Brussels, 20.12.2021
SWD(2021) 427 final
EVALUATION OF GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND TRADITIONAL SPECIALITIES GUARANTEED PROTECTED IN THE EU
{SWD(2021) 428 final}
Contents
1. INTRODUCTION 2. BACKGROUND OF THE INTERVENTION 2.1 Definitions of GI and TSG 2.2 Legal framework for GIs and TSGs 2.3 Recent policy developments related to GIs/TSGs 2.4 Baseline and points of comparison 2.5 Description of intervention and its objectives 3. STATE OF PLAY 3.1 Description of the current situation 3.1.1 Data on GIs and TSGs 3.1.2 Importance of GIs/TSGs: Economic overview 3.2 Implementation at national and EU level 3.2.1 Application procedure 3.2.2 Controls and enforcement 4. METHODOLOGY 4.1 Short description of the methodology 4.2 Data collection and the assessment 4.3 Limitation and robustness of findings 5. ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 5.1 Effectiveness 5.2 Efficiency 5.3 Relevance 5.4 Coherence 5.5 EU added value 6. CONCLUSIONS 6.1 Effectiveness 6.2 Efficiency 6.3 Relevance 6.4 Coherence 6.5 EU added value 66 Lessons learned 1. ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 2. ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION 3. ANNEX 3: METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS
Figures
Figure 1. Intervention logic for GIs and TSGs for agricultural products and foodstuffs, wines, spirit drinks and aromatised wine products
Figure 2. Registered GIs & TSGs by EU Member State & non‑EU countries – January 2021
Figure 3. Evolution of the number of GIs & TSGs (non‑EU countries included) between 2010‑2020
Figure 4. Breakdown of number and share of GIs & TSGs per sector – January 2021
Figure 5. Product categories of agri‑food GIs and TSGs – January 2021
Figure 6. GIs sales value and number of registered names by scheme GIs and TSGs (2017)
Figure 7. Evolution of the sales value of GIs and TSGs and the number of names registered (EU Member States only), in billion EUR
Figure 8. Value premium rate (2017)
Figure 9. Controls and enforcement of GIs
Figure 10. Overview of effectiveness analysis
Figure 11. Recognition of EU quality schemes' symbols: distinguishing between PDO and PGI/GI symbols / schemes by the respondents (in %)
Figure 12. Recognition of EU schemes’ symbols compared to the national or regional schemes’ logos by the respondents (in %)
Figure 13. Evolution of the average duration of the scrutiny and opposition procedures at EU level between 2008 and 2018 in months
Figure 14. Relevance of the objectives of agri‑food GIs and TSGs by national authorities (NA) and producer groups (PG)
Figure 15. Selection of ideas mentioned by the OPC respondents
Figure 16. Overview of the type of the respondents of the public consultation.
Figure 17. Incentives to participate the EU quality schemes (in %)
Figure 18.incentives to participate in the EU quality schemes (in %)
Figure 19. Consistency of EU quality schemes with consumer expectations (in %)
Figure 20. Coherence of EU quality schemes with MS public quality schemes (in %)
Figure 21. Coherence of EU quality schemes with private labels and certification schemes (in %)
Tables
| Acronym | Meaning |
|---|---|
| CAP | Common Agricultural Policy |
| CDG | Civil Dialogue Group |
| CMO | Common Market Organisation |
| COVID‑19 | Disease caused by a new strain of coronavirus |
| DG | Directorate‑General |
| DG AGRI | Directorate‑General for Agriculture and Rural Development |
| EU | European Union |
| FADN | Farm accountancy data network |
| GVA | Gross Value Added |
| IP | Intellectual Property |
| IPR | Intellectual Property Right |
| IPRED | Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive |
| JRC | Joint Research Centre |
| NA | National authorities |
| OJ | Official Journal |
| OCR | Official Control Regulation |
| PDO | Protected Designation of Origin |
| PG | Producer groups |
| PGI | Protected Geographical Indication |
| PS | Product Specification |
| SWD | Staff Working Document |
| TSG | Traditional Speciality Guaranteed |
| UK | United Kingdom |
| Table | Description |
|---|---|
| Table 1. | Data gathering methods, scope and reach of the evaluation support study on GI/TSG |
| Table 2. | Effectiveness of controls on GIs/TSGs – national authorities’ opinion |
| Table 3. | Distribution of benefits according to the evaluation support study – case studies |
| Table 4. | List of selected national/regional schemes |
| Table 5. | List of incentives and disincentives |
| Table 6. | Most selected incentives to participate in the EU quality schemes per category of respondents |
| Table 7. | List of the 17 case studies conducted |
| Table 8. | Details on the electronic survey with producer groups |
1. INTRODUCTION
This document sets out the results of the Commission’s evaluation of the European Union (EU) quality policy on Geographical Indications (GI) and Traditional Specialities Guaranteed (TSG). This legislative framework (“framework”, “rules”) consists of:
- GIs and TSGs for agricultural products and foodstuffs: Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1);
- GIs for wines: Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671);
- GIs for spirit drinks: Regulation (EU) 2019/787 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 … and repealing Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 (OJ L 130, 17.5.2019, p. 1);
- GIs for aromatised wine products: Regulation (EU) No 251/2014 … (OJ L 84, 20.3.2014, p. 14).
