Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
|  | EUROPEAN COMMISSION  DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT |

Factual summary of the public consultation

on the evaluation of the Geographical Indications (GIs)

and Traditional Speciality Guaranteed (TSGs)

Disclaimer: This document should be regarded solely as a summary of the contributions made by stakeholders in the public consultation in the framework of the Evaluation of Geographical Indications and Traditional Specialities Guaranteed Protected in the EU. It cannot in any circumstances be regarded as the official position of the Commission or its services.

1.Introduction

In April 2019, the European Commission launched its evaluation to provide an in-depth assessment of the overall functioning of the Geographical Indications (GIs) and Traditional Speciality Guaranteed (TSGs) quality schemes of the EU. One of the steps of that evaluation is the public consultation, to get feedback on the stakeholders understanding and opinion on the EU quality schemes
[1](#footnote2)
.

The public consultation was conducted from 4 November 2019 to 3 February 2020 on EUSurvey. The consultation questionnaire was accessible via the European Commission’s public website
[2](#footnote3)
, in all official EU languages excluding Irish. 

The questionnaire was structured into three parts:

·introductory questions aiming at identifying respondents and their interest in EU quality schemes (Questions 1);

·questions on the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and added value of EU policy for quality schemes (Questions 2-18);

·additional questions on the use of EU quality schemes’ symbols (Questions 19-21).

In many questions, respondents were asked to provide their opinion by the respective EU quality scheme: protected designation of origin (PDO), protected geographical indication (PGI), geographical indication and traditional speciality guaranteed (TSG)
[3](#footnote4)
.

2.Overall results

At the time of the deadline/at the closure of the public consultation (i.e. 3 February 2020), 233 contributions were received
[4](#footnote5)
, covering responses from 25 countries, including 21 EU Member States
[5](#footnote6)
 and 4 third countries. There were no contributions from Cyprus, Denmark, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Slovakia and Slovenia.

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

Of all the respondents, the majority (as a share: 44%, and in absolute terms: N=103) were organisations, followed by individuals (28%) and administrations (18%). The remaining 10% of respondents identified themselves as “others”.

In addition to the responses to the questionnaire, it was possible to give comments
[6](#footnote7)
 and upload additional papers. 33 documents were uploaded and 388 comments were provided in addition to the responses to the questionnaire.

Figure 1.Number of public consultation respondents by country of origin

Note: N= 233. BE-Belgium, BG-Bulgaria, CZ-Czechia, DK-Denmark, DE-Germany, EE-Estonia, IE-Ireland, EL-Greece, ES-Spain, FR-France, HR-Croatia, IT-Italy, CY-Cyprus, LV-Latvia, LT-Lithuania, LU-Luxembourg, HU-Hungary, MT-Malta, NL-Netherlands, AT-Austria, PL-Poland, PT-Portugal, RO-Romania, SI-Slovenia, SK-Slovakia, FI-Finland, SE-Sweden, UK-United Kingdom, MZ-Mozambique, QA-Qatar, ZA-South Africa, US-United States.

3.Data analysis and publication

It is important to note that the data used in this factual summary represent the views of the respondents. The respondents were self-selecting and not a statistical sample of the EU population. Therefore, the data might not be representative for the EU, for individual Member States, and/or the individual categories of stakeholders. To prepare the data for analysis, the responses have also been screened to eliminate for duplicates and campaigns
[7](#footnote8)
.

The participants to the public consultation were offered the option to have their contributions published either with their personal data or anonymously. Regardless the option chosen, respondents were required to identify themselves as the organisation on which behalf they responded. It also means that unidentifiable contributions to consultations have not been accepted.

The overwhelming majority of the respondents (67%, N=157) opted for the anonymous way of publication of their privacy settings, i.e. only their type of respondent, country of origin and contribution are published on the Europa page dedicated to the evaluation of the EU quality schemes. The remaining part (33%, N=76) of the respondents chose to make their full personal details (i.e. name, organisation name and size, transparency register number, country of origin) available for publication with their contribution
[8](#footnote9)
.

4.Characteristics of the sample

Citizens, companies/business organisations and public authorities provided the most contributions to this consultation, altogether accounting for 67% of all respondents (N=156). Business associations and public authorities constituted about one-third of all respondents (29%). 28% of all respondents were EU citizens (N=65).

