Evaluation support study on geographical indications and traditional specialities guaranteed protected in the EU : executive summary.
Date: 2021-03-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development
Subjects: EU Member State, agricultural product, consumer behaviour, consumer survey, designation of origin, product designation, quality control of agricultural products, quality label, report, sustainable agriculture

Evaluation support study on 
Geographical Indications and 
Traditional Specialities 
Guaranteed protected in the 
EU 

Executive summary 

Written  by AND International,  

EC ORYS and C OGEA 

December 2020 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Project manager: Tanguy CHEVER 

Management team: Francesca ANTILICI, Tanguy CHEVER, Carina  FOLKESON  LILLO, 
Christian RENAULT and Violaine ROMIEU. 

Project team: 

  AND  International: Tanguy  CHEVER,  Félix  KANE,  Clément  LEPEULE,  Sibylle 

PARANT, Christian RENAULT, Séverine RENAULT and Violaine ROMIEU;  

  ECORYS: Olivier  CHARTIER, Valentina DI  GIROLAMO, Carina FOLKESON LILLO 

and Giulia MARTINO; 

  COGEA:  Ugo  ABBAGNANO,  Francesca  ANTILICI,  Silvia  CODERONI,  Maria 

QUEIROZ and Ezio SCOTTI. 

With the support of geographical experts: Marek DVOŘÁK, Tamás MIZIK, Roel PEETERS, 
Simone STERLY and Paola TORCIA. 

The information and views set out in  this study are those of the aut hors and do not 
necessarily reflect the official opinion  of  the Commission.  The Commission  does not 
guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor 
any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible f or the use which 
may be made of the information contained therein. 

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development  
Direction C - Strategy, simplification  and policy analysis  

Unit C.4 - Monitoring and Evaluation 

Contact dissemination: AGRI-EVALUATION@ec.europa.eu 

European Commission  

B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Evaluation support study on 
Geographical Indications and 
Traditional Specialities 
Guaranteed protected in the 
EU 

Executive summary 

Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development 

2021 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union. 

Freephone number (*): 

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) 

The  information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone 

box es or hotels may charge you). 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has be en pre pared for the  Europe an C ommission howe ver it re fle cts the  vie ws only of the  
authors, and the C ommission cannot be held re sponsible for any use which m ay be made of the  information 
contained therein. 

More  information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.e uropa.eu). 

Lux embourg: Publications O ffice  of the European Union, 2021 

PDF 

ISBN 978-92-76-23868-3   

doi: 10.2762/708630 

KF-01-20-622-EN-N 

© Europe an Union, 2021 

R e production is authorised provided the source  is acknowle dged  

The  United  Kingdom  withdrew  from  the  European  Union  as  of  1  February  2020.  During  the 
transition  period, which  ends  on  31  December  2020,  Union  law,  with  a  few  limited  exceptions, 
continues to  be applicable to and  in the  United  Kingdom and any reference to Member States  in 
Union law shall be understood as including  the United Kingdom. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation support study on Geographical Indications and Traditional Specialities 
Guaranteed protected in the EU 

TABLE OF CONTENT 

1.  OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY .................................................................... 1 
2.  BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................ 1 
What are GIs and TSGs?..........................................................................................1 

2.1 

2.2 

2.3 

Labelling of GIs and TSGs ........................................................................................2 

Economic overview .................................................................................................2 

3.  METHODOLOGY  .......................................................................................................... 3 
4.  RESULTS ..................................................................................................................... 4 
Effectiveness ..........................................................................................................4 

4.1 

4.2 

4.3 

4.4 

4.5 

Efficiency ...............................................................................................................6 

Relevance ..............................................................................................................7 

C oherence .............................................................................................................8 

EU added value ......................................................................................................9 

5.  RECOMMENDATIONS  ................................................................................................ 10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation support study on Geographical Indications and Traditional Specialities 
Guaranteed protected in the EU 

LIST OF ACRONYMS 

CAP 
CMO 
EC 
EU 
EUTM 
FADN 
GI 
IPR 
MS 
NA 
PDO 
PG 
PGI 
PS 
RD 
TSG 

Common  Agricultural Policy 
Common  Market Organisation 
European Commission 
European Union 
EU Trade Mark 
Farm Accountancy Data Network 
Geographical Indication 
Intellectual Property Right 
Member State 
National Authority 
Protected Designation of Origin 
Producer Group 
Protected Geographical Indication 
Product Specifications 
Rural Development 
Traditional Speciality Guaranteed 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation support study on Geographical Indications and Traditional Specialities 
Guaranteed protected in the EU 

1.  OBJECTIVES AND  SCOPE OF THE STUDY 

Objectives of the study 

This study aims  to provide an evaluation on the European Union  (EU) quality policy on 
geographical indications (GIs) and traditional specialities guaranteed (TSGs) protected in 
the EU. The evaluation also aims at providing answers t o 16 evaluation study questions 
on 5 themes: effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added value.  

