interviewed during the survey ... The programmes have, in their majority, failed to develop in 
Switzerland and Norway ... the awareness of the European designations and associated logos.’ 
(Switzerland and Norway);

‘Campaigns  do  not  get  to  a  sufficient  critical  mass  to  reach  long-term  effects’  (USA  and  
Canada).

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

CONCLUSIONS AND  
RECOMMENDATIONS

31

56.  

57.  

58.  

T h e   G I   s c h e m e   i s   i n t e n d e d   t o   p r o t e c t   r e g i s t e r e d   p r o d u c t 
n a m e s .   I n   a d d i t i o n ,   i t   a i m s   t o   c o n t r i b u t e   t o   i n c r e a s e d   c o m -
pe tit ivenes s  o f  EU   agr ic ul tu re  in   t h at  t he   econom ic  pote nti al 
o f   P D O   a n d   P G I   p ro d u c t s   c a n   b e n e f i t   t h e   r u ra l   e co n o my.  Th e 
e x t e n t   t o   w h i c h   t h e   G I   s c h e m e   h a s   s u c h   a n   i m p a c t   l a r g e l y 
dep end s  on  t he  fram ewo r k  desi gn ed,  it s  man ag e me nt   by   t h e 
Co mm issio n and  it s  imp l em entati on  by  M e mbe r  States. 

Th e   Co u r t ’s   ove ra l l   co n c l u s i o n   i s   t h a t   c l a r i f i c a t i o n   i s   n e e d e d 
on  a  n umb er  o f  is s ues   concer n in g  t he   control  sys tem  re late d 
t o   t h e   G I   s c h e m e   a n d   t h a t   a   c l e a r   s t r a t e g y   i s   l a c k i n g   o n   t h e 
issue of awareness concerning both producers and consumers. 
M o re   d e t a i l e d   co n c l u s i o n s   a n d   re co m m e n d at i o n s   a re   s e t   o u t 
below, which take into consideration the Commission proposal 
for a new re g ulat ion  o n agr icult ura l produc t  q ua lit y  sc h e me s 
(‘pro p o sed reg ul atio n’ ).

 The current provisions do not lay down minimum requirements 
t o   b e   a d h e r e d   t o   b y   t h e   c o m p e t e n t   a u t h o r i t i e s   a n d   c o n t r o l 
bodies concerning checks on produc t specifications. The Com -
m i s s i o n   i n   t h e   p r e a m b l e   t o   t h e   p r o p o s e d   r e g u l a t i o n   s t a t e s 
t h a t   i t   i n c l u d e s   r e f e r e n c e s   t o   t h e   m o s t   r e l e v a n t   a r t i c l e s   o f 
R e g u l a t i o n   ( E C )   N o   8 8 2 / 2 0 0 4   t o   h e l p   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   b e t t e r 
app l y t he p rovisio ns  of  that reg ul ati on.  Th es e  re fe ren ce s st il l 
do not provide a clear idea on how the control system for Ar t -
icl e  11  chec ks  s houl d  b e  set  up.  Fur th e r more  R e g ul ation   ( E C ) 
N o   8 8 2 / 2 0 0 4   fo c u s e s   o n   co nt ro l   a s p e c t s   s p e c i f i c   to   fe e d   a n d 
fo o d   s a f e t y,   a n i m a l   h e a l t h   a n d   w e l f a r e   w h i c h   a r e   o f   l i m i t e d 
rel evance to  Ar t icl e 1 1 c hec ks. 

R E C O M M E N D AT I O N 	 1

T h e l e gal p rov isi o ns o n th e G I s ch e m e sh o ul d s e t o u t mini -
m u m   r e q u i r e m e n t s   f o r   A r t i c l e   11   c h e c k s .   T h e y   s h o u l d   a d -
dress issues such as the minimum cover age of che ck s , th eir 
frequenc y, the methodology for their selec tion and the par-
ti e s invo l ve d in th e di f f e re nt  s t a g e s o f  th e  p ro du c ti o n  an d 
d i s t r i b u t i o n   s u b j e c t   t o   c o n t r o l .   T h e   p o s s i b i l i t y   o f   s e t t i n g 
u p   wo r k i n g   g r o u p s   co u l d   b e   co nsi d e r e d   i n   t h is   co nte x t   to 
f a cili t ate shar in g o f b e s t p r a c ti ce s .

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

32

59.  

Th e R eg ul at ion  does  n ot  addre ss t he  que st io ns  o f t h e obl iga -
to r y   c h a ra c te r   a n d   n a t u re   o f   c h e c k s   to   b e   c a r r i e d   o u t   by   t h e 
M e m b e r   S t a t e s   t o   p r e v e n t   a n d   d e t e c t   d i s a l l o w e d   p r a c t i c e s . 
As   a   re s u l t ,   m o s t   n a t i o n a l   a u t h o r i t i e s   d o   n o t   c a r r y   o u t   re g u -
la r c heck s aime d at  detec t ing an d  s uppres s in g  c as e s of  th e se 
p r a c t i c e s.  T h e   Co m m i s s i o n ,   i n   t h e   p ro p o s e d   re g u l a t i o n ,   l a y s 
down that Member States have to take appropriate administra-
tive and judicial steps to address disallowed practices and that 
c h e c k s   re l a t e d   t o   t h i s   i s s u e   fo r m   p a r t   o f   t h e   M e m b e r   S t a t e s’ 
of ficial  co nt ro ls  of the q ual it y sch e me s.  Add it ion al de tai ls  on 
t h e   c o n t r o l   s y s t e m   t o   b e   u s e d   fo r   t h e s e   c h e c k s   a r e   n o t   p r o -
vided; reference is made again to Regulation (EC ) No 882/2004, 
which is, however, subjec t to the same limitations as the ones 
des cr ibe d fo r Ar t icl e 11 c hecks.

R E C O M M E N D AT I O N 	 2

C l e a r   r u l e s   o n   a   c o n t r o l   s y s t e m   t h a t   p r o v i d e s   f o r   r e g u l a r 
c h e c k s   a i m i n g   a t   t h e   d e t e c t i o n   a n d   s u p p r e s s i o n   o f   d i s a l -
lowe d prac tices should b e laid down in the le gal provisions 
o n th e G I s ch e m e.  T h ey sh o ul d b e co mp l e m e nte d by a  s y s -
tem of mutual assis t ance a de quate to th e sp e ci f ic n e e ds of 
th e nati o nal  au th o r i ti e s  d e a lin g  w i th  th e   G I s ch e m e.

60.   Currently, the Commission does not closely monitor the imple -
m e nt at i o n   o f   t h e   G I   s c h e m e   i n   t h e   M e m b e r   St ate s.   N o   a u d i t s 
on the GI scheme have been carried out so far and a systematic 
desk review, only recently star ted, revealed incomplete infor-
mation in Member States’ repor ting. This latter issue has been 
a d d r e s s e d   i n   t h e   p r o p o s e d   r e g u l a t i o n ,   w h i c h   p r o v i d e s   t h a t 
M ember States shall include a separate sec tion on the checks 
related to agricultural qualit y schemes in the MANCPs and the 
annual repor ts under Regulation (EC ) No 882/2004. Whilst this 
p rov i s i o n   i s   a   p o s i t i ve   s te p,   i t   re m a i n s   to   b e   s e e n   w h e t h e r   i t 
would allow the Commission to have complete information on 
t h e   M e m b e r   S t a t e s’  c o n t r o l   s y s t e m   a n d   t h e   c o n t r o l s   c a r r i e d 
ou t.

R E C O M M E N D AT I O N 	 3

T h e   Co m m issi o n   sh o u l d   i n cl u d e   au d i t s   o n   M e m b e r   St ate s ’ 
ch e ck s o f  th e G I s ch e m e in i t s  p lan  o f  re gul ar  au di t s  in  th e 
M e m b e r St ate s . 

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

33

61.  

The success of the GI scheme depends, inter alia, on its usage 
b y   p r o d u c e r s .   Po t e n t i a l   e x i s t s   f o r   a t t r a c t i n g   f u r t h e r   p r o d u -
cers to join the GI scheme, especially in M ember States where 
there is a low take -up of the GI scheme. However, the measures 
av a i l a b l e   a re   n o t   a d e q u a te   to   e n co u r a g e   t h e s e   p ro d u c e r s   t o 
p a r t i c i p a t e.   I n   a d d i t i o n ,   l e n g t hy   p r o c e d u r e s   e x p e r i e n c e d   t o 
date  dis cou rag e p rodu cers  from  apply in g.  Th e Com mis si on  i n 
t h i s   c o n t e x t   m a d e   av a i l a b l e   i n   2 0 1 0   t wo   d r a f t   g u i d e s   o n   t h e 
application procedure and reduced in the proposed regulation 
the indicative deadline for its scrutiny of applications from 12 
to  6 mo nt hs.   

62.  

 Co n s u m e r   re co gn i t i o n   o f   t h e   s c h e m e   a n d   i t s   s y m b o l s   i s   ve r y 
low. The means available for promotion and information about 
t h e   G I   s c h e m e   a re   u n l i k e l y   t o   i n c re a s e   i t .  T h e y   a re   u s e d   t o   a 
l i m i te d   e x te nt   o n l y   a n d   a re   n o t   b a s e d   o n   a   c l e a r   s t rate g y   o n 
how to raise awareness of the GI scheme. Various measures are 
avail ab l e w it h l imited  s ucces s.

