eca report on geographical indications - 2011

7/31/2019 ECA Report on Geographical Indications - 2011

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/eca-report-on-geographical-indications-2011 1/50

I S S N 1

8 3 1 - 0 8 3 4

EUROPEANCOURT OF AUDITORS

EN

2 0 1 1

S p e c i a l R e p o r t N o

1 1

DO THE DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT OF

THE GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS SCHEME

ALLOW IT TO BE EFFECTIVE?



DO THE DESIGN ANDMANAGEMENT OF THEGEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS

SCHEME ALLOW IT TO BEEFFECTIVE?

Special Report No 11 2011

(pursuant to Article 287(4), second subparagraph, TFEU)

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS




12, rue Alcide De Gasperi

1615 Luxembourg

LUXEMBOURG

Tel. +352 43981

Fax +352 439846410

Email: [email protected]

Internet: http://www.eca.europa.eu

Special Report No 11 2011

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet.

It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu).

Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.

Luxembourg: Publications Oce of the European Union, 2011

ISBN 9789292372675

doi:10.2865/75364

© European Union, 2011

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed in Luxembourg



3

Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective?

CONTENTS

PARAGRAPH

GLOSSARY

I–VI SUMMARY

1–11 INTRODUCTION

1–7 THEPRINCIPLESOFTHEGEOGRAPHICALINDICATIONSSCHEME

8–11 THEECONOMICPOTENTIAL

12–16 AUDITOBJ EC TIVE,SCOPEANDAPPROACH

17–55 OBSERVATIONS

17–32 SHORTCOMINGSINREGULATORYPROVISIONSANDMONITORING

OFTHEMEMBERSTATES’CHECKS

1822 THE PROVISIONS FOR CHECKS OF COMPLIANCE OF PDO AND PGI PRODUCTS WITH THE PRODUCT

SPECIFICATION DO NOT SE T MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS

2327 LACK OF A CLEAR LEGAL DEFINITI ON FOR THE CHECKS AIMED AT THE DETEC TION AND SUPPRESS ION OF

DISALLOWED PRACTICES

2832 WEAKNE SSES EXIST IN THE COMMISSI ON’S SUPERV ISION OF MEMBER STATES’ CHECKS RELATED TO THE

GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS SCHEME

33–38 THEREISAPOTENTIALTOATTRACTFURTHERPRODUCERS,BUTITISAFFECTEDBYLENGTHY

PROCEDURESANDALACKOFAWARENESS

3335 POTENTIAL EXISTS FOR ATTRACTING FURTHER PRODUCER S TO JOIN THE GEOGRAPHI CAL INDICATIONS

SCHEME

3637 LENGTHY REGISTR ATION PROCEDUR ES DISCOURAGE POTENTIAL APPLICANTS

38 THE MEASURE AVAILABLE IS ONLY INDIREC TLY RELATED TO ATTRACTIVEN ESS



4


39–55 CONSUMERRECOGNITIONOFTHEGEOGRAPHICALINDICATIONSSCHEMEISLOWANDTHE

OPTIONSUSEDAREUNLIKELYTOINCREASEIT

3940 CONSUMER RECOGNITIO N OF THE GEOGRAPHI CAL INDICATIONS SCHEME IS LOW

4155 THE OPTIONS USED ARE UNLIKE LY TO RAISE AWARENES S OF THE GEOGRAPHI CAL INDICATIONS SCHEME

56–62 CONCLUSIONSANDRECOMMENDATIONS

REPLYOFTHECOMMISSION



6


Protectedgeographicalindication(PGI) : Names registered as a protected geographical indica-tion describe products having specific characteristics or a reputation associating them with a givengeographical area where at least one stage of the production takes place. If the products are processed,the raw materials may come from another geographical area.

Ruraldevelopmentprogramme : A key programming document prepared by a Member State andapproved by the Commission for the planning and implementation of the EU’s rural development policy.

Current rural development programmes cover the period 2007–13.

Singledocument: A document that forms part of the application for registration of a name as a PDO orPGI and which is scrutinised by the Commission. It sets out the main features of the product specifica-

tion and a description of the link between the product and a particular geographical area.



77


SUMMARY

I . T h e E u r o p e a n g e o g r a p h i c a l i n d i c a t i o n ss c h e m e a i m s t o p r o t e c t t h e n a m e s o f products whose character ist ics are associ-

ate d w i th th e g e og r ap h i c a l ar e a i n w h i c ht h e y a r e p r o d u c e d . D e p e n d i n g o n t h edegree and type of associat ion with a spec i f i c g e o g r a p h i c a l a r e a , i t d i s t i n g u i s h e sbetween two types of protected names —PDO and PGI .

I I . The geographica l i ndicat ions s cheme pro-v i d e s a p o t en t i a l ec o n o m i c o p p o r t u n i t yfor farmers and producers of food and can

h ave a p os i t i ve i mp ac t on th e r ur a l e c on -omy. To achieve this object ive and providet h e i n t e n d e d p r o t e c t i o n , a n a p p r o p r i a t eE U f r a m e w o r k n e e d s t o b e i n p l a c e . T h eCourt examined whether the scheme’s con-

trol system is conceptual ly robust , whether

the procedures and measures used renderi t at t r ac t i ve to p ote n t i a l p ar t i c i p an ts an dw h e t h e r t h e m e a s u r e s a v a i l a b l e a n d t h eCommission’s actions have contr ibuted toincreas ing consumer awareness .

I I I .C h e c ks r e lat i n g to th e g e og r ap h i c a l i n di -c at i on s s c h e me a i m to ve r i fy c omp l i an c eo f a P D O o r P G I p r o d u c t w i t h a p r o d u c ts p e c i f i c a t i o n a n d t o d e t e c t i n s t a n c e s o f d i s a l low e d us e of a p r ote c te d n ame . T h eaudi t s h ow e d th at fur th e r c lar i f i c at i on onthe design of the control system for thesechecks is needed. The provis ions in the EU

r e g ulat i on on c h e c ks of c omp l i an c e w i th

food and feed law, animal health and wel-fare rules do not set out minimum require-ments for Member States ’ checks re lated to

the geographical indicat ions scheme.



8


VI.The Court recommends that :

— M i n i mu m re q u ir e me n t s o n c he c k s o f product speci f icat ions are la id down int h e l e g a l p r ov i s i on s on t h e g e og r a p h ica l indicat ions scheme;

— F u r t he r c la r i f ic a t i o ns a re g i ve n o n t h escope of regular checks a iming at d isa l lowed practices. Mutual assistance rulesshould be adapted to the needs of thenat ional author i t ies ;

— T h e Co m m i ss i o n sh o u l d i n c l ud e a ud i t so n M e m b e r S t a t e s ’ c h e c k s o f t h e G Is c h e m e i n i t s p l a n of r e g u l a r a u d i t s i nthe Member States ;

— A c l e ar s t ra t eg y i s d ev e lo p e d fo r t h ep r o m o t i o n o f t h e g e o g r a p h i c a l i n d i c a t i on s s c h e m e t o p r od u c e r s a n d c on sumers in order to ra ise awareness . TheCommiss ion should explore more effect i v e m e a n s o f p r o m o t i n g t h e s c h e m e ,such as running a campaign on i ts owninit iat ive.

IV.R e g a r d i n g t h e C o m m i s s i o n ’s s u p e r v i -s i on of M e mb e r State s ’ c h e c ks r e late d toth e g e og r ap h i c a l i n di c at i on s s c h e me , n os e r v i c e w i t h i n t h e C o m m i s s i o n h a s s o l er e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r c a r r y i n g o u t a u d i t s o f the scheme and no such audits have beencarr ied out so far . A systemat ic desk review

only recent ly started, reveal ing incomplete

information in Member States ’ report ing.

V. The ef fec t iveness o f the geogra phica l ind i-

c at i on s s c h e me i s a f fe c te d b y th e e x te n tto w h i c h i t i s us e d b y p r oduc e r s an d th ele ve l of c on s ume r aw ar e n e s s of i t . P ote n -t i a l e x i s t s t o a t t r a c t f u r t h e r p r o d u c e r sto j o i n th e s c h e me , e s p e c i a l ly w h e r e th etake - up i s low , b ut th e p r oc e dur e for th escrut iny of appl icat ions is lengthy and dis-courages them. In addit ion, producers areo f t e n n o t a w a r e o f t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h es c h e me . A s tudy c ar r i e d out on b e h al f of t h e C o m m i s s i o n d e m o n s t r a t e s l o w r a t e sof c on s ume r r e c og n i t i on of th e s c h e me ’ ssymbols and concept . Whi lst this s i tuat ion

c al l s for ac t i on to r a i s e aw ar e n e s s of th egeographical indicat ions scheme, no over-

al l strategy addressing this issue exists atEU level . A ser ies of measures and actionsi s avai lable but these appear f ragmented.

SUMMARY



9


INTRODUCTION

THEPRINCIPLESOFTHEGEOGRAPHICALINDICATIONS SCHEME

1. T h e EU a g r i c u l t u r a l p r od u c t q u a l i t y p ol i c y a i m s t o h i g h l i g h tindiv idual product qual i t ies result ing from a part icular or iginand/or product ion method. One of the schemes, which formsp a r t o f t h i s p o l i c y a n d w h i c h i s t h e s u b j e c t o f t h i s r e p o r t ,i s the geographical indicat ions ( ‘ GI ’ ) scheme for agr icultura lproducts and foodstuffs .

2. T h e G I s c h e m e i s i n t e n d e d t o p r o t e c t n a m e s t h a t i d e n t i f yp r o d u c t s w h o s e q u a l i t y , r e p u t a t i o n o r o t h e r c h a r a c t e r i s t icare essential ly attr ibutable to their geographical origin. Thesenames are cons idered to be intel lectual property r ights . Thes c h e m e i s i n s p i r e d b y n a t i on a l s y s t e m s , s u c h a s t h e F r e n c happel lat ion d’origine contrôlée ( ‘AOC ’ ) or the I ta l ian d e n o m i n a -

z i o n e d i o r i g i n e c o n t r o l l a t a ( ‘ DOC ’ ) w h i c h g r a n t e d p r ot e c t i onat nat ional level .

3. The introduct ion of the GI scheme in 1992 a imed to provide aframework of Community ru les that would a l low a s ingle harmonised EU approach for protection of the registered productnames1. It is presently governed by Council Regulation (EC ) No510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protect ion of g eographicalindicat ions and des ignat ions of or igin for agr icultura l products and foodstuffs ( ‘ the Regulat ion ’ ) 2.

4. The GI scheme dist inguishes between two types of protectednames, depending on the degree and type of associat ion witha speci f ic geographical area :

(a ) Na m e s r e g i s t e r e d a s a p r ot e c t e d d e s i g n a t i on of or i g i n( ‘ PDO ’ ) describe products having characteristics resultingessential ly from the geographical area and the knowhowof the producers in the area of product io n 3. Al l s tages of the product ion take place in the geographical area concerned. There must be a c lose l ink between the products ’features and their geographical or igin . Examples of wel l k n ow n P D O p r od u c t s a r e ‘ Q u e s o M a n c h e g o ’ , ‘ Prosciuttodi Parma ’ , ‘ Grana Padano ’ , ‘ Comté ’ ;

1 The GI scheme was rst

established with Council

Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of

14 July 1992 on the protection

of geographical indications

and designations of origin

for agricultural products and

foodstus (OJ L 208, 24.7.1992,

p. 1).

2 OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

3 Article 2(1)(a) of the

Regulation.



10


(b) Names registered as a protected geographical indication( ‘PGI’) describe products having specific characteristics orreputation associating them with a given geographical areawhere at least one stage of the production takes place. If theproducts are processed, the raw materials may come fromother geographical areas4. Examples of wellknown PGI products are ‘Bayerisches Bier’, ‘Scotch Beef ’, ‘Pruneaux d’Agen’.

