COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION of the impact of the EU agricultural promotion policy in internal and third countries markets
Date: 2020-12-22
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: EU production, agricultural production policy, agricultural trade, common agricultural policy, competitiveness, project evaluation, public awareness campaign, quality control of agricultural products, sales promotion, trade promotion

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 22.12.2020  SWD(2020) 399 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION  of the impact of the EU agricultural promotion policy in internal and third countries markets {SWD(2020) 401 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................................................... 2 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................................... 3 

1. 

2. 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 4 

BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION ..................................................................................... 5 

Description of the intervention and its objectives ...................................................................... 5 

Points of comparison ................................................................................................................... 9 

3. 

IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY ........................................................................................ 10 

4.  METHOD............................................................................................................................................ 16 

Limitations and robustness of findings ..................................................................................... 17 

5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS .......................................... 19 

5.1 Effectiveness ........................................................................................................................ 19 

5.2 Efficiency ............................................................................................................................. 34 

5.3 Relevance ............................................................................................................................ 40 

5.4 Coherence ........................................................................................................................... 44 

5.5. EU added value ................................................................................................................... 57 

6. 

CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNT .................................................................................... 59 

Lessons learnt ............................................................................................................................ 62 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................ 64 

ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ....................................................................................... 65 

ANNEX 3: METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS .......................................................................... 73 

ANNEX 4: RESULTS OF THE CALLS FOR PROPOSALS ..................................................................... 83 

ANNEX 5: FOCUS ON THIRD COUNTRIES ........................................................................................... 86 

ANNEX 6: LIST OF ACTIONS ON THE INITIATIVE OF THE COMMISSION .................................... 88 

ANNEX 7: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION .................................................................................... 90 

1 

 
 
 
Glossary 

Agricultural/agri-food  products  refer 
agriculturally as opposed to through hunting, gathering, and so on. 

to  (agricultural/food)  products  produced 

Annual work programmes are an administrative tool used by the Commission to set the 
annual strategic priorities for EU spending programmes. In this case, for the promotion 
programme, the work programmes are adopted by the European Commission in line with 
Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 1144/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of  22  October  2014  on  information  provision  and  promotion  measures  concerning 
agricultural products implemented in the internal market and in third countries. 

The Consumers,  Health,  Agriculture  and  Food Executive Agency (CHAFEA) is  an 
executive  agency  for  the  management,  technical  and  financial  implementation  of  four 
spending programmes, including the multi programmes supported by the EU agricultural 
promotion policy. 

A  competent  national  authority  is  the  service  designated  by  the  government  of  the 
Member State responsible for managing a particular spending programme or legislative 
requirement.  For  the  agricultural  promotion  policy,  the  competent  national  authority  is 
the service charged with implementing simple programmes. 

High-level  missions  are  a  Commission  initiative  run  under  the  EU  agricultural 
promotion  policy.  They  constitute  missions  for  EU  officials  and  business  delegates  to 
engage  with  target  audiences  outside  of  the  EU  (e.g.  business  representatives)  and 
governments with the aim of opening up international markets, facilitating international 
partnerships and supporting exports by providing information on EU products. 

Implementing bodies are selected by proposing organisations and are responsible for the 
day-to-day implementation of the programmes. 

Key  performance  indicators  are  measurable  programme  milestones  for  key actions 
used to track the level of progress of an initiative or measure, often against a target. 

In  the  context  of  the  EU  agricultural  promotion  policy,  a  multi  programme  is  a 
programme submitted by at least two proposing organisations from at least two Member 
States or by at  least  one organisation recognised at  the European Union level,  which is 
managed by CHAFEA. 

Protected designation of origin is a label given to products that are produced, processed 
and prepared in a specific area, using a particular, usually traditional, method.  

Protected geographical indications identify a product as originating in a particular area, 
which  may  be  a  whole  country;  the  product's  given  quality,  reputation  or  other 
characteristic  must  be  attributable  to  this  area  and  at  least  one  of  the  production  steps 
must take place in the defined area. 

In  the  context  of  the  EU  agricultural  promotion  policy,  proposing  organisations  are 
both  applicants  and  beneficiaries  of  simple  and  multi  programmes,  depending  on  the 
stage of the procedure. In case the proposing organisation is a body governed by public 
law within the meaning of Directive 2014/24/EU (of the European Parliament and of the 
Council  of  26 February 2014  on  public  procurement),  it  must  select  bodies  responsible 
for implementing programmes under the national legislation transposing this Directive. 

2 

 
 
In  the  context  of  the  EU  agricultural  promotion  policy,  a  simple  programme  is  a 
promotion programme submitted by one or more proposing organisations from the same 
Member State and managed by national authorities together with the Directorate-General 
for Agriculture and Rural Development. 

Traditional Speciality Guaranteed is a label highlighting the traditional aspects of that 
product, such as the way it is made or its composition, without being linked to a specific 
geographical  area.  The  name  of  a  product  being  registered  as  a  ‘traditional  speciality 
guaranteed’ protects it against falsification and misuse. 

Acronyms and abbreviations  

AWP 
CAP 
CHAFEA 
DG 
DG AGRI 
EU 
GVA 
PDO 
PGI 
SPS 
TSG 

Annual Work Programme 
Common Agricultural Policy 
Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency 
Directorate-General 
Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development 
European Union 
Gross Value Added 
Protected Designation of Origin 
Protected Geographical Indications 
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standard 
Traditional Speciality Guaranteed 

3 

 
 
 
1.  INTRODUCTION 

Purpose and scope 

The  European  Union’s  agricultural  promotion  policy  is  designed  to  support  the  EU’s 
agricultural  sector  by  promoting  EU  products  on  the  internal  market  and  in  non-EU 
countries.  This  is  achieved  by  co-financing  promotion  projects  and  organising 
information  campaigns  and  high-level  missions  to  raise  awareness  about  the  quality  of 
the EU’s agricultural products.  

Providing  information  and  promoting  agricultural  products  are  the  key  methods  used 
under the common agricultural  policy to  increase the competitiveness and consumption 
of EU agricultural products and to increase their market share. By finding new markets, 
consolidating  existing  markets  and  raising  awareness  among  consumers  inside  and 
outside  the  EU  of  the  high  standards  and  high  quality  of  EU  agricultural  products,  the 
promotion  policy  contributes  to  the  Commission’s  objectives  of  ensuring  jobs  and 
growth in rural areas and of tackling increased pressure on the EU agricultural sector1. In 
addition, by explaining to consumers and importers the high standards and the quality of 
EU  agri-food  products,  EU  promotion  measures  can  support  EU  producers  in 
increasingly competitive markets.  
The  policy  is  laid  down  in  Regulation  (EU)  No  1144/20142,  Commission  Delegated 
Regulation 
(EU) 
2015/18314. The evaluation covers all three regulations. 

(EU)  2015/18293  and  Commission 

Implementing  Regulation 

Under  Article  34  of  the  Financial  Regulation5  applicable  to  the  general  budget  of  the 
European  Union,  the  EU  agricultural  promotion  policy  is  subject  to  periodical 
evaluations, like all EU programmes and activities that entail significant spending.  
Article 26(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1144/2014 states that ‘[b]y 31 December 2020, the 

1   Strategic  Plan  2016-2020  of  the  Directorate-General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development, 

19 July 2016. https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/strategic-plan-2016-2020-agriculture_en. 

2   Regulation  (EU)  No  1144/2014  of  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  of  22  October  2014  on 
information  provision  and  promotion  measures  concerning  agricultural  products  implemented  in  the 
internal  market  and  in  third  countries  and  repealing  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  3/2008;  OJ  L  317, 
4.11.2014, p. 56–70. 

3   Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/1829 of 23 April 2015 supplementing Regulation (EU) 
No 1144/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on information  provision and promotion 
measures  concerning  agricultural  products  implemented  in  the  internal  market  and  in  third  countries; 
OJ L 266, 13.10.2015, p. 3–8. 

4   Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2015/1831  of  7  October  2015  laying  down  rules  for 
application  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1144/2014  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on 
information  provision  and  promotion  measures  concerning  agricultural  products  implemented  in  the 
internal market and in the third countries; OJ L 266, 13.10.2015, p. 14–26. 

5   Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 
on  the  financial  rules  applicable  to  the  general  budget  of  the  Union,  amending  Regulations  (EU) 
No 1296/2013,  (EU)  No  1301/2013,  (EU)  No  1303/2013,  (EU)  No  1304/2013,  (EU)  No  1309/2013, 
(EU)  No  1316/2013,  (EU)  No  223/2014,  (EU)  No  283/2014,  and  Decision  No  541/2014/EU  and 
repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012; OJ L 193, 30.7.2018, p. 1–222. 

4 

 
 
 
                                                           
Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and to the Council a report on the 
application of this Regulation together with any appropriate proposals’. 

The  evaluation  provides  input  to  the  report  issued  by  the  European  Commission  to  the 
European  Parliament  and  the  European  Council.  The  evaluation  will  also  feed  into  the 
upcoming review of the EU promotion policy for agricultural and food products with a 
view to stepping up its contribution to sustainable production and consumption, as set out 
under the European Commission’s farm to fork strategy6.  

The  evaluation  period  begins  with  implementation  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1144/2014, 
and covers the information and promotion projects carried out since their start in 2016 by 
the  European  Commission  and  the  organisations  that  ran  the  promotion  programmes 
from all EU Member States and the United Kingdom (i.e. the geographical scope of the 
evaluation is the EU-28).  

The  evaluation  examines  the  EU  agricultural  promotion  policy  measures  targeting  EU 
and  non-EU  markets  over  the  period  2016-2019.  It  focuses  on  assessing  the 
effectiveness,  efficiency,  relevance,  policy  coherence  and  EU  value  added  of  specific 
changes to the implementation and scope of the policy since the previous legislation on 
promotion policy under Council Regulation (EC) No 3/20087. Specifically, the changes 
were  an  increased  budget  and  higher  co-financing  rates;  a  broadened  scope  (measures 
supported, eligible beneficiaries and products);  simplified administrative processes,  and 
more focus on non-EU country markets.  

The  evaluation  is  underpinned  by  the  support  study  on  the  EU  agricultural  promotion 
policy  targeting  both  EU  and  non-EU  markets,  published  on  14 October 2020  (the 
‘support study’)8 and takes into account additional data and information.  

2.  BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION 

Description of the intervention and its objectives 

The  measures  specified  under  the  common  agricultural  policy  (CAP)  are  information 
provision and the promotion of agricultural products. The general objective is to enhance 
the competitiveness of the EU agricultural sector and thereby make a direct contribution 
to the general objective of the CAP in terms of viable food production.  

The specific objectives of these information and promotion measures are to:  

a)  increase  awareness  of  the  merits  of  EU  agricultural  products  and  of  the  high 

standards applicable to the production methods in the EU;  

b)  increase  the  competitiveness  and  consumption  of  EU  agricultural  products  and 
certain food products and to raise their profile both inside and outside the EU;  

c)  increase the awareness and recognition of EU quality schemes;  

6   Farm to fork strategy - for a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system is at the heart of the 
European  Green  Deal  aiming  to  make  food  systems  fair,  healthy  and  environmentally-friendly; 
https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/safety/docs/f2f_action-plan_2020_strategy-info_en.pdf. 

7   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; OJ L 3, 5.1.2008, p. 1. 

8   https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/key-policies/common-agricultural-

policy/cmef/regulation-and-simplification/evaluation-support-study-eu-agricultural-promotion-policy-
internal-and-third-country-markets_en. 

5 

 
                                                           
d)  increase the market share of EU agricultural products and certain food products, 
specifically focusing on those markets in non-EU countries that have the highest 
growth potential;  

e)  restore normal market conditions in the event of serious market disturbance, loss 

of consumer confidence or other specific problems9. 

Information and promotion measures take the form of:  

a)  information and promotion programmes (hereafter ‘programmes’), which can be 
‘simple programmes’ submitted by one or more proposing organisations from the 
same  Member  State,  or  ‘multi  programmes’  submitted  by  at  least  two 
organisations  from  at  least  two  Member  States,  or  by  one  or  more  EU-level 
organisations; and 

b)  measures  taken  at  the  Commission’s  initiative,  including  developing  technical 

support services for the sector. 

The EU helps the agri-food sector to finance information and promotion campaigns. By 
explaining to consumers and importers the high standards and the quality of EU agri-food 
products, EU promotion programmes can support European producers on an increasingly 
competitive  market.  Using  the  generic  signature  ‘Enjoy,  it´s  from  Europe’,  the  policy 
aims to encourage opening up of new markets, to diversify trading partners and to raise 
consumer awareness of the high quality methods used by European farmers.  

Below the main changes brought in by the 2014 reform of the promotion policy.  

  The new promotion policy was given a more substantial budget, increasing from 

EUR 60 million in 2015 to EUR 200 million as of 2019.  

  Although  national  co-financing  by  Member  States  was  withdrawn,  the  EU  co-
financing rates were significantly increased to reach 70% for simple programmes 
in the internal market, 80% for multi programmes and simple/multi programmes 
targeting  non-EU  countries  and  85%  for  programmes  to  restore  normal  market 
conditions  in  the  event  of  serious  market  disturbance,  loss  of  consumer 
confidence or other specific problems. There is also a 5-percentage point top-up 
for beneficiaries from Member States under financial assistance.  

  The  promotion  policy  is  now  based  on  a  genuine  strategy  framed  at  EU  level, 
with the adoption of an annual work programme. The strategic priorities and their 
corresponding  budgets  for  promotion  policy  in  terms  of  population  groups, 
products, schemes or markets to be targeted and the nature of the information and 
promotion  messages  to  be  disseminated  must  be  specified  annually  in  the  work 
programme.10 It also provides for specific temporary arrangements in response to 
a  serious  market  disturbance  or  loss  of  consumer  confidence.  It  sets  out  the 
criteria  for  evaluating  the  proposals  and  specifies  that  the  annual  work 
programme is implemented by means of published calls for proposals. 

  The  scope  of  eligible  beneficiaries  was  extended 

include  producer 
organisations  and  EU-level  organisations11.  The  list  of  eligible  products  was 

to 

9   Article 

2 

of 

Regulation 

(EU) 

No 

1144/2014 

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/en/TXT/?uri=OJ%3AJOL_2014_317_R_0004. 

10   Setting strategic priorities for the promotion policy was a recommendation made by the European Court 
of auditors, in order to avoid a dispersion of resources and to increase Europe’s visibility through these 
information provision and promotion measures. 
11   See Recital 12 to Regulation (EU) No 1144/2014. 

6 

 
                                                           
extended  to  include  more  processed  products  (e.g.  chocolate).  To  generate  a 
higher return on investment, restricted mentions of origin and displays of brands 
are  now  allowed,  without  jeopardising  the  generic  nature  of  the  promotion 
programmes.  

  The promotion programmes should demonstrate a European dimension, in terms 
of  impact  and  content,  with  a  main  EU-level  message,  complementing  the 
initiatives run by the Member States and the private sector. 

  Follow-up output, result and impact indicators were defined to better evaluate the 
performance  of  promotion  measures12  and  be  consistent  with  the  common 
monitoring and evaluation framework of the common agricultural policy13.  

  The  Commission  provides  a  technical  support  function  to  help  businesses 
participate in co-financed programmes, prepare efficient campaigns and develop 
activities on export markets. 

  Another  important  aspect  of  the  reform  was  to  simply  the  administrative 

procedures: 

-  some implementation tasks were transferred from the Commission to the 
and  Food  Executive  Agency 

Consumers,  Health,  Agriculture 
(CHAFEA)14, for cost efficiency reasons;  
the administrative procedures were simplified by abolishing the two-step 
selection procedure (which previously included a pre-selection step); 
the  workflow  was  also  streamlined  and  modernised.  In  response  to  the 
calls, programme proposals are submitted electronically and evaluated by 
CHAFEA  with  the  contribution  of  external  expert  evaluators  specialised 
in the agri-food business and marketing;  
the  Commission’s  selection  of  the  proposals  is  based  on  the  evaluation 
carried  out  by  external  evaluators  and  strictly  follows  the  ranking  of  the 
proposals drawn up by the evaluators15;   

- 

- 

- 

-  multi  programmes  are  managed  by  CHAFEA  under  direct  management, 
while simple programmes continue to be managed by national authorities 
under shared management. The Agency’s mandate was extended to cover 
coordination  of  measures  taken  at  the  Commission’s  initiative,  such  as 
communication  campaigns,  participation  in  trade  fairs  and  high-level 
missions. 

From  a  broader  policy  perspective,  the  EU  agricultural  promotion  policy  complements 
other  programmes  run  by  the  European  Commission  and  at  national  level,  such  as 
national  support  programmes  in  the  wine  sector,  the  fruit  and  vegetables  operational 
programmes  and  school  schemes.  It  aims  not  only  to  improve  competitiveness  and 
increase market share but also maintain existing shares on highly competitive markets.  

12   See Article 22 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1831.  
13   https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/key-policies/common-agricultural-policy/cmef_en 

14   2014/927/EU:  Commission  Implementing  Decision  of  17  December  2014  amending  Implementing 
Decision 2013/770/EU in order to transform the ‘Consumers, Health and Food Executive Agency’ into 
the ‘Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency’ (OJ L 363, 18.12.2014, p. 183). 
15   The  Commission  does  not  intervene  in  the  independent  evaluation  and  has  never  diverted  from  the 

ranking based on the evaluation. 

7 

 
 
                                                           
Figure 1: Intervention logic 

8 

 
 
 
 
Other  major  world  players  in  the  agri-food  sector  also  use  similar  policies.  The  U.S. 
Department  of  Agriculture,  for  instance,  issued  funding  amounting  to  USD 300 million 
in  2019  alone  under  the  agricultural  trade  promotion  programme16.  Over  the  past  few 
years,  Russia  has  seen  exceptional  growth  in  the  agriculture  sector17,  and  both  the 
Russian  Export  Centre  and  the  regional  authorities  offer  a  wide  range  of  services  to 
promote Russian goods in cross-border markets18.  

The  scale  of  governmental  funds  spent  on  agricultural  promotion  should also  be  put  in 
context alongside private-sector initiatives on food advertising (estimated to amount, for 
example, to EUR 2 billion for Unilever in 2019). 

The  European  Commission  adopts  the  budget  for  implementing  the  EU  agricultural 
promotion policy as part of the annual work programmes for information and promotion 
measures19. The budget  allocated to  information and promotion  measures in the annual 
work  programmes  almost  doubled  between  2016  and  2019,  from  EUR 113 million  to 
EUR 201 million. In particular, the annual budget for multi programmes increased from 
EUR 16.8 million  in  2016  to  EUR 91.6 million  in  2019.  Since  2017,  the  annual  budget 
allocated to Commission own initiatives remained stable at EUR 9.5 million. 

The annual work programmes set the strategic priorities of a given year, according to the 
needs of the sector20. Priorities can be set on more than one basis (i.e. by product type or 
to  prioritise  EU  or  non-EU  markets).  Then  calls  for  proposals  are  launched.  The  first 
calls for proposals for simple and multi programmes under the new policy on information 
provision and promotion measures for agricultural products were launched in 2016 (with 
the selection in November 2016, of the first programmes awarded funding ). After that, 
two calls for proposals  – one for simple  and one for multi programmes  – are launched 
each year. Further information on implementing the policy is given in chapter 3. 

Points of comparison  

When making policy comparisons, note that the period covered by this evaluation spans 
2016 to 2019 for Commission own initiatives, but only 2016-2017 for simple and multi 
programmes (that started implementation in 2017).  

The period before Regulation (EU) No 1144/2014 was implemented should serve as the 
baseline for comparison in the context of this evaluation. 

Under  the  common  agricultural  policy,  Commission  funding  for  promotion  and 
information  on  agricultural  products  has  evolved  significantly  since  the  early  1980s21. 

16   https://www.fas.usda.gov/atp-funding-allocations 
17   https://www.rbcc.com/resources/bulletin-online/the-agriculture-and-food-sector-in-russia-global-

opportunities-for-growth 

18   https://www.exportcenter.ru/en/company/ 

19

  For example, for 2019: Commission Implementing Decision on the adoption of  the work programme 
for  2019  of  information  provision  and  promotion  measures  concerning  agricultural  products 
implemented in the internal market and in third countries, Brussels, 14 November 2018. 

20 The annual work programme forms the basis for calls for proposals for simple and multi programmes. 
21   Evaluation  of  Promotion  and  Information  Actions  for  Agricultural  Products,  2012,  ADE;  

http://www.ade.eu/publications.php.  

9 

 
 
                                                           
Since the outset, the policy has addressed the need to increase awareness of EU quality 
products, increase competitiveness and increase sales, in particular in non-EU countries. 
However, before Regulation (EU) No 1144/2014, it was unclear whether the policy met 
these needs effectively and efficiently as a suitable monitoring and evaluation framework 
and it largely lacked quantitative outcome indicators. This meant that it was difficult to 
measure the success of the promotion policy over that period.  

Under Regulation (EC) No 3/2008, the scheme was based on co-financing, usually up to 
a  maximum  contribution  of  50%  from  the  Commission22,  with  at  least  20%  from  the 
private sector and the remainder financed by the Member States concerned. 

Promotion  projects  had  to  be  presented  in  the  form  of  a  programme  submitted  by  a 
professional trade or branch organisation in response to national calls for proposals. The 
programmes were pre-selected by the Member State and the Commission carried out the 
final selection. 

Prior to the 2014 reform, a high number of the programmes submitted (up to 57%) were 
rejected  by  the  European  Commission’s  Directorate-General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural 
Development  (DG  AGRI),  mainly  due  to  eligibility  and  quality  reasons.  To  clarify 
requirements  and  expectations,  the  Commission  issued  several  guidelines  since  2006, 
incorporating  lessons  learnt  from  previous  programmes  and  from  framework  contract 
evaluations.  

The  yearly  overall  Commission  expenditure  for  promotion  measures  increased  from 
minor amounts in 2002 to relatively stable amounts since 2007, between EUR 45 million 
and  EUR 50 million.  Approximately  three  quarters  of  this  funding  was  spent  on 
promotion in the EU and the rest on promotion to non-EU countries.  

Six products and themes accounted for 78% of all Commission expenditure from 2002 to 
2010:  fruit and vegetables (26%); dairy (15%); meat  (11%); EU quality  schemes (9%); 
wine  (8%);  and  organic  products  (8%).  As  for  the  breakdown  by  country,  56%  of 
Commission expenditure went on programmes proposed by five countries:  Italy (19%), 
France  (14%),  Spain  (8%),  Germany  (8%)  and  Greece  (7%).  A  further  16%  was 
allocated to promote multi-country programmes. 

Out  of  a  total  458  programmes  signed  between  2001  and  2010,  most  were  single 
proposer programmes targeting national markets. Multi-country programmes, although a 
priority  in  the  selection  process,  accounted  for  less  than  10%  of  total  spending,  with 
41 programmes running between 2001-2010, but for 16% of budget, indicating that they 
were often of higher financial value.  

3.  IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY 

The annual work programme 

The  annual  work  programme  introduced  by  Regulation  (EU)  No 1144/2014  is  adopted 
through an implementing decision23  taken by the  Commission that sets annual  strategic 
priorities  for  the  promotion  measures.  When  deciding  on  the  substance  of  the  work 

22   The Commission contribution can be increased from 50 to 60% for schemes to promote healthy eating 
of  fruit  and  vegetables  targeted  at  children  in  education,  and  for  information  on  responsible  drinking 
patterns and harm linked to hazardous alcohol consumption. 

23   https://ec.europa.eu/info/promotion-eu-farm-products_en#annualworkprogramme  

10 

 
                                                           
programme,  the  Commission  takes  into  account  contributions  from  the  Member  States 
(via  the  Committee  for  the  Common  Organisation  of  the  Agricultural  Markets),  from 
stakeholders  from  the  agri-food  sector  and  the  socio-professional  sector  (via  the  Civil 
Dialogue  Group),  and  internal  macroeconomic  analysis24.  128  promotion  programmes 
were  funded  under  the  annual  work  programmes  over  2016-2017:  112  simple 
programmes and 16 multi programmes. 

Market priorities are based on the objectives set out in the Regulation, notably to increase 
the number of activities aimed at non-EU countries where there is the highest potential of 
growth.  Within  the  EU,  the  main  objective  is  to  inform  consumers  about  the  high 
standards of EU products, the EU quality  schemes and the  associated symbols, namely 
organic  production,  protected  geographical  indication,  protected  designation  of  origin, 
traditional  speciality  guaranteed,  ‘mountain  product’  and  the  logo  for  products  from 
outermost regions.  

For  non-EU  countries,  the  Commission  conducted  a  macroeconomic  analysis  on  the 
projected increase in imports, and a policy review of free trade agreements and expected 
removal  of  barriers  to  trading  health  and  plant-health  products.  Indeed,  promotion 
programmes can help lay the groundwork for potential exports to non-EU markets before 
concluding or applying a free trade agreement.  

The aim of annual work programmes is to provide a relevant tool to achieve a dynamic 
and  targeted  promotion  policy,  by  aligning  each  year  with  the  evolving  needs  and 
opportunities of the sector, and identifying priorities with an indicative, specific budget.  

In addition, the promotion policy is responsive and includes a facility to allocate ad hoc, 
specific budget to fund programmes supporting sectors that face difficulties, such as the 
dairy  and  pigmeat  sectors  in  2016  and  2017,  beef  and  sheep/goat  meat  in  2017,  table 
olives in 2018, rice in 2019, and the beef/veal sector in 2020.  

In parallel, annual work programmes have contributed to aligning promotion policy with 
other  EU  policy  objectives.  Notably,  they  ring-fenced  a  dedicated  budget  to  co-finance 
programmes on sustainable agriculture (sustainable agriculture and the  role of the agri-
food sector for climate action and the environment in 2017, sustainable aspects of sheep 
and goat meat production in 2018, sustainable rice production in 2019).  This supported 
Commission  work  to  contribute  to  the  2030  Sustainable  Development  Goals  and  the 
Paris Climate Agreement. In its 2021 annual work programme, the Commission proposes 
ring-fencing 50% of the budget to promote organic products, sustainable agriculture, and 
increased  consumption  of  fruit  and  vegetables  in  the  context  of  balanced  and  proper 
diets. All of these topics contribute to the farm to fork and biodiversity strategies adopted 
by the Commission in 2020. 

Annual work programmes also reserved dedicated budget to co-finance programmes that 
encourage healthy eating and dietary practices, in line with the Commission's strategy on 
nutrition, overweight, obesity and other related health issues (to finance programmes in 
the EU on fresh fruit and vegetables as part of a balanced and proper diet in 2018, 2019 
and 2020).  

Finally, annual  work programmes also  plan budget  for action to  respond to  unexpected 
serious  market  disturbance,  loss  of  consumer  confidence  or  other  specific  problems,  in 

24   For instance Copa Cogeca, Europatat, Interbev, Arelfh, Epha, FoodDrinkEurope, Freshfel, Interfel, Cdl, 

Ceev, Clitravi Via Campesina, Flowers Auctions, Slow food, AVEC. 

11 

 
                                                           
line  with  exceptional  measures  taken  under  Part  V,  Chapter  1  of  Regulation  (EU) 
No 1308/201325.  

These budget lines were used for the first time in 2020 as a response to the COVID-19 
crisis  on  the  agri-food  sector.  Additional  calls  for  proposals  were  launched  to  address 
serious market disturbance, loss of consumer confidence or other specific problems under 
section  1.2.2  of  the  2020  annual  work  programme26,  on  7 July 2020,  to  fund  action 
complementary to the COVID-19 crisis package adopted on 30 April 202027. 

The promotion programmes  

Scope 
A  promotion  programme  is  a  coherent  set  of  operations  with  the  aim  of  informing  the 
target audience or promoting a product, sector or scheme. It is implemented over a period 
of  between  one  and  three  years.  It  can  include  advertising  campaigns  in  the  press,  on 
television,  on  radio  or  online;  point-of-sale  promotions;  public  relations  campaigns; 
participation in exhibitions and fairs, social media and a range of other activities. It can 
be a business-to-business campaign and/or business-to-consumer campaign.  

Overview of the calls for proposals 
The  high  number  of  proposals  (between  144  and  226  every  year)  received  after 
publishing the calls for proposals from 2016 to  2019 indicates a genuine interest in the 
scheme.  Between 2011  and 2014 the  yearly  average number of proposals received was 
73.  

Each proposal is evaluated by three independent experts against the criteria in the calls. 
All  eligible proposals are ranked  according to the total  number of points awarded. The 
highest  ranked  proposal  or  proposals  are  awarded  co-financing,  subject  to  budget 
availability.  Neither  the  annual  work  programmes  nor  the  calls  for  proposals  include  a 
breakdown of the budget between Member States.  

The  selection  of  proposals  is  based  on  the  quality  of  the  proposals,  i.e.  how  well  they 
meet the criteria set out in the calls. Another important factor is the level of competition 
in the topic within which they were submitted.  

Statistics on the type of participants show that not only well-known trade or inter-trade 
organisations  participate,  but  also  a  high  number  of  producer  organisations  or 
associations  of  producer  organisations,  groups  of  producers  and  operators  active  in 
geographical indications, etc. 

The  details  on  selected  programmes  (names  of  beneficiaries,  budget,  product  sector, 
targeted countries, messages and statistics) can be found on CHAFEA’s website28. It also 

25   Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 
establishing  a  common  organisation  of  the  markets  in  agricultural  products  and  repealing  Council 
Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007; OJ L 
347, 20.12.2013, p. 671–854. 