Regulatory and sectoral coverage 

The scope of the evaluation study is determined by the four Regulations of the Council and 
the European Parliament laying down EU rules for:  

  GIs  for  spirit  drinks:  Regulation  (EC)  No  110/2008  until  7  June  2019  and 

Regulation (EU) 2019/787 since 8 June 2019,  

  GIs and TSGs for agri-food products: Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, 

  GIs for wines: Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, 

  GIs for aromatised wine products: Regulation (EU) No 251/2014. 

Geographical coverage 

The evaluation study covers: 

  GIs and TSGs originating from EU 28 Member States (MS) and registered in the EU 

(3 286 names in 2020), 

  GIs from third countries registered in the EU by direct application (32 GIs). 

Examination period  

The  evaluation covers the  period  as  from  30  May  2008  (shortly after  the  entry into 
application of Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 for spirit drinks) to the year of implementation 
of the contract, specifically 2020.  

2.  BACKGROUND 

2.1  What are GIs and TSGs? 

The objectives of the GI/TSG schemes are to ensure fair competition for farmers and 
producers, ensure the respect of intellectual property rights (IPRs), ensure the integrity of 
the internal market, provide consumers with clear and reliable information and secure fair 
return  for  farmers  and  producers. Impacts in  rural  areas are  also  expected from  the 
implementation of these schemes.  

Geographical indications (GIs)  

GIs cover all food and drink sectors: agri-food products, wines, spirit drinks and aromatised 
wine products. 

There are  several schemes for  GIs  implemented  at EU  level: protected designations of 
origin  (PDOs)  and  protected geographical indications (PGIs)  in  the agri-food and  wine 
sectors and GIs in the spirit drinks and aromatised wine products sectors. The link with the 
territory is stronger for PDOs than for PGIs and GIs. 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation support study on Geographical Indications and Traditional Specialities 
Guaranteed protected in the EU 

Indeed: 

 

 

for PDOs, the quality or characteristics of the product are essentially or exclusively 
linked to the origin (natural and human factors); and all stages of the value chain 
must take place in the defined geographical area; 

for  PGIs  and  GIs,  the  quality,  reputation or  other  characteristic is  essentially 
attributable to  its  geographical  origin.  For  most  products, at  least  one  of  the 
production steps take place in the defined geographical area.  

Traditional specialities guaranteed (TSGs) 

TSGs cover agri-food products only. This scheme aims to register traditional methods of 
production and recipes and is not linked to a specific geographical area. Contrary to GIs, 
TSGs are not an IPR. 

2.2  Labelling of GIs and TSGs 

The labelling of GIs and TSGs is based on “indications”, “acronyms” and “symbols”: 

 

 

 

“Indications”: “protected designation of origin”, “protected geographical indication”, 
“geographical indication” and “traditional speciality guaranteed”; 

“Acronyms”: “PDO”, “PGI”, “GI” and “TSG”; 

“Symbols”: the three EU logos for “PDO”, PGI” and “TSG”. 

Figure 1: Symbols for PDO, PGI and TSG 

Labelling of the Union symbols and the indications is compulsory for PDOs, PGIs and TSGs 
for agri-food products originating in the EU.  

In the wine sector, the use of PDO and PGI logos is not compulsory. However, the term 
“protected designation of origin” or “protected geographical indication” and the protected 
names shall appear on the label of PDO and PGI wines.  

For spirit drinks and aromatised wine products, the PGI logo can be used.  

2.3  Economic overview 

On 1 January 2020, there were 3 286 names registered at EU level by MS. This involved 
all  28  MS.  Three  MS  accounted  for  more  than  half  of  the  registered  names:  Italy 
(858 names), France (734 names)  and  Spain (354  names).  Following MS were Greece 
(270 names), Portugal (190 names)  and Germany  (167 names). For the other MS, the 
number of names registered ranged from 1 to 80.  