5.T h e r e g i s t r a t i on of a p r od u c t n a m e u n d e r e i t h e r of t h e t w otypes of the GI scheme is poss ible for products that concerna geographical area within the EU as wel l as in a thi rd countryw h e r e t h e p r od u c t n a m e s a r e p r ot e c t e d (e . g . C h i n a a n d C olombia) .

6. As at the end of 2010, 964 product names were registered und e r t h e R e g u l a t i on , of w h i c h 5 0 2 a s a P D O a n d 4 6 2 a s a P G I .There has been a constant increase in the number of productnames registered s ince the scheme’s introduct ion. The Comm i s s i on h a s s e t i t s e l f t h e t a r g e t of 1 1 0 0 r e g i s t e r e d p r od u c tnames by the end of 2012 5.

7. PDO and PGI products may be recognised by means of specificEU symbols , which are intended to provide a guarantee thatt h e p r od u c t s c on c e r n e d r e l a t e t o a p a r t i c u l a r g e og r a p h i c a la r e a . T h e l og o (or t h e i n d i c a t i on s ‘ p r ot e c t e d d e s i g n a t i on of or igin ’ or ‘protected geographical indicat ion’ ) has to appearon the label l ing of products covered by the GI scheme.

4 Article 2(1)(b) of the

Regulation.

5 The Commission’s Directorate

General for Agriculture and Rural

Development: Annual Activity

Report 2010, Table 1.2, p. 6.

PDOandPGIlogos

Source: Annex V to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1898/2006 (OJ L 369, 23.12.2006,

p. 1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 628/2008 (OJ L 173, 3.7.2008, p. 3).



11


THEECONOMICPOTENTIAL

8. T h e ov e r a l l w h ol e s a l e v a l u e of P D O a n d P G I p r od u c t s r e g i s tered under the Regulat ion is est imated to be some 15 bi l l ione u r o , w h i c h i s e q u a l t o a r ou n d 2 , 5 % of t h e e x p e n d i t u r e f orf ood c on s u m p t i on i n t h e EU 6 a n d i s a t a s i m i l a r l e v e l a s t h ewholesale value of organic products . Graph 1 shows the percentage of the tota l wholesale value for the major c lasses of PDO and PGI products 7.

9. Studies show that PDO and PGI products usually have a higherp r od u c e r p r i c e t h a n p r od u c t s of t h e s a m e p r od u c t c a t e g or yw i t h ou t p r ot e c t e d g e og r a p h i c a l i n d i c a t i on s . T h e d i f f e r e n c ei n p r i c e s ob s e r v e d r a n g e d f r om 5 % t o 3 0 0 % . A k e y r e a s ongiven in the studies for this difference is the control of qualityachieved through the protect ion of geographical indicat ions8.

6 AND International: ‘Valeur de

la production agricole sous AOP

et IGP’ — Final report (August

2009).

7 Agriculture and Rural

Development DG newsletter

on PDO and PGI agricultural

products (2010).

8 London Economics: Evaluation

of the CAP policy on the protected

designations of origin (PDO)

and protected geographical

indications (PGI) (2008).

G R A P H 1

PERCENTAGEOFWHOLESALEVALUEFORPDOANDPGI PRODUCTS

Source: European Commission, Agriculture and Rural Development DG.

Cheeses

37 %

Beers

20 %

Processed meats

16 %

Fresh meats

6 %

Fruit and

vegetables

4 %

Bread, biscuits,

confectionery

4 %

Others

13 %



12


10. T h e R e g u l a t i on r e c og n i s e s t h e e c on om i c p ot e n t i a l of t h e G Ischeme and considers that it can be of considerabl e benefit tothe rura l economy by improving the income of farmers and byreta ining the populat ion in rura l areas 9. The Commiss ion in i tscommunicat ion about the future of the common agr icultura lpol icy ( ‘CAP’ ) emphasised that the agr icultura l product quali ty pol icy , including the GI scheme, forms part o f the CAP 10 . I tcontr ibutes to maintaining the divers i ty of agr icultura l act iv i t ies in rura l areas and enhances competit iveness .

11. Financia l measures exist , re lated to the GI scheme, which donot involve significant EU budgetary ex penditure. These measures a im at promoting food qual i ty schemes, including the GIscheme and at support ing farmers who part ic ipate in them.

9 Recital 2 of the preamble to

the Regulation.

10 Communication from the

Commission to the European

Parliament, the Council, the

European Economic and

Social Committee and the

Committee of the Regions ‘The

CAP towards 2020: Meeting

the food, natural resources and

territorial challenges of the

future’ (COM(2010) 672 nal of

18 November 2010).



14


15. The responsible serv ices in a l l Member States were contactedi n or d e r t o ob t a i n f u r t h e r e v i d e n c e r e l a t i n g t o t h e ob s e r v a t i on s m a d e a t C om m i s s i on l e v e l a n d a d d i t i on a l i n f or m a t i onwhere available. The information was gathered by means of anonl ine survey and v is i ts to author i t ies of the Member States 12 .The onl ine survey was carr ied out with a l l Membe r States andincluded three questionnaires 13 . The response rate was around90 % for a l l three.

16. The audit dealt with the situati on as at the end of 20 09. Wherec on s i d e r e d r e l e v a n t , s u b s e q u e n t d e v e l op m e n t s w e r e t a k e ninto considerat ion. Accordingly , in the part of the report present ing conclus ions and recommendat ions , the proposal for anew regulat ion on ‘agr icultura l product qual i ty scheme s’ hasbeen taken into considerat ion. The proposal concerns the GIand other qual i ty schemes, which wi l l be included in a s ingleregulat ion 14 .

12 Germany, Greece, Spain,

France, Italy, Cyprus, Poland and

Portugal.

13 ‘Member States’ scrutiny and

assessment’, ‘Member States’

controls’ and ‘Financial support/

promotion’.

14 Proposal for a regulation of

the European Parliament and

of the Council on agricultural

product quality schemes

(COM(2010) 733 nal of 10

December 2010).



15


SHORTCOMINGS INREGULATORYPROVISIONSANDMONITORINGOFTHEMEMBERSTATES’ CHECKS

17. The GI scheme is intended to protect product names registereda s a P D O o r P G I . D e f i n i n g a r o b u s t s y s t e m f o r t h e M e m b e rStates ’ checks related to the GI scheme and supervis ing thesec h e c k s i n a n a d e q u a t e m a n n e r a r e e s s e n t i a l t o a c h i e v e t h i sobject ive. Two types of checks are to be dist inguished i n thiscontext :

(a ) A r t i c l e 1 1 of t h e R e g u l a t i on r e f e r s t o t h e ob l i g a t i on of M e m b e r S t a t e s t o v e r i f y c o m p l i a n c e o f p r o d u c t s w i t ht h e i r s p e c i f i c a t i on s b e f or e t h e p r od u c t s a r e p l a c e d onthe market ( ‘Art ic le 11 checks ’ ) . The Regulat ion providesthat a ‘competent authority ’ is responsible in the Me mberStates for these checks ; i t a lso a l lows these checks to becarr ied out by an indepe ndent ‘control body ’ accreditedi n a c c or d a n c e w i t h Eu r op e a n S t a n d a r d EN 4 5 0 1 1 15 . T h ecosts of these checks are usual ly borne by the operators ;

(b) The competent author i t ies within Member States are alsoresponsible for checks , which a im to detect and suppressm i s u s e , i m i t a t i on or e v oc a t i on of a p r ot e c t e d n a m e orot h e r p r a c t i c e s m i s l e a d i n g t h e c on s u m e r a s t o t h e t r u eor igin of a product ( ‘d isa l lowed pract ices ’ ) 16 .

THE PROVISIONSFORCHECKSOF COMPLIANCE OF PDO

ANDPGI PRODUCTSWITHTHE PRODUCTSPECIFICATION

DONOTSETMINIMUMREQUIREMENTS

18. The Regulation does not provide for mi nimum requirements tobe adhered to by the competent authorit ies and control bo dies

concerning issues such as the coverage of Art ic le 11 checks ,their f requency, the methodology for their select ion and thepart ies involved in the di f ferent s tages of the product ion anddistr ibut ion subject to control . Instead of providing speci f icinstruct ions on the control system, Art ic le 10 of the Regulation 17 refers to the controls under Regulation (EC) No 882/2004deal ing with off ic ia l controls ver i fy ing compliance with feedand food law, animal health and animal welfare ru les 18 .

15 European Standard EN 45011

species general requirements

that a third party operating a

product certication system shall

meet if it is to be recognised as

competent and reliable.

16 Various forms of disallowed

practices are mentioned in

Article 13(1) of the Regulation.

17 Article 10(1) of the Regulation:

‘Member States shall designate

the competent authority or

authorities responsible for

controls in respect of the

obligations established by this

Regulation in conformity with

Regulation (EC) No 882/2004.’

18 Regulation (EC) No 882/2004

of the European Parliament and

of the Council of 29 April 2004

on ocial controls performed

to ensure the verication of

compliance with feed and

food law, animal health and

animal welfare rules (OJ L 191,

28.5.2004, p. 1).

OBSERVATIONS



16


19. H ow e v e r, R e g u l a t i on (EC ) No 8 8 2 / 2 0 0 4 d oe s n ot s p e c i f i c a l l ydeal with the product speci f icat ion (Art ic le 11) checks . Mostof the provis ions of the regulat ion regarding controls are of g e n e r a l n a t u r e a n d r e l a t e t o f ood s a f e t y , h y g i e n e a n d a n i mal health and welfare . They address issues such as samplinga n d a n a l y s i s m e t h od s , d e s i g n a t i on of r e f e r e n c e l a b or a t or ie sor t h e of f i c i a l c on t r o l s on t h e i n t r od u c t i on of f e e d a n d f oodfrom third countries. They are therefore not relevant to settingminimum requirements for Art ic le 11 checks .

20. The a lmost complete lack of such information speci f ic to Artic le 11 checks in the legal provis ions related to the GI schemehas resulted in d iscrepancies among the control systems setu p b y t h e d i f f e r e n t M e m b e r S t a t e s . A n e x a m p l e of d i f f e r e n tp r a c t i c e s f o u n d i n t h e M e m b e r S t a t e s v i s i t e d i s s h o w n i nTable 1 .

Characteristics of the control system Control body (Member State 1) Competent authority (Mem ber State 2)

Cycle of checks (operators)Varying: annual or multiannual

(depending on the product)Annual checks on each operator

Scope of the check ProducerProducer, packaging frms, frms producing

private label products

Entry-level check1

Not compulsory; frst check may be carried

out several years ater entering the GI

scheme

Compulsory or approval o the producer

Register of operators using a certain

protected name (population subject

to control)

No obligation or operators to be registered Obligation or operators to be registered

Sampling (selection of operators to be

checked)Risk based

All operators are checked on an annual

basis

Supervision of regional competent

authorities by national authority

Despite the existence o separate

competent authorities at regional level no

supervision is carried out

There is only one competent authority

carrying out all checks

1 An entry-level check concerns a producer who starts marketing a product the name o which is protected as a PDO or PGI and aims to veriy compliance o

the product with its product specifcation.

Source: European Court of Auditors.

T A B L E 1

COMPARISONOFTWOCONTROLSYSTEMSFORARTICLE11CHECKS



17


21. The table shows di f ferences in the two control systems on anumber of important issues such as the cycle of checks , theirscope and the obl igat ion of entr y level checks . Di f ferences inthe control systems were a lso found as a result of the analys isof the repl ies to the o nl ine survey. Such discrepancies undermine the ob ject ive of establ ishing ‘a more uni form approach’required by the Regulat ion, which is necessary to ensure fa i rcompetit ion between producers of products bear ing such ind i c a t i on s a n d e n h a n c e t h e c r e d i b i l i t y of t h e p r od u c t s i n t h econsumer ’s eyes 19 .