26   https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/key_policies/documents/annex-

commission-decision-c2019-8095_en.pdf 

27   https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/news/Covid19.html 

28   https://ec.europa.eu/CHAFEA/agri/campaigns/map-and-statistics-target-countries 

12 

 
 
                                                           
gives examples29 of campaigns, including visuals, pictures of the implemented projects, 
first results, etc. 

Statistics on the calls for proposals 
CHAFEA’s website30 publishes yearly detailed statistics on the calls. 

Annex  4  provides  a  description  of  the  results  of  the  calls  from  2016  (the  first  year  of 
implementing the reformed promotion policy) to 2019. 

Focus on non-EU countries  
The  reformed  policy  gives  priority  to  programmes  targeting  non-EU  countries  to  take 
advantage of their growth potential. As described below, both the number of programmes 
and the budget of programmes targeting non-EU countries increased in this programming 
period (2016-2019). 

Annex 5 provides more details. 

In terms of the number of programmes, only a third of the proposals submitted covered 
non-EU  countries  under  the  2008  Regulation,  increasing  over  the  period  2016-2019  to 
around 60% of simple and multi programmes.  

In the period 2016-2018, the proportion of programmes targeting non-EU countries was 
higher among simple programmes than for multi programmes (63% against 35% in multi 
programmes). In 2019, this trend continued, with 77% of simple programmes and 48% of 
multi programmes targeting non-EU countries.  

When compared by year, the number of programmes targeting non-EU countries was at 
its  highest  in  2019  (55  programmes),  and  lowest  in  2017  (32  programmes).  Between 
2016-2018, 53% of the budget was allocated to programmes targeting non-EU markets.  

Regarding the targeted non-EU countries, over 50% of the funds in each annual budget 
from 2016 to 2019 were earmarked for China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan together with 
the rest of the South East Asia region and India, Colombia and North American markets.  

Indicators 
The annex to Regulation (EU) No 2015/1831 presents a list of indicators that can be used 
by the proposing organisations to assess the impact of the programmes.  

For simple programmes, Member States send the Commission electronic  notification of 
the  impact  indicators,  under  Article  21  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  2015/1831.  For  multi 
programmes, the beneficiaries notify directly the indicators via an online platform. 

These  communications  are  stored  in  a  joint  database.  Programme  managers  at  the 
Commission  and  CHAFEA  compare  the  indicators  received  with  those  included  in  the 
programme proposals for follow-up of the promotion programmes. 

Impact indicators include, for example, sales figures for the sector in the year following 
the promotion campaign, the trend in average sales price of the exported product, change 
in  the  level  of  recognition  of  the  logos  of  EU  quality  schemes,  or  an  increase  in 
awareness of intrinsic values of EU agricultural products. 

To  illustrate  the  impact  indicator  outcome,  for  multi  programmes,  there  are  two 
representative  examples  (covering  both  the  internal  market  and  non-EU  countries)  that 

29   https://ec.europa.eu/CHAFEA/agri/content/info-day-calls-proposals-2018  
30   https://ec.europa.eu/chafea/agri/content/previous-programmes  

13 

 
                                                           
show how in general the multi programmes increased awareness, market share and sale 
price of the promoted products: 

- 

- 

In  the  internal  market:  a  campaign  to  promote  cheeses  with  a  protected 
designation  of  origin  or  protected  geographical  indication  registered  a  28% 
awareness of these EU quality schemes with an important change in the level of 
recognition,  considering  that,  according  to  special  Eurobarometer  50431,  only 
14%  of  European  consumers  recognised  the  logos  of  products  carrying  a 
protected designation of origin and 20% for a protected geographical indication; 
In  non-EU  countries:  a  campaign  to  boost  the  competitiveness  of  EU  quality 
wines  in  the  US  and  Canada  achieved  by  the  end  of  the  programme  a  17% 
increase in market share and 8% in average sales price of the promoted products. 

For  simple  programmes,  the  following  examples  are  illustrative  of  their  success  in 
increasing awareness, market share and recognition of EU quality scheme logos: 

-  A  programme  promoting  pigmeat  in  China  registered  an  18%  increase  in 
awareness  of intrinsic values of EU agricultural  products  and a 36% increase in 
the level of recognition of EU quality scheme logos; 

-  A  programme  promoting  cheese  in  Colombia  and  Mexico  achieved  a  16%  and 
11% increase in market share of EU products respectively, and an increase in the 
level of recognition of EU quality scheme logos of 10% in Colombia and 9% in 
Mexico. 

Measures taken at the Commission’s initiative 

These  measures  include  high-level  missions,  participation  in  trade  fairs  and  exhibitions 
of  international  importance  by  representation  at  stands,  or  action  to  boost  the  image  of 
EU  products,  including  communication  campaigns.  They  also  include  developing 
technical support services, including market handbooks. 

Annex 6 provides a detailed list  of measures taken at  the Commission’s initiative from 
2016 to 2019. 

Technical support 

CHAFEA has developed a portal32 to help potential applicants. It includes webinars that 
have,  according  to  feedback  from  the  surveys,  enabled  a  better  understanding  of 
promotion policy, different market opportunities and new rules for applications. 

High-level missions 
High-level missions, about two per year (see Annexes 6-7) aim to facilitate market access 
for  European  agri-food  products.  They  typically  include  high-level  political  meetings 
involving members of the Commission and an intensive business-related programme for 
leading  representatives  of  EU  exporters  and  the  agri-food  sector.  The  political  agenda 
generally  includes  discussions  on  trade  agreements,  trade  and  market  access  issues, 
health,  plant-health  and  technical  barriers  to  trade  issues,  discussions  on  organic 
production,  geographical  indications,  etc.  Business  activities  typically  concentrate  on 

31   Special Eurobarometer 504: Europeans, Agriculture and the CAP, October 2020. 
32 https://ec.europa.eu/chafea/agri/  

14 

 
 
                                                           
improving market intelligence through targeted seminars and workshops, retail visits and 
site visits, complemented by business-to-business meetings or business fora.  

Participants  in  these missions are selected via calls for applications and on the basis of 
several  criteria,  particularly  geographical  and  sectoral  balance,  balance  between  small, 
medium and larger companies; national and European umbrella organisations. 

After each mission, the Commission conducts at least two surveys of the participants to 
assess the results and impact. The average satisfaction rate among business delegates is 
generally above 90%. Most business delegates confirmed that the contacts made during 
the mission facilitated their business and contributed to advancing their business goals.  

EU pavilions (stands) at major international agriculture food, beverage and hospitality fairs 
Trade fairs, which make up 17% of the budget, proved particularly successful. They are 
an  effective  communication  channel  to  help  raise  awareness  of  the  merits  and  quality 
features of EU agricultural products (e.g. quality standards and geographical indications) 
with positive feedback reported in all cases (90%). 

The Commission  runs two to  three EU stands each  year  at  selected major international 
agriculture, food, beverages and hospitality fairs to showcase the excellence of European 
agri-food products. The stands focus on storytelling about European products, developing 
online content, advertising and media relations, as well as putting on tasting sessions and 
cookery  masterclasses  for  business  audiences.  The  aim  of  the  events  is  to  convey  the 
strength  of  EU  agricultural  products  strength  in  food  safety,  quality,  traceability, 
authenticity, tradition and nutritional value, with a special focus on EU quality labels. 

Other activities 
Seminars on EU standards for agri-food products 
These  seminars  are  typically  held  with  target  groups  of  government  officials,  major 
importers,  retailers,  distributors  and  specialised  journalists  in  non-EU  countries.  The 
events are designed to explain and convey information on EU sanitary, plant health (SPS) 
and food quality standards, with a view to boosting agri-food exports. These regulatory 
seminars  may  be  accompanied  by  product  displays  and  culinary  demonstrations  to 
showcase both the EU’s high production standards and its rich culinary heritage. 

Communication campaigns 
Communication campaigns are run primarily to follow up on promotion activities already 
carried out in a given target country (most notably high-level missions) or to engage with 
target  audiences  in  countries  before  an  EU-led  business  delegation  visits.  They  are 
designed  to  promote  EU  agri-food  products  and  are  focused  on  the  safety,  authenticity 
(e.g. guarantee of origin) and quality of EU products. They aim to raise awareness of the 
excellence  of  EU  agri-food  products;  encourage  business  audiences  to  import  EU 
products;  encourage  consumers  to  buy  EU  products;  and  increase  awareness  of  the 
benefits of economic partnership agreements (e.g. with Canada and Japan).  

The  target  audience  of  these  campaigns  is  typically  consumers  (usually  segmented  in 
each  target  market,  focusing  on  those  with  the  highest  purchasing  power  or  interest  in 
foreign  foods),  business  people  (importers,  retailers,  distributor,  hospitality  sector), 
media and key opinion leaders. 

Technical support services 
Technical  support  consists  of  providing  information  on  the  dedicated  portal  and 
organising events and other communication activities.  

15 

 
The  dedicated  portal  has  been  created  with  the  aim  of  helping  potential  applicants 
understand the promotion policy and the process of submitting proposals. It also provides 
best  practice  examples  and  legal  guidance33,  and  information  on  all  co-funded 
programmes since 2014. The portal contains a platform helping potential applicants seek 
partners for multi-applicant proposals. The second aim of the portal is to raise awareness 
on  different  markets  by  providing  tailor-made  market  intelligence  reports  and 
information  on  key  target  countries  listed  in  the  annual  work  programmes,  such  as 
information  on  market  access,  sanitary  and  phytosanitary  (SPS)  regulations,  and 
protecting intellectual property rights.  

During the call submission period, from January to April each year, CHAFEA’s helpdesk 
replies to questions by email on the conditions in the call for applications. 

CHAFEA actively contributes to communications on the promotion policy by organising 
an  annual  Info  Day  in  Brussels34.  The  Commission  (DG  AGRI  and  CHAFEA)  also 
participated in over 50 national info days organised by the Member States, each attended 
by 20-90 participants.35    

4.  METHOD  

The evaluation  is  underpinned by  an external  support study and  complemented by data 
and analysis carried out by the Commission (DG AGRI and CHAFEA).  

It  also  draws  on  the  responses  to  the  consultation  on  the  roadmap  conducted  from 
18 July 2018  to  15 August 2018  and  the  public  consultation  carried  out  between  8 May 
and 11 September 2020 on the Commission’s web portal ‘Have Your Say’.  

A  mixed-method  approach  has  been  used.  It  draws  on  a  range  of  tools  to  compile  and 
analyse  quantitative  as  well  as  qualitative  data  and  information  to  provide  a  robust, 
nuanced assessment not only of the effects of the EU’s agricultural promotion policy, but 
also of how and why these effects have been generated. It looks at the main features and 
changes brought in by the new legal framework.  

Based on the above methodological considerations, the mixed methods of data collection 
are listed below. The first three methods collected data on the policy as a whole, while 
the case studies yielded a more in-depth assessment of the effect of a few measures. 

  Document  and  data  review  (EU-level).  The  review  was  carried  out  in  English  to 
collect qualitative and quantitative data on different aspects of the intervention logic.  

  EU-level interviews with:  

1)  the  European  institutions  and  agencies  involved  in  programming  and 

implementing the EU promotion policy;  

procedure: 

33   Competitive 
00_en.pdf 
Grants  suspension  and  termination  https://ec.europa.eu/chafea/agri/sites/chafea/files/guidance-simple-
programmes-terminations-ga_en.pdf 

https://ec.europa.eu/chafea/agri/sites/chafea/files/agri-2016-61788-00-

34   https://ec.europa.eu/CHAFEA/agri/newsroom-and-events/events 
35   https://ec.europa.eu/CHAFEA/agri/newsroom-and-events/events/info-days-member-states-calls-

proposals-2018  

16 

 
 
                                                           
2)  external evaluators hired by CHAFEA for the selection of applications;  

3)  those  involved  in  other  EU  policies  in  the  field  of  trade,  development, 
environment,  climate  change  and  health  (e.g.  Directorates-General  for 
Trade,  International  Cooperation  and  Development,  Health  and  Food 
Safety, Environment and Maritime Affairs and Fisheries);  

4)  pan-European  agricultural  producer  and 

trade  organisations  and 

associations and  

5)  a non-governmental organisation. 

  Two online surveys. To collect the views of a wide range of stakeholders involved in 
the  policy:  one  survey  targeting  the  competent  national  authorities,  and  the  other 
targeting  the  proposing  organisations  (and  the  teams  implementing  the  measures), 
including successful and unsuccessful applicants. 

  Case studies. Data for the case studies was collected through: 

-  Case study document and data review: this  includes programme implementation 
or  evaluation  reports  (or  if  available,  evaluations  at  Member  State  level 
aggregating  the  results  of  all  programmes  funded),  as  well  as  secondary  data  to 
assess the effects of the programmes.  

-  Targeted  interviews:  with  at  least  one  competent  national  authority  and  one 
proposing  organisation  per  programme.  For  programmes  targeting  non-EU 
countries, the interviews includes a member of the EU Delegation in that country, 
a producer or trade association, where feasible, business delegates in the country, 
etc. 

  Public  consultation.  A  public  consultation  was  held  as  part  of  this  evaluation.  It 
generated  144  replies,  of  which  38  (i.e.  27%  of  the  respondents)  were  from  non-
governmental,  consumer  and  environmental  organisations,  64  (44%)  from  business 
organisations  /  associations  or  trade  unions,  12  (8%)  from  public  authorities,  17 
(12%) from EU citizens and 13 (9%) from academic/research institutions or ‘others’.  

The  analytical  tools  used  in  this  evaluation  included  programme  statistics  (such  as 
number of visitors at fairs and participants in non-EU delegations) and indicators (such as 
impact  indicators  measuring  the  impact  of  the  policy  on  change  in  awareness).  The 
review  of  the  programme  indicators  included  all  available  output,  result  and  impact 
indicators used for reporting on simple and multi programmes funded in 2016 and 2017. 
The  indicators  were  provided  by  CHAFEA  and  DG  AGRI.  For  the  support  study, 
complete indicator data was available for 74 out of 112simple programmes and all multi 
programmes. 

Limitations and robustness of findings 

The  evidence  collected  served  as  the  basis  for  a  robust  and  nuanced  assessment  of  the 
effects of the EU agricultural promotion policy, in addition to how and why these effects 
have been generated.  

However, the study faced a number of inherent challenges and resultant limitations. 

Impact indicators could often not be measured during the reporting, e.g. when data were 
not  yet  available  or  their  measurement  appeared  difficult.  The  analysis  could  therefore 
take into account output and result indicators only.  

17 

 
Some difficulties arose when evaluating the use of indicators as well. First, none of the 
promotion  programmes  had  ended,  so  final  impact  indicators  were  not  available.  In 
theory, the types of impact indicators set and compiled by independent evaluators would 
provide  evidence  that  the  policy’s  specific  objectives  are  met.  However,  these  are 
reported once a programme has been completed and, therefore, these were not available 
for  this  evaluation36.  By  the  end  of  2020,  output,  result  and  impact  indicators  are 
expected  to  be  available  only  for  the  multi  programmes  that  ended  in  the  first  part  of 
2020  (three-year  programmes  selected  in  2016  and  two-year  programmes  selected  in 
2017). 

Second, the range of indicators used in the different programmes made it impossible to 
use  them  to  assess  the  promotion  policy  overall.  For  example,  it  was  impossible  to 
aggregate impact indicators for different products promoted in different target countries, 
and it was inconsistent to merge samples of multi programmes with simple programmes. 

Third, many of the result indicators did not allow for meaningful conclusions to be drawn 
on the effectiveness of the promotion policy, because in many cases the intended results 
would not be sufficient to support the generation of impact assessments on the promotion 
policy’s specific objectives. 

Fourth,  the  causality  between  the  promotion  policy  and  changes  in  market  share  and 
awareness is difficult to measure with the present monitoring and evaluation framework. 
As  far  as  the  quantitative  impact  of  the  promotion  programmes  on  the  market  is  
concerned,  although  some  trade  data  are  available,  it  is  thus  not  possible  to  equate  the 
activities  of  the  campaigns  to  increases  in  consumption  or  market  share  of  the  specific 
products and conclude there is a causal link. This is due in part to the size and diversity 
of the market, which makes it difficult to attribute broader trends to the specific activities 
of  any  individual  programme37.  The  speed  of  change  in  the  food  and  drink  sectors  can 
also  make  it  difficult  to  attribute  observed  changes  to  any  specific  promotion 
programmes.  

As  pointed  out,  the  timing  of  the  evaluation38  meant  that  no  programmes  were  yet 
complete, which hampered the ability to fully assess the effectiveness of measures at this 
time. Second, the range of different programmes and Commission own initiatives meant 
that  a  ‘one-size-fits  all’  approach  could  not  be  applied  to  analyse  all  programmes  and 
initiatives.  Instead,  it  was  necessary  to  make  a  purposeful  selection  of  case  studies  to 
provide an in-depth analysis indicative of the bigger picture though not representative of 
all  programmes.  Third,  estimating  the  costs  and  benefits  of  the  promotion  policy  in 
quantitative terms proved unfeasible due to lack of comprehensive data. As a result, the 
assessment  of  links  between  operational  and  administrative  aspects  and  efficient 
achievement  of  results  had  to  be  based  primarily  on  the  qualitative  data  collected.  The 
simplification  of  procedures  and  processes  in  the  reformed  promotion  policy  did  not 
produce more quantitative data for  a cost  benefit  analysis.  It  is  important  to  keep these 
aspects in mind when analysing and interpreting the results of the study.  

36

  Self-reported  impact  indicators  are  available  for  multi  programmes,  but  these  should  be  used  with 

caution as they are not the final ones. 

37 For a more detailed description, see part 5.1.2 of the evaluation support study. 

38   See Chapter 1 Introduction. 

18 

 
 
                                                           
 
A  further  challenge  relates  to  the  difficulty  to  isolate  specific  effects  of  the  promotion 
policy  measures  from  the  influence  of  contextual  factors,  which  was  addressed  by 
analysing  the  promotion  policy  within  a  wider  context.  Nevertheless  this  is  a  residual 
limitation of the evaluation.  

The 144 replies received in the public consultation result in a low statistical significance. 

5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

The evaluation gives an assessment of the effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance, 
and  EU  value  added  of  the  EU  agricultural  promotion  policy  on  the  basis  of  six 
evaluation questions.  

5.1 Effectiveness  

Two  evaluation  questions  aim  at  assessing  the  extent  to  which  the  EU  agricultural 
promotion  policy has been effective in  achieving its specific objectives and the general 
objective to enhance the competitiveness of EU agricultural products, and to assess how 
the  policy  design  has  contributed  to  its  effectiveness.  The  assessment  is  based  on  data 
available  from  the  document  review,  online  survey,  interviews  and  evidence  from  case 
studies conducted in the support study. 

5.1.1 Effectiveness in achieving the  specific objectives and the  general objective  to 
enhance competitiveness  

Increased awareness of merits and high standards 

Given  the  multiple  limitations  of  the  analysis  (explained  in  chapter  4),  it  is  difficult  to 
quantify  the  extent  to  which  the  promotion  policy  is  effective  in  contributing  to 
increasing the awareness of the merits of EU agricultural products and the high standards 
applicable  to  EU  production  methods,  or  the  exact  size  and  profile  of  the  target  group 
reached  in  internal  and  external  markets.  The  evaluation  study39  found  that  there  is 
stakeholder consensus that EU policy and programmes contributed to raising awareness 
and reaching the target groups, as least to some extent. It also found evidence to confirm 
the promotion of messages on the merits of EU agricultural products. 

responses  showed 

The  stakeholder  survey 
(proposing 
organisations,  implementing  bodies,  national  competent  authorities)  agreed  that  the  EU 
agricultural promotion policy had reached the target audiences of the programmes (both 
EU and non-EU target audiences). A comparative analysis of the online survey responses 
across the different objectives shows that:  

that  most  stakeholders 

  proposing  organisations  and  implementing  bodies  are  mostly  positive  about  the 
effects of the EU agricultural promotion policy. Notably it  has raised awareness 
of the merits of EU products and the high standards applicable (51% (59) strongly 
agreed), it increased awareness and recognition of EU quality schemes (42% (49) 

39 https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/key-policies/common-agricultural-
policy/cmef/regulation-and-simplification/evaluation-support-study-eu-agricultural-promotion-policy-
internal-and-third-country-markets_en 

19 

 
 
 
                                                           
strongly agreed) and it has contributed to enhancing the overall competitiveness 
of the EU agricultural sector (42% (49) strongly agreed);  

  national  competent  authorities  were  most  positive  about  the  promotion  policy’s 

effectiveness in achieving the policy’s general objective; 

  both the national competent authorities and the proposing organisations surveyed 
had  slightly  less  confident  views  on  the  policy’s  effectiveness  in  achieving 
specific objectives relating to increasing consumption and market share.  

Figure  2  Stakeholder  perception  in  the  EU  on  the  awareness  of  the  merits  of  EU 
agricultural products and high standards of production  

The EU’s Agricultural promotion policy increases awareness of 
the merits of EU agricultural products and of the high standards 
applicable to production methods in the EU 

Successful proposing organisation (N = 80)

54% 

45% 

1% 

Unsuccessful proposing organisation (N = 11)

27% 

Implementing body (N=25)

52% 

National Competent Authority (N=26)

27% 

64% 

65% 

44% 

9% 

4% 

8% 

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Cannot say

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Source: support study (adaptation) 

According to Eurobarometer No 50440 released in October 2020, 81% of respondents are 
aware of the merits of EU agriculture in terms of high standards. 

The reform brought  in  the mandatory use of the signature ‘Enjoy!  It’s from  Europe’ in 
the  visuals  of  the  promotion  measures.  The  support  study  showed  different  levels  of 
appreciation  of  that  signature  by  target  audiences  in  the  EU  and  in  non-EU  countries. 
While  reaching  the  target  audience  appears  to  be  easier  within  the  EU,  the  message 
stressing quality standards of products was more relevant in non-EU countries, where it 
was  associated  with  other  values  such  as  safety  and  tradition.  The  signature  was 
generally well received with some minor concerns raised, such as the generic nature and 
limited use of brands and specific country origin. Target audiences in non-EU countries 
may have limited knowledge of individual  countries in  Europe, but  they  do understand 
where  Europe  is  and  can  usually  easily  associate  the  signature  with  Europe.  Most 
stakeholders agreed that, to the extent of their knowledge, the signature is starting to gain 
widespread recognition  in  non-EU  countries.  About  a quarter of the stakeholders noted 
that signature identification is  still not as high as  hoped for. However, they  agreed that 
the level of awareness is slowly increasing and gathering momentum and that keeping the 
same “”signature can help boost recognition.  

40https://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/survey/getsurveydetail/instruments/special

/surveyky/2229 (page 16). 

20 

 
 
                                                           
Increased competitiveness, consumption and raised profile 

The  exact  effect  that  the  promotional  policy  had  on  the  level  of  consumption  and 
competitiveness of EU agricultural products is very difficult to calculate, notably due to 
the timing of the evaluation and the many external factors (political, legal and regulatory 
changes, broader economic developments, etc.) that influence sales and consumption.  

Although  case  studies  of  promotion  programmes  for  selected  sectors  (wine,  beer  and 
vinegar,  fruit  and  vegetables  and  meat)  proved  inconclusive  in  terms  of  assessing  the 
impact  on competitiveness,  the stakeholders consulted in  the support study  expressed  a 
positive  perception  of  the  policy’s  effects  on  consumption  and  competitiveness,  with 
respondents from the dairy sector being the most positive regarding the effects on overall 
competitiveness and respondents from the meat sector the least positive.  

21 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3 Stakeholder perception on consumption and competitiveness 

The EU’s Agricultural promotion policy has a positive impact on 
the consumption of EU agricultural products and certain food 
products inside the EU. 

Successful proposing organisation (N = 80)

8% 

62% 

8% 

23% 

Unsuccessful proposing organisation (N = 11)

44% 

48% 

4% 

4% 

Implementing body (N=25)

27% 

55% 

9% 

9% 

National Competent Authority (N=26)

31% 

60% 

Strongly agree

Agree

0%
Disagree

20%

40%

Strongly disagree

60%

80%
Cannot say

1% 
6% 

1% 

100%

The EU’s Agricultural promotion policy has a positive impact on 
the consumption of EU agricultural products and certain food 
products outside the EU 

Successful proposing organisation (N = 80)

36% 

48% 

1% 

15% 

Unsuccessful proposing organisation (N = 11)

18% 

73% 

9% 

Implementing body (N =21)

National Competent Authority (N =26)

36% 

31% 

40% 

8% 

16% 

42% 

27% 

Strongly Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Cannot say

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

The EU’s Agricultural promotion policy contributes to enhancing 
the overall competitiveness of the Union's agricultural sector  

Successful proposing organisation (N = 80)

45% 

55% 

Unsuccessful proposing organisation (N = 11)

9% 

82% 

Implementing body (N=25)

48% 

44% 

9% 

8% 

National Competent Authority (N=26)

19% 

69% 

4% 

8% 

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Cannot say

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Source: support study (adaptation) 

This  positive  perception  is  echoed  in  the  replies  to  the  public  consultation.  Most 
respondents agreed that the EU's promotion measures both on the EU market (71% (102) 

22 

 
of  replies)  and  outside 
competitiveness41. 

the  EU  (62%  (89)  met 

the  objective  of 

increasing 

The case studies  provided some evidence, e.g. for EU fruit and vegetables marketed in 
the  United  Arab  Emirates,  that  the  selected  programmes  contributed  to  increased  sales 
and  consumption  in  the  target  markets,  with  programmes  targeting  non-EU  markets 
having a higher potential than programmes targeting the EU market.  

The case study interviews also highlighted that activities focusing on direct contact with 
consumers,  networking  at  trade  fairs  and  events,  product  promotion  by  influencers  and 
using  social  media  instead  of  journalists  in  promotional  campaigns  were  found  to  be 
particularly effective in increasing competitiveness and consumption. 

Awareness and recognition of quality schemes 

Special  Eurobarometer  No  47342  provides  a  useful  picture  of  consumer  perception, 
highlighting  the  relative  importance  of  EU  quality  labels  on  purchase  decisions  (albeit 
EU consumers lack awareness of the schemes43). In 2018, one third of EU respondents 
were not aware of any of the EU quality labels, but 63% of respondents were aware of at 
least  one  of  the  logos.  According  to  the  latest  EU-wide  survey  of  public  opinion  on 
agriculture  and  the  CAP  (Eurobarometer  504),  in  2020,  57%  was  aware  of  the  organic 
label,  14%  of  the  ‘protected  designation  of  origin’  label  and  20%  of  the  ‘protected 
geographical  indication’  label44.  The  survey  found  a  significant  increase  in  the  EU 
(+30 percentage points) in recognition of the EU organic label and a consistent increase 
of the fair trade and protected geographical indication labels since 2017, recognition of 
the other EU quality labels remaining stable over the reference period.  

It is difficult to assess the effects of the promotion of EU quality schemes on consumer 
perception,  given  the  lack  of  data  on  recognition  in  non-EU  markets.  The  in-depth 
interviews  at  EU  level  indicate  potential  of  the  programmes  targeting  EU  and  non-EU 
markets with awareness-raising activity on quality schemes, rather than evidence of this 
in  practice.  However,  since  the  promotion  policy  included  organic  produce,  the 
awareness  of  the  organic  label  increased  with  30 percentage  points  between  2018  and 
2020 (Eurobarometer 504), which can be partly attributed to the impact of the promotion 
policy.  There  was  also  a  slight  increase  in  the  level  of  awareness  of  the  ‘protected 
geographical indication’ label while awareness of the other EU labels remained the same. 

41   Public 

consultation 

on 

the 

evaluation 

of 

the  EU 

agricultural 

promotion 

policy. 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/1859-Evaluation-of-the-EU-
agricultural-promotion-policy/public-consultation 

42

  Special Eurobarometer No 473: Europeans’ Attitudes Towards Food Security, Food Quality and The 

Countryside, February 2018.  

43   The  Fairtrade  logo  (not  an  EU  logo!)  achieved  the  highest  recognition  (37%),  followed  by  the  EU 
organic farming label (27%), the protected designation of origin and protected geographical indication 
logos (both 18%) and 15% were aware of the traditional speciality guaranteed logo. Awareness varied 
considerably  by  Member  State.  For  example,  respondents  in  France  (45%),  Italy  (32%)  and  Greece 
(31%) are the most likely to be aware of the protected designation of origin, while those in Romania, 
Malta, the UK and Denmark (all 5%) are least likely. 

44   See footnote 31 (page 16). 

23 

 
 
                                                           
Figure  4  Substantial  increase  in  awareness  of  the  organic  farming  logo,  while  all 
others remain stable 

Source: Eurobarometer No 504, October 2020 

The stakeholders interviewed or who responded to the online survey were confident that 
the programmes had contributed to  increasing  awareness  and recognition  of the quality 
schemes. Over 95% of stakeholders considered that the agricultural promotion policy had 
increased awareness of the EU quality schemes among target audiences. 

The case studies confirmed that differences in the level of awareness of quality schemes 
can have an effect on success (with lower initial levels of awareness making it harder for 
programmes to achieve an increase). The case studies covering non-EU markets showed 
the promotion of quality labels did have some traction (for example on the US market for 
wines  and  spirits)  but  also  challenges,  such  as  perceived  consumer  indifference  to  the 
labels (in the United Arab Emirates). 

