COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on European Union geographical indications for wine, spirit drinks and agricultural products, and quality schemes for agricultural products, amending Regulations (EU) No 1308/2013, (EU) 2017/1001 and (EU) 2019/787 and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012
Date: 2022-05-02
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, spirits, trade mark, wine

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 2.5.2022  SWD(2022) 136 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT  Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council  on European Union geographical indications for wine, spirit drinks and agricultural products,  and quality schemes for agricultural products, amending Regulations (EU) No 1308/2013, (EU) 2017/1001 and (EU) 2019/787  and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012     {COM(2022) 134 final} - {SEC(2022) 197 final} - {SWD(2022) 135 final}  
 
 
Executive Summary Sheet  

Impact  assessment  on  the  revision  of  the  EU  geographical  indications  system  (GIs)  in  agricultural 
products and foodstuffs, wines and spirit drinks 

A. Need for action 

What is the problem and why is it a problem at EU level?  

In her Mission Letter, Commission President Von der Leyen mandated Commissioner Wojciechowski to 
“look  at  ways  to  strengthen  the  system  of  GIs.  It  is  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”.  The  initiative  aims  at  strengthening  the  current  system  of  geographical 
indications (GIs) as intellectual property rights  in line with IP Action Plan and effectively protecting the 
names of traditional foods. It contributes to the objectives pursued by the Common Agricultural Policy, in 
particular  to  improve  the  response  of  EU  agriculture  to  societal  demands  on  food  and  health  and  thus 
addresses European Green Deal and Farm to Fork Strategy. An evaluation support study on Geographical 
Indications and Traditional Specialities Guaranteed was carried out in 2020. A Staff Working Document 
on the evaluation was published in December 2021. Six problems have been identified as follows: 

For producers: 
(1)  Challenges  and  gaps  in  enforcement  of  GIs:  weaknesses  in  controls  (especially  in  the  downstream 
stages  of  the  value  chain)  and  difficulties  to  enforce  producers’  rights  outside  the  Member  State  of 
production and on internet; 
(2)  Imbalances  in  the  food  supply  chain:  GI  producer  groups  not  having  a  strong  position  in  the  food 
supply chain to keep securing a fair return for their product; 

For consumers: 
(3) Contribution to sustainability insufficiently reflected in GI schemes; 
(4) Low awareness and understanding of GI logos by consumers, resulting in limited effectiveness of the 
schemes to provide clear information to consumers; 

For the regulatory framework: 
(5)  Complex  GI  rules  and  procedures:  rules  on  GI  schemes  ‘spread’  over  4  basic  acts  with  slightly 
diverging legal terminology, adding to the complexity of the system;  
(6) The scheme for traditional specialities guaranteed (TSG) not successful, with a low number of names 
registered in its 28 years of existence. 

Enforcement,  management  of  applications  to  register  a  name,  functioning  of  GI  producer  groups,  and 
information about the GI and TSG schemes are hampered due to rules and procedures laid down in four 
sector specific EU Regulations, that due to  historical  reasons  or product  specificities differ. The call for 
more  sustainable  food  systems  (cf.  Farm  to  Fork  Strategy)  is  guiding  the  integration  of  sustainability 
criteria into GI schemes. Lack of a clear definition of GI producer groups, combined with  a challenge to 
bring  producers  together  in  an  active  organisation,  hampers  the  effective  management  of  their  GI  asset. 
Lack of information and publicity has been identified as the main cause for the low level of recognition 
and understanding of the schemes.  

The TSG registration process is considered to be complex and demanding.  

To address the above issues adequately, legal modifications are required. Without any intervention at EU 
level, the issues identified above will persist and some would even deteriorate. The GI schemes implement 

 
 
 
 
 
  
the  Union’s  obligations  under  the  WTO  TRIPS  (Trade-Related  Aspects  of  Intellectual  Property  Rights) 
agreement to provide the legal means to protect GIs of all WTO members in the EU. The Union also has a 
responsibility  to  ensure  protection  of  intellectual  property  rights  under  the  EU  Charter  of  Fundamental 
Rights.  GIs  add value to products,  thereby increasing income in  the  agri-food sector.  The most  affected 
stakeholders  are  the  GI  producers  and  producer  groups,  consumers  as  well  as  national  and  Union-level 
authorities.  