22. In contrast , more information speci f ic to the Member States ’checks is avai lable for the checks related to other EU qual i tyschemes. The regulat ion deal ing with the GI scheme for wineproducts addresses issues such as select ion of the producersto be checked and the stages of the product ion process to becovered 20 . More information is a lso la id down for the MemberS t a t e s ’ c on t r o l s r e l a t e d t o or g a n i c f a r m i n g , w h i c h i s on e of t h e EU q u a l i t y s c h e m e s . T h e p r ov i s i on s of t h e r e g u l a t i on onorganic product ion and label l ing of organic products complement the conditions laid down in Regulation (EC ) No 882/2004.T h e y d e a l w i t h i s s u e s s u c h a s t h e f r e q u e n c y of c on t r o l s , t h estages of the product ion process to be covered, the report ingobligations of control bodies and the exchange of informationwith competent author i t ies f rom other Member States 21 .

19 Recital 6 of the preamble to

the Regulation.

20 Commission Regulation (EC)

No 607/2009 of 14 July 2009

laying down certain detailed

rules for the implementation

of Council Regulation (EC)

No 479/2008 as regards

protected designations of origin

and geographical indications,

traditional terms, labelling and

presentation of certain wine

sector products (OJ L 193,

24.7.2009, p. 60).

21 Title V of Council Regulation

(EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June

2007 on organic production and

labelling of organic products

(OJ L 189, 20.7.2007, p. 1).

B O X 1

EXAMPLESOFSHORTCOMINGSIN THEVERIFICATIONOFPRODUCTSPECIFICATIONS

Shortcomings in the control body ’s verification of the origin of the raw material for a processedPDO product were found in two of the Member States visited.

The check of the product specification of an olive oil registered as a PDO did not include a plausibility test on the average yield of olives obtained by the olive growers in their parcels. Such atest is important to determine whether the quantity of olives delivered to mills and processedfor the olive oil can actually originate from the geographical area concerned.

The work of a control body that checked the product specification of a cheese registered asa PDO showed shortcomings regarding the verification of the origin of the milk used for theproduction of the cheese. The control body did not include in its check a verification that wouldaddress the risk that the milk used in the production of the cheese originated from farms and

cows which are located outside the geographical area defined in the product specification.



18


22 ‘European Parliament

resolution of 25 March 2010 on

Agricultural product quality

policy: what strategy to follow?’

(OJ C 4 E, 7.1.2011, p. 25).

23 Interpretative Note

No 200901.

LACKOFACLEARLEGALDEFINITIONFORTHE CHECKS

AIMEDATTHE DETECTIONANDSUPPRESSIONOF

DISALLOWEDPRACTICES

23. Art ic le 13 of the Regulat ion refers to the obl igat ion to protectr e g i s t e r e d n a m e s a g a i n s t v a r i ou s f or m s of d i s a l l ow e d p r a c t ices . The European Par l iament in this context has demandedthorough e x o f f i c i o protect ion of GIs as an obl igat ion for author i t ies in a l l Member States 22 .

24. D e s p i t e t h e r e l e v a n c e of t h e p r ot e c t i on of r e g i s t er e d n a m e sa g a i n s t t h e i r d i s a l l ow e d u s e , n o p r ov i s i on s a r e l a i d d ow n i nthe Regulation as to what checks (i f any) are required from theM e m b e r S t a t e s i n or d e r t o e n s u r e s u c h p r ot e c t i on . T h e on l yinformation given by the Commiss ion on the checks to be car r ied out in order to detect and suppress d isa l lowed pract icesi s t h a t c h e c k s on G I p r od u c t s f a l l u n d e r R e g u l a t i on (EC ) No882/2004 and consequently Member States have to cons idert h e m i n t h e i r m u l t i a n n u a l n a t i o n a l c o n t r o l p l a n ( ‘ M A N C P ’ )m e n t i on e d i n t h a t r e g u l a t i on 23 . H ow e v e r , t h e e x t e n t of t h eM e m b e r S t a t e s ’ ob l i g a t i on t o c a r r y ou t c h e c k s a i m e d a t t h edetect ion and suppress ion of cases of d isa l lowed pract ices ona regular bas is remains unclear . There are no instruct ions onhow such checks ( i f any) are to b e carr ied out .

25. A number of Member States v is i ted stressed the need to havea procedure on mutual assistance in the Regulation that wouldprovide for a response to denunciat ions concerning the disa l lowed use of a protected name in a Member State other thanthe Member State of product ion. This i ssue puts into quest iont h e a d e q u a c y of t h e p r ov i s i on s l a i d d ow n i n A r t i c l e s 3 5 a n d36 of Regulat ion (EC) No 882/2004 deal ing with l ia ison bodies

and ass istance on request .



19


26. M o s t M e m b e r S t a t e s d o n o t c a r r y o u t c h e c k s a i m e d a t t h ed e t e c t i on a n d s u p p r e s s i on of c a s e s of d i s a l l ow e d p r a c t i c e son a regular bas is . They usual ly carry out checks a imed at thedetect ion and suppress ion of d isa l lowed pract ices concerningPDO and PGI products only in order to address denunciat ionsor as a secondary part o f hygiene and safety checks related tofoodstuffs . Where such checks are carr ie d out, the vis its to theMember States and the onl ine survey showed a d i f ference inthe coverage of PDO and PGI products from other countries. Ina number of Member States, the checks exclude such productsand only nat ional products are covered.

27. B o x 2 p r o v i d e s e x a m p l e s o f d i s a l l o w e d p r a c t i c e s f o u n d b yM e m b e r S t a t e s w h e n c a r r y i n g ou t t h e i r c on t r o l s r e l a t e d t of ood s a f e t y or f o l l ow i n g u p a s u s p i c i on or d e n u n c i a t i on a n ddemonstrates the high r isk of d isa l lowed pract ices not beingfound due to the lack of regular che cks .

B O X 2

EXAMPLESOF DISALLOWEDPR ACTICESF OUNDBYNATIONALAUTHORITIES

The French authorities found that a butcher had sold lamb meat to restaurants showing in hisinvoices a product name protected as a PGI whilst the meat delivered did not allow him to usethis name. The restaurants in consequence had made unjustified reference to the protectedname in their menus.

Samples taken by the Bavarian authorities in shops selling a specific type of cheese protectedas a PDO showed a number of cases of disallowed use of this name. Most of the cheeses concerned did not originate from the designated geographical area and in one case cow milk hadbeen used instead of sheep milk as provided for by the product specification.

Table olives were marketed by a processing and packaging company illicitly using a nameprotected as a PDO. The documentation examined by the Italian authorities showed that theolives packaged by this company were not of the variety required by the product specification.

During a check carried out by the Greek authorities at a supermarket, the name of a PDO chee sewas found on the sign of the display fridge. The same name appeared on the weighing label forthe product and on the purchase receipt. The supermarket should no t have labelled the cheeseusing the protected name since the producer was not accredited and therefore not subject to

product specification checks.



20


WEAKNESSES EXIST IN THE COMMISSION’S SUPERVISION

OFMEMBERSTATES’ CHECKSRELATEDTOTHE

GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONSSCHEME

28. A d e q u a t e s u p e r v i s i o n o f M e m b e r S t a t e s ’ c o n t r o l s y s t e m sshould comprise audit ing the checks carr ied out by MemberStates and reviewing the report ing on their control act iv i t ieson a regular bas is .

Lack of commission audits of the member states ’ checks reLating

to the geographicaL indications scheme

29. The Regulat ion does not include speci f ic provis ions as to theC om m i s s i on s u p e r v i s i on of c h e c k s r e l a t e d t o t h e G I s c h e m e .R e f e r e n c e t o s u p e r v i s i on i s m a d e , h ow e v e r , i n A r t i c l e 4 5 of Regulat ion (EC) No 882/2004, which requires general and speci f ic audits of the Member States ’ of f ic ial controls by Commiss ion experts . Whi ls t the Food and Veter inary Off ice ( ‘FVO’) of the Health and Consumers DG normal ly carr ies out audits of t h e M e m b e r S t a t e s ’ of f i c i a l c on t r o l s , i t d oe s n ot a s s u m e e x clus ive responsibi l i ty for audits of the GI scheme. I t cons idersthat the legislation refers to ‘Commission experts ’ and, as such,there is nothing to suggest that the performance of Community controls i s l imited to FVO act iv i t ies , nor that the FVO hassole responsibi l i ty to carr y out audits in this area .

30. The Court notes that to date no audits have been carr ied out .The FVO expla ined that they have not been carr ied out due toits l imited resources and i ts pr ior i t isat ion of r isks in terms of food safety , animal and plant health and animal welfare . Accordingly , currently the Commiss ion does not c lo sely monitor

the implementat ion of the GI scheme in the Member States .



22


25 Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia,

Lithuania, Malta and Romania.

(c) ‘Lack of consumers ’ awareness of the existence of the GIscheme’ ;

(d) ‘Lack of producers ’ awareness of the existence of the GIscheme’.

34. T h e s p r e a d of r e g i s t e r e d n a m e s i n t h e M e m b e r S t a t e s a s a tthe end of 2010, shown in G r a p h 2 , corroborates the assessment made by certa in Member States that the takeup in theircountry is low/very low.

35. T h e g r a p h s h ow s a c on c e n t r a t i on of t h e r e g i s t e r e d p r od u c tnames in a l imited number of Member States: 77 % of the product names registered or iginate f rom only f ive Member States ,whi ls t in 14 Member States less than f ive product names hadb e e n r e g i s t e r e d b y t h e e n d o f 2 0 1 0 , i n c l u d i n g s i x M e m b e rStates where no product name had been registered25 . This uneven spread indicates a c lear d i f ference in the attract ivenessof t h e G I s c h e m e a m on g s t p r od u c e r s i n t h e M e m b e r S t a t e s .A p r ob a b l e e x p l a n a t i on f or t h i s s i t u a t i on i s t h a t s om e M e m ber States , such as France, I ta ly or Spain had s imi lar nat io nalschemes before the introduct ion of the EU scheme and therefore producers in these countr ies have more exper ience anda better knowledge and interest in the scheme.

G R A P H 2

PRODUCTNAMESREGISTEREDAS PDOANDPGI PER MEMBERSTATE 1


0

50

100

150

200

250

IT FR ES PT EL DE UK CZ PL AT BE NL HU SK IE SE LU FI DK SI CY

1 Two third countries (Colombia and China) had one product each registered as at the end o 2010.



23


LENGTHYREGISTRATIONPROCEDURESDISCOURAGE

POTENTIAL APPLICANTS

36. One of the main reasons provided for the low/very low takeu p of t h e G I s c h e m e i s t h a t op e r a t or s c on s i d e r t h a t t h e p r oc e d u r e s f or a p p l i c a t i on a r e t oo t i m e c on s u m i n g . T h e C ou r ttherefore examined the procedure and the t ime taken for i t .G r a p h 3 presents the di f ferent s tages of the procedure.

G R A P H 3

REGISTRATIONPROCEDURE


Definition of the product according to a specification

Applicant

group

Member

State’s

authority

Commission -

Agriculture

and Rural

DevelopmentDG -

Scrutiny of the application by the national authority to verify

its compliance with the conditions of the Regulation

Scrutiny of the single document by

Commission services should not exceed 12 months

First publication in the Ocial Journal

6-month opposition period

Registration

Rejection if application

considered as not complyingwith EU legislation

If opposition, appropriate

consultation between

interested parties



24


26 The average time needed

between receiving the

application and registering the

product name was 47 months

for names registered in 2008

and 46 months for names

registered in 2009. Amendment

applications were excluded from

the calculations.