The evaluation covers the period from 30 May 2008 (shortly after the entry into application of Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 for spirit drinks) to the end of 2020. It assesses the extent to which the GI and TSG policy has achieved its objectives, examining effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added value. It also considers the Commission’s new political objectives, notably the Farm to Fork Strategy, and the limited impact of the COVID‑19 crisis. The evaluation feeds into an Impact Assessment report that will analyse options for the upcoming revision of the GITSG policy.
2. BACKGROUND OF THE INTERVENTION
2.1 Definitions of GI and TSG
As of January 2021, the EU protects almost 3 400 names of specific products as Geographical Indications (GIs) or Traditional Specialities Guaranteed (TSGs).
Geographical Indication (GI) – an indication (name) used on products from a specific geographical origin that have a certain quality, reputation or other characteristic essentially attributable to that origin. The GI scheme confers intellectual property rights, granting producers in a defined geographical area the right to use the registered name if they comply with the product specification. GIs promote fair competition, give consumers a guarantee of authenticity and distinguish products in the market, often securing higher‑value sales and exports.
Traditional Speciality Guaranteed (TSG) – highlights traditional aspects such as production method or composition, without being linked to a specific geographical area. The TSG scheme provides labelling protection and is not an intellectual property instrument.
2.2 Legal framework for GIs and TSGs
GIs are recognised as Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) under the WTO Agreement on Trade‑Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) [3]. The EU is mandated by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Article 17) to ensure protection of IPRs [4]. The main regulations are:
- Regulation (EU) 1151/2012 – agricultural products and foodstuffs;
- Regulation (EU) 1308/2013 – wines (CMO Regulation);
- Regulation (EU) 2019/787 – spirit drinks;
- Regulation (EU) 251/2014 – aromatised wine products.
The framework would benefit from streamlining, a process already addressed in the current CAP reform.
2.3 Recent policy developments related to GIs/TSGs
Key developments include the Commission’s Political Guidelines for 2019‑2024, the Farm to Fork Strategy, the Intellectual Property Action Plan, and CAP legislative proposals for 2021‑2027.ngoing amendments aim to clarify wine rules, strengthen protection on‑line and extend GI application to aromatised wine products.
2.4 Baseline and points of comparison
The previous evaluation (1992‑2006) cannot be used as a baseline because it covered a narrower scope. Recommendations from that evaluation included improving data availability, promoting the scheme and enhancing consumer knowledge.
2.5 Description of intervention and its objectives
The GI and TSG schemes aim to protect product names, ensure market transparency, safeguard the internal market, provide fair returns for producers, contribute to rural economies and give consumers reliable information. Specific objectives differ by sector (agri‑food, wines, spirit drinks, aromatised wine products).
3. STATE OF PLAY
3.1 Description of the current situation
3.1.1 Data on GIs and TSGs
In January 2021, the EU geographical indication register (eAmbrosia) contained 3 306 GIs and 64 TSGs. The EU has concluded 34 bilateral agreements with third countries, protecting 1 593 non‑EU GIs (additional 777 non‑EU GIs under consideration).
Figure 2 shows the distribution of registered GIs and T countries.
From 2010 to 2020, the number of registered GI names increased by 27 %, while TSG names doubled but still represent only 2 % of all registered product names.
Figure 3 illustrates the evolution of the number of GIs and TSGs (including non‑EU countries) between 2010‑2020.
Sectoral breakdown (January 202):
- Wines: 1 616 GIs (48 %);
- Food sector: 1 443 GIs and 64 TSGs (45 %);
- Spirit drinks: 242 GIs (7 %);
- Aromatised wine products: 5 GIs.
Figure 4 presents the sectoral breakdown.
The most diverse sector is agricultural products and foodstuffs, covering 28 product categories and 1 443 GI/TSG names.
Figure 5 shows product categories of agri‑food GIs and TSGs (January 2021).
3.1.2 Importance of GIs/TSGs – Economic overview
The total sales value of GI/TSG products in 2017 was estimated at EUR 77.15 billion in the EU‑28 (EUR 74.76 billion excluding TSGs), accounting for 7 % of total food and drink sales. Exports of GI/TSG products to non‑ countries in 2017 amounted to EUR 17.03 billion (15.5 % of EU agri‑food trade).
Figure 6 displays sales value and number of registered names by GI and TSG schemes (2017), and Figure 7 shows the evolution of sales value and number of names registered (EU Member States only) in billion EUR.
The average value premium rate in 2017 was 2.07, indicating that GI/TSG products sold for more than twice the price of comparable non‑GI products. Wines achieved the highest premium (2.85) while food the lowest (1.5). Figure 8 illustrates the value premium rate.
