This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 52013DC0866
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the case for a local farming and direct sales labelling scheme
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the case for a local farming and direct sales labelling scheme
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the case for a local farming and direct sales labelling scheme
/* COM/2013/0866 final */
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the case for a local farming and direct sales labelling scheme /* COM/2013/0866 final */
TABLE OF CONTENTS REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the case for a local farming and direct
sales labelling scheme 1............ Introduction. 3 2............ Context and data
sources for the report 3 3............ Situation with regard
to local farming and direct sales. 4 3.1......... Socio-economic
importance of local farming and direct sales. 5 3.2......... Environmental criteria. 6 4............ Findings on existing
labelling schemes across the Member States. 8 5............ Is there a case for a
labelling scheme at EU level?. 8 5.1......... A specific labelling
scheme. 9 5.2......... An alternative approach. 10 6............ Conclusion. 10 1. Introduction Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 on quality schemes
for agricultural products and foodstuffs[1]
entered into force on 3 January 2013. Article 55 states that the Commission
shall present ‘a report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the
case for a new local farming and direct sales labelling scheme to assist producers
in marketing their produce locally’ by 4 January 2014. This report ‘shall
focus on the ability of the farmer to add value to his produce through the new
label, and should take into account other criteria, such as the possibilities
for reducing carbon emissions and waste through short production and
distribution chains’. Finally, the report ‘shall, if necessary, be
accompanied by appropriate legislative proposals on the creation of a local
farming and direct sales labelling scheme.’ This report will examine the socio-economic and
environmental implications of local farming and direct sales and discuss
possibilities for introducing an EU-level labelling tool. 2. Context and data sources for the report In ‘Fair revenues for farmers: A better
functioning food supply chain in Europe’[2]
the European Parliament calls on the Commission to ‘propose the adoption of
instruments to support and promote farmer-managed food supply chains, short
supply chains and farmers’ markets, in order to establish a direct
relationship with consumers and to enable farmers to obtain a fairer share of
the value of the final sale price by reducing the number of middlemen and of
the stages of the process’. In ‘Future of the CAP after 2013’[3], the European
Parliament makes clear that improving competitiveness at different levels,
including local markets, should be a fundamental objective of the CAP
post-2013. The Committee of the Regions considers[4] that the Commission
should ‘adopt definitions of ‘Local Food Products’ and ‘Local Food Systems’,
and introduce a new logo and identify a common symbol and scheme identity for
local products […]’. The Commission, when looking at the challenges
of the CAP post 2013[5],
emphasises that ‘EU citizens demand high quality and a wide choice of food
products, reflecting high safety, quality and welfare standards, including
local products’. In order to get a better view of local farming
and direct sales across the European Union (EU), the Commission has undertaken
a broad range of activities, including Member State and stakeholder
consultations, creating a dedicated working group and an external study[6]. It invited interested
parties to a high-level conference ‘Local agriculture and short food supply
chains’ in April 2012. More details on these activities can be found in the
accompanying Commission Staff Working Document[7]. These activities provide essential input to
this report. This report also contains information from peer reviewed
literature and other external papers and articles. 3. Situation with regard to local farming and direct sales For the purpose of this report: –
‘local farming’ means the production of
agricultural products and foodstuffs with the aim of selling them in an area
reasonably close to the farm of production; –
‘direct sales’ means sales by a farmer directly
to a consumer, without intermediaries on the selling side; –
‘short food supply chains’ means sales from a
farmer to a consumer with a reduced number of intermediaries; –
‘local food systems’ means that production,
processing, trading and consumption of food occur in a relatively small
geographical area. There is no uniform definition of the term
‘local area’. While various sources confirm that this term means a relatively
small geographical area, there is no agreement on the distance, varying between
20 and 100 km from the point of production. Taking into account the wide-spread
interpretations of the term ‘local area’, a definition at EU level would appear
arbitrary. It is essentially the consumer who decides whether a product comes
from a ‘local area’ or not. Local farming and direct sales face numerous
challenges, which were addressed during the April 2012 conference. It called on
the Commission to: provide appropriate support for developing local farming and
short food supply chains; adapt EU public procurement rules; clarify EU hygiene
rules; and reflect on how to help improve access to markets, possibly by means
of a specific labelling scheme. The Commission Staff Working Document
accompanying this report discusses these challenges and how they could be met
by existing or new EU instruments. 3.1. Socio-economic importance of local farming and direct
sales The Eurostat Farm Structure Survey 2007[8] revealed significant
differences among the Member States with regard to the development of direct
sales. On average, about 15% of farms sell more than 50% of their production
directly to consumers, with significant differences among Member States: ranging
from almost one quarter of all farms in Greece to 0.1% in Spain. It is noteworthy that small farms are relatively more involved in short food supply
chains. Empirical studies on purchasing behaviour
indicate a high level of interest in buying local food. One study[9] indicates that in the United Kingdom, 70% want to buy local, nearly 50% want to buy more of it in the future, and
60% are currently buying local. According to the Natural Marketing Institute[10], 71% of French and 47%
of Spanish and British consumers claim that it is important to buy local
products. Activities to meet the growing demand for local
products can strengthen and develop the competitiveness of rural areas.