27 Article 20(c)(ii) of Council

Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of

20 September 2005 on support

for rural development by the

European Agricultural Fund for

Rural Development (EAFRD)

(OJ L 277, 21.10.2005, p. 1).

28 As at the end of 2010,

measure No 132 was included in

the 2007–13 rural development

programmes of 16 Member

States with a total allocated

amount of 294 million euro.

The accumulated expenditure

declared (utilisation by the

farmers) for all eligible quality

schemes until the end of 2010

amounts to 18,6 million euro.

37. The Court found that both the scrutiny at national and at Comm i s s i on l e v e l a r e l e n g t h y , t h e l a t t e r t a k i n g on a v e r a g e f ou ryears 26 . The main reasons for these lengthy procedures foundb y t h e C ou r t w e r e a t h or ou g h n a t i on a l s c r u t i n y, i n c om p l e t eapplications f i led by the applicant groups and the t ime neededby the nat ional author i t ies to provide addit ional informationconcerning the s ingle document at the request of the Agr iculture and Rural Development DG. I t addressed the last i ssue bymaking two draft guides avai lable in 2010, one deal ing withthe main elements to be checked by the nat ional author i t iesand one for the applicants providing details on the completionof the s ingle document . The impact of these guidel ines on thelength of the scrut iny can o nly be assessed in the future.

THE MEASURE AVAILABLE IS ONLY INDIRECTLYRELATED

TOATTRACTIVENESS

38. The pr imary instrument avai lable to provide f inancia l supportto part ic ipants in the GI scheme is the European Agr icultura lFund for Rural Development ( ‘EAFRD’) measure No 132 — Participation of farme rs in food quality schemes. This measure addresses the costs incurred by farmers for their participation inEU or nat ional food qual i ty schemes 27 . The a id is avai lable forproducts intended for human consumption and i ts maximuma m ou n t i s 3 0 0 0 e u r o p e r h ol d i n g ( f or a m a x i m u m p e r i od of 5 y e a r s ) . T h e m e a s u r e i s , h ow e v e r , on l y u s e d b y 1 6 M e m b e rS t a t e s . M or e ov e r, i t d oe s n ot a d d r e s s t h e l a c k of p r od u c e r s ’awareness of the GI scheme, which in the v iew of nat ional authorit ies is another main reason for the scheme’s very low/lowtakeup (see paragraph 33) 28 . This latter i ssue is examined inthe next part of this Special Report, dealing with the consumerawareness of the GI scheme.



25


CONSUMERRECOGNITIONOFTHEGEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONSSCHEME IS LOWANDTHEOPTIONSUSEDAREUNLIKELYTOINCREASE IT

CONSUMERRECOGNITIONOFTHE GEOGRAPHICAL

INDICATIONSSCHEME IS LOW

39.R e f e r e n c e t o t h e c on s u m e r a w a r e n e s s of t h e G I s c h e m e w a smade in a recent s tudy carr ied out on behalf of the Commission 29 . This study included an analysis of a survey of awarenessof the PDO and PGI symbols . A s ingle page with the two symbols and three other internat ional food symbols was shown tothe consumers part ic ipat ing 30 . The survey included the repliesof 1 6 7 1 8 r e s p on d e n t s a n d s h ow e d t h a t t h e r e c og n i t i on of the symbols for PDO and PGI is low. Only 8 % recognised thePDO or PGI symbols. Excluding Greece, which is an outlier , theaverage EU recognit ion rate is only 5 ,6 % 31 . As a compar ison,the same survey ident i f ied the rate of recognit ion as 16 % fort h e or g a n i c l og o a n d 2 2 % f or t h e F a i r t r a d e on e . D e t a i l s a r eshown in G r a p h 4 .

29 London Economics: Evaluation

of the CAP policy on the protected

designations of origin (PDO)

and protected geographical

indications (PGI) (2008).

30 The survey covered a

representative sample in

each Member State and was

addressed to the main shopper

of the household interviewed.

31 An explanation provided

by London Economics for the

high recognition rate in Greece

is the fact that the registration

of the product name ‘Feta’ as a

PDO and the related European

Court of Justice cases (Joined

Cases C465/02 and C466/02 for

withdrawal of the registration)

had large coverage in the Greek

press.

G R A P H 4

RECOGNITIONOFPDOANDPGI LOGOPERMEMBERSTATE 1

Source: London Economics.

0 %

10 %

20 %

30 %

40 %

50 %

60 %

EL IT PT BE CY SI ET IE LU RO CZ PL SK LT LV FR BG ES DE UK AT DK SE FI NL HU MT

1 The survey in the UK did not include Northern Ireland.



26


40. The survey further showed that there is lack of know ledge asto the meaning of the scheme. Of those who recognised thelogos only hal f were able to ident i fy that they imply that theproduct has been produced in a part icular geographical area .

THE OPTIONSUSEDARE UNLIKELYTORAISE AWARENESS

OF THE GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONSSCHEME

41. V a r i o u s o p t i o n s a r e a v a i l a b l e t o r a i s e a w a r e n e s s o f t h e G Is c h e m e , s u c h a s p r ov i d i n g f i n a n c i a l a i d f or m e a s u r e s w h i c haddress this i ssue or the Commiss ion taking own i nit iat ives .

42. T h e C ou r t h a s e x a m i n e d w h e t h e r t h e f o l l ow i n g f i n a n c i a l EUmeasures are l ikely to make the GI scheme bet ter known 32 :

( a ) E A F R D m e a su r e N o 1 3 3 — I n f o r m a t i o n a n d p ro m o t i o nact iv i t ies ;

(b ) T h e m e a s u r e s p r ov i d e d f or b y C ou n c i l R e g u l a t i on (EC )No 3/2008 of 17 December 2007 on information provis ionand promotion measures for agr icultura l products on theinternal market and in third countr ies 33 .

measure no 133 i s used to a Limited extent by the producer

groups

43. EAFRD measure No 133 provides f inancial support to producergroups to inform consumers and promote products belongingto EU or nat ional food qual i ty schemes. The act iv i t ies e l igible

f o r s u p p o r t u n d e r m e a s u r e N o 1 3 3 h a v e t o b e d e s i g n e d t oinduce consumers to buy the agr icultura l product and foodstuffs covered by the food qua lity schemes. They have to drawattent ion to the speci f ic features or advantages of the produ c t c on c e r n e d , t h e l e g a l p r ov i s i on s p l a c i n g t h e r e f or e m or eemphasis on the product i tsel f than on the GI scheme. The a idunder this measure is avai lable for 70 % of the el igible cost of t h e a c t i on a n d i s l i m i t e d t o a c t i v i t i e s t a r g e t i n g t h e i n t e r n a lmarket .

32 Information measures

provided for by Council

Regulation (EC) No 814/2000

of 17 April 2000 on information

measures relating to the

common agricultural policy

(OJ L 100, 20.4.2000, p. 7) are

considered as being of little

relevance due to the low

amounts of expenditure related

to the GI scheme.

33 OJ L 3, 5.1.2008, p. 1.



27


44. Data that would a l low a c lear conclus ion to be drawn on thedegree of success of measure No 133 regarding the GI schemea n d m o r e p a r t i c u l a r l y o n w h e t h e r i t i n c r e a s e d c o n s u m e rawareness of i t could not be provided by the Agr iculture andR u r a l D e v e l op m e n t D G . D u e t o t h e e x i s t e n c e of a n u m b e r of exogenous factors that affect this question, it may no t even befeas ible to carry out such an analys is . However , the extent of the measure’s uptake by the Member States and the uti l isationof t h e f u n d s a v a i l a b l e r e f l e c t i t s a p p e a l t o p r od u c e r g r ou p sand indicate i ts appropr iateness as an opt ion to increase consumer awareness .

45. A s a t t h e e n d of 2 0 1 0 , m e a s u r e No 1 3 3 w a s i n c l u d e d i n t h e2007–13 rura l development programme ( ‘RDP’ ) of 14 Me mberStates with a tota l amount of 206 mi l l ion euro. This amount ,which covers d i f ferent food qual i ty schemes, including the GIscheme, organic farming and nat ional food qual i ty schemes,a c c ou n t s f or 0 , 6 % of t h e t ot a l a m ou n t u n d e r A x i s 1 of t h eMember States ’ f inancia l plans (32 362 mi l l ion euro) . Detai lsper Member State are presented in G r a p h 5 .

46. With the except ion of the UK, the 13 Member States that d idn o t i n c l u d e m e a s u r e N o 1 3 3 i n t h e i r R D P h a d n o o r o n l y asmall number of product names registered as a PDO or PGI (seeG r a p h 2 ) . An obvious reason with regard to the GI scheme isthat in these Member States there are no or only few producerg r ou p s m a r k e t i n g P D O or P G I p r od u c t s w h i c h c a n a p p l y f orcof inancing under measure No 133.

G R A P H 5

COMMITMENTSUNDERMEASURENO133


0

20

40

60

80

100

IT ES PL EL FR DK PT AT SI DE CY NL MT BE

A

m o u n t s c o m m i t t e d i n m i l l i o n e u r o



28


47. The cumulat ive expenditure declared (ut i l i sat ion by producergroups) for a l l e l igible qual i ty schemes unt i l the en d of 2010amounts to 16,2 mi l l ion euro and represents 7 ,8 % of the tota lamount in the Memb er States’ f inancial plans for the pro gramm i n g p e r i od 2 0 0 7 – 1 3 . B a s e d on i n f or m a t i on p r ov i d e d i n t h eon l i n e s u r v e y c on c e r n i n g e x p e n d i t u r e f or t h e G I s c h e m e i nt h e p r e v i ou s p r og r a m m i n g p e r i od , t h e C ou r t e s t i m a t e s t h a tt h e t ot a l a m ou n t t h a t w i l l b e s p e n t f or t h e EU G I s c h e m e i nthe current programming per iod wi l l be about 2 mi l l ion euro(0 ,3 mi l l ion euro on average per year ) .

promotion programmes have had L im ited impact on the awareness

of the geographicaL indications scheme

48. Promotion programmes under Regulat ion (EC) No 3/2008 areusual ly in i t iated by t rade or inter t rade organisat ions to drawup information campaigns targeting producers and processorsand need to be approved by the Agr iculture and Rural Development DG. With respect to the GI scheme, they should focuson its characteristics and address the knowledge amongst target groups , including the consumers and producers .

49. R e g a r d i n g t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y of d a t a t h a t w ou l d a l l ow a c l e a rconclus ion to be drawn on the success (or not) of promotionprogrammes concerning the GI scheme and more part icular lyw h e t h e r t h e y i n c r e a s e d a w a r e n e s s of i t , t h e s a m e l i m i t a t i onappl ies as for measure No 133 (see paragraph 44) . However ,the use made by t rade organisat ions of the promotion measu r e u n d e r R e g u l a t i o n ( E C ) N o 3 / 2 0 0 8 i s a n i n d i c a t o r o f i t sa p p r op r i a te n e s s f or t h e p r om ot i on of t h e G I s c h e m e a n d f oraddress ing the awareness of the GI scheme.



29


50. In the period 2005–09, the Agriculture and Rural DevelopmentDG approved 25 programmes related to PDO or PGI productswith the following commitments and accumulated expendituredeclared unt i l the end of September 2010:

TABLE2:COMMITMENTSANDEXPENDITUREUNDERPROMOTIONPROGRAMMES

Member State Number of programmes

Amounts committedin million euro

Expenditure declaredin million euro

Italy 12 11,7 7,8

Greece 5 6,2 3,3

France 2 4,8 4,2

Spain 2 3,6 2,8

Italy-Portugal 1 1,8 1,3

Poland 1 0,8 0,7

Portugal 1 0,5 0,0

Germany 1 0,4 0,4

Total 25 29,7 20,6Source: European Commission, Agriculture and Rural Development DG.

