COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION OF 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) 427 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION  OF GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND TRADITIONAL SPECIALITIES GUARANTEED PROTECTED IN THE EU            {SWD(2021) 428 final}  
 
 
Contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 6 

2. 
BACKGROUND OF THE INTERVENTION ............................................................................... 7 
2.1.  Definitions of GI and TSG .................................................................................................................. 7 
2.2. 
Legal framework for GIs and TSGs .................................................................................................... 8 
2.3.  Recent policy developments related to GIs/TSGs .............................................................................. 9 
2.4.  Baseline and points of comparison ....................................................................................................10 
2.5.  Description of intervention and its objectives ....................................................................................11 

3. 
STATE OF PLAY ............................................................................................................................13 
3.1.  Description of the current situation ....................................................................................................13 
3.1.1.  Data on GIs and TSGs .......................................................................................................................13 
3.1.2.  Importance of GIs/ TSGs: Economic overview .................................................................................16 
3.2. 
Implementation at national and EU level ...........................................................................................18 
3.2.1.  Application procedure ........................................................................................................................18 
3.2.2.  Controls and enforcement ..................................................................................................................19 

4. 
METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................................................................20 
Short description of the methodology ................................................................................................20 
4.1. 
4.2.  Data collection and the assessment ....................................................................................................21 
Limitation and robustness of findings ................................................................................................22 
4.3. 

ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS .....................................23 
5. 
5.1. 
Effectiveness ......................................................................................................................................23 
5.1.1.  Integrity of the internal market ..........................................................................................................23 
5.1.2.  Fair competition for farmers and producers .......................................................................................24 
5.1.3.  Protection of intellectual property right .............................................................................................26 
5.1.4.  Fair return for farmers and producers ................................................................................................28 
5.1.5.  Contribution to rural economies ........................................................................................................34 
5.1.6.  Clear and reliable information on the product to consumers .............................................................35 
5.1.7.  Safeguarding traditional methods of production and recipes .............................................................39 
5.2. 
Efficiency ...........................................................................................................................................40 
5.3.  Relevance ...........................................................................................................................................42 
5.3.1.  Producer groups and national authorities ...........................................................................................42 
5.3.2.  Consumers .........................................................................................................................................43 
5.3.3.  Relevance regarding the needs of rural areas .....................................................................................44 
5.3.4.  Relevance regarding the environmental sustainability and animal welfare .......................................44 
5.4.  Coherence ..........................................................................................................................................45 
5.4.1.  Coherence between GIs and TSGs.....................................................................................................45 
5.4.2.  Coherence between GIs and EU trade marks .....................................................................................46 
5.4.3.  Coherence between GIs/TSGs and national/regional schemes ..........................................................47 
5.4.4.  Coherence between GIs/TSGs and other CAP instruments and measures .........................................48 
5.4.5.  Coherence between GIs/TSGs and wider EU policies .......................................................................52 
EU added value ..................................................................................................................................58 
5.5. 

Page 1 / 84 

 
      
 
 
 
6. 
CONCLUSIONS ..............................................................................................................................61 
6.1. 
Effectiveness ......................................................................................................................................61 
Efficiency ...........................................................................................................................................62 
6.2. 
6.3.  Relevance ...........................................................................................................................................63 
6.4.  Coherence ..........................................................................................................................................63 
EU added value ..................................................................................................................................64 
6.5. 
Lessons learned ..................................................................................................................................65 
6.6. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION .............................................................................67 

ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ........................................................................69 

ANNEX 3: METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS ............................................................80 

Page 2 / 84 

 
      
 
 
 
Figures 
Figure  1.  Intervention  logic  for  GIs  and  TSGs  for  agricultural  products  and  foodstuffs,  wines, 
spirit drinks and aromatised wine products ................................................................................... 13 
Figure 2. Registered GIs & TSGs by EU Member State & non-EU countries – January 2021 .... 15 
Figure 3. Evolution of the number of GIs & TSGs (non-EU countries included) between 2010-
2020 ............................................................................................................................................... 15 
Figure 4 Breakdown of number and share of GIs & TSGs per sector - January 2021 .................. 16 
Figure 5 Product categories of agri-food GIs and TSGs– January 2021 ....................................... 17 
Figure 6 GIs sales value and number of registered names by scheme GIs and TSGs (2017) ....... 18 
Figure 7 Evolution of the sales value of GIs and TSGs and the number of names registered (EU 
Member States only), in billion EUR ............................................................................................ 19 
Figure 8. Value premium rate (2017) ............................................................................................ 20 
Figure 9. Controls and enforcement of GIs ................................................................................... 21 
Figure 10: Overview of effectiveness analysis .............................................................................. 25 
Figure  11:  Recognition  of  EU  quality  schemes'  symbols:  distinguishing  between  PDO  and 
PGI/GI symbols / schemes by the respondents (in %) .................................................................. 38 
Figure 12: Recognition of EU schemes’ symbols compared to the national or regional schemes’ 
logos by the respondents (in %) .................................................................................................... 39 
Figure  13.  Evolution  of  the  average  duration  of  the  scrutiny  and  opposition  procedures  at  EU 
level between 2008 and 2018 in months ....................................................................................... 42 
Figure 14. Relevance of the objectives of agri-food GIs and TSGs by national authorities (NA) 
and producer groups (PG). ............................................................................................................ 44 
Figure 15.  Selection of ideas mentioned by the OPC respondents ............................................... 62 
Figure 16 Overview of the type of the respondents of the public consultation. ............................ 72 
Figure 17. Incentives to participate in the EU quality schemes (in %) ......................................... 74 
Figure 18. Disincentives to participate in the EU quality schemes (in %) .................................... 75 
Figure 19. Consistency of EU quality schemes with consumer expectations (in %) .................... 76 
Figure 20. Coherence of EU quality schemes with MS public quality schemes (in %) ................ 76 
Figure 21. Coherence of EU quality schemes with private labels and certification schemes (in %)
 ....................................................................................................................................................... 77 

Page 3 / 84 

 
      
 
 
 
 
Tables 
Table 1. Data gathering methods, scope and reach of the evaluation support study on GI/TSG .. 23 
Table 2. Opinion from national authorities on the effectiveness of controls on GIs/TSGs........... 27 
Table 3. Distribution of benefits according to the evaluation support study- case studies ........... 34 
Table 4. List of selected national/regional schemes ...................................................................... 48 
Table 5. List of incentives and disincentives ................................................................................ 73 
Table  6  Most  selected  incentives  to  participate  in  the  EU  quality  schemes  per  category  of 
respondents .................................................................................................................................... 74 
Table 7. List of the 17 case studies conducted .............................................................................. 85 
Table 8. Details on the electronic survey with producer groups ................................................... 86 

Page 4 / 84 

 
      
 
 
 
 
Acronyms and abbreviations 

CAP 

CDG 

CMO 

Common Agricultural Policy 

Civil Dialogue Group 

Common Market Organisation 

COVID-19 

Disease caused by a new strain of coronavirus 

DG 

Directorate-General 

DG AGRI 

Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development 

EU 

FADN 

GVA 

IP 

IPR 

European Union 

Farm accountancy data network 

Gross Value Added 

Intellectual Property  

Intellectual Property Right 

IPRED 

Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive 

JRC 

NA 

OJ 

OCR 

PDO 

PG 

PGI 

PS 

SWD 

TSG 

UK 

Joint Research Centre 

National authorities 

Official Journal  

Official Control Regulation 

Protected Designation of Origin 

Producer groups 

Protected Geographical Indication 

Product Specification 

Staff Working Document 

Traditional Speciality Guaranteed 

United Kingdom 

Page 5 / 84 

 
      
 
 
1.  INTRODUCTION 

This  document  sets  out  the  results  of  the  Commission’s  evaluation  of  the  European 
Union (EU) quality policy on Geographical Indications (GI) and Traditional Specialities 
Guaranteed (TSG). This legislative framework (“framework”, “rules”) consists of: 

  GIs 

for 

and 

TSGs 

foodstuffs: 
Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of 
21 November 2012  on  quality  schemes  for  agricultural  products  and  foodstuffs 
(OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1); 

agricultural 

products 

and 

  GIs for wines: 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); 

  GIs for spirit drinks: Regulation (EU) 2019/787 of the European Parliament and of 
the Council of 17 April 2019 on the definition, description, presentation and labelling 
of spirit drinks, the use of the names of spirit drinks in the presentation and labelling 
of other foodstuffs, the protection of geographical indications for spirit drinks, the use 
of  ethyl  alcohol  and  distillates  of  agricultural  origin  in  alcoholic  beverages,  and 
repealing Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 (OJ L 130, 17.5.2019, p. 1) and 

  GIs for aromatised wine products: Regulation (EU) No 251/2014 of the European 
Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  26 February 2014  on  the  definition,  description, 
presentation,  labelling  and  the  protection  of  geographical  indications  of  aromatised 
wine  products,  and  repealing  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  1601/91  (OJ L 84, 
20.3.2014, p. 14). 

This evaluation is a backward-looking exercise, it covers the period from 30 May 2008 
(shortly after the entry into application of Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 for spirit drinks) 
to the end of 2020, based on available information and data. 

The  evaluation  assesses  the  extent  to  which  the  GI  and  TSG  policy  has  achieved  its 
objectives. It examines the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added 
value of the GI and TSG framework. In particular, the evaluation assesses whether the GI 
and  TSG  policy  is  still  fit  for  purpose  in  the  light  of  the  current  and  (already  known) 
future  challenges.  It  takes  account  of  the  Commission’s  new  political  objectives,  in 
particular the Farm to Fork Strategy1. The current COVID-19 crisis is also being assessed 
in limited extent.  

The evaluation covers all EU Member States (and the United Kingdom, which was still a 
Member State for most of the evaluation period2). 

This evaluation feeds into an Impact Assessment report that will present and analyse the 
options for the upcoming revision of the GI/TSG policy. 

1 https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/safety/docs/f2f_action-plan_2020_strategy-info_en.pdf 

2  The  UK  withdrew  from  the  EU  as  of  1  February  2020.  In  a  transition  period  lasting  until 
31 December 2020 EU law (with a few limited exceptions) continued to apply to and in the UK. 

Page 6 / 84 

 
      
                                                      
2.  BACKGROUND OF THE INTERVENTION 

This  section  firstly  explains  the  terms  “GI”  and  “TSG”,  secondly  describes  the  legal 
background and gives an overview of recent (political) developments. It also explains the 
baseline and points of comparison for the evaluation. Finally, it describes the intervention 
and its objectives, including the intervention logic. 

2.1.  Definitions of GI and TSG  

As  of  January  2021,  the  EU  protects  almost  3 400  names  of  specific  products  as 
Geographical Indications (GIs) or Traditional Specialities Guaranteed (TSGs).  

What are Geographical Indications?  

A  Geographical  Indication  (GI)  is  an  indication  (name)  used  on  products  from  a 
specific geographical origin that have a certain quality, reputation or other characteristic 
that is essentially attributable to that origin. The GI scheme confers intellectual property 
rights,  granting  producers  in  a  defined  geographical  area  the  right  to  use  the  registered 
name if they comply with the product specification. 

Like  other  forms  of  Intellectual  Property  Rights,  GIs  promote  fair  competition  by 
preventing “bad faith” uses,  give consumers a  guarantee of authenticity and distinguish 
products in the market. Their added value means that they secure higher-value sales and 
exports. 

Several  GI  schemes  operate  at  EU  level:  Protected  Designations  of  Origin  (PDOs)  and 
Protected  Geographical  Indications  (PGIs)  in  the  agri-food  and  wine  sectors,  and 
Geographical  Indications  (GIs)  for  the  spirit  drinks  and  aromatised  wine  products.  The 
link with the territory is stronger for PDOs than for PGIs and GIs: 

 

 

linked 

for PDOs, the quality or characteristics of the product are 
essentially  or  exclusively 
the  particular 
geographical  environment  of  the  place  of  origin.  This 
encompasses natural and human factors, such as climate, 
soil  conditions, 
local  know-how,  etc. 
(natural and human factors); all stages of the value chain 
must take place in the defined geographical area; 

topography, 

to 

is 

for  PGIs  and  GIs,  the  quality,  reputation  or  other 
its 
characteristic 
geographical  origin.  For  most  products,  at  least  one  of 
the  production  steps 
the  defined 
geographical area.  

takes  place 

attributable 

essentially 

to 

in 

Famous  geographical  indications  include  for  example  Bayerisches  Bier,  Champagne, 
Irish Whiskey, Kalamata olives, Parmigiano Reggiano, Polish Vodka, Queso Manchego 
and Roquefort. 

Page 7 / 84 

 
      
 
 
 
 
 
 
What are Traditional Specialities Guaranteed? 

  Traditional  Speciality  Guaranteed  (TSG)  highlights 
traditional aspects such as traditional production method 
or  traditional  composition,  without  being  linked  to  a 
specific geographical area. The TSG scheme provides for 
labelling  protection  and  is  not  an  intellectual  property 
instrument. 

Examples  of  famous  TSGs  are  Bacalhau  de  Cura  Tradicional  Portuguesa,  Amatriciana 
tradizionale, Hollandse maatjesharing and Kriek. 

2.2. Legal framework for GIs and TSGs 

GIs  are  recognised  as  Intellectual  Property  Rights  (IPR)  under  the  World  Trade 
Organization’s  (WTO)  Agreement  on  Trade-Related  Aspects  of  Intellectual  Property 
Rights (TRIPS)3. 

The  EU  has  a  particular  responsibility  to  ensure  the  protection  of  Intellectual  Property 
Rights  as  this  is  mandated  under  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the  European 
Union (Article 17)4. 

The  GI  and  TSG  schemes  are  an  integral  part  of  the  Common  Agricultural  Policy 
(CAP), which the EU has regulated in various steps as follows:   

– 

– 

In  1970,  Regulation  (EEC)  No  817/70  was  the  first  legal  instrument  laying  down 
special provisions relating to quality wines produced in specified regions. Today GI 
legislation  for  wine  is  embedded  in  the  Common  Market  Organisation  (CMO) 
Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, covering a range of agricultural products including 
the wine sector.  
In  1992,  the  EU  extended  the  EU  GI  scheme  to  agricultural  products  and 
foodstuffs  with  a  specific  regulation.  The  current  Regulation  (EU)  No  1151/2012 
aims  at  ensuring  protection  of  the  GIs  as  an  IPR  and  safeguarding  traditional 
methods of production and recipes for TSGs.  

–  The  first  rules  on  spirit  drinks  GIs  were  set  in  1989  (Regulation  (EEC) 
No 1576/89).  Current  rules  on  production  and  labelling  are  set  out  in  Regulation 
(EU) 2019/787.  

–  Rules  for  aromatised  wine  products  GIs  were  first  set  in  Regulation  (EEC) 
No 1601/91. The current legislation in force is Regulation (EU) No 251/2014. 

Overall,  the  current  four  sets  of  rules  are  coherent  when  it  comes  to  the  scope  of 
protection of the names. However, due to historical factors and product specificities, they 
contain  some  sector-specific  rules,  e.g.  on  the  use  of  raw  materials,  or  on  product 
labelling.  

The legal  framework would  benefit  from  streamlining, which is  to  some extent  already 
addressed in the current CAP reform process, such as alignment of agri-food procedures 
with the rules for the wines and spirits and the integration of aromatized wine products 

3 https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/31bis_trips_01_e.htm 

4 OJ 2000/C 364/01; https://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf  

Page 8 / 84 

 
      
 
                                                      
under  the  scope  of  the  agri-food  Regulation,  thus  repealing  GI  provisions  from  the 
Regulation on aromatised wine products.  

The current legal framework does not address requirements stemming from new political 
priorities  and  societal  developments,  such  as  sustainability  or  digitalisation.  However, 
analysis  of  the  GI  and  TSG  schemes  show  that  producers  are  already  taking  some  of 
these  on  board.  This  is  detailed  under  Section  on  5.3.4.  The  current  CAP  reform 
addresses sustainability and digitalisation to a certain extent,  but the impact assessment 
has confirmed the need to do more in these areas. 

In  addition,  the  CAP-financed  rural  development  framework  contains  a  specific 
measure  to  support  quality  schemes5.  16  Member  States  have  included  this  measure  in 
their Rural Development Programmes for the period 2104-2020, i.e. 56 out of 118 Rural 
Development Programmes provide for such a support.  

This support covers two types of operations: support for farmers and groups of farmers 
for  joining  quality  schemes  established  at  national/regional  or  EU  level  (including  for 
GIs  and  TSGs),  and  support  for  information  activities  on  quality  products  under  such 
schemes. 

2.3. Recent policy developments related to GIs/TSGs 

In  its  Political  Guidelines  for  2019-2024,  the  Commission  focuses  on  six  headline 
ambitions for Europe6. Among the key priorities is the development and implementation 
of  a  European  Green  Deal.  In  her  “mission  letter”  to  Commissioner  Wojciechowski7, 
Commission  President  von  der  Leyen  referred  to  the  need  ‘to  strengthen  the  system  of 
GIs. GIs are a key part of maintaining high food quality and standards and ensuring that 
our  cultural,  gastronomic  and  local  heritage  is  preserved  and  certified  as  authentic 
across the world’. 

In the Farm to Fork Strategy8, the Commission undertakes to strengthen the legislative 
framework of GI schemes, include specific sustainability criteria where appropriate, and 
strengthen  the  position  of  farmers  and  GI  producer  groups  in  the  food  supply  chain. 
Council  conclusions  on  the  strategy  welcomed  a  greater  integration  of  sustainable 
development into EU quality policy, and asked the Commission to reaffirm the relevance 
and  importance  of  EU  quality  schemes  and  to  strengthen  the  legislative  framework  on 
GIs.  

The Farm to Fork Strategy also outlined that the Commission will  propose a legislative 
framework for a sustainable food system before the end of 2023.  

5 Article 16 of Regulation (EU) N° 1305/2013 
6 https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/political-guidelines-next-commission_en_0.pdf 
7 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/commissioners/sites/comm-
cwt2019/files/commissioner_mission_letters/mission-letter-janusz-wojciechowski_en.pdf 
8 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic 
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – A Farm to Fork Strategy for a fair, healthy and 
environmentally-friendly food system (COM/2020/381 final) 

Page 9 / 84 

 
      
                                                      
In  addition,  the  Commission’s  Intellectual  Property  Action  Plan9  involves  improving 
the GI protection system, so as to make it more effective and to combat counterfeiting.   

The Commission’s June 2018 legislative proposals on the Common Agricultural Policy 
(CAP)  for  2021-2027  aim  to  make  the  EU's  agricultural  policy  more  responsive  to 
current  and  future  challenges,  while  continuing  to  support  the  active  needs  of  EU 
farmers.  

An  adjustment  of  the  GI  legal  framework  is  ongoing  in  the  framework  of  the  CAP 
reform,  in  particular  by  amending  Regulation  (EU)  No  1308/2013  establishing  a 
common  organisation  of  the  markets  in  agricultural  products  (CMO  Regulation)10.  The 
proposed  amendments,  which  are  currently  discussed  by  the  legislators,  are  aimed  at 
clarifying  certain  GI  wine  rules  and  increasing  protection  on  on-line  selling  platforms 
and  for  products  in  transit.  They  are  also  intended  to  streamline  the  rules  for  GI 
agricultural  products  and  foodstuffs,  and  extend  their  application  to  aromatised  wine 
products.   

The  COVID-19  pandemic  brought  a  shock  to  agricultural  markets11.  The  farm  sector, 
including  GI/TSG  producers,  will  have  to  adapt  gradually  e.g.  to  lower  consumer 
demand,  leading  to  a  reduction  in  output.  However,  this  evaluation  does  not  assess  the 
impacts of the pandemic on GI/TSG producers, as works had already started before the 
crisis took off and it is still ongoing, with its effects most likely to reverberate throughout 
the coming decade. 

2.4. Baseline and points of comparison 

For  the  purposes  of  assessing  policy,  the  points  of  comparison  for  this  evaluation  are 
rather  limited.  The  previous  evaluation  cannot  be  used  as  a  baseline,  as  the  reference 
period (1992 to 2006) was some time ago and it was completed in 2008. Also, it had a 
narrower  sectorial  scope,  focusing  on  agricultural  products  and  foodstuffs  only,  while 
this  evaluation  covers  four  sectors  (agricultural  products  and  foodstuffs,  wines,  spirit 
drinks and aromatised wine products).  

Moreover,  the  2008  evaluation  had  to  rely  on  findings  from  a  limited  number  of  case 
studies  rather  than  data  covering  all  registered  PDOs  and  PGIs.  It  led  to  following 
recommendations: 

 

increase  the  availability  of  administrative  and  statistical  data  on  the  PDO/PGI 
scheme at EU and Member States levels.  

  actively promote the scheme and provide stronger support for applicants.  
  carry out an active communication campaign to raise consumer knowledge of the 

PDO/PGI scheme and the PDO/PGI symbols; and   

9  Brussels,  25.11.2020  COM(2020)  760  final;  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-
say/initiatives/12510-Intellectual-Property-Action-Plan 
10 OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671 

11 OECD (2020), "The impact of COVID-19 on agricultural markets and GHG emissions", OECD Policy 
Responses to Coronavirus (COVID-19), OECD Publishing, Paris,  https://doi.org/10.1787/57e5eb53-en 

Page 10 / 84 

 
      
                                                      
  consider  ways  of  providing  more  information  about  raw  material  ingredients  in 
PGIs,  e.g.  detailed  origin  information  on  at  least  the  main  ingredients  on  the 
package.   

The current four sets of rules for EU quality schemes are in force respectively for spirit 
drinks  since  2019,  for  agricultural  products  and  foodstuffs  since  2012,  for  wines  since 
2013 and for aromatised wines since 2014.  

The  Joint  Research  Centre  (JRC)  provided  technical  support  in  the  form  of  a 
counterfactual analysis. This quantitative analysis provides an analysis of causal impacts 
on, for instance, employment and gross value added (GVA) in agriculture. 

2.5. Description of intervention and its objectives 

The  GI  and  TSG  schemes  are  part  of  the  Common  Agricultural  Policy  (CAP).  Their 
overall objective is to ensure the protection of the names of specific products. While they 
share  a  similar  intervention  logic  and  pursue  common  objectives,  there  are  some 
differences.  

The general objectives of a GI is to provide an Intellectual Property Right protection for 
the name of a product of which the quality/characteristics or reputation are linked to its 
geographical  origin.  Specific  objectives  are  to  protect  the  legitimate  interests  of 
consumers  and  producers,  to  ensure  market  transparency  and  fair  competition  between 
producers, to provide clear product information for consumers, to safeguard the integrity 
of the internal  market  and create a competitive  landscape  with  a level  playing field  for 
undertakings. 

The general objectives of a TSGs is to safeguard traditional methods of production and 
recipes, regardless of the link to a specific geographical place. TSG is a labelling scheme, 
not constituting Intellectual Property Right protection. Its specific objectives are to help 
producers  of  traditional  products  to  communicate  to  consumers  the  value  adding 
attributes of their products as well as safeguarding traditional methods of production and 
recipes.  

Based on the above, the key objectives of the GI/TSG framework are therefore to:  

1.  safeguard the integrity of the internal market, 
2.  establish fair competition for farmers and producers, 
3.  ensure uniform protection of the names, in particular GIs as an IPR, 
4.  provide fair return to farmers and producers, 
5.  contribute to the rural economy, 
6.  provide consumers with clear and reliable information on the product in question. 

Further, the four sets of EU rules for the EU quality schemes set the following specific 
objectives per sector:  

–  Agricultural  products  and  foodstuffs:  the  specific  objectives  of  protecting 
designations  of  origin  and  geographical  indications  are  securing  a  fair  return  for 
farmers and producers for the qualities and characteristics of a given product, or of 
its  mode  of  production,  and  providing  clear  information  on  products  with  specific 
characteristics  linked  to  geographical  origin,  thereby  enabling  consumers  to  make 

Page 11 / 84 

 
      
 
more  informed  purchasing  choices.  The  specific  objective  of  the  self-standing 
scheme for traditional specialities guaranteed is to help the producers of traditional 
products  to  safeguard  traditional  methods  of  production  and  recipes  and  to 
communicate to consumers the value adding attributes of their product. 

–  Wines:  the  current  legislation  aims  at  protecting  the  legitimate  interests  of 
consumers and producers, ensuring the smooth operation of the internal market, and 
providing information on the authenticity of quality products. 

–  Spirit drinks: the specific objectives set out in the regulation are the preservation of 
traditional production methods, the prevention of deceptive practices, the attainment 
of  market 
the 
achievement of a high level of consumer protection.  

transparency  and  fair  competition  between  producers,  and 

–  Aromatised wine products: the specific objectives are the preservation of a certain 
quality  standard,  the  prevention  of  deceptive  practices,  the  attainment  of  market 
transparency and fair competition between producers, and the achievement of a high 
level of consumer protection. 

Based  on  these  objectives,  a  general  intervention  logic  is  presented  below,  setting  out 
needs,  objectives,  inputs,  activities,  outputs,  results  and  impacts.  The  objective  of 
“contributing  to  the  rural  economy”  is  covered  under  the  other  objectives,  such  as 
securing a fair return for farmers. 

Figure 1. Intervention logic for GIs and TSGs for agricultural products and foodstuffs, wines, 
spirit drinks and aromatised wine products 

Source: Evaluation support study on GI/TSG 

Page 12 / 84 

 
      
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.  STATE OF PLAY 

This  section  gives  an  overview  of  the  number  and  economic  importance  of  GIs  and 
TSGs.  It  explains  the  application  and  registration  procedure,  and  the  enforcement  and 
controls of GI and TSG schemes along the down- and upstream markets.  

The  statistical  data  in  this  section  on  the  number  of  registered  names  relates  to  the 
situation of 1 January 2021, whereas the evaluation support study on GI/TSG12 had a cut-
off date of 1 January 2020. This allows to illustrate the dynamics of the GI/TSG sector 
with more up-to-date information. The economic data (retrieved from  an external study 
on the added value of GIs13) refers to year 2017. 

3.1. Description of the current situation 

3.1.1. Data on GIs and TSGs 

In  January  2021,  the  EU  geographical  indication  register,  eAmbrosia,  contained 
3 306 GIs and 64 TSGs.  

In  addition,  the  EU  has  concluded  34  bilateral  agreements14  with  third  countries, 
protecting  1 593 non-EU  GIs  with  an  additional  777  non-EU  GIs  under  consideration. 
Through  these  agreements  EU  GIs  are  also  protected  in  the  partner  countries  totalling 
more than 40 000 instances of EU GI protected in non-EU countries.  