Supplying local food systems is not only an opportunity for agricultural
producers. It also affects post-primary production activities such as
processing, distribution and retail and thus has a multiplication effect on the
local community by generating employment opportunities. This has become even
more important in the current economic crisis. Public support for local
agriculture and direct sales could help maximise these benefits. A European wide IMPACT research project[11] found that while the
proportion of the total number of farms engaged in direct sales varied
considerably among Member States (from 0.5% in Ireland to 34.6% in Italy), the
estimated figure for the EU-15 was 20.2%. The additional net value generated by
direct sales for the EU-15 was estimated at 2.7% of total net value added. One
of the conclusions of the research was that development of direct sales has
become a key element of rural development in several Member States. The lack of quantitative data was compensated
for by estimates of economic significance for the sector. For example,
estimates for selected Member States provided in the EU Rural Review[12] show significant
divergence across the EU: while in Denmark, for example, only around 3% of
producers are involved in direct sales, in Austria one third of all farms are
involved in direct sales. The study on short food supply chains analysed
84 short food supply schemes across the EU using the five capital assets
framework[13].
It shows that the majority of schemes (54) are strongly oriented towards
creating social capital, increasing social contact between people, a sense of
community and trust and co-operation between businesses on the one hand and
between producers and consumers on the other hand. The study also demonstrates
that close relations between producers and consumers increase consumer
knowledge on and understanding of food, and have a positive effect on farming
activities and environmental issues. In some cases, this can lead to
behavioural changes, for example in eating habits and purchasing decisions.
Finally, according to the study, using short food supply chains is more labour
intensive for farms than selling agricultural products and foodstuffs through
conventional market outlets due to processing, packaging and marketing
activities. 3.2. Environmental criteria In the case of food supply chains, the existing
literature tends to look at energy consumption and carbon emissions from
farming, processing, storage and the distribution of food products. As the food
sector accounts for around 30% of overall energy consumption[14], it has a direct
impact on climate change. A study by Jones[15] based on an
analysis of the environmental impact of the transport component of the food
supply chain found that sourcing locally grown apples in the United Kingdom results in less carbon dioxide emissions than purchasing imported apples from New Zealand at the supermarket. On the other hand, a study by Saunders et al[16], using a
different approach, found the opposite. In this case New Zealand was more
efficient than the UK in terms of the total energy component, when considering
the direct and indirect energy used in apple production as well as transport
and storage. A case study carried out in Spain using a transport model shows that switching to more local consumption results in
energy savings (Aranda et al[17]). Another study (Sundkvist
et al[18]) analyses the environmental
consequences of local small-scale versus centralised large-scale bread
production. The results show that emissions of CO2, SO2
and NOX are lower for local bakeries than for big bakeries in the
Swedish mainland. A study by Coley et al[19] looks at the energy
consumption and carbon footprint of a consumer who travels to a farm shop to
purchase products. It concludes that a 7.4 km drive to purchase a product is
the limit: if the distance is longer, carbon emissions are higher than in the
conventional food supply chain. With regard to the environmental effects of
food waste, studies refer to two aspects. The first issue is the amount of
energy and water wasted in production. The second issue is the additional
amount of carbon dioxide, methane and ammonia produced in the decomposition
phase[20]. A study by Gustavsson et al[21] shows that the highest
amount of food waste comprises fruit, vegetables and cereals. For Europe, figures demonstrate more than a 30% loss for cereals and around 45% for fruit and
vegetables. Losses are 20% for seeds, more than 20% for meat and more than 10%
in dairy production. The same study highlights the need to act with
caution when interpreting the results of waste issues due to a lack of
sufficient data, uncertainties in available data and many assumptions on food
waste levels. Similarly, Hall et al[22] stress that quantifying food waste is
difficult because methods rely on using waste factors measured in sample
populations. Moreover, Parfitt et al[23] point out that different methods and
definitions applied to the measurement of food waste make the comparison of
studies more difficult. A Commission study on food waste [24] looked at the various causes of food
