Association des régions européennes des produits d'origine
AREPO
Les missions de l’AREPO sont : - Promouvoir et défendre les intérêts des régions et des producteurs de produits agricoles, agroalimentaires et viticoles de qualité au niveau européen et renforcer leur représentation auprès des institutions européennes. - Développer les échanges entre les régions. - Valoriser et promouvoir les démarches d’origine auprès des consommateurs et des relais d’opinion à un niveau européen et international.
ID: 3265773534-15
Lobbying Activity
Meeting with Fabien Santini (Head of Unit Agriculture and Rural Development)
20 Feb 2025 · Definition of short supply chain in the Commission's proposal to strengthen the position of farmers in the food supply chain (CMO targeted amendment)
Response to Review of poultry marketing standards
19 May 2023
The Association of European Regions for Products of Origin (AREPO) is a network of Regions and producer associations that deals with products of origin and EU quality schemes. It represents 35 European regions and over 850 associations of producers for more than 60% of European GIs. AREPO acknowledges that EU Marketing Standards in the agricultural sector are a guarantee of transparency for trade and consumers. As a matter of fact, their implementation is in the interest of both producers and consumers. On the one hand, it helps producers to communicate product characteristics and production method. On the other hand, it provides European consumers with transparent information about the product being marketed. In addition, they play a key role in preserving and promoting European agricultural know-how, EU culinary heritage and the diversity of production methods. This is particularly true with regards to the marketing standards for poultry meat, including foie gras. In fact, fat palmipeds and poultry sectors under quality schemes play a crucial role in the agri-food sector of some EU regions, especially in terms of jobs and regional economy, but also in preserving the regions gastronomic heritage. As a result, AREPO welcomes the proposed delegated act on marketing standards for poultry meat. Please, find in the document hereby attached a complete feedback from AREPO.
Read full responseMeeting with Janusz Wojciechowski (Commissioner)
30 Mar 2023 · Participation for the conclusion of the conference "European event on quality and origin products" and the inauguration of the tasting evening
Response to Detailed production methods for organic salts
14 Dec 2022
Saluant l'ouverture d'une consultation publique sur cet acte délégué, l'AREPO saisit cette occasion pour souligner les considérations suivantes. L'AREPO est préoccupée par le fait que cet acte entre en conflit avec les principes et les objectifs au cœur du règlement (UE) 2018/848 sur la production biologique et à l'étiquetage des produits biologiques, puisque certaines des méthodes de production autorisées, qui seront considérées comme biologiques, sont en réalité énergivores et nuisent à la préservation des ressources naturelles. En effet, les actes délégués permettront sans discernement la production de sel biologique à partir de mines de sel qui pourraient ne pas respecter les sols et les sous-sols, contrairement à l'art.5 du règlement biologique de l'UE. Plus précisément, le règlement délégué interdit uniquement l'extraction de sel gemme à l'aide d'explosifs, mais il n'interdit pas dautres techniques qui devraient être analysées une à une. Certains systèmes seraient considérés comme respectueux de l'environnement malgré les dégâts quils pourraient provoquer dans les sous-sols. L'AREPO demande à la Commission que toutes les pratiques minières soient étudiées avant dêtre rendues éligibles à la bio. Par ailleurs, le texte proposé autorise la production de sel par chauffage de l'eau salée, sans définir le type d'énergie qui devrait alimenter cette méthode. De même, il ne traite pas de l'énergie utilisée dans l'extraction ou la transformation des sels industriels. En revanche, pour le sel marin, qui s'évapore naturellement, grâce au soleil et au vent, la Commission exige que la phase de séchage du sel soit réalisée à l'aide d'énergie renouvelable, alors que cette technique est déjà économe en énergie. La contradiction est incompréhensible. Cela risque de créer une distorsion de concurrence qui affectera les plus petits producteurs, affaiblissant la contribution de l'agriculture biologique au développement des zones rurales. Par conséquent, l'utilisation des énergies renouvelables devrait être une obligation pour tous les processus de production. En outre, le texte autoriserait le lessivage du sel après la récolte. Une telle technique appauvrit le sel en minéraux tels que le magnésium et le calcium, altérant ainsi la nature du sel. Cela est contraire aux principes fondamentaux de l'agriculture biologique, qui exigent de "garantir l'intégrité de la production biologique à tous les stades de la production, de la