REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the 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 third countries
Date: 2021-02-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: agricultural product, consumer information, dissemination of information, domestic trade, international trade, public awareness campaign, sales promotion, single market, third country

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 11.2.2021  COM(2021) 49 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the 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 third countries  
 
 
Contents 

1.  

INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................... 2 

1.1.   Context ................................................................................................................................... 2 

1.2.   The 2014 policy reform ......................................................................................................... 2 

1.3.   Enhancing the contribution of promotion policy to the EU’s overarching objectives .... 3 

2.  

IMPLEMENTATION OF PROMOTION POLICY IN 2016-2019 .......................................................... 3 

2.1.   Annual work programmes .................................................................................................... 3 

2.2.   Types of programme ............................................................................................................. 4 

2.3. 

Programme submission and selection – statistical breakdown ......................................... 5 

2.4.   Commission own-initiative measures .................................................................................. 9 

3.   RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................................... 9 

3.1.   Effectiveness ........................................................................................................................... 9 

3.2.   Efficiency .............................................................................................................................. 10 

3.3.   Relevance .............................................................................................................................. 10 

3.4.   Coherence ............................................................................................................................. 11 

3.5.   EU added value .................................................................................................................... 12 

 
 
 
 
 
1.  

INTRODUCTION 

1.1.   Context 

This report concerns the implementation of measures under Regulation (EU) No 1144/20141 
to  provide  information  on  and  promote  EU  agricultural  products.  Article 26(2)  of  the 
Regulation requires the Commission to submit a report on its application, together with any 
follow-up proposals, to the European Parliament and the Council by 31 December 2020. 

The report follows an evaluation2 of the implementation of EU agricultural promotion policy 
between  2016  and  early  2020,  with  respect  to  its  effectiveness,  efficiency,  relevance, 
coherence  and  EU  added  value.  The  report  draws  on  the  findings  of  the  Special 
Eurobarometer on Europeans, agriculture and the CAP3 (based on a representative survey of 
27 000 people in August and September 2020). Together with the evaluation, it will inform a 
review  of  the  promotion  policy  scheduled  for  2021.  That  review  will  be  preceded  by  a 
comprehensive impact assessment of policy options to ensure that future EU promotion policy 
remains relevant, effective, efficient, with clear EU added value and coherent with all relevant 
EU policies including trade, development, fishery, health, environment and climate. 

1.2.   The 2014 policy reform 

The  Regulation  constituted  a  major  reform  of  EU  agricultural  promotion  policy.  The  new 
regulatory framework, which became applicable on 1 December 2015, benefited from a more 
substantial  budget  and  focused  more  comprehensively  on  supporting  the  competitiveness  of 
the agri-food sector. With the signature ‘Enjoy! it’s from Europe!’, the policy aimed to help 
EU operators break into international markets and raise awareness among consumers, in EU 
and in non-EU countries, of European farmers’ efforts to provide quality products, based on a 
strategy established at EU level.  

Among the main features of the reform were: 

 

 

 

a budget increase allowing a higher EU co-financing rate (up from 50% to 70-80%); 

a  European  promotion  strategy  implemented  through  annual  work  programmes  and 
aimed at improving the targeting of promotion measures; and 

transferring  some 

simplifying  procedures  by 
the 
Commission  to  the  Consumers,  Health,  Agriculture  and  Food  Executive  Agency 
(CHAFEA) – this generated tangible efficiencies, helping to streamline the submission 
of  proposals  and  their  evaluation  by  CHAFEA  (with  contributions  from  independent 
external expert evaluators). 

implementation 

tasks  from 

1   Regulation  (EU)  No  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 and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 3/2008 (OJ L 317, 4.11.2014, p. 56). 
2   Evaluation  of  the  impact  of  the  EU  agricultural  promotion  policy  —  internal  and  third  country  markets 

(SWD(2020) 399 final).  