R E C O M M E N D AT I O N 	 4

T h e   C o u r t   r e c o m m e n d s   t h a t   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   d e v e l o p s   a 
uni f ie d s tr ate g y a d dressin g th e lack of aw are n ess of th e G I 
schem e. It should e xp lore more e f fe c tive m eans of promot-
in g   th e   G I  s ch e m e,   su ch  as  r unnin g   a  c amp ai g n   o n   i t s  ow n 
ini tiati ve.

T h i s   r e p o r t   w a s   a d o p t e d   b y   C h a m b e r   I ,   h e a d e d   b y   M r   O l a v i 
ALA-NISSILÄ, Member of the Cour t of Auditors, in Luxembourg, 
at  its  me eting  o f 20  J ul y 2011 .

Fo r  th e  Co u r t  o f  Audi to rs

Víto r  M anue l  da  S I LVA   C A L D E I R A
Presi de nt

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

 
34

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

SUMMARY

I I.
T h e   s c h e m e   i s   p r i m a r i l y   a n   i n t e l l e c t u a l 
p r o p e r t y   r i g h t   ( I P R )   r e g i s t r a t i o n   s y s -
t e m   o p e n   t o   a n y   a p p l i c a n t   w h o   m e e t s 
t h e   c r i  t e r i a .   R e g i s t r a t i o n   d e p e n d s   o n l y 
o n   w h e t h e r   t h e   l e g a l   c r i t e r i a   s e t   b y   t h e 
Co u n c i l   R e g u l a t i o n   ( E C )   N o   5 1 0 / 2 0 0 6 1  a re 
f u l f i l l e d .   P r o d u c e r s   h a v e   s h o w n   a   c l e a r 
intere st in  the sc heme, as indic ated  by  t he 
s i gn i f i c a n t   n u m b e r   o f   p ro d u c t   n a m e s   re g-
istered (about 1  000) accounting for a mar-
k et value  of 1 4, 5 billion  euro in  2 0 0 8 . 

I II .
The legislator has chosen to apply the O ffi-
c i a l   Fe e d   a n d   Fo o d   Co nt ro l   (O F F C )   R e g u l a-
t i o n   ( E C )   N o   8 8 2 / 2 0 0 4 2,   w i t h i n   t h e   f r a m e 
o f   t h e   G e n e ra l   Fo o d   L aw   (G F L ) ,   a l s o   to   t h e 
control of compliance of produc ts with the 
produc t specifications established for each 
s p e c i f i c   p r o t e c t e d   d e s i g n a t i o n   o f   o r i g i n 
( P D O )   o r   p r o t e c t e d   g e o g r a p h i c a l   i n d i c a -
tion (PGI). The OFFC sets out a har monised 
f ra m e wo r k   o f   g e n e ra l   r u l e s   fo r   a l l   co nt ro l s 
re l at i n g   to   fe e d   a n d   fo o d   co nt ro l,   o b l i gi n g 
e a c h   M e m b e r   S t a te   to   a p p l y   i t   b a s e d   o n   a 
r i s k   a s s e s s m e n t .  Th e   l e gi s l a to r ’s   c h o i ce   o f 
applying an existing control system also to 
P D O   a n d   P G I   —   i n s t e a d   o f   c re a t i n g   a   s e p -
a r a t e   o n e   —   i s   b o t h   l e g i t i m a t e   a n d   j u s t i -
f i e d   f ro m   t h e   p o i nt   o f   v i e w   o f   b e t te r   re g u -
l a t i o n .   Fu r t h e r m o r e ,   i t   s h o u l d   b e   n o t e d 
t h a t   f o r   m o s t   o t h e r   i n t e l l e c t u a l   p r o p e r t y 
sch emes  th e  en forcement  effor t  (an d  cos t) 
i s   l e f t   to   t h e   i nte re s te d   p a r t i e s,   w h i l s t   t h e 
O F F C   s y s t e m   i s   b a s e d   o n   a d m i n i s t r a t i v e 
enforcement allowing for an ex officio pro -
tec tion .

1  Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the 
protection of geographical indications and designations of origin 

for agricultural products and foodstuffs.

2  Regulation (EC) No 822/2004 of the European Parliament and of 
the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure 

the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health 

and animal welfare rules.

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

3535

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

IV.	
Au d i t s   u n d e r   t h e   O F F C ,   i n c l u d i n g   t h e   g e o -
g r a p h i c a l   i n d i c a t i o n s   ( G I )   s c h e m e ,   a r e 
p l a n n e d   a n d   e x e c u t e d   b y   t h e   F o o d   a n d 
Ve t e r i n a r y   O f f i c e   ( F V O )   o f   t h e   E u r o p e a n 
C o m m i s s i o n ’s   D i r e c t o r a t e - G e n e r a l   f o r 
Health and Consumer Polic y in full cooper-
a t i o n   w i t h   t h e   D i r e c t o r a t e - G e n e r a l   f o r 
Agr icu lture  a nd Ru ral  D evel op m e nt.     

V.
Th e   Co m m i s s i o n   h a s   p u t   i n   p l a ce   a   co h e r -
e n t   s e t   o f   d i f f e r e n t   i n i t i a t i v e s   a i m e d   a t 
raising awareness of the geographical indi-
cations sc heme:

 — the Q ualit y website 3 attrac ts more than 
50 000 page views by more than 10  000 
uniqu e visitors p er mo nth;

 — M e m b e r   S t ate s   m a k e   u s e   o f   t h e   o p t i o n 
t o   i n c l u d e   p r o m o t i o n   m e a s u r e s   ( 1 3 2 
a n d   1 3 3 )   i n   t h e i r   r u r a l   d e v e l o p m e n t 
progra mmes. I n div idual  M emb e r  St ate s 
can decide to do so on the basis of their 
own a nalys is  and s trategy ;

 — conferences with stakeholders, leading, 
a m o n g   o t h e r s ,   t o   d e f i n e   t h e   m o s t   a p -
propriate ac tions to increase awareness 
of t he  scheme ;    

 — s p e c i f i c   p ro m o t i o n   p ro g r a m m e s   u n d e r 

R egul at ion  (EC )  No  3/ 20 08 4;

3  http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/quality/

4  Council Regulation (EC) No 3/2008 of 17 December 2007 on 
information provision and promotion measures for agricultural 

products on the internal market and in third countries.

 — i n f o r m a t i o n   m e a s u r e s   u n d e r   R e g u l a -
tion   (E C )   N o  8 1 4/20 00 5,  whe re  in for ma-
t i o n   a b o u t   t h e   q u a l i t y   o f   a g r i c u l t u r a l 
p ro d u c t s   i s   o n e   o f   t h e   p r i o r i t i e s.  Th e s e 
also include par ticipating in agricultural 
f a i r s,   c o n fe re n c e s,   s e m i n a r s   a n d   ro u n d 
tables.

The Commission is also to redefine its pro -
m o t i o n   p o l i c y   s t a r t i n g   w i t h   t h e   l a u n c h   o f 
a   b r o a d   c o n s u l t a t i o n   a b o u t   t h e   f u t u r e   o f 
p r o m o t i o n   a c t i o n s   f o r   a g r i c u l t u r a l   p r o d -
u c t s   w h e re   P D O   a n d   P G I   w i l l   p l ay   a   p ro m i-
n ent role.

T h e   s t u d y   r e f e r r e d   t o   b y   t h e   C o u r t   w a s 
c o n d u c t e d   a t   a   t i m e   w h e n   t h e   u s e   o f   t h e 
l o g o   a n d   t h e   i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s   ‘ p r o t e c t e d 
d e s i gn a t i o n   o f   o r i gi n’  a n d  ‘p ro te c te d   g e o -
graph ic al in dication’ were n ot co mpu lsor y, 
as in stead is th e  cas e s ince 1 M ay  2 0 0 9 .   

V I.	 first 	 ind ent
T h e   c u r r e n t   r e g u l a t o r y   s y s t e m   b a s e d   o n 
the OFFC R egulation (EC ) No 882/2004 pro -
v i d e s   f o r   t h e   n e c e s s a r y   l e v e l   o f   d e t a i l   a s 
re g a rd s   t h e   re q u i re m e nt s   o f   t h e   G I   c h e c k s. 
W i t h i n   t h e   O F F C   R e g u l a t i o n ,   t h e   s p e c i f i c 
m o d a l i t i e s   r e g a r d i n g   t h e s e   c o n t r o l s   a r e 
l e f t   t o   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   p u r s u a n t   t o   t h e 
p r i n c i p l e   o f   s u b s i d i a r i t y.   C o n s i d e r i n g   t h e 
e x t r e m e   d i v e r s i t y   o f   c o n c r e t e   s i t u a t i o n s 
t h a t   m a y   a r i s e ,   f u r t h e r   h a r m o n i s a t i o n   i s 
d e e m e d   i n a p p r o p r i a t e .   T h i s   i s   w i t h o u t 
p re j u d i ce   to   a ny   c l a r i f i c at i o n   o r   p re c i s i o n s 
t h at   m i g ht   b e   f u r t h e r   co nte m p l ate d   i n   t h e 
overall le gislat ive framewor k .

5  Council Regulation (EC) No 814/2000 of 17 April 2000 on infor-
mation measures relating to the common agricultural policy.