Most of the GIs/TSGs are registered in the wine and agri-food sectors (respectively 49% 
and 44% of the names registered). Spirit drinks accounted for 7% of the names registered 
and aromatised wine products for 0.2%. 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation support study on Geographical Indications and Traditional Specialities 
Guaranteed protected in the EU 

In  2017,  the sales value of GIs/TSGs was estimated at EUR  77.15 billion  1,  with wines 
accounting for 51%  of the total sales value (EUR  39  billion),  agricultural products and 
foodstuffs for 35% (EUR 27 billion), spirit drinks for 13% (EUR 10 billion), and aromatised 
wine products for 0.1% (EUR  43  million).  The share of GI/TSG products reached 7% of 
sales value of the food and drink sector at EU 28 level 2. More than half of the sales value 
was in the domestic market (58%); intra-EU sales accounted for 20% and extra-EU sales 
for 22%.  

There are large differences in terms of economic size of each GI/TSG, the sales value of 
50% of them was lower than EUR 1 million  (and 7% of the names were even not used on 
the market in 2017). This first half of GIs accounted for 0.5% of the total sales v alue under 
GIs.  The 137 largest GIs  (over EUR  100  million  sales value for each GI,  this comprised 
4.4% of the number of GIs) accounted for 73% of the total sales value.  

3.  METHODOLOGY 

The study has been conducted from December 2019 to December 2020. The following tools 
have been implemented: 

  Desk research: EU regulations, reports, research and studies on GIs/TSGs; 

 

 

Interviews with European Commission (EC) staff; 

Interviews with specialized IPR lawyers; 

  Electronic survey  with  national  authorities (NAs)  at  EU  28  level  (27  answers 

received); 

  Farm accountancy data network (FADN) analysis in the wine sector; 

  Specific tools implemented  in  seven MS  (namely: Czechia, France, Italy, Spain, 

Hungary , Germany and the Netherlands): 

-  Country  reports  based  on  desk  research  and  qualitative  interviews  at 
national level with NAs, professional bodies and other relevant stakeholders; 

-  17 case studies: each one focusing on one GI/TSG or a group of GIs/TSGs, 

with desk research and qualitative interviews with stakeholders; 

-  Electronic survey with producer groups (PG), with 474 answers (25% rate 

of answer); 

-  Electronic  consumer  survey  with  400  answers  in  each  MS  (total  of 

2 800 answers). 

1AND Inte rnational, Study on economic value of EU quality schemes, geographical indications (GIs) and traditional 
specialities guaranteed  (TSGs), 2019 - https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/key-policies/common-
agricultural-policy/cmef/products-and-markets/economic-value-eu-quality-schemes-geographical-indications-
gis-and-traditional-specialities-guaranteed-tsgs_en  

2Base d on data from FoodDrinkEurope 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                             
 
Evaluation support study on Geographical Indications and Traditional Specialities 
Guaranteed protected in the EU 

  Third  country  surveys  (case  studies,  electronic  survey)  and  desk  research, 
information having been collected on 34% of the 32 third country GIs covered by 
the study. 

About 180 interviews have been conducted in the context of the study.  

4.  RESULTS 

The following section provides an overview of the main results for each of the evaluation 
themes: effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added value.  

4.1  Effectiveness 

Overall, the objectives of EU legislation on GIs/TSGs are achieved, however, some limits 
have been identified. In  this context the effectiveness was measured based on  1)  fair 
competition for farmers and producers; 2) protection of intellectual property rights (IPRs); 
3) integrity of the EU market; 4) clear and reliable information to consumer; 5) fair return 
for farmers and producers and 6) impact in rural areas 3. 

Fair competition for farmers and producers 

The  legal  framework  allows  a  fair  competition for  farmers  and  producers involved  in 
GIs/TSGs value chain, through 1) an EU  level scrutiny of applications which ensures an 
homogeneity in the implementation; 2) the implementation of official controls at all stages 
of the supply chain.  

Protection of intellectual property rights 

The implementation  of  official controls and  enforcement of  IPRs  allow  a  good  level  of 
protection against misuses  of  GI  names  at  EU  level.  The assessment has  shown that 
controls at market stage are more effective in the MS of production than on intra and extra-
EU markets 4 5. As GIs are not considered as a valid IPR title by UDRP (Uniform  Domain-
Name  Dispute-Resolution Policy), the use of GI names in  domain  names on the internet 
remains an issue for IPR enforcement. 