3   Special Eurobarometer 504, Europeans, agriculture and the CAP; 

https://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/survey/getsurveydetail/instruments/special/sur
veyky/2229 

 
 
                                                           
 
1.3.   Enhancing the contribution of promotion policy to the EU’s overarching objectives 

In  2021,  the  Commission  will  undertake  a  review  of  the  promotion  policy  to  strengthen  its 
contribution  to  the  European  Green  Deal4  and  the  ‘farm  to  fork’  strategy5  as  well  as  to  the 
upcoming Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan6, taking account of its important role in supporting 
the sustainable recovery of the EU agri-food sector in a challenging economic context. 

The upcoming review of the promotion policy offers the opportunity to redefine its objectives 
and  rules  to  better  support  overarching  EU  policy  objectives.  Promotion  policy  can  play  a 
central role in incentivising the transition to a greener, more sustainable agricultural sector, by 
highlighting  the  economic,  environmental  and  social  sustainability  aspects  of  EU  products 
and production processes both in the EU and non-EU countries. Internationally, it can support 
efforts to position the EU food system as a global reference for sustainability. In this regard, 
measures  on  the  initiative  of  the  Commission  can  in  particular  contribute  to  bolster  EU 
outreach  efforts,  including  building  “Green  Alliances”.  It  can  also  play  a  pivotal  role  in 
promoting,  in  addition  to  quality  schemes  such  as  organic  farming  and  geographical 
indications,  future schemes  seeking to  raise consumer awareness  about  EU sustainable food 
labelling,  animal  welfare,  healthy  dietary  patterns  and  the  EU  Carbon  Farming  Initiative.  It 
can support the future Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan in different ways, e.g. by expanding on 
its current promotion of fruit and vegetable consumption in the context of balanced, healthy 
diets as well as other healthy food products and categories that are currently under-consumed 
in the EU with a negative impact on public health. 

2.  

IMPLEMENTATION OF PROMOTION POLICY IN 2016-2019 

2.1.   Annual work programmes 

The  Regulation  introduced  annual  work  programmes  (adopted  through  Commission 
implementing decisions7) that set the budget and strategic priorities for promotion measures in 
the coming 12 months. 

When formulating the work programme, the Commission takes account of: 

 

 

 

the objectives of the Regulation; 

a  macro-economic  analysis  of  projected  increases  in  exports  to  existing  or  emerging 
markets; 

a policy evaluation on free trade agreements and expectations as regards the lifting of 
sanitary and phyto-sanitary barriers; and  

 

the results of previous calls for proposals (e.g. uptake, continuity).  

4   Commission  Communication  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social 

Committee and the Committee of Regions, The European Green Deal (COM(2019) 640 final). 

5   Commission  Communication  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee  and  the  Committee  of  Regions,  A  Farm  to  Fork  Strategy  for  a  fair,  healthy  and 
environmentally-friendly food system (COM(2020) 381final). 

6  initiative launched on 4/2/2020: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-
say/initiatives/12154-Europe-s-Beating-Cancer-Plan 
7   https://ec.europa.eu/info/promotion-eu-farm-products_en#annualworkprogramme  

 
 
                                                           
In  addition,  the  Commission  takes  account  of  contributions  from  the  Member  States  and 
stakeholders consulted through civil dialogue groups8. 

The  evaluation  showed  that  the  annual  work  programme  is  considered  a  relevant  tool  for 
ensuring a dynamic and targeted promotion  policy. Each  year, it  evolves, adjusting to  some 
extent  to  the  evolving  priorities  of  the  sectors  concerned.  In  addition,  the  promotion  policy 
has  proven  responsive  by  allocating  dedicated  ad  hoc  funding  for  programmes  supporting 
sectors in difficulty, e.g. in 2019, table olives and sustainable rice production. 