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

36

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

INTRODUCTION

VI.	secon d	ind ent
OFFC rules set out clear pr inciples for such 
c h e c k s ,   w h i c h   s h o u l d   b e   e s t a b l i s h e d   b y 
M ember St ates.

1 0.
Th e   p r i m a r y   a i m   o f   t h e   s c h e m e   i s   to   re gi s -
ter names and through this create and pro -
tec t intellec tua l proper t y  r ig hts.

M u t u a l   a s s i s t a n c e   p r o v i s i o n s   a r e   a p p l i c -
a b l e   i n   a c c o rd a n c e   w i t h  Ti t l e   I V   (Ad m i n i s-
t r a t i v e   a s s i s t a n c e   a n d   c o o p e r a t i o n   i n   t h e 
areas of feed and food) Ar ticles 34 to 40 of 
R egulat ion  (EC )  No  88 2/ 20 04.

VI.	th ird	ind ent
A s   f r o m   2 0 1 1 ,   t h e   A g r i c u l t u r e   a n d   R u r a l 
D e ve l o p m e nt   D G   a n d   t h e   H e a l t h   a n d   Co n -
s u m e r s   D G   h a v e   a g r e e d   t h a t   t h e   l a t t e r 
w i l l   i n c l u d e   P D O / P G I   r e l a t e d   i s s u e s   i n   i t s 
a n n u a l   a u d i t   p ro gr a m m e s   i n   f u l l   co o p e r a -
t i o n   w i t h   t h e   Agr i c u l t u re   a n d   R u ra l   D e ve l-
o p m e n t   D G   a n d   fo l l ow i n g   t h e   s a m e   r i g o r -
o u s   p r i o r i t i s at i o n   p ro ce s s   a p p l i e d   to   o t h e r 
areas un der its remit.

VI.	four th	ind ent
I n   a d d i t i o n   t o   t h e   c o h e re n t   s e t   o f   a c t i o n s 
d e t a i l e d   u n d e r   p o i n t   V,   a s   p a r t   o f   t h e 
o n g o i n g   r e f l e c t i o n   o n   t h e   r e f o r m   o f   t h e 
r e g i m e   o n   i n f o r m a t i o n   a n d   p r o m o t i o n 
o f   a g r i c u l t u r a l   p r o d u c t s ,   t h e   C o m m i s -
s i o n   w i l l   c o n s i d e r   a p p r o p r i a t e   w a y s   t o 
f u r t h e r   e n h a n c e   t h e   p r o m o t i o n   o f   q u a l -
i t y   s c h e m e s.  T h i s   i s s u e   w i l l   b e   a d d re s s e d, 
i n t e r   a l i a ,   b y   a   G r e e n   Pa p e r   p u b l i s h e d   o n 
14 Ju ly 2011 6.

6  Green Paper on promotion measures and information provision 
for agricultural products (COM(2011) 436 final of 14 July 2011).

S ee  also reply  to point  II.

OBSERVATIONS

1 7.
T h e   p r i m a r y   m e c h a n i s m   b y   w h i c h   t o 
e n s u re   p ro te c t i o n   o f   t h e   re gi s te re d   n a m e s 
i s   t h ro u g h   t h e   i nte gr i t y   o f   t h e   re gi s t rat i o n 
p ro ce s s   a n d   t h e   l e g a l   p ro te c t i o n   p rov i d e d 
for ea ch  name registered.

1 8.
F o o d   l a w   c o n t r o l s   a r e   c a r r i e d   o u t   i n   a 
h a r m o n i s e d   f r a m e w o r k   o f   g e n e r a l   r u l e s 
a s   l a i d   d o w n   i n   t h e   O F F C   R e g u l a t i o n   ( E C ) 
N o   8 8 2 / 2 0 0 4 ,   i n c l u d i n g   r i s k - b a s e d   c o n -
t r o l   a n a l y s i s ;   s t r u c t u r e   o f   t h e   c o m p e t e n t 
a u t h o r i t y ;   p l a n n i n g,   n a t u re   a n d   re p o r t i n g 
about cont rols, etc. 

Ar ticle 10(1) of Regulation (EC ) No 510/2006 
s t i p u l a t e s   t h a t   t h e   c o m p e t e n t   a u t h o r i t i e s 
responsible  for  controls  shall  be  designated 
b y   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   ‘ i n   c o n f o r m i t y   w i t h ’ 
R e g u l a t i o n   ( E C )   N o   8 8 2 / 2 0 0 4 .    T h e   s p e c i f i c 
m o d a l i t i e s   re g a rd i n g   t h e s e   co n t ro l s   s h o u l d 
b e   l e f t   t o   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   p u r s u a n t   t o   t h e 
p r i n c i p l e   o f   s u b s i d i a r i t y.   T h i s   i s   w i t h o u t 
p r e j u d i c e   t o   a ny   c l a r i f i c a t i o n   o r   p r e c i s i o n s 
t h a t   m i g h t   b e   f u r t h e r   c o n t e m p l a t e d   i n   t h e 
overall legislative framework .   

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

 
3737

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

19.
I n   l i n e   w i t h   t h e   c o n c e p t   o f   b e t t e r   r e g u l a -
t i o n ,   R e g u l a t i o n   ( E C )   N o   8 8 2 / 2 0 0 4   c o v e r s 
a l l   i s s u e s   f a l l i n g   i n   t h e   f i e l d   o f   c o n s u m e r 
p r o t e c t i o n ,   i n c l u d i n g   f o o d   l a b e l l i n g   a n d 
c o n s u m e r   i n f o r m a t i o n   i s s u e s .   T h e r e f o r e , 
c h e c k s   c o n c e r n i n g   p ro d u c t   s p e c i f i c a t i o n s 
are covere d.

T h e   r e f e r e n c e   t o   R e g u l a t i o n   ( E C )   N o 
8 8 2 / 2 0 0 4   i m p l i e s   a   r e f e r e n c e   t o   a l l   t h e 
l i n k e d   l e g a l   a c t s ,   a n d   i n   p a r t i c u l a r   t o   t h e 
t w o   C o m m i s s i o n   D e c i s i o n s   2 0 0 6 / 6 7 7 / E C 7  
a n d   2 0 0 7 / 3 6 3 / E C 8,   w h i c h   p r o v i d e   m o r e 
d e t a i l s   o n   t h e   f r a m e w o r k   o f   o f f i c i a l   c o n -
trols. 

20.
T h e   g e n e r a l   s t r u c t u r e   a n d   p r i n c i p l e s   o f 
fo o d   l aw   co nt ro l   a re   d u l y   h a r m o n i s e d.  Th e 
OFFC Regulation (EC ) No 882/2004 requires 
M e m b e r   S t a t e s   t o   c a r r y   o u t   o f f i c i a l   c o n -
t r o l s   r e g u l a r l y   o n   a   r i s k   b a s i s   a n d   w i t h 
a p p r o p r i a t e   f r e q u e n c y   t a k i n g   a c c o u n t , 
i n t e r   a l i a ,   o f   p a s t   h i s t o r y   o f   c o m p l i a n c e 
a n d   t h e   r e l i a b i l i t y   o f   o p e r a t o r s’  o w n   c o n -
trols.

T h e   O F F C   R e g u l a t i o n   i s   a   c o n t r o l   i n s t r u -
m e n t   t h a t   i s   f i t t e d   t o   t h e   p a r t i c u l a r   c i r -
c u m s t a n c e s   o f   t h e   f o o d   c o n t r o l ,   i n   l i n e 
w i t h   t h e   s u b s i d i a r i t y   p r i n c i p l e   a n d   b e t t e r 
regulat ion.

S ee a lso t he rep l y to p oint 19.

7  Commission Decision 2006/667/EC of 29 September 2006 
setting out the guidelines laying down criteria for the conduct of 

Differences in the approach are inherent in 
t h e   d e ce nt ra l i s at i o n   o f   co nt ro l s   u n d e r   t h e 
O F F C ,   a n d   t h e   l e g i s l a t o r ’s   c h o i c e .   N e v e r -
theless, the Cour t ’s obser vations can ser ve 
a s   a   b a s i s   fo r   a n   e xc h a n g e   o f   e x p e r i e n c e s 
and appropriate follow-up, without putting 
i nto   q u e s t i o n   t h e   M e m b e r   St ate s’  c a p a c i t y 
t o   a p p l y   r i s k - b a s e d   c o n t r o l s   u n d e r   t h e i r 
separate respons ibilit y 9.

2 1.
R e g u l a t i o n   ( E C )   N o   8 8 2 / 2 0 0 4   r e q u i r e s 
M e m b e r   S t a t e s   t o   p u t   i n   p l a c e   t h e   c h e c k 
s y s t e m   w h i c h   b e s t   f i t s   t h e i r   n e e d s,   b a s e d 
o n   a   r i s k   a n a l y s i s .   V a r i a t i o n s   b e t w e e n 
M e m b e r   S t a t e s   a s   r e g a r d s   t h e   q u a n t i t y 
a n d   i n te n s i t y   o f   t h e   c h e c k s   o n   g e o gra p h i -
cal indications are explained, among other 
t h i n g s,   by   t h e   d i f fe re nt   i m p a c t   a n d   u p t a k e 
of the geographical indications schemes in 
eac h  M ember  State.