12 Evaluation support study on geographical indications and traditional specialities guaranteed protected in 
the 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/c1d86ba1-7b09-11eb-9ac9-
EU, 
01aa75ed71a1/language-en 

13  Study  on  economic  value  of  EU  quality  schemes,  geographical  indications  (GIs)  and  traditional 
specialities  guaranteed  (TSGs)  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/a7281794-7ebe-
11ea-aea8-01aa75ed71a1 

14  The  names  protected  under  bilateral  trade  agreements  do  not  fall  within  the  scope  of  this  current 
evaluation. 

Page 13 / 84 

 
      
 
                                                      
Figure  2.  Registered  GIs  and  TSGs  by  EU  Member  States  &  non-EU  countries  – 
January 202115 

GIs

TSGs

870

744

275

171

64

13 1

9

3

2

11

2

3

3 14 5
3
2

3

358

190

34 36

4 10 1

69

22
7

44
3

115

4

9

2

4

53 35
5
3

69 51
5

19

42
5

Source: DG Agriculture and Rural Development 

During  the  period  2010  to  2020,  the  number  of  registered  GI  names  increased  by  27%,  the 
number  of  registered  TSG  names  doubled,  but  still  represents  only  2%  of  all  the  registered 
product names. 

Figure 3. Evolution of the number of GIs and TSGs (non-EU countries included) 2010-2020 

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

2809

2875

2595

2970

3020

3078

3147

3190

3225

3257

3306

30

37

38

43

49

53

54

56

59

62

64

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Source: DG Agriculture and Rural Development 

GIs

TSGs

15  The  registered  115  non-EU  GI  is  covering  only  the  registrations  of  names  at  EU  level  via  direct 
applications, however more names are being protected under bilateral trade agreements (1 593), not falling 
under the scope of this evaluation. 

Page 14 / 84 

 
      
 
 
 
                                                      
A  breakdown  of  the  registered  names  by  sectors  puts  wines  in  first  place  with  1 616 
registered names (48%), followed by the food sector with 1 443 registered GI names and 
64 TSG names (45%). Spirit drinks are in third place, with 242 registrations (7%). Only 
five aromatised wine products had been registered as of January 2021.  

Figure 4 Breakdown of GIs and TSGs by sector - January 2021 

Source: DG Agriculture and Rural Development 

In terms of variety of products, the most diverse is the sector of agricultural products and 
foodstuffs,  covering  28  product  categories16.  Altogether  1443  GI/TSG  names  are 
registered  in  this  sector.  The  number  relating  to  fruits  and  vegetables  (403)  is  almost 
equivalent to the combined total for meat products and cheeses (429). This diversity of 
categories offers wide product choices and reflects consumer’ preferences. The following 
chart provides an illustration of such product diversity in the agri-food sector. 

16 Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on 
quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs; Annex XI. 

Page 15 / 84 

 
      
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 5 Product categories of agri-food GIs and TSGs– January 202117 

Fresh fish, molluscs, 
and crustaceans and 
products; 58

Other products of 
animal origin; 50

Beers; 21 Other; 35

Bread, pastry, cakes, 
confectionery, biscuits 
and other baker's 
wares; 86

Other products of 
Annex I of the Treaty 
(spices etc.); 97

Oils and fats; 144

Fruit, vegetables and 
cereals fresh or 
processed; 449

Cheeses; 248

Fresh meat (and 
offal); 170

Meat products; 188

Source: DG Agriculture and Rural Development 

3.1.2. Importance of GIs/ TSGs: Economic overview 

The total sales value of GI/TSG products in 2017 was estimated at EUR 77.15 billion in 
the  EU-28  (EUR 74.76  billion  excluding  TSGs),  accounting  for  7%  (6.8%  excluding 
TSGs) of the total food and drink sales (EUR 1 101 billion at EU28)18. This is far from 
being a niche market. 

Exports  of  GI/TSG  products  to  non-EU  countries  in  2017  were  estimated  at 
EUR 17.03 billion  (EUR  16.95 billion  excluding  TSGs)  covering  15.5%  (15.4% 
excluding  TSGs)  of  EU  trade  of  food  and  beverages,  considering  that  EU  trade  of  the 
overall food and drink sector accounted for EUR 110 billion19. 

In  2010-2017,  sales  under  GI/TSG  increased  more  rapidly  than  in  the  whole  food  and 
drink sector. This  trend  is  observed at  both  EU  and extra-EU levels.  However, this  did 
not  apply  for  all  GIs,  the  sales  value  of  64%  of  GIs  grew  over  the  period  2010-2017, 
while it remained stable for 3% and decreased for 33% of the GIs. In addition, GI exports 
increased to a lesser extent than non-GIs exports20. 

17 Two GIs belong to two product categories, therefore they are counted in both categories 

18  Study  on  economic  value  of  EU  quality  schemes,  geographical  indications  (GIs)  and  traditional 
specialities  guaranteed  (TSGs)  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/a7281794-7ebe-
11ea-aea8-01aa75ed71a1 

19  Study  on  economic  value  of  EU  quality  schemes,  geographical  indications  (GIs)  and  traditional 
specialities  guaranteed  (TSGs)  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/a7281794-7ebe-
11ea-aea8-01aa75ed71a1  

20  Study  on  economic  value  of  EU  quality  schemes,  geographical  indications  (GIs)  and  traditional 
specialities  guaranteed  (TSGs)  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/a7281794-7ebe-
11ea-aea8-01aa75ed71a1 

Page 16 / 84 

 
      
 
                                                      
Figure 6 Sales value and number of registered names by GI and TSG schemes  (2017) 

39,42

1576

1367

27,34

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

1800

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

10,35

259

0,043
5

wines

agricultural products
and foodstuffs

spirits

aromatised wines

Value in billion euro

Number of registered names

Source: Study on economic value of EU quality schemes (adaptation)’ 

Figure  7  Evolution  of the  sales  value  of  GIs  and  TSGs  and  the  number  of  names  registered 
(EU Member States only), in billion EUR 

Source: DG Agriculture and Rural Development and Study on economic value of EU quality schemes (adaptation)   

The average value premium rate for GI/TSG products in the EU-28 was estimated in 
2017 at 2.07. This value premium rate indicates that the sales value of GI/TSG products 
was  on  average  (weighted)  2.07  times  higher  than  the  sales  value  for  comparable 

Page 17 / 84 

 
      
 
 
 
  
standard products21 without a GI/TSG label. Both GI wines and GI spirit drinks fetched 
much higher prices  than comparable standard products22. The highest  premium  was  for 
wines (2.85) and the lowest for food products (1.5). In addition, lower price volatility is 
observed than for the non-GI sector. 

Figure 8. Value premium rate (2017) 

Agricultural products and foodstuffs

1.5

Spirit drinks

Wine

2.52

2.85

Source: Study on economic value of EU quality schemes (adaptation) 

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3.2. Implementation at national and EU level  

3.2.1. Application procedure 

The  application  process  for  new  GI/TSG  registrations  and  amendments  to  the  product 
specification consists of two-steps: it starts in the country of origin with the submission 
of  an  application  by  a  producer  group23  (‘the  applicant’)  to  the  national  authorities  for 
assessment at national level. This preliminary national procedure includes the scrutiny of 
the application, followed by its publication for opposition24. If the decision is favourable, 
the application dossier is sent to the Commission. 

The  application  is  subject  to  a  scrutiny  procedure  at  EU  level,  consisting  of  an 
assessment  by  the  Commission,  followed  by  publication  for  opposition  in  the  Official 

21 For agricultural products and foodstuffs, the comparison group consisted of all types of products (cured 
ham, hard cheese, apples etc.). For wines, only one reference price for non-GI wine was estimated in each 
Member  State.  In  the  spirit  sector,  seven  Prodcom  spirit  classes  (whisky,  vodka,  gin  and  Geneva,  rum, 
spirits distilled from fruits, spirits obtained from distilled grape wine and other spirits) were used. In case a 
reference  for  standard  prices  was  not  available,  the  value  premium  was  estimated  based  on  the  price 
difference (between a GI product and a standard product) for comparable GI products in the Member State 
or in a neighbouring Member State. Source: Study on economic value of EU quality schemes, geographical 
indications (GIs) and traditional specialities guaranteed (TSGs). 

22  Study  on  economic  value  of  EU  quality  schemes,  geographical  indications  (GIs)  and  traditional 
specialities  guaranteed  (TSGs)  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/a7281794-7ebe-
11ea-aea8-01aa75ed71a1 

23  A  GI  producer  group  is  defined  GI  scheme  as  ‘any  association,  irrespective  of  its  legal  form,  mainly 
composed of producers or processors working with the same product’ designated as a GI in the agricultural 
product  and  foodstuff.  However,  no  such  definition  is  included  in  the  other  sectoral  legislations,  nor  are 
producer groups’ roles defined. 

24 In the case of direct applications from third country applicants this first step of the procedure might be 
different. 

Page 18 / 84 

 
      
 
 
                                                      
Journal25  C  series.  If  no  notice  of  opposition  is  received,  the  name  is  registered  at  EU 
level in the Official Journal L series. In case of oppositions, based on the outcome of the 
opposition procedure, the name is registered or rejected.  

The  registered  name,  together  with  its  supporting  documentation  and  with  subsequent 
approved amendments, if any, is made public in the EU GIs register, eAmbrosia26. 

3.2.2. Controls and enforcement 

Enforcement and controls are key for the effective implementation of GIs/TSGs at each 
stage  of  the  value  chain  (e.g.  production,  preparation,  distribution,  placing  on  the 
market):  from  the compliance with  the product  specification (the upstream  market27) to 
the respect of GIs as Intellectual Property Rights placed on the market and the provision 
of trustworthy information to consumers (downstream market28).  

The  framework  for  GI/TSG  controls  and  enforcement  as  defined  in  the  EU  law,  is  a 
combination of specific rules: the Official Control Regulation (OCR) (EU) No 2017/625 
and the Directive on Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRED) 2004/48/EC.  

The OCR applies to official compliance controls on the use and labelling of PDOs, PGIs 
and TSGs while IPRED requires Member States to provide for measures, procedures and 
remedies to ensure that IPR are enforced on the downstream market.  

In addition, specific rules on controls are detailed in each sector-specific GI regulation.29  

The graph below provides an overview of the main elements of controls/ enforcement in 
the upstream and downstream sectors under the applicable legislation. 

The most frequent organisation in Member States is a central administration in charge of 
supervising the whole  control procedure over the value  chain,  with  some exceptions of 
regionalised organisations (for instance in Spain). The central competent authority (CCA) 
may  delegate  parts  of  responsibility  to  other  competent  authorities  (CAs),  and  certain 
control  tasks  at  producer  level  can  be  performed  by  control  bodies  (CBs).  However, 
market  controls  (downstream)  cannot  be  delegated  to  control  bodies.  This  general 
structure varies from one Member State to another. 

25  Official  Journal  is  the  official  gazette  of  record  for  the  European  Union  (EU). There  are  2  series:  L  – 
Legislation and C - Information and notices (C stands for French 'communications'). 

26 https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/food-safety-and-quality/certification/quality-
labels/geographical-indications-register/# 

27 Production level 

28 Market level 

29  Sectoral  GI  legislations  are  outlining  the  rules  for  controls  on  the  verification  of  compliance  with  the 
product  specification,  before  placing  the  product  on  the  market;  checking  the  proper  use  of  the  names 
registered on the market (agri-food products and spirit drinks); prevent or stop the unlawful use of PDOs 
and PGIs on products marketed in their territories (wines and spirit drinks) within the EU.  

Page 19 / 84 

 
      
                                                      
 
Figure 9. GIs controls and enforcement   

Source: DG Agriculture and Rural Development 

4.  METHODOLOGY 

This section gives an overview of (i) the methodology used for this evaluation and (ii) its 
limitations.  

4.1. Short description of the methodology 

This evaluation is largely based on:  

 
 
 

 

 

in-house data and information analysis of GI and TSG schemes;  
the public consultation;  
the  external  evaluation  support  study  on  GI  and  TSG  protected  in  EU30 
(“evaluation support study on GI/TSG”);  
the external evaluation support study on economic value of EU quality schemes, 
GI and TSG31 (“study on economic value of EU quality schemes”); and 
the counterfactual analysis of impacts in rural areas by JRC “Causal estimates of 
Geographical  Indications'  effects  on  territorial  development:  feasibility  and 
application “32. 

The  evaluation  applies  five  evaluation  criteria:  relevance,  effectiveness,  efficiency, 
coherence and EU added value.  

30 Evaluation support study on geographical indications and traditional specialities guaranteed protected in 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/c1d86ba1-7b09-11eb-9ac9-
EU, 
the 
01aa75ed71a1/language-en 

31  Study  on  economic  value  of  EU  quality  schemes,  geographical  indications  (GIs)  and  traditional 
specialities  guaranteed  (TSGs)  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/a7281794-7ebe-
11ea-aea8-01aa75ed71a1 

32  Dumangane,  M.,  Granato,  S.,  Lapatinas,  A.,  and  Mazzarella,  G.,  Causal  estimates  of  Geographical 
Indications'  effects  on  territorial  development:  feasibility  and  application,  JRC  Technical  Report,  Ispra, 
2021,  JRC124769,  Causal  estimates  of  Geographical  Indications’  effects  on  territorial  development: 
feasibility and application | Knowledge for policy (europa.eu) 

Page 20 / 84 

 
      
 
 
                                                      
4.2. Data collection and the assessment 

Stakeholders had an opportunity to provide feedback on a  Commission roadmap from 
29 April to 27 May 201933.  

The Commission carried out a  public consultation34 in order to  give public authorities 
and all stakeholders the opportunity to express their views on the GI and TSG schemes. 
The  public  consultation  was  conducted  from  4  November  2019  to  3  February  2020  on 
EUSurvey.  The  public  consultation  attracted  233  responses  from  respondents  in 
25 countries,  including  21  Member  States  and  four  non-EU  countries.  It  was 
complemented by stakeholder consultation in the framework of the Civil Dialogue Group 
meeting35 on 3 July 2020 and a high-level GI Conference on 25-26 November 202036.  

The Commission  conducted its own  internal  assessment,  based on in-house data from 
eAmbrosia and analysis of applications. 

External  experts  were  commissioned  for  the  evaluation  support  study  on  GI/TSG  in 
order  to  obtain  an  independent  evidence-based  assessment  of  how  the  GI  and  TSG 
schemes  work.  The  study  used  a  vast  range  (quantitative  and,  to  a  large  extent, 
qualitative) information sources and tools, as summarised below: 

Table 1. Data gathering methods, scope and reach of the evaluation support study on GI/TSG 

Tools  

EU level interviews 

FADN analysis 

Electronic survey with national authorities (27 answers) 

National interviews & desk research 

Electronic survey with producer groups (477 answers, 25% response rate) 

Scope 

EU level 

EU level 

28 MS 

7 MS: CZ, FR, IT, ES, 
HU, DE and NL 

17 case studies 

Research on national / regional schemes 

Electronic consumer survey (2 800 answers) 

Source: Evaluation support study on GI/TSG 

The JRC conducted a counterfactual analysis, which focused on the local presence of GIs 
in Portugal, as measured at the level of the municipality in which the products originate, 
and their contributions to the development of the rural economy in terms of employment, 

33  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/2029-EU-food-quality-schemes-
evaluation 

34  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/2029-Evaluation-of-
Geographical-Indications-and-Traditional-Specialities-Guaranteed-protected-in-the-EU/public-consultation 

35 Civil dialogue groups (CDG) assist the European Commission and help to hold a regular dialogue on all 
matters 
implementation. 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/key-policies/committees-and-advisory-councils/civil-
dialogue-groups/cdg-explained_en  

development, 

the  CAP, 

including 

relating 

rural 

and 

its 

to 

36https://ec.europa.eu/info/events/strengthening-geographical-indications-digital-conference-2020-nov-
25_en 

Page 21 / 84 

 
      
                                                      
number of firms in agriculture, agricultural Gross Value Added and labour productivity 
(measured by turnover per employee).  

No  weighting  of  the  different  sources  was  applied,  it  has  to  be  noted  that  the  sources 
were complementary. 

4.3. Limitation and robustness of findings 

(1)  Baseline 

For  the  purposes  of  assessing  policy,  the  points  of  comparison  for  this  evaluation  are 
rather  limited.  The  previous  evaluation  cannot  be  used  as  a  baseline,  as  the  reference 
period  (1992  –  2006)  was  some  time  ago  and  its  scope  was  limited  to  agricultural 
products  and  foodstuffs  only.  Therefore,  this  evaluation  is  the  first  fully  fledged 
evaluation of the GI and TSG schemes. Where possible, a limited counterfactual analysis 
is used.  

(2)  Data availability  

The COVID-19 outbreak occurred in the data-collection phase of the evaluation support 
study  on  GI/TSG  and  had  a  considerable  impact  on  stakeholders’  availability  for 
interviews.  Additional  measures  were  taken  to  address  problems  encountered  in  the 
process  of  data  gathering  (e.g.  extending  deadlines,  using  phone  interviews,  electronic 
surveys and desk research). 

Although the quantitative data relating to the implementation of GIs and TSGs is broad, 
it is scattered and not collected in a systematic way, so sometimes not easily searchable. 

(3)  Applicability of the conclusions  

It is difficult to draw conclusions that apply to all 3 306 GIs and 64 TSGs. Each GI and 
TSG  contributes  to  the  achievement  of  the  policy  objectives,  but  at  the  same  time  the 
success  of  an  individual  GI/TSG  depends  on  many  factors  such  as  the  strength  of  the 
producer  group,  clear  product  specifications,  a  large  national  market  etc.  Therefore,  a 
representative  sample of  different  GIs/TSGs  in  the evaluation  support study of GI/TSG 
was worked out and more and less successful GI/TSG were analysed in the evaluation.  

(4)  Public consultation not representative  

The  representativeness  of  the  response  to  the  public  consultation  is  limited  as  only 
233 replies  were  received.  This  is  a  relatively  small  number  compared  to  the  reference 
population  e.g.  producers  and  consumers  of  GI/TSG  products.  In  addition,  some 
respondents  may  have  answered  on  the  basis  of  their  specific  interests  and  thus  do  not 
constitute  a  representative  sample.  The  Commission  has  taken  this  possible  limitation 
into account when analysing the results of the public consultation.  

Page 22 / 84 

 
      
 
 
5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

This  section  presents  the  assessment  of  the  performance  of  the  current  GI  and  TSG 
schemes.  The  assessment  is  based  on  the  five  evaluation  criteria  of  effectiveness, 
efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added value. 

5.1. Effectiveness 

This section evaluates whether the current GI and TSG frameworks have been effective 
in  achieving  their  objectives.  The  six  main  objectives  of  the  schemes  are  analysed  in 
dedicated sub-sections. Firstly, the impact of the GI and TSG schemes on the functioning 
of  the  internal  market  is  assessed  (Section  5.1.1).  The  effectiveness  of  GI/TSG 
registration, enforcement and control systems is analysed under the fair competition for 
farmers  and  producers  (Section  5.1.2),  followed  by  the  analysis  of  the  protection  of 
Intellectual Property Rights of GI (Section 5.1.3). The objective of fair return for farmers 
and producers is assessed in terms of competitive advantage and distribution of benefits 
along  the  value  chain  (Section  5.1.4).  This  analysis  is  complemented  by  measuring  the 
contribution  to  rural  economies  in  terms  of  improving  incomes  of  farmers  and 
employment (Section 5.1.5). The fore last point covers the effectiveness of the schemes 
in providing consumers with clear and reliable information on GI/TSG products (Section 
5.1.6). The last section (5.1.7) is on safeguarding traditional methods of production and 
recipes, and is specific to TSG.  

Figure 10: Overview of effectiveness analysis 

Clear & 
reliable 
information 

Rural 
economies

Internal 
market

Effectiveness

Fair return

Fair 
competition

Intellectual 
Property 
Rights

Source: DG Agriculture and Rural Development 

5.1.1. Integrity of the internal market 

Overall,  the  internal  market  policy  aims  to  guarantee  the  free  movement  of  goods, 
capital,  services,  and  labour  within  the  EU.  The  total  sales  value  of  GI/TSG  products 

Page 23 / 84 

 
      
 
accounted  for  7%  of  total  food  and  drink  sales  in  2017.  GIs/TSGs  sales  increased  by 
more than 40% between 2010 and 201737.  

The overall increase in sales value is partly due to changes that occurred between 2010 
and  2017,  in  particular  the  accession  of  Croatia  and  the  inclusion  of  TSGs  and  GIs 
registered in that period, representing overall 21 % of the increase in value. Further, an 
important increase was observed for French and Italian wines, which, together, represent 
30 % of the growth between 2010 and 2017. 

National  markets  were  dominant,  representing  58%  of  total  sales  value  in  2017,  while 
intra-EU  trade  was  estimated  at  20%  (so  78%  of  GI/TSG  trade  took  place  on  the  EU 
market). This suggests that the GI and TSG schemes have a positive effect on the internal 
market  by  providing  a  common  reference  for  trade  and  ensuring  the  same  level  of 
protection and authenticity of the products. It also shows that the framework is effective 
in enhancing trade in GI products.  

The  CMO  Regulation38  (for  more  details  Section  5.4.4  Common  Market  Organisation) 
contains specific provisions allowing for supply management by producers of PDO/PGI 
cheese  and  ham39.  As  outlined  in  Article  150  of  the  CMO  Regulation,  producers  and 
groups of operators within the meaning of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EU) 1151/2012 are 
allowed,  under  certain  conditions  and  for  a  limited  period  of  time,  to  lay  down 
agreements to regulate the supply of PDO/PGI cheeses. The aim of such derogations is to 
allow  the  producers  to  adapt  their  supply  to  market  demand  in  order  to  ensure  high 
quality  and  added  value  of  the  PDO/PGIs  in    the  marketplace,  which  is  particularly 
important  for  vulnerable  rural  regions.  By  facilitating  the  recognition  of  the  products’ 
quality  as  well  as  by  allowing  for  a  certain  degree  of  concentration  of  supply,  farmers 
bargaining power vis-à-vis processors is strengthened.  

5.1.2. Fair competition for farmers and producers 

The main objective of the EU competition rules is to enable the proper functioning of the 
internal market as a key driver for the well-being of EU citizens, businesses and society 
at  large.  To  this  end,  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union  (TFEU) 
contains  rules  that  aim  to  prevent  restrictions  on  and  distortions  of  competition  in  the 
internal  market.  In  the  context  of  this  evaluation,  the  assessment  of  this  objective 
comprises  of  firstly,  the  analysis  of  the  homogeneity  of  procedures  for  registration  and 
secondly,  controls  among  the  different  Member  States.  Effective  controls  at  all  stages 
(from  farmers  to  consumers)  guarantee  that  farmers/producers  involved  in  the  GI  and 
TSG schemes do not compete on the market with other producers who use the protected 
names without complying with the GI/TSG rules. 

37  Based  on  Study  on  economic  value  of  EU  quality  schemes,  geographical  indications  (GIs)  and  traditional 
specialties  guaranteed  (TSGs),  AND-I  for  the  DG  AGRI,  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 

38  Regulation  (EU)  No  1308/2013  establishing  a  common  organisation  of  the  markets  for  agricultural 
products. 

39  Articles  150  and  170  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1308/2013  establishing  a  common  organisation  of  the 
markets for agricultural products. 

Page 24 / 84 

 
      
                                                      
Scrutiny conducted at EU and national levels 

As  detailed  in  section  3.2.1  Application  procedure,  a  two  level  procedure  applies 
whereby  applications are  first  sent to  the national authorities for a preliminary  national 
procedure.  Most  Member  States  have  a  national  framework  in  place  for  the 
implementation of GIs and TSGs. Based on the survey of the national authorities by the 
external contractor in the context of the evaluation support study on GI/TSG, 22 Member 
States indicated that national  rules  were set  regarding GIs/TSGs and five indicated that 
there were no additional rules to the EU ones. The national rules mainly cover procedures 
for registration, amendment and cancellation.  

Procedures at national level differ from one Member State to another. Those with a long 
tradition  of  quality  schemes  tend  to  have  stricter  procedures  for  applications  (e.g. 
additional economic study and involvement of a specific inquiry commission in France, 
organoleptic assessment  for wines in  Hungary, double scrutiny at  regional  and national 
levels  in  Spain).  These  stricter  requirements  are  often  balanced  by  stronger  support  for 
producers from the public administration in these Member States.  

The evaluations  support  study on GI/TSG concluded that the  legal  framework allows a 
fair  competition  for  farmers  and  producers  involved  in  GIs/TSGs  value  chains  through 
the EU level scrutiny of applications which ensures the homogeneity of treatment of the 
applications submitted by the different Member States. Based on the above, the second 
level scrutiny at EU level is overall perceived as fair and homogeneous.  

Organisation of controls and their effectiveness 

As stressed in Section 3.2.2 Enforcement and Controls, enforcement and controls are key 
for  the  effective  implementation  of  the  GI  and  TSG  schemes.  The  evaluation  confirms 
that  the  general  organisation  and  implementation  of  controls  can  be  considered 
effective, with a better effectiveness at the production and processing stages than in the 
downstream sector. Therefore, the regulatory framework and control procedures provide 
sufficient guarantees to ensure that farmers and processors involved in GI/TSG schemes 
enjoy  appropriate  protection  against  other  producers  who  use  the  protected  names 
without complying with these rules or engage in other types of unlawful practices. 

According to  the survey  of national  authorities in  the context  of the  evaluation support 
study  on  GI/TSG,  the  average  share  of  operators  controlled  is  higher  at  the  farm  and 
processing  stages  than  at  the  downstream  stages  of  the  value  chain  (wholesalers  and 
retailers) as detailed below. 

Further,  the  survey  of  national  authorities  confirmed  that  the  frequency  of  control  at 
farm  stage  reaches  100%  per  year  in  several  Member  States  for  agri-food  GI  products 
(71% in the wine sector). However, it remains very limited in other Member States with 
rates as low as 0.6% for agri-food GI products and 5% in the wine sector. At processing 
stage,  the  frequency  of  control  ranges  from  25%  up  to  100%  per  year  for  all  products, 
while at wholesale stage and retail stage the frequency of controls ranges between 0 and 
35%  in  most  cases.  Only  one  Member  State  provided  data  for  online  sales,  with  a  5% 
frequency of control. 

