Brussels, Belgium—The European Union’s geographical indications (GIs) and traditional specialities guaranteed (TSGs) schemes offer a wide range of benefits for stakeholders, including a fair return and competition for farmers and producers, according to the Evaluation of GIs and TSGs protected in the EU, which was published this week by the European Commission.
The evaluation is a “backwardlooking exercise”; it covers the period from May 2008 to the end of 2020. It assesses the extent to which the GI and TSG policy has achieved its objectives, and examines the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added value of the GI and TSG framework.
As of January 2021, the EU was protecting almost 3,400 names of specific products as GIs or TSGs. Several GI schemes operate at EU level, including Protected Designations of Origin (PDOs) and Protected Geographical Indications (PGIs) in the agri-food and wine sectors.
The general objectives of a GI are to provide an intellectual property right (IPR) protection for the name of a product of which the quality/characteristics or reputation are linked to its geographical origin.
The specific objectives of protecting PDOs and PGIs for agricultural products and foodstuffs are securing a fair return for farmers and producers for the qualities and characteristics of a given product, or of its mode of production, and providing clear information
on products with specific characteristics linked to geographical
origin, thereby enabling consumers to make more informed purchasing
choices.
As of January
2021, the EU GI register, eAmbrosia, contained 3,306 GIs and 64 TSGs.
In addition, the EU has concluded 34 bilateral agreements with third
countries, protecting 1,593 non- EU GIs with an additional 777 non-EU
GIs under consideration. Through these agreements, EU GIs are also
protected in the partner countries totaling more than 40,000 instances
of EU GIs protected in non-EU countries.
During
the period 2010 to 2020, the number of registered GI names increased by
27 percent, while the number of registered TSG names doubled but still
represents only 2 percent of all registered product names. A breakdown
of the registered names by sectors puts wines in first place with 1,616
registered names, followed by the food sector with 1,443 registered GI
names and 64 TSG names.
In
terms of variety of products, the most diverse is the sector of
agricultural products and foodstuffs, covering 28 product categories.
Altogether, 1,443 GI/TSG names are registered in this sector, including
248 cheeses.
The total
sales value of GI/TSG products in 2017 was estimated at 77.15 billion
euros in the EU-28 (74.76 billion euros excluding TSGs), accounting for 7
percent (6.8 percent excluding TSGs) of the total food and drink sales.
“This is far from being a niche market,” the evaluation noted.
Exports
of GI/TSG products to non-EU countries in 2017 were estimated at 17.03
billion euros (16.95 billion euros exluding TSGs), covering 15.5 percent
(15.4 percent excluding TSGs) of EU trade of food and beverages.
In
2010-2017, sales under GI/TSG increased more rapidly than in the whole
food and drink sector. This trend was observed at both EU and extra-EU
levels. However, this did not apply for all GIs; the sales value of 64
percent of GIs grew over the period, while it remained stable for 3
percent and decreased for 33 percent of the GIs. Also, GI exports
increased to a lesser extent than non-GI exports.
The
average value premium rate for GI/TSG products in the EU-28 was
estimated in 2017 at 2.07. This value premium rate indicates that the
sales value of GI/TSG products was on average (weighted) 2.07 times
higher than the sales value for comparable standard products without a
GI/TSG label. The highest premium was for wines (2.85) and the lowest
for food products (1.5). Also, lower price volatility was observed than
for the non-GI sector.
Assessing Performance Of GIs
Overall,
the evaluation concluded that the objectives of the EU legisiation on
GIs and TSGs have been achieved. The evaluation found that the GI and
TSG schemes have a positive effect on the internal market by providing a
common reference for trade across the EU member countries and ensuring a
consistent level of protection at the EU level.
The
framework for GIs and TSGs was assessed as efficient in terms of costs
and benefits for private stakeholders and public bodies. Public costs
for GI/TSG management and controls are estimated as low as 0.12 percent
of total sales value and the average costs for the producer groups is
0.5 percent of the sales value.
The
evaluation concluded that the objectives of the GI and TSG schemes are
addressing the actual needs of the various stakeholders but, due to the
low awareness and understanding of the schemes in some EU member
countries, such relevance is not necessarily perceived by consumers. GIs
are considered a strong asset for rural territories and an important
tool for promoting regional identity.
The
GI and TSG schemes are in general coherent with EU trademarks,
national/regional schemes, other Common Agricultural Policy instruments,
and other policies.
Having
a common framework for GIs and TSGs provides clear added value by
ensuring homogeneity in terms of sectoral scope and level of protection.
Without this framework at the EU level, such schemes might not exist in
all EU member countries or could result in very divergent approaches.
The
evaluation identified areas for improvement, including: Control and
enforcement weaknesses were detected in the downstream stages of the
value chain; Sustainability concerns have become more accentuated in
recent years, but GI and TSG production does not or not systematically
take them into consideration; A major factor limiting the attractiveness
of GIs and TSGs is the low consumer awareness and understanding of the
schemes, and logos; Producer groups play a pivotal role in managing GIs
and TSGs, but the tasks they are entitled to carry out differ widely
across sectors and EU member countries; Lengthy and complex procedures,
both at national and EU level, are considered the main irritant and
source of administrative burden.