T h e   r e f e r e n c e   w i t h i n   r e c i t a l   6   o f   R e g u -
l a t i o n   ( E C )   N o   5 1 0 / 2 0 0 6   t o   f a i r   c o m p e -
t i t i o n   a n d   e n h a n c e m e n t   o f   c r e d i b i l i t y 
m e re l y   a i m s   at   j u s t i f y i n g   t h e   c re at i o n   o f   a 
har mon  ised legislative framewor k defining 
PDOs/PGIs, in order to put an end to diver -
g e n t   n a t i o n a l   p r a c t i c e s,   a n d   i s   n o t   m e a n t 
t o   a d d r e s s   a n y   c o n t r o l   i s s u e s ,   r e f e r r e d   t o 
in  recit al 16 t here of.

In this sense, the initiative Better Training for Safer Food (BTSF), 

9 
which aims at organising an EU training strategy in the areas of 

food law, feed law, animal health and animal welfare rules, as well 

as plant health rules, included in its programme for 2011–12 several 

topics for discussion amongst Member States’ representatives:

audits under Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parlia-

 — verification of compliance with specifications;

ment and of the Council on official controls to verify compliance 

 — verification of compliance vs. official controls: various similar 

with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules 

techniques and methods of detecting fraudulent practices 

(notified under document number C(2006) 4026).

and differences between the official controls and verification 

8  Commission Decision 2007/363/EC of 21 May 2007 on guide-
lines to assist Member States in preparing the single integrated 

 — case studies based on practical examples of how verification 

of compliance with specifications should be conducted (trace-

multi-annual national control plan provided for in Regulation (EC) 

ability, geographical origin and boundaries, specific climatic 

No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (noti-

and geographical characteristics, etc.); risk-based approach and 

fied under document number C(2007) 2099).

issues of verification of compliance for protected designation 

of compliance conducted for designated quality products;

schemes.

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

22.
Co n t ro l s   i n   b o t h   g e o gra p h i c a l   i n d i c a t i o n s 
a n d   o r g a n i c   f a r m i n g   a r e   c a r r i e d   o u t   i n   a 
h a r m o n i s e d   f r a m e w o r k   o f   g e n e r a l   r u l e s 
a s   l a i d   d o w n   i n   t h e   O F F C   R e g u l a t i o n   ( E C )  
No 882/2004.   

T h e   t w o   s c h e m e s   h a v e   h o w e v e r   a   d i f f e r -
e nt   p u r p o s e,   re f l e c te d   i n   t h e i r   l e g a l   b a s e s. 
R e g u l a t i o n   ( E C )   N o   8 3 4 / 2 0 0 7 1 0  o n   o rg a n i c 
p r o d u c t s   d e s c r i b e s   t h e   r e q u i r e m e n t s   f o r 
p r o c e s s e s   a n d   p r o d u c t i o n   m e t h o d s   c o m -
p u l s o r y   fo r   a l l   o rg a n i c   p ro d u ce r s   i n   a   ve r y 
d e t a i l e d   a n d   c o m p l e t e   m a n n e r ,   w h i l e 
R e g u l a t i o n   ( E C )   N o   5 1 0 / 2 0 0 6   d e s c r i b e s 
mainly procedural steps and prescr iptions. 
A s   c h e c k s   a r e   m a d e   o n   t h e   b a s i s   o f   t h e s e 
s p e c i f i c a t i o n s ,   t h e   c o n t r o l   s y s t e m   i n   t h e 
c a s e   o f   o r g a n i c   f a r m i n g   c a n   b e   b a s e d   o n 
a   s i n g l e   m o d e l ,   w h i l e   t h i s   i s   n o t   f e a s i b l e 
i n   t h e   c a s e   o f   g e o g r a p h i c a l   i n d i c a t i o n s , 
w h e r e   p r o t e c t e d   p r o d u c t s   s h o w   a   w i d e 
va r iet y of  sp ecificat ions.

T h e   w i n e   s e c t o r   i s   t r a d i t i o n a l l y   a   h i g h l y 
r e g u l a t e d   s e c t o r,   f r o m   t h e   u s e   o f   p e r m i t -
t e d   o e n o l o g i c a l   p r a c t i c e s   t o   t h e   r u l e s   o n 
u s e   o f   v i n e   v a r i e t i e s   a n d   p l a n t i n g   c o n -
d i t i o n s .   A r t i c l e   6 2   o f   R e g u l a t i o n   ( E C ) 
N o   8 8 2 / 2 0 0 4   i n   f a c t   exc l u d e s   t h e   co m m o n 
m a r k e t   o r g a n i s a t i o n   ( C M O )   o b l i g a t i o n s 
f ro m   t h e   s c o p e   o f   O F F C   c o n t ro l s.  T h i s   h a s 
made it  more n ecessar y to  app l y  a  s pec i fi c 
dedicated s ys te m of control s.

10  Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on 
organic production and labelling of organic products and repeal-

ing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91.

38

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

B ox	 1	
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   n o t e s   t h a t ,   i n   t h e   c a s e s 
r e f e r r e d   t o   b y   t h e   C o u r t ,   n o   v i o l a t i o n   o f 
R e g u l a t i o n s   ( E C )   N o   5 1 0 / 2 0 0 6   a n d   ( E C ) 
N o   8 8 2 / 2 0 0 4   wa s   fo u n d.   B e s i d e s,   co n ce r n -
i n g   t r a c e a b i l i t y,   A r t i c l e   1 8   o f   R e g u l a t i o n 
( E C )   N o   1 7 8 / 2 0 0 2   ( t h e   G e n e r a l   Fo o d   L aw ) , 
w h i c h   l a y s   d o w n   r e q u i r e m e n t s   f o r   t r a c e -
a b i l i t y   o f   fo o d   a n d   o f   fo o d - p ro d u c i n g   a n i -
m a l s   a n d   o t h e r   i n g r e d i e n t s   e x p e c t e d   o r 
i n t e n d e d   t o   b e   i n c o r p o r a t e d   i n t o   fo o d ,   i s 
i n   a ny   c a s e   a p p l i c a b l e   i n   re s p e c t   o f   P D O s /
P G I s .   U n d e r   t h i s   p r o v i s i o n ,   fo o d   b u s i n e s s 
o p e r a t o r s   a re   re q u i re d   t o   h ave   s y s t e m s   i n 
p l a c e   t o   i d e n t i f y   t h e   s o u r c e   a n d   q u a n t i t y 
o f   a   fo o d   o r   fo o d   i n gre d i e nt   a n d   t h e   b u s i-
n e s s e s   t o   w h i c h   t h e y   s u p p l y   t h e i r   p r o d -
uc ts. 

I n   a d d i t i o n ,   s p e c i f i c   p r o v i s i o n s   r e g a r d -
i n g   t r a c e a b i l i t y / p r o o f   o f   o r i g i n   a r e   l a i d 
d o w n   i n   t h e   r e s p e c t i v e   s p e c i f i c a t i o n s   o f 
t h e   P D O s / P G I s,   e n s h r i n e d   a t   E U   l e ve l.  Th e 
n a t u r e   a n d   s c o p e   o f   s u c h   p r o v i s i o n s   a r e 
b o u n d   t o   v a r y   d e p e n d i n g   o n   t h e   c h a r a c -
ter istics and specificities of each PDO/PGI. 
T h e   c o n t r o l   b o d i e s   a r e   b o u n d   t o   m o n i t o r 
th ese pre cise provision s.   

Jo int 	rep ly	 to	p o int s	2 3–2 4
R e g u l a t i o n   ( E C )   N o   8 8 2 / 2 0 0 4   p r o v i d e s 
a l r e a d y   f o r   a   p r o t e c t i o n   w h i c h   i s   e q u i v a -
l e nt   to   t h e   e x   o f f i c i o   p ro te c t i o n   re q u e s te d 
b y   t h e   E u r o p e a n   Pa r l i a m e n t .   Fo r   t h e   s a k e 
o f   c l a r i t y,   i n   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n   p ro p o s a l   fo r 
a   r e g u l a t i o n   o f   t h e   E u r o p e a n   Pa r l i a m e n t 
a n d   o f   t h e   C o u n c i l   ( CO M ( 2 0 1 0 )   7 3 3   o f   1 0 
D e c e m b e r   2 0 1 0 )   o n   a g r i c u l t u r a l   p r o d u c t 
qualit y  sc h emes  s ome  elements   h ave   be e n 
a d d e d   i n   o rd e r   to   re i n fo rce   s u c h   co n t ro l s. 
I n   A r t i c l e   1 3 ( 3 )   o f   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   p r o -
p o s a l   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   a re   re q u i re d   t o   t a k e 
the appropr iate administrative and judicial 
s t e p s   t o   p re ve n t   o r   s t o p   t h e   u n l a w f u l   u s e 
of protec ted designations of or igin or pro -
tec te d geographic al ind ic at ions.   

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

3939

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

2 7.
T h e   e x a m p l e s   o f   d i s a l l o w e d   p r a c t i c e s   i n 
the four M ember States referred to in Box 2 
s h o w   t h a t   t h e   c o n t r o l   m e c h a n i s m s   a r e 
wo r k i n g,   a n d   h i g h l i g h t   t h e   u t i l i t y   o f   c o m-
bining all t ypes of food law controls in one 
cohe rent system.

2 8.
S e e   t h e   r e p l y   t o   p o i n t s   2 9   a n d   3 0   a n d 
3 1–3 2.