Annual  work  programmes  have  also  consistently  earmarked  budgets  to  co-finance 
programmes encouraging fruit and vegetable consumption in the context of a balanced diet, in 
line  with  the  Commission’s  strategy  on  nutrition.  Such  measures  were  included  in  annual 
work programmes for promotion on the internal market since 2018. 

The promotion policy demonstrated its capacity to align with new political priorities through 
the 2021 annual work programme, which dedicated 50% of its budget to topics contributing to 
the  objectives  of  the  farm  to  fork  strategy.  By  earmarking  €49 million  for  promotion  of 
organic  products,  €19.1 million  for  promotion  of  fruit  &  vegetables  consumption  in  the 
context  of  balanced  and  proper  diets  and€18 million  to  raise  awareness  of  sustainable 
agriculture, the promotion policy provides tangible support to the strategy on the basis of the 
current legal act. 

Finally,  the  work  programmes  have  also  included  budgets  for  action  in  response  to 
unexpected  serious  market  disturbances,  loss  of  consumer  confidence  or  other  specific 
problems  (if  complementary  to  exceptional  measures  under  Part V,  Chapter 1  of  Regulation 
(EU)  No 1308/20139).  In  the  context  of  the  Covid-19  pandemic,  additional  calls  for 
proposals10  were  launched  for  the  first  time  to  fund  actions  that  are  complementary  to  the 
crisis package adopted on 30 April 2020. 

The annual budget for information provision and promotion measures rose from €113 million 
in  2016  to  €200 million  in  2020.  While  this  is  a  significant  increase,  it  remains  modest 
alongside the trade promotion budgets of other major players in the global agri-food market. 
The US Department of Agriculture, for instance, allocated $300 million (around €253 million) 
in 2019 alone through its ‘agricultural trade promotion program’11 to help US farmers identify 
and access new export markets. 

2.2.   Types of programme 

A promotion and information programme is a coherent set of operations that can include: 

8   https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/key-policies/committees-and-advisory-councils/civil-

dialogue-groups_en 

9   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). 

10   Call for proposals for grants to simple promotion programmes concerning agricultural products implemented 
in the internal market and in third countries to restore market situation in accordance with Regulation (EU) 
No 1144/2014 (2020/C 216/11) (OJ C 216, 30.6.2020, p. 19); 
Call for proposals for grants to multi promotion programmes concerning agricultural products implemented 
in the internal market and in third countries to restore market situation in accordance with Regulation (EU) 
No 1144/2014 (2020/C 216/12) (OJ C 216, 30.6.2020, p. 20). 

11   https://www.fas.usda.gov/newsroom/usda-awards-agricultural-trade-promotion-program-funding-0  

 
 
                                                           
  press, TV/radio or online advertising campaigns;  

  point-of-sale promotions;  

  public relations campaigns;  

  participation in exhibitions and fairs.  

Promotion programmes, which are implemented by beneficiaries over a period of 1-3 years, 
can take the form of: 

 

 

‘simple’  programmes  submitted  by  one  or  more  proposing  organisations  from  the 
same  Member  State  –  over  half  the  budget  allocated  for  such  programmes  in 
2016-2020 targeted non-EU markets; or 

‘multi’ programmes submitted by two or more proposing organisations from at least 
two  Member  States  or  one  or  more  pan-European  organisation(s)  –  although  the 
proportion  of  such  programmes  targeting  non-EU  markets  has  been  rising,  in 
2016-2019 they were mainly used to fund internal market promotion activities. 

The  2014  reform  aimed  to  ensure  that  more  programmes  targeted  non-EU  countries.  The 
respective  allocations  for  EU  and  non-EU  promotion  remain  an  area  of  contention  among 
stakeholders, who expressed different views in the consultation on the evaluation12.  

The evaluation found overall recognition among beneficiaries and national authorities that the 
2014  reform  has  simplified/streamlined  calls  for  proposals  and  selection  and  evaluation 
procedures, and that the direct management approach to programme implementation is more 
efficient. 