24 

 
 
Figure  5  Stakeholder  perception  on  the  level  of  awareness  and  recognition  of  EU 
quality schemes 

The EU’s Agricultural promotion policy increases awareness and 
recognition of the EU quality schemes among target audiences 

Successful proposing organisation (N
= 80)

43% 

51% 

4% 

3% 

Unsuccessful proposing organisation
(N = 11)

18% 

82% 

Implementing body (N =21)

52% 

44% 

National Competent Authority (N
=26)

27% 

69% 

4% 

4% 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Cannot say

Source: support study45 (adaptation) 

Influencing market share 

Desk research conducted as part of the case studies showed an increase in both sales and 
exports of several EU agricultural products promoted by the programmes. However the 
extent to which the promotion programmes (200 contracts signed over the period 2016-
2018  excluding  abandoned  programmes)  contributed  to  these  results  is  impossible  to 
assess, given the large number of factors affecting the market46. 

Stakeholders  agree  the  promotion  policy  has  had  an  effect  on  influencing  the  market 
share  of  the  EU  agricultural  products,  in  particular  by  providing  support  to  help  EU 
producers enter certain new markets. This is particularly effective for non-EU markets47 
though  reports  on  programme-level  results  confirm  that,  at  this  point,  there  is  limited 
concrete evidence to substantiate this perception. Regarding promotion campaigns for EU 
wine,  beer,  spirits  and  vinegar  in  the  USA,  all  coordinators,  consortium  partners  and 
implementing  agencies  interviewed  for  this  case  study  reported  anecdotal  evidence  of 
increased sales on the US market.  There has been an increase in  the sales value of EU 
exports  to  the  US  over  the  evaluation  period  for  wine,  brandy  and  gin/genever, 
suggesting that EU trade competitiveness increased in general over this period.  

Interviewees  stopped  short  of  directly  linking  their  increased  sales  to  the  awareness 
campaigns, but they did report significant investments by individual brands in sales and 
direct marketing, which is likely to have had a more direct and/or significant impact on 

45   https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/key-policies/common-agricultural-

policy/cmef/regulation-and-simplification/evaluation-support-study-eu-agricultural-promotion-policy-
internal-and-third-country-markets_en 

46   The  number of export contracts signed following promotion activities (e.g.  high-level  visits  mediated 
by  the  Commission)  may  provide  an  indication  of  the  extent  to  which  promotion  programmes 
contributed to sales and exports. 

47   Notably, for EU wine sold to the USA, dairy products to China, fruit and vegetables to the United Arab 

Emirates and meat and fruit and vegetables sold on the EU market. See Annex 2 case studies. 

25 

 
                                                           
sales.  They  perceived  the  campaigns  as  a  ‘springboard’  or  ‘starting  point’  to  educate 
influencers,  opinion  setters  and  ultimately  consumers  about  the  specific  products 
promoted. 

Figure 6 Export value of wine, beer, brandy and gin/genever from EU-28 to USA 

o
r
u
e
n
o
i
l
l
i

B

3

2,5

2

1,5

1

0,5

0

1,95 

2,00 

1,18 

0,62 

0,16 

2013

1,15 

0,67 

0,19 

2014

2,28 

1,47 

0,95 

0,23 

2015

2,35 

1,41 

1,10 

0,22 

2016

2,53 

2,65 

1,35 
1,22 

1,29 
1,21 

0,23 

2017

0,24 

2018

Wine

Spirits

Beer

Gin and genever

Asti Spumante (PDO)

Source: Eurostat (chart by Ipsos) 

As illustrated by Figure 7, different stakeholders have very different views on the extent 
to which the promotion policy increases market share. Only 54% of responding national 
competent  authorities  thought  that  the  agricultural  policy  increased  the  market  share  of 
EU agricultural products and certain food products, against 91% of successful proposing 
organisations,  64%  of  unsuccessful  proposing  organisations  and  92%  for  implementing 
bodies. 

Figure 7 Stakeholder perception of effect on market share 

The EU’s Agricultural promotion policy increases the market 
share of EU agricultural products and certain food products 

Successful proposing organisation (N = 80)

35% 

56% 

1% 
3% 

5% 

Unsuccessful proposing organisation (N = 11)

64% 

9% 

27% 

Implementing body (N =21)

44% 

48% 

4% 

4% 

National Competent Authority (N =26)

54% 

8% 

38% 

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Cannot say

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Source: support study (adaptation). 

Case studies indicated that in most markets targeted by programmes, positive trends can 
be  seen  for  the  products  promoted  (in  terms  of  increased  exports  or  sales  on  the  target 
market).  Stakeholder  interviews  from  case  studies  back  up  the  perception  that  the 
promotion  policy  met  its  goal  to  target  markets  in  non-EU  countries  with  high-growth 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
potential. Figure 8 illustrates the example of the increase in EU exports of dairy products 
to China, which was the goal of several promotion programmes (see Annex 2).  

Figure 8 Volume of total exports from EU-28 of dairy products to China 

8,175 

8,198 

7,749 

7,495 

7,08 

)
s
n
o
t

n
o
i
l
l
i

m

(

y
t
i
t
n
a
u
Q

8,4

8,2

8

7,8

7,6

7,4

7,2

7

6,8

6,6

6,4

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Total export EU-28

Source: CLAL (based on Eurostat and IHS) (2019-2019). Dataset EU-28: Dairy sector. 

Though  it  is  impossible  to  attribute  fully  these  trends  to  the  programmes  funded, 
stakeholders suggest that the programmes make a positive contribution to these results.  

Restoring normal market conditions 

The  effectiveness  of  the  programme  in  addressing  the  specific  objective  of  restoring 
normal  market  conditions cannot  be  assessed due to  the lack of measures  implemented 
over  the  evaluation  period.  The  evaluation  did  not  identify  situations  in  which  such 
measures should have been used in the evaluation period. Additional calls for proposals 
were launched for the first time on 30 June 2020 in response to the Covid-19 crisis. 

The general objective of the EU promotion policy 

Overall, the evaluation finds positive signs that the programmes funded are in line with 
the policy’s objective to enhance the competitiveness of EU agricultural products and are 
making  progress  towards  achieving  the  policy’s  specific  objectives.  However,  a  full 
assessment  of  the  policy’s  effectives  is  premature.  It  should  be  carried  out  once  the 
programmes have come to an end and the impact can be more fully assessed.  

5.1.2 Contribution of the policy design to its effectiveness 

Budget, co-financing rates and eligibility criteria 

Feedback  from  the  case  studies  and  in-depth  interviews  indicated  that,  although  the 
current  level  of  co-financing  (generally  perceived  to  be  relatively  high)  is  considered 
appropriate  to  attract  small-scale  organisations,  the  successful  organisations  are  usually 
the better resourced ones (and they are often able to seek support from organisations that 
would help implement the programmes if successful, i.e. advertising agencies). Smaller 
organisations  are  likely  to  be  weaker  not  only  in  terms  of  their  financial  resources  but 
other  resources  too,  e.g.  human  resources  or  expertise  in  marketing  and  product 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
promotion, which in turn can have a negative impact on the extent to which programme 
measures are implemented effectively. 

Proposing organisations and implementing bodies praised the levels of co-financing and 
budgets  in  terms  of  attracting  proposals  of  satisfactory  quality  and  ensuring  effective 
implementation of the proposed measures.  

The fact that the percentage of ineligible proposals decreased over the period 2016-2019 
for  both  simple  and  multi  programmes  (except  for  multi  programmes  in  2017,  where 
ineligibility  went  up  temporarily)  implies  that  organisations  gradually  became  familiar 
with  the  new  requirements  and  ineligible  organisations  ceased  applying.  However,  the 
decrease  may  also  be  attributable  to  the  action  taken  to  better  inform  and  guide 
applicants,  via  info  days,  frequently  asked  questions  and  other  information  published 
online (such as webinars and the eligibility checker).  

Results from the online survey (covering both successful and unsuccessful organisations) 
combined  with  stakeholder  views  collected  by  means  of  in-depth  interviews  and  case 
studies  show  that  most  stakeholders  (survey  respondents  and  interviewees)  reported 
having  a  positive  impression  of  the  fairness  of  the  rules  (e.g.  over  half  of  all  survey 
respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the eligibility criteria were fair). 

A significant  share  of producers requested  a larger budget  for the promotion  policy.  In 
particular,  most  fresh  fruit  and  vegetable  producers  favoured  support  for  promotion 
campaigns in the EU market. Several respondents in the public consultation requested a 
higher contribution from the European Commission to the co-financing rates, and a two-
step selection procedure that would reduce the submission costs. Some respondents asked 
for  more  flexibility  on  the  financial  arrangements  such  as  more  advance  payments  and 
interim  instead  of  annual  payments.  Some  underlined  the  need  to  digitalise  reporting 
from  proposing  organisations  to  the  Member  States.  They  also  emphasised  the  need  to 
simplify the requirements during the selection of implementing bodies. Some suggested 
that  two  calls  for  proposals  per  year  would  be  more  adequate.  Some  Member  States 
highlighted  difficulties  faced  by  smaller  organisations  in  their  countries  who  are  not 
eligible,  or  do  not  have  sufficient  financial  capacity  to  submit  applications  given  the 
current rate of co-funding required.  

Extended scope 

Overall,  the  qualitative  feedback  on  the  scope  of  the  eligibility  rules  was  positive.  No 
concerns were raised by those assessing the proposals; nor by those managing the process 
(i.e.  CHAFEA  and  the  national  authorities).  Proposing  organisations  described  the 
extended  scope  as  providing  greater  ‘flexibility’  and  ‘freedom’  and  thereby  facilitating 
the  effectiveness  of  the  programmes  by  allowing  organisations  that  may  not  have  been 
previously  eligible  to  be  involved.  EU-wide  agricultural  producer  organisations  also 
appreciated  that  the  list  of  types  of  eligible  products  was  extended.  They  specifically 
mentioned  the  inclusion  of  food-industry  products,  instead  of  only  primary-agricultural 
products under the previous regime.  

There was no evidence/examples of issues or problems caused by extending the scope of 
eligible proposing organisations and/or products such as ambiguity of rules, exclusion of 
relevant  organisations  to  date.  This  is  confirmed  by  all  sources  of  input,  including  the 
online survey, case studies and in-depth interviews. 

Most of the respondents to the public consultation had a positive (38%) or very positive 
(27%) opinion on the impact of extending the eligibility of proposing organisations and 

28 

 
the  list  of  products  for  funding  under  promotion,  with  only  13%  expressing  a  negative 
opinion. 

Shared and direct management 

indicated  a  higher 

Overall,  respondents 
level  of  stakeholder  satisfaction  with 
management  by  CHAFEA  than  with  management  by  national  authorities.  This  relates 
partly to the fact that CHAFEA is better placed to administer the programmes, given its 
deeper understanding of the programmes and their underlying aims, as well as having the 
dedicated  systems  and  experienced  staff.  Having  sufficient  management  resources  is 
more  challenging  for  some  national  authorities  than  for  others,  which  may  have  given 
rise to the other issues highlighted: 

  national  authorities’  inconsistent  interpretation  of  the  guidelines  and  application 
of procedures and rules, which implies a need for greater harmonisation of rules 
to  reduce  confusion,  ensure  a  level  playing  field  for  applicants  and  create  more 
opportunities to exchange good practice; 

  national  authorities’  difficulties  in  accessing  the  information  they  need  and 
proposing  organisations’  difficulties  in  knowing  which  managing  authority  to 
contact  for  information  (i.e.  CHAFEA  or  national  authorities).  This  remains  an 
issue,  even  though  the  CHAFEA  website  provides  exhaustive  guidance  and 
addresses many replies in the frequently asked questions; 

  national  authorities  reported  a  lack  of  confidence  in  their  approval  and 

implementation of adjustments; 

  proposing organisations perceived a lack of flexibility with budgetary/contractual 
or other adjustments  in  simple programmes,  which means it is  difficult  to make 
the measures responsive to contextual changes. 

Provisions on origin and brands 

Approximately 40% of national and EU-wide organisations who responded to the online 
survey faced issues  with  restrictions on mentions of  origin and the visibility of brands. 
The in-depth interviews and case studies revealed concerns about the extent to which the 
provisions on origin and brands were in line with the needs of proposing organisations. 
The  most  common  concerns  raised  on  the  requirement  to  have  the  EU  message  as  the 
primary focus are related to the:  

  dissemination of the message that the product promoted is of ‘European’ origin, 
as  it  was  suggested  in  the  survey  that  there  is  typically  significantly  higher 
consumer awareness of a specific country or region than of ‘Europe’; 

  disclaimer accompanying the EU message, stating that the EU is not responsible 

 

for the content of the message, which is confusing and self-defeating; 
restrictions on visibility  that discourage involvement from  stakeholders  who are 
not  willing  to  invest  resources  in  a  campaign  that  restricts  to  a  large  extent  the 
mention of brands and origins; 

  perception that multiple messages, brand-related outside the programmes and not 
brand-related inside the programmes, dilute the effectiveness of the measures; 
restrictions in  mentioning the country of origin,  which limit the effectiveness  of 
the programmes  as  the national  brand may sometimes be stronger  and serve the 
campaign better than the fairly generic reference to ‘European products’. 

 

At  the  same  time,  the  evaluation  highlights  the  importance  of  examining  the  policy 
against  the  principle  of  non-discrimination  and  the  fact  that  the  policy  is  inherently  an 
EU policy and not a national or private policy. In this context, given the complementary 

29 

 
nature of EU action in this area, ensuring that the EU message is the main message of the 
campaigns and the consequent restrictions in the provisions on origin and brands appear 
to  support  their  intended  purpose.  Moreover,  this  approach  safeguards  related  EU 
agricultural  policies  (such  as  on  quality  logos)  and  fulfils  the  principle  of  non-
discrimination,  which  prohibits  giving  favourable  treatment  on  the  grounds  of 
nationality. 

All  in  all,  when  taking  the  above  into  consideration  and  in  the  absence  of  a  counter-
factual measurement which would indicate how different  rules impact  the effectiveness 
of the measures, it is challenging to establish a link between the concerns expressed by 
some stakeholders and the potential impact of these issues on policy effectiveness. 

In  addition,  the  144  respondents  to  the  public  consultation  had  different,  albeit  mostly 
positive opinions regarding the new possibility to help promote EU agricultural and food 
products  by  allowing  a  restricted  mention  of  the  origin  and  display  of  brands  on  the 
visuals  created:  16%  consider  it  effective  ‘to  a  large  extent’,  35%  ‘to  a  fairly  good 
extent’, 27% ‘to some extent only’, only 4% replying ‘not at all’ and 19% ‘don’t know’.  

Monitoring and evaluation system of the simple and multi programmes 

According  to  available  data,  there  is  significant  variation  in  the  way  that  proposing 
organisations  report  on  promotion  programmes  indicators  (see  table  below  on  output 
indicators48), and full  compliance with  the Commission’s requirements is  not  achieved. 
Indicator data was  missing for 36 out  of 110 simple programmes implemented in  2016 
and 2017. 

Information collected from the online survey, the in-depth interviews and the case studies 
lay bare a number of limitations with the current system: 

  Most  national  authorities  who  participated  in  the  online  survey  agreed  that  the 
monitoring  and  reporting  system  is  clear,  useful  and  proportionate.  Most 
successful proposing organisations (78%) also agreed that reporting requirements 
are easy to understand. However, this perception is not confirmed by the findings 
from  the  case  studies,  where  national  authorities  and  proposing  organisations 
reported difficulties to understand the content of simple programmes.  

 

  National authorities in charge of simple programmes also reported difficulties in 
understanding the concept of the key performance indicators and how they should 
be used in the reporting process.  
Information  collected  from  case  studies  and  in-depth  interviews  suggests  that 
proposing organisations and implementing organisations view the monitoring and 
evaluation  system  as  work-intensive  and  demanding,  especially  when  specific 
promotion services/activities are subcontracted. Reporting on indicators comes on 
top  of  time-consuming  programmes  that  must  be  delivered  on  time.  This  seems 
also  to  relate  to  the  issue  of  how  well  stakeholders  understand  the  reporting 
process,  as  limited  understanding  makes  the  process  more  time-consuming,  and 
restricts the scope to learn the monitoring process. Burdensome reporting can also 

48   Variation is also found in the reporting of the result indicators, although programmes were more likely 
to report on result indicators than output indicators taken as a whole. The average percentage of simple 
programmes  reporting  on  output  indicators  was  47%,  against  54%  for  result  indicators.  For  multi 
programmes,  the  average  percentage  of  simple  programmes  reporting  on  output  indicators  was  62%, 
against 70% for result indicators. 

30 

 
                                                           
potentially  have  an  impact  on  the  effectiveness  of  the  measures,  as  it  limits  the 
time available for design and implementation of programme activities.  

Table 1 Number of output indicators reported in programmes 

Indicator 

O1 Number of stands at trade fairs 
organised 
O2 Number of seminars/workshops 
organised 
O3 Number of press conferences 
organised 
O4 Number of tastings days at points of 
sales organised 
O6 Number of study visits organised 
O8 Number of spots aired on TV 
O9 Number of spots aired on radio 
O10 Number of published print adds 
O11 Number of published advertorials 
O12 Number of published online adds 
O13 Number of press releases 
O14 Number of email newsletters sent 
out 

2016 and 2017 Simple 
Programmes (N=74) 
% of total 

N= 

Multi programmes (N=16) 

N= 

% of total 

60 

48 

34 

40 

35 
20 
24 
42 
26 
43 
50 
27 

81% 

65% 

46% 

54% 

47% 
27% 
32% 
57% 
35% 
58% 
68% 
36% 

10 

14 

10 

12 

8 
9 
8 
13 
8 
9 
15 
10 

63% 

88% 

63% 

75% 

50% 
56% 
50% 
81% 
50% 
56% 
94% 
63% 

Source: support study (based on data from DG AGRI and CHAFEA) 

Additional observations can be made about the indicators: 

  The  current  indicator  framework  described  in  the  Regulation  is  incomplete:  the 
three levels of indicators are not sufficient to capture the effects of the simple and 
multi programmes. In a performance chain, each step of the chain should, at least 
in  theory,  generate  the  next  level  of  effects.  However,  there  is  a  missing  step 
between the stated ‘results’ and the intended ‘impacts’. For example, it is difficult 
to ascertain that there was a direct link between the number of website visits or 
event participants and an increase in consumption.  

  The allocation of indicators to the headings outputs, results and impacts are less 
than clear and usable. Some impact indicators currently listed can be beyond the 
direct scope of impact of simple and multi programmes, even if the programmes 
may  have  some  influence  on  these  aspects.  Impact  indicators  such  as  change  in 
market share may mainly result from agricultural market dynamics: world prices, 
quantities  harvested,  etc.  Promotion  and  commercial  activities  cannot  change 
these dynamics on their own and should be complemented with other tools.  
  At the results level, there is a focus on quantitative indicators (on the number of 
target audience reached, number of press coverings, value of press clippings and 
number of subscribers to a newsletter). As they currently stand, indicators at this 
level  require  mostly  quantitative  data  that  attempt  to  provide  a  straightforward 
numerical  description  of  the  issues/success  of  the  programmes  and  steer  the 
policy response in a specific direction, and to easily measure the success or failure 
of  a  programme.  This  design  of  the  indicators,  especially  those  tracking  results 
and  impact,  lacks  recognition  that  data  on  the  promotion  policy  continue  to  be 
subject  to  contextual  and  other  limitations,  which  would  require  systematic 
reporting of qualitative information. 

31 

 
 
Overall, the evaluation finds that there is greater satisfaction with the system as rolled out 
for  multi  programmes  than  for  simple  programmes  due  to  CHAFEA  providing  more 
support  for  multi  programmes  than  national  authorities  do  for  simple  programmes  and 
because multi programmes with their international scope are more powerful in achieving 
results. 

Once  complete,  it  will  be  difficult  to  assess  programme  impact  because  relevant 
indicators  have  been  difficult  to  calculate,  and  therefore  the  focus  of  monitoring  and 
evaluation  is  on  outputs  and  results  and  not  impact.  There  are  difficulties  and  costs  in 
capturing robust evidence on impacts due to the likely weak causal effects of information 
and promotion measures on, for example, impacts such as market share. This situation is 
exacerbated by the difficulties experienced by proposing organisations in understanding 
how  to  set  appropriate  indicators  and  systems  to  capture  the  required  data,  and  by  the 
administrative burden in the reporting process, which some stakeholders found excessive.  

Overall, a general lack of focus on the quantitative effects makes it difficult to assess at 
the aggregate level how target audiences have responded to the information they received 
and whether improvements could be made across the programmes.  

5.1.3 Commission own initiatives 

The  assessment  of  the  extent  to  which  Commission  own  initiatives  contributed  to  the 
effectiveness  of  the  promotion  policy  is  based  on  available  Commission  data,  desk 
research and interviews with key stakeholders.  

The limited evidence gathered on technical support, which account for a small proportion 
of  the  budget  (4%)  and  19%  of  the  contracts  signed  for  allocated  to  Commission  own 
initiatives, suggests it does provide cross-cutting support to EU agricultural organisations 
on the type of support available and how to access it. The portal created to help potential 
applicants  and  the  webinars  have,  according  to  feedback  from  the  surveys,  improved 
understanding of the promotion policy, of market opportunities and of the new rules for 
applications. 

The high-level missions (accounting for 25% of awarded contracts under own initiatives 
and 13% of the budget), are part of the EU’s economic diplomacy activities. They appear 
to  be successful at  facilitating market  access  for EU agri-food products  by successfully 
raising awareness. An overwhelming majority of attendees reported a level of satisfaction 
of over 90%, as well as new contacts being concluded as a result of these missions.   

Trade fairs, which account for 17% of the budget and 22% of contracts awarded, proved 
to  be  particularly  successful  and  an  effective  communication  channel  to  support 
awareness  raising  of  the  merits  and  quality  schemes  of  EU  agricultural  products  (e.g. 
quality  standards  and  geographical  indications).  Positive  feedback  was  reported  in  all 
cases (90%). 

The assessment found a high level of satisfaction with EU product quality/SPS (sanitary 
and phytosanitary standards) seminars, which account for 9% of the budget and 19% of 
overall  contracts  awarded,  involve  government  officials  and  business  representatives 
from  the sector providing information  on EU products  and standards (over 90%). Most 
participants  reported  an  increased  knowledge  of  EU  standards  and  of  the  merits  of  EU 
agricultural products. 

Communication campaigns, which accounted for the largest share of budget (56%) aim 
to follow up on other own initiatives and support EU-led business delegations engaging 
for the first time with target audiences in non-EU countries. The data available indicate 

32 

 
that such campaigns have successfully increased  the target  audience’s understanding of 
EU products and their quality.  

As above, the assessment found that action under Commission own initiatives: 

  contributed  to  increasing  awareness  among  stakeholders  in  non-EU  markets, 
which  helps  create  a  favourable  environment  to  promote  EU  agri-products  and 
helps boost the competitiveness of EU products; 

  contribute,  to  some  extent,  to  the  objective  of  increasing  the  awareness  and 
recognition of the merits and high standards of EU products, and of quality labels; 
increase  consumer  awareness  of  the  merits  of  EU  agricultural  products,  notably 
the presence at international trade fairs and visits of EU stakeholders; 

 

  consistent targeting of certain countries since 2017 improved the effectiveness of 

measures (as shown by the increasing success of initiatives in China49). 

Figure 9 Effectiveness of EU promotion measures (Commission own initiatives) (in 
%) 

High-level missions

32% 

29% 

10% 

7% 

22% 

Participation in fairs

16% 

51% 

11% 

0% 

22% 

Quality, Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards
Seminars

21% 

26% 

16% 

9% 

28% 

Communication campaigns

35% 

36% 

13% 

3% 

13% 

Production of market entry handbooks

23% 

36% 

15% 

6% 

21% 

Very effective

Effective

Not fully effective

Not at all effective

I don´t know

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Source: public consultation 2020, 144 respondents 

Most  respondents  to  the  public  consultation  expressed  positive  views  about  the 
effectiveness of EU promotion measures: communication campaigns (71%), participation 
in  fairs  (67%)  and  high-level  missions  (60%),  production  of  market  entry  handbooks 
(59%). Only 47% gave a positive assessment on the effectiveness of seminars. 

Monitoring and evaluation system of Commission own initiatives 
Given  that  some  initiatives  were  still  ongoing  or  closed  recently,  only  a  limited 
assessment  of  the  quality  of  reporting  was  possible.  The  assessment  reveals  that  key 
performance  indicators  give  a  sense  of  the  results  and  outcomes,  but  provide  limited 
information  on  impact  (it  is  difficult  to  draw  a  link  between  individual  initiatives  and 
changes in market conditions). They mainly track the perceptions of participants, giving 
rather limited evidence of quantifiable impact (e.g. number of contracts signed, increase 

49 See Annex 2, Case study 2: European Dairy Products in China. 

33 

 
 
 
                                                           
in sales). There was a lack of standardisation at EU level of project-specific indicators for 
all projects.  

Overall, the usefulness  of reporting  could  be improved by having  clearer  definitions of 
specific expected results (e.g. in terms of targets), of performance measures and systems 
to  collect  data.  CHAFEA  and  DG  AGRI  have  already  remedied  this  weakness  by 
streamlining the set of indicators and clarifying the methodology for measurement. 

5.2 Efficiency  

The evaluation found that the promotion policy is broadly efficient but efficiency can be 
improved, for example by better quantifying the costs and benefits. Due to limitations of 
the monitoring and evaluation system and the lack of completed projects, the costs and 
benefits  of  most  promotion  measures  could  not  be  measured.  Where  impact  could  be 
measured  precisely  e.g.  the  pig  meat  programme  in  China  that  increased  awareness  of 
intrinsic  values  of  the  Union  agricultural  products  with  18  percentage  points  and  the 
cheese programme in Columbia and Mexico generating a market share increase of 16 and 
11 percentage points respectively, the attribution of the impact to the policy is difficult as 
also  other  factor  can  have  played  a  role.  The  same  applies  to  the  positive  outcome  of 
promotion  programmes  shown  in  the  six  case  studies  described  in  Annex  2  of  the 
evaluation support study50: 

1.  Wine, beer, spirits and vinegar in the USA 

2.  Dairy products in China 

3.  Fruit and vegetables in the United Arab Emirates 

4.  Products recognised under European quality schemes in the EU market 

5.  European meat on the EU market 

6.  Fruit and vegetables in the EU market 

Another  challenge  to  make  a  quantitative  assessment  on  the  efficiency  of  the  EU 
agricultural policy is the question: What are reasonable costs to achieve benefits in terms 
of awareness,  consumption and market  share? The evaluation  support study shows that 
the  marketing  budgets  of  private  companies  can  be  two  digit  amounts  in  billion  euro 
whereas  competitors  like  USA  and  Australia  spend  relatively  higher  amounts  on  their 
promotion  policy.  Calculations  regarding  the  costs  for  the  output  of  Commission  own 
initiatives show that these strongly differ per output unit for different initiatives. 

Despite the change brought about by the reform of 2014 (that entered into force in 2015), 
as  regards  the  system  of  application,  application  submission,  evaluation,  selection, 
management of promotion programmes and technical support provided to the proposing 
organisations,  one  third  of  respondents  (36%)  still  found  that  the  new  system  for  EU 

50https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/key-policies/common-agricultural-

policy/cmef/regulation-and-simplification/evaluation-support-study-eu-agricultural-promotion-policy-
internal-and-third-country-markets_en 

34 

 
 
                                                           
agricultural  and  food  products  promotion  is  not  very  efficient.  By  contrast,  30%  of 
respondents had a positive opinion and 10% were very positive. 

Administrative burden 
Overall, respondents found that the system placed a substantial administrative burden on 
applicants in preparing an application, though this lessens with repeated applications as 
applicants learn. This means that applicants with the capacity to apply more regularly, i.e. 
those who are financially stronger and have more resources, have an advantage to some 
extent.  The  case  study  interviews  provide  some  evidence  that  the  level  of  support 
provided by national  authorities correlates with  the level  of participation in  agricultural 
policy promotion programmes. The difference in support has knock-on effects in terms of 
the  workload  for  applicants  and  leads  to  the  perception  of  an  uneven  playing  field 
between applicants from different countries.   

As of 2016, over 50% of selected proposals were submitted by applicants who had never 
received promotion policy funding before, evidence that the revised eligibility conditions 
concerning proposing organisations had helped widen the base of potential applicants. 

Regarding  the  workload  of  national  authorities  is  concerned,  case  study  evidence 
highlighted  differences  in  national  authorities’  knowledge  of  the  policy,  rules  and 
procedures. The support study found that, at times, many national authorities were unable 
to  answer  questions  raised  by  applicants  and  had  to  ask  the  Commission  for  support. 
Proposing  organisations  and  implementing  bodies  consulted  in  the  case  studies  also 
emphasised their frustration with the lack of information available and an inability to get 
specific  responses;  they  spent  a  substantial  amount  of  time  trying  to  understand  the 
responses  provided  by  national  control  authorities  and  some  even  asked  directly  the 
Commission  and  CHAFEA  for  support.  These  differences  in  knowledge  of  the  policy, 
rules and procedures had an effect on how much time and effort national authorities were 
able or willing to spend assisting proposing organisations in applying for and managing 
programmes and how strictly they applied the rules set under the Regulation. 

Although 45% of national control authorities that responded to the support study survey 
felt  that  there  was  no  need  to  change  the  current  management  systems  of  simple 
programmes,  36%  said  it  should  be  changed.  Eight  national  control  authorities  made 
some specific suggestions for changes, with  four noting the need for more guidance on 
the interpretation and application of rules (to ensure equal treatment across all Member 
States).  