transformation et de la distribution"(art.5 règlement biologique). L'acte délégué ne prévoit pas de date pour la commercialisation du sel biologique. Alors que la production de sel marin est saisonnière, car elle dépend de bonnes conditions climatiques, le sel de mine est produit en continu tout au long de l'année. En l'absence d'une date butoir équitable pour la commercialisation du sel biologique, le sel marin sera probablement pénalisé car les producteurs ne pourront pas mettre immédiatement sur le marché leur production certifiée biologique et le sel marin sera nécessairement devancé sur le marché par le sel de mine non saisonnier. Ainsi, l'acte semble introduire un avantage pour les grands exploitants industriels de mines de sel par rapport aux exploitants de sel marin. Partant, l'AREPO considère que cet acte délégué contient des incohérences qui pourraient affecter la crédibilité du secteur biologique. Par conséquent, certaines limites aux méthodes non biologiques devraient être introduites, en particulier lorsque des alternatives naturelles existent. De même, cela pourrait affecter les petits producteurs de sel marin, récoltant à la main dans les marais salants, qui seront mis sur le même plan que celui des grands complexes miniers, avec des contraintes disproportionnées. En conclusion, le label bio risque d'être utilisé sur des produits ne respectant pas les principes de l'agriculture biologique, trompant ainsi les consommateurs vers des modes de production moins vertueux.
Read full responseResponse to Geographical indication protection at EU level for non-agricultural products
13 Jul 2022
The Association of European Regions for Products of Origin (AREPO) would like to submit the attached position paper as feedback on the Proposal for a Regulation concerning CI GIs.
Read full response27 Jun 2022
AREPO welcomes the objectives that the European Commission intends to achieve through this proposal for a regulation. However, the ambitions set are not always adequately supported by the legislative provisions. In this regard, we would like to submit the following observations and recommendations.
Despite remaining responsible for decision-making on GI registrations, amendments and cancellations, the EC proposes to rely on technical assistance provided by EUIPO, without detailing the tasks given to this agency in the main regulation, rather leaving it to delegated acts. Shifting the management from DG AGRI to EUIPO will bring a loss of centrality of the agricultural and rural development components of GIs in favour of the intellectual property right dimension (IPR).
While recognising the importance of IPR, AREPO has always supported the approach adopted and maintained by the EC since the first GI regulation, namely a vision of GIs as policy tools for rural development and territorial planning. As a result, DG Agri should be in charge of the registration, amendment, opposition and cancellation of GIs, as well as of the evaluation of the applications and amendments of product specifications. Expertise in agronomy and rural development is vital to ensure that GIs will keep evolving and being part of the CAP, especially when sustainability criteria are expected to increasingly integrate products' specifications.
On the other hand, the technical expertise and resources of the EUIPO could provide invaluable support to strengthen GIs protection. EUIPO could continue to manage GIView, ensure proper protection of GIs in domain names' registration, improve the fight against counterfeiting and piracy of GIs through its European Observatory on Infringements of Intellectual Property Rights, support the EC in the opposition procedures for aspects concerning IP, e.g. conflict with trademarks and genericity issues.
Therefore, the delegation of power to the EUIPO should be clearly defined in the legislative proposal following the above-mentioned criteria.
If the involvement of EUIPO replies to the need to speed up procedures, we would like to stress that red tape will be addressed by the simplification of the amendment procedures adopted in December 2021. Furthermore, it is necessary to give a clear timeframe and speed up the amendment procedure that affects the adjustments of production processes to external changes and pressures, like climate change.
On producer groups, we think that the EC proposal, by introducing two level of representativeness, generates confusion and risk creating a two-speed system. The current wording does not take into account the diversity of legal situations in the Member States and risks undermining well-functioning collective governance systems already in place in many MS.
The legislative proposal should define general rules and principles on the GI groups, their powers and how a GI group can be recognised by a MS. Nevertheless, national specificities need to be taken into account. Hence, we suggest applying subsidiarity to let MS maintain or improve their national system.