2 9.
Acco rd i n g   to   R e g u l at i o n   ( E C )   N o   8 8 2 / 2 0 0 4 
a n d   i n   l i n e   w i t h   t h e   s u b s i d i a r i t y   p r i n c i p l e, 
M em ber  States   are  better   placed   to  de c ide 
t h e   u s e   o f   re s o u rce s   b a s e d   o n   r i s k- a s s e s s-
ment and spe cific ities of th e nat io nal  ma r-
k e t .   T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   i s   o b l i g e d   t o   c a r r y 
o u t   a u d i t s   to   ve r i f y   t h e   i m p l e m e nt at i o n   o f 
m u l t i a n n u a l   n at i o n a l   co nt ro l   p l a n s,   a n d   o f 
offic ial cont rols  in the  M ember  St ate s 12.

T h e   C o m m i s s i o n ,   u n d e r   R e g u l a t i o n   ( E C ) 
N o   8 8 2 / 2 0 0 4 ,   i s   r e q u i r e d   t o   c a r r y   o u t 
g e n e r a l   a n d   s p e c i f i c   a u d i t s   t o   v e r i f y   t h a t 
n a t i o n a l   a u t h o r i t i e s   c o n t r o l ,   e n s u r e   a n d 
enforce the cor rec t application of feed and 
fo o d   l aw.  Th e   re s p o n s i b i l i t y   fo r   t h i s   ve r i f i -
c at i o n   u n d e r   t h e   O F F C ,   i n c l u d i n g   t h e   g e o -
gra p h i c a l   i n d i c at i o n s   (G I )   s c h e m e,   i s   c l e a r. 
T h e   a u d i t s   a r e   p l a n n e d   a n d   e x e c u t e d   b y 
th e Food an d Ve ter in ar y O ffice  (FV O —  t h e 
Health and Consumers DG) in full coopera-
t i o n   w i t h   t h e   Agr i c u l t u re   a n d   R u ra l   D e ve l -
opment DG. 

3 0.
O n - t h e - s p o t   a u d i t s   a r e   n o t   t h e   o n l y   t o o l s 
to   m o n i to r   t h e   i m p l e m e n t a t i o n   o f   l e gi s l a -
t i o n .   O t h e r   to o l s,   i n c l u d i n g   i n f r i n g e m e nt s 
p r o c e d u r e s ,   b i l a t e r a l   m e e t i n g s   w i t h   i n d i -
v i d u a l   M e m b e r   S t a t e s,   e xc h a n g e s   i n   c o m -
mittees, are e mploye d by  t he Comm iss i on .

12  Areas determined on a risk basis can be subject to on-the-spot 
controls, and for the remainder supervision is by way of scrutiny of 

MANCPs and annual reports.

I n   l i n e   w i t h   t h e   p r i n c i p l e   o f   s u b s i d i a r i t y, 
M ember States are better placed to decide 
o n   t h e   u s e   o f   r e s o u r c e s ,   b a s e d   o n   r i s k 
a s s e s s m e nt   a n d   o n   t h e   s p e c i f i c i t i e s   o f   t h e 
nat iona l mar ket.

25.
R e g u l a t i o n   ( E C )   N o   8 8 2 / 2 0 0 4   i n c l u d e s 
clear provisions on mutual assistance (Ar t-
i c l e s   3 5   a n d   4 2 )   w h i c h   a p p l y   a l s o   to   t h e   G I 
checks.

A c c o r d i n g   t o   t h e   l e g i s l a t i o n   i f   n o n - c o m -
p l i a n ce   w i t h   fo o d   l aw   i s   d i s cove re d,   M e m-
b e r   St ate s   n e e d   to   t a k e   a c t i o n .  Th e re   m u s t 
b e   a n   a l e r t   s ys te m   i n   p l a ce,   a n d   a   co n t a c t 
p o i n t   i n   c a s e   o f   n o n - c o m p l i a n c e.   I n   a d d i -
t i o n ,   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   a r e   n o t   c u r r e n t l y 
u s i n g   t h e   t o o l s   p u t   a t   t h e i r   d i s p o s a l   b y 
R e g u l a t i o n   ( E C )   N o   8 8 2 / 2 0 0 4   t o   t h e i r   f u l l 
p o t e n t i a l ,   i n c l u d i n g   t h e   p r o v i s i o n s   o n 
m u t u a l   a s s i s t a n c e .   A c c o r d i n g l y ,   a c t i o n 
s h o u l d   b e   t a k e n   to   s u p p o r t   a   b e t te r   u s e   o f 
existin g too ls. 

26.
Controls based on denunciation are par t of 
t h e   a p p l i c a t i o n   o f   r i s k   a n a l y s i s.   I f   t h e   r i s k 
a n a l ys i s   p o i nt s   to   t h e   u s e   o f   re s o u rce - e f f i -
cient controls such as denunciation based, 
i t   w o u l d   b e   c o n t r a r y   t o   t h e   p r i n c i p l e s   o f 
t h e   O F F C   to   d i ve r t   co nt ro l   re s o u rce s   away 
f r o m   hy g i e n e   a n d   s a fe t y   c o n t r o l s   t o   n o n -
safet y  consu mer info r mat io n.

I n   M a y   2 0 1 1 1 1  t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   r e m i n d e d 
n a t i o n a l   a u t h o r i t i e s   t h a t   e v e r y   M e m b e r 
State is a mar ket place not only for its own 
p r o t e c t e d   P D O / P G I   p r o d u c t s,   b u t   a l s o   fo r 
produc ts coming from other countr ies, and 
t h at   t h e   co r re c t   u s e   o f   t h e s e   n a m e s   i n   t h e 
m a r k e t   p l a c e   a l s o   n e e d s   t o   b e   e n s u r e d . 
Th i s   wa s   a l s o   p re v i o u s l y   d o n e   by   t h e   Agr i -
c u l t u re   a n d   R u ra l   D e ve l o p m e nt   D G   i n   va r i -
o u s   m e e t i n g s   t o   d i s c u s s   t h e   m u l t i  a n n u a l 
n a t i o n a l   c o n t r o l   p l a n s   ( M A N C P s )   a n d 
annual re po r ts (A R s ).   

In the case of PDO/PGI this was done at the 89th committee 

11 
meeting of 26 May 2011.

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

40

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

3 7.
T h e   Co m m i s s i o n   i s   f r e q u e n t l y   c o n f r o n t e d 
w i t h   s e r i o u s   d e f i c i e n c i e s   o r   i n a d e q u a c i e s 
i n   t h e   a p p l i c a t i o n s   r e c e i v e d .   T h e   C o m -
m i s s i o n   h a s   s y s t e m a t i c a l l y   o f f e r e d   t h e 
p o s s i b i l i t y   t o   t h e   a p p l i c a n t   t o   c o m p l e t e /
c l a r i f y / a m e n d   i t s   i n i t i a l   a p p l i c a t i o n .   S u c h 
f l ex i b i l i t y   a n d   e n h a n ce d   co o p e rat i o n   w i t h 
t h e   a p p l i c a nt s   l a rg e l y   ex p l a i n   t h e   ave ra g e 
len gth  refer red  to by t he Cour t.   

T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   i s   c o n f i d e n t   t h a t   t w o 
g u i d e s   re l e a s e d   i n   2 0 1 0   a n d   re fe r re d   to   by 
t h e   Co u r t   w i l l   l e a d   to   i m p rov i n g   t h e   q u a l-
it y  of  applic at ions.   

I n   a d d i t i o n ,   i n   o r d e r   t o   r e a c h   t h i s   g o a l ,   i t 
h a s   b e e n   ex p l a i n e d   to   M e m b e r   St ate s   d u r-
i n g   s e v e r a l   c o m m i t t e e   m e e t i n g s   o n   P G I s 
a n d   P D O s   t h a t   t h i s   f l e x i b i l i t y   n e e d s   t o   b e 
l i m i t e d   i n   o r d e r   t o   e n s u r e   a   m o r e   t i m e l y 
m a n a g e m e n t   o f   r e q u e s t s   fo r   r e g i s t r a t i o n , 
with in s tr ic t  re spec t of cur rent r ul es.

3 8.
T h e   r u r a l   d e v e l o p m e n t   p r o g r a m m i n g   i s , 
a b o ve   a l l,   b a s e d   o n   t h e   n a t i o n a l / re g i o n a l 
n e e d s   w h i c h   a r e   t r a n s l a t e d   i n t o   t h e 
respec tive strategy. I t is logical that not all 
M e m b e r   S t a t e s   h a v e   p r o g r a m m e d   m e a s -
u re   1 3 2 .  Wh i l e   P D O s / P G I s   a re   i m p o r t a nt   to 
s o m e   M e m b e r   S t a t e s,   t h e y   m a y   b e   o f   l e s s 
i m p o r t a n c e   t o   s o m e   o t h e r   M e m b e r   S t a t e s 
w h i c h   w o u l d   r a t h e r   u s e   t h e   f i n i t e   f u n d s 
elsewh ere. S ee als o th e re ply to  po int  46 .

3 9.
Th e   s u r ve y   w a s   co n d u c te d   a t   a   t i m e   w h e n 
the use of the logo, or any identification of 
t h e   E U   P D O   o r   P G I   s t a t u s   o n   t h e   p r o d u c t , 
w a s   o p t i o n a l,   c o n t r a r y   t o   t h e   s i t u a t i o n   a s 
f r o m   1   M a y   2 0 0 9 ,   w h e n   t h e i r   u s e   b e c a m e 
c o m p u l s o r y .   M a n y   o f   t h e   m o s t   f a m o u s 
n a m e s ,   h a v i n g   d e v e l o p e d   t h e i r   o w n   m a r -
k e t i n g   i d e n t i t i e s   d i d   n o t   u s e   t h e  ‘ P D O ’  o r 
‘P GI’ id ent it y or  logo.