Costs and benefits 
Due to the difficulty in quantifying benefits, a comparison of costs and benefits cannot be 
established for simple and multi programmes. This is largely due to lack of quantitative 
data on the benefits such as the change in the competitive position after the intervention. 
Data on the costs and result indicators have enabled a partial quantification of the costs 
and benefits of Commission own initiatives such as audiences reached and the number of 
visitors to fairs as well as the costs involved (Annex 7). 

In summary, the evidence indicates that there are some areas for improvement in terms of 
efficient  implementation  of  promotion  measures  and  technical  support.  Clearer 
communication between the contracting authority and sub-contractor on the expectations 
of  speakers  and  any  preferences  may  help  prevent  future  issues  in  delivering  technical 
and promotional support (such as the need to cancel webinars). 

35 

 
 
The  evidence  from  high-level  missions  and  trade  fair  reports  indicates  that  these  visits 
have  been  implemented  efficiently,  with  clear  examples  of  contractors  using  their 
initiative  to  overcome  barriers,  particularly  last-minute  schedule  changes  which  are  (to 
some extent) par for the course with this type of event. Nonetheless, delays to approval 
processes were highlighted as one aspect to improve and give more time for organisation 
and implementation.  

There  is  limited  information,  in  particular  on  impact  indicators,  to  assess  all  aspects  of 
efficiency related to the Commission initiatives. Different methods are used to calculate 
the  number  of  participants  and  the  use  of  different  metrics  such  as  ‘PR  value’51  and 
‘number of articles’ to measure the value of media coverage, which means that there is 
no comparable cost data for high-level missions and trade fair events. Table 9 in Annex 7 
illustrates  the  cost  and  benefits  of  high-level  missions  and  trade  fairs  and  provides  an 
overview  of  the  budget,  estimated  cost  per  participant  and  estimated  value  of  media 
coverage for each event. 

Most respondents  to  the public consultation  reported that the EU budget  for promotion 
programmes yielded the expected results either fully (20%) or partially (63%), with 4% 
reporting that the available budget did not yield expected result at all, 2% stating ‘on the 
contrary’ and 10% had no opinion. 

5.2.1  Efficiency  of  direct  management  of  multi  programmes  compared  to  shared 
management of simple programmes 

The  assessment  is  based  on  the  information  collected  through  desk  research,  an  online 
survey, interviews and case study interviews. It looks at the rationale for and perceived 
advantages  of  direct  management  of  multi  programmes,  the  differences  between 
feedback  from  proposing  organisations  of  multi  and  simple  programmes  and  their 
management, and issues of the management modes in the context of specific measures.   

There  appears  to  be  an  emerging  consensus  amongst  all  stakeholders  that  the  direct 
management  of  multi  programmes  by  CHAFEA  was  more  efficient  than  the  shared 
management of simple programmes. This can be traced to a number of main factors: 

  stakeholders  perceived  the  use  of  digital  reporting  methods  as  much  more 
efficient  than  paper  methods.  This  has  implications  for  the  simple  programmes, 
where  the  first  step  in  the  reporting  process  (for  proposing  organisation 
coordinators to send to national competent authorities) is still paper-based; 
the  standard  approach  taken  by  CHAFEA  to  apply  the  rules  governing 
applications,  grant  management  and  reporting,  compared  with  a  range  of 
procedures  (and, by implication, differences  in  terms  of flexibility and rigour in 
applying certain rules) between Member States;  

 

  CHAFEA  is  credited  with  providing  more  useful  information  in  response  to 
queries  raised  by  proposing  organisation  coordinators  on  project  management, 
which leads to longer term efficiency in implementing multi programmes (due to 
a higher level  of  certainty  of the rules) compared to  simple programmes,  where 
there is less flexibility and more fear of strict and opaque financial audits.  

51   PR value is calculated by multiplying the advertising rates by the share of a page an advert covers. 

36 

 
 
                                                           
Figure 10 Preferred management system 

Which of the following statements would you agree the most with?  

It does not matter whether CHAFEA or the National
Authority manage the programme

10% 

12% 

36% 

The programmes should be managed directly by
CHAFEA

The programmes should be managed directly by the
National Authority

Cannot say

27% 

27% 

18% 

12% 

9% 

19% 

16% 

54% 

60% 

Successful proposing organisation (N = 80)

Unsuccessful proposing organisation (N = 11)

0%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Implementing bodies (N = 25)

Source: support study 

These  findings  are  backed  up  by  the  replies  to  the  public  consultation,  where  a  clear 
majority  of  the  respondents  (60%)  considered  direct  management  to  be  more  efficient 
than  shared  management,  with  32%  considering  it  ‘far  more  efficient’  and  28%  ‘more 
efficient’. Only 10% of respondents replied ‘less efficient’, 5% of respondents found ‘no 
difference’ and 25% had no opinion. 

5.2.2  Efficiency  of  the  application  system  (requirements,  submission,  evaluation, 
selection, management and technical support) 

The  assessment  is  based  on  information  collected  through  desk  research,  the  online 
survey,  interviews  and  case  study  interviews.  It  looks  at  the  length  and  cost  of  the 
application process, the extent to which applicants, programme managers and evaluators 
perceive the application process, requirements and support available to be proportionate, 
and issues of the application system in the context of specific measures.   

The  evidence  collected  indicates  that  the  application  process  is  time-consuming  and 
work-intensive for applicants (with some organisations hiring external consultants to help 
them prepare and submit the proposals). However, applicants are clear on the eligibility 
criteria and deemed it quite efficient. The number of ineligible proposals decreased over 
the  period  2016-2019  for  both  simple  and  multi  programmes,  and  interviewees  who 
responded to the survey conducted during the support study reported that the eligibility 
criteria  were  clear  and  that  the  time  required  to  complete  the  application  process  does 
decrease  after  applying  for  funding  several  times.  However,  although  it  has  decreased, 
the ineligibility rate remains at 10%. 

On  the  award  criteria,  stakeholders  requested  more  clarity  and  transparency  on  how 
proposals  are  awarded.  However,  they  reported  that  applying  for  funding  and  drafting 
proposals that respond to the award criteria becomes easier after having applied a couple 
of  times,  implying  that  increased  exposure  to  and  experience  with  the  application 
procedure  increases  familiarity  with  the  process.  However,  there  are  significant 
differences in the level of guidance and support provided to proposing organisations by 
national competent authorities during the application process.  

37 

 
 
The  public  consultation  yielded  mixed  views  regarding  the  efficiency  of  the  new  EU 
system for the promotion of EU agricultural and food products, with 40% of respondents 
providing a positive opinion, 38% an unfavourable opinion and 23% no opinion.  

5.2.3 Efficiency of the rules applied by Member States governing the procedure for 
selecting implementing bodies 

The assessment is based on information collected through the online survey, interviews 
and case study interviews. It looks at the differences in how the rules are interpreted and 
applied  by  different  Member  States,  and  the  reasons,  the  extent  to  which  proposing 
organisations find the procedure for selection of implementing bodies efficient, and the 
issues, problems,  effects of the application system  in  the context  of specific campaigns 
and measures.   

The  evidence  indicates  that  the  procedure  for  selecting  implementing  bodies  was  very 
work-intensive and therefore expensive, although the process seems transparent and fair, 
as measured by the final selection of implementing bodies. Feedback from interviews and 
case  study  research  shows  that  proposing  organisation  coordinators  invest  significant 
time in  understanding  and complying  with  the rules for selecting implementing bodies, 
particularly for simple programmes. 

However, there are differences in the rules applied by Member States (both according to 
their national laws, but also in the level of strictness with which certain requirements are 
implemented),  which  directly  affects  the  efficiency  of  the  selection  process.  The  rules 
governing  the  selection  of  implementing  bodies  appear  to  be  applied  more  strictly  for 
simple programmes than for multi programmes. Given the difference in rules applied by 
Member  States  under  their  national  laws  and  the  interpretation  of  rules  by  national 
authorities  (for  simple  programmes)  and  by  CHAFEA  (for  multi  programmes),  this 
increased efficiency over time only works if the proposing organisation-coordinators and 
implementing  bodies  work  on  consecutive  programmes,  and  therefore  have  continued 
exposure  to  the  programmes  and  are  able  to  gain  familiarity  with  the  rules  and 
requirements.  This  could  therefore  also  be  perceived  as  giving  an  unfair  advantage  to 
‘old hands’. 

There  was  no  clear  conclusion  from  the  public  consultation  on  the  efficiency  of  rules 
applied  by  the  Member  States  concerning  the  procedure  for  selecting  implementing 
bodies, 43% of replies gave a positive opinion on the efficiency, 25% a negative opinion 
and 32% were undecided. 

5.2.4 Efficiency of Commission own initiatives 

Due  to  the  limited  information  from  the  online  survey,  interviews  and  case  study 
interviews,  the  assessment  relies  primarily  on  a  review  of  the  reports  provided  by  the 
organisations contracted to implement services.  It looks at the unit cost of Commission 
missions,  pavilions,  seminars  per  participant/visitor/article  etc.,  the  extent  to  which 
stakeholders perceive  additional value from  the Commission  own initiatives, as well as 
the issues, problems and effects of specific Commission initiatives and the way they were 
carried out.   

The  findings  indicate  that  there  are  some  areas  for  improvement  in  terms  of  the 
efficiency  of  implementing  promotional  activities  and  technical  support.  Clearer 

38 

 
 
 
communication between the contracting authority and sub-contractor on the expectations 
of  speakers  and  any  preferences  may  help  prevent  future  issues  in  delivering  technical 
and promotional support (such as the need to cancel webinars). 

High-level  missions  and  trade  fair  report  evidence  indicate  that  these  initiatives  have 
been implemented efficiently, with clear examples of contractors using their initiative to 
overcome barriers, particularly last-minute schedule changes  (which  are to some extent 
usual for this type of event). Nonetheless, delays to approval processes were identified as 
an aspect to improve to help provide more time to organise and run the initiatives.  

Figure  8  presents  the  results  of  the  public  consultation.  Most  of  the  replies  gave  a 
positive  opinion  on  the  efficiency  of  EU  promotion  measures:  participation  in  fairs 
(65%), communication campaigns (61%), high-level missions (57%), and the production 
of market entry handbooks (52%), with the exception of seminars (49%). 

Figure 11 Efficiency of EU measures in supporting the EU promotion policy (in %) 

High-level missions

31% 

25% 

13% 

2% 

28% 

Participation in fairs

16% 

50% 

13% 

22% 

Quality, Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards…

20% 

30% 

16% 

3% 

32% 

Communication campaigns

23% 

37% 

14% 

4% 

21% 

Production of market entry handbooks

16% 

36% 

19% 

1% 

29% 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%

Very efficient

Efficient

Not entirely efficient

Not efficient at all

I don´t know

Note: The differences in aggregate numbers presented in the text are due to rounding up.  
Source: public consultation. 

Limited information is available to assess all aspects of efficiency related to Commission 
initiatives. There are different methods for calculating the number of participants and the 
use  of  different  metrics  such  as  ‘public  relations  value’  and  ‘number  of  articles’  to 
measure the value of media coverage, which means that there is no comparable cost data 
for high-level missions and trade fair events. 

5.2.5 Efficiency of the facility for organisations to submit several programmes in 
several topics 

The assessment is based on the information collected from document and data reviews, 
the online survey and interviews. It looks at the take-up of the facility for organisations to 
submit several applications, the extent to which proposing organisations value the ability 
to  submit  applications  for  several  programmes  and  how  this  has  contributed  to  the 
efficiency of the application and management process, as well as other aspects related to 
multiple submissions.   

The  evidence  indicates  that  stakeholders  welcomed  the  scope  to  apply  for  several 
programmes  as  it  increased  their  familiarity  with  the  application  process,  and,  for 
previously  unsuccessful  applicants,  allowed  them  to  learn  from  feedback  and  improve 
their knowledge of the application process.   

39 

 
 
Proposing organisation coordinators and implementing agencies managing more than one 
programme  believed  that  efficiency  gains  can  be  made  in  implementing  initiatives  by 
applying  learning  across  multiple  programmes.  The  survey  responses  from  evaluators 
highlighted  the  potential  for  resourcing  difficulties  if  proposing  organisations  and 
implementing bodies receive funding for several projects at the same time. However, this 
concern  about  resource  constraints  was  not  borne  out  by  feedback  from  proposing 
organisation coordinators. Most of the 133 replies to the specific question in the public 
consultation  were  either  very  positive  (32%)  or  moderately  positive  (35%)  that  the  EU 
promotion  policy  was  efficient  in  offering  the  scope  for  proposing  organisations  to 
submit  several  programmes  under  several  topics  when  submitting  applications  to  the 
European  Commission.  Only  4%  of  respondents  gave  a  negative  reply;  6%  of 
respondents saw ‘no difference’ and 23% had no opinion. 

5.3 Relevance  

The assessment of the relevance of the promotion policy analyses the extent to which the 
promotion  policy’s  general  and  specific  objectives  are  in  line  with  the  most  pressing 
needs  and  problems  facing  the  EU  agricultural  sector  today.  The  analysis  is  based  on 
desk  research  complemented  by  data  collected  during  interviews,  online  surveys,  and 
case studies carried out in the support study. 

5.3.1 Relevance of the general and specific objectives of the policy 

Overall,  the  evidence  collected  from  stakeholders  indicates  that  the  EU  agricultural 
promotion policy’s general and specific objectives are relevant and positively addressing 
stakeholder  needs  as  well  as  market  challenges.  In  terms  of  stakeholders  needs,  the 
duration  of  funding  is  found  to  be  linked  to  the  ability  to  achieve  meaningful  change, 
although for certain products or markets, the possibility to run programmes for more than 
36 months (which is the limit set by legislation) would seem adequate. 

Figure 12 Assessment of the relevance of the EU’s agricultural policy 

To what extent you agree that the EU agricultural promotion 
policy is a relevant policy 

Successful proposing organisation (N = 80)

49% 

46% 

Unsuccessful proposing organisation (N = 11)

9% 

82% 

4% 

1% 

9% 

Implementing body (N = 25)

44% 

48% 

8% 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

cannot say

Source: support study (adaptation) 

40 

 
 
 
On  the  basis  of  replies  on  the  most  common  reasons  for  applying  to  the  promotion 
programmes, the most relevant policy objectives addressing stakeholder needs were to: 

 

 

 

increase awareness of the merits of EU agricultural products and the high standards 
of production methods (27%);  
increase  the  competitiveness  and  consumption  of  European  agricultural  products 
within the EU (27%); 
increase the market share of European agricultural products outside of the EU (23%). 

The  case  studies52  indicate  that  the  promotion  policy  is  particularly  relevant  for 
promotion  programmes  targeting  non-EU  countries,  as  they  increase  awareness  and 
improve  consumer  perceptions  of  the  product  quality.  This  is  especially  important  for 
smaller  producers  entering  a  new,  non-EU  market  or  for  organisations  marketing 
products that are relatively new to the target market.  

The  promotion  policy  is  also  deemed  to  be  highly  relevant  for  products  that  received 
multiple  rounds  of  funding  in  the  past.  Several  years  of  promotion  are  linked  to  users 
increasing the association of the products with high quality and a better understanding of 
the origin of products and their production methods. However the assessment indicates a 
low  level  of  flexibility  in  the  promotion  programmes’  implementing  measures  with  the 
objective  of  restoring  market  conditions  after  serious  disturbances.  That  said,  no 
measures were implemented in the reference period as no serious market condition was 
reported.  

Figure 13 Main reasons for submitting a proposal (by proposing organisations) 

We wanted to increase awareness of the merits of
Union agricultural products and the high standards…

We wanted to increase the competitiveness and
consumption of our products within the EU.

We wanted to increase the market share of our
products outside the EU.

We wanted to support the return to normal market
conditions after a serious market disturbance.

4% 

We wanted to increase awareness and recognition of
EU quality schemes.

Other

1% 

26% 

26% 

22% 

22% 

(Multiple answers possible, N=192) 

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Source: support study 

The promotion policy proved relevant in light of recent market and policy developments 
such as the Russian import ban on EU products, African swine fever, US sanctions, etc. 

52https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/d1d519ed-09d5-11eb-bc07-

01aa75ed71a1/language-en 

41 

 
 
                                                           
which  impacted  EU  trade  of  agricultural  products,  requiring  policy  intervention. 
Moreover,  given  the  recent  focus  in  the  Green  Deal  and  the  farm  to  fork  strategy  on 
environmental  and  climate  aspects,  the  policy  could  have  a  significant  role  in  the 
transition  towards  a  green  and  sustainable  EU  agricultural  sector,  provided  that  annual 
work programmes are tailored to the objectives of these initiatives. 

The public consultation included a question on the relevance of the strategic targets in the 
EU  promotion  policy  in  terms  of  audience,  products  and  regions.  An  overwhelming 
majority  of  the  replies  considered  the  targets  either  ‘very  relevant’  or  ‘moderately 
relevant’ in  terms  of audience (87% of 104 replies), products  (85% of 115 replies) and 
regions (83% of 111 replies). In each case, only a small minority (3-7%), considered the 
targets irrelevant. 

5.3.2 Relevance of the annual work programmes 

The evaluation indicated that annual work programmes provide clear strategic priorities 
that  are  both  relevant  to  the  promotion  policy  and  aligned  with  evolving  market 
conditions and policy objectives e.g. they point out which third countries are particularly 
targeted  by  the  promotion  programmes  and  align  the  promotion  policy  to  some  extent 
with EU environmental policies. Annual work programmes set the scene for programmes 
aimed to increase awareness of the high standards of EU goods, boost the consumption 
and competitiveness of these goods internally and outside of the EU and increase market 
share, especially in non-EU countries. Annual work programmes set out targets based on 
sound information and current market needs and challenges. Despite being relevant to the 
annual  work  programme  strategic  priorities,  these  objectives  sometimes  appear  to  be 
more  similar  to  overarching  aims  than  measurable  goals,  as  objectives  have  no 
quantifiable thresholds to evaluate whether it achieved the intended result.    

In sum, the evaluation found that annual work programmes appear to be for the most part 
relevant  to  the  challenges  and  pressures  faced  in  recent  times  by  the  European 
agricultural  sector.  Therefore  the  annual  programmes  can  be  considered  generally 
relevant to the needs of the stakeholders. Some urgent and extraordinary problems of the 
latter  were  resolved  adequately,  for  example  in  reacting  to  the  economic  impact  of 
Russian  sanctions,  while  other  concerns  related  to  environmental  and  climate  change 
could be improved in the priorities of future annual work programmes.  

5.3.3 Relevance of Commission own initiatives 

Commission own initiatives seem to respond to current challenges and market needs. The 
in-depth  interviews  of  the  support  study  revealed  that  the  most  relevant  aspects  for 
stakeholders were technical support and information seminars, although it depends on the 
stakeholder  groups.  For  example,  national  competent  authorities  appear  to  particularly 
appreciate  high-level  missions,  regarding  them  as  highly  relevant  to  promote  EU 
agricultural  products 
in  non-EU  countries.  Successful  proposing  organisations 
particularly valued technical support services for the information provided. Implementing 
bodies  especially  rated  trade  fairs  and  international  exhibitions  at  EU  pavilions,  which 
they viewed as valuable fora to carry out their promotion measures. 

42 

 
 
 
 
Figure 14 Perceived contribution to providing an overall strategic vision 

To what extent you agree that the Commission’s own initiatives 
help in providing an overall strategic vision for the EU's 
Agricultural sector? 
24% 

52% 

4% 

National Competent Authority (N = 25)

20% 

Successful proposing organisation (N = 50)

24% 

64% 

2% 

2% 

8% 

Unsuccessful proposing organisation (N = 7)

43% 

14% 

43% 

Implementing body (N = 16)

31% 

50% 

6% 

13% 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

cannot say

Source: support study (adaptation) 

Overall, Commission own initiatives made a positive contribution to the general strategic 
vision  for  the  EU’s  agricultural  sector,  though  unsuccessful  proposing  organisations 
agreed less with this statement than other groups of respondents. 

A clear majority of the respondents to the public consultation gave a positive assessment 
of  the  relevance  of  EU  promotion  measures,  from  participation  in  fairs  (82%  of 
133 replies), communication campaigns (82% of 134 replies), high-level missions (71% 
of 135 replies), production of market entry handbooks (67% of 133 replies) and seminars 
(66% of 132 replies). 

Figure 15 Relevance of EU measures below to help the EU promotion (in %) 

High-level missions

51% 

20% 

8% 

19% 

2% 

Participation in fairs

41% 

41% 

5% 

13% 

1% 

Quality, Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards
Seminars

Communication campaigns

48% 

52% 

2% 

17% 

11% 

21% 

1% 

30% 

5% 

11% 

Production of market entry handbooks

33% 

34% 

11% 

1% 

20% 

Very relevant

Moderately relevant

Slightly relevant

Irrelevant

I don´t know

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Source: public consultation 

5.3.4 Relevance of the signature ‘Enjoy it’s from Europe!’ 

The support study findings indicate that, overall, the signature ‘Enjoy! It’s from Europe’ 
was  relevant.  This  is  backed  up  by  the  replies  to  the  public  consultation,  to  which 

43 

 
 
respondents gave an overall positive reply, with 25% (from 139 replies) considering the 
signature  to  be  relevant  ‘to  a  large  extent’,  31%  ‘to  a  fairly  good  extent’  and  24%  ‘to 
some extent only’. Only 7% replied ‘not at all’ and 13% had no opinion. 

However,  the  support  study  also  found  that  opinions  on  the  relevance  of  the  signature 
vary  according  to  whether  it  is  used  in  the  EU  market  or  in  non-EU  countries. 
Stakeholders tended to agree that the signature is more relevant in non-EU countries than 
in the internal market, particularly when the products are new to the market. On the one 
hand,  the  signature  is  gaining  widespread  recognition  in  non-EU  countries,  and 
consumers  positively  associate  EU  agricultural  products  with  high  quality,  strict  food 
safety and tradition. These perceptions are very important to achieve the key objectives 
of  the  promotion  policy  and  therefore  contribute  to  its  relevance.  The  outreach  and 
relevance of the signature would be even greater if the signature was translated into the 
target country’s national language.  

On  the  other  hand,  although  stakeholders  generally  approve  and  encourage  it,  the 
signature seems to have limited relevance in the EU. This may be due to the fact that EU 
consumers  are  already  familiar  with  the  meaning  of  the  signature  and  are  interested  in 
other aspects of EU agricultural products, such as their nutritional values and country of 
origin.  There  is  an  increasing  amongst  consumers  to  favour  local  products,  whenever 
possible.  

In  addition,  stakeholders  believe  the  European  dimension  is  too  prominent  in  internal 
market promotion material and would like more visibility given to the country or region 
of origin, and to product branding. 

5.4 Coherence  

The  evaluation  question  assessing  the  coherence  of  the  promotion  policy  analyses  the 
extent to which the different components of the policy (EU own initiatives and promotion 
programmes) combine to achieve the policy objectives (internal coherence), and explores 
the complementarity, synergies and potential tensions between the promotion policy and 
other EU policies, as well as action in the same policy field at national and at EU level 
(external  coherence).  The  assessment  draws  on  data  available  from  document  reviews, 
interviews, online surveys and case studies. 

5.4.1 Coherence between Commission own initiatives and promotion programmes 

Based on the findings of the in-depth interviews and online surveys, it can be concluded 
that the Commission’s own initiatives and the promotion programmes are coherent to a 
large  extent  because  they  follow  the  same  objectives  and  complement  each  other.  The 
stakeholders  consulted  agree  that  the  Commission’s  own  initiatives  are  able  to  tackle 
more strategic issues that promotion programmes cannot address, such as issues relating 
to regulations and legal frameworks. In this way, they ease market access for proposing 
organisations  and  they  complement  promotion  activities.  In  addition,  stakeholders 
believe that the high visibility of the Commission’s own initiatives due to their political 
nature contribute to increasing the overall impact of the promotion campaigns.   

Cross checking the findings of document reviews and stakeholder opinions with the case 
studies  indicated  that  the  promotion  programmes  are  also  highly  coherent  in  terms  of 
objectives and activities. Stakeholders see positive spill-over effects and expect synergies 
in the implementation of different promotion programmes, although they do not always 
fully  materialise  due  to  independent  implementation  and  a  lack  of  interaction  across 
promotion programmes. Limited coordination also appears to constrain the full additional 
value that the Commission’s own initiatives could create for promotion programmes.  

44 

 
Figure 16 Perceived coherence of own initiatives and promotion programmes 

To what extent you agree that the Commission’s own initiatives 
address problems / needs that could not be addressed by 
promotion programmes? 

National Competent Authority (N = 25)

16% 

48% 

12% 

24% 

Successful proposing organisation (N = 50)

12% 

60% 

6% 

22% 

Unsuccessful proposing organisation (N = 7)

14% 

14% 

71% 

Implementing body (N = 16)

25% 

38% 

6% 

31% 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

cannot say

Source: support study (adaptation) 

Figure 17 Perceived internal coherence of the EU’s Agricultural promotion policy 

To what extent you agree that EU’s Agricultural promotion policy 
is (internally) coherent? 

National Competent Authority (N = 26)

4% 

62% 

12% 

23% 
1% 

Successful proposing organisation (N = 80)

18% 

66% 

4% 

11% 

Unsuccessful proposing organisation (N =
11)

9% 

55% 

9% 

27% 

Implementing body (N = 25)

16% 

60% 

4% 

20% 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

cannot say

Source: support study (adaptation) 

The outcome of the public consultation backs up these findings, with most respondents 
(58%  of  134  replies)  indicating  either  very  clear  (17%)  or  moderate  (41%)  levels  of 
coherence  between  the  measures  endorsed  by  the  European  Commission  and  the 
promotion  programmes  submitted  by  proposing  organisations.  An  additional  10% 
indicated a ‘slight’ coherence, 11% found no coherence at all and 21% had no opinion.  

The  stakeholders  consulted  in  the  support  study  agreed  that  the  Commission’s  own 
initiatives  are  able  to  tackle  more  strategic  issues  that  promotion  programmes  cannot 
address,  such  as  issues  relating  to  regulations  and  legal  frameworks.  Therefore 
Commission’s  own  initiatives  and  the  promotion  programmes  are  complementary  and 
there is internal coherence of the promotion policy. For example, high-level missions can 
pave the way for successful programmes in non-EU countries.  

Both  aspects  of  the  promotion  policy  pursue  the  same  objective  but  Commission  own 
initiatives can reach different audiences than the programmes and it is necessary to target 

45 

 
 
a  wide  spectrum  of  markets  to  increase  awareness  and  sales.  In  this  way,  they  ease 
market access for proposing organisations and complement promotion activities. 

In  addition,  stakeholders  believe  that  the  high  visibility  of  the  Commission’s  own 
initiatives due to their political nature contribute to increasing the overall impact of the 
promotion campaigns.  

Once  a  trade  fair  attracts  the  attention  of  key  market  players  in  a  non-EU  country, 
promotion  programmes  can  build  on  that  interest  and  will  be  more  successful  as  the 
evaluation found that repeating the message in different ways is key to success. The same 
applies to high-level missions.  

Once  an export contract is  signed  and exports begin,  it is  easier to  create awareness  of 
certain EU agricultural products.   

Cross  checking  the  document  review  findings  and  stakeholders’  opinions  with  the  case 
studies  indicates  that  the  promotion  programmes  are  also  highly  coherent  in  terms  of 
objectives and activities. Stakeholders see positive spill-over effects and expect synergies 
in  implementing  different  promotion  programmes,  although  they  do  not  always  fully 
materialise due to independent implementation and a lack of interaction across different 
promotion programmes. Limited coordination also appears to constrain the full additional 
value that the Commission’s own initiatives could create for promotion programmes.  

5.4.2  Coherence  with  measures  implemented  by  Member  States  or  private 
initiatives 

The evidence indicates that the level of coherence of the EU promotion policy and public 
and  private  initiatives  at  national  level  is  generally  high.  But  it  varies  depending  to  a 
large  extent  on  the  national  context  since  the  availability  of  funding  at  national  level 
differs across Member States.  

Figure 18 Perceived complementarity with governmental activities at national level 

To what extent you agree that the EU’s Agricultural promotion 
policy complements existing governmental activities within the 
Member States? 

4% 

National Competent Authority (N = 26)

19% 

54% 

8% 

15% 

Successful proposing organisation (N =
80)

13% 

64% 

10% 

14% 

Unsuccessful proposing organisation (N
= 11)

73% 

27% 

Implementing body (N = 25)

24% 

64% 

12% 

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Cannot say

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Source: support study (adaptation) 

46 

 
 
The  assessment  that  the  EU  promotion  policy  measures  are  coherent  with  public 
initiatives  at  national  level  is  based  on  cross  checks  of  stakeholder  opinions  with  desk 
research  of  initiatives  in  certain  Member  States,  though  it  does  not  include  a 
comprehensive  overview  of  all  initiatives  at  national  level.  Stakeholders  perceive 
national  promotion  initiatives  that  also  focus  on  the  promotion  of  quality  products  as 
complementary because they enhance the outreach of promotion activities and fill gaps at 
national level. Furthermore, the analysis did not  find any areas of tension impeding the 
implementation of the EU agricultural promotion policy.  