On sustainability, we would like to reiterate that GIs already contribute to several key objectives of Farm to Fork strategy. We agree on the voluntary approach, capable to acknowledge and promote GIs contribution to sustainability as well as to support and encourage producers and producer groups to further engage in this sustainable transition. However, we do not agree with the definition of sustainability undertakings via delegated acts. This strategic issue needs to be defined in the regulation.
To conclude, we find some encouraging elements concerning protection and controls of GIs. Nonetheless, the text can be improved with regards to online protection and fine-tuned to ensure proper protection of GIs used as ingredients. Plus, the attempt to define evocation and the generic status of terms is quite problematic.
Read full response8 Mar 2021
AREPO welcomes the launch of the review process of EU Agricultural Promotion Policy with a view to enhancing its contribution to sustainable production and consumption.
Although there could still be scope for improvement, EU Promotion programmes, both simple and multi, proved so far to be effective in raising the awareness on EU Quality schemes and contributed as a useful tool in supporting EU GIs producers in their endeavours to conquer new markets and increase exports. As a consequence, AREPO would like to seize this opportunity to praise EC commitment towards the promotion of EU Quality schemes both in the internal market and in third countries, acknowledging the importance of the budgetary lines to date dedicated to these topics.
Bearing in mind that the EC intends to review EU Promotion policy better aligning it with the priorities of the Farm to Fork strategy, AREPO would like to emphasize that EU quality schemes represent a sustainability tool, considering their potential in generating public goods in terms of sustainable rural development, growth and employment, diversification of rural economy, protection of natural resources and landscape, welfare of farm animals, food security, food safety and traceability. For this reason, EU quality schemes and national quality programmes could considerably contribute to the implementation of this EU strategy and they should remain a priority topic in the future promotion policy. Furthermore, in the current context where there’s an increasing attention to consumption of local products, it is worth noticing that GIs are the only products with an official certification guaranteeing their origin and differential characteristics.
As a result, among the policy options to be assessed, AREPO would like to recommend to the European Commission to prefer the option 1, Building on the current success. As a matter of fact, the evaluation carried out all along 2020, despite the limitations related to methodology and the reduced availability of data, showed that actions funded by the promotion policy were effective with respect to the objectives the policy wanted to achieve. Consequently, the policy should maintain its main features and, as done with the 2021 work programme, the Commission should provide technical guidance to applicants and evaluators and define selection and evaluation criteria, to be re-assessed every year, that will award programmes that are consistent with and contribute to the Farm to Fork objectives.
In this respect, recalling that the Farm to Fork Action Plan, in relation to meat, suggested to focus the review of promotion policy on how the EU can use its promotion programmes to support the most sustainable, carbon-efficient methods of livestock production, AREPO urges the European Commission to adopt a holistic approach concerning sustainability. In fact, when it comes to GIs, sustainability cannot be reduced just to carbon efficiency, but all the dimensions of sustainability must be taken into account. It is necessary to focus on the real problems of the sector, not least to protect animal production as well as consumers, favouring the most constructive and innovative options over those that appear more constrictive and ideological.
In addition, in line with the need for a shift towards more sustainable and healthier diets, AREPO encourages the European Commission to look for actions aiming to increase, among final consumers, the awareness and understanding of quality as a competitive factor for health and proper nutrition, including the importance of a proper intake of essential amino acids in diets. Especially, agri-food PDOs and PGIs should be also promoted in those third countries where they are not very well recognized, considering their role in the wider frame of a diversified and balanced diet.
To conclude, as concerns the intention to simplify programme implementation, AREPO agrees with the proposal of a streamline implementation model.
Read full responseResponse to Setting of nutrient profiles
2 Feb 2021
AREPO agrees with the European Commission (EC) that one of the biggest challenges ahead is to be able to consume and eat within planetary limits and preserving health. As a consequence, we believe that a shift towards more sustainable and healthier behaviours is needed and we encourage the Commission to thoroughly analyse the impact of the policy options proposed.
Focusing on the objective of establishing a harmonised mandatory front-of-pack nutrition labelling (FOPNL) and looking at the alternatives to be assessed, AREPO believes that a FOPNL using colour-coding combined with a graded indicator, e.g. Nutriscore, will not be fit for this purpose due to the oversimplification of information provided. We question that this type of FOPNL will provide clear and accurate information to consumers, especially with regards to Geographical Indications (GIs), often associated with the production of public goods and guarantee of safe, traceable and high-quality products.