Regarding  the  effectiveness  of  controls,  the  evaluation  support  study  on  GI/TSG 
underlines  that  the  controls  are  effective,  with  better  effective  controls  in  the  upstream 
sector.  The  lower  effectiveness  at  downstream  stages  relates  to  the  large  number  of 

Page 25 / 84 

 
      
stakeholders  involved  (any  retailer  or  restaurant  can  use  any  GI/TSG  product).  This  is 
confirmed  by  the  case  studies  and  the  producer  groups’  survey,  in  which  85%  of  the 
respondents  considered  that  controls  at  farm  and  processing  stage  to  be  as  effective, 
while  48%  felt  the  same  about  the  wholesale  stage  controls.  This  lower  level  of 
confidence in the controls is observed at all stages of the downstream sector. 

Table 2. Effectiveness of controls on GIs/TSGs – national authorities’ opinion 

Neutral 

Somewhat 
agree 
36% 
Production stage 
48% 
Processor stage 
48% 
Wholesale stage 
50% 
Retailer stage 
Online sales 
32% 
Source: Evaluation support study on GI/TSG (based on the survey of national authorities) 

Completely 
agree 
60% 
52% 
22% 
33% 
23% 

Somewhat 
disagree 
0% 
0% 
4% 
4% 
18% 

4% 
0% 
26% 
13% 
23% 

Completely 
disagree 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
5% 

National  authorities  agreed  that,  in  general,  controls  are  completely  or  somewhat 
effective  but  they  underlined  the  limits  of  controls  on  GIs  and  TSGs  for  online  sales. 
18% of the national authorities had no opinion on the effectiveness of controls on online 
sales. 

To respond  to  enforcement  authorities’ and producers’  clear need for   better and easier 
access  to  GI  information,  the  GIview  portal40  was  launched  in  November  2020.  With 
entries  for  all  GIs  protected  in  the  EU41,  its  main  purpose  is  to  enhance  transparency, 
ensure the public availability of information, and improve the enforcement of IPR. It will 
also give GI representatives access to the EU’s Intellectual Property Enforcement Portal 
(IPEP), enabling them inter alia to file a customs application for action (AFA) and have 
direct contact with anti-fraud authorities, customs and police. 

In  summary,  the  general  organisation  and  implementation  of  controls  ensure  sufficient 
protection  of  intellectual  property  rights,  with  particular  shortcomings  as  regards  the 
downstream sector and on-line sales.  

5.1.3. Protection of intellectual property right 

In general, intellectual property includes all exclusive rights to intellectual creations, e.g. 
trade marks, patents, copyright etc. In this context, GIs identify a product and indicate its 
territorial  origin  based  on  which  the  right  is  granted,  justified  on  1)  the  distinctive 
qualities  or  2)  the  reputation  of  the  product  bearing  the  GI,  both  linked  to  the  said 
territory.  An  important  feature  of  the  GI  scheme  is  that  it  confers  a  collective  form  of 
Intellectual  Property  Right  (IPR),  granting  the  right  to  producers  in  a  defined 
geographical area to use the registered name if they comply with a product specification. 
This feature is different to trade marks in general as the latter gives an exclusive right to 
the owner.  

40 https://www.tmdn.org/giview/ 

41 Including GIs protected under the bilateral agreements, which are not included in the EU GI register. 

Page 26 / 84 

 
      
 
                                                      
The  EU  regulatory  framework42  is  intended  to  provide  protection  against  fraud, 
counterfeits, and deceiving practices. Names of products registered as GIs at EU level are 
legally protected against (i) use for identical and comparable products, (ii) use for non-
comparable  products  that  exploits  the  reputation  of  the  GI,  (iii)  evocation,  misuse  and 
imitation on products or services and (iv) any other misleading indication and misleading 
practices43.  Furthermore,  GI  names  are  protected  ex  officio.  This  implies  that  Member 
States  shall  take  appropriate  administrative  and  judicial  steps  to  prevent  or  stop  the 
unlawful  use  of  the  registered  names  of  products  that  are  produced  or  marketed  in  the 
Member  States.  Therefore,  EU  legislation  provides  for  a  high  level  of  GIs  names 
protection.  

Controls and enforcement of GI rights, including internet and E-commerce 

For  GI  names  to  benefit  from  the  high  level  of  legal  protection,  a  robust  control  and 
enforcement  system  must  be  in  place  across  the  EU.  While  the  general  rules  of  such  a 
system are set out in the EU legislation, the organisation and implementation falls within 
the Member States remit. Consequently, various systems are being implemented among 
the Member States.  

As regards the types of non-conformity, the national authority survey suggests that most 
common  infringements  detected  differ  largely  depending  on  the  types  of  products 
covered.  Main  infringements  reported  concern:  the  rules  of  production  for  agricultural 
products  and  foodstuffs;  the  misuse  of  protected  names  for  the  wines  and  aromatised 
wine products; the labelling requirements for spirit drinks and aromatised wine products. 

Although analysis from the evaluation support study  on GI/TSG found that, in  general, 
control  procedures  are  effectively  implemented,  some  weaknesses  were  identified 
pointing to lower effectiveness of the controls in the market compared to upstream stages 
including export markets and online sales (see section 5.1.2).  

The following reasons were identified for this lower effectiveness:  

-  Large number of operators at downstream levels (retailers, wholesale, etc…) and 

a decrease in the share of operators controlled at these downstream stages 

-  Difficulties in carrying out efficient controls on online sales. 

GIs  are  vulnerable  to  mis-selling,  in  particular  on  online  marketplaces  to  which  EU 
consumers  have  ready  access.  According  to  a  2016  study44,  the  EU  GI  infringement 
market  totalled  approximately  EUR  4.3  billion  in  2014,  accounting  for  9%  of  the  total 
EU GI product market for that year. EU consumers are directly impacted with a damage 
of EUR 2.3 billion per year. The same report cites French control data infringements per 
type of retailer that indicate that the scale of infringement via the internet is double the 
average.  

42 Official Control Regulation (OCR) (EU) No 2017/625 and the Directive on Enforcement of Intellectual 
Property Rights (IPRED) 2004/48/EC and the four sectorial legislations on GIs 

43  Article  13  (1)  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1151/2012;  article  103  (2)  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1308/2013; 
Article 16 of Regulation 110/2008; Article 20 (2) of Regulation 231/2014. 

44 Infringement of protected geographical indications for wine, spirits, agricultural products and foodstuffs 
in the European Union, EUIPO Study, April 2016 

Page 27 / 84 

 
      
                                                      
The  implementation  of  official  controls  and  enforcement  of  GI  rights  allow  for  a  good 
level  of  protection  against  misuses  of  GI  names  at  EU  level.  The  assessment  in  the 
evaluation support study on GI/TSG also revealed, based on the producer group survey, 
that controls at market stage are more effective in the Member States of production than 
on intra- and extra-EU markets. 

EU law covers the misuse of protected names on the internet, this protection focuses on 
"commercial  use"  and  "comparative"  or  "misleading  advertising",  but  not  on  the 
registration  of  a  domain  name45.  Domain  names  that  are  identical  or  similar  to  GIs  are 
mostly  registered  without  any  recognition  of  prior  GI  rights  and  can  work  to  the 
detriment of both consumers and producers.  

In 2011, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) which is 
in charge of the management of the domain name system (DNS)46 decided to increase the 
possible number of domain names, thus allowing for extensions such as “.wine”, “.beer” 
or  even  “.champagne”.  However,  GIs  are  not  considered  as  a  valid  IPR  title  by  the 
Uniform  Domain-Name  Dispute-Resolution  Policy  (UDRP)  which  rules  disputes  on 
domain  names;  by  contrast  UDRP  considers  the  Intellectual  Property  Rights  (IPR)  as 
trade marks. As a result, the enforcement of IPR for GIs is weakened on the internet. The 
case of Champagne vs Steven Vickers (WIPO Case No. DCO2011-0026) illustrates that 
the  status  of  a  GI  was  not  sufficient  to  prevent  the  registration  of  the  domain 
“champagne.co”47.  

In conclusion, as regards the protection of the IPR, the evaluation confirms that GI names 
benefit  from  a  high  level  of  legal  protection  in  the  EU.  The  effectiveness  of  the 
organisation and implementation of controls in the Member States ensures a good level 
of protection against misuses of GIs names. However, differences in implementation may 
cause difficulties when it comes to enforcing producers’ IPR outside the Member State of 
production.  In  addition,  GIs  and  TSGs  cover  a  wide  range  of  products  and  are  sold 
through  various  outlets  (including  online),  which  further  hampers  their  effective 
protection. Desk research produced limited information on controls on GI/TSG products 
sold online. To conclude, the enforcement of IPR and use of GI names in domain names 
on the internet remains an issue. Improved use of digital tools could facilitate the control 
procedures  (e.g.  automatic  registration  following  the  validation  of  applications,  online 
platform to follow-up the application process).48 

5.1.4. Fair return for farmers and producers  

Article  39  of  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union  (TFEU)  sets  out  the 
specific objectives of the CAP. One of the objectives is to ensure a fair standard of living 

45 Comment from the EU on question 3 from Compilation of the replies to questionnaire II on use/misuse 
of  geographical  indications,  country  names  and  geographical  terms  on  the  internet  and  in  the  DNS, 
October 19, 2018, WIPO - https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/sct/en/sct_40/sct_40_6_prov_2.pdf  

46  ICANN  particularly  manages  generic  Top-Level  Domain  (gTLD)  (such  as  “.com”,  “.org”,…)  and 
country code (cc) TLD system (such as “.fr”, “.it”,…) 

47 https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/sct/en/sct_is_geo_ge_19/sct_is_geo_ge_19_p3.pdf and 
https://www.dpf-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/GI_gTLDs_JAN2016_WEB_VERSION.pdf  

48 Evaluation support study on GI/TSG 

Page 28 / 84 

 
      
                                                      
for farmers. This objective is also reflected in the objectives of the GI and TSG schemes - 
the  fair  return  for  farmers.  This  evaluation  assesses  whether  the  schemes  give  farmers 
and producers a competitive advantage and how benefits are distributed along the value 
chain.  

In  general  a  competitive  advantage  is  a  favourable  market  position  that  can  provide  a 
business  with  more  customers  and  higher  profits.  It  is  the  basis  on  which  the  brand, 
product  or service  is perceived as superior to  its competitors. This evaluation  measures 
competitive  advantage  in  terms  of  (i)  a  possible  price  premium,  (ii)  profitability,  (iii) 
price stability and (iv) other assets such as the relationship between GI and tourism.   

Price premium 

Both  the  evaluation  support  study  on  GI/TSG  (based  on  case  studies,  a  survey  of 
producer groups, and desk research) and the study on the economic value of EU quality 
schemes, found evidence of a price premium49 for GIs and TSGs. As indicated in Section 
3.2, the average value premium rate50 for GI products in 2017 was estimated at 2.07, i.e. 
on  average  the  sales  value  of  GI/TSG  products  was  2.07  times  higher  than  that  of 
comparable  non-GI/TSG  products.51  The  analysis  has  some  limitations,  as  several 
external  factors  might  also  contribute  to  the  price  differences,  depending  on  the 
product52. 

While  the  level  of  price  premium  may  vary  significantly  from  one  product  to  another 
depending  on  economic  environment  of  the  product,  the  sector  and  Member  State,  as 
well as the strategy implemented by operators, the producer group survey found that GI 
registration is considered to result in an improvement of prices at final product stage (for 
56% of the respondents) and at agricultural stage (for 55% of respondents). Case studies 
and  desk  research  indicated  that,  in  over  half  the  cases  analysed,  the  stakeholders 
received  higher  income  from  GI  value  chains  than  from  non-GI  value  chains.  While  a 
price  premium  does  not  necessarily  mean  a  higher  profitability,  it  can  lead  to  higher 
margins or a better commercial position. In particular, the price premium may cover the 
extra expenses linked to specific production methods, and the quality (resulting from the 
extra expenses), as authenticated through the protection of the name, allows producers to 
enter new markets. 

A  price  premium  confers  a  competitive  advantage,  as  it  allows  GI/TSG  producers  to 
cover  the  extra  costs,  involved  in  ensuring  the  quality  level  and  complying  with  the 
GI/TSG  specifications.  Even  if  the  price  premium  only  covers  the  extra  costs,  the 

49  A  price  premium  calculation:  the  price  of  each  GI/TSG  product  is  matched  to  the  price  of  a  similar 
product without a GI/TSG label (i.e. standard products) 

50  A  value  premium  rate  is  the  aggregation  of  the  price  premium  of  each  GI,  weighted  by  the  volume 
marketed 

51  Study  on  economic  value  of  EU  quality  schemes,  geographical  indications  (GIs)  and  traditional 
specialities  guaranteed  (TSGs)  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/a7281794-7ebe-
11ea-aea8-01aa75ed71a1 

52 Further research into such factors was not part of the study.  

Page 29 / 84 

 
      
                                                      
competitive  advantage  also  opens  up  the  sales  opportunities  that  come  from  having  a 
differentiated product (mid-range or high-end products) on the market.  

Profitability  

The  evaluation  support  study  on  GI/TSG  found  a  clear  positive  association  (or 
correlation)  between  GIs  and  farmers’  and  processors’  profitability53  in  some  Member 
States  (Italy,  Spain  and  Portugal)  and  a  less  clear  link  in  others  (Bulgaria  and  Greece) 
based on the FADN data analysis54. For example, GI farms tend to provide more output 
per  hectare  and  more  farm  net  income/hectare  regardless  of  the  size  of  the  farm.  This 
difference is further accentuated as farms get larger55.   

However, this positive impact on income is not systematic, as it covers 52% of GI/TSG 
farmers and 54% of GI/TSG processors according to the survey of producer groups and 
about half the GIs/TSGs covered by case studies in the context of the evaluation support 
study on GI/TSG. 

Price Stability 

Analysis56 shows a lower price variability for GI products overall (as compared with non-
GI products), even if this is not observed for all GIs. This relative stability could be the 
consequence of  a policy of long-term contracts  that can  guarantee  price  levels between 
producers and downstream operators. For instance the producer group managing the PGI 
Pays d’Oc referred to a policy of promoting long-term contracts between wine producers 
and large-scale companies that own trade marks.  

Multi-annual contracts ensure a stable income for producers and avoid difficulties linked 
to  the impact on  production  of possible weather  events.  In the case of PDO  Ribera del 
Duero, long-term contracts between grape producers and winemakers are promoted as a 
means of guaranteeing certain benefits. Similarly, the PDO Basilico Genovese producer 
group explains how producers have contracted with the downstream sector to guarantee a 
price level for a given volume. Operators producing PDO Jabugo point out that prices of 
PDO  hams  are  more  stable  than  those  for  comparable  non-PDO  products.  Côtes  du 
Rhône  stakeholders  regard  long-term  contracts  as  a  better  way  of  developing  the  value 
chain, although their full potential has yet to be exploited57.  

53 Profitability refers to a positive net income of the  producer, i.e. the ability of it to use its resources to 
generate  revenues  in  excess  of  its  expenses.  In  the  context  of  this  evaluation  it  was  measured  based  on 
FADN data e.g. output/hectare, farm net income/hectare, farm net income/outcome, labour input/hectare 

54 The analysis aimed at comparing sample of wine farms which do not produce GI grapes or/and wine and 
with  the  wine  farms  which  produce  GI  wines.  The  analysis  was  carried  out  in  seven  Member  States: 
Bulgaria,  Greece,  Spain,  Hungary,  Italy,  Portugal  and  Romania.  The  median  was  used  for  comparison 
instead of the mean as the distribution of the ratios analysed are highly skewed 

55 Based on the finding of the case studies (covering seven Member States) conducted in the context of the 
evaluation support study on GI/TSG 

56 FADN analysis, the survey of the producer groups, case studies and desk research 

57   Evaluation support study on GIs/TSGs. 

Page 30 / 84 

 
      
                                                      
Long-term  contracts  are  not  always  considered  advantageous  for  all  operators  in  the 
supply  chain.  In  Hungary,  producers  of  Pálinka  indicated  that  long-term  contracts 
between  distillers  and  fruit  producers  are  not  common.  Fruit  production  can  vary 
significantly  from  year  to  year  as  a  consequence  of  climate  hazard  and  fruit  tree 
production  cycles.  In  a  context  of  low  seasonal  production,  producers  can  get  a  better 
return by selling to the fresh sector. 

Several  studies  across  sectors  and  Member  States  provide  proof  of  the  price  stability 
associated  with  EU  quality  schemes58.  However,  the  limited  price  volatility  does  not 
apply  for  all  GI  products  –  for  some,  prices  follow  those  for  the  non-GI  counterpart 
product.  

Other benefits/assets (tourism attractivity) 

Other  benefits  of  the  GI  and  TSG  schemes  include  the  diversification  of  on-farm 
activity,  e.g. processing  (cheese  making,  etc.),  new  types  of  sale  (direct  sales,  e-sales) 
and/or agri-tourism. 

The main benefit is greater attractiveness for tourists. A particular illustration of this is 
the  development  of  ‘oeno-tourism’  in  wine-growing  areas,  due  to  the  image  of 
well-known  wines  and  their  strong  regional  identities.  GIs  have  contributed  to  the 
emergence  of  designated  routes  for  tourists,  gastronomy  tours  and  farmhouse  services. 
Their synergies with tourism have been highlighted in case studies for Ribera del Duero, 
Côtes du Rhône, Langhe, Pays d’Oc and Tokaj/Tokaji. In 2001, UNESCO recognised the 
Tokaj region as a ‘world heritage’ landscape59. 

The  strong  connections  between  GIs  and  tourism  apply  in  other  sectors.  The  farms 
producing  PDO  Beaufort  cheese  sell  20%  of  their  produce  through  direct  sales  and 
contribute to the local tourism infrastructure by preserving the natural landscape and ski 
slopes through high mountain grazing. However, a study60 has found that the presence of 
PDO cheeses in the northern French Alps does not seem to lead the farms to participate 
directly in tourist activities. In this case, the PDO registration stimulates tourism, but the 
benefits are mostly enjoyed by non-farmers. 

The potential benefits of GIs for tourism are restricted to some products and geographical 
areas.  Operators  also  explained  that  a  GI  in  itself  is  not  always  a  driver  for  tourism  or 
other  indirect  benefits  such  as  on-farm  processing  or  direct  sales.  Case  studies  in  the 
context  of the evaluation  support study on GI/TSG showed that this is in particular the 
case for PDO Gouda Holland, PDO Basilico Genovese and GI Pálinka.  

58  
Les  AOP,  un  atout  pour  la  filière  lait  en  zone  de  plaine,  Observatoire  des  SIQO,  Bourgogne-
Franche-Comté,  Agreste  ‘2020);  Price  volatility  and  European  food  quality  schemes,  Strength2Food 
(2018);  Dynamique  des  AOP  laitières,  FranceAgriMer  (2016);  H.  Ferrer-Pérez,  F.  Abdelradi,  J.  M.Gil, 
Geographical indications and price volatility dynamics of lamb prices in Spain, Multidisciplinary Digital 
Publishing Institute (2020); IPPAP: Indice des prix à la production agricole, Agreste. 
59 Evaluation support study on GI/TSG 

60  
Institute of Intellectual Property (2011). 

Hauwuy  et  al.  (2006),  from  The  effects  of  protecting  geographical  indication,  Swiss  Federal 

Page 31 / 84 

 
      
                                                      
Distribution of benefits along the value chain 

This topic refers to the distribution of the value created by the GIs and TSGs along the 
marketing  chain  between  farmers,  processors,  wholesalers,  and  retailers.  A  fairer 
distribution results from a better balanced bargaining power (the ability for an economic 
actor to discuss the price and commercial conditions) between all stakeholders, especially 
a  reinforcement  of  the  farmers’  position  with  less  power  towards  the  mass  retailing 
companies. 

An increase of bargaining power for the upstream sector may be observed because of the 
implementation of the GI/TSG schemes, but this is not systematic. Case studies and desk 
research  in  the  context  of  the  evaluation  support  study  on  GI/TSG  indicate  that  this 
depends on the organisation of the supply chain and the importance of the specifications 
at farm stage.  If quality and volume61 are controlled, the bargaining power of upstream 
actors  (farmers  and/or  processors)  tends  to  be  stabilised  or  increased.  In  some  cases, 
processors concentrate the economic benefits while retailers or tourism operators do not 
get  extra  profits  for  instance  in  case  of  PDO  Jabugo.  While  in  other  cases,  exporting 
companies get a larger benefit as the GI/TSG labels offer opportunities on the intra-EU 
and  extra-EU  markets,  according  to  operators  involved  in  the  production  of  PDO 
Tokaj/Tokaji and PGI Bayerisches Bier. Advantages are not only about better prices: they 
may  involve  better  access  to  new  markets,  price  and  volume  stability,  long-term 
perspectives  and  the  ability  to  choose  one  market  over  another  (e.g. direct  sales,  large-
scale retail, specialised channels or exports) . 

Table 3. Distribution of benefits according to the evaluation support study- case studies 

Products 

Type of product 

Scheme 

Comment on the distribution of benefits along the 
supply chain 

Spišské párky 

Sausages 

TSG 

No information 

der 

von 

Insel 
Salate 
Reichenau,  Feldsalat  von  der 
Insel Reichenau, Tomaten von 
der  Insel  Reichenau,  Gurken 
von der Insel Reichenau 

Vegetables 
(salad, 
tomatoes, cucumbers) 

PGI 

No significant benefits along the supply chain. 

Jabugo 

Ham 

PDO 

Ribera del Duero 

Wine 

Cordero Manchego 

Lamb 

Beaufort 

Cheese 

Cote du Rhône 

Wine 

PDO 

PGI 

PDO 

PDO 

Processing stage is the first stage to take benefits from 
the  PDO  scheme.  The  distribution  of  benefits does  not 
fully  transfer  along  the  supply  chain,  at the  expense  of 
farmers 

The  benefits  are  concentrated  for 
winegrowers 

the  profit  of 

The  distribution  of  benefits  along  the  value  chain  is 
considered  fair  by  stakeholders,  from  farmers  to  trade 
operators 

Both  farmers  and  cheese  producers  benefit  from  being 
involved in the Beaufort PDO scheme. No data has been 
collected among wholesalers and retailers.  

Benefits  are  shared  among  the  different  stages  of  the 
value chain 

61 For instance in case of  PDO Opperdoezer Ronde 

Page 32 / 84 

 
      
 
                                                      
Pays d'Oc 

Wine 

PGI 

Tokaj/Tokaji 

Wine 

PDO 

Dauno 

Olive Oil 

PDO 

Producers  benefit  from  higher  prices  than  other  PGIs 
and  access  to  an  important  and  growing  market. 
Operators  take  benefit  from  long  term  contracts  and 
guarantee of quality. 

Export  operators  tend  to  take  a  better  benefit  from  the 
PDO scheme, with a higher demand and higher prices 

Benefits  of  the  PDO  tend  to  be  concentrated  at  the 
processing/bottling 
important 
volumes 

level  dealing  with 

Speck  Alto  Adige/Südtiroler 
Markenspeck/Südtiroler 
Speck 

Ham 

PGI 

The PGI does not cover agricultural stage.  

Basilico Genovese 

Basil 

Langhe 

Gouda Holland 

Wine 

Cheese 

PDO 

PDO 

The  higher  price  obtained  from  the  PDO  product  is 
directly  absorbed  by  the  primary  producers,  as  basil  is 
sold fresh. 

Benefits  are  concentrated  for  small/medium  size 
companies, covering all stages of the supply chain 

PGI 

No information 

Bayerisches Bier  

Beer 

PGI 

Source: Evaluation support study on GI/TSG 

The  main  benefit  of  the  GI  scheme  is  observed  for 
operators involved in the export markets, especially on 
the extra-EU markets. 

The involvement of the agricultural stage in the GI/TSG value chain is crucial for the 
farmers’  bargaining  power.  Involvement  of  farmers  is  stronger  for  PDOs  as  all 
production  stages  must  take  place  in  the  demarcated  area.  This  also  covers  78%  of  the 
PGIs in the agri-food sector and 61% of the GIs in the spirit drinks sector. This suggests 
that  GIs/TSGs  are  strong  drivers  for  implementing  frameworks  where  farmers  can 
increase their bargaining power.  

However,  the  evaluation  also  found  that  the  structure  and  roles  of  the  GI  producer 
groups  and  the  tasks  they  are  entitled  to  conduct  differ  widely  between  sectors  and 
Member States. Applicants’ (producer groups’) role in the application for registration is 
laid down in the Regulations on GIs/TSGs. Their role in the management of the scheme 
is not set out at EU level in the case of wines, aromatised wine products and spirit drinks, 
although it is in the case of agri-food products.  

GI  producer  groups  play  an  essential  role  in  applying  to  register  a  GI,  proposing 
amendments to the product specifications and submitting cancellation requests. However, 
not  all  GIs  are  systematically  managed  by  structured  producer  groups.  In  practice, 
producers join forces as a group to submit the application to register a GI, but they often 
stop acting together when it comes to marketing the product or enforcing the GI rights. 
While  coherent,  enduring  groups  are  well  established  in  some  Member  States,  few  GIs 
are managed by such groups in many Member States.  

Case  studies  in  the  context  of  the  evaluation  support  study  on  GI/TSG  confirm  that 
specific additional rules may exist at national level (Spain, Italy, France), while in other 
Member  States,  involvement  of  producer  groups  in  managing  their  GI  is  not  regulated 
(Hungary,  Netherlands).  Some  Member  States  have  governance  structures  in  place  for 
producer  groups, but  this  is  not common. For instance, in  France both  producer  groups 
and  Interbranch  organisations,  composed  of  vine  growers  and  wine  processors  (co-
operatives, wholesalers), play a strong role in the governance of PDO wines.  

Page 33 / 84 

 
      
Of  the  230  respondents  to  the  public  consultation,  70%  agreed  that  the  EU  quality 
schemes meet their objectives as regards helping to strengthen producers’ position in the 
value chain and protecting/enforcing their rights. 

It would therefore, appear that the benefits for farmers and producers depend strongly on 
the implementation of the GI/TSG, the target market and the role of producer groups. 

5.1.5. Contribution to rural economies 

This  section  assesses  the  extent  to  which  GIs  and  TSGs  have  contributed  to  the 
development of rural economies, in terms of improving farm incomes and employment. 
Rural areas account for half of Europe’s surface area and around 20% of its population62. 
Rural  economies  are  diverse,  involving  many  different  industries  (agriculture,  food 
processing,  tourism,  services,  etc.).  In  particular,  the  agri-food  sector  is  key  for  the 
development of rural areas.  