51. Table 2 shows that the uptake in the period examined was relat ively low with 25 programmes ( f ive on average per year ) andtotal expenditure amounting to some 21 mi l l ion euro by theend of September 2010 (about 4 mi l l ion euro EU cof inancingper year on average) 34 .

52. One of the reasons for the low number of programmes undert a k e n i s t h a t p r om ot i on p r og r a m m e s f or p r od u c t s w i t h l owe c on om i c v a l u e u s u a l l y c a n n ot f u l f i l t h e r e q u i r e d c on d i t i onof a n a d e q u a t e c os t / b e n e f i t r a t i o r e f e r r e d t o i n A r t i c l e 8 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 50 1/2008 of 5 June 2008 layingdown detai led ru les for the appl icat ion of Counci l Regulat ion(EC ) No 3 / 2 0 0 8 35 . T h e r e f or e , t h e p r om ot i on p r og r a m m e s a p proved are mostly those presented by organisations representing products with a high economic value.

34 Another 27 programmes

related to PDO and PGI were

rejected in the same period.

35 OJ L 147, 6.6.2008, p. 3.



31


56. T h e G I s c h e m e i s i n t e n d e d t o p r o t e c t r e g i s t e r e d p r o d u c tn a m e s . I n a d d i t i on , i t a i m s t o c on t r i b u t e t o i n c r e a s e d c om pet i t iveness of EU agr iculture in that the economic potent ia lof PDO and PGI products can benef i t the rura l economy. Thee x t e n t t o w h i c h t h e G I s c h e m e h a s s u c h a n i m p a c t l a r g e l ydepends on the f ramework des igned, i ts management by theCommiss ion and i ts implementat ion by Memb er States .

57.The Court ’s overal l conclus ion is that c lar i f icat ion is neededon a number of i ssues concerning the control system relatedt o t h e G I s c h e m e a n d t h a t a c l e a r s t r a t e g y i s l a c k i n g on t h eissue of awareness concerning both producers and consumers.More detai led conclus ions and recommendat ions are set outbelow, which take into consideration the Commission propo salfor a new regulat ion on agr icultura l product qual i ty sc hemes( ‘proposed regulat ion’ ) .

58. The current provisions do not lay down minimum requirementst o b e a d h e r e d t o b y t h e c om p e t e n t a u t h or i t i e s a n d c on t r olbodies concerning checks on product specifications. The Comm i s s i on i n t h e p r e a m b l e t o t h e p r op os e d r e g u l a t i on s t a t e st h a t i t i n c l u d e s r e f e r e n c e s t o t h e m o s t r e l e v a n t a r t i c l e s o f R e g u l a t i on (EC ) No 8 8 2 / 2 0 0 4 t o h e l p M e m b e r S t a t e s b e t t e rapply the provis ions of that regulat ion. These references st i l ldo not provide a c lear idea on how the control system for Artic le 11 checks should be set up. Furthermore Regulat ion (EC)No 882/2004 focuses on control aspects speci f ic to feed andf ood s a f e t y , a n i m a l h e a l t h a n d w e l f a r e w h i c h a r e of l i m i t e drelevance to Art ic le 11 checks .

CONCLUSIONS ANDRECOMMENDATIONS

The legal provis ions on the GI scheme should set out minim u m r e q u i r e m e n t s f or A r t i c l e 1 1 c h e c k s . T h e y s h ou l d a d dress issues such as the minimum coverage of che cks , theirfrequency, the methodology for their selection and the part ies involved in the di f ferent s tages of the product ion andd i s t r i b u t i on s u b j e c t t o c on t r ol . T h e p os s i b i l i t y of s e t t i n gup working groups could be considered in this context tofaci l i tate shar ing of best pract ices .

R E C O M M E N D A T I O N 1



32


59. The Regulat ion does not address the quest ions of the obl ig atory character and nature of checks to be carr ied out by theM e m b e r S t a t e s t o p r e v e n t a n d d e t e c t d i s a l l ow e d p r a c t i c e s .A s a r e s u l t , m os t n a t i on a l a u t h or i t i e s d o n ot c a r r y ou t r e g u lar checks a imed at detect ing and suppress ing cases of thesep r a c t i c e s . T h e C om m i s s i on , i n t h e p r op os e d r e g u l a t i on , l a y sdown that Member States have to take appropriate administrative and judicial steps to address disallowed practices and thatc h e c k s r e l a t e d t o t h i s i s s u e f or m p a r t of t h e M e m b e r S t a t e s ’off ic ia l controls of the qual i ty schemes. Addit ional deta i ls ont h e c on t r ol s y s t e m t o b e u s e d f or t h e s e c h e c k s a r e n ot p r ovided; reference is made again to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004,which is , however , subject to the same l imitat ions as the onesdescr ibed for Art ic le 11 checks .

60. Currently, the Commission does not closely monitor the implementat ion of the GI scheme in the Member States . No auditson the GI scheme have been carr ied o ut so far and a systematicdesk review, only recent ly s tarted, revealed incomplete information in Member States’ reporting. This latter issue has beena d d r e s s e d i n t h e p r op os e d r e g u l a t i on , w h i c h p r ov i d e s t h a tMember States shal l include a separate sect ion on the checks

related to agricultural quality schemes in the MANCPs and theannual reports under Regulat ion (EC) No 882/2004. Whi ls t thisprovis ion is a pos it ive step, i t remains to be seen whether i twould a l low the Commiss ion to have complete information ont h e M e m b e r S t a t e s ’ c on t r o l s y s t e m a n d t h e c on t r ol s c a r r i e dout .

The Commiss ion should include audits on Member States ’

checks of the GI sch eme in i ts plan of regular audits in theMember States .


C l e a r r u l e s on a c on t r ol s y s t e m t h a t p r ov i d e s f or r e g u l a rc h e c k s a i m i n g a t t h e d e t e c t i on a n d s u p p r e s s i on of d i s a l lowed pract ices should be la id down in the legal provis ionson the GI scheme. They should be compl emented by a system of mutual ass is tance adequate to the speci f ic needs of the nat ional author i t ies deal ing with the GI scheme.




3535


IV.

Audits under the OFFC, including the geo-

g r a p h i c a l i n d i c a t i o n s ( G I ) s c h e m e , a r ep l a n n e d a n d e x e c u t e d b y t h e F o o d a n dV e t e r i n a r y O f f i c e ( F V O ) o f t h e E u r o p e a nC o m m i s s i o n ’ s D i r e c t o r a t e - G e n e r a l f o rHealth and Consumer Pol icy in ful l cooper-a t i o n w i t h t h e D i r e c t o r a t e - G e n e r a l f o rAgr iculture and Rural Development .

V.

The Commi ssi on has put in place a coher-e n t s e t o f d i f f e r e n t i n i t i a t i v e s a i m e d a trais ing awareness of the geographical indi -

cat ions scheme:

— t he Q ua li ty w eb si te 3 attracts more than50 000 page v iews by more than 10 000unique v is i tors per month;

— M e m be r St a t es m a ke u s e o f t h e o p t io nt o i n c l u d e p r o m o t i o n m e a s u r e s ( 1 3 2a n d 1 3 3 ) i n t h e i r r u r a l d e v e l o p m e n tprogrammes. Indiv idual Member Statescan decide to do so on the basis of theirown analys is and strategy;

— c on fe r e nc e s w i th s t a ke h ol de r s , le a d in g ,a m o n g o t h e r s , t o d e f i n e t h e m o s t a p propriate actions to increase awarenessof the scheme;

— s p e ci f i c p r o mo t i o n p r o gr a m me s un d e rRegulat ion (EC) No 3/2008 4;

3 http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/quality/

4 Council Regulation (EC) No 3/2008 of 17 December 2007 on

information provision and promotion measures for agricultural

products on the internal market and in third countries.

— i n f or m a ti o n m ea s u re s un d e r R e g u la t ion (EC) No 814/2000 5, where informat i o n a b o u t t h e q u a l i t y o f a g r i c u l t u r a lproducts is one of the pr ior i t ies . Thesealso include participating in agriculturalfa i rs , conferences , seminars and roundtables .

The Commiss ion is a lso to redef ine i ts pro-moti on p ol i c y s tar t i n g w i th th e laun c h of a b r oad c on s ultat i on ab out th e futur e of p r o m o t i o n a c t i o n s f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l p r o d -ucts where PDO and PGI wi l l play a promi-

nent role .

T h e s t u d y r e f e r r e d t o b y t h e C o u r t w a sc on duc te d at a t i me w h e n th e us e of th el o g o a n d t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s ‘ p r o t e c t e ddesignation of or igin ’ and ‘protected geo-graphical indicat ion’ were not compulsory ,as instead is the case s ince 1 May 2009.

VI. f i rst indent

T h e c u r r e n t r e g u l a t o r y s y s t e m b a s e d o nthe OFFC Regulat ion (EC) No 882/2004 pro-

vi de s for th e n e c e s s ar y le ve l of de ta i l asregards the requirements of the GI chec ks .

W i th i n th e O F F C R e g ulat i on , th e s p e c i f i cm o d a l i t i e s r e g a r d i n g t h e s e c o n t r o l s a r el e f t t o M e m b e r S t a t e s p u r s u a n t t o t h ep r i n c i p le of s ub s i di ar i ty . C on s i de r i n g th ee x t r e m e d i v e r s i t y o f c o n c r e t e s i t u a t i o n st h a t m a y a r i s e , f u r t h e r h a r m o n i s a t i o n i sd e e m e d i n a p p r o p r i a t e . T h i s i s w i t h o u tprejudice to any clar i f icat ion or precis ions

that might be further contemplated in the

overal l legis lat ive f ramework.

5 Council Regulation (EC) No 814/2000 of 17 April 2000 on infor-

mation measures relating to the common agricultural policy.

REPLY OF THE

COMMISSION



36


VI. second indent

OFFC rules set out c lear pr inciples for such

c h e c k s , w h i c h s h o u l d b e e s t a b l i s h e d b yMember States .

M u t u a l a s s i s t a n c e p r o v i s i o n s a r e a p p l i c -able in accordance with T it le IV (Adminis-t r at i ve as s i s tan c e an d c oop e r at i on i n th eareas of feed and food) Art icles 34 to 40 of Regulat ion (EC) No 882/2004.

VI. third indent

A s f r o m 2 0 1 1 , t h e A g r i c u l t u r e a n d R u r a lDevelopment DG and the Health and Con-s u m e r s D G h a v e a g r e e d t h a t t h e l a t t e rw i l l i n c lude P D O / P G I r e late d i s s ue s i n i tsannual audit programmes in ful l coopera-t ion with the Agr iculture and Rural Devel-

opment DG and fol lowing the same r igor-ous pr ior i t isat ion process appl ied to other

areas under i ts remit .

VI. fourth indent

I n addi t i on to th e c oh e r e n t s e t of ac t i on sd e t a i l e d u n d e r p o i n t V , a s p a r t o f t h eo n g o i n g r e f l e c t i o n o n t h e r e f o r m o f t h er e g i m e o n i n f o r m a t i o n a n d p r o m o t i o no f a g r i c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t s , t h e C o m m i s -s i o n w i l l c o n s i d e r a p p r o p r i a t e w a y s t of u r t h e r e n h a n c e t h e p r o m o t i o n o f q u a l -i ty s c h e me s . T h i s i s s ue w i l l b e addr e s s e d,i n te r a l i a , b y a G r e e n P ap e r p ub l i s h e d on14 July 2011 6.