Figure 2.Number of public consultation respondents per general category of respondents

Note: N=233.

To understand better the respondents’ interest in EU quality schemes, they were asked to indicate, in addition to the general categories shown in Figure 2, the stakeholder group they represented. Almost all respondents (i.e. 95% out of 233) provided an answer. The most represented categories of stakeholders were producers’ organisations and consumers (together constituting 54% of all respondents). Least numerous were respondents representing consumers' organisations, processors, as well as the other supply chain operators and their organisations: between 1% and 4% of all respondents. Member States’ regional and national authorities constituted 17% of all respondents
[9](#footnote10)
.

Figure 3.Number of public consultation respondents per stakeholder category represented

Note: N=221.

5.Analysis of results 

5.1.Analysis of the closed questions 

In general, a majority of the respondents gave a positive answer to the questions, i.e. totally agreed and tended to agree with the question asked. No striking differences were found between the different respondent groups. When assessing the results, the nuances between the groups are mentioned where relevant.

5.1.1.Effectiveness of the EU policy 

The criterion of the EU quality policy effectiveness was tested in Questions 2 to 7 of the questionnaire. A high majority of respondents were of the opinion that the aims
[10](#footnote11)
 of EU quality schemes are clear and understandable (Question 2), with a high degree of responsiveness (99% or N=230 of all respondents).

Figure 4.Clarity and understanding of the EU quality schemes (in %)

Note: 97% (N=225) of the respondents replied for PDO and PGI, 96% (N= 223) for TSG and 95% (N= 221) for GI.

An overall majority of respondents also agreed that the EU quality schemes meet their main objectives as defined in the legal framework
[11](#footnote12)
 (Question 3), with a high degree of responsiveness (99% or N=230 of all respondents, including “no opinion” type of reply).

Overall, 32% of the respondents “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 showed variance across the individual objectives of EU quality schemes:

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.

Figure 5.Effectiveness of EU quality schemes against their regulatory objectives (in %)

Note: 99% (N= 231) of the respondents replied for the objective b), 98% (N=228) for the objectives d) and e), 97% (N= 226) for the objectives f) and g), 95% (N= 222) for objective a) and 94% (N= 220) for the objective c).

Replies per EU quality scheme:

-more than 70% of the respondents considered that the PDO and PGI quality schemes met the regulatory objectives;

-on other hand, 25% of the respondents were not convinced that the TSG quality scheme met those objectives.

Figure 6.Effectiveness of EU quality schemes against their regulatory objectives (in %)

Note: 25% of all replies were provided for each of EU quality scheme (GI, PDO, PGI and TSG).

Replies per category of respondents: 66% of the stakeholders were of the opinion that the EU quality schemes met their regulatory objectives (i.e. replied “totally agreed” or “tended to agree”); 20% of them disagreed or tended to disagree and 14% had no clear opinion.

Figure 7.Effectiveness of EU quality schemes against their regulatory objectives (in %)

In the next two questions, the respondents were asked to express their opinion on the incentives (Question 4) and disincentives (Question 5) to participate in the EU quality schemes. Both questions got a high level of responsiveness: 97% (N=227) and 94% (N=218) respectively. The respondents could choose several replies among the incentives and disincentives as presented in Table below and/or add their own ideas
[12](#footnote13)
.

Table 1.List of incentives (Question 4) and disincentives (Question 5)

|  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| N° | Incentives |  | N° | Disincentives |
| 1 | Exclusive use of the protected name and  enforcement of the position of producers |  | 1 | Higher production costs |
| 2 | Strengthen the position of producer groups in the value chain |  | 2 | Higher marketing costs |
| 3 | Keep business economically viable |  | 3 | Higher costs related to the application,  certification, inspection |
| 4 | Useful marketing tool |  | 4 | Stricter inspections |
| 5 | Quality assurance signal |  | 5 | Not sure that good quality control could be enforced along the supply chain |
| 6 | Differentiation of product |  | 6 | Uncertainty of market demand or low  demand |
| 7 | Traceability tool |  | 7 | Missing regional roots (lack of local identity) |
| 8 | Increase own firm's reputation |  | 8 | No added value |
| 9 | Access to new markets |  | 9 | No need because have own trademark |
| 10 | Credibility of product |  | 10 | No need because strong market position already |
| 11 | Higher price premium |  | 11 | Not enough public support |
| 13 | Affinity with the region |  |  |  |
| 14 | Protection of traditions |  |  |  |
| 15 | Regional development and tourism |  |  |  |

As regards the incentives, their popularity varied between 4% for incentive n°12 to 9% for incentive n°4.