It  also  concluded  that  implementation  differences  between  direct  management  and  shared 
management programmes should be examined further. This can be done as part of the 2021 
review, which should enable the Commission to identify common approaches leading to more 
flexible, harmonised and simplified implementation arrangements. 

2.3.  Programme submission and selection – statistical breakdown13 

The budget for information and promotion initiatives to strengthen the competitiveness of EU 
agriculture  increased  significantly  between  2016  and  2019.  Under  the  2014  reform,  the 
co-financing rates rose from 50% (under the 2008 Regulation) to: 

  80% for ‘simple’ programmes targeting non-EU countries and for ‘multi’ programmes; 

and  

  70% for ‘simple’ programmes targeting the EU market. 

Table 1:  Total  budget  (‘simple’  programmes,  ‘multi’  programmes  and  Commission  own 

initiatives), 2016-2019 

Total budget (€) 

113 000 000 

142 500 000 

188 600 000 

201 100 000 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

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

agricultural-promotion-policy/public-consultation  

13   More detailed statistics are available in the staff working document (Annex 4). 

 
 
  
                                                           
The  number  of  proposals  submitted  throughout  the  implementation  period  was  testament  to 
operators’  consistent  interest  in  the  scheme.  The  amounts  requested,  for  both  ‘simple’  and 
‘multi’  programmes,  always  exceeded  the  available  budget,  resulting  in  stiff  competition 
between  proposals.  The  year-on-year  budget  increases  partly  explain  a  slight  drop  over  the 
period in the ratio between amounts requested and available funds. 

Table 2:  

Budget allocated to ‘simple’ and ‘multi’ programmes, 2016-2019 

Year 

No. of 
proposals 

(1) requested 

amounts (€) 

(2) available 
funds (€) 

(1) vs (2)  
(%) 

‘Simple’ programmes 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

‘Multi’ programmes 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

199 

189 

146 

109 

27 

35 

36 

35 

310 470 913 

306 434 124 

215 527 021 

97 000 000 

90 000 000 

95 000 000 

165 693 403 

100 000 000 

116 102 232 

132 149 762 

110 035 312 

129 777 114 

14 300 000 

43 000 000 

79 100 000 

91 600 000 

320% 

358% 

227% 

174% 

812% 

307% 

139% 

150% 

Proposals  submitted  per  type  of  programme:  Submission  statistics  show  that  interest  in 
‘multi’  programmes  grew  once  potential  applicants  became  more  familiar  with  the 
requirements  of  ‘multi’  calls,  developed  partnerships  with  organisations  in  other  Member 
States or built capacity within their association to take part in applications for funding. 

Table 3:  Number of proposals submitted, 2016-2019 

Year  

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

‘Simple’ 

‘Multi’ 

TOTAL 

199 

189 

146 

109 

27 

35 

36 

35 

226 

224 

182 

144 

Proposals awarded funding per type of programme: Table 4 shows the number of ‘simple’ 
and  ‘multi’  programmes  selected  from  the  start  of  the  implementation  period,  the 
product/product category that absorbed the biggest proportion of the budget and the number 
of Member States in which beneficiaries were located (Member State coverage). 

The statistics show a steady rise in the number of ‘multi’ programmes selected and a stable 
number of ‘simple’ programmes. For ‘simple’ programmes, fruit  & vegetables were the top 
product category. For ‘multi’ programmes, the organic sector absorbed half of the budget in 
2016,  fruit  &  vegetables  were  the  top  category  in  2017,  wine,  cider  &  vinegar  in  2018  and 
baskets of different products in 2019. 

 
 
Table 4:  Number of proposals selected for funding, 2016-2019 

Year 

‘Simple’ 

‘Multi’  TOTAL 

Top product 
category 

Budget 
share 
(%) 

Member 
State 
coverage  

2016 

60 

6 

66  ‘Simple’  –  fruit  & 

30% 

16 MS 

veg. 