To  conclude,  the  nature  of  interaction  between  EU  and  national  public  promotion 
measures may vary across national contexts, but the evidence suggests that the different 
measures  are  coherent.  According  to  the  stakeholders  interviewed,  the  national  context 
differs across Member States in terms of existing measures at national level. Examples of 
different  situations  in  specific  Member  States  from  the  case  studies  confirm  this 
observation. In some Member States, a number of government-to-government activities 
are  carried  out  with  the  goal  of  promoting  trade.  Within  this  framework,  agricultural 
products  can  also  be  promoted  (e.g.  in  Germany).  In  other  Member  States,  there  are 
dedicated funds available to promote agricultural products (e.g. in Belgium)53. In a third 
group of Member States, there is either no funding for such activities (e.g. in Greece)54 or 
the  available  budget  is  adapted  in  line  with  the  availability  of  EU  support  to  avoid 
overlap (e.g. in France)55.  

For private initiatives at national level, the findings of the case studies based on examples 
of two such initiatives indicate that they pursue the same objective as the EU agricultural 
promotion  policy  since  they  also  promote  EU  quality  schemes  and  so  benefit  from 
enhanced outreach.  

Figure 19 Perceived complementarity with private-sector action at national level 

To what extent you agree that the EU’s Agricultural promotion 
policy complements existing activities in the private sector within 
the Member States? 

National Competent Authority (N = 26)

19% 

62% 

12% 

8% 

Successful proposing organisation (N = 80)

13% 

54% 

11% 

1% 

21% 

Unsuccessful proposing organisation (N =
11)

27% 

45% 

9% 

18% 

Implementing body (N = 25)

20% 

60% 

8% 

12% 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Cannot say

Source: support study (adaptation) 

53   Annex 2 of the evaluation support study Case study on Dairy products in China. 
54   Annex 2 of the evaluation support study Case study on Fruit and Vegetables UAE. 
55   Annex 2 of the evaluation support study Case study on Fruit and Vegetables UAE. 

47 

 
                                                           
Although  there  may  be  some  tension  in  implementation  due  to  promoting  locally 
established quality labels in parallel with EU quality schemes in certain regions, the EU 
promotion programmes complement and enhance the outreach of private initiatives. 

Overall,  the  public  consultation  generated  a  favourable  opinion  regarding  coherence 
between  the  EU  agricultural  and  food  promotion  policy  and  promotion  measures 
implemented  by  the  Member  States  or  under  private  initiatives:  6%  (of  136  replies) 
replied  ‘fully  coherent’  and  52%  ‘generally  coherent’,  while  23%  of  the  respondents 
rated it as limited coherence (‘to a small extent’), 3% gave a negative view (‘incoherent’) 
and 16% had no opinion. 

5.4.3 Coherence with other EU policies 

Coherence with other EU agricultural policies 

The  evidence  from  desk  research,  interviews  and  case  studies  shows  that  the  EU 
agricultural promotion policy and sector-specific support for the wine sector, defined in 
Regulation (EU) No 1308/201356, are coherent to a certain degree, since their objectives 
are consistent, the measures do not overlap in implementation and are likely to enhance 
each other’s impact. However, the lack of consistency between some specific procedural 
aspects  slightly  reduces  the  level  of  coherence  (e.g.  private  companies  can  be 
beneficiaries under the sector-specific support targeting the external market, measures on 
the internal market do not have to be part of a broad approach under the sector-specific 
support and the co-financing rates differ). There is no evidence that these inconsistencies 
lead to tension in implementing the policies. For example, stakeholders consulted in the 
case study on the promotion of wine, beer, spirits and vinegar in the USA found market-
related support available under the CAP first pillar coherent with the promotion policy.   

The  EU  agricultural  promotion  policy  is  also  coherent  to  a  large  extent  with  sector-
specific  support  measures  focusing  on  the  fruit  and  vegetables  sector.  The  policies  are 
consistent in objectives, complementary, and with no risk of overlap in implementation. 
In terms of the measures implemented, activities in schools are also eligible under the EU 
agricultural  promotion  policy,57  thus  complementing  the  educational  measures  and 
communication activities funded under the school fruit, vegetables and milk scheme.  

Only 5% of the scheme’s budget  was spent on these activities in  the 2017/2018  school 
year. The remainder was used to supply and distribute school fruit, vegetables and milk.58 
A previous  evaluation  of the  European school  milk  and European school  fruit schemes 

56   As part of  the  sector-specific support  measures planned  for the  wine  sector,  Article 45  of Regulation 
(EU)  No  1308/2013  sets  out  the  scope  and  conditions  for  carrying  out  promotion  activities.  On  the 
internal  market,  they  focus  on  promoting  EU  quality  schemes  and  campaigns  concerning  responsible 
consumption  and  alerting  the  public  to  the  damages  caused  by  excessive  wine  consumption.  On  the 
external market, the promotion activities aim to increase market access. The CAP measures applicable 
to the wine sector were subject to a recent evaluation, published in 2019. 

57   Defined in Section 6.2. Eligible activities in the call for proposals.  
58   European  Commission,  ‘Monitoring  report,  The  EU  school  fruit,  vegetables  and  milk  scheme’, 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/key_policies/documents/school-scheme-
summary-report_en.pdf. 

48 

 
 
                                                           
also found there is complementarity between the measures and CAP objectives, including 
EU information policies.59  

The EU agricultural promotion policy is coherent to a large degree with measures under 
rural  development  programmes,  notably  those  that  support  the  development  of  quality 
and organic products, and information and promotion measures that can be implemented 
by groups of producers in the internal market for products covered by a quality scheme. 
Their objectives are consistent, although the target groups is different, which ensures that 
the measures implemented are complementary.  

Overall,  the  EU  agricultural  promotion  policy  is  largely  consistent  with  the  objectives 
and  procedural  aspects  of  broader  agricultural  policies  that  aim  to  increase  the 
consumption of agri-food products.  

Respondents  to  the  public  consultation  gave  mostly  favourable  views  regarding  the 
coherence  of  the  EU  agricultural  promotion  policy  with  other  CAP  policies  promoting 
products.  However,  the  majority  reported  a  lack  of  knowledge  on  coherence  (53%  of 
136 replies for wine, 27% of 134 replies for rural development  and 40% of 133 replies 
for fruit and vegetables replied ‘I don’t know’).  

In terms of coherence with other CAP support for promotion measures, most replies were 
positive,  with  at  least  a  general  level  of  coherence  with  the  promotion  of  rural 
development  quality  labels  (49%  of  replies),  operational  programmes  to  promote  fruit 
and vegetables (35%) and promotion measures for the wine sector (35%). 

Coherence with EU trade policies 

The support study found that the objectives and design of the EU agricultural promotion 
policy are coherent  to  a large extent with  trade policies targeting non-EU markets.  The 
two  policies  are  complementary  since  the  aim  of  EU  trade  policy  is  to  ensure  market 
access and the aim of the agricultural promotion policy is to help proposing organisations 
enter  those  markets.  The  design  of  the  EU  agricultural  policy,  along  with  annual  work 
programmes  that  factor  in  trade  policy  developments  and  a  number  of  coordination 
mechanisms,  ensures  consistency  with  the  external  target  markets  defined  in  the  EU 
agricultural promotion policy, which results in complementarity.   

The replies to the public consultation were positive in terms of the coherence between the 
EU’s  agricultural  promotion  policy  and  EU  trade  policy.  19%  of  138  replies  indicated 
‘full coherence’ and 36% ‘coherence’. 21% replied ‘slightly coherent’ and 17% replied 
no coherence, with 12% stating no opinion. 

summary, 

59   AFC  Consulting  Group  AG,  DG  AGRI,  Evaluation  of  the  European  School  Fruit  Programme,  2012, 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/2d3329d8-7cd0-46b1-

Executive 
b8e0-ddd941c711cb/language-en/format-PDF/source-search.  
AFC  Consulting  Group  AG,  DG  AGRI,  Evaluation  of  the  European  School  Milk  Programme,  2014, 
Executive summary, https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/591f5107-9264-4bf5-bd94-
7f2788e6074c. 

49 

 
 
                                                           
Figure 20 Perceived coherence with EU trade policies 

To what extent you agree that the EU’s Agricultural promotion 
policy is in line with the objectives of the following relevant policy 
areas: EU’s trade policies 

National Competent Authority (N = 26)

19% 

65% 

Successful proposing organisation (N = 80)

19% 

60% 

15% 

1% 

5% 

15% 

Unsuccessful proposing organisation (N = 11)

9% 

73% 

9% 

9% 

Implementing body (N = 25)

28% 

40% 

4% 

28% 

Strongly agree

Tend to agree

Tend to disagree

Strongly disagree

I don't know

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%

Source: support study (adaptation) 

The level of coherence between the two policies also depends on the extent to which the 
products promoted correspond to products with the highest growth potential in terms of 
sales and market shares.  

Proposing organisations participating in the case study on promotion of spirits, alcoholic 
beverages,  wine  and  vinegar  in  the  US  highlighted  that  the  EU  agricultural  promotion 
policy  is  also  coherent  with  the  focus  of  EU  trade  policy  on  supporting  small  and 
medium sized enterprises and rural producers. They suggested that the policy is coherent 
externally  by  focusing  on  the  right  markets,  and  internally  by  supporting  target  groups 
identified  as  relevant  by  EU  trade  policy.  The  case  studies  focusing  on  other  product 
sectors  also  confirmed  that  the  EU  agricultural  promotion  policy  is  consistent  with  EU 
trade policies that aim to strengthen the resilience of agricultural sectors (e.g. dairy). 

Although the stakeholders consulted in  in-depth  interviews agreed that the focus of the 
promotion policy on EU quality schemes is consistent with broader EU trade policies (as 
these  products  are  the  ones  with  the  highest  growth  potential),  some  stakeholders,  in 
particular  proposing  organisations,  voiced  the  opposite  view  in  the  case  studies. 
Specifically,  the  market  for  labels  is  overcrowded  and  any  promotional  activity  would 
need  to  spend  more  in  order  to  generate  the  same  level  of  recognition  than  would 
otherwise be generated with fewer funds in a less crowded market. Since the focus of the 
case  study  that  raised  this  point  was  on  the  internal  market,  this  divergence  of  opinion 
could be due to different growth potential of EU quality scheme products on the internal 
and external market.  In general, the partners interviewed also highlighted that putting a 
stronger focus on the external market would be more beneficial since the external market 
is larger and has a higher growth potential.  

Overall, the assessment did not identify any areas of tension between the EU agricultural 
and trade policies. However, although there is a high level of coherence in terms of the 
external market targeted, there is coherence on the internal market.  

Coherence with EU maritime and fishery policies 

The  desk  research  and  evidence  collected  during  the  support  study  shows  that  the  EU 
agricultural promotion policy is consistent with the objectives and procedural elements of 

50 

 
EU  maritime  and  fishery  policies.  There  have  been  a  number  of  promotion  campaigns 
implemented at EU level on fisheries and aquaculture in recent years. These include the 
Inseparable  campaign60,  #FARMEDintheEU 
support  of  aquaculture,  and 
#TasteTheOcean to be launched in 2021. The EU agricultural promotion policy provides 
a  useful  support  for  promotion  activities  in  the  fisheries,  aquaculture  and  processing 
sectors.  As  a  result,  there  is  high  level  of  coherence  between  the  EU  agricultural 
promotion policy and EU maritime and fishery policies.  

in 

Coherence with EU health policies 

EU  countries  hold  primary  responsibility  for  health  policy.  EU  health  policy  therefore 
serves to complement national policies, and to ensure health protection in all EU policies. 
The  objectives  of  the  EU  health  policy  are  to  protect  and  improve  the  health  of  EU 
citizens, support Member States in prevention diseases and promote health in all Union 
policies and activities61. Desk research carried out on the broader policy framework and 
the  in-depth  interviews  at  EU  level  identified  two  areas  of  particular  importance 
regarding  the  promotion  of  agricultural  products:  alcohol  consumption  and  healthy 
dietary practices.  

EU agricultural promotion measures for beer, wines and spirits on the internal market are 
limited to providing information on the responsible consumption of alcohol and/or to the 
promotion  of  products  under  EU  quality  schemes.  In  addition,  wine  can  only  be 
promoted on the internal market in combination with other products.  

Nevertheless the external evaluation study identified experts who expressed the view that 
any  amount  of  alcohol  consumption  is  harmful,  implying  that  any  EU  agricultural 
promotion activities linked to beer, wine or spirits could be seen as contrary to EU health 
objectives. 

However,  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  implementation  of  information  measures  on  the 
responsible  consumption  of  eligible  beer,  wines  and  spirits  is  inconsistent  with  the 
specific  objective  under  the  Third  Health  Programme62  to  reduce  harmful  alcohol 
consumption.    The  extent  of  coherence  depends  on  the  consistent  application  of  the 
definition of ‘responsible alcohol consumption’, which is defined at Member State level. 
Since  proposals  for  action  under  the  promotion  programmes  must  be  aligned  with 
policies  at  national  level  in  this  regard,  there  is  no  evidence  suggesting  incoherence 
between  the  EU  agricultural  promotion  policy  and  EU  health  policies  in  the  reference 
period for this evaluation. 

60 https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/ffe89bd9-0f0b-46b4-a3c5-d01e63362c74 

61   Based  on  TFEU,  Article  168,  according  to  which  a  high  level  of  human  health  protection  shall  be 

ensured in the definition and implementation of all Union policies and activities.  
Union  action,  which  shall  complement  national  policies,  shall  be  directed  towards  improving  public 
health, preventing physical and mental illness and diseases, and obviating sources of danger to physical 
and  mental  health.  Such  action  shall  cover  the  fight  against  the  major  health  scourges,  by  promoting 
research  into  their  causes,  their  transmission  and  their  prevention,  as  well  as  health  information  and 
education, and monitoring, early warning of and combating serious cross-border threats to health. 

62   Third Health Programme (Regulation (EU) No 282/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of  11  March  2014  on  the  establishment  of  a  third  Programme  for  the  Union's  action  in  the  field  of 
health (2014-2020) and repealing Decision No 1350/2007/EC). 
 https://ec.europa.eu/health/funding/programme/2014-2020_en 

51 

 
                                                           
Since  the  2018  annual  work  programme  the  promotion  policy  recognises  the  need  to 
promote  healthy  dietary  practices  within  their  thematic  priorities,  and  have  budget 
allocated to multi programmes targeting the internal market to highlight the ‘nutritional 
and  health  aspects  (including  proper  dietary  practices  and  responsible  consumption  of 
eligible alcoholic beverages)’63. Support under the EU promotion policy for the fruit and 
vegetable sector is also  recognised as instrumental in achieving the measures set out in 
the Tartu Call for healthy lifestyles64.  

The support study shows positive stakeholder  feedback on the focus on promoting fruit 
and vegetables, especially given the data showing that fruit and vegetable intake amongst 
the  EU  population  is  insufficient.65  However,  analysis  from  2017  by  the  European 
Environment Agency estimated that the average protein66 intake of the EU population is 
substantially above the minimum required for a healthy diet, which would imply the need 
to  reduce  meat  consumption  from  a  health  perspective.67  In  this  particular  case,  the 
evidence  suggests  that  the  level  of  coherence  between  the  two  policies  depends  on  the 
extent to which the budget allocated to promoting specific products corresponds to trends 
in under- and overconsumption or to scientific evidence regarding their nutritional value 
and their impact on human health. In the example given, scientific evidence suggesting 
the  need  to  increase  the  consumption  of  fruit  and  vegetables  should  result  in  a  higher 
budget being allocated to promoting these products. 

Overall, most respondents across all respondent  groups from the online survey strongly 
agreed or agreed that the EU agricultural promotion and health policies are aligned. 

The replies to the public consultation gave a positive view on the coherence between the 
EU agricultural promotion policy and the EU health policy, but also indicated the above 
lack  of  consensus,  with  18%  of  141  replies  indicating  ‘full  coherence’  and  35% 
‘coherence’. 13% replied ‘slightly coherent’ and a relatively significant 24% consider the 
policies to be incoherent68, while 10% had no opinion. 

63

  Annual work programme 2019. 

64

  European Commission, ‘The Tartu Call for a healthy lifestyle – where are we two years later?’  

65   Only 14.1% of EU adults consume five portions (equivalent to 400g) of fruit and vegetables per day, as 
recommended  by  most  food-based  dietary  guidelines,  according  to  the  EU  science  hub  based  on 
analysis of the European Food Safety  Authority (EFSA) Comprehensive  Food Consumption database 
(EFSA 
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/health-knowledge-gateway/promotion-
prevention/nutrition/fruit-vegetables. 

database). 

66   Meat and dairy are the main sources of protein in a diet.  
67   European  Environment  Agency,  Food  consumption  —  animal-based  protein,  6  December  2017. 
Available  at  https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/13.2-development-in-consumption-
of-2/assessment-1. 

68   A  total  of  34  (out  of  141)  replies,  of  which  18  were  NGOs.  Although  the  consultation  did  not  yield 
exact  reasons  for  the  perceived  incoherence,  the  replies  to  open  questions  and  complementary 
contributions to the consultation imply that the policy promotes unhealthy food products. There is no 
factual  basis  to  support  such  claims,  which  seem  to  be  founded  on  a  lack  of  understanding  of  the 
objectives of the policy and the intentions of promotion measures, leading to these views. 

52 

 
                                                           
Figure 21 Perception of coherence with EU health policies 

To what extent you agree that the EU’s Agricultural promotion 
policy is in line with EU’s health policies? 

National Competent Authority (N = 26)

12% 

Successful proposing organisation (N = 80)

18% 

Unsuccessful proposing organisation (N = 11)

18% 

65% 

54% 

55% 

4% 

4% 

15% 

4% 

25% 

9% 

9% 

9% 

Implementing body (N = 25)

32% 

56% 

4% 

8% 

Strongly agree

Tend to agree

Tend to disagree

Strongly disagree

I don't know

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Source: support study (adaptation) 

The support study finds that the EU agricultural promotion policy is coherent to a large 
extent  with  EU  health  policies  as  it  found  no  inconsistencies  in  its  objectives  and 
implementation.  However,  the  extent  of  coherence  depends  on  the  type  of  measure 
(promotion programmes and Commission own initiatives) and on the product promoted. 
The EU agricultural promotion policy appears to have a high level of coherence with EU 
health  policies  in  terms  of  the  link  to  increasing  food  safety  and  promoting  balanced 
nutrition.  

The  analysis  shows  that  the  Commission’s  own  initiatives  are  complementary  with 
activities  under  the  Better  Training  for  Safer  Food69  programme  and  that  programmes 
focusing  on  fruit  and  vegetables  are  in  line  with  the  objective  to  increase  their 
consumption.  

Coherence with EU environment and climate change policies 

The Europe 2020 strategy  for smart,  sustainable  and inclusive  growth  sets the target  to 
reduce  greenhouse  gas  emissions  by  20%  compared  to  1990,  and  the  Europe  2030 
strategy increases the target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2030.70 The 
European Green Deal aims to achieve climate neutrality by 205071. 

The analysis of the annual work programmes shows that the EU agricultural promotion 
policy integrated the aspect of sustainability in its planning, but at the same time also has 
a specific but very limited budget allocated to livestock sectors, which are deemed to be 
accountable for a large share of the CO2 emissions in agriculture. This somewhat limits 
coherence  with  the  EU’s  commitment  to  reducing  greenhouse  gas  emissions  and  to 
achieving its broader environmental goals. Animal production in the agri-food sector has 

69  Better Training for Safer Food (BTSF) is a Commission training initiative covering food and feed law, 
animal  health  and  welfare,  plant  health  rules  and  rules  on  plant  protection  products  based  on  Article 
130 of Regulation (EU) 2017/625. 

70

  In  addition,  The  Communications  ‘Clean  planet  for  all’  and  ‘The  European  Green  Deal’  go  a  step 
further  by  setting  an  aim  of  achieving  net-zero  greenhouse  gas  emissions  in  the  EU  by  2050.  See 
COM/2018/773 final, Clean Planet for all  - A European strategic long-term vision for a prosperous, 
modern, competitive and climate neutral economy. 

71   https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_19_6691 

53 

 
                                                           
a  high  ecological  footprint  in  terms  of  greenhouse  gas  emissions.72  Reducing  the 
production  and  consumption  of  meat  and  dairy  products  can  therefore  help  to  reduce 
greenhouse  gas  emissions  and  have  a  positive  impact  on  health  and  environment.  The 
Commission  stated  that  Europeans  making  ‘moderate  changes  in  food  consumption 
patterns’  to  eat  less  meat  ‘could  reduce  significantly  emissions  from  agriculture 
production’.73   

Most respondents to the online survey who provided an answer strongly agreed or agreed 
that  the  EU’s  agricultural  promotion  policy  is  in  line  with  EU’s  environmental  and 
climate  change  policies.  There  was  some  disagreement,  depending  on  the  respondent 
groups:  40%  of  unsuccessful  proposing  organisations  strongly  disagreed  or  disagreed, 
against only 17% for implementing bodies, 22% for national  competent  authorities and 
7% for successful proposing organisations.  

Figure 22 Perceived coherence with EU environment and climate change policies 

To what extent you agree that the EU’s Agricultural promotion 
policy is in line with EU’s environment and climate change 
policies? 

National Competent Authority (N = 26)

8% 

42% 

12% 

12% 

27% 

Successful proposing organisation (N = 80)

14% 

54% 

8% 

25% 

Unsuccessful proposing organisation (N = 11)

18% 

36% 

27% 

9% 

9% 

Implementing body (N = 25)

20% 

52% 

12% 

16% 

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Cannot say

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Source: support study (adaptation) 

There were mixed replies to the public consultation regarding coherence between the EU 
agricultural  promotion  policy  and  EU  environment  and  climate  action  policies. 
Regarding  environment,  12%  (of  140  respondents)  replied  that  they  were  ‘fully 
coherent’,  34%  ‘coherent’,  but  21%  ‘incoherent’  (with  13%  ‘don’t  know’).  On  climate 
action,  11%  replied  ‘fully  coherent’,  32%  ‘coherent’,  but  24%  ‘incoherent’  (with  15% 
‘don’t know’). 

Overall,  the  design  of  the  EU  agricultural  promotion  policy  recognises  the  priorities  of 
EU  policies  on  climate  change  and  environment,  especially  by  highlighting  the 
importance  of  sustainable  production  methods.  However,  as  the  policy’s  focus  is  on 
enhancing competitiveness of EU agrifood sectors, it is not designed a priori to support 

72   Most emissions of non-CO2 greenhouse gases (i.e. methane and nitrous oxide) in agriculture originate 
directly or indirectly from animal production. This sector will be directly responsible for 72% of those 
emissions in 2030, assuming emissions from manure on the field are allocated to the livestock sector. 
EU agricultural outlook: European emissions linked to agriculture set to decrease by 2030.  

73   European Commission, In-depth analysis underpinning Commission Communication COM/2018/773. 

November 2018. 
https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/clima/files/docs/pages/com_2018_733_analysis_in_support_en_0.pdf. 

54 

 
 
                                                           
environmental and climate objectives, which means that negative impacts on climate and 
the  environment  can  occur  as  it  covers  sectors  that  are  responsible  for  a  large  share  of 
greenhouse  gas  emissions  (e.g.  meat  and  dairy).  Promotion  of  exports  to  non-EU 
countries  that  require  longer  transportation,  could  be  more  CO2  intensive  overall, 
depending  on  their  production  methods.    Given  that  the  environmental  and  climate 
impact of the promotion programmes depends on a range of factors such as product type, 
production  methods  and  transport  mode,  it  is  impossible  to  quantify  the  effect  of 
promotion campaigns on climate change and environment without conducting a case by 
case analysis based on a commonly accepted framework. 

Coherence with EU development policies 

There has been much analysis of the coherence of the common agricultural policy with 
EU  development  policies,74  with  the  observation  that  the  shift  towards  a  more  market-
focused approach has minimised potential distortions in global agricultural markets. The 
measures  implemented  under  the  EU  agricultural  promotion  policy  are  not  based  on 
direct price or market support measures (e.g. subsidies, market restrictions, etc.), which 
are  perceived  as  having  trade-  and/or  market-distorting  effects.  They  classify  as  ‘green 
box’  (permitted)  measures  under  the  World  Trade  Organisation’s  categorisation  of 
domestic support in agriculture75. However, the European non-government organisation 
confederation for relief and development (CONCORD) highlighted in a note from 2018 
the  conflict  between  EU  ‘support  of  an  export-focused  model  of  production  and  local 
markets  in  developing  countries  which  have  the  potential  to  increase  production  in 
response  to  domestic  food  needs.’76  Nevertheless,  the  impact  of  EU  agricultural 
promotion programmes on developing countries is likely to differ, depending on factors 
such  as  market  segments,  level  of  development  of  the  target  country,  local  production 
conditions and prices. 

Stakeholders highlighted that increasing the market share of specific, sensitive products 
(e.g. milk powder, chicken parts and tomato paste) can have distorting effects on markets 
in  developing  regions  (e.g.  Sub-Saharan  Africa).  Examples  include  unfair  competition 
driving small-scale local food producers out of business or reducing their profit margins, 
negatively affecting local livelihoods and hindering processes of women empowerment. 
For  example,  the  Oxfam  Case  Study  on  the  dairy  sector  in  West  Africa  mentions  that 
local producers struggle to gain access to the more formalised market and to develop the 
local dairy sector due to ‘inequalities and lack of investment, infrastructure and interest 
from businesses’ and cheap imports of milk powder from Europe.77 However, only 3% of 
promotion programmes target Africa, corresponding to four promotion programmes, only 

74

  Recent reports include European Parliament, DG for External Policies, ‘The Impact of the Common 
Agricultural Policy on Developing Countries’, 2018 or European Commission, SWD (2019) 20 final, 
‘2019 EU report on Policy Coherence for Development’.  

75   See Annex 2 to the Agreement on Agriculture, more specifically ‘marketing and promotion services, 
including  market  information,  advice  and  promotion  relating  to  particular  products  but  excluding 
expenditure  for  unspecified  purposes  that  could  be  used  by  sellers  to  reduce  their  selling  price  or 
confer a direct economic benefit to purchasers’.  

76   CONCORD 

recommendations  on  CAP 

and  PCD,  2018.  https://concordeurope.org/wp-

content/uploads/2018/11/CONCORD_Recommendations_CAP_PCSD_Nov2018.pdf. 

77   Oxfam, ‘Taking a fresh approach: enabling local producers to meet rising demand in West Africa’s 

dairy sector’, June 2018. 

55 

 
 
                                                           
two  of  which  were  to  promote  dairy  products  in  Africa.  The  other  concerned  beer  and 
meat.  The  annual  work  programmes  for  201678  and  201779  also  identified  African 
countries  as  countries  with  a  high-growth  potential  to  be  targeted  by  promotion 
programmes.  

Most respondents to the online survey carried out as part of the support study perceived 
EU  agricultural  promotion  and  development  policies  as  coherent,  although  a  relatively 
high share of respondents also ‘cannot answer’ this question (38% of national competent 
authorities). This may be linked to the fact that only a very small share of programmes 
target developing countries, so the respondents may not have been aware of the potential 
impact. 

The  public  consultation  also  produced  mixed  replies  on  the  coherence  between  the  EU 
agricultural  promotion  policy  and  EU  development  policy,  with  12%  of  140  replies 
indicating  ‘full  coherence’  and  29%  ‘coherence’.  21%  replied  ‘slightly  coherent’  and 
19% considered the policies to be incoherent, while 19% had no opinion. 

Figure 23 Perceived coherence with EU development policies 

To what extent you agree that the EU’s Agricultural promotion 
policy is in line with EU’s development policies? 

National Competent Authority (N = 26)

15% 

46% 

38% 

Successful proposing organisation (N = 80)

19% 

51% 

5% 

25% 

Unsuccessful proposing organisation (N = 11)

9% 

64% 

9% 

9% 

9% 

Implementing body (N = 25)

16% 

60% 

4% 

20% 

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Cannot say

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Source: support study (adaptation) 

Overall, the assessment did not find any tension between EU development policy and EU 
agricultural promotion policy targeting mainly developed, non-EU markets. 

In addition, it cannot be concluded that these four promotion programmes contradict the 
sustainable development goal to eradicate poverty or that they have a negative impact on 
the development of the local markets by driving local producers out of business and by 
having an impact on prices. The lack of empirical evidence and the need for a case-by-
case  simulation  of  each  measure  makes  it  impossible  to  identify  exact  impact  and 
causalities, which depend on the specific product and national context. 

78   See  the  2016  Annual  Work  Programme,  Topic  8  -  Information  and  promotion  programmes  targeting 

one or more countries of Africa or Middle East with a budget of EUR 4,690,000.  

79   See  the  2017 Annual Work Programme, Topic 5  - Information provision and promotion programmes 
targeting one or more countries of Africa, Middle East, Iran or Turkey with a budget of EUR 8,450,000.  

56 

 
 
                                                           
5.5. EU added value  

The assessment of EU added value of the promotion policy analysed the extent to which 
stakeholders perceived EU added value from the promotion policy (both in the EU and in 
non-EU  countries).  It  also  analysed  the  extent  to  which  EU  promotion  policy  remains 
justified, based on an analysis of the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance and coherence 
and the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality.  

Based  on  the  results  of  different  data  collection  methods  and  the  analysis  of  the  other 
evaluation criteria, it appears that there is high level of agreement that the EU promotion 
policy has added value that  can be achieved only  at  EU level.  This  was highlighted by 
almost  all  participants  of  the  in-depth  interviews  with  representatives  from  seven 
Commission  Directorates-General.80  It  was  also  backed  up  by  the  results  of  the  online 
survey  that  captured  the  opinion  of  a  broader  set  stakeholders.  As  shown  in  Figure  24, 
81% of all national authorities and successful proposing organisations strongly agreed or 
agreed with this statement. 