Per EU quality scheme the replies were distributed as shown in Figure below, with the highest scores (in terms of % share) attributed to incentives n° 1 and 4 and the lowest to incentive n°12.

Figure 8.Incentives to participate in the EU quality schemes (in %)

Note: For the list of incentives from 1-15 see Table 1. 20% of all replies were provided for GI, 33% for PDO, 29% for PDI and 18% for TSG. The « no opinion » was marginal (1% of all replies).

Table 2.Most selected incentives to participate in the EU quality schemes per category of respondents

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Category of respondents | Number of respondents  (N) | Ref. n° of the most selected  incentives\* |
| Academic/research institution | 9 | 6 |
| Business association | 26 | 1&5 |
| Company/business organisation | 49 | 1 |
| Citizen (EU& Non-EU) | 64 | 1&4 |
| Non-governmental organisation (NGO) | 14 | 4&10 |
| Public authority | 41 | 1 |
| Trade union | 3 | 1-6, 9,10,12-15 |
| Other | 21 | 2,5,6,15 |
| \*For the list of incentives see Table 1. | | |

27 respondents chose the reply “other”, of which 19 indicated the following incentives for participating in the EU quality schemes (already applied or to be used in the future):

·Legal protection and anti-abuse or anti-counterfeiting tools;

·Securing existing markets/channels and opening up new markets/channels/consumer groups;

·Quality assurance;

·Positioning of products in a given market segment on the basis of unique characteristics clearly identified by the consumer;

·Benefits from the collective aspect of the network of GI producers;

·Synergy effects due to the reputation of GIs;

·Access to funding;

·Market assurance;

·Involvement of the collective and the decisions taken on a collegiate basis;

·Structuring of channels and communication with the public and better distribution of added value in all value chains;

·Protecting products against counterfeiting also with third countries;

·Preservation of genetic resources of traditional varieties of agricultural products and native breeds of livestock;

·Keeping ancient forests safe and healthy.

As regards the disincentives, their popularity ranged between 5% for disincentive n° 7, 8 and 10, to 20% for disincentive n° 3.

Replies per EU quality scheme: the highest scores (in terms of % share) were attributed to disincentives n° 3, 4 and 11, and the lowest to disincentives n°7, 8 and 10.

Figure 9.Disincentives to participate in the EU quality schemes (in %)

Note: For the list of disincentives, see Table 1. 19% of all replies were provided for GI, 30% for PDO, 28% for PDI and 21% for TSG. The « no opinion » was marginal (2% of all replies).

38 respondents chose the reply “other”, out of which 32 indicated the following disincentives for participating in the EU quality schemes:

-Very high and unfeasible requirements for support for marketing activities, in particular unpredictable repayments;

-Complexity and long duration of the registration process and the production of the product specification (high red tape);

-Cost and time related to demand, certification and control;

-Conflicts at national level with trade mark law;

-Uncertainty in cases where national rules conflict with EU rules;

-Lack of market consultation by the supervisory authority, lack of knowledge in the control authorities;

-Lack of extensive promotion on the EU quality schemes by the Member States (MS) and the European Union (recognition and labels of local products appear to be of greater interest);

-Low recognition of EU quality labels in some MS;

-Lack of knowledge about procedures and benefits of the schemes at producer level;

-Unawareness about the expectations of participation;

-Law interest by the consumers;

-Misuse and abuse of the protected geographical name;

-For small productions: the higher certification costs and compliance with the specifications, preventing them from entering or forcing them out of the certified supply chain;

-EU agreements with third countries (e.g. CETA) not properly defending the EU quality schemes, legitimising the use of local products that evoke protected names and make it difficult for consumers to distinguish the original product from imitations;

-Unwillingness to cooperate within the producers’ group;

-With regard to PGI, the limited availability of raw materials at local level (low productivity/EU self-sufficiency).