3.2 Implementation at national and EU level
3.2.1 Application procedure
The registration process is two‑step: first a national application by the producer group, followed by EU‑level scrutiny and publication for opposition in the Official Journal. If no opposition is received, the name is registered at EU level.
3.2.2 Controls and enforcement
Controls are governed by the Official Control Regulation (OCR) (EU) No 2017/625 and the Directive on Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRED) 2004/48/EC. Controls are generally more effective at the production and processing stages than downstream (wholesale/retail). Figure 9 summarises the control structure.
4. METHODOLOGY
4.1 Short description of the methodology
The evaluation relies on:
- In‑house data and information analysis;
- Public consultation (233 responses);
- External evaluation support study on GI/TSG (case studies, surveys, JRC counterfactual analysis).
4.2 Data collection and the assessment
Stakeholders could give feedback on the Commission roadmap (29 April 2019 – 27 May 2019). The public consultation ran from 4 November 2019 to 3 February 2020, attracting 233 responses from 21 Member States and four non‑EU countries.
4.3 Limitation and robustness of findings
Limitations include the relatively small number of public‑consultation responses and the reliance on qualitative data for many aspects.
5. ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS
5.1 Effectiveness
The evaluation finds that the GI/TSG schemes have a positive effect on the internal market, ensuring a common reference for trade and uniform protection. Figure 10 provides an overview of effectiveness analysis.
Key points:
- Integrity of the internal market: GI/TSG products accounted for 7 % of total food and drink sales in 2017, with 78 % of GI/TSG trade occurring on the EU market.
- Fair competition: EU‑level scrutiny ensures homogeneous treatment; national procedures vary but generally support fair competition.
- Controls and enforcement: Effective at upstream stages; downstream and online enforcement remain challenging. The GI infringement market was estimated at EUR 4.3 billion in 2014.
- Protection of IPR: GI names enjoy a high level of legal protection, though enforcement abroad can be difficult.
- Fair return for farmers: Average value premium of 2.07 (2017) indicates higher sales value, but benefits are not systematic across all GIs/TSGs.
- Contribution to rural economies: Positive impact on employment and farm income in many case studies.
- Clear information for consumers: Awareness of logos is relatively low (e.g., 20 % for PGI logo, 14 % for PDO logo).
- Safeguarding traditional methods (TSG): Very limited uptake (64 TSGs registered).
5.2 Efficiency
Public costs for GI/TSG management and controls are estimated at 0.12 % of sales value. Average registration cost at EU level is EUR 33 500. Producer‑group costs average 0.5 % of sales value. Lengthy procedures (average 5‑6 years for registration) constitute the main source of administrative burden. Figure 13 shows the average duration of scrutiny and opposition procedures.
5.3 Relevance
The schemes meet the needs of producers, national authorities and consumers, though low consumer awareness limits perceived relevance. They support rural development, align with CAP instruments and contribute to environmental and animal‑welfare objectives increasingly.
5.4 Coherence
The GI/TSG framework is coherent with EU trade marks, national/regional schemes, other CAP instruments, food‑safety, health, information‑to‑consumers and trade policies. Differences in national implementation are noted but do not undermine overall coherence.
5.5 EU added value
The EU‑wide framework ensures homogeneity, legal certainty and market access, providing added value over fragmented national schemes. It also supports trade negotiations and protects GIs internationally (e.g., via the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement).
6. CONCLUSIONS
6.1
The objectives of the EU legislation on GIs and TSGs have been largely achieved. The schemes enhance the internal market, protect IPRs, and provide economic benefits, though challenges remain in downstream enforcement and consumer awareness.
6.2 Efficiency
Costs are low relative to sales value, but administrative procedures are lengthy and burdensome, especially for small‑scale GIs/TSGs.
6.3 Relevance
The schemes remain relevant for producers and rural development, but need to improve consumer awareness and integrate sustainability criteria.
6.4 Coherence
Overall coherence with other EU policies is strong, though some sector‑specific divergences exist.
6.5 EU added value
The EU framework delivers clear added value by harmonising protection, facilitating trade and supporting rural economies.
6.6 Lessons learned
- Strengthen downstream and online enforcement;
- Enhance consumer awareness and communication;
- Simplify and shorten registration procedures;
- Better integrate sustainability and digitalisation;
- Re‑assess the attractiveness of the TSG scheme.
Annex 1: Procedural information
Lead DG: Directorate‑General for Agriculture and Rural Development (DG AGRI) Planning reference: PLAN/2018/4906
Organisation and timing:
- Inter‑service Steering Group (ISSG) established 5 March 2019;
- Public consultation (4 Nov 2019 – 3 Feb 2020);
- Evaluation support study completed 5 Feb 2021.
Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation
- 233 contributions received (21 Member States, 4 non‑EU countries);
- Main issues raised: need for clearer information, simplification of registration, sustainability criteria, enforcement improvements.
Annex 3: Methods and analytical models
- Desk research, surveys of national authorities and producer groups, 17 case studies across 7 Member States, JRC counterfactual analysis.