6 Green Paper on promotion measures and information provision

for agricultural products (COM(2011) 436 nal of 14 July 2011).

INTRODUCTION

10.

The pr imar y a im of th e sch eme i s to re gi s-

ter names and through th is create and pro-

tect intel lectual property r ights .

See a lso reply to point I I .

OBSERVATIONS17.

T h e p r i m a r y m e c h a n i s m b y w h i c h t oensure protect ion of the registered names

is through the integr ity of the registrat ion

process and the legal protect ion provided

for each name registered.

18.

F o o d l a w c o n t r o l s a r e c a r r i e d o u t i n ah a r m o n i s e d f r a m e w o r k o f g e n e r a l r u l e sas la i d dow n i n th e O F F C R e g ulat i on ( E C )N o 8 8 2 / 2 0 0 4 , i n c l u d i n g r i s k - b a s e d c o n -tr o l an aly s i s ; s t r uc tur e of th e c omp e te n tauthority ; p lanning, nature and reportingabout controls , etc .

Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006

s t i p u l a t e s t h a t t h e c o m p e t e n t a u t h o r i t i e s

responsible for controls shall be designated

b y M e m b e r S t a t e s ‘ i n c o n f o r m i t y w i t h ’

Regulat ion (EC) No 882/2004. The speci f ic

modal i t ies regarding these controls should

b e l e f t t o M e m b e r S t a t e s p u r s u a n t t o t h e

p r i n c i p l e o f s u b s i d i a r i t y . T h i s i s w i t h o u t

prejudice to any c lar i f icat ion or precis ions

that might be further contemplated in theoveral l legislative framework.

REPLY OF THE

COMMISSION



3737


19.

I n l i n e w i th th e c on c e p t of b e tte r r e g ula-t i on , R e g ulat i on ( E C ) No 8 8 2 / 2 0 0 4 c ove r sa l l i s s ue s fa l l i n g i n th e f i e ld of c on s ume rp r o t e c t i o n , i n c l u d i n g f o o d l a b e l l i n g a n dc o n s u m e r i n f o r m a t i o n i s s u e s . T h e r e f o r e,checks concerning product specif icationsare covered.

T h e r e f e r e n c e t o R e g u l a t i o n ( E C ) N o8 8 2 / 2 0 0 4 i m p l i e s a r e f e r e n c e t o a l l t h el i n ke d le g al ac ts , an d i n p ar t i c ular to th etw o C ommi s s i on D e c i s i on s 2 0 0 6 / 6 7 7 / E C 7 a n d 2 0 0 7 / 3 6 3 / E C 8 , w h i c h p r o v i d e m o r ede ta i l s on th e f r ame w or k of of f i c i a l c on -t rols .

20.

T h e g e n e r a l s t r u c t u r e a n d p r i n c i p l e s o f food law control are duly harmonised. The

OFFC Regulat ion (EC) No 882/2004 requires

M e m b e r S t a t e s t o c a r r y o u t o f f i c i a l c o n -t r o l s r e g u l a r l y o n a r i s k b a s i s a n d w i t ha p p r o p r i a t e f r e q u e n c y t a k i n g a c c o u n t ,i n t e r a l i a , o f p a s t h i s t o r y o f c o m p l i a n c ean d th e r e l i ab i l i ty of op e r ator s ’ ow n c on -t rols .

Th e O F F C R e g u l a t i o n i s a c o n t ro l i n s t r u -m e n t t h a t i s f i t t e d t o t h e p a r t i c u l a r c i r -c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e f o o d c o n t r o l , i n l i n ew i th th e s ub s i di ar i ty p r i n c i p le an d b e tte rregulat ion.

See a lso the reply to point 19.

7 Commission Decision 2006/667/EC of 29 September 2006

setting out the guidelines laying down criteria for the conduct of

audits under Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parlia-

ment and of the Council on ocial controls to verify compliance

with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules

(notied under document number C(2006) 4026).

8 Commission Decision 2007/363/EC of 21 May 2007 on guide-

lines to assist Member States in preparing the single integrated

multi-annual national control plan provided for in Regulation (EC)

No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (noti-

ed under document number C(2007) 2099).

Dif ferences in the approach are inherent in

the decentral isat ion of controls under theO F F C , an d th e le g i s lator ’ s c h oi c e . Ne ve r -theless , the Court ’s observat ions can serveas a b as i s for an e x c h an g e of e x p e r i e n c e sand appropriate fol low-up, without putt ing

into quest ion the Member States ’ capacity

t o a p p l y r i s k - b a s e d c o n t r o l s u n d e r t h e i rseparate responsibi l i ty 9.

21.

R e g u l a t i o n ( E C ) N o 8 8 2 / 2 0 0 4 r e q u i r e sM e mb e r State s to p ut i n p lac e th e c h e c k s y s te m w h i c h b e s t f i t s th e i r n e e ds , b as e do n a r i s k a n a l y s i s . V a r i a t i o n s b e t w e e nM e m b e r S t a t e s a s r e g a r d s t h e q u a n t i t yand intensity of the checks on geographi-cal indicat ions are explained, among otherthings , by the di f ferent impact and uptake

of the geographical indicat ions schemes ineach Member State.

T h e r e f e r e n c e w i t h i n r e c i t a l 6 o f R e g u -l a t i o n ( E C ) N o 5 1 0 / 2 0 0 6 t o f a i r c o m p e -t i t i o n a n d e n h a n c e m e n t o f c r e d i b i l i t ymerely aims at just i fy ing the creation of aharmonised legis lat ive framework def iningPDOs/PGIs , in order to put an end to diver-g e n t n at i on al p r ac t i c e s , an d i s n ot me an tto addr e s s an y c on tr o l i s s ue s , r e fe r r e d toin reci ta l 16 thereof .

9 In this sense, the initiative Better Training for Safer Food (BTSF),

which aims at organising an EU training strategy in the areas of

food law, feed law, animal health and animal welfare rules, as well

as plant health rules, included in its programme for 2011–12 several

topics for discussion amongst Member States’ representatives:

— verication of compliance with specications;

— verication of compliance vs. ocial controls: various similar

techniques and methods of detecting fraudulent practices

and dierences between the ocial controls and verication

of compliance conducted for designated quality products;

— case studies based on practical examples of how verication

of compliance with specications should be conducted (trace

ability, geographical origin and boundaries, specic climatic

and geographical characteristics, etc.); riskbased approach and

issues of verication of compliance for protected designation

schemes.

REPLY OF THE

COMMISSION



38


22.

Controls in both geographical indicationsa n d o r g a n i c f a r m i n g a r e c a r r i e d o u t i n ah a r m o n i s e d f r a m e w o r k o f g e n e r a l r u l e sas la i d dow n i n th e O F F C R e g ulat i on ( E C )No 882/2004.

Th e t w o s c h e m e s h ave h ow e ve r a d i f fe r -ent purpose, ref lected in their legal bases .

Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 10 on or g an i cp r o d u c t s d e s c r i b e s t h e r e q u i r e m en t s f o rp r oc e s s e s an d p r oduc t i on me th ods c om-pulsory for a l l organic producers in a very

d e t a i l e d a n d c o m p l e t e m a n n e r , w h i l eR e g u l a t i o n ( E C ) N o 5 1 0 / 2 0 0 6 d e s c r i b e smainly procedural s teps and prescr ipt ions .A s c h e c ks ar e made on th e b as i s of th e s es p e c i f i c at i on s , th e c on tr o l s y s te m i n th ec as e of or g an i c far mi n g c an b e b as e d ona s i n g le mode l , w h i le th i s i s n ot fe as i b lei n t h e c a s e o f g e o g r a p h i c a l i n d i c a t i o n s ,w h e r e p r o t e c t e d p r o d u c t s s h o w a w i d evar iety of speci f icat ions .

Th e w i n e s e c t o r i s t r a d i t i o n a l l y a h i g h l yr e g ulate d s e c tor , f r om th e us e of p e r mi t -te d oe n olog i c a l p r ac t i c e s to th e r u le s onu s e o f v i n e v a r i e t i e s a n d p l a n t i n g c o n -d i t i o n s . A r t i c l e 6 2 o f R e g u l a t i o n ( E C )N o 8 8 2 / 2 0 0 4 i n f a ct e x c l u d e s t h e co mmo n

m a r k e t o r g a n i s a t i o n ( C M O ) o b l i g a t i o n sfrom the scope of OFFC controls . This hasmade i t more necessary to apply a speci f icdedicated system of controls .

10 Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on

organic production and labelling of organic products and repeal-

ing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91.

Box1

T h e Co mmi s s i o n n o te s t h at , i n t h e c as e sr e f e r r e d t o b y t h e C o u r t , n o v i o l a t i o n o f R e g u l a t i o n s ( E C ) N o 5 1 0 / 2 0 0 6 a n d ( E C )No 882/2004 was found. Bes ides , concern-

i n g t r ac e ab i l i ty , A r t i c le 1 8 of R e g ulat i on(EC) No 178/2002 (the General Food Law),w h i c h lay s dow n r e qui r e me n ts for t r ac e -abi l i ty of food and of food-producing ani-m a l s a n d o t h e r i n g r e d i e n t s e x p e c t e d o ri n te n de d to b e i n c or p or ate d i n to food, i si n a n y ca s e a p p l i ca b l e i n r e s p e ct o f P D O s /

P G I s . U n de r th i s p r ovi s i on , food b us i n e s soperators are required to have systems inp lac e to i de n t i fy th e s our c e an d quan t i tyof a food or food ingredient and the busi-n e s s e s t o w h i c h t h e y s u p p l y t h e i r p r o d -ucts .

I n a d d i t i o n , s p e c i f i c p r o v i s i o n s r e g a r d -i n g t r a c e a b i l i t y / p r o o f o f o r i g i n a r e l a i dd o w n i n t h e r e s p e c t i v e s p e c i f i c a t i o ns o f the PDOs/PGIs , enshrined at EU level . Then a t u r e a n d s c o p e o f s u c h p r o v i s i o n s a r eb oun d to var y de p e n di n g on th e c h ar ac -ter ist ics and speci f ic i t ies of each PDO/PGI .

Th e co ntr o l bo di e s a re b oun d to moni to rthese precise provis ions .

Jointreply to points 2324

R e g u l a t i o n ( E C ) N o 8 8 2 / 2 0 0 4 p r o v i d esal r e ady for a p r ote c t i on w h i c h i s e qui va-lent to the e x o f f i c i o protection requestedb y th e E ur op e an P ar l i ame n t . F or th e s akeof c lar ity , in the Commission proposal fora r e g u l a t i o n o f t h e E u r o p e a n P a r l i a m e n tan d of th e C oun c i l ( C O M ( 2 0 1 0 ) 7 3 3 of 1 0

D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 0 ) o n a g r i c u l t u r a l p r o d u c tqual i ty schemes some elements have beenadded in order to re inforce such controls .I n A r t i c l e 1 3 ( 3 ) o f t h e C o m m i s s i o n p r o -p os al M e mb e r State s ar e r e qui r e d to takethe appropriate administ rat ive and judic ial

s te p s to p r e ve n t or s top th e un law ful us eof protected designat ions of or igin or pro-tected geographical indicat ions .

REPLY OF THE

COMMISSION



3939


I n l i n e w i th th e p r i n c i p le of s ub s i di ar i ty ,Member States are better placed to decideo n t h e u s e o f r e s o u r c e s , b a s e d o n r i s k assessment and on the specif ic it ies of thenat ional market .

25.