Table 3.Most selected disincentives to participate in the EU quality schemes, per category of respondents

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Category of respondents | Number of respondents  (N) | Ref. n° of the most selected disincentives\* |
| Academic/research institution | 8 | 6 |
| Business association | 22 | 3 |
| Company/business organisation | 49 | 3 |
| Citizen (EU& Non-EU) | 63 | 3 |
| Non-governmental organisation (NGO) | 14 | 3&11 |
| Public authority | 39 | 3 |
| Trade union | 2 | 3,4 &10 |
| Other | 21 | 11 |
| \*For the list of disincentives see Table 1. | | |

The high majority (71%) of the respondents were aware that the names of regional products from non-EU countries can be protected under the EU quality schemes (Question 6). 25% were not aware and 4% had no opinion (N=223).

Replies per stakeholders: the overall awareness reported was at 71% in all stakeholder groups, with the best score for citizens (29%), public authorities (22%) and companies/businesses. 4% of the respondents had no clear opinion on the question.

97% (N=227) of the respondents provided their opinion about trust in EU quality schemes' products purchased on the internet (Question 7). The rate of confidence was significantly higher (84% of replies altogether for “totally agree and “tend to agree”), when the products were bought from the producer (Case 2), than from a sales platform (Case 1; 59%).

Figure 10.Trust in the product purchased on internet (in %)

 

5.1.2.Efficiency of the EU policy

The EU quality policy efficiency was tested in Questions 8 to 12 of the questionnaire. This section of the summary presents the replies to the closed question 8, 10 and 11. For open questions 9 and 12, see section 4.2 of the summary.

In Question 8, the respondents were asked to express their opinion whether EU quality schemes provided good value for money for producers (Case 1) and consumers (Case 2). The majority of the respondents (65% of all replies) agreed or tended to agree about the EU quality schemes benefits for producers, 15% were negative (disagreed or tended to disagree). Benefits to consumers are rated even higher (69% of positive replies) and negative answers are similar (15%). 20% of the respondents in Case 1 and 15% in Case 2 had no clear opinion on the questioned aspect.

Figure 11.Good value for money for producers –Case 1 (in %)

Note: 93% (N=216) of the respondents provided replies to Question 8, Case 1.

Figure 12.Good value for money for consumers –Case 2 (in %)

Note: 90% (N=210) of the respondents provided replies to Question 8, Case 2.

Overall, 71% of all respondents who replied to Question 10 confirmed their agreement with the necessity to have all the current EU quality schemes (replies “totally agree” and “tend to agree” combined), 16% disagreed and 13% had no opinion. However, as shown below, the replies varied between the EU quality schemes.

Figure 13.Necessity to keep all current EU quality schemes (in %)

Note: 97% (N=225) of the respondents provided replies to Question 10. Per quality scheme: 95% (N=221) for PGI, 94% for GI (N=220) and PDO (N=219), 93% (N= 216) for TSG.

Question 11 tackled the greater efficiency that could potentially be achieved by the unified registration, amendment and cancellation procedures for EU quality schemes. A high number of respondents (83%) were positive about the idea (i.e. replied “totally agree” or “tend to agree”).

Figure 14.Unification of procedures for EU quality schemes (in %)

Note: 99% (N=224) of the respondents provided replies to Question 11.

5.1.3.Relevance and coherence of the EU policy

The closed Questions 13-17 aimed to survey the respondents’ opinion on the relevance and coherence of the EU quality policy.

The 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, retailers. Only 13% of the respondents were negative, but one quarter (25%) of the respondents had no clear idea on this question.

Figure 15.Consistency between aims of the EU quality schemes (in %)

Note: 97% (N=227) of the respondents provided replies to Question 13. Per quality scheme: 94% for PDO (N=220) and PGI (N=218), 91% for GI (N=213) and TSG (N=212).

A similar distribution of the replies could be observed for Question 14, where the majority (63%) of respondents agreed that the EU quality schemes met the expectations of consumers, whereas 17% disagreed and 20% had no clear idea on the question.