Figure 24 Assessment of the added value of the EU’s agricultural promotion policy 

To what extent you agree that the EU’s Agricultural promotion 
policy brings added value that can be achieved only at EU-level? 

National Competent Authority (N = 26)

12% 

69% 

Successful proposing organisation (N = 80)

28% 

53% 

8% 

12% 
1% 

9% 

10% 

Unsuccessful proposing organisation (N = 11)

9% 

64% 

27% 

Implementing body (N = 25)

28% 

48% 

12% 

12% 

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Cannot say

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Source: support study (adaptation) 

In non-EU markets in particular, it is clear that EU programmes and EU trade fairs and 
high-level  missions,  through  their  EU-level  coordination,  are  far  more  effective  and 
efficient than running separate national programmes with the risk of fragmentation. This 
was highlighted by almost all participants in the in-depth interviews with representatives 
from seven Directorates-General81 and confirmed by the results of the online survey that 
captured the opinion of a broader set of stakeholders.  

Nevertheless,  the  nature  of  EU  added  value  of  the  promotion  policy  perceived  by 
stakeholders differ, especially in relation to EU and non-EU markets. On the EU market, 
promotion policy beneficiaries seek to underline the quality of certain products, while on 
non-EU markets their aim is to increase sales and market share.  

80   The policy areas covered include agriculture, maritime and fishery policies, internal market and trade 

policies, communication, health and food safety, climate action.  

81

  The policy areas covered include agriculture, maritime and fishery policies, internal market and trade 

policies, communication, health and food safety, climate action.  

57 

 
 
                                                           
The  consulted  stakeholders  reported  that  EU  promotion  programmes  are  better  able  to 
boost  the  position  of  EU  products  on  non-EU  markets,  because  they  achieve  higher 
visibility  due  to  cooperation  between  multiple  stakeholders  and  therefore  made  it 
possible  to  run  larger-scale  programmes.  This  should  be  particularly  the  case  for  multi 
programmes, which have a higher budget and are implemented by multiple organisations 
from  across  the  EU.  This  argument  is  backed  up  by  the  effectiveness  analysis,  which 
concluded that the EU agricultural promotion policy contributes to increased awareness.  

The respondents  of the  public consultation  were also  convinced that  the  EU promotion 
policy creates added value. 

  A  clear  majority  of  respondents  (79%  of  138  replies)  found  that  the  EU 
agricultural and food promotion policy is better able to achieve the objectives to 
improve  competitiveness  of  the  agricultural  sector  than  national/regional  level 
policy,  either  ‘far  better’  (32%),  or  ‘better’  (47%).  Only  9%  of  respondents 
reported ‘less able’ to achieve the objectives, 4% reported ‘no difference’ and 7% 
had no opinion.  

  An  overwhelming  majority  of  respondents  found  that  the  EU  agricultural  and 
food  promotion  policy  measures  contributed  to  spreading  an  EU-wide  message, 
both in the EU and in non-EU countries, either strongly (53% of 136 replies), or 
moderately  (35%).  1%  of  respondents  replied  that  there  is  no  contribution,  2% 
considered that the contribution is negative, and 9% had no opinion.  

 

In addition, most respondents to the public consultation found that the tools and 
events  set  up  by  the  EU  agricultural  and  food  promotion  policy  help  boost 
communication  and  cooperation  between  stakeholders  at  EU  level  and  in  the 
Member  States  (CHAFEA  portal,  Info  Days,  matchmaking  sessions),  either 
strongly (37% of 134 replies) or moderately (32%). 8% reported that the tools and 
events  have  a  neutral  impact,  1%  reported  a  negative  impact,  and  22%  had  no 
opinion.  

The  surveys  and  interviews  with  stakeholders  indicate  that  the  promotion  programmes 
targeting  non-EU  markets  bring  EU  added  value  because  they  perform  better  than 
promotion  measures that lack  an EU focus. They have higher visibility, resonate better 
with  non-EU  target  audiences  and  benefit  a  larger  stakeholder  group  because  of  their 
focus on categories of products and not brands. That the programmes provide EU added 
value is also confirmed by the fact that the policy enables promotion measures to be run 
that would otherwise not be possible, especially for small proposing organisations.   

In terms of the effects of EU promotion programmes on the internal market, the greatest 
added value perceived by stakeholders both at EU and at national level is the increase in 
cooperation  among trade operators and the scope for them  to  learn from  each other.  In 
addition, the EU dimension of the programmes is likely to strengthen the EU identity of 
agri-food  producers  and  EU  citizens,  especially  if  the  messages  have  a  European 
dimension  and  are  linked  to  EU  policy  areas.  The  Commission’s  own  initiatives  have 
substantial  EU  added  value  since  strategic  events  benefiting  organisations  from  all 
Member  States  and  across  product  sectors  would  not  be  possible  without  action  at  EU 
level  e.g.  high-level  missions  and  trade  fairs  lead  to  contracts  for  EU  exporters  and 
prepare  the  ground  for  fruitful  promotion  programmes.  Own  initiatives  benefit 
organisations from all Member States and across all product sectors by representing the 
EU as a whole.  

58 

 
6.  CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNT 

The objective of the evaluation was to examine the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, 
coherence, and EU added value of the reformed EU agricultural  promotion  policy. The 
focus was on Regulation (EU) No 1114/2014, the main objective of which is to boost the 
competitiveness of the EU’s agricultural sector.  

The  scope  of  the  evaluation  included  promotion  measures  (simple  programmes,  multi 
programmes  and  Commission  own  initiatives)  targeting  both  the  EU  and  non-EU 
markets, implemented by proposing organisations from all Member States. 

The  timeframe  for  this  evaluation  was  from  2016  to  2019  for  the  Commission’s  own 
initiatives,  though  only  the  first  two  years  were  taken  into  account  for  the  simple  and 
multi programmes (programmes that started implementation in 2017).  

The evaluation faced a number of inherent challenges and resultant limitations.  

  First,  the  timing  of  the  evaluation  meant  that  no  programmes  were  yet  complete, 

which affected the ability to fully assess effectiveness of measures at this time.  

  Second, the wide range of programmes and Commission own initiatives meant that a 
‘one-size-fits  all’  approach  could  not  be  taken  to  analyse  all  programmes  and 
initiatives. Instead, a purposeful selection of case studies was made to provide an in-
depth  analysis  indicative  of  the  bigger  picture,  albeit  not  representative  of  all 
programmes.  

  Third, estimating the costs and benefits of the promotion policy in quantitative terms 
proved  not  to  be  feasible  due  to  lack  of  comprehensive  data.  As  a  result,  the 
assessment  of  links  between  operational  and  administrative  aspects  and  efficient 
achievement of results was based primarily on qualitative data collected.  

  Last,  it  was  difficult  to  isolate  the  specific  impact  of  the  promotion  policy  from  the 
impact of contextual factors such as markets developments, behaviour of competitors, 
changed  preferences  of  consumers,  marketing  activities  of  private  companies  and 
promotion policy of competing countries outside the EU.  

It is important to keep these aspects in mind when analysing and interpreting the results 
of the study. 

Effectiveness 

Although  it  is  relatively  early  in  the  implementation  process  to  fully  assess  the 
effectiveness  of  the  EU  agricultural  promotion  policy,  the  evaluation  has  shown  that 
based  on  the  preliminary  data  available  the  activities  funded  do  effectively  support  the 
policy objectives.  

There was limited evidence on the exact contribution the promotion policy made to the 
competitiveness  of  EU  agricultural  products  as  the  promotion  programmes  funded  in 
2016 and 2017 are ongoing, and since most are an early stage, no final reports were yet 
available.  However  the  stakeholders  consulted  considered  that  the  policy  has  the 
potential  to  boost  competitiveness,  and  there  is  evidence  from  the  case  studies  that  the 
selected  programmes  are  contributing  to  increasing  sales  and  consumption  of  the  EU 
products  promoted in  the target  markets.  However, it is  not  yet possible to  identify the 
most and least effective products or types of measure. Case study evidence suggests that 
certain  specific activities supported increased competitiveness  in  particular markets,  for 

59 

 
example those that focus on direct contact with consumers, networking at trade fairs and 
events, and using influencers and social media to promote products.  

The  support  given  to  simple  and  multi  programmes  is  effective  and  has  the  requisite 
characteristics to meet the specific objectives of raising awareness and the profile of EU 
products,  quality  schemes,  and  production  standards.  However,  for  several  contextual 
reasons,  it  is  difficult  to  quantify  the  impact  of  the  programmes  on  sales  end  market 
share. The support focuses effectively on specific markets in non-EU countries with the 
highest  growth potential. Measures implemented  under the Commission  own initiatives 
can be considered highly effective at paving the way for entering or expanding in non-
EU markets. 

The  evaluation  highlighted  limits  to  the  monitoring  and  evaluation  system,  which  does 
not currently allow for a comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness of the promotion 
policy, and are areas for improvement.  

Efficiency 

The evaluation did not find major concerns related to efficiency. As a result, and at this 
stage, the EU agricultural promotion policy has been, in general, implemented efficiently. 
However,  due  to  limitations  of  the  monitoring  and  evaluation  system  and  the  lack  of 
completed  projects,  the  costs  and  benefits  of  most  promotion  measures  could  not  be 
measured, in particular for promotion programmes. Some clear differences have emerged 
between the management  of simple and multi  programmes, with  the level  of efficiency 
varying according to the approach to management (with direct management  being more 
efficient). There is scope to make efficiency gains for future programme implementation, 
particularly by increasing knowledge sharing.  

Relevance 

Overall, the stakeholder evidence indicates that the general and specific objectives of EU 
agricultural promotion policy are relevant and that they positively meet stakeholder needs 
and address market challenges. 

The  promotion  policy  seems  to  be  particularly  relevant  for  promotion  programmes 
targeting  non-EU  countries,  as  they  increase  awareness  and  improve  consumer 
perception of product quality. This is especially important for smaller producers entering 
a non-EU market for the first time, or organisations marketing relatively new products.  

The evaluation support study identified some areas for improvement. In particular, it will 
be  increasingly  relevant  to  communicate  about  the  central  role  the  EU  agricultural 
promotion  policy  can  play  in  stimulating  the  transition  towards  a  green  and  more 
sustainable  European  agricultural  sector.  For  example,  it  will  be  important  to  highlight 
the economic, environmental and social sustainability aspects of EU agricultural products 
and production processes in the annual work programmes.  

Regarding measures implemented with the objective of restoring market conditions after 
serious disturbances, the promotion  programmes  were found to  have limited flexibility. 
However,  no  such  measures  were  implemented  over  the  reference  period  as  no  serious 
market condition was reported.  

60 

 
 
 
Coherence 

Internal coherence 

The  assessment  found  the  EU  agricultural  promotion  policy  to  be  internally  coherent. 
The  Commission  own  initiatives  complement  promotion  programmes  by  addressing 
strategic questions, and promotion programmes benefit from positive spill over effects.  

There  is  still  potential  to  explore  additional  synergies,  for  example  complementarity 
between  beneficiary  promotion  programmes  and  Commission  own  initiatives,  in 
particular when targeting similar markets or products (i.e. a more coordinated approach). 
In  fact,  high-level  missions  are  often  planned  independently  from  the  ongoing 
programmes (see the case for wine and spirits in the USA, dairy products in China, fruit 
and vegetables in United Arab Emirates, see Annex 2) whereas programmes are often run 
as a follow-up to high-level missions. 

Coherence with national and private promotion measures 

Based  on  stakeholder  opinions  and  examples  of  single  Member  States,  the  EU 
agricultural promotion policy is broadly coherent with similar governmental and private 
measures  implemented  at  national  level.  The  promotion  policy  measures  enhance  the 
impact by promoting the same product characteristics or filling funding gaps. According 
to  stakeholder  interviews  and  case  studies,  the  national  context  differs  across  Member 
States  in  terms  of  the  national  level  measures  available82.  In  some  Member  States,  a 
number of government-to-government activities are run with the goal of trade promotion, 
while  in  others,  there  are  dedicated  funds  to  promote  agricultural  products.  In  others, 
there is no funding for such activities at all or the available budget is adapted in line with 
the availability of EU level support in order to avoid overlap.   

Thus the two policy levels, EU and national, are coordinated to a large extent. Potential 
areas  of  tension  in  implementation  were  identified  but  were  not  backed  up  by  specific 
examples.  

Coherence with other EU policies 

The  assessment  did  not  identify  any  major  inconsistencies  between  the  EU  agricultural 
promotion  policy  and  other  EU  policies,  including,  health,  climate  and  environmental 
and development policies.  

However,  there  are  some  examples  of  promotion  activities  that  can  be  perceived 
inconsistent with other EU policies, with respect to their potential impact. Accordingly, 
promotion  of  specific  product  types  (e.g.  those  which  in  certain  circumstances  can  be 
considered as harmful to human health), production methods (e.g. those that may have a 
negative  environmental  and  climate  impact)  and  in  certain  markets  (e.g.  developing 
countries) will need careful attention in light of evolving priorities, such as the European 
Green Deal, the farm to fork strategy, the Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan initiative, among 
others.  

82   In  some  Member  States,  a  number  of  government-to-government  activities  are  run  with  the  goal  of 
trade  promotion  taking  place,  while  in  others,  there  are  (i)  dedicated  funds  for  the  promotion  of 
agricultural products, or (ii) no funds for such activities, or (iii) available funds adapted in accordance 
with the availability of EU-level support at EU level in order to avoid overlap. 

61 

 
 
                                                           
The  strategic  priorities  of  the  annual  work  programme  should  be  set  in  view  of  the 
evolving  priorities  and  developments  in  other  relevant  EU  policy  areas,  aligning  with 
climate,  environmental,  health  and  development  policy  objectives.  The  capacity  of  the 
annual  work  programmes  to  address  such  developments  is  well  demonstrated  in  the 
annual  work  programme  for  2021,  which  dedicates  50%  of  the  budget  to  topics 
supporting  the  farm  to  fork  objectives  such  as  promotion  of  organics,  of  sustainability 
and  of  consumption  of  fruit  and  vegetables  in  the  context  of  balanced  a  proper  dietary 
practices. 

EU added value 

Promotion  measures  designed  and  managed  at  EU  level  generate  specific  EU  added 
value, with their focus on categories of products, rather than brands. This brings an EU 
dimension to cooperation and provides opportunities for learning and cooperation among 
EU trade operators that go beyond the purview of national or private-sector initiatives.  

Commission  own  initiatives  can  be  particularly  valuable  in  paving  the  way  for  EU, 
national  and  private-sector  promotion  measures.  Having  a  visible  EU  presence  in  fairs 
and high-level missions generates a stronger impact on awareness of products and market 
shares than national bodies acting on their own. When discussing the added value of EU 
promotion  programmes  on  the  external  market,  the  stakeholders  consulted  believe  that 
EU promotion programmes are better able to boost the position of EU products in non-
EU markets.  

Indeed,  promotion  measures  achieve  a  higher  level  of  visibility  due  to  cooperation 
between  multiple  stakeholders  and  therefore  the  scope  to  implement  larger-scale 
programmes.  This  should  be  particularly  the  case  for  multi  programmes,  which  have  a 
higher budget and are implemented by multiple organisations from across the EU. 

Lessons learnt 

Despite the methodological limitations hindering a comprehensive and timely assessment 
of  all  aspects  covered  in  the  evaluation,  the  following  lessons  can  be  drawn.  They  can 
help shape the future development of the EU promotion policy: 

  The  focus  on  specific  markets  in  non-EU  countries  with  the  highest  growth 
potential,  tailoring  awareness  raising  measures  to  the  targeted  audience  and 
engagement  with  opinion  leaders,  traditional  and  social  media  advertisements 
(already  frequently  used  in  the  promotion  programmes  and  Commission  own 
initiatives),  tastings,  trade  fair  appearances,  and  information  stands  have  proven 
highly effective in pursuing the objectives of the policy. 

  The monitoring and evaluation system for the simple  and multi programmes are 
not  fit  for  purpose  in  their  current  form,  making  it  nearly  impossible  to 
demonstrate  the  impact  of  the  programmes,  as  well  as  the  efficiency  of  the 
Commission own initiatives. Before the next programming period, the monitoring 
and evaluation system could be reviewed for the simple and multi programmes to 
ensure it is fit for purpose. Specifically, the scope to use qualitative indicators at 
results  level  can  be  further  explored  and  a  concise  list  of  mandatory  indicators 
drawn up. Concerning the measures taken under the Commission’s own initiative, 
there is also room to improve the definition and application of indicators to track 
performance and facilitate sharing of the lessons learnt.  

  The  management  procedures  associated  with  the  simple  programmes  are 

considered complex and work-intensive. 

62 

 
  The annual work programmes need to be endowed with enough flexibility to set 
the  strategic  priorities  taking  into  consideration  the  overarching  Commission 
priorities. 

  The ‘Enjoy! It’s from Europe’ signature is more suitable and promising for non-
EU  countries  markets  than  for  the  EU  market.  The  evaluation  found  scope  to 
increase the EU added value of the agricultural promotion policy by stepping up 
exchanges of knowledge and experience between beneficiaries, increasing the use 
of  the  signature  ‘Enjoy!  It’s  from  Europe’,  exploring  synergies  between 
improving 
promotion  programmes  and  Commission  own 
coherence with other EU policies. 

initiatives,  and 

 

In  view  of  evolving  EU  priorities  and  broader  policy  developments,  the 
promotion policy needs to be adaptive in order to address such developments and 
ensure its  alignment and coherence with  other policies  (notably the Green Deal, 
Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan, and farm to fork strategy). 

  Promotion  policy  has  the  potential  to  play  a  supporting  role  in  the  transition 
towards a green and sustainable European agricultural sector from an economic, 
environmental, health and social perspective (as demonstrated in the 2021 annual 
work programme).  

 

In  the  long  term,  it  could  be  worth  considering  options  to  streamline  and 
harmonise  the  management  of  simple  and  multi  programmes.  For  Commission 
own  initiatives,  although  the  diplomatic  nature  and  sensitivities  of  the  measures 
carried out require the use of tailored and flexible approaches, it would help track 
the efficiency of events if the measurement of reporting indicators was consistent.   

It  would  be  useful  to  carry  out  a  study  to  provide  a  comprehensive  overview  of  all 
governmental  and  private-sector  initiatives  in  the  Member  States,  with  the  aim  of 
positioning EU-level action even more strategically within the different national contexts.  

63 

 
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

Lead dg, decide planning/CWP references 

Lead DG of this evaluation is DG Agriculture and Rural Development. 

The registration in DECIDE is PLAN/2018/2893. 

The  Roadmap  for  public  feedback  on  the  design  of  the  evaluation  was  open  from 
18 July 2018 until 15 August 2018. 

A support study “Evaluation of the EU agricultural promotion policy – internal and third 
countries markets” was commissioned under Specific Contract No. AGRI/07/2018/Lot 1 
implementing  Framework  Contract  No.  PO/2016-06/01-Lot  1,  signed  by  the  parties  on 
20 December 2016.  

The specific contract came into force on 11 July 2019. 

Organisation and timing 

The  following  Directorates  General  and  General  Services  participated  in  the  Steering 
Group  of  the  support  study:    Agriculture  and  Rural  Development,  Environment, 
Maritime  Affairs  and  Fisheries,  Health  and  Food  Safety,  Budget,  Secretariat-General, 
Communication,  Eurostat  as  well  as  the  Executive  Agency  for  Consumers,  Health  and 
Food Executive Agency (CHAFEA). 

The Steering Group held nine meetings. The kick-off meeting was held on 22 July 2019.  

The  evaluation  support  study  was  delivered  on  2  September  2020.  From  this  a  version 
meeting  the  official  OPOCE  publication  requirements  was  prepared  and  published  on 
14 October 2020. 

Evidence, sources and quality 

The evidence of this evaluation is based on interviews and surveys of key stakeholders, 
six    case  studies  carried  out  by  experts,  comprehensive  literature  review  and  desk 
research. In addition stakeholders were consulted in the respective Civil Dialogue Group 
and an online public consultation provided additional opportunities for stakeholders and 
the wider public to express their views. 

In view of data limitations signalled in this evaluation the case studies are an important 
part  of  the  evidence  of  the  evaluation.  Six  case  study  countries  were  chosen  for  this 
evaluation,  each  representing  a  combination  of  (a  range  of)  promoted  products  and  a 
targeted country.  

All case studies followed the same general approach and applied the same methodology. 
A  case  study  template  and  guidance  was  prepared  to  seek  as  much  homogeneity  as 
possible  and  to  allow  the  results  of  the  case  studies  to  be  synthesised  in  a  streamlined 
way.  

64 

 
 
ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION 

The  Roadmap  for  public  feedback  on  the  design  of  the  evaluation  was  open  from 
18 July 2018  until  15  August  2018.  A  majority  of  stakeholders,  in  particular  non-
governmental organisations, urged for a design with particular attention for the coherence 
with  EU  health  policy  and  climate  action.  The  design  of  the  evaluation  was  adapted 
accordingly. 

For this evaluation a public consultation was held as well as surveys of key stakeholders.  

Surveys of stakeholders 

To  collect  the  views  of  a  wide  base  of  stakeholders  impacted  by  the  policy  two  online 
targeted  surveys  were  held:  one  survey  targeting  the  national  competent  authorities, 
while the other targeted the proposing organisations and implementing bodies, including 
successful and unsuccessful applicants. 

The  questions  of  the  online  surveys  followed  closely  the  five  evaluation  themes 
(effectiveness,  efficiency,  relevance,  coherence  and  value  added)  as  well  as  the  six 
evaluation questions. 

The online surveys targeting national competent authorities and proposing organisations 
and  implementing  bodies  were  active  for  a  period  of  six  weeks,  from  28  October  to 
6 December and were exceptionally extended to allow National Competent Authorities to 
provide responses until end December 2019.  

The complete survey analysis is presented in Annex 1.C of the evaluation support study.  

The initial response rate for both online surveys was low, which is why a reminder mail 
was sent to encourage participation and the deadline for responding to the online survey 
targeting national competent authorities was extended. There were about 140 respondents 
in total, the exact number was dependent on the particular question. 

Public consultation 

The  public  consultation  was  conducted  from  8  May  2020  to  11  September  2020  using 
EU Survey,  via  the  European  Commission’s  website83,  in  all  official  EU  languages 
excluding Irish. It investigated, in particular, the measures adopted under the 2016, 2017 
and  2018  annual  work  programmes,  including  both  promotion  programmes  (promotion 
actions in the EU market and in third countries, put forward by proposing organisations), 
as well as measures carried out at the initiative of the Commission (high level missions, 
trade fairs, own campaigns and technical support services). 
A  total  of  144  contributions  were  received  from  19  EU  Member  States84  and  Ecuador, 
with different levels of replies. The 144 replies received in the public consultation result 
in a low statistical significance. 

83   https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/1859-Evaluation-of-the-EU-

agricultural-promotion-policy/public-consultation  

84   Including  the  United  Kingdom  (UK).  There  were  no  contributions  from  Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  Greece, 

Croatia, Latvia, Luxemburg, Malta, Slovenia and Slovakia 

65 

 
 
                                                           
Non-governmental  organisations  provided  the  most  contributions  to  this  consultation 
accounting for 25% of all respondents (number of responses (N) =36), closely followed 
by  business  associations  accounting  for  24%  of  all  respondents  (N=35)  and  by 
companies/business associations accounting for 19% of all respondents (N=27), therefore 
companies  and  business  associations  together  represented  43%  (N=62).  Of  all  the 
respondents,  EU  citizens  constituted  12%  (N=17),  public  authorities  8%  (N=12), 
academic/research  institutions  1%,  trade  unions  1%,  consumer  organisations  1%  and 
environmental organisations 1%. The remaining 8% of respondents identified themselves 
as ’others’. 

The most represented sectors were agro-food and agriculture/forestry (constituting 33% 
and  26%  of  all  respondents  respectively).  Least  numerous  were  civil  society  and 
environmental  protection  (13% 
trade  (6%).  Rural  development, 
together)  and 
development cooperation, energy and health accounted for 1% each. In addition to that, 
‘others’ accounted for 15%. 

As for their role in the promotion of agricultural and food products, the most represented 
categories  were  proposing  organisations  (38%),  implementing  bodies  and  national 
authorities  (8%  each),  followed  by  evaluation  bodies  (1%).  The  remaining  46%  of 
respondents declared ‘other’ or did not provide a reply. 

A  total  of  96  respondents  (67%)  chose  to  make  their  full  personal  details  (i.e.  name, 
organisation name and size, transparency register number, country of origin) available for 
publication  with  their  contribution,  with  a  minority,  48  respondents  (33%)  opting  for 
anonymity. 

A  significant  share  of  these  respondents  had  already  participated  in  the  interviews  and 
surveys conducted as part of the external evaluation study carried out earlier in 2020 also 
in the context of the evaluation of the EU promotional policy for agricultural products. 

In  general,  a  majority  of  the  respondents  gave  a  positive  answer  to  the  questions,  i.e. 
totally agreed and tended to agree with the question asked. No striking differences were 
found between the different respondent groups.  

A  high  majority  of  respondents  (96%  of  141  replies  provided  to  the  specific  question) 
were  aware  of  the  EU  agricultural  and  food  promotion  policy  covering  various 
agricultural  products.  However,  only  a  third  of  the  respondents  (30%  of  142  replies 
provided to the specific question) were beneficiaries of funding schemes that are part of 
the EU agricultural promotion policy.  

The  findings  of  the  public  consultation  have  been  presented  in  the  relevant  analytical 
chapters on the different evaluation criteria, but can also be found, as a single summary 
document on the consultation website for the evaluation85.  

A  number  of  open  questions  were  included  in  the  consultation.  Table  2  presents  an 
overview  of  replies  on  how  promotion  policy  can  be  made  more  coherent  with  the 
sustainable  food  systems  as  described  in  the  European  Green  Deal,  while  reflecting 
sustainability in economic, environmental, social and health aspects. 

85   https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/1859-Evaluation-of-the-EU-

agricultural-promotion-policy/public-consultation 

66 

 
 
 
                                                           
Table 2 Replies to open question on coherence 

Environmental 
sustainability 

  Promotion should focus on the reduction of climate footprint 
  Positive discrimination in the promotion of ‘KM0’, local, more sustainable production 

(which cannot benefit from scale economies of large companies) 

  Differentiation  between  organic  &  sustainable  production.  Not  the  same  focus  on 

both, sustainable should be at least as significant as organic production 

  Promotion focusing on artisanal meat 
  Conventional  poultry  meat  production  more  sustainable  than  its  organic  counterpart 
(less intensive in greenhouse gas emissions / meat production), therefore, eligible for 
application 

  But  increasing  sustainability  requirements  could  affect  EU’s  agricultural  sector 

competitiveness (if non-EU countries do not have the same standards) 
  Incentives provided may not be enough to achieve ecological transition 
  Coordinated action with other policies to achieve sustainability  
  Promotion should help avoid overconsumption and waste generation 
  Promotion should focus on products which positively affect health 
  Wine  sector  promotion  usefulness  being  questioned  by  ECA,  wine’s  healthiness 
questioned; but there is no justification for measures against promotion of responsible 
consumption 

  Promotion  supporting  Farm-to-Fork  change  of  diet  (focus  on  diets  and  not  certain 
foods,  respecting  Europe’s  rich  food  culture  differences),  GIs  as  part  of  a  diet,  not 
individually picked 

  Promotion  of  Pork  should  be  reduced  in  favour  of  other  meats,  or  ideally  vegetal 

products 

  Consumer diets should not be established by major food-company lobbies 
  But meat should still be part of diets 
  Ensure  that  EU  marketing  standards  continue  to  focus  on  the  quality  aspects  of  the 

products;  

  Allow funding for non-food agricultural products, as city plants or similar 
  Promotion applicable (and qualification) to plant-based food and drinks 
  Promotion applicable (and qualification) to all kind of foods and drinks  
  Budget  should  respond  to  the  priorities  established  by  the  European  Commission 

(Farm-to-fork, Green Deal, and other policies to come) 

  Promotion  should  also  support  innovation  in  non-food  sectors,  like  packaging  or 

traceability, strongly related to food. 

Health  

Quality 

Scope 

Animal Welfare 

  Promotion should be applicable to companies with a good treatment towards livestock 
  Promotion in third countries could allow improving those  countries animal’s overall 

Competition 

welfare 

  Possibility of EU FTA’s hindering EU promotion policy, as consumers could acquire 
foreign, cheaper products which could not meet the same quality, environmental and 
sustainability standards as the Europeans one 

  But  it  is  also  necessary  to  promote  sustainability,  reduced  environmental  impact 

policies, etc., with third countries  

  Promotion  should  support  EU  products’  competitiveness  worldwide,  whilst  not 

affecting third countries’ small, local farmers 

Table 3 presents an overview of replies on the most essential benefits of EU agricultural 
and  food  promotion  policy  measures  and  funding  that  Member  States,  acting  on  their 
own, could not achieve. 