waste in the following four sectors: manufacturing, wholesale/retail, food
service and households. The study concludes that it is difficult to draw concrete
conclusion on the issue due to limited data which only represents two sectors
(dairy and meat). Moreover, the possible role of the short food supply chain in
reducing food waste was not mentioned in this study. More research focusing on the relationship
between the type of food supply chain, consumer attitudes and waste reduction
needs to be done to be able to draw reliable conclusions. It seems that
consumers tend to attach more value to products purchased directly at a farm or
at farmers' markets which can result in less waste. However, taking into
account the relatively small share of short food supply chains and local food
systems in global production, processing and distribution, the potential impact
of these systems should not be over-estimated. The Study on short food supply chains reveals
that to minimize the negative impact on the environment, short food supply
chains should at the same time be local, be seasonal, use ecologically sound
production methods and take into account a low carbon footprint. Combining
local and seasonal characteristics reduces storage needs, while ecologically
sound production methods may also contribute to reduced use of pesticides, soil
and water pollution and soil degradation, and enhance biodiversity and
sustainable water usage. 4. Findings on existing labelling schemes across the
Member States There is a large variety of schemes throughout
the EU. Most of them are made up of sales in the proximity of the production
site. These are on-farm sales (for example farm shops, roadside sales,
pick-your-own) or off-farm sales (for example, farmers’ and other markets,
delivery schemes, sales to retailers or the catering sector). Some of them are
distance sales, for example delivery schemes and internet sales. The Study on
short food supply chains shows that labels and logos are most likely to be used
by schemes that have been established for a longer period or by larger regional
initiatives while they are less frequent in the case of a more localised
consumer base with face-to-face communication between the producer and
consumer. The replies by Member States to the
questionnaire on the direct and local sale of agricultural products and
foodstuffs have shown disparities in the development and support of this type
of sales. Similarly, the study on short food supply chains found that there are
many tools available at EU and national level which could assist farmers, but
these are not applied consistently across the EU, which has led to the uneven
development of short food supply chains. The challenges with regard to engaging
in local farming differ across the EU; hence Member States should select a
combination of actions tailored to their development needs. The study on short food supply chains shows
that labels are also useful in signalling that a product has been certified.
This aspect is important to protect products from imitations: labels with a
regulated content are a tool for fighting misleading information or even
fraud. The study on short food supply chains also
argues that consumers feel confused about different labelling systems. In the
first instance, consumers expect labelling information to inform them about the
price and the shelf life of a product. Geographical origin and the identity of
the producer follow suit. Information about the nature of the supply chain is
also important: is the product sold at a fair price, for both producer and
consumer? Finally, the study and the consultation
findings suggest that labelling schemes inevitably involve costs for producers
and can make their products more expensive. 5. Is there a case for a labelling scheme at EU level? The April 2012 conference stressed the importance of a shared vision with quality, environment,
ethics, culture, social links and conviviality taking precedence. Major
ingredients of ‘going local’ are networking, trust and mutual knowledge, and educating both
farmers and consumers. The conference conclusions indicate that these
values could be promoted by a new label for short supply chains, on condition
that this would be a voluntary and simple tool, without additional costs for
producers. The fora which have addressed the issue of
local farming and direct sales highlighted the need to facilitate access to
investment and knowledge, to allow for participation in public tenders, and to
adapt the hygiene rules which were said to often represent obstacles to this
type of farming and sales. The Commission Staff Working Document supplementing
this report explains the instruments that are in place to assist producers and
suggests to Member States what actions they can take. Member States should take
a more proactive role and adapt legislation where possible for the particular
benefit of small farmers and direct sales. Food and catering are among priority
sectors for green public procurement. To provide local food to public canteens,
public authorities should use innovative approaches to greening contracts while
farmers, in order to be able to bid jointly in public
