eu support to promotion of agricultural products today and tomorrow bruno de boni european...
Post on 20-Dec-2015
216 views
TRANSCRIPT
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