Figure 16.Consistency of EU quality schemes with consumer expectations (in %)

Note: 97% (N=227) of the respondents provided replies to Question 14. Per quality scheme: 94% (N=218) for GI, 93% (N=216) for PGI, 92% (N=214) for PGI and 90% (N=209) for TSG.

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
[13](#footnote14)
 (Question 15), 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 schemes (Question 16): positive opinions accounted for 57%, against 16% of negative opinions. An important number of respondents (27%) had no opinion.

Figure 17.Coherence of EU quality schemes with MS public quality schemes (in %)

Note: 95% (N=222) of the respondents provided replies to Question 16.

Less than 50% of respondents were convinced that the EU quality schemes were consistent with private labels and certification schemes (Question 17), while 24% pointed at inconsistency and 29% had no opinion.

Figure 18.Coherence of EU quality schemes with private labels and certification schemes (in %)

Note: 93% (N=217) of the respondents provided replies to Question 17.

5.1.4.EU added value of the EU policy

Question 18 dealt with the fifth criterion of the evaluation, i.e. added value of the EU quality policy. As this issue was formulated as an open question, the replies were assessed in section 5.2 on analysis of the open questions, notably sub-section 5.2.3.

5.1.5.Use of the EU quality schemes’ symbol

Although the EU quality schemes are not logo-driven, the questionnaire included also questions on the recognition and meaning of the three EU quality schemes’ symbols (GI/PGI, PDO and TSG). A clear majority of the respondents to Question 19 claimed that visual differences between the three EU quality schemes' symbols allow for a clear differentiation between PDO and PGI/GI symbols (Case 1: 63% or N=139), whereas the visual difference is less between PGI/GI and TSG symbols (Case 2: 33% of respondents, N=71). 

Figure 19.Visual differences between EU quality schemes (in %)

Note: 95% (N=221) of the respondents provided replies to Case 1 and 94% (N= 219) of them to Case 2 of Question 19.

In Question 20, the respondents could express their opinion on what PDO, PGI/GI and TSG symbols meant to them, by choosing one or several predefined replies among the following ones:

1.The product is entirely produced in one specific geographical area;

2.The quality of the product is related to the area in which it is produced;

3.The quality of the product is related to its traditional methods of production of and/or its recipes;

4.The product meets specific conditions set by the specification regarding protecting the natural resources or landscape;

5.The product is produced according to an established specification;

6.The quality of the product is certified by a controlling body;

7.The consumer is confident about the authenticity of the product;

8.The producers of the product get a fair price for their product;

9.The product is recognised and protected as intellectual property right;

10.The product has value-adding/quality attributes for consumers;

11.The consumer is able to correctly identify the product;

12.The protection and enforcement of farmers' and producers' rights (including on the internet);

13.Other 

14.No opinion
[14](#footnote15)
.

Figure 20.Meaning of the EU quality schemes’ symbols (in N)

Note: 88% (N=206) of the respondents provided replies to Question 20. Numbers 1-12 represent the predefined replies listed above.

The respondents were also asked to compare the EU quality schemes' symbols with the national or regional food quality schemes logos they knew (Question 21). The following two cases were presented:

a)Case 1: to what extent the respondent recognised the EU quality schemes' symbols in comparison to national and regional food quality schemes' logos; and

b)Case 2: to what extent the respondent was confident about the quality of the product with the EU quality schemes' symbol(s) displayed on it, in comparison to national and/or regional food quality schemes' logo(s).

As regards Case 1, the respondents considered that the PDO symbol is more recognisable than national or regional logos (44%, N=95), before PGI/GI symbol (34%, N=74). The TSG symbol was considered as the least recognisable between the three EU quality schemes symbols, with 56% (N=117) of replies “just as much” and “less” recognisable. Similarly in Case 2, where the respondents said that the PDO symbol displayed on the product gave more confidence about the quality of that product, than any national or regional food quality schemes' logos (52%, N=112 of the positive opinions versus 5%, N=11 of the negative opinions). It should be noted that, overall, one third of the respondents judged the EU quality schemes’ symbols equally trustful to the national and regional logos.