Integrity of the market 

Based on analysis, the evidences suggest that GI/TSG schemes have a positive effect on 
the internal market, providing common reference for trade in the different MS (the same 
schemes are used in each MS for GIs and TSGs) and protecting names at EU level. Intra-
EU  sales (sales  on  the  EU  market,  excluding  the  sales  in  the  MS  of  production) are 
significant, they were estimated to reach 20% of the total sales value under GI/TSG  in 

3The  conclusions are based on several sources, both qualitative and quantitative. The main sources are  PG survey 
with  474 answe rs, NA surve y with 27 answe rs, FADN analysis in the  wine  se ctor,  17 case  studies, e lectronic 
consumer survey (covering 7 MS with 400 answe rs in each MS) and desk research. The main limits of the sources 
are : 1) answe rs from PG surveys are  based on opinions and 2) the  number of case studies is lim ited and not 
re pre sentative of the 3 286 GIs/TSGs re gistered at EU level. 

4EU le gislation does not cover controls on extra -EU markets. 

5https://www.wipo.int/e docs/mdocs/sct/en/sct_is_geo_ge_19/sct_is_geo_ge_19_p3.pdf   

4 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                             
 
Evaluation support study on Geographical Indications and Traditional Specialities 
Guaranteed protected in the EU 

2017. If we consider the seven largest MS in terms of sales value under GI, the share of 
export on  intra-EU market is comparable or  higher  for GIs  than for the whole food and 
drink  sector in five MS (France, Italy, Portugal, Spain and the UK)  and lower in  two MS 
(Germany and the Netherlands) 6. In addition, based on electronic consumer survey, we 
observe that some protected names under GI benefit from a strong awareness at EU level, 
outside their  MS  of  production, for  instance Champagne,  Gouda  Holland,  Parmigiano 
Reggiano, Prosecco and Scotch Whisky reach awareness over 50% in several MS.   

These positive aspects are balanced by the low awareness and understanding of GIs/TSGs 
schemes in several MS (based on electronic consumer survey), which limit their function 
of common standards on the EU market . 

Clear and reliable information to consumer 

A  wide  range  of  information  is  publicly  available  on  GIs/TSGs: 1)  an  updated list  of 
registered names on the EU geographical indications register and a link to the summary of 
the product specifications (PS) on eAmbrosia public module 7  and GI View website 8, and 
2) several websites with detailed information on GIs/TSGs (such as Qualigeo in Italy and 
INAO in  France). In addition, GI/TSG products are identified on the market with specific 
indications (for instance “protected designation of origin”), acronyms (for instance “PDO”) 
and symbols (specific logos). The reliability of the information provided is ensured by the 
implementation of controls at all stages of the value chain and surveillance of the protected 
names on the market.  

Despite the vast information provided to consumers, t he awareness and understanding of 
GI/TSG  schemes remain  low  in  several MS, and  some  confusion between the different 
schemes remains (based on the electronic consumer survey conducted in the context of 
this  study). This  shows  the  limited  effectiveness  of  the  framework  to  provide  clear 
information to consumers. 

Fair return for farmers/producers 

Farmers and producers can get a price premium  and better income for the value -adding 
characteristics of their products; nevertheless, the benefits of GI/TSG scheme s are far from 
being  systematic. This fair  return highly  depends on  the  economic environment of  the 
product, the governance and the strategy implemented by operators. 

6Base d on Study  on  economic  value  of  EU  quality  schemes,  geographical  indications  (GIs) and  traditional 
specialties  guaranteed  (TSGs),  AND-I  for  the   DG  AGR I,  2019  –  https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-
fishe ries/key-policies/common-agricultural-policy/cmef/products -and-m ark e ts/e conom ic-value -e u-quality-
sche mes-geographical-indications-gis-and-traditional-specialities-guaranteed-tsgs_en  and  FoodDrinkEurope  - 
https://www.fooddrinkeurope.eu/uploads/publications_documents/FoodDrinkEurope_Data_and_Trends_2018_F
INAL.pdf  

7https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/food-safety-and-quality/certification/quality-
labe ls/geographical-indications-register/ 

8https://www.tm dn.org/giview/  

5 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                             
 
Evaluation support study on Geographical Indications and Traditional Specialities 
Guaranteed protected in the EU 