Farmers’ income 

Farmers’  incomes  consist  of  the  difference  between  expenses  linked  to  production  and 
receipts  from  the  outputs  (sales,  services  provided).  At  farm  level,  beyond  a  higher 
income, greater income stability is also seen as an improvement. As explained in  Section 
5.1.4. Fair return for the farmers and producers, GI farms often generate a better income 
than  non-GI  farms.  However,  this  advantage  does  not  apply  to  all  GIs  and  TSGs,  as 
demonstrated  by  the  producer  group  survey,  FADN  analysis  in  the  wine  sector,  case 
studies  and  desk  research.  The  producer  group  survey  indicated  that  52%  of  producers 
generally consider the GI and TSG schemes to be drivers of better incomes at farm stage, 
and 54% at processing stage.  

Employment in rural areas 

Analysis of Eurostat data on the food and drink industry and the study on the economic 
value  of  EU  quality  schemes  indicate  that  sales  of  GI  products  have  grown  faster  than 
sales in the food and drink industry as a whole, which has led to more job growth in the 
GI  segment.  Although  the  analysis  could  not  distinguish  rural  employment  from  total 
employment,  it  can  be  assumed  that  employment  at  agricultural  (production)  stage  is 
almost exclusively in rural areas in most Member States.  

Based  on  the  cases  analyzed  in  the  context  of  the  evaluation  support  study  on  GI/TSG 
(25  cases  studies  in  e.g.  Poland,  Spain,  Italy),  GI  schemes  generally  stimulates 
employment63.  

French  and  Spanish  cases  indicate  that  the  number  of  farms  and  processing  companies 
involved in the GI supply chain has increased, resulting in turn in more jobs in the areas 
of GI production.  Therefore, it can be concluded that GI production plays a positive role 
in local employment.  

62   https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/themes/rural-development/ 
63  Measured  in  “turnover  to  labour”  –  value  created  for  each  working  hour,  this  may  result  of  higher 
physical  yields,  higher  selling  prices  or  both;  and  “labour  use  ratio”  or  “labour-to-production-  ratio”  – 
related to physical productivity: it compares the quantity of work needed for one tonne of product.  

Page 34 / 84 

 
      
                                                      
A lack of evidence prevents us from drawing conclusions as regards TSG. 

This  analysis  is  complemented  by  the  findings  of  the  JRC  Technical  Report  “Causal 
estimates of Geographical  Indications' effects on territorial development: feasibility and 
application”64.  The  report  proposes  a  quantitative  approach  for  estimating  the  causal 
impacts of GIs policy on territorial development. When applying the approach to yearly 
data on registered products and the territorial development of municipalities in Portugal, 
the report finds a substantial contribution from the GIs policy to territorial development. 
In  particular,  it  identifies  a  significant  positive  impact  of  the  number  of  registered  GI 
products on agricultural Gross Value Added, agricultural employment and the number of 
firms  in  agriculture  in  Portuguese  municipalities  over  the  period  2004  to  2018.  This 
effect is most significant for the number of registered food names (relating to wines and 
spirit  drinks)65  and  for  rural  areas.  No  statistically  significant  impact  (measured  by 
turnover per employee) was found on labour productivity in the agricultural sector. 

In summary, the analysis suggests that GI farms’ incomes are better than non-GI farms; 
although  the  benefits  of  GI/TSG  schemes  are  far  from  being  systematic.  Further,  GIs 
have a positive impact on employment in several cases. 

5.1.6. Clear and reliable information on the product to consumers 

This  section  examines  how  effective  the  GI  and  TSG  schemes  have  been  in  providing 
consumers with clear and reliable information.  

in 

terms  are  used 

The  following 
this  section:  “awareness”,  “perception”  and 
“understanding”.  Awareness  is  the extent to  which stakeholders have knowledge of the 
existence  of  the  schemes  or  designations,  it  may  cover  the  indication  (for  instance 
“protected  designation  of  origin”),  the  acronym  (e.g.  “PDO”),  the  symbols  and  the 
protected  name  (e.g.  “Parmigiano  Reggiano”).  Perception  relates  to  the  attributes  that 
stakeholders  associate  with  schemes  or  products  (guarantees  of  traceability,  tradition, 
etc.).  Understanding  is  the  extent  to  which  the  perception  of  stakeholders  matches  the 
actual guarantees provided by the schemes.  

Knowledge and understanding of GI/TSG by consumers 

A  consumer  survey  and  desk  research  conducted  in  the  context  of  the  evaluation  show 
that  awareness  of  EU  quality  schemes  (indications,  acronyms  and  symbols)  differs 
widely  across  Member  States.  It  is  higher  in  Member  States  with  well-established 

64  Causal  estimates  of  Geographical  Indications’  effects  on  territorial  development:  feasibility  and 
application | Knowledge for policy (europa.eu) 

65 Overall, in Portugal, in 2018, 190 products were registered under GIs, of which 40 wines, 139 foods and 
11  spirit  drinks.  Most  of  the  variation  exploited  when  looking  at  the  effect  of  wines  comes  from 
municipalities registering the 1st product, while most of the variation exploited when estimating the effect 
of  foods  comes  from  municipalities  registering  the  nth (where  n  is higher  than 1)  product.  The  positive 
effect  of  registering  one  additional  product  on  the  agricultural  sector  might  be  stronger  when  the 
municipality is already producing a number of GIs and has already developed the means to get higher value 
from  registered  products  (e.g.  products'  promotion  activities,  etc.).  This  might  explain  in  part  why  the 
analysis identified a more significant impact of newly registered food names.  

Page 35 / 84 

 
      
                                                      
GI/TSG  schemes  and  numerous  protected  names  (e.g. Italy,  France  and  Spain),  but  in 
most Member States generally lower than recognition of national/regional schemes.  

Recent  data  from  a  Eurobarometer  Survey66  confirms  that  public  awareness  of  EU 
quality  logos  is  relatively  low:  20%  for  the  PGI  logo  (up  2  percentage  points  since 
201767), 14% for the PDO logo (down 4 pp) and 14% for the TSG logo (down 1 pp ). In 
addition,  20%  of  those  surveyed  were  not  familiar  with  any  of  the  logos.  Furthermore, 
final consumers may confuse the different labels: 40% did not see a difference between 
PDO and PGI and 34% between PGI and TSG. 

Based on the consumer survey in the context of the evaluation support study of GI/TSG, 
consumers who are aware of the GI and TSG schemes tend to understand the following 
key features: 

59% associate TSGs with a “traditional product” (34% for PDO and 29% for PGIs); and 
respectively 51% and 57% associate PDOs and PGIs with a “link to a geographical area”.  

However, consumers do not fully understand their meaning: 

32%  associate  TSG  with  a  specific  area  of  production  (while  there  is  no  defined 
geographical area for TSGs); only 22% to 24% associate PGIs and PDOs with a specific 
know-how  (36%  for  TSGs);  and  only  33%  associate  PGIs  with  a  guarantee  as  regards 
methods of production (41% for both PDOs and TSGs). 

A survey in the framework of the evaluation support study on CAP measures in the wine 
sector68  highlighted  a  knowledge  deficit  among  EU  consumers  (in  France,  Germany, 
Spain  and  the  UK)  with  regard  to  the  PDO/PGI  scheme  applying  to  wine.  Only  a  few 
respondents  knew  the  PDO/PGI  labels  and  were  aware  that  wines  with  a  PDO/PGI 
designation  display  specific  characteristics.  PDO/PGI  labels  are  thus  less  well  known 
than the ‘organic farming’ label. Levels of knowledge differed significantly between the 
net  importer  Member  States  (Germany  and  the  UK),  where  only  14%  of  respondents 
knew the PDO label and 19% the PGI label, and Member States with large GI production 
(France and Spain), where 31% knew the former and 48% the latter. 

In addition, the public consultation included questions on the recognition and meaning of 
the  symbols  for  the  three  EU  quality  schemes  (PGI/GI,  PDO  and  TSG).  60%  of  the 
230 respondents  agreed  that  the  visual  presentation  is  generally  clear  enough  to 
distinguish  PDO  and  PGI/GI  symbols/schemes.  However,  it  was  felt  that  the  visual 
difference between the PGI/GI and TSG symbols is less clear. 

66 Special Eurobarometer 504 “Europeans, Agriculture and the CAP” published in October 2020 (fieldwork 
in August and September 2020) 

Previous survey on this topic (December 2017); 

67  
https://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/Survey/getSurveyDetail/instruments/SPECI
AL/surveyKy/2161 
68   Evaluation support study on CAP measures applied to the wine sector; 

https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/21c4fc5f-5064-11e9-a8ed-01aa75ed71a1 

Page 36 / 84 

 
      
 
                                                      
 
 
Figure  11:  Recognition  of  EU  quality  schemes'  symbols-  respondents  ability 
distinguish between PDO and PGI/GI symbols / schemes  (in %) 

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

63%

60%

33%

33%

4%

7%

C A S E   1 .   P D O   V   P G I / G I  

C A S E   2 . P G I / G I   V   T S G  

Yes

No

No opinion

Source: Public consultation 

As  regards  the  significance  of  EU  quality  schemes,  the  respondents  of  the  public 
consultation most often interpreted them with the following aspects:  

- the product is entirely produced in one specific geographical area;  

-  the  quality  of  the  product  stems  from  its  traditional  methods  of  production  and/or 
recipes; 

- the product is produced according to an established specification; and/or  

- the quality of the product is certified by a control body 

Further,  respondents  were  asked  to  compare  the  symbols  with  national/regional  food 
quality logos. Over 44% of the 95 respondents found the PDO symbol more recognisable 
(a higher rate than for the PGI/GI and TSG symbols).  

The  Impact  Assessment  report  on  the  revision  of  GIs  and  TSGs  will  look  at  different 
options for addressing these findings on effectiveness e.g. additional communication and 
information actions, guidelines, changes to the use of the logos etc. 

Page 37 / 84 

 
      
 
 
 
Figure  12:  Recognition  of  EU  schemes’  symbols  vs.  national/regional  schemes’  logos  by  the 
respondents (in %) 

P D O   S Y M B O L  

44%

26%

19%

12%

P G I / G I   S Y M B O L  

34%

33%

20%

13%

T S G   S Y M B O L  

21%

20%

36%

23%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

More recognisable

Just as much recognisable

Less recognisable

No opinion

Source: Public consultation 

Relevant and sufficient information for consumers 

Vast  information  regarding  the  characteristics  of  GIs  and  TSGs  is  available  for 
consumers at EU and national level, mainly on the web:  

 
 

information on the Europa webpage69; 
list of protected denominations and link to  their product  specifications available  in 
the EU register (eAmbrosia)70; 

  GIView71, an interface portal on GIs containing official registered data and extended 

 

 

 

data; 
the  Italian  authorities  display  information  about  Italian  GIs  on  their  webpage; 
selected information on the Italian websites Qualigeo / Qualivita; 
French GIs/TSGs are presented on the website of the Institut national de l’origine et 
de la qualité (INAO) ;  
the  Spanish  authorities  display  very  precise  qualitative  and  quantitative  data  on 
Spanish GIs/TSGs72;  

  many other Member States have dedicated webpages; and 
 

based  on  the  survey  of  producer  groups,  82%  of  them  have  created  websites  to 
present and promote their GIs. 

69 https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/food-safety-and-quality/certification/quality-
labels/quality-schemes-explained_en 

70https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/food-safety-and-quality/certification/quality-
labels/geographical-indications-register/ 

71 https://www.tmdn.org/giview/  

72 https://www.mapa.gob.es/es/alimentacion/temas/calidad-diferenciada/dop-igp/Default.aspx 

Page 38 / 84 

 
      
 
 
                                                      
The above sites provide information on: 

 

 
 
 

the  characteristics  of  the  products:  added  value,  appearance,  flavour,  and  (in  some 
cases) chemical content of the product; 
the origin of the product (for GIs); 
the history of the product; and 
the group in charge of managing GI or TSG. 

The  public  availability  of  such  a  wide  range  of  information  at  EU  and  national  level 
shows  its  importance  and  covers  various  aspects  of  the  GI  and  TSG  schemes  (detailed 
explanation  of  origin  where  relevant,  inherent  characteristics  of  products,  processing 
methods, etc.). In addition, producer groups provide complementary information through 
communication  actions  (websites,  fairs,  etc.)  that  account  for  a  substantial  part  of  their 
budget. 

In the public consultation, 72% of the 230 respondents agreed that the schemes provide 
consumers  with  useful  information  about  the  geographical  origin  and  specific 
characteristics of products (about 20% disagreed). 

Based on the above, a large amount of information is available for consumers on GI/TSG 
products’ history, origin, inherent characteristics and processing methods (based on desk 
research).  However,  the  effectiveness  and  relevance  of  the  communication  method  is 
questionable, as awareness and understanding of EU schemes and logos remain limited. 

5.1.7. Safeguarding traditional methods of production and recipes 

The TSG scheme aims to provide producers with a tool to communicate  effectively the 
quality  and value-adding  characteristics of their products,  improve  consumer protection 
and raise awareness of the nature and characteristics of the products purchased.  

However, uptake of the TSG scheme has been low, with only 64 names registered as of 
January 2021.   

The main obstacle to the scheme’s success concerns producers’ perceptions of the lack of 
added value of registering a TSG, due to a combination of factors:  

 

 

 

low consumer awareness of TSG products;  

the complex system (similar procedures as for GIs); and 

lack of IPR protection – operators from other regions can use the name as long as 
they comply with the product specifications. 

While GI producers have access to the enforcement tools available to all IPR products on 
the internal market, this is not the case for TSG producers. Moreover, the absence of a 
link to the territory for TSGs, and the related fact that the products  can be produced in 
several  Member  States,  may  make  it  difficult  for  national  control  bodies  to  carry  out 
controls as there might be confusion as to which competent authority is responsible.   

Page 39 / 84 

 
      
 
5.2. Efficiency 

The evaluation found that the framework for GIs and TSGs is regarded as efficient, when 
weighing the benefits against the costs borne by private stakeholders and public bodies.  

The overall costs for public (national and EU) authorities relating to the management 
and control of GIs/TSGs are estimated at EUR 93 million per year for all GIs at EU 28 
level;  this  accounts  for  0.12%  of  GIs/TSGs  sales  value.  Based  on  data  from  three  big 
Member  States,  around  80%  work  on  control  and  15%  on  the  management  of  the 
schemes.  

As regards costs at EU level, the average registration or major amendment of a file costs 
an  estimated  EUR 33 500  (this  includes  administration,  translation  of  files,  letters  and 
decisions/regulations,  scrutiny  and  cross-checks,  and  internal  consultations  in  the 
Commission).  The  average  costs  of  a  minor  amendment  for  agri-food  products  and  a 
standard amendment for wine are estimated at EUR 19 500 and EUR 26 600 respectively. 

The direct costs for producer groups, in particular for management of the scheme and 
its control are estimated to reach 49% of the total budget of producer groups representing 
on average 0.5% of the total sales value of the GI/TSG concerned. A lower efficiency can 
be  observed  for  the  smallest  GIs/TSGs  (sales  value  of  less  than  EUR  1  million)  with 
producer groups’ costs accounting for 5% of sales value.   

At  the  level  of  individual  operators,  the  share  of  direct  costs  relating  to  the  schemes 
seems to be limited in most cases, varying between 0.57% and 2.27% of the total sales 
value. However, due to natural constraints and strict specifications rules, additional costs 
for  producers  appear  to  be  higher  than  for  processors.  The  costs  for  operators  as  a 
proportion of their total operating costs was not analysed due to a lack of data. 

To  conclude,  the  evaluation  shows  that  actual  costs  relating  to  registration  procedures 
remain  fairly  low  compared  to  the  sales  value  of  GI/TSG  products.  No  analysis  was 
carried out on the minimum efficient scale for very small-scale GI production. 

Hassle costs related to the length of procedures also occur with the registration procedure 
and were mentioned  as  the main source of  administrative burden.  In 2018  at EU level, 
the  largest  share  of  the  procedure  duration  was  related  to  scrutiny  (17.5  months)  and 
opposition  procedure  (4.4 months).  While  the  regulatory  framework  provides  deadlines 
for  the  scrutiny  of  applications  and  opposition  procedures  conducted  at  EU  level  – 
6 months  deadline  for  the  first  round  of  scrutiny  at  EU  level  –  several  rounds  of 
comments and requests for revisions are possible. Within this time period, documents are 
also translated (file, letter, publication for opposition, registration regulation). Opposition 
procedures should last respectively 2 and 3 months for wine and for other products if no 
opposition  is  lodged.  If  no  further  explanation  is  requested  by  the  EU  and  if  no 
opposition is lodged, the best timeframe to process a registration at EU level would reach 
8 months for wine and 9 months for other products. The picture is similar for amendment 
procedures, the length of which is identified as the main issue (for the same reasons  as 
for the registration procedure).  

Page 40 / 84 

 
      
  
Figure 13. Average duration of scrutiny and opposition procedures at EU level between 2008 
and 2018 in months 

Source: Evaluation support study on GI/TSG 

While no quantitative data was available to assess the average duration of the registration 
procedure  at  national  level,  from  interviews  with  producer  groups,  it  seems  that  the 
whole registration procedure (at Member State and EU level) varies from 1 to 10 years 
(including an opposition notice) with an estimated average of 5 to 6 years. Given that the 
registration procedure at EU level takes 22 months on average, this implies a duration of 
the  procedure  at  national  level  between  38  months  (3.2  years)  and  50  months 
(4.2 years). Desk analysis confirms these figures. For instance, in France, a study on fruit 
and  vegetables73  showed  that  the  preliminary  national  scrutiny  procedures,  from  the 
filing of the application to the vote by the national committee, lasted at least three years 
for PGI applications and five years for PDO applications.  

At EU level, procedures lasted 22 months on average in 2018, down by 44 % from 2008. 
While  scrutiny  of  an  application  is  essential,  besides  ensuring  compliance  with  the 
product  specification  to  achieve  the  objectives  of  the  scheme,  some  areas  of  potential 
simplification could be explored, such as:  

 

a  clearer  distinction  between  minor  and  major  amendments  and  a  simplified 
procedure for minor amendments in the agri-food sector (similar to that for wines 
and spirit drinks); 

  harmonised procedures and controls at EU level; 

 

improved skills and availability of staff at Member State level; and  

  better use of digital means to facilitate the procedures74  

The 2021-2027 CAP reform includes provisions aimed at streamlining the procedures for 
the  agri-food  sector;  this  would  help  reduce  administrative  burden  for  producers  and 
national/EU authorities.  

73  AND-International  « Etude  transversale  sur  les  Signes  d’Identification  de  la  Qualité  et  de  l’Origine 
(SIQO) dans la filière fruits et légumes », INTERFEL / FranceAgriMer, 2017 

74 Evaluation support study on GI/TSG 

Page 41 / 84 

 
      
 
                                                      
Rural development funds75 co-finance GI producers’ costs, helping them to join quality 
schemes  and  engage  in  information  and  promotion  activities.  The  latest  information 
available  (end  of  2018)  showed  a  fairly  equal  distribution  between  both  types  of 
operation  (52%  promotion  and  information  and  48%  for  new  participation  in  quality 
schemes). 

However,  use  of  such  support  is  quite  limited  in  terms  of  scope  and  funds,  and  varies 
among  Member  States.  Applying  for  the  support  can  be  burdensome  and  hampered  by 
the weak organisational structure of some producer groups. The evaluation support study 
on GI/TSG shows that in the 2014-2020 programming period, only 56 out of 118 Rural 
Development  Programmes  included  this  measure  aimed  at  strengthening  the  quality 
schemes,  allocating  EUR  594  billion  (  0.66%  of  the  56  RDPs’  overall  envelope  ).  In 
addition, the support is not for GIs and TSGs only. It covers a wide range of EU, national 
and voluntary agricultural product certification schemes including organic schemes.  

The  public  consultation  raised  an  issue  of  administrative  costs  (time,  cost  and  national 
authorities’  capacity),  but  fewer  than  10%  of  the  217  respondents  considered  it  is  a 
disincentive to participate in the EU quality schemes.  

Respondents to the public consultation were also asked to give their opinion on the costs 
and  benefits  of  registrating  products  under  EU  quality  schemes.  Consumers  expressed 
more or less equally positive, neutral  and negative opinions on the  cost  and benefits  of 
both GIs and TSGs. National and regional authorities pointed to higher costs relating to 
the registration of GI, and producers to higher registration costs under the TSG scheme. 
The public consultation also tested public opinion on simplification i.e. whether greater 
efficiency  could  be  achieved  by  a  unified  registration,  amendment  and  cancellation 
procedure  for  all  EU  quality  schemes.  A  high  number  of  respondents  (83%,  N=224) 
agreed with the idea.  

5.3. Relevance 

This  section  evaluates  whether  the  current  GI  and  TSG  framework  meets  the  needs  of 
farmers/producers  organisations,  national  authorities  and  consumers.  In  addition,  it 
assesses its relevance in the light of the needs of rural areas. The analysis also covers the 
challenges of environmental sustainability and animal welfare.  

5.3.1. Producer groups and national authorities 

The theoretical analysis of the cause-effect relationship and empirical analysis (electronic 
survey  of  national  authorities  and  producer  groups)  in  the  context  of  the  evaluation 
support study on GI/TSG confirmed the relevance of all the objectives of the GI schemes 
for agricultural products and foodstuffs.  

The objectives reflect national authorities’ actual needs to a greater extent than those of 
producer groups (scores for the former are always significantly higher than for the latter). 
The objective "Ensure uniform protection of the names as an Intellectual Property Rights 

75 Regulation (EU) N° 1305/2013 

Page 42 / 84 

 
      
                                                      
in the territory of the EU" is considered the most relevant for all GI schemes, which have 
the highest score76.   

Figure 14. Objectives of agri-food GIs and TSGs – relevance for national authorities (NA) and 
producer groups (PG). 

2,5

2

1,5

1

0,5

0

-0,5

-1

Integrity of the
internal
market/ market
transparency

Fair
competition for
farmers and
producers

Secure fair
return for the
quality of
products

Protect the
legitimate
interests of
consumers

Ensure
uniform
protection of
the names as
an IPR in the
territory of the
EU

Safeguard
traditional
methods of
production and
recipes

Provide clear
information on
the value-
adding
attributes of
the product to
consumers

GIs Score PG

GIs Score NA

TSGs Score PG

TSGs Score NA

Source: DG Agriculture and Rural Development adapted from the evaluation support study on GI/TSG 

For producer  groups, PDO products  show a higher level  of relevance compared to  PGI 
products  as  they  denote  a  stronger  link  with  the  territory  and  therefore  a  greater  sense  
“cultural  identity”.  For  them,  “Provide  consumers  with  clear  information  on  the  value-
adding attributes of the product” and “Protect the legitimate interests of consumers” are 
the  most  relevant  objectives.  This  is  confirmed  in  the  Member  States  most  involved  in 
the schemes (France, Italy and Spain), and for most agri-food sectors. The fact that these 
two  objectives  concern  relations  with  consumers  would  imply  that  "Business  to 
Consumers” is the key actual need for producer groups.  

As  regards  TSGs,  the  theoretical  and  the  empirical  analyses  show  that  all  the  general 
objectives of the schemes (except ”Integrity of the internal market/market transparency” 
for  producer  groups)  are  relevant.  According  to  the  electronic  survey  “Safeguard 
traditional  methods  of  production  and  recipes”  is  the  most  relevant  objective  for  the 
producer groups. 

5.3.2. Consumers 

Based  on  Eurobarometer  results77  the  objectives  of  the  schemes  are  also  considered 
relevant  for  consumers,  however,  due  to  the  low  awareness  and  understanding  of  the 
schemes  in  some  Member  States,  such  relevance  is  not  necessarily  perceived  by 
consumers.  Nevertheless,  the  guarantees  provided  by  GIs/TSGs  (as  regards  product 

76  From  1  to  2  the  relevance  level  is  between  ”  Somewhat  agree”  and  “Completely  agree”,  0  shows 
“neutral” judgement and a negative score presence of a reflection “not at all”.   

77 Special Eurobarometer 504, Europeans, Agriculture and the CAP, October 2020. 

Page 43 / 84 

 
      
 
                                                      
origin, raw material, traceability/authenticity, method of production, specific know-how, 
etc) cover factors that influence consumers’ choices when purchasing food products.  

Although environmental sustainability and animal welfare are not the main objectives of 
the GIs/TSGs Regulations, and contribution to a healthy diet is not among the criteria for 
the  schemes,  GI  producers  have  started  to  respond  to  growing  societal  demands  by 
integrating  such  concerns  into  the  product  specifications.  However,  these  attributes  are 
often  not  conveyed  to  consumers  in  a  structured  manner  and  are  not  promoted 
effectively.  Recently,  steps  have  been  taken  to  address  this  weakness,  e.g.  the  GIview 
database allows producers to convey messages on the sustainability attributes of their GI 
products.   

5.3.3. Relevance regarding the needs of rural areas 

Rural areas cover 44% of EU territory  and 80% or more of some Member States’. The 
analysis showed that GIs  are considered a strong asset for rural territories. This finding 
emerges  from  the  2014-2020  Rural  Development  Programs78  and  their  implementing 
reports  and  is  confirmed  by  numerous  studies  at  regional  level  or  on  local  production 
systems. Data from the survey of producer groups and  academic literature also indicate 
that  GIs  are  important  for  producers  in  areas  facing  natural  or  other  constraints.  These 
results  are  in  line  with  the  expected  impact  of  GIs  on  the  development  of  the  rural 
economy.  

The  analysis  of  the  literature  came  across  no  specific  findings  on  names  protected  as 
TSG. 

The strengthening of GIs/TSGs through rural development policy responds primarily to 
the  need  to  enhance  integration  in  the  agricultural  sector  and  respond  to  consumer’ 
demand  for  food  quality  (consumers  increasingly  select  products    on  the  basis  of 
production practices and want to know more about how their food is produced). 

Rural  development  funds  provide  support  for  joining  the  schemes  and  for  information 
and  promotion  on  quality  products  (see  Section 5.2).  The  importance  of  the  measures 
varies across regions, with some expressing high demand as regards quality schemes. 