Joint	reply 	to	p oints 	31– 32
T h e   p l a n s   a n d   r e p o r t s   r e v i e w e d   i n   2 0 0 9 
b y   t h e   C o u r t   w e r e   t h e   M e m b e r   S t a t e s ’ 
f i r s t   re s p o n s e   to   t h e   p l a n n i n g   a n d   re p o r t-
i n g   r e q u i r e m e n t s   o f   R e g u l a t i o n   ( E C )   N o 
8 8 2 / 2 0 0 4 .     I n   t h e   m e a n t i m e   t h e   C o m m i s -
s i o n   h a s   b e e n   w o r k i n g   w i t h   t h e   M e m b e r 
S t a te s   to   i m p rove   t h e   a m o u n t   a n d   q u a l i t y 
o f   t h e   i n fo r m a t i o n   i n   t h e s e   re p o r t s   a c ro s s 
all sec tors; these effor ts include the provi-
s i o n   o f   i n fo r m at i o n   i n   re l at i o n   to   P D O / P G I 
controls.

A t   t h e   b e g i n n i n g   o f   2 0 1 0 ,   t h e   A g r i c u l -
t u r e   a n d   R u r a l   D e v e l o p m e n t   D G   a s s e s s e d 
t h e   MA N C Ps   a n d   A R s   o f   1 0   M e m b e r   S t a te s 
( w h e r e   a   g e n e r a l   a u d i t   b y   t h e   F V O   w a s 
s c h e d u l e d   f o r   t h e   y e a r   2 0 1 0 )   w i t h   r e g a r d 
t o   t h e   p r o v i s i o n s   o n   P D O s / P G I s   a n d   p r o -
v i d e d   t h e   F V O   w i t h   c o m m e n t s   o n   t h e s e 
document s.

T h e   A g r i c u l t u r e   a n d   R u r a l   D e v e l o p m e n t 
D G   a n d   t h e   H e a l t h   a n d   Co n s u m e r s   D G   s e r-
v i c e s   a r e   w o r k i n g   t o g e t h e r   t o   d e v e l o p   a 
te m p l ate   fo r   a   h a r m o n i s e d   ex a m i n at i o n   o f 
MA NCPs  a nd AR s.

S ee t he rep l y to  p oint 2 6 ( las t p aragraph ).

33.
The ma in el eme nt fo r t he at trac ti ven es s of 
t h e   s c h e m e   t o w a rd s   p ro d u c e r s   i s   t h e   f a c t 
t h at   n a m e s   t h at   a re   re gi s te re d   a s   P D O / P G I 
e n j o y   p r o t e c t i o n   a s   a n   i n t e l l e c t u a l   p r o p -
er t y r ight.   

I n   a d d i t i o n ,   i t s   a t t r a c t i v e n e s s   i s   p r o v e n 
b y   o t h e r   e l e m e n t s   s u c h   a s   t h e   f a c t   t h a t 
t h e   A g r i c u l t u r e   a n d   R u r a l   D e v e l o p m e n t 
D G   c o n t i n u e s   t o   r e c e i v e   m a ny   n e w   a p p l i -
c a t i o n s   o r   t h a t   m a n y   p r o d u c t s   b e a r i n g   a 
regis tered name can claim a pr ice premium 
compared to non-registered produc ts from 
th e sa me se c to r.

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

4141

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

4 6.
M e a s u r e   1 3 3   n o t   o n l y   a p p l i e s   t o   G I 
s c h e m e s ,   b u t   a l s o   q u a l i t y   s c h e m e s   r e c o g -
nised by the Member States. Moreover, even 
if a M ember State has no produc t registered 
a s   a   P D O / P G I ,   i t   h a s   t h e   c h o i c e   t o   i n c l u d e 
m e a s u re s   1 3 2   a n d   1 3 3   i n t o   i t s   r u r a l   d e ve l -
opment programme (RDP) in anticipation of 
qualit y produc t  registration.

4 7.
T h e   c u m u l a t i v e   e x p e n d i t u r e   a t   t h e   e n d 
o f   2 0 1 0   s h o w s   a n   i n c r e a s e   o f   1 3 1 %   ( o r 
9 , 1 8   m i l l i o n   e u ro )   co m p a re d   to   t h e   c u m u -
lative expen diture at the  e nd of 2 0 0 9.

4 9.
S e c t o r a l   a n d   g e o g r a p h i c a l   e v a l u a t i o n s   o f 
the promotion measures have already been 
e l a b o r a t e d   b y   e x t e r n a l   c o n s u l t a n t s .   T h e 
conclusions of the t wo evaluations dealing 
r e s p e c t i v e l y   w i t h   s p e c i f i c   a r e a s   c o v e r i n g 
t h i r d   c o u n t r i e s’  p r o g r a m m e s   a n d   p a r t i c u -
l a r   p r o d u c t s ’  s e c t o r s   i n   t h e   i n t e r n a l   m a r -
k e t   w e r e   p o s i t i v e   a n d   t h e i r   r e c o m m e n d a -
t i o n s   fo r   f u r t h e r   i m p rove m e n t s   h ave   b e e n 
t a k e n   i n t o   a c c o u n t .   E v a l u a t i o n    m e t h o d s 
a s   w e l l   a s   i m p a c t   a s s e s s m e n t s   a t   e a c h 
p r o g r a m m e’s   l e v e l   h a v e   b e e n   m a d e   m a n -
d a t o r y   s i n c e   2 0 0 8   a n d   re g u l a t o r y   d i s p o s i -
t i o n s   h a v e   b e e n   r e i n fo r c e d   i n   a c c o r d a n c e 
w i t h   t h e   C o u r t   o f   A u d i t o r s’  r e c o m m e n d a -
tions in its Special R epor t No 10/2009. Pro -
g r a m m e s   a d o p t e d   s i n c e   2 0 0 8   d o   i n c l u d e 
d a t a   w h i c h   w i l l   b e   t a k e n   i n t o   a c c o u n t 
w i t h i n   t h e   o n  g o i n g   e x te r n a l   e v a l u a t i o n   o f 
C o u n c i l   R e g u l a t i o n   ( E C )   N o   3 / 2 0 0 8 .   T h i s 
e v a l u a t i o n   i s   e x p e c t e d   t o   b e   a v a i l a b l e   b y 
O c tobe r 20 11 .

Th e   p r i m a r y   o b j e c t i ve   o f   t h e   s c h e m e   i s   to 
r e g i s t e r   a n d   p r o t e c t   t h e   n a m e s .   T h e   p r o -
v i s i o n   o f   m a r k e t i n g   t o o l s   a n d   o t h e r   e c o -
n o m i c   b e n e f i t s   a r e   s e c o n d a r y   t o   t h i s   p r i -
mar y  aim .   

A s   p a r t   o f   t h e   o n g o i n g   r e f l e x i o n   o n   t h e 
r e f o r m   o f   t h e   r e g i m e   o n   i n f o r m a t i o n   a n d 
p r o m o t i o n   o f   a g r i c u l t u r a l   p r o d u c t s ,   t h e 
Commission will consider appropriate ways 
to   f u r t h e r   e n h a n ce   t h e   p ro m o t i o n   o f   q u a l-
i t y   s c h e m e s.  T h i s   i s s u e   w i l l   b e   a d d re s s e d, 
i n t e r   a l i a ,   b y   a   G r e e n   Pa p e r   p u b l i s h e d   o n 
14 Ju ly 2011.

42.
S ee t he rep l y to  p oint 5 5.

43.
A s   m e a s u r e   1 3 3   i s   n o t   l i m i t e d   t o   G I 
s c h e m e s ,   i t   i s   c l e a r   t h a t   t h e   fo c u s   c a n n o t 
b e   t h e   G I   s c h e m e   i t s e l f.  Wh e re   t h e   p ro m o -
t i o n   co n ce r n s   fo r   ex a m p l e   a   re gi o n a l   q u a l -
i t y   s c h e m e   d e a l i n g   w i t h   o n l y   o n e   p ro d u c t, 
i t   i s   n o r m a l   t h a t   t h e   e m p h a s i s   w i l l   b e   o n 
t h a t   p r o d u c t .     I n   g e n e r a l ,   p r o m o t i o n   o f   a 
fo o d   q u a l i t y   s c h e m e   c a n n o t   b e   s e p a r a t e d 
f ro m   t h e   p ro d u c t s   cove re d,   o t h e r w i s e   t h e 
consumer ca nno t rel ate to  t he s c h e m e.

44.
The implementation of the measure can be 
fo l l owe d   u p   by   t h e   o u t p u t   i n d i c ato r   w h i c h 
m e a s u re s   t h e   n u m b e r   o f   s u p p o r t e d   i n fo r -
m at i o n   a n d   p ro m o t i o n   a c t i o n s.  Th e   i m p o r -
tance of the measure is fur ther assessed by 
the result indicator measur ing the value of 
a g r i c u l t u r a l   p ro d u c t i o n   u n d e r   re c o g n i s e d 
q u a l i t y   l a b e l s / s t a n d a r d s .   T h e r e f o r e ,   t h e 
i m p a c t   c a n n o t   o n l y   b e   d e r i v e d   f r o m   t h e 
uptake of  t he measu re.