Figure 21.Comparison of EU quality schemes’ symbols with MS quality schemes’ logos (in %)

Note: 97% (N=227) of the respondents replied to Case 1 of Question 21. Per quality scheme: 94% (N=219) for PGI/GI, 93% (N=217) for PDO, 92% (N=215) and 90% (N=209) for TSG.

Figure 22.Confidence in EU quality schemes’ symbols in comparison to MS quality schemes’ logos (in %)

Note: 97% (N=227) of the respondents replied to Case 2 of Question 21. Per quality scheme: 94% (N=219) for PDO/PGI, 92% (N=215) for PGI, 91% (N=211) for GI and 91% (N=211) for TSG.

5.2.Analysis of the open questions 

In addition to closed questions, the respondents were given the chance to share their views on the efficiency and value added of the EU quality schemes policy in the open questions (i.e. Questions 9, 12 and 18).

5.2.1.Costs and benefits of registration under EU quality schemes

In Question 9 the respondents were asked to give their opinion separately on:

-costs and benefits of the registration under GIs (i.e. GI, PDO, PGI) and TSG;

-from the perspective of the three different types of stakeholders/beneficiaries: producers, consumers and MS & regions.  

Producers and consumers stayed more or less equally neutral, negative or positive on cost and benefits of GIs and TSG. However, MS & regions pointed at higher costs for GIs and producers for TSGs.

Figure 23.Costs and benefits of the registration under GIs (in %)

Note: 33% (N=78) of the respondents provided the replies for GIs.

Figure 24.Costs and benefits of the registration under TSG (in %)

Note: 14% (N=32) of the respondents provided the replies for GIs.

5.2.2.Simplification of the legal framework 

In Question 12, the respondents were asked to provide their opinion on what could be simplified in order to improve the legal framework of the EU quality policy. One third of the respondents replied to the question (29%, N=68), and the majority of them proposed concrete ideas for the simplification of the legal framework.

The general trend in the answers includes red tape/bureaucracy, which seems to be a main reason of demand for simplification of the application procedures. The most representative simplification ideas are presented per stakeholders in Table below
[15](#footnote16)
.  

Table 4.Simplification ideas provided by the respondents (selection)

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| Stakeholder group | The respondents’ opinions |
| Academic/research institution | ·Shortened objection & publication period; more transparent and based procedures. |
| Business associations | ·Investment in improving the knowledge of (and about) the GI regulation (and logos) system to enhance the added value, don’t shift effort (and money) in lowering the costs. |
|  | ·Common rules for all; including animal health, welfare of animals, use of antibiotics. |
|  | ·Administrative simplification should be pursued, in particular with a view to reducing bureaucratic costs and increasing the capacity of producers to act on the market. In order to protect GIs in the Member States, better control is needed, in particular on food fraud and on online sales of counterfeit products. |
| Company/  business organisation | ·It is necessary to examine in more detail how the origin of the primary ingredient referred to in Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 should be indicated for those descriptions. |
|  | ·Standardising the application procedure would make it much easier: it should not pass through national authorities (patent offices) but only through the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EIPO). |
|  | ·The same should apply to identical appeal possibilities for food producers across the EU and for Member States alike, with identical deadlines. |
| Citizens (EU& Non-EU) | ·Exempt micro-producers from the certification requirements. |
|  | ·The TSG, which is not widely used, must contain a specific treatment, other than any attachment to a place. DOs and PGIs could be merged into a single sign. |
| NGOs | ·Better traceability of the system through a more harmonised logo for all systems. |
|  | ·A more streamlined scheme is to have one scheme, and all existing schemes currently include additional descriptions and indications. Thus, the GI label will be more easily identified by traders and consumers.    ·The elimination of the phase in the Member States and direct submission to the COM could have a significant impact on the process of registration. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| Public authorities | ·The procedures are clear and fit for purpose for each sign: they appear to be sufficiently harmonised.    ·It is suggested to revise the time limits for analysis time in the European Commission and public consultation, so as to make the certification scheme less time-consuming.    ·The unification of procedures must be a simplification, as in the last amendment of the applicable legislation. |
|  | ·Allowing registration, amendment or cancellation to also be submitted by the competent regional/national authorities where it is not possible for them to be promoted by producer groups. |
| Trade unions | ·Simplify the procedure for amending the specifications for foodstuffs with a view to maintaining minor changes in the Member States, with major changes being made at European level. |
|  | ·The process of processing applications should be simplified, training on how to prepare applications, information campaigns should be carried out in Member States where EU schemes are little known. |
|  | ·For each quality scheme, the single document shall be the basis for the application and the assessment of the application within the framework of the uniform procedure. |
|  | ·Further guidance on the link between the product description and the product and the geographical area, speeding up the treatment at EU level, further harmonisation of the rules of the different schemes. |
|  | ·It would be welcome if the penalties for infringements were laid down in food law (and not in trade mark law, as is now the case), which would greatly facilitate enforcement in the event infringements. |
|  | ·A single legal framework for wines, spirits and foodstuffs. |
|  | ·Reduction of number of certifications, tests controls; simplification of the system for changing the production; harmonisation of requirements for manufacturer and market controls. |
| Others | ·Provision and support services for farmers and associations of producers to facilitate modification/inclusion of the protected names of products. |
|  | ·Reducing the time of the applications' assessment by the EC. |