Table 3 Replies to open question on EU added value 

Internationally 

  Increases competitiveness regarding third country suppliers, boosting exports 
  Impacts  on  third  countries’  production  schemes  to  supply  the  European  consumer, 
overall increasing their efficiency, sustainability, production standards and quality  

  Stronger presence in global markets (by the ‘Enjoy it! It’s from Europe’ logo) 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Internally 

Economically 

Politically 

Environment 

Others 

  Allowed for a common position between all Member States, increasing cooperation 
  Rewards rural development 
  Strengthens the internal market 
  Levels the playing field for all Member States 
  Common labelling, consumer information increases 
  Supported maintaining/improving the standard of living of farmers  
  Easier to create economies of scale across countries 
  Access to information and consumers of other Member States (CHAFEA portal) 
  Lower prices for consumers 
  Eases policy coherence throughout Europe  due to the  competences the EU has (like 
matching  foreign  policy  and  agricultural  and  food  promotion,  if  the  latter  was  a 
national competence) 

  Agricultural  and  food  promotion  acquire  transnational  visibility  (and  importance), 

showing common positions and strengths, and achieving common goals 

  Allows  promotion  of  European  quality  schemes  (protected  designation  of 

origin and protected geographical indication in particular) 
  Farmers in the EU are rewarded for maintaining the environment 
  Animal welfare increased equally across Europe 
  Using  other  measures  of  success  apart  from  its  economics,  like  public  health 

improvements 

Table 4 provides an overview of replies on how the EU agricultural and food promotion 
policy can be improved, 

Table 4 Replies to open question on improving the promotion policy 

Clarification 
and 
simplification 

  Simplification  of 

the  application/submission  process  (systemised  system,  all 

information and materials in a single place and in all EU languages) 
  Consistent guidance from competent authorities for simple programmes 
  Definition of major and minor changes for specific programs 
  Anticipating  the  publication  of  the  call  and  increasing  the  number  of  information 

events, including in the Member States 

  Extending the range of possible proposers to new forms of territorial aggregation 
  Improving transparency, accountability of the promotion policy 
  Promotion  should  allow  for  better  visibility  of  origin  for  consumer  information 

purposes 

  Coherence with other EU policies (and external policies) 
  Promotion preference for SMEs and young farmers 
  Flexibility for the proposing organisations by removing the percentage constraints for 

the representation of the sector 

  Products with GIs should not be automatically considered priority of promotion 
  Allow  to  be  eligible  costs  those  incurred  prior  to  a  programme  commencing,  along 

with an increased advance payment  

  Proposing  organisations  to  be  allowed  to  make  small  amendments  to  programme 

activities if of low value without detailed explanation 

  Creation of a two-step application process, where the second is only accessible after 

passing the legibility test 

 

 Creation  of  specific  sub-categories  for  each  quality  scheme  in  the  promotion 
policy calls (protected designation of origin, protected geographical indication, 
traditional  speciality  guaranteed,  organic  products,  the  OQT  “outermost 
region” and the OQT “mountain product”) 

  Brand visibility to be increased further than 5%, giving a higher return to participating 

companies 

  Make the management of simple projects and multi projects more homogeneous, by 

defining more precise guidelines with the Member States  

  Available forms of promotion for digital communication channels should be extended 
  Management should be done from CHAFEA and not at national level 

68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Budget 

  Payment system to be more frequent than once a year (quarterly) 
  Flexibility between simple and multi-programme´s budget 
  Result based remuneration for addressing environmental challenges 
  Turn direct payments into payments for public goods 
  More resources for programmes in the EU internal market 
  Increased co-financing rate for ‘geographical indication’ campaigns over 70% 
  Budget for animal products should be reduced in favour of plants (through transition 

plan) 

Promotion 
criteria 

  Budget prepared to adapt to unexpected negative events  
  Promotion  should  be  based  in  future  necessities  according  to  the  environmental 

boundaries 

  Sustainability as a requisite to access promotion 
  Competitiveness  targets  of  the  policy  should  be  revised,  in  favour  of  public  good 

targets 

  Need to allow funding for non-food products, as city plants or similar (with specific 
annual strategic priorities as the current ones would not apply in the current form) 
  Promotion  Policy  eligibility  further  adapted  to  the  particular  specificities  of 

Outermost regions’ productions, like eligibility to individual products 

  Revision  of  indicators,  ensuring  they  comply  with  the  Sustainable  Development 

Goals and the Convention on Biological Diversity 
  Promotion should go in hands with rural development 
  Promotion in 3rd countries (with policies like Enjoy it! It’s from Europe) should take 
into account the country’s language, and be simpler in its message (inclusion of co-
financing may be confusing) 

  Promotion should increase the recognition of GIs among consumers 
  Producers and producers organisations should be able to be eligible  
  Promotion should show coherence with other EU policies, especially EGD and F2FS 
  Add  the  principle  of  rotation  of  beneficiaries  (proposers  and  partners)  in  order  to 

ensure that the same organisations/products are not always covered by the aid 

  But keeping fair competition and funding best proposals 
  Change requirement of representativeness from 50% to a lower standard 
  Raise  environmental  standards  (reduction  of  antibiotics,  imported  protein  feed  and 

foods from peat, use of compost) 

  Promotion  should  further  increase  KM0  production  (especially  under-consumed 

products) 

  Increase promotion to new plant-based food, and to plants overall, in contrast to meat 

(even the level play field) 

  Promotion of mitigation of greenhouse gas effects and circular economy 
  Further protection of farmland biodiversity 
  Reduction of promotion for meat (and pork especially) and alcohol 
  Wine products to be part of the promotion policy 
  But maintaining the ban to hard liquors 
  Member State quality indicators should be allowed along the European ones 

Environment 

Others 

Table 5 provides an overview of replies with respect to the budget allocated to promotion 
policy, and the allocation among multi and simple programmes therein. 

Table 5 Replies to open question on budget (allocation) 

General 
budget 
changes 

  All  the  budget  should  be  adapted  to  promote  sustainable  proposals  and  fulfils  long 

term environmental objectives  

  Overall larger general budget (and increasing as time goes on) 
  Greater focus (and budget) for programmes targeting EU’s internal market (targeting 

that of the 3rd countries’) 

  Increased budget for third country promotions 
  Flexibility with budget allocations when funds are not fully executed 
  Removal of sub-divisions to achieve further funding flexibility 
  Creation of a post-COVID promotion 

69 

 
 
 
 
Multi 
programmes  

Simple 
programmes 

  Increased budget for quality schemes 
  Budget adapted for the actual needs of the year, with a buffer for unforeseen events 
  Larger  budget  share  to  multi-programmes,  as  they  incentivize  EU  cooperation  and 

goes with the EU integration spirit 

  Larger co-financing rates in multi programmes 
  More  flexibility  to  address  international  crisis/events,  with  possibility  to  increase 

budget in such times of market disruptions 

  Facilitate  the  possibility  of  finding  other  EU  partners  to  increase  attractiveness,  as 

there are numerous claims on the difficulty of finding partners 

  More  flexibility  to  address  international  crisis/events,  with  possibility  to  increase 

budget in such times of market disruptions 

  Resources potentially increased depending on the demand 
  Increase  of  resources  as  agricultural  actors  consider  they  carry  a  lower  cost  and 

simpler implementation than multi programmes 

Respondent  were  given  the  opportunity  to  add  further  information  within  the  scope  of 
this questionnaire and provided the following: 

  Redefinition of the objective of competitiveness in promotion 
  Overall alignment of the promotion policy with the Farm-to-Fork Strategy and the European Green Deal 

objectives 

  Diet change promotion, more fruits and vegetables & less meat 
  Reinforcement of the promotion policy required to promote consumption in after the COVID pandemic 
  More room to national authorities for decision taking 
  Increase interaction possibilities with CHAFEA directly 
  Decrease inconsistency between the decisions from CHAFEA and Member States 
  Increase financial analysis of files to avoid defect 
  Equalize  conditions  for  applicants  across  all  the  Member  States  (Member  State  demand  different 

requirements than others) 

  Overall transition towards digital procedures in all Member States equally, as still some Member States 

demand paper versions, where others do not 

  Revision of the evaluation criteria is necessary, and its technical requirements 
  Further  promotion  policy  coordination  with  each  individual  Member  State  (bottom  up  instead  of  top 

down) 

  Increase access to statistical data on the topic for academic research 
  For further questionnaires, more questions linked to the European Green Deal and Farm-to-Fork Strategy 

should be shown  

  Promotion policy should account for the issues smaller Member State organisations face and their lack of 

national support in comparison with bigger Member States  

Around  40  respondents  uploaded  documents  to  elaborate  in  more  detail  on  their 
opinions about the current promotion policy as part of the public consultation, which 
are summarised below.  

The respondents welcomed the opportunity to present their views on the implementation 
of  the  EU  promotion  policy.  Most  respondents  recognise  this  policy  as  being 
fundamental  to  support  the  competitiveness  of  the  sector  and  the  transition  to  a  more 
sustainable EU agricultural sector. The promotion programmes as well as the actions on 
the  initiative  of  the  Commission  strongly  support  the  different  agricultural  sectors 
meeting the highest standards of quality and raising the awareness of the unique features 
of  EU  agri-food  products  and  production  methods  within  the  EU  and  in  third-country 
markets.  

The  respondents  also  support  the  need  to  use  the  forthcoming  review  of  the  promotion 
policy to modernise the policy and better support the transition to a more sustainable EU 
agriculture in line with the farm to fork strategy and the European Green Deal. 

70 

 
 
 
General remarks from producers and national authorities 

A  significant  share  of  producers  requested  a  larger  budgetary  envelope  for  promotion 
policy.  In  particular  most  fresh  fruits  and  vegetable  producers  privileged  support  for 
promotion actions in the internal market. Focusing on the internal market rather than on 
third countries was also emphasised by several respondents who found that this would be 
more adapted to cope with the Covid-19 crisis. Some respondents would like to see the 
support  to  simple  programmes  increase  (Irish  producers  for  example,  for  which 
traditional  partners  for  multi  programmes  were  from  the  UK).  Some  representatives 
emphasised the difficulty of participating to the calls for proposals and the need for more 
capacity-building and information actions to be organised to support applicants who are 
not experienced applying for promotion policy support.  

The responses submitted by national authorities insist that promoting the high standards 
of  the  European  agricultural  production  should  be  the  main  focus  of  the  promotion 
policy.  Some  Member  States  highlighted  difficulties  faced  by  smaller  organisations  in 
their countries who are not eligible, or do not have sufficient financial capacity to submit 
applications given the current rate of co-funding required. 

Management aspects 

For  most  respondents,  the  management  of  the  promotion  programmes  should  be 
harmonised between simple and multi programmes. Some respondents also request more 
guidelines and support before and during the application process, support that should be 
available in all European languages.  

Some  respondents  ask  for  more  flexibility  on  the  financial  arrangements  like  more 
advance  payments,  interim  payments  in  place  of  annual  payments.  Some  underline  the 
need for digitalisation of report transmissions  from  proposing  organisations to  Member 
States.  They  also  emphasise  the  need  for  a  simplification  of  the  requirements  applied 
during  the  selection  of  the  implementing  bodies.  Some  respondents  suggested  that  two 
calls for proposals per year would be more adequate.  

Several respondents requested higher contribution from the European Commission on the 
co-financing rates, and a two-step selection procedure that would reduce the submission 
costs. 

Input of the producers representatives 

There were conflicting views expressed between the agricultural and the processed food 
producers. Each of these sectors requesting more budget for their own products. Several 
representatives of quality  products  request  that the promotion  of agro-tourism activities 
should  become  eligible  in  the  future.  Wine  producers  representatives  regret  the 
mandatory basket approach for the promotion of wine.  

Some  respondents  believed  that  the  rules  applicable  to  co-funded  programmes  were 
overly  restrictive  and  did  not  allow  them  to  communicate  sufficiently  on  their  own 
brands, or on the origins of the products.  

Some respondents emphasised that more resources should be allocated to the promotion 
of specific sectors facing difficulties as a result of market disruptions, in particular in the 
Brexit  context.  The  respondents  representing  exporters  believe  that  more  resources 
should  be  dedicated  to  maximising  commercial  opportunities  derived  from  the  trade 
agreements signed between the EU and its trade partners. 

The  representatives  of  the  fruits  and  vegetables  sector  recall  that  due  to  the  perishable 
nature  of  their  products,  they  need  to  focus  more  on  the  internal  market  than  on  third 

71 

 
countries.  They  also  emphasise  the  need  to  promote  the  consumption  of  fruits  and 
vegetables for health purposes. Some respondents also requested widening the eligibility 
criteria in the calls to include for example plant protein food and drinks, edible insects’ 
products etc... 

Input of the Non-Governmental Organisations 

The  non-governmental  organisations  active  in  the  environmental  domain  stress  that 
competitiveness alone should not be the general objective of the promotion policy. The 
policy should also contribute to change food behaviours towards more sustainable diets, 
promote healthy diets for the prevention of non-communicable diseases, participate to the 
effort  towards  sustainable  livestock  management  and  protection  of  wild  animals  and 
biodiversity, and overall support the transition to more sustainable agricultural practices. 
In the views expressed by the respondents, a single focus of enhancing competitiveness is 
incompatible  with  the  Sustainable  Development  Goals  and  the  Farm  to  Fork  Strategy. 
For some of them, promotion budgets should be directed exclusively to production and 
consumption  of  organic,  healthy,  minimally  processed  wholegrains,  fruit,  vegetables, 
nuts,  legumes  and  other  plant  nutrition.  Moreover,  conventional  agriculture  should  no 
longer be supported for export, only sustainable agriculture would be eligible to benefit 
from promotion policy co-funding. 

72 

 
ANNEX 3: METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS 

This  section  presents  an  overview  of  the  methodological  approach,  as  well  as  the 
challenges faced and actions taken. 

Objectives and scope  

This evaluation provides a holistic assessment of the EU’s reformed agricultural promotion 
policy  and  in  particular  the  information  and  promotion  measures  funded  through  this 
policy  on  the  basis  of  the  five  evaluation  criteria  defined  in  the  European  Commission’s 
Better  Regulation  Guidelines  (relevance,  effectiveness,  efficiency,  coherence  and  EU 
added value). The evaluation  questions were operationalised into an evaluation questions 
matrix, linking the questions to judgement criteria and indicators as well as the data source 
foreseen for their collection86.   

The  evaluation  had  two  purposes:  summative  (i.e.  provides  an  independent,  evidence-
based analysis of the extent to which the EU agricultural promotion policy has achieved its 
objectives and generated the expected results and impacts) and formative (i.e. assesses how 
and  why  the  EU  agricultural  promotion  policy  has  achieved  -  or  failed  to  achieve  -  its 
objectives, which aspects have worked more or less well, and how it could be improved). 

Evaluation design  

This  dual  purpose  of  the  evaluation  required  a  mixed-methods  approach,  drawing  on  a 
range  of  methods  and  tools  to  compile  and  analyse  relevant  quantitative  as  well  as 
qualitative data and information, in order to provide a robust, nuanced assessment not only 
of what the effects of the EU’s agricultural promotion policy have been, but also how and 
why these have been generated, while paying due attention to the different main features 
and innovative elements introduced by the new legal framework.  

The evaluation approach had to respond to a number of methodological challenges. Before 
detailing  the  specific  data  collection  strands  in  more  detail,  a  high-level  summary  is 
provided of the methodological challenges which informed the design and delivery of this 
evaluation and highlight the residual limitations87.  

86   The  full  evaluation  question  matrix  is  provided  in  Annex  A  but  each  evaluation  criteria  and  question 

recall the judgement criteria, indicators and data sources used.  

87   Where  necessary,  the  specific  impact  of  these  challenges,  e.g.  on  the  assessment  of  effectiveness  or 
efficiency  are  also  recalled  in  the  introduction  to  the  answers  to  those  questions  to  ensure  these  are 
understood in the review of the findings. 

73 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Table 6 Challenges faced, approach taken and residual limitations 

Challenge  

Approach and residual limitations 

A two-pronged approach was used, which combines a holistic 
view of the policy (via desk research, scoping interviews and 
surveys)  with  in-depth  analysis  of  case  studies of  specific 
programmes /  initiatives  giving rise  to specific examples  and 
evidence  of  how  delivery  plays  out  in  practice. Further,  the 
assessment  of  the  EC  own  initiatives  was  clearly  delineated 
from  the  assessment  of  the  simple  and  multi  programmes  to 
reflect the difference in scope and implementation. 
In  practice,  the  choice  of  the  unit  of  analysis  for  the  case 
studies  was  a  crucial  element  of  the  methodology  and  might 
affect the results of the study. For this reason, different criteria 
were proposed to guide the choice, and consulted with experts 
and  the  Commission  to  agree  and  be  transparent  about  the 
trade-off. 
The  sample  of  six  case  studies  allowed  differences  and 
inconsistencies  to  be  highlighted. The  findings  from  the  case 
studies were used to demonstrate or provide counter examples 
to  illustrate  the  findings  from the more  general evaluation  of 
the  policy.  Nevertheless, 
the  agreed  sample  had  some 
inherent limitations, which related to the trade-off between the 
depth  and  breadth  of  the  case  studies,  where  focusing  on  an 
extended sample of measures and countries would necessarily 
dilute the analytical focus presented in the proposal. 

First  and  foremost, existing  information  was  synthesised, 
including  the  data  reported  on  the  indicators.  That  exercise 
was  complemented  with  stakeholder  perception  through 
surveys  and  interviews. To  the  extent  possible,  concrete 
evidence  of  the  coherence  with  other  initiatives  (at  EU  and 
national  level)  was  explored. However,  a  limitation  of  the 
study  remained  the  challenge  of  attributing  change  to  the 
promotion  policy  rather  than  broader  contextual  factors.  In 
particular  for  the  coherence  with  EU  development  policies 
conclusions can only be drawn on a case by case basis. 

is 

the 

that 

activities 

Heterogeneity  of  programmes  and 
initiatives and representativeness of case 
studies  
The  lion’s  share  of  the  funding  under  the 
2016-2018  annual  work  programmes  has 
been  awarded  to  more  than  200  separate 
programmes,  including  simple  and  multi 
programmes  targeting  different  audiences 
and markets in EU Member States as well 
as  third  countries,  and  promoting  a  wide 
range of different agricultural products and 
key  messages.  It  is  recognised  from  the 
outset 
overall, 
assessing 
aggregated impacts of such a diverse set of 
separate 
extremely 
challenging.  A  ‘one-size-fits  all’ approach 
would  not  do  justice  to  the  significant 
diversity of measures and their objectives. 
And 
the  evaluation  budget,  although 
substantial,  will  not  allow  for  an  in-depth 
coverage  of  the  entire  breadth  and  variety 
of information and promotion programmes 
and 
selective 
approach will be required.  
Further,  although  not  as  substantial  in 
budgetary  terms,  the  EC  own  initiatives 
are high profile and distinct in the delivery 
structure to the programmes. 
Underestimating 
of contextual factors  
It is impossible to isolate the impact of the 
EU-funded  measures  from  that  of  other 
developments. In fact,  the budget is likely 
to be relatively small when compared with 
the  cumulative  spend  by  different  private 
as well as public actors from across the EU 
and  outside  the  EU  on  promoting  their 
agricultural 
socio-
economic developments (e.g. an economic 
downturn,  national  health  policies,  or  the 
conclusion  of  a  new  trade  agreement)  can 
obviously  also  affect  the  evolution  of 
many of the indicators of interest.  

initiatives,  meaning  a 

products.  Wider 

the impact 

in  estimating  costs  and 

Difficulties 
benefits   
With  regard  to the  Evaluation  Questions 
under  Efficiency,  estimating  the  costs  and 
benefits of this policy in quantitative terms 
is not feasible.  

Input collected through the online  survey and interviews  was 
used to explore and assess how operational and administrative 
aspects influenced the efficiency with which the achievements 
were  attained.  Whereas  a  fixed number  of  interviews  was 
held, the survey was disseminated to all applicants of funding, 
whether  successful  or  unsuccessful, in  order  to  have  a 
significant  sample  of  respondents. The  number  of  responses 
received are included in Annex C. 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Given the early stage of the programmes, the Steering Group 
meeting  on  the  1st  Interim  Deliverable  resulted  in  a  decision 
to use the indicators with caution or not at all. This implied the 
need  to  make  more  use  of  qualitative  data  (i.e.  insights  from 
stakeholders) and back these up with concrete examples where 
feasible,  as  detailed  in  the  updated  EQM. As  detailed  in  the 
answer to effectiveness  - EQ2 (sub-question 5)  - these issues 
also informed the analysis of  the  adequacy of the  monitoring 
system.  Relying on qualitative information, collected through 
interviews  and  surveys,  might  introduce  some  subjectivity  in 
of 
the 
proposing organisations and  other  stakeholders  about 
the 
effects  of  the  policy  in  general  may  be  subject  to  optimism 
bias). 
The use of standardised judgement criteria and indicators aims 
to moderate this factor, but it remains a limitation. It is clearly 
stated  when  a  judgement  is  based  on  opinions,  which  are 
further substantiated with examples.  

perceptions 

judgement 

(e.g. 

the 

Reliance  on  availability  of  reports  and 
data   
Already  in  the  initial  analysis  a  risk  is 
cited  relating  to  the  quality  of  indicator 
data  and  reporting  relating  in  part  to  the 
stage of delivery of the programmes. More 
specifically: 
-No  final  reports  were  available  for  the 
programmes  funded  in  the  period  under 
review  (2016-2019).  Interim  reports  are 
available  for  multi  programmes  funded  in 
2016  and  2017  annual  work  programme. 
However, these are of varying content and 
quality;  
-No  final 
indicator  data  compiled  by 
independent  evaluators  was  available  at 
this stage in implementation. Self-reported 
indicator  data  are 
output  and 
available for most of the simple and multi 
programmes  funded  under  the  2016  and 
2017  annual  work  programme,  however 
these  are  incomplete.  There  is  limited 
availability 
impact 
indicators  (i.e.  for  multi  programmes 
only).  

self-reported 

result 

of 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
Data collection methods  

Based  on  the  above  methodological  considerations,  the  mixed  methods  for  collecting 
data  are  listed  below.  The  first  three  elements  (the  document  and  data  review,  the  EU-
level interviews and the online surveys) allowed to gather data on the policy as a whole, 
while  the  case  studies  facilitated  a  deeper  exploration  of  the  activities  and  effect  of  a 
limited number of measures. 

  Document  and  data  review  (EU-level):  carried  out  in  English  to  collect  any 
existing  quantitative  and  qualitative  data  on  the  different  elements  of  the 
intervention logic.  

  EU-level  interviews  with  (1)  the  relevant  European  Institutions  and  agencies 
involved in the programming and implementation of the EU promotion policy, (2) 
external  evaluators  for  the  selection  of  applications,  (3)  those  involved  in  other 
EU policies in the field of environment, climate change and health (e.g. DGs for 
Health  and  Food  Safety,  Maritime  Affairs  and  Fisheries  and  Environment)  (4) 
pan-European agricultural producer and trade organisations and associations and 
(5) a non-governmental organization. 

  Two  online  surveys:    To  collect  the  views  of  a  wide  base  of  stakeholders 
impacted  by  the  policy:  one  survey  targeting  the  competent  national  authorities 
(CNA),  while  the  other  will  target  the  proposing  organisations  (PO’s)  and 
Implementing Bodies (IB), including successful and unsuccessful applicants. 

  Case studies: data for the case studies was collected through: 

-  Case  study  document  and  data  review: 

includes  programme 
implementation or evaluation reports (or if available, evaluations at Member 
State  level  aggregating  results  of  all  programmes  funded),  as  well  as  other 
relevant  secondary  data  to  assess  the  effects  of  the  programmes  (e.g.  on  the 
consumption  of  the  particular  product  in  the  target  market,  as  well  as  the 
export of the product from the relevant EU Member States or EU as a whole 
to the target markets).  

this 

-  Targeted interviews: with at least one competent national authority and one 
proposing organisation per programme. Where the programme targets a third 
country,  the  interviews  will  also  include  a  member  of  the  EU  Delegation  in 
the  country,  a  relevant  producer  or  trade  association,  and  where  feasible 
business delegates in the country, etc. 

Evidence base and operational challenges  

Documentation and indicator data review  

The document review was carried out in order to collect and analyse existing qualitative 
and  quantitative  data  on  the  different  elements  of  the  intervention  logic.  The  review 
covered:  

  EU  level  documents  and  relevant  wider  literature  (especially  concerned  context 

and needs);  

  Simple and multi programme indicators; and 

  Materials and documents on EC own initiatives. 

76 

 
 
A  complete  list  of  EU  level  documents  reviewed  is  provided  in  technical  Annex  B; 
together  with  a  table  summarising  the  compiled  output  and  result  indicators  for  simple 
and multi programmes.  

EU level documents and wider literature 

Documents  were  reviewed  to  gather  all  types  of  data  informing  particular  parts  of 
intervention  logic  of  the  policy  (especially  its  needs  and  objectives)  and  other  relevant 
information  (e.g.  background  of  the  policy).  A  database  of  all  documents  identified 
during the inception phase, and all documents shared by DG AGRI and CHAFEA in the 
interim phase was established mapped to the evaluation criteria. The review of the EU-
level documents covered: 

  EU legislation underpinning the EU agricultural promotion policy; 

  Programming documents (i.e. annual work programme and calls for proposals); 

  Any  relevant  implementation  and  evaluation  /  assessment  reports  (e.g.  the 

Commission 2018 interim report, CHAFEA surveys of applicants); 

  Other relevant documents included, for example:  

-  EU  policy  documents  on  the  field  of  agriculture,  health,  environment  and 

climate change;  

-  positions  of  DGs,  non-governmental  organization  and  document  review  of 
meeting  minutes  provided  by  DG  DEVCO  (International  Cooperation  and 
Development) from meetings with non-governmental organizations; 

-  minutes of the Civil Dialogue Group and CMO Committee;  

- 

literature  pertaining  to  the  EU  competitiveness  in  the  agriculture  sector  and 
information providing context for market developments.  

A review of market share data and documentation was conducted in the context of case 
studies (see below).  

Simple and multi programme indicators 

Our  review  of  the  programme  indicators  included  all  available  output  and  result 
indicators  used  for  reporting  on  simple  and  multi  programmes  funded  in  2016  and 
201788.  

The indicators were provided by CHAFEA and DG AGRI. Complete indicator data was 
available for 74 simple programmes and all multi programme89.  

88   As agreed in the inception phase, while most programmes were not yet reporting on impact indicators 
(due to the stage in delivery). Where they were available, they were not deemed relevant for review at 
this stage in the delivery cycle of the programmes and were excluded from the analysis. 

89   BE:  partially  available  (missing  data  for  1  programme  in  2016);  EL:  not  available  (missing  data  for 
8 programmes funded in 2016 and 4 in 2017); FR: partially available (missing data for 2 programmes in 
2016 and 6 in 2017); IT: not available (missing data for 9 programmes funded in 2016 and 4 in 2017); 
LT: partially available (missing data for 2 programmes in 2017). 

77 

 
 
                                                           
 
 
Table 7 Overview of multi and simple programmes reviewed 

2016 

2017 

TOTAL 
(2016+2017) 

Total number programmes funded 

Sample  of  reports/data  shared  with  the 
evaluation team by 10 December 2019 

Reports/data  missing  as  at  10  December 
2019  

Multi 

Simple  Multi 

Simple  Multi 

Simple 

6 

6 

58 

38 

10 

10 

52 

36 

16 

16 

110 

74 

n/a 

20 

n/a 

16 

n/a 

36 

All  the  indicator  data  for  simple  programmes  was  compiled  into  one  excel  sheet,  by 
extracting  data  from  74  individual  excel  sheets.  On  this  basis,  an  overview  table  with 
data on individual programmes was populated and cross-referenced with  the full list  of 
programmes  funded  to  validate  and  clean  the  data  received.  The  data  for  the  multi 
programmes was then integrated.   

Operational challenges faced: 

The  process  of  consolidating  the  data  for  simple  programmes  relied  on  a  need  to 
manually combine the data and check for gaps and correct for minor errors identified in 
the separate data files. In doing so, the following issues were identified:  

  Minor inconsistencies and typos in names of data files; 

 

Inconsistencies in formatting of indicators values provided; 

  Missing programme identification data (especially target markets). 

The clean and validated data now provides a basic overview of programmes and indicator 
values and will serve as a useful resource for further analysis.  

Documents and data on Commission own initiatives 

The documentary review of data provided on EC own initiatives was also based on the 
materials  shared  by  DG  AGRI.  The  initial  research  in  the  inception  phase  suggested 
36 EC own initiatives were funded over the period of review. There was a question how 
to ensure consistency in the period of revision with the review period for the promotion 
policy programmes. It was decided to cover the period 2016-2019 for EC own initiatives 
but  to  present  the  answer  to  effectiveness  of  these  initiatives  separately  (to  account  for 
the difference in scope).  

The documents received included technical reports, media coverage reports, and data on 
Key Performance Indicators tables. A full list is included in Annex B.  

Operational challenges faced: 

  Cross-referencing: The names of the EC own initiatives in the internal excel file 
shared by DG AGRI listing the 36 funded measures, did not always correspond to 
the  name  given  to  the  initiative  in  the  technical  report.  In  those  cases,  the 
mapping was  based on other information  provided such as the target  country or 
type of mission.  

78 

 
 
 
 
  Timing  of  evaluation  and  availability  of  reports.  Most  of  these  gaps  are 
explained  by  the  novelty  of  certain  activities  which  were  launched  in  2019  and 
thus the reporting has yet to be finalised. This was caveated to the extent possible, 
by  doing  additional  desk  research  on  the  topic  to  try  and  draw  some  results.  
Remaining gaps come from the fact some documents have not been provided by 
contractors to the EC. 