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

42

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

A l s o,   t h e   A g r i c u l t u r e   a n d   R u r a l   D e v e l o p -
m e nt   D G   p a r t i c i p ate s   o n   a   re g u l a r   b a s i s   i n 
a gr i c u l t u ra l   f a i r s,   co n fe re n ce s 1 4,   s e m i n a r s, 
r o u n d   t a b l e s ,   e t c .   i n   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   a n d 
third countr ies to make the GI scheme bet-
ter k n own amon g potent ial par t ic i pant s.

GI schemes have had an impor tant place in 
h i g h - l e ve l   m i s s i o n s   o rg a n i s e d   by   t h e   Agr i-
c u l t u r e   a n d   R u r a l   D e v e l o p m e n t   D G 1 5.   T h e 
Q u a l i t y   we b s i te   at t ra c t s   m o re   t h a n   5 0  0 0 0 
p a g e   v i e w s   b y   m o r e   t h a n   1 0   0 0 0   u n i q u e 
visitors per  mont h.

14  Quality was one of the main topics of the Salone del Gusto in 
Turin in 2010, which the Agriculture and Rural Development DG 

took part in. The GI schemes were also a topic on several confer-

ences, such as the one on ‘Food quality certification schemes: add-

ing value to farm produce’ organised by the Commission on 5 and 

6 February 2007, or the 2-day high-level conference in Prague in 

2009. In 2010 the Agriculture and Rural Development DG also pub-

lished a newsletter on quality logos. 

15  For instance, a high-level mission exclusively devoted to the GI 
schemes was held from 21 to 25 March 2011 in China, with the par-

ticipation of the Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Develop-

ment.

52.
The Commissio n woul d u nd er l ine   t hat:

 — small  p ro duce r  gro u ps   can  al so   ben e fi t 
from  t he   ru ral  develop m ent   p ro m oti on 
mea su re 133;

 — in the past, programmes not represent-
ing large mar ket volume were accepted 
w i t h   r e s p e c t   t o   t h e   r e g u l a t o r y   c o n d i -
tions.

B ox 	3	
Ta k i n g   i n t o   a c c o u n t   b o t h   t h e   p o p u l a -
t i o n s   i nv o l v e d   a n d   t h e   l i m i t e d   b u d g e t a r y 
re s o u rce s   d e vo te d   to   t h e   i n fo r m a t i o n   a n d 
p r o m o t i o n   r e g i m e ,   t h e   p r o g r a m m e s   c o -
f i n a n c e d   i n   t h e   U S A   a n d   C a n a d a   t a r g e t 
o p i n i o n   m u l t i p l i e r s   a n d   l e a d e r s   i n s te a d   o f 
public op inion.

55.
W i t h i n   t h e   f r a m e w o r k   o f   R e g u l a t i o n   ( E C ) 
No 814/2000, calls for proposals to suppor t 
i n f o r m a t i o n   m e a s u r e s   i n   a g r i c u l t u r e   a r e 
l a u n c h e d   e v e r y   y e a r.  T h e   E U   f o o d   q u a l i t y 
polic y has been one of the pr ior it y ac tions 
i n   t h e   l a s t   t h r e e   y e a r s .   H o w e v e r,   i t   i s   f o r 
M e m b e r   S t a t e s   t o   p u t   f o r w a r d   s c h e m e s 
—   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n   c a n n o t   o b l i g e   t h e m   to 
do so.

A l t h o u g h   m o d e s t   i n   b u d g e t ,   d i f f e r e n t 
t y p e s   o f   i n f o r m a t i o n   m e a s u r e s   a r e   f o r e -
seen, such as information campaigns, radio 
a n d / o r   t e l e v i s i o n   p ro g r a m m e s,   d o c u m e n -
t a r i e s ,   d i s c u s s i o n   p r o g r a m m e s ,   m e a s u r e s 
t a r g e t i n g   u n i ve r s i t i e s   a n d   s c h o o l s,   m e d i a 
events, e tc. 13

13  See e.g. 2010/C 231/05 (OJ C 231, 27.8.2010, p. 8).

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

CONCLUSIONS	AND		
RECOMMENDATIONS

57.
R e g u l a t i o n   ( E C )   N o   8 8 2 / 2 0 0 4   p ro v i d e s   fo r 
t h e   a p p r o p r i a t e   l e g a l   f r a m e w o r k   f o r   a l l 
food law ob l igat ion s.   

H o w e v e r   w i t h o u t   p u t t i n g   i n t o   q u e s -
t i o n   t h e   a p p l i c a t i o n   o f   R e g u l a t i o n   ( E C ) 
No 882/2004, the Commission proposal for 
a   r e g u l a t i o n   o f   t h e   E u r o p e a n   Pa r l i a m e n t 
a n d   o f   t h e   C o u n c i l   ( CO M ( 2 0 1 0 )   7 3 3   o f   1 0 
D e c e m b e r   2 0 1 0 )   o n   a g r i c u l t u r a l   p r o d u c t 
q u a l i t y   s c h e m e s   p r o v i d e s   f u r t h e r   d e t a i l s 
on  th e co ntro l sys tem cover ing   G I s.

58.
F o o d   l a w   c o n t r o l s ,   i n c l u d i n g   A r t i c l e   1 1 
c h e c k s   a r e   c a r r i e d   o u t   i n   a   h a r m o n i s e d 
f r a m e w o r k   o f   g e n e r a l   r u l e s   a s   l a i d   d o w n 
i n   t h e   O F F C   R e g u l a t i o n   ( E C )   N o   8 8 2 / 2 0 0 4 . 
T h i s   re g u l a t i o n   c o ve r s   a l l   i s s u e s   f a l l i n g   i n 
t h e   f i e l d   o f   c o n s u m e r   p r o t e c t i o n ,   i n c l u d -
i n g   fo o d   l a b e l l i n g   a n d   co n s u m e r   i n fo r m a -
t i o n   i s s u e s .  T h e r e fo r e,   c h e c k s   c o n c e r n i n g 
p r o d u c t   s p e c i f i c a t i o n s   a r e   c o v e r e d .   T h e 
s p e c i f i c   m o d a l i t i e s   s h o u l d   b e   l e f t   t o   t h e 
M e m b e r   S t a t e s .   C o n s i d e r i n g   t h e   e x t r e m e 
d i v e r s i t y   o f   c o n c r e t e   s i t u a t i o n s   t h a t   m a y 
a r i s e ,   f u r t h e r   h a r m o n i s a t i o n   i s   d e e m e d 
 inappropr iate.

R e g u l a t i o n   ( E C )   N o   8 8 2 / 2 0 0 4   r e q u i r e s 
M e m b e r   S t a t e s   t o   c a r r y   o u t   o f f i c i a l   c o n -
t ro l s   re g u l a r l y     o n   a   r i s k   b a s i s   w i t h   a p p ro -
pr iate frequenc y tak ing account, inter alia, 
o f   p a s t   h i s to r y   o f   co m p l i a n ce   a n d   t h e   re l i -
abilit y  of  o p erato rs’ ow n contro l s.

4343

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

Recommendatio n	1
T h e   c u r r e n t   r e g u l a t o r y   s y s t e m   b a s e d   o n 
R e g u l a t i o n   ( E C )   N o   8 8 2 / 2 0 0 4   p ro v i d e s   fo r 
the necessar y level of detail as regards the 
r e q u i r e m e n t s   o f   t h e   G I   c h e c k s .   U n d e r   t h e 
O F F C   R e g u l a t i o n ,   t h e   s p e c i f i c   m o d a l i t i e s 
re g a rd i n g   t h e s e   c o n t ro l s   a re   l e f t   t o   M e m -
ber States pursuant to the principle of sub -
s i d i a r i t y.  T h i s   i s   w i t h o u t   p r e j u d i c e   t o   a n y 
c l a r i f i c a t i o n   o r   p r e c i s i o n s   t h a t   m i g h t   b e 
f u r t h e r   c o n t e m p l a t e d   i n   t h e   o ve r a l l   l e g i s-
lative framewor k .   

T h e   Co m m i s s i o n   w i l l   h o we ve r   f u r t h e r   d i s -
c u s s   w i t h   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   t h e   c o v e r a g e   o f 
c h e c k s,   t h e i r   f re q u e n c y   a n d   t h e   m e t h o d o l -
o g y   f o r   t h e i r   s e l e c t i o n   i n   e x e c u t i n g   t h e i r 
r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s   u n d e r   t h e   O f f i c i a l   F o o d 
an d Feed Control (OFFC )  R egulat ion .

5 9.
T h e   o b l i g a t i o n   f o r   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   t o   p e r -
f o r m   c h e c k s   a i m i n g   a t   d e t e c t i o n   a n d   s u p -
p r e s s i o n   o f   d i s a l l o w e d   p r a c t i c e s   i s   p r o -
v i d e d   i n   t h e   f r a m e wo r k   o f   R e g u l a t i o n   ( E C ) 
No   88 2/ 20 04 .  M e mb e r  State s  a re   re qu es ted 
to do so in a way that best suits their needs, 
based on a r isk analysis.   