GIs/TSGs  also  are  regarded  as  an  important  tool  for  promoting  regional  identity,  in 
particular  in  countries  with  a  history  of  GI  protection.  Economic  operators,  especially 
from southern EU countries, are generally convinced of their role in terms of maintaining 
and promoting the local cultural heritage.  

5.3.4. Relevance regarding the environmental sustainability and animal welfare 

Civil  society  is  becoming  more  and  more  concerned  about  the  sustainability  of  food 
production, including under the GI schemes. At policy level, this is also reflected in the 
Farm to Fork Strategy. 

78 The EU’s Rural Development policy (CAP’s second pillar) supports rural areas to meet the wide range 
of economic, environmental and social challenges. Rural development policy is implemented for a seven-
year period, via Rural Development Programs (RDPs) designed by a Managing Authority either at national 
and/or regional level. RDPs are documents drawn up by  Member States and regions, setting out strategic 
approaches and actions to meet the needs of the specific geographical area they cover. 

Page 44 / 84 

 
      
                                                      
In  recent  years,  GIs  and  TSGs  have  taken  up  the  challenges  of  environmental 
incorporated  additional 
sustainability  and  animal  welfare.  Some  have  already 
specifications  in  this  respect  (e.g.  limitation  on  the  use  of  energy  and  water,  improved 
waste  management,  bans  on  the  use  of  genetically  modified  feed  for  cattle),  going 
beyond the provisions of EU regulations, while for some others such changes are in the 
pipeline. 

The  analysis  reveals  the  inclusion  of  more  stringent  environmental  protection  rules  in 
41%  of  the  case  study  sample  (seven  Member  States79)  and  more  stringent  animal 
welfare  rules  in  67%  of  the  case  studies  involving  animal  production.  Almost  half  the 
case  study  sample  for  the  evaluation  support  study  on  GIs/TSGs  reported  ongoing 
initiatives  relating  to  environmental  rules,  but  no  one  as  regards  animal  welfare  rules. 
Most of the producer groups surveyed in the context of that study said that their product 
specifications  take  account  of  environmental  or  animal  welfare  issues  (64%  and  61% 
respectively). Of those, 60% have part of their production made in accordance with the 
rules  for  organic  production.  This  signals  a  positive  link  between  organic  and  GI 
schemes. Producers consider that incorporating voluntary environmental commitments in 
the  product  specifications  has  a  positive  impact  on  the  landscape,  thanks  to  traditional 
farming  techniques  (e.g.  grazing).  They  also  favour  more  extensive  methods  of 
production by imposing maximum yields. Also, prescribing a particular genetic resource 
as raw material is seen as promoting biodiversity. In the public consultation, 56% of the 
respondents  agreed  that  the  EU  quality  schemes  help  to  protect  natural  resources  or 
landscapes. 

At  present,  only  a  few  Member  States  indicated  that  there  are  public  initiatives 
encouraging  the  GIs/TSGs  producer  groups  to  adopt  voluntary  rules  of  production 
relating  to  environmental  sustainability  and  animal  welfare.  In  conclusion,  the 
incorporation  of  such  considerations  is  a  slow  process,  with  different  levels  of 
commitment depending on public and private initiatives.  

To  conclude,  the  current  GI  and  TSG  framework  is  relevant  in  meeting  the  needs  of 
producers and stakeholders.  However, the  current  four Regulations  and their objectives 
do not meet the requirements stemming from the changed political priorities and societal 
developments,  such  as  sustainability,  digitalisation,  and  internet  sales.  Legislative 
changes would be required to successfully address some of these developments. 

5.4. Coherence 

This  part  of  the  analysis  covers  coherence  between  i)   GIs  and  TSGs,  ii)  GIs  and  EU 
trade marks, iii)  GIs/TSGs and national/regional schemes, iv) GIs/TSGs and other CAP 
instruments and measures and v) GIs/TSGs and wider EU policies.  

5.4.1. Coherence between GIs and TSGs 

For  the  agri-food  sector,  GIs  and  TSGs  were  both  legislated  in  1992.  While  GIs  and 
TSGs have a similar intervention logic and pursue many common objectives, they differ 
in several ways. PDOs and PGIs relate to the name of a product of which the quality or 

79 Czechia, France, Italy, Spain, Hungary, Germany and Netherlands 

Page 45 / 84 

 
      
                                                      
reputation is linked to its geographical origin, but TSGs safeguard traditional aspects of 
products and recipes, with (in principle) no link to a specific geographical area.  

PDO/PGIs  enjoy  a  higher  level  of  protection  than  TSGs,  as  they  are  recognised  as 
Intellectual Property Rights (conferring IPR), while TSGs are not. 

The two schemes largely overlap in terms of products scope, although PDOs/PGIs have a 
wider product scope for agricultural products, and the ‘prepared meals’ category is only 
available for TSGs. 

The  administrative  procedures  for  registering  TSGs  are  almost  identical  to  those  for 
PDOs/PGIs.  

While  1441  GIs  had  been  registered  in  the  agri-food  sector  as  of  January  2021,  only 
64 TSGs  had  been  registered.  Evidence  suggests  that  TSGs  are  less  attractive,  because 
they do not provide an Intellectual Property Right protection, the consumer recognition is 
low, and can be used by stakeholders from other geographical areas. Protecting a name 
without  linking  it  to  a  geographical  territory  seems  to  offer  limited  added  value  for 
producers.  

5.4.2. Coherence between GIs and EU trade marks 

The EU trade marks refer to  signs used in  trade to  signal  commercial  origin. They  can 
consist  of  any  signs,  in  particular  words  (including  personal  names),  but  also  designs, 
letters, numerals, colours, sounds and the shape of goods and packaging. The signs that 
make up a trade mark must allow the consumer to distinguish the operator’s goods and 
services from others’. An EU trade mark gives its owner an exclusive right in all Member 
States.  The  relevant  legal  framework  on  EU  trade  marks  is  Regulation  (EC) No 
2017/1001 on the European Union trade mark.  

The analysis shows that GIs and EU trade marks are both registered Intellectual Property 
Rights  intended  to  regulate  the  use  of  names,  grant  protection  and  specific  rights. 
However, the two Intellectual Property Rights have different functions. Trade marks give 
their owner an exclusive right, while GIs confer a collective right on all producers in the 
geographical  territory  who  are  willing  to  produce  according  to  the  defined  product 
specification.  

The level of protection offered by the EU legislation on GIs is assessed in the context of 
the evaluation support study on GI/TSG to be compatible with and comparable to the one 
offered by the EU legislation on trade marks. Similarly, the level  of protection  granted 
for  the  two  Intellectual  Property  Rights  is  assessed  to  be  consistent  with  the  nature  of 
their  systems  and  aligned  with  the  respective  objectives.  The  Court  of  Justice  of  the 
European  Union80  has  recently  clarified  the  relationship  between  GIs  and  collective 
marks81.  

80 C-766/18 Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO 
(BBQLOUMI)  

81  EU  Collective  marks  distinguish  the  goods  and  services  of  a  group  of  companies  or  members  of  an 
association from those of competitors. Collective marks can be used to build consumer confidence in the 
products or services offered under the collective mark. Very often they are used to identify products which 
share a certain characteristic.  

Page 46 / 84 

 
      
                                                      
5.4.3. Coherence between GIs/TSGs and national/regional schemes 

Some  Member  States  and  regions  have  developed  schemes  to  provide  their  operators 
with  specific  guarantees.  EU  schemes  and  national/regional  schemes  (under  specific 
conditions)  are  eligible  for  support  from  the  European  Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural 
Development (EAFRD), as defined in Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013. This 
covers:  (i)  quality  schemes  as  defined  in  Article  16  of  Regulation (EU)  No 1305/2013 
and  (ii)  voluntary  agricultural  product  certification  schemes  recognised  by  the  Member 
State  as  meeting  the  EU  best  practice  guidelines  for  the  operation  of  voluntary 
certification schemes relating to agricultural products and foodstuffs.  

The  following  analysis  is  largely  based  on  the  assessment  of  19  national/regional 
schemes:  

Table 4. List of selected national/regional schemes 

Member 
State 

CZ 

DE 

ES 

FR 

IT 

Member 
State 

HU 

NL 

List of schemes 

Klasa 
Regional Food Product 
Regionalfenster (Regional Window) 
Qualität aus deutschen Landen 
QS 
Tierra de Sabor 
Alimentos del paraíso natural 
Campo y Alma 
Label Rouge 
Certification conformité produit 
Produits agricoles de France 
Haute Valeur Environnementale 
Prodotti di Qualità Puglia 
Qualità Alto Adige / quality Südtirol 
5Erre 

List of schemes 

Quality Food from Hungary (QFH) / Kiváló Magyar Élelmiszer 
Hagyományok-Ízek-Régiók (HÍR) / Traditions-Tastes-Regions (TFR) 
Beter Leven Keurmerk (Better Life label) 

Source: Evaluation support study on GI/TSG 

There are many national/regional quality schemes in the EU, with many different features 
and  requirements.  Some  enjoy  greater  consumer  awareness  than  the  GI  and  TSG 
schemes. 

National/regional  schemes  may  share  common  objectives  with  EU  GIs/TSGs,  e.g. 
promoting  traditional  products,  improving  traceability,  etc.  They  may  complement  the 
latter as regards  environmental  and animal  welfare issues. Some synergies may also  be 
found  where  they  represent  a  first  step  to  enter  EU  quality  schemes.  However,  the 
plethora of quality labels on the market, with objectives that may not be fully clear for all 
consumers, and may be confusing for some consumers.  

In the public consultation,  a  majority  (222)  of the 230  respondents  were  positive  about 
the coherence of EU quality schemes with official national/regional schemes. However, 
fewer than 50% agreed or tended to agree that they were coherent with private labels and 
certification schemes, while a quarter felt that there was inconsistency.  

Page 47 / 84 

 
      
5.4.4. Coherence between GIs/TSGs and other CAP instruments and measures  

This  section  examines  the  extent  to  which  the  GI  and  TSG  schemes  contribute  to  and 
complement the following other CAP instruments and measures (i) direct payments, (ii) 
Common  Market  Organisation  (CMO),  (iii)  rural  development  policy  (iv)  promotion 
policy and (v) organic policy.  

Direct payments  

The main objective of EU direct payments82 is to contribute to farmers’ income, thereby 
ensuring a fair standard of living for the agricultural community in line with Article 39 
TFEU. By supporting farmers’ income, they also help to maintain agricultural activity in 
all parts of the EU83.  

Direct payments and quality policy are coherent as they share similar objectives. Through 
their  objectives  (as  detailed  in  the  legislation),  the  GI  and  TSG  schemes  complement 
direct payments in ensuring a fair income for primary producers.  

Common Market Organisation (CMO) 

The  Common  Market  Organisation  (CMO)84  and  quality  policy  also  share  similar 
objectives. The CAP aims to ensure that farmers receive a fair return from the market and 
to improve their position in the food value chain85. It does so first and foremost through 
the CMO. 

The  CMO  Regulation  contains  general  rules  on  the  recognition  of  and  support  for 
producer  organisations86,  associations  and  interbranch  organisations,  and  to  optional 
reserved terms and marketing standards. It also contains specific provisions allowing for 
supply  management  by  producers  of  PDO/PGI  cheese  and  ham87.  By  facilitating  the 
recognition  of  the  quality  of  products  on  the  market  (through  marketing  standards  and 
optional reserved terms) and allowing for a certain degree of concentration of supply, it 
strengthens farmers’ bargaining power vis-à-vis processors88.   

In  sum,  CMO  and  EU  quality  policy  are  coherent  as  they  share  similar  objectives.  GIs 
contribute  to  and  complement  the  impact  of  the  CMO  Regulation  in  strengthening  the 

82 Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers 

83  European  Commission.  COM(2017)  713  final.  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European 
Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: 
The future of Food and Farming 

84  Regulation  (EU)  No  1308/2013  establishing  a  common  organisation  of  the  markets  for  agricultural 
products 

85  European  Commission.  COM(2017)  713  final.  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European 
Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: 
The future of Food and Farming 

86   For the fruit & vegetable and wine sectors. 
87   Articles 150 and 172 of the CMO Regulation. 
88 128th Recital of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 

Page 48 / 84 

 
      
                                                      
primary producers’ bargaining power in the value chain and increasing their returns from 
the market.  

Rural Development measures 

The  main  objective  of  EU  rural  development  policy89  is  to  contribute  to  vibrant  rural 
areas, by supporting (among other things) farm viability, the competitiveness of all types 
of agriculture in all regions, and the organisation of the food chain. Rural areas account 
for half of the EU’s territory and are home to 20% of its population90.  

Rural  development  programmes  contain  a  measure  specifically  designed  to  support 
quality  schemes91,  by  providing  support  for  farmers  and  groups  of  farmers  for  joining 
quality  schemes,  established  at  national/regional  or  EU  level  (including  for  GIs  and 
TSGs), and support for information activities on quality products under such schemes. 

Rural  Development  policy  and  quality  policy  are  coherent  as  they  share  similar 
objectives.  Through  their  objectives  (as  detailed  in  the  legislation),  the  GI  and  TSG 
schemes contribute to and complement  rural development policy in stimulating vibrant 
rural areas in the EU by contributing to viable farms, employment and the diversification 
of income streams.  

Promotion policy 

The objectives of the EU’s promotion policy for agricultural and food product are, as set 
out  in  Regulation  (EU)  No 1144/201492, to  boost the competitiveness  and consumption 
of EU products  in  the EU and elsewhere;  to  raise consumer awareness  of the merits of 
EU agricultural products and production methods, and to raise awareness and recognition 
of EU quality and organic farming schemes. 

Recital  4  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1144/2014  makes  a  first  link  between  the  promotion 
policy  and EU quality schemes by  stating that the measures taken under  former should 
aim  to  communicate  the  authenticity  of  EU  products,  thus  contributing  significantly  to 
raising  awareness  of  the  latter  in  the  EU  and  elsewhere.  The  recent  evaluation  support 
study of EU agriculture promotion policy93 reveals that, overall, the policy is effective in 
influencing  awareness  and recognition  of  EU quality schemes, thus  ensuring  coherence 
between the two policy areas. 

Promotion policy is not geared to products’ origin94, and promotion measures should not 
encourage consumption of a product based solely on its origin. Nevertheless, in the case 

89 Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for 
Rural Development (EAFRD) 

90 Source: https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/themes/rural-development/  

91 Article 16 of Regulation (EU) N° 1305/2013 
92 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R1144&from=en 

93  Available  at  URL:  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/61b15a1d-09dc-11eb-bc07-
01aa75ed71a1/language-en 

94 Art 4(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1144/2014 

Page 49 / 84 

 
      
                                                      
of products covered by quality schemes it is possible to show the origin of products on 
information and promotional material.  

Whereas EU quality schemes link products’ quality to their geographical origin and the 
specific  know-how  involved  in  their  production,  promotion  policy  aims  to  promote  the 
quality of all EU agri-food products by referring  to the horizontal requirements and high 
standards  applicable  that  govern  production  methods  in  the  EU,  e.g.in  terms  of  food 
safety, animal welfare etc.  

Despite  these  differences,  promotion  campaigns  and  activities  for  GI  products  creates 
synergies for both policy areas: 

 

 

for  EU  quality  policy:  promotion  programmes  increase  the  visibility  of  such 
products  in  new markets,  helping to pave the way  for potential exports to  non-EU 
markets in advance of conclusion or entry into force of a Free Trade Agreement95, 
and  
for promotion policy:  GIs act  as powerful  ambassadors for the quality of EU agri-
food products, helping to enhance the competitiveness of the agricultural sector as a 
whole. 

To  conclude,  promotion  policy  and  quality  policy  are  coherent  overall,  and  important 
synergies between the two policy areas have been identified.  

Organic policy 

Organic production plays a dual societal role by responding to specific consumer demand 
for organic products and delivering public goods that contribute to the protection of the 
environment, animal welfare and rural development96. 

Organic production is regulated at EU level by Council Regulation (EC) No 834/200797 
and  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No 889/200898.  As  highlighted  in  the  Commission’s 
2009  Communication  on  Agricultural  product  quality  policy99,  the  EU’s  agricultural 
product  quality  schemes  promote  organic  production,  together  with  GIs/TSGs  and 

95  Interim  Implementation  assessment  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1144/2014,  available  at  URL: 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/e9e739da-f87f-11e8-9982-01aa75ed71a1 

96 Recital 1 of Regulation (EU) 2018/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 
on  organic  production  and  labelling  of  organic  products  and  repealing  Council  Regulation  (EC) 
No 834/2007 

97 Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic 
products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 (OJ L 189, 20.7.2007, p. 1). The Regulation was to 
be  repealed  on  1  January  2021  by  Regulation  (EU) 2018/848,  but  the  Commission  has  proposed 
postponing the entry in force of the latter by 1 year; 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2020/048
3/COM_COM(2020) 0483_EN.pdf 
98  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  889/2008  of  5  September  2008  laying  down  detailed  rules  for  the 
implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic 
products with regard to organic production, labelling and control (OJ L 250, 18.9.2008, p. 1). 
99 COM(2009) 234 final;    
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0234:FIN:EN:PDF 

Page 50 / 84 

 
      
                                                      
 
produce from the EU’s  outermost regions100. In this respect, organic policy pursues the 
same CAP objectives that are inherent in all EU agricultural product quality schemes e.g. 
ensuring the effective functioning of the internal market,  guaranteeing fair competition, 
ensuring  consumer  confidence,  and  protecting  consumer  interests  and  ensuring  that 
farmers receive a fair return for complying with production rules101.  

While  high  health,  environmental  and  animal  welfare  standards  in  the  production  of 
organic products is intrinsic to their high quality, GIs and TSGs link products’ quality to 
geographical origin  and know-how. The two schemes are  therefore complementary and 
their  objectives  are  neither  contradictory  nor  inconsistent.  In  fact,  by  tackling  quality 
from different angles, they contribute to common objectives relating to the quality of EU 
food products. Furthermore (as discussed in Section 5.3.4), although environmental and 
animal welfare aspects are not explicitly listed among the objectives of the GI and TSG 
schemes,  they  do  feature  in  the  specifications  for  certain  products.  As  such,  the  two 
policies may be mutually reinforcing.  

In  terms  of  implementation,  both  policies  have  a  regulatory  framework  at  EU  level,  a 
logo, a similar scope in terms of products covered102 and comparable control systems in 
place, with audits organised at EU level by the Commission.  

With  regard  to  production  rules,  the  main  difference  lies  in  the  fact  that  organic 
production  and  its  control  rules  are  horizontally  set  in  Regulation  (EC)  No 834/2007, 
whereas for GI products the production rules are set in product specifications for each GI, 
on the basis of which the control bodies carry out controls. It is not feasible to produce a 
comprehensive analysis of GI/TSG production rules, in order to identify inconsistencies 
or synergies with organic policy. 

Given the above similarities (in terms of scope, controls, etc.),  as both types of scheme 
may give primary producers a price premium and some GI product specifications contain 
quite  strict  rules,  GI  producers  may  also  opt  to  join  the  organic  schemes  for  the  same 
products.  However,  assessing  the  share  of  GI  production  which  also  participates  in  the 
organic schemes appears challenging, given the unique nature of each GI and the choices 
of each individual producer.  

Results from the survey  of producers (in the context of the evaluation support study on 
GI/TSG) revealed that more than half (61%) of GIs/TSGs are produced to some extent in 
line with the rules for organic production; 23% of these reached a proportion of organic 
production exceeding 25%. However, big differences are observed in the level of organic 
production for individual GI/TSG products. For example, it is negligible for a spirit drink 
Pálinka and a ham Jabugo but reached 10% in the case of Côtes du Rhône wine (strong 
increase since 2008).  

100  In  accordance  with  Regulation  (EU)  No  228/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of 
13 March 2013  laying  down  specific  measures  for  agriculture  in  the  outermost  regions  of  the  Union  and 
repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 247/2006 (OJ L 78, 20.3.2013, p. 23). 
101  Recitals  2,  3  and  6  -  Regulation  (EU)  2018/848  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of 
30 May  2018  on  organic  production  and  labelling  of  organic  products  and  repealing  Council  Regulation 
(EC) No 834/2007 

102 Organic production also covers feed, unlike GIs and TSGs 

Page 51 / 84 

 
      
                                                      
Results  from  the  survey  of  national  authorities  suggested  that  there  is  no  competition 
between  the  two  types  of  policy  scheme.  Of  27  respondents,  20  did  not  believe  that 
producers  are  discouraged  from  producing  organically  due  to  the  success  of  the  GI 
schemes.  

68%  of  respondents  to  the  open  public  consultation  (N=149)  agreed  that  EU  quality 
schemes contributed to and complemented other CAP instruments and measures (20% of 
the respondents disagreed, and 12% had no opinion).   

Based on the above, GIs and TSGs are coherent with direct payments, the CMO, Rural 
Development  policy,  promotion  policy  and  organic  policy  as  they  pursue  similar 
objectives.  

5.4.5. Coherence between GIs/TSGs and wider EU policies 

This section analyses the extent to which the GI and TSG schemes are coherent with (i) 
food safety, (ii) health, (iii) information to consumers and (iv) trade.  

Food safety 

The General Food Law103 establishes the general principles for food safety at all stages of 
production and distribution. It is complemented by other provisions that spell out safety 
requirements  further  at  various  levels  e.g.  from  a  microbiological104  and  chemical105 
point  of  view  and  provisions  on  animal  and  plant  health.  The  food  safety  framework 
applies without prejudice to all food products produced in the  EU and/or placed on the 
EU market106, including those enjoying GI and TSG status.  

However,  food  with  traditional  characteristics  including  certain  PDO/PGI  and  TSG 
products, may be granted specific derogations from the hygiene requirements set out in 
Regulation (EC)  No 852/2004.  In  this  context,  Member  States  may  authorise  food 
business operators not to apply certain requirements in specified circumstances, so as to 
enable  the  continued  use  of  traditional  methods  of  production.  Such  derogations  still 
make allowance for ensuring that the food is safe, i.e. not injurious to health and fit for 
human  consumption.  Examples  of  national  measures  enabling  the  continued  use  of 
traditional methods of production cover107: traditional dried reindeer meat (Finland), raw-
dried  meat  products  from  minced  and  non-minced  meat  (Bulgaria)  and  the  immediate 
evisceration of poultry (France). 

103 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and f the Council. Available at:  https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32002R0178&from=EN 

(EC)  No  2073/2005  on  microbiological  criteria 

104  Regulation 
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=legissum:4385114 
105 For more information see https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=legissum:l21113; 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02005R0396-20160513  

for 

foodstuffs;  https://eur-

106 Including foodstuff produced in the EU and exported outside the EU territory 

107 https://www.fsai.ie/uploadedFiles/EU_Guidance_flexibility.CA.pdf 

Page 52 / 84 

 
      
                                                      
EU health policy 

The legal basis for the EU’s health policy is Article 168 of the Treaty on the Functioning 
of the European Union (TFEU)108, under which “a high level of human health protection 
shall be ensured in all Union policies and activities”. The EU Health Programme 2014-
2020109,  provides  an  overarching  strategic  framework  addressing  core  issues  in  health, 
with the objectives of fostering good health, ensuring protection from health threats and 
harmonising strategies between Member States. 

Food and nutrition play a fundamental role in achievement of EU health goals, and the 
link between food and health is well established and recognised. Areas of concern from a 
health point of view and linked to food and nutrition include: 

  obesity110,  as  highlighted  in  the  Commission’s  White  Paper  on  A  Strategy  for 

Europe on Nutrition, Overweight and Obesity related health issues111; 

  harmful alcohol consumption112, as highlighted in the EU Alcohol Strategy113. 
  cancer as covered in the Europe's Beating Cancer Plan114 

The EU’s ‘Farm to Fork Strategy also stresses the need for a shift to healthy, sustainable 
diets, along with the issue of food safety. It clearly states that current food consumption 
patterns are unsustainable in both health and environmental terms. While average intakes 
of energy, red meat, sugars, salt and fats in the EU continue to exceed recommendations, 
consumption  of  whole-grain  cereals,  fruit  and  vegetables,  legumes  and  nuts  is 
insufficient. 

The  EU  quality  schemes  cover  a  wide  range  of  products,  e.g.  oil,  fruit  and  vegetables, 
seafood,  meat  (including  processed  meat)  and  cheese,  with  the  predominant  share  of 
products  being  alcoholic  beverages.  An  analysis  of  the  product  range,  the  nutritional 
composition and the proportion of the various products covered by the schemes has not 
been  carried  out  as  part  of  this  evaluation.  Therefore,  conclusions  cannot  be  drawn  as 
regards the proportion of the GI/TSG products that might contribute to the consumption 
imbalances  identified  in  the  Farm  to  Fork  Strategy,  as  having  negative  health  and 
environmental sustainability impacts. 

Health  and  nutrition  aspects  are  currently  not  listed  among  the  objectives  of  the  GI 
legislation,  so  there  were  no  direct  inconsistencies  between  the  EU  quality  and  health 
policies identified in the evaluation, as they pursue theoretically different objectives.  

108 EUR-Lex - 12008E168 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu) 
109 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&apos;s  action  in  the  field  of  health  (2014-2020)  and 
repealing Decision No 1350/2007/ECText with EEA relevance (europa.eu)  
110 Strategy on nutrition, overweight and obesity-related health issues | Public Health (europa.eu) 
111 As mentioned in Microsoft Word - EN 279 - original.doc (europa.eu)  
112 https://ec.europa.eu/health/alcohol/overview_en 
113 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52006DC0625  

114 A cancer plan for Europe | European Commission (europa.eu) 

Page 53 / 84 

 
      
                                                      
Information to consumers 

The framework for the provision of food information to consumers is set by Regulation 
(EU)  No  1169/2011115  (FIC  Regulation),  which  establishes  general  principles, 
requirements,  and  responsibilities  governing  food  information,  in  particular  labelling. 
The FIC Regulation applies to food business operators at all stages of the food chain and 
applies to all foods intended for the final consumer116. In particular, as stated in Article 
1(4),  it  applies  without  prejudice  to  labelling  requirements  in  specific  EU  provisions 
applicable to particular foods, including GI and TSG products. The inclusion of quality 
products  in the scope of the FIC Regulation  ensures coherence between  the two policy 
areas. 

The  two  policies  are  also  coherent  in  terms  of  their  objectives.  In  both  cases,  the 
legislation lays down labelling rules to ensure that consumers are provided with reliable 
information that enables them to make informed choices and avoid being misled117.  