In fact, fruit and vegetables excluded, GIs and some single ingredient products, praised for their nutritional value as part of a balanced diet, may be disadvantaged by an oversimplified nutrition presentation not taking into account the level of processing of a product, nor the dietary intake, nor the daily balanced diet, nor the notion of pleasure food and the related low frequency of consumption.
Furthermore, due to their composition and the traditional characteristics described in the product specification, reformulation is seldom possible for GIs. Their nutrient profiles and production techniques cannot be altered without changing the very nature of the product.
Aware that the EC intention is to empower consumers to make healthy food choices, AREPO priority is to stress that FOPNL cannot alone engender such an ambitious long-term change.
As a matter of fact, fighting off unbalanced nutrition requires nutrition education in order to increase consumers understanding and use of information eventually provided with nutrition labelling.
Consequently, AREPO would like to recommend to the EC to address its efforts towards more education and better communication on the importance of a diversified and balanced diet and how EU Geographical Indications and quality products can contribute to it.
The main message should be focused on the idea of “eating less but better”, reintroducing the notion of portion and daily intake, combined with the adoption of a more active lifestyle to reverse the consequences of sedentariness.
Plus, emphasis should be placed on the priority of dietary diversity, encompassing different categories of food, tastes, seasonality, freshness, culture and skills.
EU PDOs and PGIs fit in this context. It is worth noting that many GIs are associated with specific diets recognized for their interest in terms of nutrition, as proved by the renowned example of the Mediterranean diet. The traditional ways of cultivating plants and raising animals, the influence of natural conditions, the human practices as well as the traditional methods of processing and conservation, are crucial in the nutritional quality of GI products. Thus, GIs have great potential in playing a significant role in the shift to healthier diets, through their own qualities, including nutritional and organoleptic ones, and influence on consumer behaviours.
Should the EC go ahead with the proposal to introduce the Nutriscore as mandatory FOPNL at EU level, applicable to EU GIs too, AREPO calls upon the Commission to establish alternative ways of communicating the high quality of these products to consumers, considering how to engage producers and consortia in this process.
Particularly, we suggest to the EC:
• To keep allocating a sizeable budget to Promotion of EU Quality Schemes
• To increase scientific research on GI and nutrition profile, encouraging the publication of data and results
• To better involve producers, encouraging them to provide comprehensive information on their products
Read full responseResponse to Geographical indication protection at EU level for non-agricultural products
23 Dec 2020
AREPO is driven by a vision of Geographical Indications (GIs) as tools for rural development and territorial planning. We have a long experience in the protection and valorisation of agricultural and agri-food GIs. Likewise, we believe that GIs for non-agricultural products could contribute to the growth and development of local territories.
AREPO welcomes the European Commission openness to the creation of an efficient and transparent EU-wide GI protection system for non-agricultural products. Especially, following EU adhesion to the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement, which does not draw a distinction between agricultural and non-agricultural GIs, it is the right time for the European Union to establish such a scheme.
Plus, this would benefit as well EU’s agricultural GIs in the framework of trade agreements with third countries, where non-agricultural GIs are of paramount importance, since most of them ask for their protection in return for the recognition of EU agri-food GIs.
As concerns the type and the mechanism of protection to be granted to non-agricultural GIs, AREPO believes that a regulation at EU level is needed. The system should be modelled on the existing EU rules for agricultural PDOs and PGIs.
As far as possible, a harmonised approach between the quality schemes for agricultural and non-agricultural goods is highly recommended:
• Definitions: the link between the product and the territory cannot be conceived in the same way as for agricultural products. Particularly, the concept of designation of origin (PDO) for artisanal products will be very limited since, for some of them, the raw material may not always come from the geographical area concerned. Although some natural factors (the soil, the climate, the origin of raw materials etc…) can characterize the quality of some artisanal products, it can be said that in certain cases the link between non-agricultural products and their territory is the human factor, i.e. the producers’ know-how, skills, practices and the localised traditional methods of production.
• Product specifications: transparency is needed for consumers, in order to guarantee a correct information on the product and its origin, preventing misleading practices.