  Limited  qualitative  information  on  results  and  impact  and  timing  of 
evaluation:  the  reports  that  were  available  most  often  did  not  provide  the 
required information that would allow to assess the effectiveness of the measures 
funded.  The  reports  included  qualitative  descriptions  of  outputs,  rather  that 
results.  Moreover,  technical  reports  provided  an  abundance  of  logistic  and 
organisational  details,  which  is  useful  for  internal  auditing  and  monitoring,  but 
which cannot tell us about whether the objectives of the missions / measures were 
achieved. The Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) provided more information on 
results and impact although the data remains limited as some initiatives hadn’t yet 
filled out KPIs, had partially filled them out or had limited results and impacts to 
share at the time of drafting. 

In depth interviews 

The  aim  of  these  interviews  was  to  collect  qualitative  feedback  on  the  relevance, 
effectiveness,  efficiency,  coherence  and  EU  added  value  of  the  EU  agricultural 
promotion policy and understand experiences with various aspects of its implementation 
from  internal  and  external  stakeholders.  The  table  below  provides  a  summary  of 
interviewees.  
Table 8 Overview of in-depth interviews carried out and scheduled90 

Interviews conducted 

EU Institutions 

External evaluators 

EU wide agri organisations  

Non-governmental organizations 

TOTAL 

Operational challenges faced:  

1291 

3 

4 

1 

20 

  Unwillingness  to  participate:  The  evaluation  team  faced  challenges  when 
reaching  out  to  some  intended  interviewees  from  all  four  categories.  An 
unwillingness to participate in interviews was found across all categories. In total, 
nine interviewees declined the request for interview, while eleven did not respond 

90   In addition, two targeted interviewees provided some partial information through email or a short call 
and  are  not  included  in  the  table  as  they  were  not  considered  “full  interviews”  and  an  interview  was 
conducted by DG AGRI on behalf of the evaluation team with DG Environment and notes shared. 

91   Directorates  General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development;  International  Cooperation  and 
Development;  Health  and  Food  Safety  (two  interviews);  Internal  Market,  Industry,  Entrepreneurship 
and  SMEs;  Maritime  Affairs  and  Fisheries  (two  interviews),  Trade;  Climate  Action;  Communication 
and the executive agency CHAFEA. 

79 

 
 
 
                                                           
to  the  interview  request,  even  after  sending  numerous  reminders  and  making 
follow-up  calls.  European  consumer  organisations  demonstrated  a  particularly 
low response rate.   

  Inability to respond to issues: When interviewees were  reached, they were not 
always  able  to  respond  to  the  topics  for  discussion  in  full.  For  example, 
interviews  with  other  DGs  which  are  not  directly  involved  in  the  promotion 
activities  of  DG  AGRI.  They  are  either  sometimes  consulted  (e.g.  asked  to 
provide  comments  on  the  annual  work  programme)  or  broadly  aware  of  the 
activities,  but  not  directly  involved.  Also,  they  do  not  have  contact  with 
proposing organisations or National Authorities. Therefore, they did not feel in a 
position  to  comment  on  questions  relating  to  the  application  process,  observed 
impacts or even the Commissions own activities – only DG SANTE (Health and 
Food Safety) was actually aware of such activities.  

Online surveys 

The online surveys targeting national competent authorities and Proposing Organisations 
(POs)  and  Implementing  bodies  (IBs)  were  active  for  a  period  of  six  weeks,  from 
28 October to 6 December and were exceptionally extended to allow national competent 
authorities to provide responses until end December 2019. The complete survey analysis 
is presented in Annex C.  

Operational challenges faced:  

Initially  low response rate:  The initial  response rate for both  online surveys  was  low, 
which is  why a  reminder mail  was  sent  to  encourage participation and the deadline  for 
responding to the online survey targeting national competent authorities was extended.   

Case studies  

The  six  case  studies  are  found  in  Annex  D  to  this  report.  All  proposing  organisations, 
national competent authorities and other stakeholders identified as targets for the relevant 
promotion  campaigns  were  contacted  for  interview.  The  evaluation  team  sent  several 
rounds  of  email  reminders  and  follow-up  phone  calls  to  stakeholders  in  order  to  reach 
between 10 to 15 interviews per case study. As summarised in the table below, a total of 
77 interviews were carried out as part of the case studies.92  

The evaluation team also requested programme documentation to national authorities and 
proposing  organisations  to  review  it  as  part  of  the  case  studies.  Most  of  them  sent  the 
relevant documentation (when available). 

92   These interview totals are based on number of interviews per case study. However, as some NAs were 
responsible  for  multiple  programmes  across  case  studies  and  were  therefore  effectively  interviewed 
“twice”,  there  is  some  duplication  in  the  number  of  NAs  interviewed.  The  Italian  Ministry  of 
Agricultural, Food, and Forestry Policies (Ministero delle politiche agricole, alimentari, e forestali) as 
well  as  the  Italian  Agency  for  Disboursements  in  Agriculture  (Agenzia  per  le  erogazioni  in 
Agricoltura) were interviewed for Alcohol – US, Dairy – China, and Quality case studies. The Spanish 
Ministry  of  Agriculture,  Fisheries,  and  Food  (Ministerio  de  Agricultura,  Pesca  y  Alimentación)  was 
interviewed  for  Quality  and  Meat  case  studies.  The  French  Ministry  of  Agriculture  and  Food 
(Ministère  de  l'Agriculture  et  de  l'Alimentation)  was  interviewed  for  Fruit  –  UAE  and  Meat  case 
studies. 

80 

 
 
 
                                                           
Table 9 Overview of case study interviews carried out 
Case study  

Stakeholder type 

PO 

NA 

Other 

TOTAL 

Alcohol – US  

Dairy – China 

Fruit – UAE 

Quality  

Meat  

Fruit & Veg 

TOTAL  

5 

4 

4 

6 

5 

5 

4 

2 

2 

4 

5 

5 

6 

5 

5 

5 

3 

1 

29 

22 

25 

16 

11 

11 

15 

13 

11 

77 

Operational challenges faced:  

The  following  challenges  were  faced  in  carrying  out  the  data  collection  for  the  case 
studies: 

  Sharing  of  documents:  General  Data  Protection  Regulation  (GDPR)  concerns 
were  raised  by  some  respondents.  This  was  exacerbated  by  the  letter  of 
recommendation,  which  did  not  list  the  sub-contractors  and  therefore  was  not 
viewed  by  participants  as  a  guarantee  that  they  are  being  approached  by 
legitimate  members  of  the  research  team.  An  updated  letter  of  recommendation 
was provided. These concerns meant some stakeholders did not feel able to share 
potentially sensitive data with a third party; POs and other respondents from one 
country,  in  particular,  raised  fears  of  fraud.  The  request  that  initial  contacts  be 
made  by  the  national  competent  authorities,  DG  AGRI,  or  CHAFEA  confirmed 
they would be contacted by a third party was not practicable given the timeframes 
of the study and the difficulties in securing responses from the national competent 
authorities. This challenge delayed data collection. 

  Interviews  national  competent authorities:  In some cases, national  competent 
authorities  claimed  to  have  no  knowledge  of  the  specific  content  of  the 
programmes, or to have been only marginally involved in the candidate selection 
process.  As  such,  some  national  competent  authorities  suggested  that  other 
officials should be interviewed within the same national competent authority or in 
other  government  agencies  as  they  would  be  more  knowledgeable.  This  led  to 
delays in securing interviews with national stakeholders. The type of documents 
available  differed  across  countries  although  the  structure  of  the  documents  was 
comparable.  In  particular,  interim  reports  were  not  available  for  all  projects  or 
were provided in a form which was inaccessible (e.g. interim report provided for 
one project in Case Study 1 - wine and spirits in USA were scans of photocopies, 
rendering  them  hard  to  read).  A  number  of  reports  were  not  provided  for  the 
projects covered by Case Study 2 – dairy products in China. 

  Limited data on market share: The review of market share data was limited to 
the  third  country  case  studies,  as  these  focused  on  a  specific  product  type  in 

81 

 
 
 
combination  with  a  specific  target  market  (i.e.  the  US,  China  and  the  UAE). 
Although  data  on  sales  and  exports  are  generally  available,  data  on  the  market 
share of specific EU agricultural products in the case study target markets proved 
difficult  to  access  as  these  are  generally  produced  and  sold  by  market  research 
companies.  As  a  result,  limited  information  on  market  shares  is  reported  in  the 
case  study  reports,  as  well  as  section  4.2.5  on  the  effectiveness  of  the  policy  in 
achieving Specific Objective 4. 

  Limited data on results and impacts: Limited data was available on the impact 
of measures as campaigns are still ongoing. Most stakeholders interviewed for the 
case study expressed a limited understanding of the promotion measures’ impact. 
This was exacerbated by a lack of quantitative data. 

82 

 
 
 
ANNEX 4: RESULTS OF THE CALLS FOR PROPOSALS 

In  the  context  of  the  actual  promotion  policy,  CHAFEA  published  two  calls  per  year 
from  2016  to  2020  and  two  additional  calls  mid-2020  under  the  specific  objective  to 
restore normal market conditions. Hereafter, the detailed analysis of those calls: 

In  2016  ––  CHAFEA  received  226  proposals  (199  for  simple  and  27  for  multi 
programmes) following the publication of the calls for proposals93.  

The  highest  number  of  proposals  under  the  call  for  proposals  for  simple  programmes 
were submitted by organisations from Italy and Greece. No proposals were received from 
Luxemburg, Malta and Sweden.  

After  the  reallocation  of  unused  budget  in  line  with  the  annual  work  programme  and 
reallocation  of  the  budget  allocated  for  serious  market  disturbance,  in  accordance  with 
the rules announced in the annual work programme, a total of 60 simple programmes and 
6 multi programmes were selected.  

Simple  programme  proposals  from  16  Member  States  were  approved.  The  largest 
number  of  beneficiaries  were  from  Italy  (10),  followed  by  eight  beneficiaries  from 
France  and  eight  from  Greece.  No  proposals  were  accepted  from  applicants  in  nine 
Member States (Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Romania, 
Slovakia and United Kingdom). 25% of the budget was allocated to selected programmes 
from Italy, 17.4% for the Greek programmes and 9.6% for the French programmes.  

14  programmes  promoted  ‘Fruit  and  vegetables’  absorbing  30.1%  of  the  budget,  while 
mixed products (13 programmes) received almost a quarter of the available budget. Meat 
and  meat  preparations  (12  programmes)  account  for  17.1%  of  the  budget,  followed  by 
dairy products: seven proposals with 14.8% of the budget. Multi programme proposed by 
the  United  Kingdom  and  Denmark  promoting  organic  production  took  half  of  the 
available budget.  
Following the publication of the 2017 calls for proposals94, 189 proposals for simple and 
35 proposals for multi programmes were submitted.  

The highest number of proposals for simple programmes was submitted by organisations 
from  Italy,  Greece  and  France.  No  proposals  were  received  from  Estonia,  Finland, 
Luxemburg, Malta and Slovakia. 

The  meat  and  dairy  sectors  were  strongly  represented  due  to  the  specific  topics  in  the 
annual  work  programme  (42.1%  of  the  total  requested  funding);  'mixed  products' 

93   2016  Call  for  proposals  —  Simple  programmes  —  Information  provision  and  promotion  measures 
concerning  agricultural  products  implemented  in  the  internal  market  and  in  third  countries  in 
accordance  with  Regulation  (EU)  No  1144/2014  (OJ  C  41,  4.2.2016,  p.  4–19)  and  2016  Call  for 
proposals  —  Multi  programmes  —  Grants  to  Information  provision  and  promotion  measures 
concerning  agricultural  products  implemented  in  the  internal  market  and  in  third  countries  in 
accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1144/2014 (OJ C 41, 4.2.2016, p. 20–32). 

94   2017  Call  for  proposals  —  Simple  and  Multi  programmes  —  Grants  to  information  provision  and 
promotion  measures concerning agricultural products implemented in the internal  market and in third 
countries  in  accordance  with  Regulation  (EU)  No  1144/2014  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council (OJ C 9, 12.1.2017, p. 7–22 and OJ C 9, 12.1.2017, p. 23–37). 

83 

 
 
                                                           
proposals were also numerous due to the required basket approach for wine (around 20% 
of the requested funding). 

After the reallocation of the budget for actions in case of serious market disturbance and 
the reallocation of unused budget in line  with the annual work programme, 5395 simple 
programmes and 1096 multi programmes were selected. 

Organisations from France received 17 grants (from 23 applications submitted) out of the 
53  proposals  awarded  for  simple  programmes,  in  total  corresponding  to  36%  of  the 
budget.  10  grants  (16  applications)  representing  29%  of  the  budget  were  awarded  to 
beneficiaries from Spain. While applicants from Italy and Greece submitted the highest 
number  of  proposals  (36  and  30  respectively),  they  received  four  grants  each. 
Beneficiaries  from  France  were  the  coordinators  of  half  of  the  selected  multi 
programmes. 

The  highest  share  of  the  budget  for  the  simple  programmes  (23.1%)  was  allocated  to 
10 programmes  which  promote  the  ‘basket  of  products’  approach.  It  was  followed 
closely  by  dairy  products  with  nine  programmes  and  22.1%  of  the  budget.  Three 
programmes targeted olive oil and received 16.5% of the budget, 13.1% was allocated to 
the promotion of fruit and vegetables (eight programmes). Almost 19% of the budget was 
allocated  for  promotion  of  fruit  and  vegetables  by  multi  programmes,  while  multi 
programme promoting sheep and goat meat received 18% of the budget. 

For the 2018 promotion, CHAFEA received 182 proposals (146 for simple, 36 for multi) 
following  the  publication  of  the  calls.97The  highest  number  of  proposals  for  simple 
programmes  was  submitted  by  organisations  from  Italy,  France  and  Greece.  No 
applications were received from Austria, Estonia, Slovakia, Malta, Sweden, Luxemburg, 
Croatia and Hungary.  

Proposals  to  promote  fruit  and  vegetables  requested  27%  of  the  available  budget,  meat 
and  meat  products  17%  and  dairy  products  14%,  in  total  they  amount  to  58%  the  EU 
contribution. 'Mixed products' proposals were also numerous due to the required basket 
approach for wine (28% of the budget). 

After the reallocation of the budget for actions in case of serious market disturbance and 
the reallocation of unused budget in lien with the annual work programme, 58 proposals 
for simple programmes were approved. 

Italian  organisations  have  received  18  grants  out  of  58  grants  in  total  (and  out  of 
31 proposals  submitted  by  Italian  organisations)  corresponding  to  35%  of  the  budget. 
Applicants from France have received 11 grants (20 applications) with almost 14% of the 
budget.  Third  in  terms  of  the  number  of  selected  programmes  and  share  of  EU 
contribution  would  be  applicants  from  Greece,  with  applicants  from  Spain  in  fourth 
place.  Applicants  from  Germany,  Finland,  Latvia  and  Slovenia  did  not  get  any  grant 
approval. 

The fruit and vegetables sector with 17 applications received 31.2% of the budget, meat 
and meat preparation 22.7% (12 grants), cheese and dairy products 19.5% (13 grants) and 

95   Grant agreement for one approved programme has not been signed thus allowing to grant the first two 
programme proposals from the reserve list in Annex II to Commission Implementing Decision C(2017) 
6934. 

96   Allocation of addition budget allowed funding an additional proposal from the reserve list.  
97   OJ C 9, 12.1.2018, p. 15–31 and p. 32–49.  

84 

 
                                                           
basket  of  products  19.2%  of  the  available  budget  (10  grants).  The  four  sectors  account 
for the majority of the programmes evaluated to receive a grant and account for the lion’s 
share of the available budget.  

21  proposals  for  multi  programmes  were  awarded  a  grant,  15  of  them  targeting  the 
internal  market.  Beneficiaries  from  France  and  Italy  are  the  coordinators  of  four 
programmes  each;  organisations  from  Belgium  and  Greece  are  each  coordinators  for 
three of the selected multi programmes. 

Wine, cider and vinegar programmes accounted for 26% of the budget, cheese and dairy 
products  21%  while  basket  of  products  and  fruit  and  vegetables  received  18%  of  the 
available budget.   

In  2019,  a  total  of  144  programmes  were  submitted,  109  simple  and  35  multi.  The 
highest  number  of  submitted  proposals  of  simple  programmes  came  from  Italy,  France 
and  Greece.  No  applications  were  received  from  Bulgaria,  Croatia,  Cyprus,  Estonia, 
Hungary, Luxembourg, Malta, Slovakia, and Sweden. 

After  the  reallocation  of  unused  budget  in  line  with  the  annual  work  programme  and 
reallocation of the budget allocated for serious market disturbance,  a total of 56 simple 
and 25 multi programmes were selected. 

Proposals  from  14  Member  States  were  approved.  The  largest  number  of  beneficiaries 
were from Italy (17 programmes), Greece (8), Belgium, France and Spain (6 programmes 
for each of those countries). No proposals were accepted from Austria, Czech Republic, 
Portugal  and  Romania.  The  fruits  and  vegetable  sector  received  23%  of  the  budget 
allocated to simple programmes, the basket of products 21% and meat 20%. 

In 2020, a total of 178 proposals were submitted, 129 simple programmes and 49 multi 
programmes, almost 30% more than 2019, due mainly to the extended submission (two 
additional months).  

The highest number of submitted proposals came from France, Greece, Italy and Spain. 
No applications were received from Estonia, Luxembourg and Malta. 

In response to the COVID-19 crisis, two additional calls for proposals have been opened 
on in July 2020. 33 proposals simple and 8 multi proposals were submitted. 

Evaluation will run until end of September 2020. 

85 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 5: FOCUS ON THIRD COUNTRIES 

Table 10 Number of funded programmes by type of measures and market targeted 
between 2016-2019 (excluding abandoned programmes) 

2016 

2017 

2018 

EU 

Non-
EU 

EU 

Non-
EU 

EU 

Non-
EU 

Simple programmes 

23 

35 

21 

31 

Multi programmes  

4 

2 

9 

1 

Total amount 

27 

37 

30 

32 

16 

15 

31 

38 

5 

43 

2019 

EU 

TOTAL 

Non-
EU 

EU 

Non-
EU 

13 

43 

73 

147 

13 

12 

39 

20 

26 

55 

112 

167 

Source: Data on simple and multi programmes provided by DG AGRI in August 2019 and CHAFEA statistics.  

The  table  below  shows  that  in  2016  most  of  the  budget  was  allocated  to  third  country 
markets. The trend was reversed in 2017, with only 41% of the budget targeting the third 
country  markets.  2018  was  the  most  balanced  year  in  this  respect  with  53%  of  the 
budgets of approved simple and multi programmes targeting third country markets. 

Table  11  Max  grant  amount  in  million  euro  for  approved  SPs  and  MPs  targeting 
internal  market  and  third  countries  markets  in  2016,  2017,  2018  and  2019 
(excluding abandoned programmes) 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

EUR 

% 

N. 

EUR 

% 

N. 

EUR 

% 

N. 

EUR 

% 

N. 

32 

75 

29% 

26 

80 

59% 

30 

79 

47% 

31 

71% 

38 

55 

41% 

32 

87 

53% 

43 

107 

100%  64 

134  

100% 

62 

166  

100% 

74 

61  

35% 

26 

112 

65% 

55 

173 6  100%  81 

Internal 
Market 

Third 
countries 

Total 
grants 
approved 

Source: Data on simple and multi programmes provided by DG AGRI in August 2019 and CHAFEA statistics 

86 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 12 Geographic priorities and their earmarked budget (2016-2019) 
Areas/ Countries 

Million EUR allocated 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

Others  
4,7 € 

China, Japan, South 
Korea or Taiwan   
11,7 € 

USA or Canada   
11,7 € 

Africa or Middle 
East  
4,7 € 

South East Asia  
7,0 € 

Central and South 
America or the 
Carribbean   
7,0 € 

Others 
11,6 € 

Africa, Middle East, 
Iran or Turkey 
8,5 € 

Others 
26,3 € 

Others 
25,3 € 

China, Japan, South 
Korea, Taiwan, 
South East Asian 
region or India 
14,8 € 

USA, Canada or 
Mexico  
11,6 € 

China, Japan, 
South Korea, 
Taiwan, South East 
Asian region or 
India … 

Canada, USA, 
Mexico or 
Colombia  
22,5 € 

China, Japan, South 
Korea, Taiwan, 
South East Asian 
region or India 
25,3 € 

Canada, USA, 
Mexico or 
Colombia  
22,5 € 

Source: Annual work programme for 2016 -2019 

87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX  6:  LIST  OF  ACTIONS  ON  THE  INITIATIVE  OF  THE 
COMMISSION 

High level missions 

Since the entry into force of the Regulation, the Commission implemented the following 
promotion actions on its own initiative: 

  High  Level  Mission  to  Colombia  and  Mexico  (38  business  representatives  from 

14 Member States), 7-12 February 2016; 

  High Level Mission to China and Japan (62 business delegates from 15 Member 

States), 16-24 April 2016; 

  High Level Mission to Vietnam (42 participants), Singapore (36 participants) and 

Indonesia (38 participants), from 16 Member States, 2-9 November 2016; 

  High Level Mission to Canada (59 participants from 22 Member States), 30 April 

– 3 May 2017; 

  High Level Mission to Iran (42 participants) and Saudi Arabia (44 participants), 

from 18 Member States, 7-13 November 2017; 

  High Level Mission to China (65 business delegates from 23 Member States), 14-

19 May 2018; 

  High Level Mission to the UAE (37 business delegates from 17 Member States, 

16-19 February 2019; 

  High Level Mission to Japan (60 business delegates from 22 Member States), 8-

11 May 2019. 

EU pavilions at major international fairs 

  EU Pavilion at SIAL Canada in Toronto, 2-4 May 2017; 
  EU Pavilion at SIAL Middle East, 12-14 December 2017; 
  EU Pavilion at SIAL China, 16-18 May 2018; 
  EU Pavilion at China International Import Expo, 5-10 November 2018; 
  EU Pavilion at Gulfood Dubai, 17-21 February 2019; 
  EU Pavilion at ANTAD Alimentaria Mexico, 5-7 March 2019; 
  EU Pavilion at Foodex Tokyo, 5-8 March 2019. 

SPS seminars 

So far, the Commission organised seminars in  

Iran on 19-20 November 2018; 

  Korea on 20-21 March 2018; 
 
  Mexico on 9-10 July 2019; 
  Singapore (on GIs only) on 16 July 2019; 
 
  Colombia on 12-13 December 2019. 

India on 10-11 October 2019; 

Communication campaigns 

Campaigns implemented or ongoing (to date) include: 

  Canada 2019-2020 
  GCC region 2019-2021 
  Japan 2019-2020 
  China 2019-2021. 

88 

 
Technical support services 

There are currently over 1 860 EU agri-food stakeholders who are registered users of the 
portal.  Approximately  1 650  of  those  registered  users  also  opt  to  receive  monthly 
newsletters.  The  portal  has  a  stable  number  of  visits  (an  average  of  5 000  visits  per 
month, which increases up to 8 000 during the calls for proposals' submission period.  

Market Entry Handbooks are purpose-designed publications providing specialised market 
insights on how to export agri-food products for key target markets. They are destined for 
EU agri-food producers and exporters interested in increasing their share of third country 
markets, entering new markets or preparing their proposals for simple or multi promotion 
programmes.  Market  Entry  Handbooks  published  so  far  include:  Singapore,  Vietnam, 
Colombia,  India, South  Korea, Egypt,  Mexico, Japan, UAE, China, Saudi  Arabia,  Iran, 
Canada, Indonesia. They are downloaded between 40 and 200 times a year.  

45 webinars are currently available on the portal, covering topics related to submission or 
agri-food exports. On average, around 60 participants take part in the webinars and they 
are subsequently viewed 50-100 times per month.  

During the call submission period, from January to April each year, CHAFEA’s helpdesk  
replies  to  email  questions  concerning  the  call  conditions.  With  the  start  of  the 
implementation  by  CHAFEA  in  2016,  314  requests  were  received;  then  in  2018, 
CHAFEA  received  200  emails  with  272  questions.  The  average  time  for  sending  out  a 
reply  is  1.8  working  days.  Frequently  asked  questions  are  also  available  on  the  portal, 
featuring weekly updates during the proposals' submission period. 

Each year evaluation questionnaires were sent out to the applicants following the closure 
of the call in order to seek advice on potential areas for improvement. E.g., in 2018, 22% 
of  the  applicants  provided  feedback.  79%  of  respondents  were  satisfied  with  the 
electronic submission, 76% considered that the evaluation criteria were clearly explained. 
The vast majority (86%) of the calls documents provided were considered useful or very 
useful. 

CHAFEA  actively  contributed  to  the  communication  on  the  promotion  policy  by 
organising  an  Info  Day  each  year  in  Brussels98  (176  participants  in  2016, 230  in  2017, 
230 in 2018, 172 in 2019 and 257 in 2020). Web-streaming sessions were also organised 
with an average participation of 150 - 450 attendees; and on site match-makings meetings 
with an annual average participation between 30 and 60 people. 

More than 50 Info days were also organised by Member States, each of them attended by 
20-90 participants.99  

98   https://ec.europa.eu/CHAFEA/agri/newsroom-and-events/events 
99   https://ec.europa.eu/CHAFEA/agri/newsroom-and-events/events/info-days-member-states-calls-

proposals-2018  

89 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
ANNEX 7: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 

Table 13 Overview of budget, estimated cost per participant and estimated value of 
media coverage for each event 

Event Type 

Event 

Budget (€) 

Est. no. participants  Cost per 

person (€)  

Trade Fair 

SIAL 
CANADA 
2017 

260 572 

15 000 

17 

Est. reach and/or value 
of media coverage (€ 
or number of articles) 
Total reach2 307 057 
19 articles 

Note: Figures 
consider both SIAL 
and the high level 
missions. 
Total reach 
1 1575 922 
79 articles 

Note: Figure includes 
also media coverage 
of high level missions 
to China 2018. 
Total reach 
70 000 000 
51 news reports (1 
print article, 6 stories 
in video portals, 2 
broadcast media 
reports, 42 reports 
from news portal) 
Total reach 7 605 322 
54 publications 
PR value100: 
€114 002 90  

Total reach 
10 957 878 
2 news reports on TV, 
6 news reports on 
newspapers, 19 online 
news reports, 1 
interview with DG 
Plewa. 
Total reach: 
96  069 085 
Number of coverage: 
55  
PR value: €101 820 
Vietnam:  
109 clippings, 
PR value €71 698 
Singapore:  

Trade Fair 

514 162 

SIAL 
Shanghai / 
CHINA 
2018 

Trade Fair 

CIIE 
Shanghai/ 
CHINA 
2018 

548 345 

800 000 

0.69 

Note: The number 
refers to the total 
number of visitors 
to SIAL Canada 
2017. 
10 000 

51.42 

Note: Figure refers 
to total visitors to 
the CIIE. 

93 000 

5 

Note: Number of 
participants refers 
to visitors to the 
fair. 
7 370101 

71 

Trade Fair 

GULFOOD 
Dubai 2019  

Approx. 
480 000 

Trade Fair 

FOODEX 
Japan 2019  

 520 756 

Trade Fair 

High level 
mission 

ALIMENT
ARIA 
Mexico 
2019 

Vietnam / 
Singapore / 
Indonesia 
2016 

529 533 

25 000 

21 

673 923 

52 

12 960 

100 Equivalent of advertising value. 

101 Daily estimate for each of the activities which took place at the stand. 

90 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Event Type 

Event 

Budget (€) 

Est. no. participants  Cost per 

person (€)  

High level 
mission 

Canada 
2017 

298 302 

59 

5 056 

Est. reach and/or value 
of media coverage (€ 
or number of articles) 
10 clippings,  
PR value: €58 000 
Indonesia:  
14 clippings and 1 TV 
interview 
PR value: €84 544 
Total reach: 2 307 057 
19 publications 
Note: the number is 
for the trade fair and 
high level missions 
44 articles 

High level 
mission 

High level 
mission 

High level 
mission 

Iran 2017 

KSA   2017 

China 2018 

492 182 
(Iran and 
KSA) 
492 182 
(Iran and 
KSA) 
539 854 

42 

44 

59 

11 719102 

11 186103 

11 articles  

9 150 

Total reach: 
11 575 922 
79 articles 

Dubai 2019 

278 023 

58 

4 794 

Note: Figure also 
includes media 
coverage of SIAL 
China 2018. 
PR value: € 120 469 

Japan 2019 

359 027 

63 

5 699 

N/A 

Japan 2019 

1 700 000  

62 300 

27 29 

Total reach: 65 910104  
PR value: €983 000 

High level 
mission 

High level 
mission 
Continuation 
of promo 
activities in 
Japan 
(tastings) 

Source:  evaluation support study based on data shared by the Commission and CHAFEA 

102   The  total  budget  for  high  level  missions  to  Iran  and  KSA  has  been  divided  by  the  total  number  of 
unique  participants  to  both  missions  (32  participants  to  both  missions,  12  only  to  KSA,  10  only  to 
Iran). 

103  The  total  budget  for  high  level  missions  to  Iran  and  KSA  has  been  divided  by  the  total  number  of 
unique participants to each missions (32 participants to both missions, 12 only to KSA, 10 only to Iran 
so assumed 42 participants to Iran and 44 to KSA) – as we do not know how much of the budget was 
allocated to each mission, this helps provide a loose estimation of the cost per person but should not 
be viewed as definitive. Source: Final Technical Report for the High Level Mission to Saudi Arabia 
and Iran 2017. 

104  Figures take into account combined reach of dedicated advertising on Instagram, Facebook, and media 

buying. 

91