Having said that, the policies tackle consumer information from slightly different angles: 
while  the  FIC  Regulation  provides  a  first  layer  of  requirements  applicable  to  all  food 
products,  GI  policy  concerns  the  value-adding  attributes  of  GI  products  linked  to  their 
origin. Moreover, unlike the quality policy, the FIC Regulation makes a link between the 
information  provided  and  the  protection  of  consumers’  health,  thus  covering  nutrition 
aspects as well. 

Various  legal  frameworks  refer  to  products’  origin,  at  various  regulatory  levels,  each 
pursuing specific objectives. Although EU quality policy relating to GIs is not per se an 
origin  labelling  system,  it  links  food  and  beverages  to  a  specific  geographical  area,  to 
which the name of the product refers. Therefore, the link with territory and the indication 
of origin represent the key feature of the quality schemes.  

However,  various  other  legal  frameworks  refer  to  the  indication  of  the  origin  of  food 
products. Article 26 of the FIC Regulation establishes general requirements with regard 
to  the  indication  of  products’  country  of  origin  or  place  of  provenance.  These  must  be 
indicated where failure to do so this might mislead the consumer118. Beyond this general 
requirement, EU law also requires an indication of origin for certain specific foodstuffs, 
such  as  fresh  fruit  and  vegetables,  fishery  products,  honey,  olive  oil,  wine  and  eggs 119 
and for beef and beef products, pig meat, poultry and sheep and goat meat.  

115 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32011R1169&from=EN 

116 Including foods delivered by mass caterers, and foods intended for supply to mass caterers (Article 1, 
par. 3) 

117 Art 3 of FIC Regulation: The provision of food information shall pursue a  high level of protection of 
consumers’ health and interests by providing a basis for final consumers to make informed choices and to 
make safe use of food 

118  This  is  spelled  out  further  in  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  No 1337/2013  of 
13 December 2013  laying  down  rules  for  the  application  of  Regulation  (EU)  No 1169/2011  of  the 
European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  as  regards  the  indication  of  the  country  of  origin  or  place  of 
provenance  for  fresh,  chilled  and  frozen  meat  of  swine,  sheep,  goats  and  poultry  (OJ L 335,  14.12.2013, 
p. 19). 
119 More information available at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/labelling_nutrition/labelling_legislation/origin-labelling_en 

Page 54 / 84 

 
      
                                                      
These  pieces  of  legislation  pursue  different  objectives  and  define  the  concept  of  origin 
accordingly.  While  EU  quality  policy  considers  origin  as  adding  value  in  terms  of 
product quality (when it implies specific characteristics), the aim of the legislation on the 
origin labelling of agricultural products is to inform consumers of the product’s country 
of origin or provenance. 

Under Article 26(3) of the FIC Regulation, where the origin of a food product is given 
and differs from that of its primary ingredients, the origin of the latter must also be given 
or  at  least  indicated  as  being  different.  These  requirements  are  spelled  out  further  in 
Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU) 2018/775120,  which  clarifies  how  the 
information on the origin of the primary ingredient should be displayed on labels. 

GIs fall within the scope of Article 26(3) of the FIC Regulation. In view of the fact that 
for  these  product  designations  an  intrinsic  link  between  product  characteristics  and 
geographical  origin  exists,  they  are  regulated  by  specific  rules,  including  rules  on 
labelling,  and  taking  into  consideration  the  specific  character  of  these  names  as 
intellectual  property  rights,  it  is  necessary  to  further  examine  how  the  origin  of  the 
primary ingredient provided by Article 26(3) of the FIC Regulation should be indicated 
for said names. For this reason, Article 1(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/775 
specifies  that GI  products do not  fall under  its  scope. Recital  6 clarifies that,  while the 
general  requirements of Article 26(3) of the FIC Regulation  apply to all food products, 
the  relevant  implementing  rules,  related  to  the  primary  ingredient,  require  further 
examination and will be adopted at a later stage. 

If the scope of those rules is extended to GIs, an assessment of its impact will be carried. 
This issue is of particular relevance for PGI products (as compared to PDO),  for which 
part  of  the  production/processing  process  can  take  place  outside  of  the  defined 
geographical area. 

Trade policy 

EU trade policy relies on ‘open and fair’ trade as underlying principles when pursuing a 
level playing field for traders and investors operating across the world.  It contributes to 
economic growth, job creation and the integration of all countries, including developing 
countries, into the world economy121 122. It aims to create opportunities for enterprises of 
all sizes and contributes to sustainable development123.  

120  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2018/775  of  28  May  2018  laying  down  rules  for  the 
application  of  Article  26(3)  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1169/2011  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council on the provision of food information to consumers, as regards the rules for indicating the country 
of origin or place of provenance of the primary ingredient of a food (OJ L 131, 29.5.2018, p. 8). 
121  Treaty  on  the  European  Union,  Title  V,  Chapter  1:  Art  21.2:  (e)  encourage  the  integration  of  all 
countries  into  the  world  economy,  including  through  the  progressive  abolition  of  restrictions  on 
international trade; 

122  The  EU  has  a  strategic  interest  to  support  enhanced  integration  in  the  world  economy  of  developing 
countries, and is the world’s largest provider of ‘Aid for Trade’ to support developing countries in using 
trade as a leverage for poverty reduction.  

123 
Policy 
https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2019/october/tradoc_158400.pdf 

TRADE, 

Trade 

DG 

EU 

at 

work. 

URL: 

Page 55 / 84 

 
      
                                                      
Beyond facilitating trade in goods and services and investments, the effective protection 
and  enforcement  of  intellectual  property  rights  is  enshrined  in  EU’s  Trade  policy.  EU 
trade  policy  recognizes  the  importance  of  appropriate  intellectual  property  rights 
protection  and  enforcement  to  stimulate  innovation  and  maintain  the  EU’s  competitive 
position in the global economy124 125. GIs, as an Intellectual Property Right, is among EU 
Trade  policy  interests,  as  reflected  in  the  EU’s  trade  agenda  in  the  recent  years.  Trade 
agreements have helped to protect EU GIs against unfair practices on non-EU markets126.  

EU  quality  policy  lists  among  its  key  objectives  the  uniform  protection  of  GIs  as 
Intellectual Property Rights in EU territory127. GIs are an EU-wide interest and there is a 
positive contribution to economic growth and jobs in the EU stemming from an enhanced 
protection  and  enforcement  of  EU  GI  rights  also  in  third  markets  by  means  of  trade 
agreements.  

The protection of GIs in EU trade agreements is of particular importance as the share of 
GI product sales in the EU exports rises. GI products now accounts for 15.5% of total EU 
agri-food exports128.  In 2017, 23% of total EU GI product sales (EUR 17 billion), took 
place with third countries. EU agri-food trade with preferential trading partner countries 
accounts for roughly 35% of total EU agri-food trade with third countries and this share 
has been rising over the past 10 years129. Hence, GI protection under trade agreements is 
therefore  major  factor  in  the  EU’s  very  competitive  edge  in  agri-food  exports  at 
international level.  

EU trade policy relies on various tools when it comes to the protection of GIs:  

Commitments under multilateral agreements, in the contexts of the WTO Agreement 
on  Trade-Related  Aspects  of  Intellectual  Property  Rights  (TRIPS),  where  the  EU  has 
been  a  major  supporter  of  negotiations  on  GIs  in  the  WTO’s  Doha  Development 
Agenda130, with a view to establishing an international register and extending the higher 
level of protection, currently granted to wines and spirit drinks GIs, to the rest of GIs. 

The Geneva Act  of the  Lisbon Agreement on Appellations of Origin  and Geographical 
Indications  signed  in  2015  by  13  States  is  an  international  agreement  establishing  a 
system of multilateral protection of GIs. It updated and enhanced the Lisbon Agreement 
for  the  Protection  of  Appellations  of  Origin  (1958,  modified  in  1979).  The  two  acts 

124 http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2019/may/tradoc_157903.pdf 

125  Notably,  IPR  Intensive  Industry,  including  GI  intensive  ones,  are  very  important  in  the  EU,  and 
generated altogether almost 45% of total economic activity (GDP) in the EU, worth €6.6 trillion. They also 
accounted 
Source: 
trade  with 
https://euipo.europa.eu/ohimportal/en/web/observatory/ip-contribution#ip-contribution_1 

the  world. 

the  EU’s 

for  most 

rest 

the 

of 

of 

126Mission  letter  to  Trade  Commissionnaire:  https://ec.europa.eu/commission/commissioners/sites/comm-
cwt2019/files/commissioner_mission_letters/mission-letter-phil-hogan-2019_en.pdf 

127 According to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 

128 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 

129 https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2020/november/tradoc_159039.pdf 

130 https://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/eu-and-wto/doha-development-agenda/ 

Page 56 / 84 

 
      
                                                      
concern  the  same  agreement.  The  Members  of  the  respective  acts  are  part  of  a  single 
Special  Union  named  Lisbon  Union.  The  Geneva  Act  entered  into  force  on 
26 February 2020, three months after the EU’s accession. 

The  Geneva  Act  is  open  to  international  organisations,  while  the  Lisbon  Agreement  is 
not,  and  it  covers  also  ‘Geographical  Indications’,  while  under  the  Lisbon  Agreement 
only  ‘Appellations  of  Origin’  may  be  registered.  The  names  are  registered  in  a  single 
register which is named ‘the International Register’. 

30 countries are members of the Lisbon Agreement, among which seven Member States: 
Bulgaria, Czechia, France, Italy, Hungary, Portugal and Slovakia.  

The  contracting  parties  for  which  the  Geneva  Act  is  in  force  as  of  30  June  2021  are: 
Cambodia, Albania, Samoa,  the Democratic People's Republic of  Korea,  the EU,  Laos, 
France, Oman and Hungary. More countries are expected to follow.  

Bilateral  trade agreements, which include comprehensive  Intellectual Property Rights 
chapters 131 of which GIs are always part. GI protection has been among the EU’s main 
agricultural  offensive  interests  in  trade  negotiations,  including  with  Mercosur,  Mexico, 
and Japan132.  

Effective  enforcement:  the  EU  adopted  a  revised Strategy  for  the  Enforcement  of 
Intellectual  Property  Rights  in  third  countries133,  which  includes  specific  actions  to 
address Intellectual  Property  Rights protection  and  enforcement  problems  affecting  EU 
businesses that trade and invest abroad. Enforcing these rights within the EU and abroad 
contributes  to  economic  growth  and  job  creation,  while  safeguarding  consumer  safety 
and health, which could be put at risk by counterfeit products134.  

Other  tools  for  the  protection  and  enforcement  of  GI  rights  (and,  more  broadly,  of 
Intellectual  Property  Rights)  in  third  countries,  include  EU-funded  IP  technical 
cooperation programmes to support the setting-up and improve the functioning of third 
countries’ IP systems, as well as IP dialogues and IP Working Groups 135. These tools 
help  third  countries  improve  their  Intellectual  Property  Rights  frameworks  and  support 
EU stakeholders’ interests in those countries. The IP technical cooperation programmes 
(so-called  IP  Keys,  in  China,  Latin  America  and  South-East  Asia)  create  relevant 
synergies  abroad  with  another  EU-funded  instrument  in  support  of  SMEs,  the  IP  SME 
Helpdesks136. 

The Commission has recently conducted a review of EU trade and investment policy 
with  a view to  responding to  global challenges,  taking account  of lessons learned  from 
the  COVID-19  crisis.  A  new  Communication  on  EU  trade  policy  was  published  in 

131 https://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/negotiations-and-agreements/ 

132 http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-5344-2018-INIT/en/pdf  

133 https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2014/EN/1-2014-389-EN-F1-1.Pdf 

134 https://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/accessing-markets/intellectual-property/ 

135 https://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/accessing-markets/intellectual-property/ 

136 http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2019/may/tradoc_157903.pdf 

Page 57 / 84 

 
      
                                                      
February  2021137.  The  aim  of  this  new  strategy  is  to  build  a  consensus  around  the 
strategic  direction  and  objectives  of  EU  trade  policy  for  the  next  decade,  based  on 
openness, sustainability and assertiveness.  

The EU’s wide network of preferential trade agreements, covering around 33% of its EU 
external trade, will continue to facilitate and increase mutual trade and investment flows 
as  a  driver  of  economic  recovery,  also  contributing  to  sustainability  objectives  when 
pursuing its interests abroad. The new strategy strengthens its focus on implementing and 
enforcing  trade  agreements  and  ensuring  a  level  playing  field.  By  strengthening  the 
implementation  and  enforcement  of  its  agreements,  EU’s  trade  policy  thus  creates  the 
conditions for businesses to develop, grow, and innovate, and help to secure high-quality 
jobs  in  the  EU  and  beyond.  The  enforcement  of  EU  GI  rights  will  benefit  from  these 
enhanced efforts.   

GIs  have  major  economic  value  in  the  EU’s  agri-food  sector.  GI  protection  provides 
opportunities for growth and jobs in the EU. Trade policy amplifies the benefits of EU GI 
policy, in particular by improving market access and enhancing IPR frameworks for the 
protection and enforcement of GIs in third country markets.  

Therefore, it can be concluded that the EU’s GI policy is consistent with its trade policy 
and contributes to synergies with regard to objectives and effects achieved.  

5.5. EU added value 

Several  Member  States  had  developed  schemes  for  GI  protection  before  the  EU 
framework was established. However, these national schemes were not comparable with 
the EU ones in terms of scope and type of protection. For instance, Italy’s Law on GIs 
in  the  agri-food  sector  (1954)  only  covered  cheese;  in  the  UK  and  Germany  (for  agri-
food  products),  the  frameworks  related  to  trade  marks  and  the  use  of  specific  names, 
which were not fully comparable with GIs. The national schemes that were similar to the 
EU GI schemes were superseded by the latter.  

Only  a  few  Member  States  (e.g. France,  Czechia)  implemented  comparable  national 
schemes for TSGs. 

As  regards  the  protection  provided  by  International  protection  agreements 
compared to protection provided by EU schemes, there is a clear EU added value. In 
particular, the EU’s involvement in GIs is a driver at international level. Its accession to 
the Geneva Act (see above) is expected to contribute to the development of GI policy at 
global level  and to  consolidate and potentially expand  the benefits of GI protection  for 
inclusive  growth  and  employment  in  high  added  value  production  in  the  agricultural 
sector. With the Geneva Act offering a system of centralized registration and multilateral 
protection,  it  should  also  give  an  incentive  for  more  third  countries  to  join  the  Lisbon 
system,  since  this  would  give  them  access  to  protection  throughout  the  EU,  and  they 
could benefit from an examination procedure which is efficient, simple, fast, inexpensive, 
and objective. The Geneva Act offers a system of centralised registration and multilateral 

137 https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2021/february/tradoc_159438.pdf 

Page 58 / 84 

 
      
                                                      
 
protection.  Names  are  registered  via  a  single  procedure  managed  by  the  World 
Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and each member decides whether protect or 
not the registered name. Taking into account that currently there are only nine members 
of the Geneva act, it will take time before  it can achieve its potential of protecting GIs 
effectively at a more global level.  

Scrutiny  at  EU  level  allows  the  homogeneity  of  the  procedures  while  there  are  large 
differences  for  national  scrutiny  procedures  among  Member  States.  In  this  context,  the 
implementation of the GI and TSG schemes is highly variable among the Member States, 
depending  on  pre-existing  rules  and  the  objectives.    For  instance,  GIs  are  a  key  policy 
priority  for  France,  which  has  a  specific  public  institute  (INAO)  to  manage  GIs,  TSGs 
and  other  quality  schemes.  In  Italy  and  Spain,  applications  are  first  examined  by  the 
competent regional authority. Then, the national Ministry proceeds with the assessment 
of application requests. In the Netherlands, there are no guidelines in place to assess the 
GI  applications  through  a  uniform  method.  Thus,  there  is  clear  heterogeneity  in  the 
national procedures which may lead to varying levels of quality in the applications at EU 
level. However, the EU procedure is  the same for the scrutiny of the applications from 
each  Member  State.  This  ensures  a  homogeneity  of  the  procedures  and  increases  the 
homogeneity of the guarantees provided by GIs and TSGs at EU level.  

Homogeneity  of  procedures  between  Member  States,  as  regards  sales  beyond  their 
domestic  markets,  are  important:  20%  of  sales  value  for  GI/TSG  were  on  intra-EU 
market in 2017 (EUR 15 billion) and 22% on third country market (EUR 17 billion)138. 
This  EU  procedure  appears  to  be  relevant  in  terms  of  integrity  of  the  internal  market 
(common  standards  for  goods  circulating  on  the  intra-EU  market)  and  regarding  the 
homogeneity of standards for products exported to third country markets. However, it is 
not  possible  to  assess  the  extent  to  which  the  homogeneity  would  decrease  in  case  of 
Member State scrutiny only, with stricter guidelines from the Commission. 

With  the  increasing  digitalisation  and  online  sales,  the  potential  for  fraud  (e.g.  in  the 
form  of  misleading  domain  names)  is  also  growing.  In  order  to  sustain  the  EU  added 
value  of  GIs  in  the  internet  age,  the  Commission  has  been  developing  in  collaboration 
with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), the GIview platform to 
enhance  transparency,  the  public  availability  of  information  and  to  improve  the 
enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights.  

In addition, a possible registration of small-scale GIs/TSGs only at national level was 
assessed. The term “small-scale GI/TSG” refers to both economic size and market area. 
If  it  is  considered  that  small  scale  GIs/TSGs  cover  the  value  chains  with  less  than 
EUR 1 million sales value, in 2017 they accounted for139: 48% of the total number of GIs 
(about  1 600),  only  0.5%  of  total  sales  value  under  GI  (EUR  418  million).  However, 
targeting only larger GIs/TSGs under the EU GI and TSG schemes could possibly give 
rise to several issues:  

 

not all Member States may have comparable schemes as an alternative to EU-level 
registration; 

138 Study on economic value of EU quality schemes  

139 Based on database elaborated in the context of study on economic value of EU quality schemes 

Page 59 / 84 

 
      
                                                      
 

 
 

it  may  be  difficult  to assess  a realistic sales value for GIs/TSGs at  the registration 
stage; 
it may be difficult to set a viable threshold for smaller-scale GIs/TSGs; and 
such  a  proposal  could  face  opposition  from  stakeholders,  due  to  the  exclusion  of 
many value chains from the EU schemes.   

The  EU-level  scrutiny  procedure  costs  an  estimated  EUR 33 500  for  each  application. 
This represents 0.3% of 10 years of sales for a small-scale GI/TSG (EUR 1 million/year), 
so should still be feasible for smaller producer groups.  

The public consultation included an open question on the most essential benefits of EU 
quality schemes  (GIs, PDOs, PGIs and TSGs) that  national/regional schemes could  not 
provide.  65%  of  respondents  were  neutral  about  the  additional  benefits  of  EU  quality 
policy  and  schemes  in  comparison  to  national/regional  policy  and  schemes,  27%  were 
clearly positive and the remaining 8% clearly negative. ‘Harmonisation’, ‘protection’ and 
‘promotion’ were the terms used most often in responses as to the benefits of EU quality 
policy (some examples are given below).  

Figure 15.  Selection of ideas mentioned by the OPC respondents 

Harmonistation & 
application of the EU 
standards, notably in 
controls

Protection of farmers and 
consumers & value added 
distributed throught the 
supply chain

Wide and wise promotion of 
the quality products which 
are part of the common 
goods

Recognition and uniform 
international protection of 
the legal IPR products, 
notably in trade agreements 
with 3rd countries

Access to markets, visibility 
and promotion of the 
markets & help in reducing 
distortions of competition

Contribution to the 
improvement of the 
producers' income, to 
stregnthen the rural 
econmies and to foster the 
development of tourism

Source: Public Consultation 

In summary, GIs/TSGs generate a clear EU added value. Without the EU framework, the 
GI and TSG schemes might not exist in every Member States and might not be consistent 
across those in which they do exist. 

Page 60 / 84 

 
      
 
 
 
6.  CONCLUSIONS 

Data triangulation was used to ensure the robustness of the conclusions, i.e. two or more 
different data collection methodologies were used to verify the findings. The conclusions 
are based on various data resources including an external evaluation support study on GIs 
and TSGs protected in the EU140, an external study on the economic value of EU quality 
schemes141, a counterfactual analysis of the economic impacts of GIs/TSGs in rural areas 
by  JRC142,  a  public  consultation  and  an  in-house  data  and  information  analysis  (please 
see Section 4.2 and Section 4.3).  

6.1. Effectiveness 

Overall,  the  evaluation  concludes  that  the  objectives  of  the  EU  legislation  on  GIs  and 
TSGs have been achieved. This conclusion is based on the two external studies143144, the 
counterfactual  analysis  of  economic  impacts  of  GIs/TSGs  in  rural  areas  by  JRC145,  the 
public consultation146 and the in-house data and information analysis.  

The evaluation shows that the GI and TSG schemes have a positive effect on the internal 
market  by  providing  a  common  reference  for  trade  across  the  Member  States  and 
ensuring consistent level of protection at EU level.  

The  legislative  framework  for  GIs  and  TSGs  provides  for  fair  competition  for  farmers 
and  producers  in  the  GI/TSG  value  chain.  EU-level  scrutiny  ensures  homogeneity,  and 
the controls (as implemented by Member States at all stages of the supply chain) ensure a 
good  level  of  protection  against  misuses  of  GI  names.  Nevertheless,  controls  and 
enforcement of GIs are more effective in the Member States of production than in other 
intra-  and  extra-  EU  markets.  The  EU  GI  infringement  market  totalled  approximately 

140 Evaluation support study on geographical indications and traditional specialities guaranteed protected in 
the 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/c1d86ba1-7b09-11eb-9ac9-
EU, 
01aa75ed71a1/language-en 

141  Study  on  economic  value  of  EU  quality  schemes,  geographical  indications  (GIs)  and  traditional 
specialities  guaranteed  (TSGs)  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/a7281794-7ebe-
11ea-aea8-01aa75ed71a1 

142  Dumangane,  M.,  Granato,  S.,  Lapatinas,  A.,  and  Mazzarella,  G.,  Causal  estimates  of  Geographical 
Indications'  effects  on  territorial  development:  feasibility  and  application,  JRC  Technical  Report,  Ispra, 
2021,  JRC124769,  Causal  estimates  of  Geographical  Indications’  effects  on  territorial  development: 
feasibility and application | Knowledge for policy (europa.eu) 

143 Evaluation support study on geographical indications and traditional specialities guaranteed protected in 
the 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/c1d86ba1-7b09-11eb-9ac9-
EU, 
01aa75ed71a1/language-en 

144  Study  on  economic  value  of  EU  quality  schemes,  geographical  indications  (GIs)  and  traditional 
specialities  guaranteed  (TSGs)  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/a7281794-7ebe-
11ea-aea8-01aa75ed71a1 

145  Dumangane,  M.,  Granato,  S.,  Lapatinas,  A.,  and  Mazzarella,  G.,  Causal  estimates  of  Geographical 
Indications'  effects  on  territorial  development:  feasibility  and  application,  JRC  Technical  Report,  Ispra, 
2021,  JRC124769,  Causal  estimates  of  Geographical  Indications’  effects  on  territorial  development: 
feasibility and application | Knowledge for policy (europa.eu) 

146  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/2029-Evaluation-of-
Geographical-Indications-and-Traditional-Specialities-Guaranteed-protected-in-the-EU/public-consultation 

Page 61 / 84 

 
      
                                                      
EUR  4.3 billion in  2014,  corresponding  to  9.0%  of  total  EU  GI  sales  value.  Data  from 
French  controls  indicates  that  the  rate  of  infringement  via  the  internet  is  double  the 
average infringement rate. This, together with the fact that GIs are not considered a valid 
Intellectual  Property  Right  title  under  the  UDRP  (Domain-Name  Dispute-Resolution 
Policy), would indicate that there is an enforcement issue regarding the use of GI names, 
and in particular in domain names on the internet. 

Difficulties related to the implementation of controls were identified by Member States 
as a result of the wide range of products to be verified (including non-EU products), the 
different  marketing  channels  used  (including  online  sales)  and  the  divergent  national 
implementation. These enforcement challenges and gaps will be addressed in the context 
of the upcoming revision of the GI and TSG schemes.  

The  value-adding  characteristics  of  GI/TSG  products  can  give  farmers  and  producers  a 
price premium and  a better income. However, the benefits of the GI and TSG schemes 
are  far  from  being  systematic  and  the  fair  return  depends  heavily  on  the  economic 
environment  of  the  product,  the  governance  arrangements  and  the  producer  group’s 
strategy implemented. Although the analysis suggests that producer groups are the main 
drivers for structuring the value chain and establishing a GI/TSG product strategy, their 
structure, legal capacity and the roles in the management of the schemes are not set out 
clearly at EU level for all GI sectors and legal adjustments are needed. 

The  evaluation  also  suggests  that  GIs  and  TSGs  have  a  positive  impact  on  local 
employment and can lead to greater diversification, e.g. through synergies with tourism. 

Although  understanding  and  recognition  of  the  GI  and  TSG  schemes  and  logos  vary 
considerably  between  Member  States,  the  overall  conclusion  is  that  awareness  of  the 
logos  is  relatively  low  and  that  consumers  confuse  the  different  schemes,  showing 
limited  effectiveness  in  providing  clear  information.  This  is  despite  the  fact  that  the 
producer  groups’  main  incentive  in  joining  a  GI  scheme  is  to  raise  awareness  of  the 
product  name.  The  Impact  Assessment  will  analyse  the  drivers  of  this  problem  further 
and  look  into  different  options,  such  as  making  the  use  of  the  logos  obligatory  for  all 
sectors.  

6.2. Efficiency 

The GI/TSG framework for GIs and TSGs is assessed as efficient in terms of costs and 
benefits for private stakeholders and public bodies. Public costs for GI/TSG management 
and controls are estimated as low as 0.12% of total sales value and the average costs for 
the producer groups are 0.5% of the sales value.  

The  evaluation  also  assessed  whether  there  is  room  for  simplification  and  reducing 
administrative  burden,  in  particular  as  regards  to  the  registration,  amendment  and 
cancellation procedures and controls on compliance with product specification. Analysis 
shows that the lengthy registration and amendment procedures, both at national and  EU 
level,  are  the  main  source  of  administrative  burden.  To  speed  up  the  treatment  of 
applications,  the  evaluation  support  study  on  GIs/TSGs  suggested  changes  to  the  EU 
procedural  rules  and  to  the  management  of  the  schemes,  combined  with  guidance  and 
training initiatives.  