Based on a 2019 study conducted for DG AGRI  9, the value premium  of GI  products was 
estimated at 2.07 in 2017 (meaning that GI products were sold at a price 2.07 times higher 
compared to non-GI comparable products). This price premium does not necessarily mean 
a higher income as GI production generally requires additional production costs. Based on 
an  electronic survey with  producer groups  (PG),  in  more  than  half  of  the cases, the 
registration as GIs/TSGs has a positive impact on farmers’ (for 52% of PG) or processors’ 
income (for 54% of PG). In addition FADN analysis in the wine sector (conducted in seven 
MS where samples for both GI  and non-GI farms were available) shows that GI farmers 
get higher  income  compared to non-GI farmers  at EU  level,  even if  we observe some 
differences among MS. 

Regarding the evolution of sales, we observe a larger increase of the GI/TSG sales value 
compared to the evolution of sales of the whole food and drinks sector between 2010 and 
2017  (increase 1.7 times  higher  for  GIs/TSGs). The evolution of  each GI  and  TSG  is 
variable. Over the 2010-2017 period, 64%  of the GIs  grew in  terms of sales value and 
46%  of GIs  grew in  terms  of sales volume  (the sales were stable or  decreased for the 
remaining GIs).  

Other benefits related to the implementation of GI/TSG scheme may be observed (based 
on electronic survey with PGs): improved quality management (mentioned by 87% of the 
PGs), better access to the market (76% of the PGs), stability of price and market (51% of 
the PGs) and management of the volume marketed (50% of the PGs). These results and 
the case studies suggest that the implementation of  the GI/TSG  scheme may  have a 
positive impact on the bargaining power of farmers. 

Impacts in rural areas 

Based on the analysis (desk research and case studies), evidences suggest that GIs and 
TSGs have a positive impact on employment  in several cases. This is based on the stronger 
development of GI/TSG sales value compared to the whole food and drinks sector and the 
higher labour-to-production ratio (quantity of work needed for the production of one tonne 
of  product) for  many  GIs  compared to comparable products without GI  (based on  the 
analysis of 25 GI  value chains, positive impact observed in 80% of the cases).  

In addition, GI  schemes lead to greater diversification in several cases, through on-farm 
processing and synergies with tourism. These synergies could be further explored through 
a better networking between stakeholders involved in GIs/TSGs schemes and stakeholders 
involved in tourism. 

4.2  Efficiency 

The framework for GIs  and TSGs is assessed to be efficient, when comparing the be nefits 
provided and the costs borne by privates stakeholders and publics bodies. 

Public costs regarding the management and controls of GIs/TSGs is estimated to be low, 
at 0.12%  of  the total sales value under  GI/TSG  (and  0.24%  of  the value premium  of 

9Study on e conomic value of EU  quality sche mes, ge ographical indications (GIs) and traditional specialities 
guaranteed  (TSGs)”,  AND-I 
for  the   DG  AGR I,  2019  -  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication -detail/-
/publication/a7281794-7ebe-11ea-aea8-01aa75ed71a1  

6 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                             
 
Evaluation support study on Geographical Indications and Traditional Specialities 
Guaranteed protected in the EU 

produc ts under GI/TSG compared to non-GI/TSG products). The costs related to PGs are 
estimated as 0.5% of the sales value under GI/TSG. We observe a lower efficiency for the 
smallest GIs/TSGs (costs of PGs accounting for 5%  of GI/TSG  sales value for GIs/TSGs 
under EUR 1 million  sales value) than for the largest ones (costs around 0.5% for GIs/TSGs 
over EUR 50 million  sales value). 

Main issues identified regarding the procedures are the long time  period for registration 
and modification of PS, both at MS and EU levels. In addition, a major amendment of a PS 
may require as much time as a new registration. 

4.3  Relevance 

The GI/TSG scheme are overall assessed to be relevant. The analysis covers 1) relevance 
for  stakeholders, 2)  relevance for  rural  areas  and  3)  the  challenges of  environment 
sustainability and animal welfare.  

Relevance for stakeholders 

The objectives of the schemes are assessed to be relevant for both NAs and PGs. The most 
relevant objective for NAs is  "Ensure uniform protection of the names as an IPR  in  the 
territory of the EU”.  

Regarding PGs, the objectives “Provide clear information on the value-adding attributes of 
the product to consumers” and/or “Protect the legitimate interests of consumers” are the 
most  relevant in  the agri-food and  wine  schemes. In  the spirit  drinks  sector, "Ensure 
uniform respect for the IPR related to protected names” is the most relevant objective for 
PGs. 