R e g u l a t i o n ( E C ) N o 8 8 2 / 2 0 0 4 i n c l u d e sclear provis ions on mutual ass istance (Art-ic les 35 and 42) which apply a lso to the GI

checks .

A c c or di n g to th e le g i s lat i on i f n on - c om-pliance with food law is discovered, Mem-ber States need to take ac t ion. There must

be an alert system in place, and a contactp oi n t i n c as e of n on - c omp l i an c e. I n addi -t i o n , M e m b e r S t a t e s a r e n o t c u r r e n t l yu s i n g t h e t o o l s p u t a t t h e i r d i s p o s a l b yR e g ulat i on ( E C ) No 8 8 2 / 2 0 0 4 to th e i r fu l lp o t e n t i a l , i n c l u d i n g t h e p r o v i s i o n s o nm u t u a l a s s i s t a n c e . A c c o r d i n g l y , a c t i o nshould be taken to support a better use of

exist ing tools .

26.

Controls based on denunciat ion are part of

th e ap p l i c at i on of r i s k an aly s i s . I f th e r i s k analys is points to the use of resource-eff i -

cient controls such as denunciat ion based,i t w ould b e c on tr ar y to th e p r i n c i p le s of the OFFC to divert control resources awayfr om h y g i e n e an d s afe ty c on tr o ls to n on -safety consumer information.

I n M ay 2 0 1 1 11 t h e C o m m i s s i o n r e m i n d e d

n a t i o n a l a u t h o r i t i e s t h a t e v e r y M e m b e rState is a market place not only for i ts ownp r ote c te d P D O / P G I p r oduc ts , b ut a ls o forproducts coming f rom other countr ies , and

that the correct use of these names in them a r k e t p l a c e a l s o n e e d s t o b e e n s u r e d . This wa s a lso previou sly don e by the Agr i -

culture and Rural Development DG in var i -

ous me e t i n g s to d i s c us s th e mult i an n ualn a t i o n a l c o n t r o l p l a n s ( M A N C P s ) a n dannual reports (ARs) .

11 In the case of PDO/PGI this was done at the 89th committee

meeting of 26 May 2011.

27.

T h e e x a m p l e s o f d i s a l l o w e d p r a c t i c e s i nthe four Member States referred to in Box 2

s h o w t h a t t h e c o n t r o l m e c h a n i s m s a r eworking, and highl ight the uti l i ty of com-bining al l types of food law controls in one

coherent system.

28.

S e e t h e r e p l y t o p o i n t s 2 9 a n d 3 0 a n d31–32.

29.

According to Regulat ion (EC) No 882/2004

a n d i n l i n e w i t h t h e s u b s i d i a r i t y p r i n c i p l e,

Member States are better placed to decidethe use of resources based on r isk-assess-ment and speci f ic i t ies of the nat io nal mark e t . T h e C o m m i s s i o n i s o b l i g e d t o c a r r yout audits to ver i fy the implementat ion of

mult iannual nat ional control plans , and of

off ic ia l controls in the Member States 12 .

T h e C o m m i s s i o n , u n d e r R e g u l a t i o n ( E C )N o 8 8 2 / 2 0 0 4 , i s r e q u i r e d t o c a r r y o u tg e n e r al an d s p e c i f i c audi ts to ve r i fy th atn a t i o n a l a u t h o r i t i e s c o n t r o l , e n s u r e a n denforce the correct appl icat ion of feed and

food law. The responsibi l i ty for this ver i f i -cat ion under the OFFC, including the geo-

graphical indicat ions (GI) scheme, is c lear .

T h e a u d i t s a r e p l a n n e d a n d e x e c u te d b ythe Food and Veter inary Off ice (FVO — theHealth and Consumers DG) in ful l coopera-t ion with the Agriculture and Rural Devel-opment DG.

30.O n - th e - s p ot audi ts ar e n ot th e on ly toolsto monitor the implementation of legis la-t ion. Other tools , including infr ingementsp r oc e dur e s , b i late r a l me e t i n g s w i th i n di -v i dual M e mb e r State s , e x c h an g e s i n c om-mittees , are employed by the Commiss ion.

12 Areas determined on a risk basis can be subject to on-the-spot

controls, and for the remainder supervision is by way of scrutiny of

MANCPs and annual reports.

REPLY OF THE

COMMISSION



40


Joint reply topoints3132

T h e p l a n s a n d r e p o r t s r e v i e w e d i n 2 0 0 9b y t h e C o u r t w e r e t h e M e m b e r S t a t e s ’f i rst response to the planning and report-i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s o f R e g u l a t i o n ( E C ) N o8 8 2 / 2 0 0 4 . I n th e me an t i me th e C ommi s -s i o n h a s b e e n w o r k i n g w i t h t h e M e m b e rStates to improve the amount and qual ityof the information in these reports acrossal l sectors ; these efforts include the provi-s ion of information in relat ion to PDO/PGI

controls .

A t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f 2 0 1 0 , t h e A g r i c u l -tur e an d R ur a l D e ve lop me n t D G as s e s s e dthe MANCPs and ARs of 10 Member States( w h e r e a g e n e r a l a u d i t b y t h e F V O w a ss c h e dule d for th e y e ar 2 0 1 0 ) w i th r e g ar dto th e p r ovi s i on s on P D O s / P G I s an d p r o-v i d e d t h e F V O w i t h c o m m e n t s o n t h e s edocuments .

T h e A g r i c u l t u r e a n d R u r a l D e v e l o p m e n tDG and the Health and Consumers DG ser-

v i c e s a r e w o r k i n g t o g e t h e r t o d e v e l o p atemplate for a harmonised examinat ion of

MANCPs and ARs .

See the reply to point 26 ( last p aragraph).

33.

The main element for the attract iveness of th e s c h e me tow ar ds p r oduc e r s i s th e fac tthat names that are registered as PDO/PGI

e n j oy p r ote c t i on as an i n te l le c tual p r op -erty r ight .

I n a d d i t i o n , i t s a t t r a c t i v e n e s s i s p r o v e nb y o t h e r e l e m e n t s s u c h a s t h e f a c t t h a tt h e A g r i c u l t u r e a n d R u r a l D e v e l o p m e n tD G c on t i n ue s to r e c e i ve man y n e w ap p l i -c at i on s or th at man y p r oduc ts b e ar i n g aregistered name can c laim a pr ice premium

compared to non-registered products f romthe same sector .

37.

The Commi s s i on i s f reque nt ly con frontedw i th s e r i ous de f i c i e n c i e s or i n ade quac i e si n t h e a p p l i c a t i o n s r e c e i v e d . T h e C o m -m i s s i o n h a s s y s t e m a t i c a l l y o f f e r e d t h ep os s i b i l i ty to th e ap p l i c an t to c omp le te /c lar i fy / ame n d i ts i n i t i a l ap p l i c at i on . Suc hflexibi l i ty and enhanced cooperation withthe appl icants largely explain the average

length referred to by the Court .

T h e C o m m i s s i o n i s c o n f i d e n t t h a t t w oguides released in 2010 and referred to by

the Court wi l l lead to improving the qual-i ty of appl icat ions .

I n addi t i on , i n or de r to r e ac h th i s g oal , i thas been explained to Member States dur-

i n g s e v e r a l c o m m i t t e e m e e t i n g s o n P G I san d P D O s th at th i s f le x i b i l i ty n e e ds to b el i mi te d i n or de r to e n s ur e a mor e t i me lyman ag e me n t of r e que s ts for r e g i s t r at i on ,within str ict respect of c urrent ru les .

38.

T h e r u r a l d e v e l o p m e n t p r o g r a m m i n g i s ,ab ove a l l , b as e d on th e n at i on al/ r e g i onaln e e d s w h i c h a r e t r a n s l a t e d i n t o t h erespect ive st rategy . I t i s logical that not al l

M e m b e r S t a t e s h a v e p r o g r a m m e d m e a s -ure 132. Whi le PDOs/PGIs are important to

s ome M e mb e r State s , th e y may b e of le s simportance to some other Member Statesw h i c h w o u l d r a t h e r u s e t h e f i n i t e f u n d selsewhere. See a lso the reply to point 46.

39.

The sur vey was conduc ted at a t ime whenthe use of the logo, or any ident i f icat ion of

th e E U P D O or P G I s tatus on th e p r oduc t ,w as op t i on al , c on tr ar y to th e s i tuat i on asf r om 1 M ay 2 0 0 9 , w h e n th e i r us e b e c amec o m p u l s o r y . M a n y o f t h e m o s t f a m o u sn ame s , h avi n g de ve lop e d th e i r ow n mar -ke t i n g i de n t i t i e s d i d n ot us e th e ‘ P D O ’ or‘PGI ’ ident i ty or logo.

REPLY OF THE

COMMISSION



4141


The pr imar y objec t ive of the sc heme i s tor e g i s te r an d p r ote c t th e n ame s . T h e p r o-v i s i on of mar ke t i n g tools an d oth e r e c o-n omi c b e n e f i ts ar e s e c on dar y to th i s p r i -mary a im.

A s p a r t o f t h e o n g o i n g r e f l e x i o n o n t h er e for m of th e r e g i me on i n for mat i on an dp r o m o t i o n o f a g r i c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t s , t h eCommission wi l l consider appropriate ways

to further enhance the promotion of qual-

i ty s c h e me s . T h i s i s s ue w i l l b e addr e s s e d,i n t e r a l i a , b y a G r e e n P ap e r p ub l i s h e d on14 July 2011.

42.

See the reply to point 55.

43.

A s m e a s u r e 1 3 3 i s n o t l i m i t e d t o G Is c h e me s , i t i s c le ar th at th e foc us c an n otbe the GI scheme i tsel f . Where the promo-

t ion concerns for example a regional qual-

i ty scheme deal ing with only one product ,

i t i s n or mal th at th e e mp h as i s w i l l b e onth at p r oduc t . I n g e n e r a l , p r omoti on of afood qual i ty s c h e me c an n ot b e s e p ar ate dfrom the products covered, otherwise theconsumer cannot relate to the scheme.

44.

The implementat ion of the measure can befo l lowed up by the output indicator which

me as ur e s th e n umb e r of s up p or te d i n for -mation and promotion act ions . The impor-

tance of the measure is further as sessed by

the result indicator measur ing the value of ag r i c ul tur a l p r oduc t i on un de r r e c og n i se dq u a l i t y l a b e l s / s t a n d a r d s . T h e r e f o r e , t h ei m p a c t c a n n o t o n l y b e d e r i v e d f r o m t h euptake of the measure.

46.

M e a s u r e 1 3 3 n o t o n l y a p p l i e s t o G I

s c h e m e s , b u t a l s o q u a l i t y s c h e m e s r e c o g -

nised by the Member States. Moreover, even

if a Member State has no product registered

a s a P D O / P G I , i t h a s t h e c h o i c e t o i n c l u d e

m e a s u r e s 1 3 2 a n d 1 3 3 i n t o i t s r u r a l d e v e l -

opment programme (RDP) in anticipation of

qual i ty product regist rat ion.

47.

T h e c u m u l a t i v e e x p e n d i t u r e a t t h e e n do f 2 0 1 0 s h o w s a n i n c r e a s e o f 1 3 1 % ( o r9 ,18 mil l ion euro) compared to the cumu-lat ive expenditure at the end of 2009.

49.