Page 62 / 84 

 
      
 
6.3. Relevance 

The evaluation concluded that the objectives of the GI and TSG schemes are addressing 
the  actual  needs  of  the  various  stakeholders.  However,  due  to  the  low  awareness  and 
understanding of the schemes in some Member States, such relevance is not necessarily 
perceived by consumers. 

GIs are considered a strong asset for rural territories and an important tool for promoting 
regional  identity.  Considering  their  limited  number,  no  specific  conclusions  could  be 
drawn as regards  names protected  as TSGs. Strengthening GIs and TSGs through  rural 
development  support  responds  primarily  to  the  need  to  enhance  integration  in  the 
agricultural sector and meet consumer demand for food quality.  

With  the  launch  of  the  European  Green  Deal  and  the  Farm  to  Fork  Strategy,  societal 
concerns  relating  to  sustainable  food  systems  are  high  on  the  agenda.  Although 
environmental  protection  and  animal  welfare  are  not  the  main  objectives  of  GI/TSG 
production,  the  evaluation  assessed  whether  and  to  what  extent  product  specifications 
incorporate  such  considerations.  Most  of  the  producer  groups  surveyed  declared  that 
product specifications consider environmental and animal welfare issues, often showing a 
positive  correlation  with  organic  production.  However,  this  is  a  slow,  non-systematic 
process, with varying levels of voluntary commitment and high reliance on initiatives by 
producers.  Options  for  integrating  sustainability  concerns  better  into  the  GI  and  TSG 
schemes are proposed in the Impact Assessment report.  

These  conclusions  are  based  on  the  evaluation  support  study  on  GI/TSG147,  the  public 
consultation and in-house data and information analysis.  

6.4. Coherence 

The GI and TSG schemes are in general coherent with EU trade marks, national/regional 
schemes, other CAP instruments and other EU policies.  

The  GI  and  TSG  schemes  have  similar  intervention  logics  and  pursue  common 
objectives. However, PDOs and PGIs identify the name of a product of which the quality 
or  reputation  is  linked  to  its  geographical  origin,  whereas  registered  TSG  names 
safeguard the traditional aspects of products and recipes, and require no link to a specific 
geographical area. In addition, PDOs/PGIs enjoy a higher level of protection than TSGs, 
because  they  are  recognised  as  Intellectual  Property  Rights,  while  TSGs  are  not.  The 
producers’  interest  in  TSG  scheme  is  low  (only  64  TSGs  registered),  due  to  a 
combination of factors, such as low consumer awareness of TSGs, the complexity of the 
system and the fact that it does not prevent producers from other regions from using the 
term.  The  TSG  scheme  is  to  be  reassessed  in  light  of  its  limited  attractiveness  for 
producers.   

Both  GIs  and  EU  trade  marks  are  registered  Intellectual  Property  Rights,  intended  to 
regulate the correct  use of names and granting protection and specific rights.  However, 

147 Evaluation support study on geographical indications and traditional specialities guaranteed protected in 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/c1d86ba1-7b09-11eb-9ac9-
EU, 
the 
01aa75ed71a1/language-en 

Page 63 / 84 

 
      
                                                      
the two Intellectual Property Rights serve different purposes. While trade marks give to 
their  owner  an  exclusive  right,  GIs  confer  a  collective  right  to  all  producers  in  the 
geographical  territory  producing  according  to  the  defined  production  rules.  Analysis 
shows that the level of protection offered by the EU legislation on GIs is compatible and 
comparable  to  the  one  offered  by  the  EU  legislation  on  trade  marks  but  that  there  is  a 
difference  in  treatment  between  GI  and  EU  trade  marks  when  they  are  used  in  a  final 
products’ sales name.  

Member States and regions have numerous quality schemes in place, on top of the GI and 
TSG schemes. The evaluation found that such schemes may share some of the objectives 
of  the  EU  GI  and  TSGs  schemes  and  may    complement  them  in  such  cases,  e.g.  by 
covering  sustainability  and  animal  welfare  issues.  As  the  national/regional  schemes  do 
not offer Intellectual Property Right protection148, no incoherence was found.  

The assessment concluded that the objectives of the GI and TSG schemes are similar to 
those  of  the  direct  payment  system,  the  CMO,  rural  development  policy,  promotion 
policy  and  organic  policy,  and  that  the  schemes  are  therefore  coherent  with  the  other 
CAP instruments and measures.  

Besides  assessing  coherence  with  the  CAP,  the  evaluation  looked  at  the  relationship 
between  the  schemes  and  other  EU  policies  e.g.  food  safety,  health,  information  to 
consumers and trade policy.  

Coherence was established between EU quality policy and food safety policy, as all food 
products  (including  GI  and  TSG  products)  have  to  comply  with  the  applicable  EU 
legislation.  As  regards  health,  as  the  rationale  of  the  GI  and  TSG  schemes  is  linked  to 
origin, product specificities and know-how, the two policies pursue theoretically different 
objectives. Therefore, no direct inconsistencies were found.  

As  regards  the  food  information  for  consumers,  the  FIC  regulation  applies  without 
prejudice to the arrangements for GI and TSG products, thus ensuring coherence between 
the two policy areas. Both legislations also aim at providing, by means of labelling rules, 
reliable  information  for  consumers  and  are  therefore  also  coherent  in  terms  of  their 
objectives. 

EU quality policy is  aligned with  trade policy. GI protection provides opportunities for 
growth and jobs,  thus  contributing to  trade policy  objectives. Therefore,  the two policy 
areas present synergies as regards their objectives achieved. 

These  conclusions  are  based  on  the  evaluation  support  study  on  GI/TSG149,  the  public 
consultation and the in-house data and information analysis. 

6.5. EU added value 

Having a common framework for GIs and TSGs provides clear added value by ensuring 
homogeneity in terms of sectoral scope and level of protection. Without this framework 

148 There are examples of quality schemes names registered as trade mark (for example Campo y Alma). 

149 Evaluation support study on geographical indications and traditional specialities guaranteed protected in 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/c1d86ba1-7b09-11eb-9ac9-
EU, 
the 
01aa75ed71a1/language-en 

Page 64 / 84 

 
      
                                                      
at the EU level, such schemes might not exist in all Member States or could result in very 
divergent approaches.  

The  evaluation  concluded  that  scrutiny  at  EU  level  ensures  uniformity  and  prevents 
unequal  treatment,  thus  contributing  both  to  the  integrity  of  the  internal  market  and 
common standards for trade with partners in non-EU countries. 

6.6. Lessons learned  

The  evaluation  concludes  that  overall,  the  GI  and  TSG  schemes  meet  their  core  policy 
objectives. They deliver a wide range of possible benefits for stakeholders such as a fair 
return  and  competition  for  farmers  and  producers,  although  not  systematically  in  all 
Member States.  The main limits are the low  consumer awareness  and understanding of 
the  schemes  in  some  Member  States  and  certain  weaknesses  in  controls  at  the 
downstream stages of the value chain. The other core policy objectives - upholding GI as 
Intellectual Property Right, the integrity of the internal market, and helping the producers 
of  TSG  products  to  safeguard  traditional  methods  of  production  and  recipes  -  are  in 
general achieved. The GI and TSG schemes also contribute to the achievement of rural 
development  objectives  e.g.  by  maintaining  diversified  agricultural  production  and 
developing rural economies.  

However, the evaluation also identified the following areas for improvement:  

Control  and  enforcement  weaknesses  were  detected  in  the  downstream  stages  of  the 
value  chain.  Differences  in  implementation  cause  difficulties  for  enforcing  producers’ 
Intellectual Property Right outside the Member State of production. In addition, GIs and 
TSGs cover a wide range of products, which are sold through various outlets (including 
online) further hampering effective enforcement. These enforcement challenges and gaps 
should be further assessed and addressed in the context of the upcoming revision of the 
GI and TSG schemes.  

Another  issue  that  was  highlighted  is  closely  linked  to  the  Commission’s  new  political 
objectives, in particular under the European Green Deal and the Farm to Fork Strategy. 
Sustainability concerns have become more accentuated in recent years, but GI and TSG 
production  does  not  or  not  systematically  take  them  into  consideration.  The  Impact 
Assessment report should examine the feasibility of incorporating sustainability concerns 
in the schemes and propose possible ways forward.  

A  major  factor  limiting  the  attractiveness  of  GIs  and  TSGs  is  the  low  consumer 
awareness  and  understanding  of  the  schemes  (and  logos).  The  Impact  Assessment 
report should further analyse the drivers of this problem and propose possible solutions.  

Producer  groups  play  a  pivotal  role  in  managing  GIs  and  TSGs.  However,  the 
evaluation found that the tasks they are entitled to carry out differ widely across sectors 
and Member States, as they are defined at EU level only for the agri-food sector and not 
for  wines,  aromatised  wine  products  and  spirit  drinks.  The  possible  roles  of  producer 
groups could be further assessed and developed.  

Lengthy  and  complex  procedures,  both  at  national  and  EU  level,  are  considered  the 
main  irritant  and  source  of  administrative  burden.  To  speed  up  the  treatment  of 
applications,  the  possibilities  of  better  Commission  guidance  and  training  initiatives 
should be analysed. 

Page 65 / 84 

 
      
The  limited  number  of  registered  products  points  to  a  lack  of  interest  in  the  TSG 
scheme  and  the  difficulty  of  protecting  traditional  production  methods  across  the  EU. 
The  review  process  should  reassess  the  scheme  in  the  light  of  its  limited  attractiveness 
for producers. 

Qualitative information was used for many aspects of this evaluation as the information 
on GIs/TSGs is rich but the level of detail is heterogeneous and the available data is not 
structured in a database, so not easily searchable. This is hampering the assessment of 
the policy. Monitoring of GIs/TSGS at national level and further research into this topic 
could be encouraged.  

Page 66 / 84 

 
      
 
 
1.  ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

1.  Lead DG, Decide Planning/CWP references 

Lead DG: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (DG AGRI) 

Decide planning reference: PLAN/2018/4906 

2.  Organisation and timing 

This policy evaluation project was included in the DG AGRI evaluation plan. It followed 
the “Better Regulation” guidelines on evaluations. The evaluation work was carried out 
through  an  external  evaluation  study,  contracted  through  an  open  call  for  tenders 
conducted  in  conformity  with  the  DG  AGRI  procedure  for  the  organisation  and 
management  of  policy  evaluations  carried  out  by  external  contractors.  The  project  was 
supervised  under  the  technical  and  contractual  management  of  DG  AGRI  Unit  C.4 
(Monitoring and Evaluation). 

The Commission set up an Inter-service Steering Group (ISSG) on 5 March 2019, with a 
mandate to provide information, prepare the terms of reference, monitor the work of the 
external  study  team,  discuss  and  give  advice  on  the  approval  of  the  final  report  and 
comment on the draft evaluation Staff Working Document (SWD). 

The  ISSG  was  composed  of  representatives  of  the  Secretariat-General  of  the 
Commission, DGs AGRI, GROW, SANTE and TRADE, and the JRC and the EUIPO. It 
held nine meetings, the first of which was on 28 March 2019.  

An evaluation roadmap published on 29 April 2019 set out the context, scope and aim of 
the exercise. It presented the questions to be addressed under the five evaluation criteria 
(effectiveness,  efficiency,  relevance,  coherence  and  EU  added  value).  In  the  feedback 
period, 15 contributions were received; these did not require changes of the approach to 
the evaluation. 

The  external  contractor  began  work  on  the  evaluation  support  study  on  18 December 
2019. The final  deliverable was received on  5 February 2021.  Together  with  the public 
consultation  (open from  4 November 2019 to  3  February 2020), the evaluation support 
study provided the basis for this SWD. 

3.  Exceptions to the better regulation guidelines 

None 

4.  Consultation of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board  

The Regulatory Scrutiny Board scrutinized this evaluation SWD in a meeting on 2 June 
2021.  It  delivered  a  positive  opinion  but  suggested  some  improvements.  The  Board’s 
comments have been addressed as follows:    

Page 67 / 84 

 
      
 
 
 
Regulatory Scrutiny Board 
remark  

Improvements in the SWD 

The  report  is  not  sufficiently 
four 
clear 
on  what 
Regulations  were  meant 
to 
achieve  and  to  what  extent  they 
are effective 

the 

More  details  on  the  legal  framework  delivering  on 
all of the objectives has been included in the SWD. 
The  evaluation  concludes 
the 
shortcomings of the GI/TSG policy implementation 
is the fragmented legislative framework.  

that  one  of 

today 

The  report  does  not  indicate  if 
the  four  Regulations  are  still 
relevant 
in  view  of 
changed  political  priorities  and 
(e.g. 
societal 
increased 
on 
sustainability,  digitalisation  of 
sales) 

developments 

focus 

Health concerns, animal welfare and environmental 
sustainability  are  not  among  the  objectives  set  in 
the current EU legal framework for GIs and TSGs. 
However,  there  is  a  growing  demand  for  the  food 
and drinks value chains to consider these matters in 
their practices. The text has been updated as regards 
sustainability and digitalisation of sales.  

The  report’s  conclusions  are 
overly  positive  and  do  not 
sufficiently  reflect  the  limited 
availability  and  robustness  of 
data. 

The  section  4.3.  Limitation  and  robustness  of 
findings has been updated by adding the analysis of 
the  applicability  of  the  conclusions.  Different  data 
resources,  on  which  the  conclusions  are  based  on, 
have been added to the text.   

that  could 

The  report  lacks  clear  lessons 
learnt 
serve  as 
orientation  for  future  decision-
making. 

The  current  ex-post  evaluation  is  an  intermediate 
stepping  stone  in  a  long  process  towards  policy 
revision.  The  lessons  learned  of  the  SWD  fed  into 
the  Impact  Assessment,  where  different  policy 
options  will  be  assessed.  The  lessons  learnt  has 
been updated as regards the next steps.   

Page 68 / 84 

 
      
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.  ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION 

Roadmap feedback 

Stakeholders had the opportunity to provide feedback on a Commission roadmap from 
29 April 2019  -  27 May 2019150. Altogether, 15  contributions were received:  from  five 
non-governmental  organisations, 
three 
four  business 
microenterprises  and  one  large  enterprise),  three  business  organisations,  one  consumer 
organisation, one EU citizen and one another organisation. The respondents were  based 
in: Belgium, Czechia, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Slovakia and the USA.  

associations 

(including 

Initiative welcomed 

Overall, the respondents recognize the role of GIs/TSGs in adding value to the EU food 
production  and  they  praise  the  protection  of  regional  specialities.  They  support  the  EU 
quality  schemes  as  a  means  of  augmenting  the  value  of  quality  products  from  specific 
regions  and  Member  States  and  of  raising  awareness  on  third  country  markets  of  the 
special  characteristics  and  benefits  of  EU  products.  They  indicate  that  EU  quality 
schemes should be continued. 

The respondents raised the following issues:  

the importance of the clear and reliable information to consumers;  
the need to simplify the registration process;  

 
 
  differences in the treatment of agricultural products and wine;  
 

the need for sustainability and environmental standards in the future framework; 
and 
implementation of GI controls in the Member States.  

 

Open public consultation 

From 4 November 2019 to 3 February 2020, the Commission services conducted an open 
public  consultation  (OPC)  in  all  official  EU  languages  except  Irish.  The  public 
consultation was organised via using EUSurvey and published on the Europa website151. 
The aim was to gather the views of public authorities, stakeholders and members of the 
public.   

The  results  of  the  OPC  were  summarised  extensively  in  the  factual  report,  which 
provides  an  overview  of  responses  to  the  questions  and  information  on  the  profile  of 
respondents by country of origin and stakeholder category152.  

150 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/2029-EU-food-quality-
schemes-evaluation 

151  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/2029-Evaluation-of-
Geographical-Indications-and-Traditional-Specialities-Guaranteed-protected-in-the-EU/public-consultation 

152 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/2029-Evaluation-of-
Geographical-Indications-and-Traditional-Specialities-Guaranteed-protected-in-the-EU/public-consultation 

Page 69 / 84 

 
      
 
 
                                                      
A total of 233 contributions (and 33 accompanying position papers) were received from 
21 EU Member States153 and four third countries (Mozambique, Qatar, South Africa and 
the United States).  

Private  individuals  provided  the  most  contributions  accounting  for  28%  of  all 
respondents (number of responses ‘N’=65), followed by company/business organisation 
for 21% of all respondents (N=50), public authorities for 18% of all respondents (N=41) 
and  business  associations  for  12%  of  all  respondents  (N=27).  Of  all  the  respondents, 
NGOs  accounted  for  6%  of  the  total  responses  (N=14),  academic/research  institutions 
4% (N=9), and trade unions 1% (N=3), and there was a single submission from non-EU 
citizens  (0.43%).  The  remaining  10%  (N=23)  of  respondents  identified  themselves  as 
’others’. 

Figure 16 Overview of the type of the respondents of the public consultation. 

Source: Public Consultation 

The main results of effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added value 
of the open public consultation are presented below.  

Effectiveness 

An  overall  majority  of  respondents  agreed  that  the  EU  quality  schemes  meet  their 
main  objectives  as  set  in  the  legal  framework154.  Overall,  32%  “totally  agreed”  and 
33% “tended to agree” that all the objectives were met, while 13% “tended to disagree” 
and 7% “totally disagreed”. The remaining 14% of the respondents had no opinion.  

The replies on the individual objectives of the quality schemes varied:  

153  Including  the  United  Kingdom,  which  was  considered  as  a  Member  State  for  the  purpose  of  the 
consultation (and in line with the observation period).  

154 For details and links to legal texts see the dedicated page on the Commission's website.  

Page 70 / 84 

 
      
 
                                                      
a)  provide  useful  information  to  consumers  about  the  geographical  origin  and 
specific  characteristics  of  products  –  72%  agreed  (“totally”  and  “tend  to” 
combined); 

b)  promote  the  authenticity  of  registered  products  and  consumer  confidence  in 

registered products – 78% agreed;  

c)  protect and enforce the producers' rights (including on internet) – 71% agreed;  

d)  help strengthening the position of producers in the value chain – 74% agreed; 

e)  preserve and develop rural areas (i.e. their socio-economic sustainability, as well 

as cultural and gastronomic heritage) – 72% agreed;  

f)  contribute to protecting the natural resources or landscape – 56% agreed but 29% 

disagreed (“totally” and “tend to” combined); 

g)  contribute  to  improving  the  welfare  of  farm  animals  –  38%  agreed  and  34% 

disagreed. 

As for responses by quality scheme, more than 70% of the respondents  considered that 
the PDO and PGI schemes met the regulatory objectives. A majority of respondents (over 
50%)  considered  that  the  GI  scheme  also  met  the  regulatory  objectives.  On  the  other 
hand, 25% were not convinced that the TSG quality scheme met those objectives.  

As  regards  the  list  of  incentives  and  disincentives  (Table  5.  List  of  incentives  and 
disincentives  Table  5),  respondents  could  choose  which  of  the  options  of  the  lists 
incentivised (Figure 17) them to participate in EU quality schemes or did not incentivised 
them  (Figure  18).  There  was  no  clear  majority  option  selected  by  respondents  in  the 
incentives,  though  in  disincentives,  the  “higher  costs  related  to  the  application, 
certification, and inspection” was chosen as the most significant disincentive. 

Figure 17. Incentives to participate in the EU quality schemes (in %) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

1 1

1 2

1 3

1 4

1 5

9%

6%
6%

9%

7%
8%

6%
6%
6%

7%

6%

5%

5%

7%

6%
6%

7%
6%

8%

8%

7%

6%

6%

8%

6%
8%

7%

10%

7%

7%

6%
6%
6%

7%

6%

5%

7%

7%
6%

5%

6%
6%

6%
4%

6%

6%

7%

8%

7%

8%
5%

6%

5%

7%

8%

6%

7%

5%
9%

6%

GI (spirit)
PDO (food&wine)
PGI (food&wine)
TSG (food)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Source: Public Consultation 

Page 71 / 84 

 
      
 
 
 
 
Table 5. List of incentives and disincentives 

N° 
1 

2 

Incentives  

  N° 

Disincentives  

Exclusive use of the protected name and  
enforcement of the position of producers 
Strengthen the position of producer groups in 
the value chain 

1  Higher production costs 

2  Higher marketing costs  

3  Keep business economically viable 

3  Higher costs related to the application,  

4  Useful marketing tool 

5  Quality assurance signal 

6  Differentiation of product 

certification, inspection  
Stricter inspections  

4 

5  Not sure that good quality control could be 

enforced along the supply chain  
6  Uncertainty of market demand or low  

demand  

Traceability tool 

7  Missing regional roots (lack of local 

identity)  

8  No added value  

9  No need because have own trademark  

10  No need because strong market position 

already  

11  Not enough public support  

7 

8 

Increase own firm's reputation 

9  Access to new markets 

10  Credibility of product 

11  Higher price premium 

13  Affinity with the region 

14  Protection of traditions 

15  Regional development and tourism 
Source: Public Consultation 

Table  6  Most  selected  incentives  to  participate  in  the  EU  quality  schemes  per  category  of 
respondents 

Source: Public consultation  

Page 72 / 84 

N%Ref n.of the disincentive*    N of responses/disinscentiveRef. n. of the dsincentive    N of responses/disinscentiveAcademic/research institution8475%652&41Business association2213413%32155Company/business organisation4922622%33885Citizens (EU& Non-EU)6325225%343911Non-governmental organisation (NGO)14576%3&11108&101Public authority3917417%33154Trade union2111%3,4 &1022,5,6 & 70Other2110611%1197&104Stakeholder groupTotal respondents (N)Responses to Q4 The most selected disincentive The least selcted disincentive  
      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 18. Disincentives to participate in the EU quality schemes (in %) 

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

10%

5%

6%
19%

12%
6%

5%

12%

13%

11%

8%

21%

12%

10%

7%
9%

6%

6%

7%

8%

8%

10%

21%

20%

5%
4%

3%
5%

4%
5%
5%

8%
6%

5%

4%

11%
5%

5%

5%

8%
6%
5%
4%
11%
5%

5%

12%

12%

GI (spirit)

PDO (food&wine)

PGI (food&wine)

TSG (food)

0%

20%
Source: Public Consultation 

10%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Efficiency 

Respondents have a generally positive perception about the efficiency of the EU quality 
scheme. A majority, 65% of the responses, agreed or tended to agree that the EU quality 
schemes benefit producers, while 15% disagreed or tended to disagree. Regarding the 
benefits perceived by respondents to consumers, they are rated even higher (69%) and 
negative answers are similar (16%). The remaining respondents had no clear opinion on 
the questioned aspect. 

On  the  question  whether  ‘greater  efficiency  could  potentially  be  achieved  by  the 
unified  registration,  amendment  and  cancellation  procedures  for  EU  quality 
schemes’, the majority of respondents (83%) replied positive (i.e. replied “totally agree” 
or “tend to agree”), 10% disagreed and 8% had no opinion. 

Relevance and coherence of the EU policy 

A majority  of the  respondents  (62%) were positive about  the  consistency between the 
aims  of  the  EU  quality  schemes  and  the  needs  of  the  supply  chain  operators  i.e. 
producers, processors, traders, wholesalers, and retailers. Looking at the breakdown per 
type of scheme, considerable differences could be noticed. TSGs were found coherent by 
52%  (sum  of  “totally  agree”  and  “tend  to  agree”  responses)  of  the  respondents,  not 
coherent by 16% (sum of “tend to disagree” and “totally disagree”) of the responses, and 
the remaining 32% had no opinion. For PGIs and PDOs the results were similar, slightly 
above 70% of the respondents  found them  coherent, around 12% not  coherent,  and the 
remaining 15% had no opinion. Lastly, GIs  (spirit drinks) were found coherent by 53% 
of the respondents, not coherent by 10% of the responses, and the remaining 37% had no 
opinion. 

A  very  similar  distribution  of  responses  was  found  on  the  perception  whether  the  EU 
quality schemes met the expectations of consumers. (Figure 19). 

Page 73 / 84 

 
      
 
 
 
 
Figure 19. Consistency of EU quality schemes with consumer expectations (in %) 

T S G   ( F O O D )

16%

36%

15%

8%

26%

P G I   ( F O O D & W I N E )

20%

51%

15%

5%

9%

P D O   ( F O O D & W I N E )

31%

48%

9%

3%

10%

G I ( S P I R I T )

14%

35%

14%

2%

35%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90% 100%

Totally agree

Tend to agree

Tend to disagree

Totally  disagree

No opinion

Source: Public Consultation 

A  high  number  of  respondents  (68%,  N=149  of  replies)  agreed  that  EU  quality  schemes           
contributed  and  complemented  other  instruments  and  measures  of  the  Common               
Agricultural Policy, whereas 20% of the respondents disagreed, and 12% had no opinion.  

The respondents were less convinced about the consistency of EU quality  schemes with public 
national  and  regional  quality  (Figure  20)  and  even  less  confident  about  consistency  with 
private labels and certification schemes (Figure 21) 

Figure 20. Coherence of EU quality schemes with MS public quality schemes (in %) 

TSG (food)
PGI (food&wine)
PDO (food&wine)
GI(spirit)

13%

19%
20%

11%

35%

10%

7%

47%
47%

35%

11%

4%

12%
11%

35%
5%
5%
39%

17%
17%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90% 100%

Totally agree

Tend to agree

Tend to disagree

Totally  disagree

No opinion

Source: Public Consultation 

Figure 21. Coherence of EU quality schemes with private labels and certification schemes (in 
%) 

TSG (food)

8%

33%

16%

7%

36%

PGI(food&wine)

PDO (food&wine)

15%

15%

38%

38%

20%

20%

6%

7%

21%

20%

GI(spirit)

8%

32%

14%

5%

41%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90% 100%

Totally agree

Tend to agree

Tend to disagree

Totally  disagree

No opinion

Source: Public Consultation 

EU added value 

27%  of  the  respondents  were  clearly  positive  about  the  additional  benefits  of  the  EU 
quality  policy  and  schemes  in  comparison  to  what  the  national  and  regional  quality 
schemes  could  already  provide  for,  while  the    majority  of  the  respondents  (65%)  were 
neutral  and  the  remaining  8%  clearly  negative155.‘Harmonisation’,  ‘protection’  and 

155 The average sentiment (negative, neutral or positive) based on a number of textual indicators (adjectives 
and  adverbs,  negation,  etc.)  could  be  computed  for  95%  of  the  provided  replies  and  was  relying  on 

Page 74 / 84 

 
      
 
 
 
 
                                                      
 
‘promotion’ were the most often used key words in the respondent’s opinions about the 
benefits of the EU quality policy.  