What should be achieved? 

The initiative aims to ensure the effective protection of intellectual property rights for GIs in the EU and to 
increase the uptake of GIs and TSGs across the EU. This has been formulated into six specific objectives:  

- 
Improve enforcement of GI rules to better protect IPR and better protect GIs on the internet 
-  Contribute to make the Union’s food system more sustainable by addressing sustainability issues 
-  Empower producers and producer groups to better manage their GI asset 
- 
-  Streamline and clarify the legal framework to simplify and harmonise the procedures 
-  Better valorise and preserve traditional products and production methods 

Increase correct market perception and consumer awareness of GI schemes 

What is the value added of action at the EU level (subsidiarity)?  

The GI schemes provide for the protection or reservation of value-adding names and terms throughout the 
Union’s territory. If protected by Member States individually, the terms and names would enjoy different 
levels of protection in each Member State or might even not enjoy protection at all, which could mislead 
consumers,  impede  intra-Union  trade,  and  make  way  for  unequal  competition  in  marketing  products 
identified  by  value-adding  names  and  terms.  Protection  of  IPR  across  the  Union  can  only  be  done 
effectively and efficiently at Union level. 

B. Solutions 

What are the various options to achieve the objectives? Is there a preferred option or not? If not, 
why? 

 
 
Option  1  –  Improve  and  support  aims  at  improving  the  instruments  already  in  place  and  providing 
further support to producers, Member States’ authorities and other stakeholders with a focus on guidance.  

Option 2 – Better define and reinforce will reinforce the protection of GIs and improve the level playing 
field amongst operators through aligned control procedures; better define the roles of GI producer groups; 
clarify  the  legal  terminology;  make  the  use  of  the  Union  logo  flexible  while  keeping  status-quo  for 
agricultural  products;  introduce  sustainability  criteria  in  the  product  specification  on  a  voluntary  basis; 
provide  one  set  of  procedural  rules  across  sectors  and  outsource  a  part  of  the  application  scrutiny  to  an 
agency. Under this option, TSG scheme is kept with clarified rules on scope and protection.  

Option  3  –  Harmonise  and  upgrade  will  ensure  full  harmonisation  through  the  creation  of  a  single 
Regulation with unified enforcement and control rules as well as streamlined provisions on protection and 
procedural  rules.  Prescribed  Union  logo  becomes  obligatory  across  all  sectors.  Producers  include 
sustainability  criteria  in  the  product  specification  while  specific  guidelines  to  further  empower  GI 
producer  groups  are  provided.  The  registration  of  GIs  is  in  hands  of  an  agency  without  Commission 
involvement. TSGs can be protected through existing EU instruments (e.g. trade marks). 

In addition, cross-cutting actions will be implemented regardless of the selected option. They will cover 
communication  and  information  actions,  guidelines  on  GI  applications  and  full  digitalisation  of  the 
application process.  

Option  2  appears to  have more merits  than others,  as  it  scores the highest  as  regards the comparison of 
costs and benefits, when it is combined with certain actions from options 1 and 3.  

What are different stakeholders' views? Who supports which option?  

Option  2  reflects  the  most  preferred  types  of  actions  identified  through  stakeholders’  consultations 
including  the  Conference  on  Strengthening  GIs,  the  open  public  consultation,  consultations  in  the 
framework of Civil Dialogue Groups and Member States’ expert group for Sustainability and Quality and 
of  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  (including  targeted  questionnaires)  as  well  as  targeted  meetings 
with GI organisations.  

C. Impacts of the preferred option 

What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise of main ones)?                                     