‘Multi’ – organic 

2017 

53 

10 

63  ‘Simple’—  basket  of 

products  

‘Multi’ – fruit & veg. 

2018 

58 

21 

79  ‘Simple’  –  fruit  & 

veg. 

‘Multi’  –  wine,  cider 
& vinegar  

50% 

23% 

19% 

31% 

26% 

18 MS 

18 MS 

2019 

56 

25 

81   ‘Simple’  –  fruit  & 

23% 

14 MS 

veg. 

‘Multi’  –  basket  of 
products  

21% 

Programmes implemented, by target market (EU or non-EU): An increase in the number 
of programmes targeting non-EU countries and ‘multi’ programmes were specific objectives 
of the 2014 reform (see Section 1.2). 

The increase in the proportion of programmes targeting non-EU countries is therefore in line 
with  the  objectives  of  the  Regulation,  which  aims  to  increase  the  market  share  of  EU 
agricultural products on non-EU markets with the highest growth potential. 

Of the ‘multi’ programmes, almost twice as many targeted the EU market as non-EU markets 
(39 vs 20). With ‘simple’ programmes, the balance was the other way  round (147 targeting 
non-EU markets against 73 targeting the EU market). 

Table 5:  Number of proposals selected for funding, by target markets, 2016-2019 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

TOTAL 

EU 

non-
EU 

EU 

non-
EU 

EU 

non-
EU 

EU 

non-
EU 

EU 

non-
EU 

23 

35 

21 

31 

4 

2 

9 

1 

27 

37 

30 

32 

16 

15 

31 

38 

5 

43 

13 

13 

26 

43 

12 

73 

147 

39 

20 

55 

112 

167 

279 

‘Simple’ 
programmes 
‘Multi’ 
programmes 
TOTAL  by 
target 
TOTAL 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.4.   Commission own-initiative measures  

The  Commission  took  own-initiative  measures  to  help  open  up  new  markets  and  respond 
promptly and effectively to serious market disturbances or loss of consumer confidence. The 
measures included: 

  high-level missions; 

 

seminars in other countries to explain the high standards of EU agricultural exports; 

  operating stands at trade fairs and exhibitions of international importance; 

  promoting the image of Union products (e.g. communication campaigns); and  

 

technical support services, including market handbooks. 

The  evaluation  found  that  the  Commission  own  initiatives  seem  to  have  been  effective  in 
paving the way for entry to or further penetration of non-EU markets. It considered that they 
made  a  major  contribution  to  generating  tangible  EU  added  value.  Since  2017,  the  budget 
allocated to the initiatives has remained stable at €9.5 million a year. 

3.   RECOMMENDATIONS 

3.1.   Effectiveness 

The evaluation found that the promotion policy helped to raise awareness of the merits of EU 
farm  products,  the  high  standards  that  apply  to  EU  production  methods,  and  EU  quality 
schemes. 

The  effects  of  the  policy  on  competitiveness,  consumption  and  market  share  were  more 
difficult to quantify, because external market and societal factors also influence these impacts. 
However,  in  a  survey  conducted  in  the  context  of  the  evaluation,  97%  of  respondents 
considered  that  the  policy  makes  a  strong  contribution  to  enhancing  the  competitiveness  of 
EU  agricultural  products  and  89%  considered  that  it  increases  their  market  share  in  other 
countries14. 

It was easier to reach target audiences in the EU than in non-EU markets. The promotion and 
information activities that proved most effective were: 

 

those involving direct contact with consumers; 

  networking at trade fairs and events; and  

  product promotion by social media influencers.  

The  Commission’s  own  initiatives  were  found  to  be  highly  effective  at  paving  the  way  for 
entry to or further penetration of non-EU markets, and particularly relevant when carried out 
in connection with the implementation of EU free trade agreements. 