5.2.3.Added value of the EU policy 

Finally, the respondents were asked about the added value of the EU quality policy (Question 18). The majority of the respondents (65%) were neutral about the additional benefits of the EU quality policy and schemes in comparison to what the national and regional quality schemes could have already provided. 27% of the respondents were clearly positive and the remaining 8% clearly negative
[16](#footnote17)
.

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

Figure 25.Added value of EU quality schemes (selection of ideas mentioned by the respondents)

Note: 65% (N=151) of the respondents provided the replies to Question 18.

5.3. Uploaded documents

14% (N=33) of the respondents have uploaded additional documents to their questionnaire answers, i.e. position papers on the evaluation and on the consultation, comments and various own documents of the respondents relating to the EU quality policy. Given the various scope and quality of these papers, they are not analysed in the factual summary, but are considered in the evaluation work (evaluation report by the external contactor and the Commission Staff Working Document). The stakeholders who provided additional papers are listed in Table below. All papers can be consulted in the original/source language on the Europa page dedicated to the consultation.

Table 5.List of respondents who provided additional documents to the public consultation 

(per category of respondent)

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Type of stakeholder | Country of origin | Name |
| Business associations | USA | U.S. Consortium for Common Food Names (CCFN) and the US Dairy Export Council (USDEC) |
|  | Spain | ANFACO-CECOPESCA |
|  | Spain | Conferencia Española de Consejos Reguladores Vitivinícolas (CECRV) |
|  | Germany | Milchindudstrie-Verband (MIV)- German association of milk industrie |
| Company/business  organisation | Spain | Consejo Regulador Denominación de Origen Protegida Cabrales |
|  | Spain | Consejo Regulador de la Indicación Geográfica Protegida Ternasco de Aragón |
|  | Germany | Bäuerliche Erzeugergemeinschaft Filder UG (BEF) Haftungsbeschränkt |
|  | France | Confédération Des Vins IGP de France |
|  | Belgium | European Dairy Association (EDA) |
|  | Ireland | Muiris Kennedy -Independent Business and Marketing Consultant |
|  | France | INTERFEL |
| Citizens  (EU& Non-EU) | Germany | EU Citizen |
| NGOs | Spain | Consejo Regulador de las Denominaciones de Origen Protegidas  "Queso de Murcia" y "Queso de Murcia al vino" |
|  | Italy | Slow Food |
|  | Belgium | Eurogroup for Animals |
|  | Belgium | ECTA (European Communities Trade Mark Association) |
|  | France | Association of European Regions for Products of Origin (AREPO) |
|  | Belgium | EFOW - European Federation of Origin Wines |
|  | Qatar | Associação QUALIFICA/oriGIn Portugal |
|  | Italy | Origin Italia |
|  | Spain | Asociación Española de Denominaciones de Origen (ORIGEN ESPAÑA) |
|  | Belgium | oriGIn EU |
| Public authorities | Germany | Bayerische Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft Insitut für Ernährungswirtschaft und Märkte |
|  | Germany | Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Forsten (StMELF) |
|  | Germany | Ministerium für Ländlichen Raum und Verbraucherschutz Baden-Württemberg |
|  | France | Secrétariat général des affaires européennes |
|  | Poland | Ministerstwo Rolnictwa i Rozwoju Wsi |
| Trade unions | France | Comité Interprofessionnel de Gestion du Comté (CIGC) |
|  | France | CNAOC - Confédération Nationale Des Appellations D'origine Contrôlées Viticoles |
| Others | Spain | Asociación para la Promoción de la Pera de Rincón de Soto (producers' organisation) |
|  | Spain | Idiazabal PDO (producers' organisation) |
|  | France | PALSO - Foie gras Sud-Ouest (producers' organisation) |
|  | Portugal | Federação Agrícola dos Açores (producers' organisation) |

