Annex II
CHAPTALISATION
The Commission has suggested a prohibition of
Chaptalisation with sucrose (beet sugar), and justifies doing
so as a consequence of abolishing subsidies for rectified, concentrated
grape must (RCGM), among other things.
The WSTA strongly opposes this approach as to
do so will disproportionately disadvantage growers in northern
(cooler) climates by comparison with those in southern (warmer)
climates who are permitted to acidify: in cooler climates wines
often have to be enriched to achieve balance with acidity levels,
and in warmer climates the reverse is the case.
THE EFFECT
OF A
BAN ON
PRODUCERS:
Despite a uniform EU market, there are differences
in location, climate and weather within the European Union and
these are the basis of varying regulations governing production
within the EU.
The impact of the ban on Chaptalisation and
a maximum enrichment of 2% would lead to additional costs for
producers in northern and central European wine areas estimated
at 15% to 25%
The WSTA believes that the link between removing
aid for RCGM and further restricting the rules governing the use
of sucrose is spurious. If there is a need for Chaptalisation
in deliminated production areas, market mechanisms rather than
regulatory imperatives geared towards absorbing excess vinous
material (RCGM) should determine whether it or sucrose is used
in wine production
INCONSISTENCY WITH
THE PROPOSED
LIBERALISATION OF
OENOLOGICAL PRACTICES:
The practice of enrichment should be re-classified
as a genuine oenological practice. A ban on Chaptalisation is
not consistent with the proposed liberalization of oenological
practices; neither is it consistent with the recognition of the
practice by the EU in bilateral agreements with Third Countries.
THE EFFECT
OF A
BAN ON
IMPORTERS:
The effect of a ban of use of sucrose would
impose additional costs on wine producers in Northern and Central
Europe and thus would affect the profitability of importers which
mainly import wine from those regions.
| 