The objectives of the schemes are also considered relevant for consumers. However, due 
to the low awareness and understanding of the schemes in some MS, such relevance is not 
necessarily perceived by consumers.  

Relevance for rural areas 

The existence of GIs is considered a strong asset of rural territories , including for areas 
facing natural or other specific constraints.  

The strengthening of GIs/TSGs through rural development (RD) policy responds primarily 
to  the  needs  of  enhancing  integration  in  the  agricultural  sector  and  responding  to 
consumers demand  for  food  quality. Two types of measures  related to  GIs/TSGs  are 
supported by RD  policy (support for joining  the schemes and support for information and 
promotion), the importance of these measures varies among EU regions, with a group of 
territories expressing a large demand related to quality schemes.  

GIs/TSGs  are  also  regarded  as  an  important  tool  to  promote  regional  identity  and 
gastronomic  heritage, in  particular  in  the  countries  with  a  history  of  GI  protection. 
However, as stated by the scientific community, which identifies many successful cases, 
this  dimension  of  GIs  linked  to  the preservation and  promotion  of local  living  cultural 
heritage can be further developed. 

Animal welfare and environmental sustainability 

Animal  welfare and environmental sustainability are not among the objectives set in the 
EU legal framework for GIs  and TSGs. However, there is a growing demand for the food 
and drinks value chains to consider these themes in their practices.  

7 

 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation support study on Geographical Indications and Traditional Specialities 
Guaranteed protected in the EU 

Over the last years, GIs and TSGs seem to have started responding to the se challenges. 
The integration of such considerations into GIs/TSGs  is  however a  slow process, with 
different levels of commitment.  Many GI/TSGs  already contain additional specifications 
linked to these themes, going beyond the provisions of the EU regulations, while for some 
others it is in progress.  

In addition, few MS declared that there are public initiatives encouraging GIs/TSGs PGs to 
adopt voluntary rules of production related to the topics analysed. More than half of the 
PGs (from PGs survey) which declared that their PS integrate environmental issues, have 
part of their production complying with organic rules.  

4.4  Coherence 

No major incoherence has been identified with regard to the GI/TSG schemes. This covers 
1) coherence of  GIs  with  TSGs,  2)  coherence of  GIs  with  EU  trade  marks  (EUTMs), 
3) coherence of GIs/TSGs with national and regional schemes, 4) c oherence of GIs/TSGs 
with other instruments and measures from  the CAP and 5)  c oherence of GIs/TSGs with 
wider EU policies. 

Coherence of GIs with TSGs 

For the agri-food sector, GIs and TSGs were both legislated in 1992. GIs  and TSGs have 
similar  intervention logics and pursue many common objectives. At the same time, several 
differences have been observed:  

  GIs are linked to a specific geographical area while TSGs are not; 

  GIs provide an IPR while TSGs do not;  

  The product scope of the two schemes is largely overlapping, although PDOs/PGIs 
present a wider product scope for agricultural products, and the category “prepared 
meals” is only available for TSGs. 

While  1 377  GIs  have been registered in  the agri-food sector until  January 2020,  only 
62 TSGs have been registered. Evidence suggests that this low attractiveness of TSGs is 
due to the fact that TSGs do not provide an IPR  protection, the consumer recognition is 
low, and, in addition, TSGs do not prevent stakeholders from other geographical areas to 
use the TSG. 

Coherence of GIs with EU trade marks (EUTMs) 

Both GIs and EUTMs are registered IPRs intended to regulate the correct use of names and 
granting protection and specific rights. However, the two IPRs have different functions. 
Trade marks give an exclusive right to their owners, while GIs confer a collective right to 
all  producers in  the geographical territory who  are willing  to produce according to the 
defined production rules.  

The level of protection offered by the EU legislation on GIs is  assessed to be compatible 
and comparable to the one offered by the EU  legislation on  trade marks.  Similarly,  the 
level of protection granted for the two IPRs is assessed to be consistent with the nature of 
their systems and aligned with the respective objectives.  

At the same  time,  the analysis shows that t here is  a  difference of  treatment between 
PDOs/PGIs and EUTMs used in  final  products’ sales name, which is due to the fact that 
trade marks confer exclusive, private rights to their holder(s), whereas PDOs/PGIs confer 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation support study on Geographical Indications and Traditional Specialities 
Guaranteed protected in the EU 

collective rights. PDOs/PGIs  producers may  have difficulties in  preventing others from 
using a PDO/PGI name as there is no exclusive intellectual property right.  