Se c tor a l an d g e og r ap h i c a l e valuat i on s of the promotion measures have al ready been

e l a b o r a t e d b y e x t e r n a l c o n s u l t a n t s . T h econclus ions of the two evaluat ions deal ingr e s p e c t i ve ly w i th s p e c i f i c ar e as c ove r i n gth i r d c oun tr i e s ’ p r og r ammes an d p ar t i c u-lar p r oduc ts ’ s e c tor s i n th e i n te r n al mar -ke t w e r e p os i t i ve an d th e i r r e c omme n da-tions for further improvements have beent a k e n i n t o a c c o u n t . E v a l u a t i o n m e t h o d sa s w e l l a s i m p a c t a s s e s s m e n t s a t e a c hp r og r amme ’s le ve l h ave b e e n made man -datory s ince 2008 and regulatory disposi-t i on s h ave b e e n r e i n for c e d i n ac c or dan c ew i th th e C our t of A udi tor s ’ r e c omme n da-t ions in i ts Special Report No 10/2009. Pro-

g r amme s adop te d s i n c e 2 0 0 8 do i n c luded a t a w h i c h w i l l b e t a k e n i n t o a c c o u n twithin the ongoing external evaluation of C o u n c i l R e g u l a t i o n ( E C ) N o 3 / 2 0 0 8 . T h i s

e valuat i on i s e x p e c te d to b e avai lab le b yOctober 2011.

REPLY OF THE

COMMISSION



4343


CONCLUSIONSANDRECOMMENDATIONS

57.

Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 provides fort h e a p p r o p r i a t e l e g a l f r a m e w o r k f o r a l lfood law obl igat ions .

H o w e v e r w i t h o u t p u t t i n g i n t o q u e s -t i o n t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f R e g u l a t i o n ( E C )No 882/2004, the Commiss ion proposal fora r e g ulat i on of th e E ur op e an P ar l i ame n tan d of th e C oun c i l ( C O M ( 2 0 1 0 ) 7 3 3 of 1 0D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 0 ) o n a g r i c u l t u r a l p r o d u c tqual i ty s c h e me s p r ovi de s fur th e r de ta i l son the control system cover ing GIs .

58.

F o o d l a w c o n t r o l s , i n c l u d i n g A r t i c l e 1 1c h e c k s a r e c a r r i e d o u t i n a h a r m o n i s e df r a m e w o r k o f g e n e r a l r u l e s a s l a i d d o w nin the OFFC Regulation (EC) No 882/2004.

Thi s regulati on cover s al l i s sues fa l l i ng i nth e f i e ld of c on s ume r p r ote c t i on , i n c lud-ing food label l ing and consumer informa-t i on i s s ue s . T h e r e for e , c h e c ks c on c e r n i n gp r o d u c t s p e c i f i c a t i o n s a r e c o v e r e d . T h es p e c i f i c m o d a l i t i e s s h o u l d b e l e f t t o t h eM e mb e r State s . C on s i de r i n g th e e x tr e medi ve r s i ty of c on c r e te s i tuat i on s th at maya r i s e , f u r t h e r h a r m o n i s a t i o n i s d e e m e dinappropr iate .

R e g u l a t i o n ( E C ) N o 8 8 2 / 2 0 0 4 r e q u i r e sM e m b e r S t a t e s t o c a r r y o u t o f f i c i a l c o n -trols regular ly on a r isk basis with appro-priate f requency taking account , inter a l ia ,

of past history of compliance and the rel i -abi l i ty of op erators ’ own controls .

Recommendation1

T h e c u r r e n t r e g u l a t o r y s y s t e m b a s e d o nR e g ulat i on ( E C ) No 8 8 2 / 2 0 0 4 p r ovi des forthe necessary level of detai l as regards ther e qui r e me n ts of th e G I c h e c ks . U n de r th eO F F C R e g ulat i on , th e s p e c i f i c modal i t i e sr e g ar di n g th e s e c on tr o ls ar e le f t to M e m-ber States pursuant to the principle of sub-

s i d i ar i ty . T h i s i s w i th out p r e j udi c e to an yc l a r i f i c a t i o n o r p r e c i s i o n s t h a t m i g h t b efur th e r c on te mp late d i n th e ove r a l l le g i s -lat ive f ramework.

The Commi ss ion w i l l howe ver fur ther di s -c us s w i th M e mb e r State s th e c ove r ag e of checks , their f requency and the methodol-

og y for th e i r s e le c t i on i n e x e c ut i n g th e i rr e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s u n d e r t h e O f f i c i a l F o o dand Feed Control (OFFC) Regulat ion.

59.

T h e o b l i g a t i o n f o r M e m b e r S t a t e s t o p e r -

f o r m c h e c ks a i m i n g a t d e t e c t i o n a n d s u p -

p r e s s i o n o f d i s a l l o w e d p r a c t i c e s i s p r o -

v i d e d i n t h e f r a m e w o r k o f R e g u l a t i o n ( E C )

No 882/2004. Member States are requested

to do so in a way that best suits their needs,

based on a r i sk analysis .

Recommendation2

R e g u l a t i o n ( E C ) 8 8 2 / 2 0 0 4 s e t s o u t c l e a rpr inciples for checks aiming at the detec-t i on an d s up p r e s s i on of d i s a l low e d p r ac -t i c e s , w h i c h a r e e s t a b l i s h e d b y M e m b e r

States on the bas is of a r isk analys is .

However without putt ing into quest ion the

a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h i s r e g u l a t i o n , t h e C o m -m i s s i o n p r o p o s a l f o r a r e g u l a t i o n o f t h eE u r o p e a n P a r l i a m e n t a n d o f t h e C o u n c i l(COM(2010) 733 of 10 December 2010) onag r i c ul tur a l p r oduc t qual i ty s c h e me s p r o-vides addit ional detai ls on the control sys-tem cover ing GIs .

REPLY OF THE

COMMISSION



44


A t th e s ame t i me , w i th i n th e f r ame of th eOFFC architecture, these issues wi l l be fur-ther ref lected upon.

W i t h r e g a r d t o m u t u a l a s s i s t a n c e p r o -v i s i o n s , t h e y a r e a l r e a d y a p p l i c a b l e i naccordance with the provis ions of T it le IV(Administ rat ive assistance and cooperat ion

in the areas of feed and food) , Art ic les 34to 40 of Regulat ion (EC) No 882/2004.

60.

Audits and need for audit planning fol loww e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d c r i t e r i a a n d a r e b a s e do n r i s k a n a l y s i s a n d l a r g e l y f o c u s e d o nhygiene and safety . Commiss ion resources

a r e v e r y t i g h t a n d c h o i c e s h a v e t o b em a d e i n c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f a l l f o o d l a wundertakings .

See a lso the reply to Recommendat ion 3 .

Recommendation3

A s f r o m 2 0 1 1 , t h e A g r i c u l t u r e a n d R u r a lDevelopment DG and the Health and Con-s u m e r s D G h a v e a g r e e d t h a t t h e l a t t e rw i l l i n c lude P D O / P G I - r e late d i s s ue s i n i tsan n ual audi t p r og r amme s i n fu l l c oop e r -at ion with the Agriculture and Rural Devel-

opment DG and fol lowing the same r igor-ous pr ior i t isat ion process appl ied to other

areas under i ts remit .

In addit ion, speci f ic working arrangements

a r e c u r r e n t l y b e i n g d e t a i l e d , i n c l u d i n gi n for mat i on on mult i an n ual n at i on al c on -t r o l p l a n s ( M A N C P s ) a n d a n n u a l r e p o r t s

(ARs) .

61.

T h e s c h e m e i s p r i m a r i l y a n i n t e l l e c t u a lproperty protect ion scheme. The appropr i -ate instruments , legal means are there andp r oduc e r s ar e i n v i te d to j o i n th e s c h e meon a voluntary bas is .

P r o d u c e r s h a v e s h o w n a c l e a r i n t e r e s t i n

t h e s c h e m e , a s s h o w n b y t h e s i g n i f i c a n t

number of product names registered (above

1 0 0 0 ) , a c c o u n t i n g f o r a m a r k e t v a l u e o f

14,5 bi l l ion euro (in 2008).

T h e M e m b e r St a t e s t h at h a ve j o i n e d t h eEU s ince 2004 are st i l l picking up on speedin relat ion to the sc heme. Therefore, t rade

f a i r s , t h e m a t i c i n t e r n a t i o n a l e x h i b i t i o n sa n d / o r p r e p a r a t i o n o f g u i d e s f o r a p p l i -c a n t s f o r g e o g r a p h i c a l i n d i c a t i o n s ( P D Oor P G I ) ar e i mp or tan t tools for at t r ac t i n gpotent ia l appl icants .

62.

Rais ing awareness among consumers takesc o n s i d e r a b l e t i m e e s p e c i a l l y s i n c e t h euse of the logos has only been mandator ys ince 1 May 2009. Also , as explained underp oi n t V , th e C ommi s s i on b e l i e ve s h avi n gput into place a coherent set of act ions to

increase consumer awareness . A change of att i tude wi l l take t ime and the Commission

a l s o a g r e e s t h a t t h e r e i s m o r e p o t e n t i a lan d w i l l r e f le c t , a ls o w i th i n th e on g oi n greform of i ts promotion pol icy , on how toincrease further consumer awareness. TheEU food qual i ty pol icy has been one of thep r i or i ty ac t i on s i n th e las t th r e e y e ar s forth e i n for mat i on me as ur e s on ag r i c ul tur a lproducts .

I t shal l be noted that only Member Statesh a v e t h e o p t i o n t o p r o p o s e p r o m o t i o nschemes for geographical indicat ions .

However , the Commission is promoting orp a r t i c i p a t i n g i n d i f f e r e n t t y p e s o f i n f o r -mat i on me as ur e s tar g e t i n g g e og r ap h i c a lindicat ions . See the reply to point 55 for a

nonexhaust ive l i s t of these act iv i t ies .

See a lso the reply to Recommendat ion 4 .

Recommendation4

A s p a r t o f t h e o n g o i n g r e f l e x i o n o n t h er e for m of th e r e g i me on i n for mat i on an dp r o m o t i o n o f a g r i c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t s , t h eCommission wi l l consider appropriate ways

to further enhance the promotion of qual-

i ty schemes.

REPLY OF THE

COMMISSION



45

European Court of Auditors

SpecialReportNo11/2011

Dothedesignandmanagementofthegeographicalindicationsschemeallowittobeeective?

Luxembourg: Publications Oce of the European Union

2011 — 44 pp. — 21 × 29.7 cm

ISBN 9789292372675

doi:10.2865/75364



HowtoobtainEUpublications

Freepublications:

• via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);

• at the European Union's representations or delegations. You can obtain their contact detailson the Internet (http://ec.europa.eu) or by sending a fax to +352 292942758.

Pricedpublications:

• via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).

Pricedsubscriptions(e.g.annualseriesoftheOfficial Journal of the European Unionandreports

ofcasesbeforetheCourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanUnion):

• via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).



Q J - A B - 1 1 - 0 0 8 - E N - C

THE EUROPEAN GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS SCHEME AIMS TO PROTECT

THE NAMES OF PRODUCTS WHOSE CHARACTERISTICS ARE ASSOCIATED

WITH THE GEOGRAPHICAL AREA IN WHICH THEY ARE PRODUCED, AND PRO-

VIDES A POTENTIAL ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY FOR FARMERS AND FOOD

PRODUCERS. THIS REPORT EXAMINES WHETHER THE SCHEME’S CONTROL

SYSTEM IS ROBUST, AND WHETHER THE SCHEME IS ATTRACTIVE TO PRODU-

CERS AND KNOWN TO CONSUMERS. THE AUDIT CONCLUDES THAT CLARI-

FICATION IS NEEDED ON A NUMBER OF ISSUES CONCERNING THE SCHEME’S

CONTROL SYSTEM, ESPECIALLY CHECKS OF PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS AND

DISALLOWED PRACTICES, AND THAT A CLEAR STRATEGY IS LACKING TO RAISE

THE AWARENESS OF BOTH PRODUCERS AND CONSUMERS.


eca report on geographical indications - 2011

Documents