14   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 

 
 
                                                           
Nevertheless,  the  evaluation  found  that  arrangements  for  the  monitoring  and  evaluation  of 
promotion  programmes  are  not  fit  for  purpose  in  their  current  form.  Accordingly,  the 
Commission recommends that: 

 

the  monitoring  and  evaluation  arrangements  should  be  improved  as  part  of  the 
upcoming  policy  review,  so  that  impact  indicators  are  linked  more  closely  to  results 
and  taken  into  account  in  the  annual  work  programme  priorities  and  the  long-term 
development of the policy. 

In  view  of  the  overall  low  public  recognition  of  geographical  indications  (as  established  by 
the Special Eurobarometer: 20% for protected  geographical  designations, 14% for protected 
designation  of  origin  and  traditional  specialities  guaranteed),  the  Commission  also 
recommends: 

  a review of how to raise awareness of quality schemes more effectively. 

3.2.   Efficiency 

The evaluation found that the policy was implemented efficiently overall, but noted variations 
according to programme management modes: 

  participants  in  ‘multi’  programmes  (managed  directly  by  CHAFEA)  received  clearer 
guidance on the grant management and reporting rules, and made more systematic use 
of  online  tools.  CHAFEA  was  generally  able  to  provide  more  constructive,  direct 
support  in  response  to  coordinators’/beneficiaries’  questions,  since  each  programme 
has a dedicated project officer; and 

  beneficiaries  of  ‘simple’  programmes  (management  shared  between  Member  States 
and the Commission) occasionally had to wait longer for clarification of the rules. At 
times, this resulted in a longer lead-time for response, and in some cases beneficiaries 
perceived the national authorities’ application of the rules as less flexible. Also, it was 
not  always  possible  to  make  adjustments  or  take  mitigation  action  in  response  to 
sudden changes in market conditions that affected programme implementation. 

The Commission recommends: 

  examining,  in  the  upcoming  policy  review,  how  efficiency  of  implementation  could 
benefit from more harmonised procedures across shared and direct management; 

 

investigating  further  whether  a  common  management  mode  for  ‘simple’  and  ‘multi’ 
programmes could result in faster responses to beneficiaries’ and national authorities’ 
questions and greater clarity around the grant management and reporting rules; and 

  using  standardised  indicators  for  assessing  the  efficiency  of  Commission  own 

initiatives, with clear guidelines on how these should be quantified and reported. 

3.3.   Relevance 

The evaluation found that the policy objectives (increasing competitiveness, market share and 
consumer  awareness  of  the  high  quality  and  standards  of  EU  agricultural  products  and  of 
quality  schemes)  reflected  stakeholders’  needs  and  market  developments.  The  promotion 
policy, its general and specific objectives, and associated activities proved to be very relevant 
overall. 

 
 
The  policy  was  found  to  have  been  particularly  relevant  in  non-EU  countries,  as  it  helped 
address  gaps  in  consumer  awareness  and  perceptions  of  the  quality  of  EU  agricultural 
products.  In  the  internal  market,  consumers  were  more  interested  in  other  product 
characteristics, such as nutritional value and country of origin. Stakeholders liked the ‘Enjoy! 
it’s  from  Europe’  signature,  but  the  evaluation  found  that  it  was  more  relevant  in  non-EU 
countries than in the EU. 

The setting of strategic priorities in the annual work programmes was considered relevant and 
the  work  programmes  were  considered  to  have  provided  clear  strategic  guidance.  The 
Commission own initiatives addressed professional bodies’ needs for information, networking 
and technical support, and helped open up opportunities in new and existing non-EU markets. 