Coherence of GIs/TSGs with national and regional schemes 

National/regional schemes may share common objectives with EU GIs/TSGs, such as for 
example  the  aim  of  promoting  traditional  or  regional  products,  to  allow  for  better 
traceability, etc. They may  also  be  complementary when they cover environment and 
animal  welfare issues. Some synergies may also be found when private national/regional 
schemes represent a first step to enter EU quality schemes. However, the abundance of 
quality labels on the market, with objectives which may not be fully clear for consumers, 
may generate confusion at consumer level.  

Coherence of GIs/TSGs with other instruments and measures from the common 
agricultural policy (CAP) 

GIs and TSGs are coherent with direct payments, the common market organisation (CMO), 
RD policy, promotion policy and organic policy as they share similar objectives. In addition, 
GIs and TSGs contribute to and complement each of these policies on specific areas: fair 
income  of farmers  (direct payments), strengthening farmers’  bargaining  power (CMO), 
stimulating vibrant rural areas and fostering employment and diversification of income (RD 
policy). In addition, significant synergies have been highlighted with promotion and organic 
policies, which could be further enhanced. 

Coherence of GIs/TSGs with wider EU policies 

Overall, we observe that GI/TSG policy is coherent with the EU policy related to food safety, 
information to consumer, trade and EU  internal market. In  principle, no inconsistencies 
were  found  between  GI/TSG  policy  and  health  policy,  as  the  two  policies  pursue 
theoretically different objectives. 

Some specific issues have been identified: 

  Food  safety policy:  the  definition  of  the  term  “traditional”  is  not  consistent 

between the GI/TSG regulatory framework and health regulations; 

  EU  internal market: with regard to the enforcement of IPRs,  the protection of 

internet domain names including GI names still remains to be solved. 

4.5  EU added value 

There is  a  clear  EU  added value  regarding  GIs/TSGs. Without the EU  framework,  the 
GI/TSG scheme may not exist in each MS and may not be homogeneous in the MS where 
it  is  established.  In  addition,  the  scrutiny  at  EU  level  ensures  homogeneity  of  the 
procedures while we observe large differences in the procedures among MS.  

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation support study on Geographical Indications and Traditional Specialities 
Guaranteed protected in the EU 

5.  RECOMMENDATIONS 

The study provides recommendations to improve the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, 
coherence  and  EU  added  value  of  the  EU  framework  on  GIs  and  TSGs.  These 
recommendations cover: 

  controls and IPR enforcement on the market and on export, 

  communication to consumers, 

 

 

research on GIs/TSGs, 

increase synergies between tourism and GIs/TSGs, 

  structuring of the value chains under GIs/TSGs, 

 

regulation of supply for GIs value chains, 

  simplification of the procedures, 

  economic assessment of GI/TSG applications, 

 

improvement of the integration of environment and animal welfare concerns, 

  evolutions of the TSG scheme and the alignment of definitions of “traditional”, 

  possible expansion of GI scope to prepared meals, 

 

rules for GIs as ingredients, 

  coherence with EU health/food safety policies. 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

In person 

All  over  the  European Union  there  are  hundreds of  Europe  Direct  information 
centres.  You  can 
the  address  of  the  centre  nearest  you  at: 
find 
https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

On the phone or by email 

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. 
You can  contact this  service:  –  by  freephone: 00  800  6  7  8  9  10 11  (certain 
operators may charge for these calls),   – at the following standard number: +32 
22999696, or  – by email  via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en  

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

Online  

Information about the European  Union in  all  the official  languages of the  EU is 
available  on the Europa website at: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en 

EU publications 

You  can  download  or  order 
from: 
https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple copies of free publications 
may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre (see 
https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en). 

free  and  priced  EU  publications 

EU law and related documents 

For access to legal information from the EU, including all  EU law since 1952 in all 
the official  language versions, go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu 

Open data from the EU 

The  EU  Open  Data  Portal  (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en) provides access to 
datasets from  the  EU.  Data  can  be  downloaded and  reused  for free,  for  both 
commercial  and non-commercial purposes. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
K
F
-
0
1
-
2
0
-
6
2
2
-
E
N
-
N

doi: 10.2762/708630 

Isbn 978-92-76-23868-3