COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION on geographical indications and traditional specialities guaranteed protected in the EU
Date: 2021-12-20
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: agricultural product, consumer information, designation of origin, foodstuff, labelling, product designation, quality control of agricultural products

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 20.12.2021  SWD(2021) 428 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION  on geographical indications and traditional specialities guaranteed protected in the EU {SWD(2021) 427 final}  
 
 
The  document  sets  out  the  results  of  the  Commission’s  evaluation  of  the  European  Union 
(EU)  quality  policy  on  Geographical  Indications  (GIs)  and  Traditional  Specialities 
Guaranteed  (TSGs)  protected  in  the  EU.  This  covers  almost  3 400  GIs  and  64  TSGs 
originating from EU Member States. The purpose of the evaluation is to assess the extent to 
which  the  GI  and  TSG  policy  has  achieved  its  objectives.  The  evaluation  examines  the 
effectiveness,  efficiency,  relevance,  coherence  and  EU  added  value  of  the  GI  and  TSG 
framework.   

Overall, the objectives of GIs and TSGs have been achieved effectively. The schemes offer a 
wide range of possible benefits for stakeholders, such as securing fair return and competition 
for farmers and producers. However, they are not applied systematically in all Member States. 
The main limits are the low consumer awareness and understanding in some Member States 
and  certain  weaknesses  in  controls  at  the  downstream  stages  of  the  value  chain.  The  other 
core policy objectives - ensuring the respect of GIs as intellectual property and the integrity of 
the  internal  market  and  helping  the  producers  of  TSG  to  safeguard  traditional  methods  of 
production and recipes- are in general achieved. During the period 2010 to 2020, the number 
of  registered  GI  names  increased  by  27%,  while  the  number  of  registered  TSG  names 
doubled.  

However, as regards TSGs, the specific objective of the regulation is not fully achieved. The 
main  element,  which  hinders  the  success  of  TSGs,  is  the  perceived  low  added  value  for 
producers to register a TSG. This is due to a combination of different factors: a low consumer 
awareness of TSG; a complex registration process; no Intellectual Property Right protection, 
so TSG does not prevent operators from other geographical regions from using the name as 
long as they respect the product specifications. 

GIs/TSGs are assessed to be efficient. They provide several benefits for producers despite of 
the complex and lengthy procedures for registration, while the costs for public bodies (at EU 
and national levels) are low, at an estimate 0.12% of the total sales value.  

The schemes are assessed to be relevant for both private stakeholders and public authorities. 
Although  environmental  protection  and  animal  welfare  are  not  the  main  objectives  for 
GI/TSG  production,  the  producer  groups  that  were  surveyed  said  that  some  product 
specifications take account of environmental and animal welfare issues.  

In terms of coherence, no major incompatibility was identified, regarding GIs and EU trade 
marks, GIs/TSGs and national/regional schemes, and GIs/TSGs and other EU policies.  

There is a clear EU added value, because GIs and TSGs contribute both to the integrity of the 
internal market and common standards for trade with non-EU countries. 

As  regards  lessons  learned,  besides  the  above-mentioned  weaknesses  in  control  and 
enforcement (downstream market), and low awareness and understanding of the schemes by 
consumers, the following points can be highlighted:  

  Differences in implementation cause difficulties for enforcing producers’  Intellectual 
Property Right outside the Member State of production. In addition, GIs cover a wide 

 
 
range  of  products  and  are  sold  through  various  outlets  (including  online),  which 
further hampers their effective enforcement.   

  Another  issue  is  closely  linked  to  the  Commission’s  new  political  objectives,  in 
particular the European Green Deal and the Farm to Fork Strategy. Despite the sharper 
focus  on sustainability concerns in  recent  years,  GI  and TSG production does not  or 
not systematically take them into consideration. 

  Producer groups play a pivotal role in the implementation of GIs and TSGs. However, 
the evaluation found that the tasks they are entitled to conduct highly differ among the 
various sectors and between the Member States as they are laid down at EU level only 
for the agri-food sector and not for wines, aromatised wine products and spirit drinks.  

  Lengthy  and  complex  registration  and  amendments  procedures,  both  at  national  and 

EU level, are considered the main irritant and source of administrative burden. 

  The  limited  number  of  products  registered  as  TSGs,  not  constituting  an  Intellectual 
Property Right, points to a lack of interest in this scheme and the difficulty to protect 
traditional production methods across the EU.  

  There  is  abundant  information  on  GIs/TSGs,  but  the  level  of  detail  varies  and  the 

available data is not structured in a database, so not easily searchable.