Increased efficiency in handling the applications to register a name will result in shorter registration times, 
with the time saving up to 36 months. Uniform enforcement standards will lead to improved protection of 
GIs  and  a level  playing field  for all operators  in the internal  market. Proposed actions  will facilitate the 
collective organisation of the GI producer groups and strengthen their position in managing and marketing 
their GI asset thereby ensuring a fair return for their production. In addition, spill over effects on tourism 
and  downstream  processing  are  expected.  GI  legislation  will  be  easier  to  implement  thanks  to  legal 
clarifications. A flexible use of the EU logo for wines and spirit drinks will increase the visibility of the 
EU message about GIs and help consumers to make better-informed purchasing decisions. More GIs will 
be produced in  a sustainable manner having positive impacts  in terms  of biodiversity protection, animal 
welfare,  the  management  of  natural  resources  and  landscapes,  and  their  contribution  to  healthy, 
sustainable diets, provided that the comprehensive and tangible sustainability  commitments are taken up 
by most producer groups.  

What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise of main ones)?                                    

 
 
 
 
 
As producers will benefit from faster and better protection, the costs, notably those related to the length of 
the  registration  procedure  and  resources  needed,  will  decrease.  Voluntary  inclusion  by  the  GI  producer 
group  of  sustainability  criteria  in  the  product  specification  will  entail  additional  compliance  and 
certification costs that could be partly offset by support measures in the framework of rural development 
policy. Considering the variety of products registered as GI and the different organisational set-up of GI 
producer groups and controls, also depending on the systems put in place at national level, no one fits for 
all quantification of the costs can be provided; an estimate is provided in the corresponding Annex to the 
Impact Assessment Report.  

What are the impacts on SMEs and competitiveness?  

Considering that around 90% of GIs reach a sales value below EUR 50 million, it can be concluded that 
most GI producers qualify as SMEs. This means that all impacts identified in the impact assessment report 
apply to them. The proposed actions will increase the producers’ bargaining powers in the food chain and 
ensure  that  they  can  better  address  demand,  thus  enhancing  their  response  to  consumer  needs.  The 
recognition of the importance of the collective organisation of GI producer groups across all sectors  will 
strengthen their position in managing and marketing their GI asset. Specific actions giving producers the 
possibility to set rules for packaging and the use of their GIs as ingredients, will indirectly contribute to 
secure higher incomes due to a decreased risk of fraud. 

Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations?  

Guidelines and harmonised procedural rules for the registration of GIs will allow public administrations to 
process  applications  faster,  to  the  benefit  of  the  public  purse.  As  the  rules  and  procedures  will  provide 
more  clarity,  and  the  e-Register  and  GIview  database  more  transparency,  enforcement  authorities  and 
courts will find them easier to apply. 

Will there be other significant impacts?  

The  preferred  option  will  have  impacts  on  the  functioning  of  the  internal  market  and  competition,  the 
protection of GIs as an intellectual property right (in line with WTO/TRIPS and the European Charter on 
fundamental rights), sustainable development, and economic and social cohesion. Non-EU operators will 
be affected in a similar way as those from the EU.  

Proportionality?  

The proposed actions are proportionate in addressing the identified problems. Option 2 scores the highest 
as  regards  the  comparison  of  costs  and  benefits  for  GI  producers.  While  producers  will  benefit  from  a 
faster  and  better  protection,  the  costs,  notably  related  to  the  length  of  the  registration  procedure  and 
resources needed, will decrease which could offset costs related to the investments in sustainability. 

D. Follow up 

When will the policy be reviewed?  

In line with the 2016 Inter-institutional Agreement on Better Law-Making, where three Institutions agree 
to systematically consider the use of review clauses in legislation and to take account of the time needed 
for  implementation  and  gathering  evidence  on  results  and  impacts,  the  Commission  shall  carry  out  an 
evaluation of this Regulation no sooner than five years after the date of application of this Regulation.