Summary of the position papers of the open public consultation 

In addition  to  the responses to  the questionnaire, it was possible to give comments  and 
upload  additional  papers.  Altogether  33  documents156  were  uploaded.  Position  papers 
were  submitted  from  9  countries,  including  Belgium,  France,  Germany,  Ireland,  Italy, 
Poland, Portugal, Spain and the USA. 

The number of respondents differed highly between EU Member States, but the largest 
share  came  from  Member  States,  which  also  account  for  a  high  number  of  names 
protected under the EU quality schemes, i.e. France, Germany, Italy, Portugal and Spain. 

Of all the respondents, the majority (as a share: around 28%, and in absolute terms: N=8) 
were  NGOs,  followed  by  business  organisations  (N=7),  public  authorities  and  business 
associations (6 position papers each) and trade unions (N=2).  

Effectiveness  

In  total,  there  were  33  contributions  to  the  criteria  of  effectiveness.  Overall,  the 
respondents  recognize EU quality  schemes’  ability to  preserve  and  develop rural areas. 
However,  a  common  suggestion  is  to  provide  better  information  to  consumers  and 
guarantee the specific qualities of GI products. A common theme is further to incorporate 
sustainability criteria and several submissions ask for better integration of animal welfare 
standards to GI specifications and to establish effective enforcement of such rules. 

As regards incentives for participating in EU quality schemes, a common theme for most 
submissions  is  to  strengthen  the  position  of  producer  groups  in  the  value  chain.  One 
business  organisation  indicates  that  producer  groups  should  have  the  possibility  to 
implement  specific  programmes  for  coordinated  activities  within  their  value  chains, 
while another one calls for a legal framework that recognizes the role played by producer 
groups in the management and protection of GIs. Furthermore, some issues were raised, 
regarding the need for enhanced controls and protection of products in transit across the 
EU  and  on 
internet.  Another  business  organisation  calls  for  reinforced 
communication  to  increase  the  reputation  and  credibility  towards  consumers  and  other 
actors in the downstream industry. A trade union further outlines that GIs should play an 
exemplary role in contributing to sustainability. 

the 

The  major  disincentives  to  participate  in  quality  schemes  identified  by  the  respondents 
are  the  burdensome  procedure  for  registration  and  amendment  of  GIs  and  the  high 
managing  costs  especially  for  small  producers.  One  submission  points  to  the  difficulty 
for  small  producers  to  get  involved  into  the  bigger  organisation  and  put  ideas  into 
practice.  Furthermore,  this  organisation  also  highlights  the  higher  costs  for  artisanal 
products. One business association complains about the unfair competition between real 
local  producers  and  national  players  who  have  reduced  production  costs  and  bigger 

VADER (Valence Aware Dictionary and Entiment Reasoner) – the analysis tool, developed by C.J. Hutto 
at the Georgia Institute of Technology 
156 As one business association uploaded the same document several times, the number of different position 
papers that were considered in the analysis amounts to 29 

Page 75 / 84 

 
      
                                                                                                                                                              
promotion  budgets.  As  regards  controls/enforcement,  several  submissions  ask  for 
transparent  and  coherent  control  rules  at  production  and  distribution  stage.  One  main 
disincentive for registering GIs is the lack of awareness and the poor recognition of EU 
symbols and one business organisation points out that conflicting interests between GIs 
and trademarks exist, creating a high level of uncertainty. 

Efficiency  

Efficiency  of EU policy was  addressed by  19 submissions. To provide  good  ‘value for 
money’  for  producers  and  consumers,  the  protection  of  EU  quality  schemes  should  be 
strengthened.  One  business  organisation  suggests  to  protect  more  effectively  against 
attempts by third parties to abuse the GIs reputation and that registered GI names should 
also be protected against bad faith registration in second level domain names, i.e. website 
names. 

Overall,  the  respondents  recognize  the  high  protection  against  infringement  and  GIs  as 
marketing tool to justify higher prices as major benefits on the producer side. Consumers 
mainly benefit from the high quality of the products and the assurance of strict controls. 
GIs  guarantee  preservation  of  traditions,  reliability  and  traceability  of  the  production 
process.  Benefits  of  the  GI  schemes  in  relation  to  regional  development  include 
economic strengthening of rural areas and the promotion of tourism. 

However,  respondents  also  recognize  some  disadvantages.  On  the  producer  side,  a 
common  disadvantage  is  the  long  and  cost-intensive  application  process.  Submissions 
also complain that GI registration requires substantial public investment both at national 
and EU level.   

Altogether four submissions replied to the question to what extent all current EU quality 
schemes are necessary. Both a business organisation and a public authority are in favour 
of  keeping  the  double  system  with  PDOs  and  PGIs  and  ask  for  keeping  the  sector 
specific  rules.  While  another  public  authority  calls  for  maintaining  TSGs,  a  NGO 
indicates that the role of TSGs has to be reconsidered and asks for more communication 
and promotion efforts. 

When  it  comes  to  the  question  if  greater  efficiency  could  be  achieved  through  unified 
registration,  amendment  and  cancellation  procedures  for  EU  quality  schemes,  the 
opinions  are  mixed.  While  one  business  organisation  calls  for  a  unified  registration, 
amendment  and  cancellation  procedure,  another  one  favours  keeping  the  four  sector 
specific rules and the traditional terms. Besides, a NGO suggests one single law for all 
GIs  and  TSGs,  however,  with  specific  provisions  for  each  regime.  Another  business 
organisation  calls  for  stricter  eligibility  criteria  and  clarifying  labelling  rules  for 
processed products using a GI as an ingredient. To overcome the difficulties concerning 
GI  registration,  it  is  further  recommended  by  this  business  organisation  to  provide 
trainings for the professionals involved in the process of GI registration. 

the 

legal 

framework 

for  EU  quality  schemes, 
Concerning  simplification  of 
8 contributions were made. A common suggestion is simplification and harmonisation of 
the  administrative  procedure  for  GI  registration  and  amendment.  One  business 
organisation asks for harmonisation of the national treatment of GIs in different Member 
States and it is suggested to clarify the implementation modalities for controls of TSGs as 
they are supposed to differ across Member States. As regards the control system, on the 

Page 76 / 84 

 
      
one hand, more flexibility is asked for the Member States and on the other hand, a public 
authority calls for making control rules more precise. Two public authorities recognize a 
notification  requirement  prior  to  the  first  marketing  by  the  manufacturer  to  allow  for 
more  stringent  implementation  of  the  control  obligation.  It  is  also  suggested  to  use  a 
manufacturer  list  for  carrying  out  market  controls  on  PDOs  and  PGIs  as  the  lack  of 
capacity (resources?) in controls might significantly limit the value added of the excellent 
products  and  increase  the  risk  of  fraud.  Furthermore,  respondents  call  for  clearer 
information to producers on the costs and benefits of the system and to consumers on EU 
quality schemes. One public authority also recognizes that there is a lack of centralized 
information  on  production  and  producers  and  asks  for  better  information  on  the 
registration process, controls, and infringements at national level. Some issues were also 
raised concerning the possibility to adapt production specifications to climate change and 
technical developments. 

Relevance of EU action 

There was only one submission to the question, ‘whether the aims of EU quality schemes 
are consistent with the needs of the supply chain operators’. It is suggested that the role 
of GI producer groups should be strengthened i.e. concerning supply regulation. 

Regarding  the  question  ‘to  which  extent  the  aims  of  EU  quality  schemes  have  met 
consumers’  expectations’,  one  public  authority  calls  for  simpler  and  more  effective 
communication  to  raise  consumers’  awareness.  One  business  organisation  further 
indicates that there are difficulties for consumers to identify and differentiate the logos, 
especially for TSGs, who are less known. 

Coherence 

As regards coherence of EU quality  schemes with  the CAP,  several  contributions  were 
made.  One  business  association  recognizes  that  CAP  support  is  needed  for  collective 
investments  and  certification  support,  information  and  promotion.  It  also  indicates  that 
control and legal  costs should be covered  and asks for increased funds for promotional 
activities. One business association suggests that some control and legal costs should be 
co-funded by public money and subsidies for promotional activities should be increased. 
One business organisation says that GI products should be allowed to integrate references 
to ‘environmental certification’ into their product specifications, even if these criteria are 
not  directly  linked  with  the  demands  of  the  designation.  As  regards  rural  development 
policy,  one  business  organisation  suggests  to  adopt  specific  measures  on  GIs  and 
introduce  a  horizontal  priority  for  GIs  and  quality  products.  It  also  calls  for  better 
regulation  of  the  relation  between  GIs  and  trademarks  at  national  level  and  stronger 
coherence and coordination with other EU policies. When it comes to coherence with EU 
trade policy, it is asked for a systematic consultancy of all European GIs to redact a list 
of products to be protected in each trade agreement.  

There  was  one  complaint  that  EU  quality  schemes  are  not  consistent  with  private 
labels/certification schemes, which would lead to confusion for consumers. 

EU added value 

Both,  a  NGO  and  business  associations  recognize  the  benefits  of  EU  quality  schemes. 
One  business  association  suggests  giving  the  EC  and  the  respective  Member  State  the 

Page 77 / 84 

 
      
full  responsibility  on  the  selection  of  GIs  that  should  be  protected  in  third  country 
agreements, which should be as close as possible to the EU protection level. 

Additional questions on the use of EU quality schemes 

Use of Union Symbols/Logos 

While  one  public  authority  suggests  to  align  labelling  rules  to  the  other  legislation 
concerning PDO and PGI, a NGO asks for revision and restyling of EU quality schemes’ 
symbols and suggests to combine this with a new approach to inform the public about the 
EU food quality system and to raise awareness among consumers. 

A  common  theme  for  most  submissions  is  the  low  level  of  consumer  awareness  of 
PDO/PGI/TSG  designation  logos  and  a  call  for  more  promotion  and  better  consumer 
education. 
One  submission  also  indicates  the  competition  between  national  and  regional  quality 
signs  on  the  one  hand,  and  GIs  with  different  guarantees  and  conditions  on  the  other 
hand. 

Monitoring of GIs 

There is also a call for periodically collected and published consolidated economic data 
on  the  GI  sector,  which  would  allow  more  efficient  promotional  campaigns  to  be 
implemented. 

Communication/Education 

A common suggestion is to further develop and intensify communication and education, 
which is a basic requirement for a general acceptance of the EU food quality schemes.   

Extent of Protection 

As  indicated  by  one  submission,  for  generic  names  and  accession  to  the  Lisbon 
Agreement,  additional  procedural  rules  should  be  added  in  Regulation  (EU)  1151/2012 
for  cases  where  the  name  of  a  product  is  generic  in  the  EU  but  not  in  a  third  country. 
Another  suggestion  for  the  extension  of  the  protection  of  a  PDO  is  to  refer  to  the 
localities,  regions,  districts,  the  respective  geographical  scope  of  the  PDO  and  by 
reference to products of the same or similar nature. However, the protection should not 
be extended to a larger geographical area or beyond the area of cultivation or production 
of the corresponding PDO. 

Timing of Evaluation 

One  business  organisation  feels  concerned  that  such  evaluation  may  result  in  a  mere 
bureaucratic  task  rather  than  a  much-needed  opportunity  to  critically  reflect  on  how  to 
design  a  fairer  GI  system  that  adequately  protects  legitimate  GI  producers  as  well  as 
safeguarding the rights of users of common food names. 

Generic Names 

One  submission  urges  the  EC  to  publish  guidance  based  on  objective  criteria  to 
determine what constitutes a generic name in order to guide decisions to grant or reject 
an  application.  Furthermore,  one  submission  asks  the  EC  to  put  in  place  more 
streamlined and simple procedures, to prove that a registered name is in fact generic or 
has  become  generic,  as  it  implies that  the  consumer  is  able  to  properly  distinguish  and 

Page 78 / 84 

 
      
recognise  the  protected  product  from  the  one  that  is  not  the  same,  despite  sharing  the 
same or comparable features. 

Civil Dialogue Group (CDG) on 3 July 2020 

At the CDG meeting of 3 July 2020, the Commission representative presented the state 
of play of the  evaluation, illustrating its scope, a snapshot of the main outcomes of the 
Public  Consultation  held  between  4  November  2019  and  3 February  2020  and  the 
timeline for the next steps. 

During the meeting the issue of mixing sustainability and GIs was raised. In particular, it 
was mentioned that GIs are by nature sustainable as they promote the preservation of the 
social and environmental specificities of designated geographical areas. The Commission 
acknowledged  that  the  link  between  GIs  and  sustainability  is  an  interesting  topic  that 
merits further discussion.  

GI Conference 25-26 November 2020 

The  Commission  (DG  AGRI)  together  with  the  European  Union  Intellectual  Property 
Office  (EUIPO)  organised  ‘Strengthening  Geographical  Indications  (GIs)  –  on-line 
Conference 2020’, which took place on 25-26 November 2020. 

This conference, built on the success of the jointly hosted Conference of EUIPO and DG 
AGRI  held  in  Alicante  in  October  2018,  brought  together  GI  and  trade  mark  IP  rights 
practitioners to enable interactive exchange of knowledge. At the same time, it launched 
a broad public consultation process for the ‘strengthening GIs’ review. 

The  two  half-day  Conference  featured  interactive  plenaries  and  panels  covering  the 
following  topics:  Controls  &  enforcement:  policy  issues;  Controls  &  enforcement: 
Domain  Name  System  (DNS)  and  internet;   Controls  and  enforcement:   PDO  and  PGI 
logos  use;  Sustainability:  issues;  IP  protection  of  GIs:  case  law  developments;  IP 
protection  of  GIs:  issues;  Increasing  attractiveness  of  GIs  -  Empowering  producer 
groups;  REFIT (or how to perfect registration system of GIs);  The global dimension of 
GIs; Non-agricultural GIs. 

Stakeholders  across  the  food  value  chain,  Member  State  officials,  IP  practitioners, 
international and civil society organisations had a vivid and enriching exchange of views.  

Participants  amounted  to  up  to  5 000  participants/viewers  (average:  2 500  viewers  per 
day) from over 60 countries. 

Page 79 / 84 

 
      
 
 
 
 
3.  ANNEX 3: METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS 

The evaluation is largely based on an external evaluation support study on GI/TSG, and 
an  open,  internet-based  public  consultation  that  ran  from  November  2019  to  February 
2020. 

Work on the evaluation support study started with the reconstruction of the intervention 
logic  of  the  GI  and  TSG  framework  and  development  of  the  judgement  criteria  and 
indicators on which the evaluation is primarily based. It then focused on a comprehensive 
descriptive  part,  which  includes  an  overview  of  the  economic  value  of  GI/TSG,  their 
legislative  framework  (regulations  and  rules)  and  the  implementation  of  scrutiny  and 
controls (in the EU-28 as a whole and in more detail in seven selected Member States). 

Various  sources  and  approaches  were  used  to  support  quantitative  and  qualitative 
analysis  in  respect  of  each  evaluation  criterion.  The  information  from  different  sources 
was triangulated, ensuring that the analysis is based on solid and cross-checked evidence.  

1.  Desk research 

The main sources for the desk research were: 

 
 

the EU Regulations on GIs/TSGs, controls and other policies; 
the  “Study  on  economic  value  of  EU  quality  schemes,  geographical  indications 
(GIs) and traditional specialties guaranteed (TSGs)”, AND-I for the DG AGRI, 
2019  (157):  this  study  provides  economic  data  on  GIs/TSGs  at  EU  and  Member 
State  level,  a  database  from  this  study  containing  individual  data  on  each 
GIs/TSGs has been used for some analysis in the context of this evaluation; and 
  Results from the H2020 project Strength2Food (158) and a subsequent publication: 
Arfini F. and Bellassen V. “Sustainability of European Food Quality Schemes  – 
Multi-Performance, Structure, and Governance of PDO, PGI, and Organic Agri-
Food Systems”, Springer, 2019. 

2.  Survey of national authorities 

A survey was carried out among national authorities in charge of quality schemes in each 
Member State. It covered the following topics: legal basis; roles and procedures for the 
national  implementation  of  the  GI/TSG  framework;  controls;  costs;  and  relevance  and 
existence  of  other  national/regional  schemes  and  their  coherence  with  the  GI/TSG 
schemes.  It  was  conducted  between  21  April  2020  and  15  May  2020  on  the  basis  of  a 
questionnaire in English (except in France, Italy and Spain where we provided a version 
in  the national  language). Overall, Member States reacted positively to  the survey. The 
only exception being the United Kingdom which did not provide an answer to the survey. 
Thus,  27  answers  were  received  from  the  survey.  In  the  seven  Member  States  (159)  in 
which case studies were conducted, the survey was often discussed in the interviews with 

157 https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/a7281794-7ebe-11ea-aea8-01aa75ed71a1  

158 https://www.strength2food.eu/  

159 France, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Czech Republic, Hungary, Germany 

Page 80 / 84 

 
      
 
                                                      
the  national  authorities,  in  order  to  explore  certain  aspects  and  cross-check  the  data 
obtained. 

3.  Case studies (17 case studies in seven Member States) 

The  case  studies  undertaken  in  the  seven  Member  States  are  listed  in  the  table  below. 
Four  were  in  Italy,  three  in  Spain,  France  and  Germany  respectively,  two  in  Hungary, 
and  one  each  in  Czechia  and  the  Netherlands.  Among  the  case  studies,  five  cover  the 
wine  sector,  ten  cover  agricultural  products  and  foodstuffs  and  two  cover  spirit  drinks. 
The following general approach for selecting case studies was applied:  

1.  Balance  between  geographical  areas:  Western  /  Mediterranean  EU  :  10  case 
studies:  Italy:  4  (including  one  in  mountain  area);  France:  3  (including  one  in 
mountain  area);  Spain:  3  +  Northern  countries:  4  case  studies  :  Germany:  3 
(including one multi-country GI in Belgium, Germany, France and Netherlands ) 
Netherlands:  1;  Eastern  EU:  3  case  studies:  Hungary:  2  (including  one  multi-
country in Hungary and Austria) Czechia: 1 (multi-country TSG in Czechia and 
Slovakia). 

2.  Balance between sectors: Wine: 5 case studies; Agricultural and food sector: 10 
case studies; ( Meat products: 3 case studies Cheese: 2 case studies, Fresh meat: 1 
case  study,  Fruit  and  vegetables:  2  case  studies,  Other  products  (olive  oil  and 
beer): 2 case studies) + Spirit drinks: 2 case studies 

3.  Balance  between  size  of  GIs/TSGs:  Very  large  scale  GIs/TSGs  (over  EUR 
1 billion):  Bayerisches  Bier  and  Pays  d’Oc,    Large  scale  GIs/TSGs  (between 
EUR 100  million  and  EUR  1  billion):  Speck  Alto  Adige  and  Gouda  Holland, 
Medium  scale  GIs/TSGs  (between  EUR  10  million  and  EUR  100  million): 
Jabugo, Olio Terra du Bari, Beaufort, many wines and Genièvre, Pálinka…Small-
scale  and  very  small-scale  GIs/TSGs  (below  EUR  10  million):  Basilico 
Genevese,  vegetable  from  Reichenau  Island,  some  Côtes  du  Rhône  wines, 
Cordero Manchego, Spišské párky. 

4.  Balance  on  market  trends:  Increasing  sales:  Gouda  Holland,  Basilico  Genovese, 
Beaufort,  Stable  markets:  most  of  the  wines  in  a  context  of  decrease  of  EU 
consumption, Difficult situation: Cordero Manchego, some wines (Regional PDO 
Côtes du Rhône, some PGIs in  Languedoc Roussillon), olive oil Dauno; Market 
differentiation:  Top  of  the  range  product:  Jabugo,  some  PDO  wines,  Basilico 
Genovese,  Medium  range  products:  some  PDO  wines,  PGI  wines,  Gouda 
Holland, Bavarian Beer. 

5.  Balance  on  the  period  of  registration:  Some  GIs  registered  since  decades  (even 
registered  at  national  level  before  the  implementation  of  the  EU  framework): 
wines,  Beaufort,  Speck  Alto  Adige.  Some  recently  registered  GIs/TSGs: 
vegetables  from  Rechenau  in  2008,  Gouda  Holland  in  2010,  Spišské  párky  in 
2011. 

Page 81 / 84 

 
      
 
 
Table 7. List of the 17 case studies conducted 

MS 

Sector 

Sub-sector 

Scheme 

CS 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 

ES 
FR 
FR 
IT 
HU 
CZ 
ES 
IT 

FR 
9 
10  NL 
11 
ES 
12  DE 

Wine 

/ 

Food 
products 

Meat product 
Meat product 
Meat product 

Cheese 
Cheese 
Fresh meat 
F&V 

IT 
13 
14  DE 
15 
IT 
16  DE/FR/NL (160) 
17  HU/AT (161) 
Source: Evaluation support study on GI/TSG 

F&V 
Beer 
Olive oil 
/ 
/ 

Spirit drinks 

PDO 
PDO 
PGI 
PDO 
PDO 
TSG 
PDO 
PGI 

PDO 
PGI 
PGI 
PGI 

PDO 
PGI 
PDO 
GI 
GI 

Ribera del Duero 
Côtes du Rhône  
Pays d’Oc  
Langhe PDOs 
Tokaj/Tokaji 
Spišské párky 
Jabugo 
Speck  Alto  Adige/Südtiroler  Markenspeck/Südtiroler 
Speck 
Beaufort 
Gouda Holland 
Cordero Manchego 
Salate  von  der  Insel  Reichenau,  Feldsalat  von  der 
Insel  Reichenau,  Tomaten  von  der  Insel  Reichenau, 
Gurken von der Insel Reichenau 
Basilico Genovese 
Bayerisches Bier  
Dauno 
Genièvre / Jenever / Genever 
Pálinka 

4.  Survey of the producer groups 

The  electronic  survey  was  launched  on  the  10  April  2020  and  ended  on  20  May  2020. 
The questionnaire was sent to 1 875 producer groups in the seven Member States with a 
specific focus, with valid email addresses. The contractor collected 474 answers with an 
answer rate of 25% (from 17% to 44% depending on the MS. 

The detail between GIs and TSGs is as follows: 

  GIs: 1 867 questionnaires sent 474 answers (25% rate of return); 
  TSGs:  8  questionnaires  sent  and  3  answers  (38%  rate  of  return):  2  TSGs  in 

Netherlands and 1 TSG in Hungary. 

The  total  sales  value  of  the  GIs/TSGs  covered  by  the  survey  was  EUR  23  billion  in 
2017 (162),  this  accounted  for  37%  of  the  sales  value  of  GIs  in  the  7  Member  States 
covered (ranging from 22% in  Hungary to  80%  in  Czechia) and 30% of  the total  sales 
value of GIs/TSGs at EU 28 level.  

GIs  accounted  for  99.1%  of  the  sales  value  of  the  sample:  EUR  22.8  billion,  this 
accounted  for  31%  of  the  sales  value  under  GI  at  EU  28  level.  The  sales  value  of  the 
3 TSGs which answered the survey was EUR 200 million sales value, this accounted for 
0.9% of the sample and 8% of the EU sales value under TSG at EU 28 level. The small 
number of answers from TSGs remains a limit to draw specific conclusions on TSGs in 
the analyses. 

37%  of  responses  are  from  the  wine  sector,  56%  from  agricultural  products  and 
foodstuffs, 7% from spirit drinks and 0.2% from aromatised wine products. 

160 The GI is multi-countries and covers BE, DE, FR and NL; only DE, FR and NL are covered by the CS. 

161 The GI is multi-countries and covers HU and AT, the case study focuses on AT. 

162 Based on the detailed economic data by GI/TSG from the survey on the Value of GI/TSG products for 
DG AGRI (2019) 

Page 82 / 84 

 
      
  
                                                      
Table 8. Details on the electronic survey with producer groups 

Number of PGs 

Sales value under GI/TSG (EUR million, 2017) 

Number of PG 
targeted (valid 
address) 

Number of 
answers 

Rate of answers 

Sales value of the 
sample 

Total sales value at 
national level 

% sample / total 
sales value 

FR 
IT 
ES 
DE 
NL 
CZ 
HU 
GIs 
TSGs 
Total 

183 
625 
137 
659 
87 
288 
34 
152 
14 
32 
12 
59 
10 
60 
474 
1 867 
3 
8 
477 
1 875 
Source: Evaluation support study on GI/TSG 

5.  Consumer survey 

29% 
21% 
30% 
22% 
44% 
20% 
17% 
25% 
38% 
25% 

9 343 
6 282 
2 098 
3 210 
1 265 
747 
87 
22 833 
199 
23 032 

26 942 
15 784 
7 157 
8 696 
1 776 
937 
397 
61 689 
na 
na 

35% 
40% 
29% 
37% 
71% 
80% 
22% 
37% 
na 
na 

An electronic consumer  survey has been implemented in  seven Member States through 
remunerated panels (163) (respondents were paid to answer the questions) in April 2020. 
A  total  of  400 answers  has  been  collected  in  each  of  the  seven  MS  for  a  total  of 
2 800 answers. The questions covered: 

 
 
 

 
 

the awareness of schemes (logo, acronyms, full label)  
the awareness of national/regional schemes 
the differentiation of the schemes the ones with the other (PDO versus PGI and PGI 
vs TSG); PDO, PGI and TSG 
the understanding of the guarantees provided by each scheme 
awareness of 42 protected names: seven names common in each MS and 35 names 
specific to one MS (5 names by Member States) 

6.  FADN data analysis 

FADN has been used to assess the impact of GI on farmers’ income in the wine sector. 
FADN  does  not  allow  to  identify  farms  involved  in  GI  schemes  in  other  sectors. 
Analyses rely on the comparison, at national level, between 1) a sub-sample composed of 
wine  farms  which  do  not  produce  GI  grape  or  wine  and  2)  a  sub-sample  composed  of 
wine farms which produce such products. Due to the size of samples, this exercise could 
be  carried  out  in  seven  MS:  Bulgaria,  Greece,  Spain,  Hungary,  Italy,  Portugal  and 
Romania. As almost all French wines are under GIs, it was not possible to constitute a 
control sample of non-GI wine farms. The total sample in the seven Member States was 
98 061 farms involved in GIs and 70 139 not involved in GIs. 

163 Conducted with Cint platform 

Page 83 / 84