• Registration procedure: it must avoid red tapes, which might discourage producers from the application.
• Producer groups: they should have a strong role in the management and protection of their GI. They should possess the proper means to intervene on controls and enforcement too.
• Protection: the current systems are not sufficient to ensure a proper protection. Therefore, a strong set of rules, inspired to the type of protection accorded to agricultural products, should be established. Non-agricultural GIs should benefit on the one hand from the same rules of protection as agricultural products and on the other hand from ex officio protection.
• Logo: a common and mandatory logo should be established, in order for consumers to easily recognise it as expression of the quality and peculiarities of the good.
• Trade Agreements: the introduction of an EU regulation for artisanal GIs would allow to include them in the list of products covered by EU trade agreements with third countries.
To conclude, AREPO would like to raise the attention of the European Commission on possible conflicts over the use of names. If an agricultural GI and a non-agricultural GI have the same geographical name, caution is advised when considering the level of qualitative requirement of the latter, which must not damage or weaken the reputation of the geographical name of the former, avoiding situations of parasitism. As a consequence, coordination between DG Agri and DG Growth would be necessary at the stage of examining the files, or at least the consultation by DG Growth of the e-Ambrosia database during its examination of non-agricultural GIs applications.
Read full response24 Nov 2020
AREPO welcomes the European Commission intention to strengthen GIs legislative framework and thus increase their take up across the EU, while ensuring their effective protection within the EU.
In order to better address the challenges faced by EU quality policy as well as to strengthen GIs legal framework, AREPO recommends the European Commission to:
1. IMPROVE PROTECTION AND ENFORCEMENT OF GIS IN THE MEMBER STATES:
• Strengthen protection to cover more effectively attempts by third parties to abuse the GIs reputation, including protection against any bad faith registration in second-level domain names;
• Request MS to regulate the relations between trademarks and GIs in order to extend the protection of the latter, defining within the national registration procedure the moment in which the registration of a trademark is refused on the grounds that the protected name or GI is being registered;
• Promote awareness campaigns to facilitate the understanding and harmonized implementation of the protection against GIs evocations, in accordance with the EU regulations and case law;
• Ensure a better protection of EU GIs in third country, and work on a better enforcement of EU bilateral agreements.
2. CLARIFY THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND INCREASE EFFICIENCY OF GI REGISTRATION PROCEDURE:
• Implement the simplification of amendment procedure for products’ specifications, while ensuring a level playing field between the different MS through the adoption of common guidelines for the competent national authorities;
• Overcome the lack of harmonisation among MS providing for trainings addressed to the national authorities involved in the process of GIs registration and publishing EC guidelines on the interpretation of GIs regulation concerning internal evaluation criteria for GIs registration and amendments;
• Periodically collect and publish consolidated data on the GIs sector and provide GI products with specific CN codes to facilitate the understanding of the trade flux for these products;
• Clarify labelling rules for processed products using a GI as an ingredient.
3. IMPROVE GI CONTRIBUTION TO SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION:
• Allow economic, social and environmental sustainability aspects to be included in GIs products’ specification;
• Include EU quality schemes in EC strategic approach to EU agricultural R&I, defining specific priorities and increasing funding and dedicated project calls;
• Financially support the creation of new formative offers to train GIs experts and professionals able to understand the whole complexity, characterisation, construction and territorial impact of GIs;
• Financially support producers groups in carrying out ex-ante and ex-post evaluation of the impact of registering a GI;
• Introduce training for GIs producers and producer groups in order to accompany them through a sustainability assessment.
4. EMPOWER PRODUCER GROUPS:
• Strengthen the role of GI producer groups in particular with regard to supply regulation;
• Introduce preliminary training and information session for potential producers;
• Ensure that future CAP strategic plans provide the right support for GIs producer groups, including financial aid for certification and promotion activities; for operating costs of producers groups; for ex-ante and ex-post evaluation of a registered GI impact; for the surveillance of the enforcement of the registered GIs protection; and for coordinated and collective activities aimed at strengthening the supply chain;
• Analyse the way GI producer groups are structured in different Member States to better understand the nature and prerogatives of PDO, PGI and GIs groups and ensure the best possible implementation.
5. IMPROVE CONSUMER INFORMATION AND AWARENESS:
• Maintaining a sizable budget covering promotion of EU quality schemes;
• Improve EU quality policy transparency and information for consumer, creating an online tool with easier access to readable information concerning product specifications and characteristic
Read full responseResponse to Long term vision for rural areas
7 Sept 2020
AREPO is driven by a vision of GIs as tools for rural development and territorial planning. As a matter of fact, agriculture and the agri-food industry are essential pillars of rural economies and regions in particular have long been involved in maintaining economic and social activity in rural areas, especially through the management and the implementation of Regional Rural Development Programs. All this considered, in order to better address the challenges faced by rural areas as well as to make better use of the resources at their disposal:
• AREPO encourages the EC to better associate and systematically consult its Regions in the next steps of both the development and implementation of the long-term vision for rural areas;
• AREPO reminds to the EC that this vision must fit into the wider framework of EU Common Agricultural and Cohesion policies, as well as be in line with the priorities of the digital agenda and contribute to the objectives of the European Green Deal, running parallel to the Farm to Fork strategy.
With regards to the CAP:
• AREPO regrets the lack of a truly territorial and regional dimension in the Commission’s proposals for the CAP post-2020 and calls for the reintroduction of the notion of Regional Management Authorities for the implementation of rural development interventions and requests the full association of Regions to the drafting of the National Strategic Plans and to the coordinating bodies set up by the European Commission.
Furthermore, AREPO encourages the EC to properly recognize the enormous potential that EU GIs, as expression of localized agro-food systems (LAFS), can offer to sustainable development of rural areas.
EU quality schemes, rewarding producers for their efforts to produce a diverse range of quality products, can benefit the rural economy. Thanks to their multidimensional link to the territory, GIs have a great potential to exert positive effects on rural development dynamics, creating spillover effects on the local economy.
In fact, the qualification process connected to GIs fixes and links the added value to the territory, keeping local production systems alive, thus safeguarding SMEs and assuring fairly remunerated and specialised employment, capable to attract young people.
Also, they boost other sectors that have backward and forward linkages with GI products, thus feeding into the diversification of rural economy.
This multifunctionality and diversification is pivotal for the sustainable development as well as the resilience of rural and marginal areas, e.g. mountain areas and the most remote regions, where the farming sector accounts for a significant part of the economy and production costs are high. As a result, GIs represent a valuable tool to ensure their attractiveness as places to live and work.
GIs contribute to the valorisation of rural identity as well as cultural and gastronomic heritage. This is fundamental to generate a feeling of belonging and pride to work and live in rural areas, thus retaining young population and preventing their migration from rural to urban areas. Furthermore, products reputation is reflected on the territories of origin with an evident gain in terms of visibility and cultural and touristic attractiveness for regions.
Last, GIs can play their part in the preservation of the environment, protecting traditional landscapes and natural resources.
Hence, AREPO would like to stress that in order to maximise GIs contribution to rural areas a renewed attention from policy makers is needed to strengthen EU quality policy, especially to:
• Develop and strengthen a transversal approach to educate and train GIs experts, able to understand the whole complexity and territorial impact of GIs;
• Strengthen the role of GI producer groups, particularly towards the education and training of young generation of producers, to facilitate the generational turnover, and the elaboration of valorisation strategies encompassing also related activities.
Read full responseResponse to Farm to Fork Strategy
13 Mar 2020
EU quality policy is a public policy aiming at delivering public goods to the whole European society. As such, it should be considered a major pillar of the Farm to Fork (F2F) strategy for a transition towards a European sustainable food system.
In fact, EU quality policy already contributes to several fundamental objectives of F2F strategy: addressing citizens demand for traditional products with the highest possible standards of food safety and quality; ensuring economic sustainability thanks to conditions of fair competition and higher producers income; ensuring sustainable food production through the protection of rural landscape and sustainable management and reproduction of natural resources; and providing clear communication to consumers concerning product characteristics and origin. Furthermore, geographical indications (GIs) traceability and protection mechanism represent an important and efficient tool to fighting food fraud.
Finally, GIs protection is often associated with the production of public goods, such as conservation of biodiversity, contribution to animal welfare, protection of cultural heritage, socio-cultural and rural development and reduction of poverty, in particular in mountainous and remote regions, where the farming sector accounts for a significant part of the economy and production costs are high.
Nevertheless, GIs potential in delivering public goods is still underutilized in the EU. A renewed attention from policy makers is needed to strengthen EU quality policy and maximise its contribution to F2F strategy. Hence, the EC should work to:
• Strengthen the role of GI producer groups in particular with regard to supply regulation;
• Ensure that future CAP strategic plans provide the right support for GIs producer groups, including financial aid for certification and promotion activities; for operating costs of producers groups; for ex-ante and ex-post evaluation of a registered GI impact; for the surveillance of the enforcement of the registered GIs protection; and for coordinated and collective activities aimed at strengthening the supply chain;
• Assure credibility of GI system and consumer trust improving enforcement and harmonise controls in MS;
• Strengthen protection to cover more effectively attempts by third parties to abuse the GIs reputation, including protection against any bad faith registration in second-level domain names;
• Improve consumer awareness of GI logos also by maintaining a sizable budget covering promotion of EU quality schemes;
• Improve EU quality policy transparency and information for consumer, creating an online tool with easier access to readable information concerning product specifications and characteristics;
• Ensure further simplification and harmonisation of EU Quality Policy, namely implementing the simplification of amendment procedure for products’ specifications, while ensuring a level playing field between the different MS through the adoption of common guidelines for the competent national authorities;
• Overcome the lack of harmonisation among MS providing for trainings addressed to the national authorities involved in the process of GIs registration and publishing EC guidelines on the interpretation of GIs regulation concerning internal evaluation criteria for GIs registration and amendments;
• Clarify labelling rules for processed products using a GI as an ingredient;
• Reconsider the place of GIs within EU trade policy, systematically ensuring their total protection in all bilateral and multilateral agreements;
• Include EU quality schemes in EC strategic approach to EU agricultural R&I, defining specific priorities and increasing funding and dedicated project calls for strengthening their contribution to public goods creation;
• Financially support the creation of new formative offers to train GIs experts with knowledge on local and traditional products, with a transversal multidisciplinary approach.
Read full responseResponse to EU-Mongolia agreement on protection of geographical indications
8 Jul 2019
AREPO feedback on EU-Mongolia bilateral agreement on Geographical Indications
AREPO currently brings together 34 regions from 8 Member States of the European Union and the producers of geographical indications (PGIs and PDOs) from these regions. The PDOs/PGIs of these regions represent 50% of the agri-food geographical indications registered by the European Union.
AREPO congratulates the European Commission on this initiative, concerning a bilateral agreement between EU and Mongolia on geographical indications for agricultural products.
The Commission informs stakeholders that the aim of such agreement is to provide protection to short lists of EU Geographical Indications in Mongolia and Mongolian GIs in the EU. As already stated with regards to other trade agreements, AREPO opposes the strategy adopted by EU negotiators to propose a restricted list of European GIs in the international trade negotiations. All GIs (PGI and PDO) registered by the EC should be granted a high level of direct protection in all bilateral, multilateral and international trade agreements signed by the EU.
Nevertheless, AREPO recognizes the improvement made with the choice of building up an a posteriori lists of GIs, where the number and names of GIs included will be selected through a concerted decision. As a result, AREPO calls for an exhaustive and systematically comprehensive consultation of the European GIs assessing their willingness and need to be protected under the commercial agreements.
Furthermore, AREPO would like to remind the importance of keeping the inscription to the bilateral register(s) open to GIs registered after the entry into force of the relevant trade agreement(s). As a consequence of the EU enlargement process, new GIs will be registered in the coming years and new products will become tradition and heritage of European regions. In addition, European food and agricultural potential is in constant development. Therefore, AREPO considers extremely important that the registration process in the eventual bilateral registers remains open to future GIs. This is valid for all bilateral, multilateral and international trade agreements signed by the EU.
To conclude, though non-agricultural GIs are excluded from the scope of this agreement, AREPO believes that they should be included in all types of trade agreements, especially this one with Mongolia, since non-agricultural GIs are often used by third countries in exchange of the recognition of EU agri-food geographical indications in such countries. Extending the protection to non-agricultural GIs would be a strong political signal towards a strong EU commitment to defend these local productions.
Read full responseResponse to Evaluation of Geographical Indications and Traditional Specialities Guaranteed protected in the EU
23 May 2019
L’AREPO réunit 34 régions de 9 Etats membres de l’UE et les producteurs d’IG de ces régions soit 55 % des IGs agroalimentaires enregistrées par UE. L’AREPO félicite la CE pour cette initiative de consultation des parties prenantes.
Nous soulignons que les politiques de soutien aux produits de qualité offrent une visibilité à l’UE au cœur des territoires parmi les plus difficiles auprès des producteurs et des citoyens. Au-delà des questions commerciales et de développement rural (DR), l’UE est donc tout à fait gagnante dans son soutien aux politiques de qualité et d’origine.
Profitant de cette occasion, l'AREPO voudrait suggérer les points suivants :
1) les moyens dont les producteurs disposent pour assurer la protection sont laborieux et coûteux. L'issue des actions en justice est incertaine, ce qui double les risques et les coûts encourus. Il faut donc renforcer la réalisation des contrôles sur les IG dans chaque Etat membre (EM), afin d’assurer une mise en œuvre cohérente de la protection ex-officio des IG dans tous les EM. Le lien avec notamment, l’EUIPO et son Enforcement Database (EDB) doit absolument être renforcé.
2) Le Règlement 1151/2012 a donné un rôle aux groupes de producteurs. Avec l’objectif de renforcer ce rôle, il faudrait analyser la structure de ces groupes dans chacun des EM de l’UE. Ensuite, on pourrait envisager d’étendre leur compétence à la protection et à la surveillance sur les marchés des noms enregistrés.
3) La possibilité d'assimiler les consortiums à des Organisations Interprofessionnelles (OI), devrait également être explorée, ainsi que stimuler leur création et leur fonctionnement avec des subventions en veillant au respect des règles de concurrence.
4) puisque la CE vise également à garantir que cette évaluation apporte une contribution pertinente à la conception et à la mise en œuvre de la PAC après 2020, il faudra que le poids des IG soit mieux reconnu et encouragé par la PAC. Aujourd’hui, dans les deux piliers, la place accordée aux IG est négligeable, à l'exception de tentatives insuffisantes comme les aides couplées pour des produits inclus dans des QS. Une véritable reconnaissance serait souhaitable pour les producteurs - dans le cadre de la PAC et du DR - au moins en raison de leur engagement à protéger une agriculture à la fois proche du marché et ancrée sur le territoire.
5) Il faudrait également développer des actions de promotion politique dans les EM qui sous-utilisent les IG.
6) En ce qui concerne la PAC après 2020, l’AREPO, en ligne avec la position déjà partagée (http://tiny.cc/pn436y), propose de :
• renforcer le soutien de la production des produits de qualité, par le DR, ainsi que de promouvoir et à améliorer leur reconnaissance internationale ;
• Introduire une priorité horizontale forte pour ces régimes dans les mesures de DR ;
• Inclure dans le DR une mesure spécifique et cohérente pour les IG et les QS.
En 2016, l'AREPO a réalisé une enquête sur la mise en œuvre de la mesure 3 concernant les QS dans les PDR de ses Régions membres. Les résultats ont montré que le niveau de l'aide est minime, en particulier pour la mesure 3.1 sur la certification, et se traduit généralement par des coûts administratifs disproportionnés. Plusieurs régions ont déclaré qu'elles n'avaient pas ouvert la mesure en raison de ces coûts administratifs élevés. Il est donc essentiel de maintenir ce soutien mais avec la suppression du critère de la nouvelle participation à un QS et la réduction des charges administratives pour les aides de faible montant.
Au contraire, la mesure 3.2. sur la promotion, même si elle n’a pas été ouverte par toutes les régions, permet le soutien des petites IG qui ne peuvent pas bénéficier des fonds proposés dans le cadre du Règlement (UE) n 1144/2014
Enfin, l'AREPO tient à souligner l'importance d'étendre la possibilité d'appliquer des plans de régulation de l'offre à tous les secteurs de la production IG qui souhaitent les utiliser.
Read full response