Examination of Witnesses (Questions 500
- 511)
THURSDAY 8 MARCH 2007
MR BERTRAND GUILLOU
Q500 Chairman:
In a sense the issue relates to how you handle risk, how you handle
uncertainties that arise, because crops are not always every year
going to come out at the same level, so that is always going to
be a problem. The question in a sense is who should cope with
that problem? Should it be the industry itself, which is the case
in most other parts of the economy? They have to cope with uncertainty
and risk. Or should it be the public sector? If it is the industry
itself, or a mixture of the industry itself, what sorts of techniques
should one use? For example, what do you do when you do something
like the green harvest? Or you could actually step in sooner;
and, if you step in very much sooner, in a sense you are actually
paying people not to produce at all? If you go one further on,
you are getting to a point where people could be paid not to produce
permanently—and that is effectively grubbing-up. But you
let them make the decision about taking that on, so in a sense
you have two sorts of problem. You have a fluctuating problem
which an industry could cope with itself, and as long as the state
intervenes the industry will never do it for itself because it
is much better to let somebody else pay for it. But you have got
this other structural problem of adjustment, and it is a complicated
structural problem because of the diversity of wine production
in the Community and the diversity of alternative things that
could use that land in the areas in which it is. In that situation,
letting the owners of the resource who are going to live with
the consequences of the decision take the decision seems to be
likely to get better results than an overall planning structure.
So in a sense I suppose I am coming back to saying, rather than
looking for a permanent structure or imposition of "Where
do we grub up and who is allowed to grub up?", we make it
an offer to people to decide and then give them some level of
support sufficient to get enough of the area down to get yourself
a market balance.
Mr Guillou: There is a structural issue and
there is a conjunctional issue in the wine sector. The real problem
is the structural issue. The conjunctional issue is everywhere
in every sector. Our problem in the wine sector in the Community
is the structural problem, so the grubbing-up is the main problem
for the future CMO. You mention the green harvest—a very
good idea. If I were a wine producer, I would use this instrument
for myself without subsidies. It is a management of my holding,
and I know that in different years the good producers use this
instrument themselves. But, if one year there is great production
because there is a good climate, it is necessary, because all
producers are not good producers, to have a public instrument
to eliminate surplus. I think it is necessary to maintain crisis
distillation in "national envelopes" and that it is
each Member State which decides if it uses this instrument or
not. It is not necessary to decide this at the Community level.
You know now that, if it is necessary to eliminate surplus in
small regions of Italy or France or Greece, it is necessary to
ask the Commission if it is possible or not. It is not a good
way to manage the sector.
Q501 Lord Moynihan:
If "national envelopes" were to be introduced, could
you give us some examples of what would change in France, say,
two years after the introduction of "national envelopes"?
Mr Guillou: It is necessary to know exactly
what will be in the "national envelopes". We do not
know exactly. In the Communication of the Commission it is not
clear. I do not suppose that in the French "national envelope"
we will use the distillation of by-products and crisis distillation
every year; distillation of by-products probably every year, the
other sometimes in some regions perhaps. The main budget of the
"national envelope" will be used to help the production
and marketing of wines, not the production of grapes.
Q502 Chairman:
It is for modernising the production of wines?
Mr Guillou: Yes, exactly, the production of
wines, and it is the main part of the "national envelope"
in France.
Q503 Chairman:
Processing and marketing and promotion? Would that be something
or not, or do you not need it?
Mr Guillou: Our professionals ask for funds
but I think it is an industry problem, not a public problem.
Q504 Lord Moynihan:
What are your Government's views on labelling?
Mr Guillou: I cannot tell you the Government's
views about labelling because in France there are all the positions
about labelling around the table. It is very difficult.
Q505 Chairman:
Do we have anything to learn from the way the New World countries
have used labelling?
Mr Guillou: Of course.
Q506 Lord Moynihan:
But do you see a need to reform the system of labelling?
Mr Guillou: In France some producers consider
that the present regulation on labelling is good. There is another
group of producers who consider that the way of the new producers,
like Australia, is a good way and there are all the positions
in between. In the discussion in the Council our minister did
not say anything about labelling.
Q507 Viscount Ullswater:
Could I touch on enrichment? You said very helpfully in your reply
just now that you thought the major part of the "national
envelope" should go into improving the production of wine.
Should the methods of producing wine be authorised by the OIV?
And should they be accepted as being what is available to the
European Union and all the countries within the European Union
as the techniques? And perhaps you could just include in your
answer what you think about enrichment—whether you can use
sugar or whether the aid for must should be continued in order
that must would be the only thing to be used in enrichment?
Mr Guillou: We have agreed to follow OIV regulations
in Europe. It is clear. On enrichment France is a country cut
in two.
Q508 Chairman:
Only two?
Mr Guillou: It is the only country cut in two
parts about enrichment. In the north we cannot use sugar. In the
south we are obliged to use must, so we listen to the discussion
between Germany and Italy, and the better will win.
Q509 Viscount Ullswater:
You are on both sides.
Mr Guillou: It is like labelling. It is difficult
for France to have a strict position about that. It is very difficult
for the French Government and in the future it will probably be
the same problem for it. It is very difficult to have a position.
Q510 Chairman:
I have one last question, which is to seek your advice. We are
intending to go to France, as I said, to get a view of the variations
in the French wine industry, and we are intending to go to Burgundy
and then Languedoc Roussillon. Would that show sufficient variations?
We have only got three days, but would that give us a feel for
the differences, the tensions, within the industry?
Mr Guillou: The north and the south?
Q511 Chairman:
Yes.
Mr Guillou: In Burgundy the only red variety
is Pinot Noir and the only variety for white wine is Chardonnay,
and with the same variety we can find completely different wines.
It is very interesting to taste the same variety produced in this
part of Burgundy and in that other part of Burgundy because they
are very different and it is necessary to be a good taster to
recognise that it is the same variety. There has been a great
revolution in wine in the south of France between the 1970s and
now. Now we cannot find very good wine and all wines in the south,
in Languedoc-Roussillon, are a mixture of different varieties.
There are not wines produced with only one variety and the main
varieties used in Languedoc-Roussillon in red wine are Syrah,
which is very well known, and Grenache. The wines in the south
are rather strong. The level of alcohol is naturally rather high.
In my opinion there is a very good white wine in the south called
Picpoul. If you go to Languedoc-Roussillon, you should ask for
a wine called Picpoul de Pinet. It is a very funny name. It is
Appellation d'Origine Contrôlée. It is a little
area near Montpellier. It is a very good white wine.
Chairman: Thank you very much.
| 