Recommendatio n	2
R e g u l a t i o n   ( E C )   8 8 2 / 2 0 0 4   s e t s   o u t   c l e a r 
p r i n c i p l e s   fo r   c h e c k s   a i m i n g   a t   t h e   d e t e c -
t i o n   a n d   s u p p r e s s i o n   o f   d i s a l l o w e d   p r a c -
t i c e s ,   w h i c h   a r e   e s t a b l i s h e d   b y   M e m b e r 
States on  t he basis of a r isk  analysis.

However without putting into question the 
a p p l i c a t i o n   o f   t h i s   r e g u l a t i o n ,   t h e   C o m -
m i s s i o n   p r o p o s a l   f o r   a   r e g u l a t i o n   o f   t h e 
E u r o p e a n   P a r l i a m e n t   a n d   o f   t h e   C o u n c i l 
(CO M ( 2 0 1 0 )   7 3 3   o f   1 0   D e c e m b e r   2 0 1 0 )   o n 
a g r i c u l t u r a l   p ro d u c t   q u a l i t y   s c h e m e s   p ro -
vides additional details on the control sys-
tem cover ing  GIs.

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

44

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION

T h e   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   t h a t   h a v e   j o i n e d   t h e 
EU since 2004 are still pick ing up on speed 
i n   re l at i o n   to   t h e   s c h e m e.  Th e re fo re,   t ra d e 
f a i r s ,   t h e m a t i c   i n t e r n a t i o n a l   e x h i b i t i o n s 
a n d / o r   p r e p a r a t i o n   o f   g u i d e s   f o r   a p p l i -
c a n t s   f o r   g e o g r a p h i c a l   i n d i c a t i o n s   ( P D O 
o r   P G I )   a r e   i m p o r t a n t   t o o l s   fo r   a t t r a c t i n g 
pote nt ial applicants.

6 2.
R aising awareness among consumers takes 
c o n s i d e r a b l e   t i m e   e s p e c i a l l y   s i n c e   t h e 
u s e   o f   t h e   l o g o s   h a s   o n l y   b e e n   m a n d ato r y 
since 1 M ay 2009. Also, as explained under 
p o i n t   V,   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   b e l i e v e s   h a v i n g 
p u t   i nto   p l a ce   a   co h e re nt   s e t   o f   a c t i o n s   to 
in creas e consume r aware ness.  A c han ge  of 
attitude will take time and the Commission 
a l s o   a g r e e s   t h a t   t h e r e   i s   m o r e   p o t e n t i a l 
a n d   w i l l   r e f l e c t ,   a l s o   w i t h i n   t h e   o n g o i n g 
re fo r m   o f   i t s   p ro m o t i o n   p o l i c y,   o n   h ow   t o 
i n c re a s e   f u r t h e r   co n s u m e r   awa re n e s s.  Th e 
EU food qualit y polic y has been one of the 
p r i o r i t y   a c t i o n s   i n   t h e   l a s t   t h re e   ye a r s   fo r 
t h e   i n fo r m a t i o n   m e a s u r e s   o n   a g r i c u l t u r a l 
produc ts.

I t   s h a l l   b e   n o t e d   t h a t   o n l y   M e m b e r   S t a t e s 
h a v e   t h e   o p t i o n   t o   p r o p o s e   p r o m o t i o n 
sch emes for g eographic al indic at io ns.

H owe ve r,   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n   i s   p ro m o t i n g   o r 
p a r t i c i p a t i n g   i n   d i f f e r e n t   t y p e s   o f   i n f o r -
m a t i o n   m e a s u r e s   t a r g e t i n g   g e o g r a p h i c a l 
i n d i c at i o n s.   S e e   t h e   re p l y   to   p o i nt   5 5   fo r   a 
n on - exha ust ive list  of th ese ac ti v it ie s.

S ee  also the  reply  to R ecommen dat ion  4 .

Recommendatio n	4
A s   p a r t   o f   t h e   o n g o i n g   r e f l e x i o n   o n   t h e 
r e f o r m   o f   t h e   r e g i m e   o n   i n f o r m a t i o n   a n d 
p r o m o t i o n   o f   a g r i c u l t u r a l   p r o d u c t s ,   t h e 
Commission will consider appropriate ways 
to   f u r t h e r   e n h a n ce   t h e   p ro m o t i o n   o f   q u a l-
it y  sch emes.

At   t h e   s a m e   t i m e,   w i t h i n   t h e   f r a m e   o f   t h e 
OFFC architec ture, these issues will be fur -
th er refle c te d up o n.   

W i t h   r e g a r d   t o   m u t u a l   a s s i s t a n c e   p r o -
v i s i o n s ,   t h e y   a r e   a l r e a d y   a p p l i c a b l e   i n 
a c c o rd a n c e   w i t h   t h e   p ro v i s i o n s   o f  Ti t l e   I V 
(Administrative assistance and cooperation 
i n   t h e   a re a s   o f   fe e d   a n d   fo o d ) ,   A r t i c l e s   3 4 
to 40  of R eg u lation (EC ) No 882 / 2 0 04 .

60.
Au d i t s   a n d   n e e d   fo r   a u d i t   p l a n n i n g   fo l l ow 
w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d   c r i t e r i a   a n d   a r e   b a s e d 
o n   r i s k   a n a l y s i s   a n d   l a r g e l y   f o c u s e d   o n 
hygi e n e   a n d   s a fe t y.   Co m m i s s i o n   re s o u rce s 
a r e   v e r y   t i g h t   a n d   c h o i c e s   h a v e   t o   b e 
m a d e   i n   c o n s i d e r a t i o n   o f   a l l   f o o d   l a w 
 under ta k ing s.   

S ee a lso t he rep l y to R ecom mend at io n  3.   

Recomme ndat ion	3
A s   f r o m   2 0 1 1 ,   t h e   A g r i c u l t u r e   a n d   R u r a l 
D e ve l o p m e nt   D G   a n d   t h e   H e a l t h   a n d   Co n -
s u m e r s   D G   h a v e   a g r e e d   t h a t   t h e   l a t t e r 
w i l l   i n c l u d e   P D O / P G I - r e l a t e d   i s s u e s   i n   i t s 
a n n u a l   a u d i t   p r o g r a m m e s   i n   f u l l   c o o p e r -
ation with the Agr iculture and Rural D evel-
o p m e n t   D G   a n d   fo l l ow i n g   t h e   s a m e   r i g o r -
o u s   p r i o r i t i s at i o n   p ro ce s s   a p p l i e d   to   o t h e r 
areas un der its remit.

I n addition, specific wor k ing ar rangements 
a r e   c u r r e n t l y   b e i n g   d e t a i l e d ,   i n c l u d i n g 
i n fo r m a t i o n   o n   m u l t i a n n u a l   n a t i o n a l   c o n -
t r o l   p l a n s   ( M A N C P s )   a n d   a n n u a l   r e p o r t s 
(A Rs).

61.
T h e   s c h e m e   i s   p r i m a r i l y   a n   i n t e l l e c t u a l 
proper t y protec tion scheme. The appropr i -
ate instruments, legal means are there and 
p r o d u c e r s   a r e   i n v i t e d   t o   j o i n   t h e   s c h e m e 
on  a voluntar y b asis.

P r o d u c e r s   h a v e   s h o w n   a   c l e a r   i n t e r e s t   i n 
t h e   s c h e m e ,   a s   s h o w n   b y   t h e   s i g n i f i c a n t 
number of produc t names registered (above 
1   0 0 0 ) ,   a c c o u n t i n g   f o r   a   m a r k e t   v a l u e   o f 
14,5 billion euro (in 2008).

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

 
45

European Court of Auditors

Special	Report	No	11/2011

Do	the	design	and	management	of	the	geographical	indications	scheme	allow	it	to	be	effective?

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union

2011 — 44 pp. — 21 × 29.7 cm

ISBN 978-92-9237-267-5

doi:10.2865/75364

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

How	to	obtain	EU	publications

Free	publications:

• 

• 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);

at the European Union's representations or delegations. You can obtain their contact details 
on the Internet (http://ec.europa.eu) or by sending a fax to +352 2929-42758.

Priced	publications:

• 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).

Priced	subscriptions	(e.g.	annual	series	of	the	Official Journal of the European Union	and	reports	
of	cases	before	the	Court	of	Justice	of	the	European	Union):

• 

via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union 
(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).

 
 
Q
J
-
A
B
-
1
1
-
0
0
8
-
E
N

-
C

THE EUROPEAN GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS SCHEME AIMS TO PROTECT 

THE NAMES OF PRODUCTS WHOSE CHARACTERISTICS ARE ASSOCIATED 

WITH THE GEOGRAPHICAL AREA IN WHICH THEY ARE PRODUCED, AND PRO-

VIDES A POTENTIAL ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY FOR FARMERS AND FOOD 

PRO DUCERS. THIS REPORT EXAMINES WHETHER THE SCHEME’S CONTROL 

SYSTEM IS ROBUST, AND WHETHER THE SCHEME IS ATTRACTIVE TO PRODU-

CERS AND KNOWN TO CONSUMERS. THE AUDIT CONCLUDES THAT CLARI-

FICATION IS NEEDED ON A NUMBER OF ISSUES CONCERNING THE SCHEME’S 

CONTROL SYSTEM, ESPECIALLY CHECKS OF PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS AND 

DIS ALLOWED PRACTICES, AND THAT A CLEAR STRATEGY IS LACKING TO RAISE 

THE AWARENESS OF BOTH PRODUCERS AND CONSUMERS.   

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS