EU Support to Promotion of Agricultural Products

Today and TomorrowBruno De Boni

European Commission DG AGRI / Unit D4

Promotion of Agricultural ProductsHelsinki 24 October 2011

2

1. THE SITUATION TODAY

2. FUTURE POLICY

3. QUALITY OF PROGRAMMES

4. SELECTION CRITERIA

5. MOST COMMON REASONS FOR REJECTION OF PROGRAMMES

3

1. THE SITUATION TODAY

4

What?• The co-financing of Information and promotion

measures for :– agricultural products and their method of

production– food products based on agricultural products

Where?• on the internal market• on third country markets

5

Goals

to achieve market development to boost product image in the eyes of

consumers• to supplement and reinforce Member States

schemes (multiplier effect on national and private initiatives)

6

• Council Regulation 3/2008: basic regulation

• Commission Regulation 501/2008: detailed implementing rules

Legal Basis

7

Principles of EU promotion policy

• Generic information and promotion of European agricultural products

• Measures shall not favour particular brand names or product origins

• Messages on product characteristics and general themes: quality, nutritional value, safety, traceability, production methods, product image.

8

Initiative

• Agricultural EU trade and/or inter-trade organisations representing their sectors in one or more Member States or at EU level

• Member States: in the absence of programmes for PDO/PGI/TSGs, organic farming and/or other EU schemes for quality and labelling

9

Professional organisations

• At the core of the system! • They are responsible for the proper

implementation and management of the programmes

• But they always act with the help of an implementing body (publicity agency, etc.)

10

Funding

• EU: maximum 50%• Proposing professional organisation(s):

minimum 20%• Member States: to top up• the Commission may set lower or higher limits to

the costs of the programmes in accordance with “Comitology” procedure

11

50% EU co-financing: 2 exceptions

• Programmes promoting fruit and vegetables to schoolchildren (Reg. No 1182/07 of the Council)

• Programmes on reasonable drinking [of wine] (Reg. No 479//08 of the Council):

The Commission co-finances up to 60%

12

Information and promotion measures

• Information campaigns• Promotion through info material, advertising and

PR activities• Participation in events, fairs and exhibitions• Internet, audiovisual measures, etc.

13

Information and promotion measures

• Max. 3 years. Renewable IF Evaluation

Duration

• Information campaigns• Promotion through info material, advertising and

PR activities• Participation in events, fairs and exhibitions• Internet, audiovisual measures, etc.

14

Reg. xxx/2011, xx October 2011: a new and more efficient schedule

UNTIL NOW:Internal Market Third CountriesDates Days Months Dates Days Months

submission to MS 30-Nov 31-Marsubmission MS to AGRI 15-Feb 77 2,5m 30-Jun 91 3mapproval/refusals 16-Apr 60 2m 29-Aug 60 2mdelay reply 16-May 30 1m 28-Sep 30 1mCommission decision 30-Jun 45 1,5m 30-Nov 63 2m

Total 7m 8m

NEW SCHEDULE:IM+TC IM+TCDates Days Months Dates Days Months

submission to MS 30-Sep 15-Apr 74submission MS to AGRI 30-Nov 61 2m 15-Jun 61 2 mapproval/refusals 31-Jan 62 2m 16-Aug 62 2mdelay reply 2-Mar 30 1m 15-Sep 30 1mCommission decision 30-Apr 59 2m 15-Nov 61 2m

Total 7m 7m

15

Internal market promotional programmes 2007-2010 – type of action used

1%8%

9%11%

32%

33%41%

44%46%

53%58%

59%

70%83%

83%87%

90%

Cinema commercialsRoadshows

Promotional dress-up

Thematic dinnersDVD-CD rom/movies

Radio campaignPrizes/games

Newsletters/press releases

Seminars/conferencesTV campaign

In-store promotion/POS promotionFairs/exhibitions/public events

Magazines/NewspapersPrint adevrtising

Information guides/brochures

Cooperation with influencers/contact with professionalsWebsite

% of programmes

16

Third countries promotional programmes 2007-2010 – type of action used

3%

6%

6%

16%

19%

21%

27%

30%

31%

62%

73%

75%

76%

77%

92%

92%

94%

Promotional dress-up

Roadshows

Cinema commercials

Radio campaign

Prizes/Games

Thematic dinners

Newsletters/Press releases

DVD-CD/movies

TV campaign

In-store promotion/POS promotion

Website

Seminars/conferences

Magazines/newspapers

Print advertising

Cooperation with influencers/Contacts with professionals

Fairs/exhibitiions/public events

Information guides/brochures

% of programmes

17

EU Promotion Budget

• EU share : approx. 50 Million € per year.• With the contributions by professional

organisations and Member States, the budget represents approx. 100 Million € per year.

• Approx. 530 Million € allocated by the EU budget in the period 2000 - 2010.

• Ratio: Internal Market: 2/3; Third Countries: 1/3.

18

EU Promotion BudgetPeriod 2000-2010

For the whole period 2000-2010:For the whole period 2000-2010:

– 484 programmes adopted (out of which 42 multi products)– Total budget: 1.069,7 million € – EU contribution: 528,7 million €

Internal market:

– 351 programmes adopted (out of which 17 multi products)– Total budget: 808,00 million €– EU contribution: 398,00 million €

Third countries:

– 133 programmes adopted (out of which 25 multi products)– Total budget: 261,7 million €– EU contribution: 130,7 million €

19

Programmes distribution per Member States

Adopted programmes 2000-2010

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

IT MultiMS

FR GR ES DE NL PT PL AT GB BE CY DK FI SE IE LT HU SI SK BG LV CZ LU MT EE

% number% cofinancing budget

20

Programmes distribution per productsAdopted programmes 2000-2010

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

FRESH F&V

DAIRY

PDOPGITSG

Mult

i pro

duct

s

ORGANIC

WIN

ES

MEAT

OLIVE

HORTIC

PROC. F&V

ULTRAP

POULTRY

SPIRIT

EGGS

Seed

oils

Q. POULT

RY

HONEY

FLAX

% number

% cofinancing budget

21

Number of accepted programmesRate of acceptance per member state in the period 2007-2010

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

LU MT

FR FI

IE AT

CZ SI

Mul

ti co

untr

y

DE NL

SK IT PT

BE

HU PL

EE

GR

ES

GB LV LT DK

CY

SE

BG

RO

Rat

e o

f ac

cep

tan

ce

average acceptance rate = 43%

Acceptance rate= Number of accepted proposals

Total no. of programme proposals

22

Financial executionExecution rate by member state, 2002 - today

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

CZ FILV AT NL

FR GB SE PLDK BE SI

MULT

IEE IT DE CY PT

GR ES LT IE HU

Average execution rate = 83%

Execution rate =Total payments

Total approved budget

23

Other actions fully managed / financed by Commission

• Exceptional – limited budget.• Promotion campaign on organic farming (2006-

2009).• High Level missions and promotional events to

improve market access for EU products and enhance visibility of EU.

24

Other actions fully managed / financed by Commission

Examples (since 2007):

• High level trade missions Commissioner + Business Delegation: India (2007), China (2009), China (2011).

• Promotional event, stand, etc.: China (2008), Cape Town (2008), Hong Kong (2009), Russia (2010), South Korea.

25

2. FUTURE POLICY

26

A reform in 3 steps• Step 1 : 14 July

Launch of a public consultation within a Green Paper. End of public consultation 07/10/11. More than 170 contributions have been received.

• Step 2 : First half of 2012Communication.

• Step 3 : End of 2012Legislative proposals.

27

Green Paper : consultation ran until 7.10.2011

• http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/promotion/

• 16 questions under 4 main axis :1) General aims of the policy.2) Aims/ measures in the internal market.3) Aims/ measures in the external market.4) Content and rules for implementation and

management.

28

1) What should be the aims of the promotion policy ?

• Good results known and recognised.

• Some limits of the current policy (e.g.) :– Not enough target on EU added value.– Actions not well balanced between different

MS, products or markets.– Complicated management.– Consistency between EU promotion regimes.

29

• Need to maximise added value for Europe

• It includes :– Enhancing more effectively European agricultural

production. – Promoting the EU’s very high standards. – Offering consumers better information on the

European production model. – Raising awareness of quality systems and of the

diversity of products available in Europe.

30

2) Aims/ measures in the internal market

• Needs :

more information versus promotion

• Possible measures : – Information campaigns on

different subjects/themes– Promotion measures to illustrate

the European production model

– One-off interventions in the event of a crisis

– Creation of a European platform for exchanging good practices

31

3) Aims/ measures in the external market

• Needs :

• More promotion versus information

• To strengthen the European farming competitive position

• Possible measures : – Technical support given to

producers/companies

– Development of marketing strategies

– Encourage SME’s to join forces for trading

– Helping newcomers

32

4) Content and management

• Beneficiaries

• Consistency

• Eligible products and measures

• Origin and brands

• Multi country programmes

• Implementation

33

Subject Today Future ???

Beneficiaries • Professional organisations

• Specific situation as regards wine promotion

• Wider access

• Link with rules on promotion on private brand

Consistency • 4 main schemes with different rules

• Better coherence

• Develop synergies between the different schemes

Eligible products and measures

• Wide list of products or themes

• Programmes related to specific products or quality systems

• Establishment of key products based on EU promotion strategy

• Promotion of key messages, illustrated by products

34

Subject Today Future ???

Brands + Origin • No brand oriented and reference to origin should be secondary except for designation provided for under EU rule (PDO/PGI)

• 2 special rules : Wine and F&V CMOs

• Recognition of the ‘leverage effect’ of brand and origin but legally feasible?

• Need to ensure that the EU message is the prominent one

Multi • Programmes with high EU added value

• More difficult to implement

• Specific rules needed

• New role for the professional organisations at EU level

Implementation • Selection process in two-fold

• MS/ conformity + Commission/final selection

• Selection at MS level

• Selection at EU level

35

Conclusion

• A lot of questions• Main challenges to define the future policy

seems to be :– High EU added value.– Consistency. – Origin, list of products, brand names,

beneficiaries.– Simple and effective.

36

Next steps after the closure of the consultation

– Analysis and summary of the 170 answers

received by 07.10.2011.– Presentation of the result in the EU

Agricultural Council in November.– Polish Presidency conference on Promotion

on 29.11.2011. – Basis for Communication and impact

assessment work.

37

And in the meantime?

• Improving the functioning of the current framework by:– streamlining procedures (amendments

to Reg. 501/2008).– giving more systematic assistance

(templates, workshops, exchange of best practices).

– promoting multi country programmes.– reducing the refusal rate.

38

3.QUALITY OF PROGRAMMES

39

Essential elements of a good proposal 1

• Proposing associations have to be representative of the sector

• Detailed market analysis• Practical knowledge of the markets, especially in

Third Countries programmes

• Adequate description of budget and actions

40

Essential elements of a good proposal 2

• Coherent set of actions, linked to the objectives• Measurable objectives, with a clearly defined

starting point for the measurements• Precisely defined method of evaluation of the

programme• Synergy/complementarity of the programme with

other initiatives in the sector, public or private• European dimension

41

Essential elements of a good proposal 3

• “SMART objectives”: specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and timed

• “Coherence +”: Strategy, Target groups, Themes and messages, schedule of actions

• DETAILED COSTS BREAKDOWN• Clear budget table (annex II Model

Contract) + table per target country

42

Example:Promotion at points of sales

Required elements in the description of the action• Names and locations• No of promotional days• Duration of each promotional day• No of materials and samples distributed• Target groups• No of persons employed• Timetables• Other elements (uniforms, stands etc)

43

Budget

• as detailed as possible

• realistic (common market prices)

• (estimated) future inflation rate can be integrated

• clear division between costs (for material etc.) and fees (for implementation and planning)

44

Implementing Body Fees

• flat-rate: 13% of actual costs of implementing the measures (15% in the case of programmes of several MS)

OR

• invoicing on hourly basis / work actually carried out

45

Evaluation of Results

• carried out by an external body (tendering procedure possibly necessary)

• detailed description of evaluation methods • existing evaluation is pre-condition for a

possible continuation of the programme• costs: max. 3% (5% during last year) of

actual action costs + overheads not used (optional)

46

4.SELECTION CRITERIA

47

Selection criteria

• Criterion 1 – Coherence between the implemented actions and the objectives of the Regulation

• Criterion 2 - Actions and information channels used and their cost-effectiveness

48

Selection criteria

• Criterion 3 – Coverage and content of the programmes

• Criterion 4 - impact and effectiveness of the actions

• Criterion 5 - Complementarity between Member States' programmes and programmes submitted by professional organisations

49

5. Most Common Reasons for Rejection of Programmes

50

Most Common Reasons for Rejection of Programmes

PO is not representative no relevant / precise market study No SMART objectives actions do not form a coherent set of actions actions do not relate to target group(s) insufficiently detailed description of actions / breakdown of

action budgets focus on just one city not sufficiently cost-effective missing evaluation of previous programme (where applicable) shortcomings in the selection procedure of IB

51

Most Common Reasons for Rejection of Programmes II

Most programmes fail due to insufficiently detailed budgets and explanation of actions

„To be acceptable the programme should better define

the actions contained therein, and also explain and justify

the different costs concerned. In conclusion the

programme needs to be completely revised and therefore

cannot be accepted.„

52

Most Common Reasons for Rejection of Programmes III

“Most of the proposed activities do not offer a sufficient

level of budgetary breakdown, making it difficult to assess

the value for money of the actions proposed. In any

case, most of the actions seem rather vague, and only a

global budget is presented. Therefore the budget

submitted lacks a sufficient level of breakdown so as to

duly justify the costs involved.”

53

More informationhttp://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/prom

www.facebook.com/EUAgri

@ECspokesRoger

Thank you for your attention and any constructive proposals