The Commission considers that the promotion policy can increase its relevance by: 

  becoming a central tool for delivering the objectives of the ‘farm to fork’ strategy and 

the upcoming Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan; 

  providing incentives for the transition to a green, more sustainable agricultural sector, 
e.g. by  highlighting  sustainable  EU  agricultural  products  and  production  processes 
both in the EU and on export markets; 

  supporting  efforts  to  position  the  EU  food  system  as  a  global  reference  for 
sustainability  In  this  regard,  measures  on  the  initiative  of  the  Commission  can  in 
particular contribute to bolster EU outreach efforts and build “Green Alliances”; 

  promoting  future  schemes  to  inform  consumers  on  EU  sustainable  food  labelling, 
animal welfare and healthy dietary patterns and on the EU carbon farming initiative (in 
addition to quality schemes such as organic farming and geographical indications); 

  expanding  on  its  current  promotion  of  balanced,  healthy  diets  in  support  of  the 

‘Europe’s beating cancer’ plan. 

3.4.   Coherence 

The  evaluation  found  that  the  measures  pursued  under  the  promotion  policy  are  mutually 
coherent.  The  Commission  own  initiatives  address  challenges  that  ‘simple’  and  ‘multi’ 
promotion  programmes  cannot  address  alone  and  there  is  potential  for  positive  spill-over 
effects  between  programmes.  Based  on  the  evidence  available,  the  policy  creates  synergies 
with and complements national initiatives. 

The policy is coherent with broader agricultural policies aimed at increasing consumption of 
EU agri-food products. It is also coherent with EU maritime, fisheries and trade policies. 

Coherence  of  promotion  policy  with  other  EU  policies  differs  depending  on  the  products 
promoted. Promotion of some products (e.g. those whose excess consumption is contrary to 
balanced,  healthy  diets),  production  methods  (e.g.  those  that  may  have  a  negative 
environmental and climate impact) and in certain markets (e.g. least developed countries) will 
need careful attention in light of policy developments, such as the European Green Deal and 
Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan among others. 

There  may  be  some  tension  between  the  promotion  policy  and  EU  aid  and  development 
policies. A very small share (0,1%) of promotion programmes target developing markets (four 
programmes between 2016 and 2020), but it was not possible to rule out adverse impacts on 
local production ecosystems. However: 

 
 
  new measures  could be  envisaged to  ensure that applicants  consider the  potential for 
direct adverse impacts on local production and take this into account when developing 
their proposals. 

The  level  of  coherence  between  the  promotion  policy  and  EU  climate  and  environmental 
policies differs and depends on product types, production methods and markets.  

The  Commission  recommends  that  the  forthcoming  policy  review  examine  how  promotion 
policy can: 

 

translate its potential as an enabler of the transition to more sustainable agriculture (as 
referred to in the ‘farm to fork’ strategy); 

  align  its  strategic  priorities  more  closely  with  climate,  sustainability,  health  and 
development policy objectives as highlighted under the Green Deal and related policy 
initiatives. 

3.5.   EU added value 

The evaluation found that the policy produced specific EU added value. The EU dimension of 
promotion  programmes  is  particularly  evident  and  successful  in  the  cooperation  between 
beneficiaries  in  ‘multi’  and  ‘simple’  programmes.  The  EU  added  value  stemmed  from  this 
enhanced cooperation and peer learning between trade operators, which is not available from 
other funding / promotional activities.   

Promotion  and  information  programmes  achieved  better  results  on  non-EU  markets  than 
national promotion measures and were found to be more visible (partly thanks to the signature 
‘Enjoy!  it’s from Europe!’). 

The  evaluation  also  found  that  the  policy  provided  some  organisations  with  their  only 
opportunity to engage in promotion activities with a high level of exposure. 

The  Commission’s  own  initiatives  also  brought  tangible  added  value,  since  they  sought  to 
facilitate market access for EU producers and benefit organisations across Member States and 
product sectors in a way that would not be possible without EU support. 

In the light of these findings, the Commission recommends: 

  continuing  to  support  ‘multi’  programmes  and  Commission  own  initiatives  in  third 
countries. On the internal market, strengthen the policy’s capacity to raise consumers’ 
awareness  of  current  and  future  EU  labelling  schemes  to  increase  the  policy’s  EU 
added value.