procurement tenders, should organise themselves and make use of various models
of co-operation. Consumers who would like to buy locally
produced food often cannot recognise it in the market place[25]. The Eurobarometer
survey on Consumer Empowerment[26]
revealed a lack of knowledge and skills among consumers, including labelling
and logo interpretation. These findings were supported by the results of the
study on the functioning of the meat market for consumers[27]. The Short Food Supply Chains study cites
several cases of misleading or wrongful labelling claims, which cause unfair
competition. Protection against imitations by appropriate labelling information
at EU level could reduce the risk of misleading consumers. 5.1. A specific labelling scheme The Commission asked for expert advice when
analysing the options for creating a labelling scheme[28]. Expert advice was clear: if a labelling scheme
were to be created, it should: –
be optional for producers; –
avoid certification and accreditation procedures
which are perceived as lengthy and costly; –
provide for clear eligibility criteria for
products included in the scheme. The experts suggested that a specific labelling
scheme would only be beneficial if the scheme was integrated with or linked to
other measures helping farmers find alternative sales channels. Such measures
are available in the context of rural development policy, in particular: advice
and information support, investments in physical assets; farm and business
development; horizontal and vertical co-operation among supply chain actors and
promotion activities in a local context; support for participation in quality
schemes, and information and promotional actions. When reflecting on a possible scheme, attention
should be paid to the type of the supply chain. ‘Direct sales’ means sales by a
farmer directly to a consumer, without intermediaries on the sales side. The
aim of labelling information is to replace this direct communication in cases
where it is not possible. The more intermediaries there are between the
producer and the consumer, the more information that is typically transmitted
in direct sales gets lost, and the more labelling information is needed. The
conclusion that may be drawn is that a labelling scheme restricted to direct sales
would have limited impact. 5.2. An alternative approach An alternative approach to a stand-alone
certification scheme could be to reserve an optional quality term. The impact assessment[29] concluded that the use
of optional quality terms is an effective tool for farmers in communicating the
value they add to products and ensuring that these additional efforts are
rewarded. Such an optional quality term could meet the
main consumer expectations: to know where a product comes from and the
characteristics of the supply chain. However, for legal reasons, an optional
quality term would not entail a logo/symbol but words only. The benefits of reserving an optional quality
term would be as follows: –
it is considered a light instrument with a
relatively low administrative, control and budgetary burden; –
it can provide protection against misuse, fraud
and misleading practices; –
it opens the door to other EU support
mechanisms, in particular support in the framework of rural development. As regards the co-existence and continuation of
national, regional and local labelling schemes, public or private, with a
possible tool at EU level, there is a need to consider how such co-existence
could be ensured and whether this would lead to increase complexity for
consumers. 6. Conclusion Local farming and direct sales are a reality
within the European Union and will continue to be part of European agriculture.
This report has shown the following: –
There is a demand for a genuine farm product
sold in short food supply chains, as well as the need to identify it. –
There are large differences among the Member
States with regard to development of direct sales which are likely due to
national and regional differences in farm structures, distribution channels and
cultural differences. –
As detailed in the Commission Staff Working
Document, the development of short supply chains faces numerous challenges
which should be addressed with tools other than a labelling scheme. There are a
number of instruments available at EU and national level, but these are not
applied consistently. Stakeholders consider that some EU rules impede the
development of local farming. –
A possible new label should be simple and
unburdensome for producers while at the same time being controllable and
ensuring sufficient credibility for consumers. It should also aim at reducing
the risk for consumer confusion although existing EU legislation if correctly
enforced allows action to be taken against misleading practices. –
A new label could add value to products
generated from local agriculture if it went beyond direct sales and if Member
States were to ensure that it is integrated with or linked to other measures. In this report, the Commission has provided
factual elements to facilitate a debate on whether a new EU label should be
considered as well as on the broader issues of local farming and direct sales.