:   [(1)](#footnoteref2)
    <https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/food-safety-and-quality/certification/quality-labels/quality-schemes-explained_en>
:   [(2)](#footnoteref3)
     
       
    <https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2017-3763998/public-consultation_en>
:   [(3)](#footnoteref4)
     PDO can be agricultural and food product names, as well as wines. To be recognised as a PDO, every part of the production, processing and preparation process of the product must take place in a specific region.PGI can also be agricultural and food product names, as well as wines. However, for PGIs, recognition can be given if at least one of the stages of production, processing or preparation of the product takes place in the region.GI for spirit drinks and aromatised wines, providing that at least one of the stages of distillation or prep ration takes place in the region. However, raw ingredients do not need to come from that region.TSG denotes traditional product and only apply to agricultural and food product names.
:   [(4)](#footnoteref5)
     This figure does not include two contributions received outside EU Survey (by e-mail).
:   [(5)](#footnoteref6)
     Including the United Kingdom (UK). For the purpose of this document the UK is included and presented as an EU Member State.
:   [(6)](#footnoteref7)
     This possibility was given for the open questions, but also for many closed questions.
:   [(7)](#footnoteref8)
     Where respondents have responded to a public consultation with the same answers this may be coincidence or it may be part of a co-ordinated campaign. No campaigns were detected, however 6 respondents from Spain uploaded the same position paper (more details in chapter 4.4).
:   [(8)](#footnoteref9)
     One of those contributions was empty i.e. the respondent provided his identification, but no replies to the questionnaire. Therefore, it was decided to not publish this contribution.
:   [(9)](#footnoteref10)

    It should be noted, that not all stakeholders who selected their general respondent category were consequent/consistent with the choice of their stakeholder category. That is why there are some differences between the results presented in Figure 2 and Figure 3.
:   [(10)](#footnoteref11)
     EU quality schemes aim at protecting the names of specific products to promote their unique characteristics, linked to their geographical origin as well as traditional know-how. However, there are differences between GIs, PDOs and PGIs, linked primarily to how much of the raw materials come from the area or how much of the production process has to take place in the specific region.
:   [(11)](#footnoteref12)

     For details see and links to legal texts the dedicated page on the 
    <Commission's website>
    .
:   [(12)](#footnoteref13)
     “Other” (i.e. the own ideas of respondents) constituted 1% of all replies to Question 4 and 5% of replies to Question 5.
:   [(13)](#footnoteref14)
     Market and income support policies of the CAP, as well as the sustainable development of rural economy goes hand in hand with the production of GIs and TSGs. In particular, EU quality schemes aim at contributing to areas in which the farming sector is of greater economic importance or to disadvantaged areas, where the farming sector accounts for a significant part of the economy. Consequently, a number of measures under the rural development programmes can support beneficiaries, for example: a) measure on knowledge transfer, b) investment measure in modernization of assets and c) LEADER approach.
:   [(14)](#footnoteref15)
     The replies “Other” and “No opinion” constituted a marginal part of opinions, respectively 0.30% and 0.34% of all replies to Question 20.
:   [(15)](#footnoteref16)
     The complete set of replies to Question 12 and the position papers including reference to the question are published on the Europa website along with the respondent’s replies.
:   [(16)](#footnoteref17)
     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 
    <VADER>
     (Valence Aware Dictionary and sEntiment Reasoner) – the analysis tool, developed by C.J. Hutto at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

[Top](#document1)