A set of questions is attached in the Annex to this Report to steer this
debate. The Commission invites the European Parliament
and the Council to discuss this report and provide their views. [1] 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 of 14.12.2012, p. 1. [2] European Parliament resolution of 7 September 2010 on
fair revenues for farmers: A better functioning food supply chain in Europe, P7_TA(2010)0302. [3] European Parliament Resolution of 8 July 2010 on the
future of the Common Agricultural Policy after 2013, P7_TA(2010)0286. [4] Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on 'Local
food systems" (outlook opinion), 2011/C 104/01. [5] The CAP towards 2020: Meeting the food, natural
resources and territorial challenges of the future, COM(2010)672 final. [6] Knefsey, M., Schmutz, U., Venn, L., Balint, B.,
Trenchard, E.: Short Food Supply Chains and Local Food Systems in the EU. A
State of Play of their Socio-Economic Characteristics. European Union, 2013. [7] http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/quality/reports/index_en.htm [8] http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Farm_structure_survey_2007 [9] Local Government Regulation, Buying food with
geographical descriptions – How ‘local’ is ‘local’?, 2011. [10] Les
chiffres de la consommation responsable, édition 2010, available at: http://www.mescoursespourlaplanete.com/medias/pdf/RapportwebVF-2010.pdf [11] IMPACT project: The socio-economic impact of rural
development policies: realities and potentials (CT-4288), 4th
Framework FAIR programme, 2002. The Member States involved are the Netherlands, the UK, Ireland, Germany, Italy, Spain and France. [12] EU Rural Review, 12 (2012), pp. 11-12. [13] The five capital assets framework is examining the
impact on human, financial, physical, social and natural capital. [14] FAO Policy Brief 2011: The case for energy–smart food
systems, 2011, available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/i2456e/i2456e00.pdf. [15] Jones, A.: An environmental assessment of Food Supply
Chains: a case study on dessert apples, in: Environmental Management, Vol. 30,
4 (2002), pp. 560–576. [16] Saunders, S.; Barber, A.; Taylor, G.: Food miles-
Comparative energy/emissions performance of New Zealand’s agriculture industry,
Research Report, 2006 (285). [17] Aranda, A.; Scarpellini, S.; Zabalza, I.; Valero
Capelli, A.: An analysis of the present food's transport model based on a
case study carried out in Spain. 6th International Conference on LCA in the
Agrifood sector, Zurich, 2008, pp. 12-14. [18] Sundkvist, A., Jansson A., Larsson, P.: Strengths and
limitations of localizing food production as a sustainability building strategy
— an analysis of bread production on the island of Gotland, Sweden, in: Ecological Economics, 37 (2001), pp. 217–227. [19] Coley, D., Howard, M., Winter, M.: Local food, food
miles and carbon emissions: a comparison of farm shop and mass
distribution approaches, in: Food Policy, 34 (2009), pp. 150–155. [20] Hall, K. D., Guo, J., Dore, M., Chow, C. C.: The progressive
increase of food waste in America and its environmental impact, in: PLoS ONE,
Vol 4, 11 (2009). [21] Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U.: Global
food losses and food waste. Extent, causes and prevention, FAO, 2011. [22] Hall, K. D., Guo, J., Dore, M., Chow, C. C.: The
progressive increase of food waste in America and its environmental impact,
in: PLoS ONE, Vol 4, 11 (2009). [23] Parfitt, J., Macnaughton, S. Food waste within food
supply chains: quantification and potential for change to 2050, in:
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: Biology, 365 (2010), pp.
3065–3081. [24] European Commission: Preparatory study on food waste
across the EU 27, 2010, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/pdf/bio_foodwaste_report.pdf [25] Special Eurobarometer survey:
Europeans’ attitudes towards food security, food quality and the countryside,
389, 2012. [26] Special Eurobarometer: Consumer Empowerment, 342, 2011. [27] http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumer_research/market_studies/docs/mms_follow-up_study_2012_en.pdf [28] A Working group was created under the auspices of the advisory
group on quality of agricultural production. [29] Agricultural product quality policy: Impact assessment
Annex A(II): Marketing standards, 2009, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/quality/policy/com2009_234/ia_annex_a2_en.pdf ANNEX Proposed issues to be addressed in the
framework of discussions on the Report from the Commission to the European
Parliament and the Council on the case for a local farming and direct sales
labelling scheme: –
Some of the instruments in place at the EU level
to support local agriculture and direct sales do not appear to have been
implemented in a consistent manner. Are these instruments still appropriate? –
Stakeholders have identified certain EU rules —
such as hygiene or public procurement rules — which they feel impede the
development of local farming. The Commission considers that EU legislation
already provides flexibility which is not fully used. Do the European
Parliament and the Council share the Commission’s view? Is there a need for
clearer specifications at EU level for rules concerning small-scale
productions? –
Several labelling schemes exist at
national/regional level to support local farming. Could a specific EU scheme
provide value added for farmers and at the same time provide consumers with
information, thus helping to reduce misleading consumer information? Should
such a labelling scheme include a symbol/logo? –
Given that the use of a labelling scheme
inevitably includes costs, how should an EU scheme be developed that is
unburdensome for farmers, while providing sufficient guarantees for consumers?