CULTURAL IMPACT
69. We turn now to a wider issue—the impact
of reform on the culture of European wine production. There are
some strands to this issue on which we have already commented,
including the proposed EU-wide recognition of oenological practices
endorsed by the Organisation Internationale Des Vins, the
use of sucrose to enrich wine and the blending of wine to produce
consistency of taste from one year to the next. Underlying all
of them, however, is a concern lest reform of the wine sector
should lead to an old-established craft industry being turned
into a vehicle of mass production.
70. Eva Corral was concerned that reform, while
necessary, should not lead to EU wine producers simply copying
New World business and oenological methods and having "a
product that has no identity" (QQ 241, 242). That identity,
she believed, was bound up closely with the definition of wine
as a natural product. "It is made by producers", she
said, "it is regulated by the Common Agricultural Policy,
so it is an agricultural product" (Q 232). On these
grounds Ms Corral did not favour the blending of wines to achieve
year-on-year consistency of taste:
"The case now is that we have big companies
that have vines in a number of continents and they put them together
and mix them, so that they can get the same flavour every year
and have a standard product, whereas our concept of the product
and its characteristics is that we cannot do that" (Q 235).
71. Lars Hoelgaard, of the European Commission,
underlined these concerns when he drew our attention to concerns
that EU oenological techniques should not be undermined by bilateral
agreements with third countries. He told us that there was a desire
in some quarters that the wine which was consumed in the EU should
be made on the basis of "good, old, traditional practices".
He added:
"There is very little of that approach in non-producing,
wine-consuming Member States, like the UK, Denmark, Norway, Sweden,
Ireland and others, who have no particular adherence to the culture
compared to those who come from wine-producing countries, who
have a very strong relation to that" (Q 311).
72. David Statham, of the UK Food Standards Agency
(FSA), drew a parallel, in the context of wine enrichment, between
the production of wine and milk. "We used to have a situation",
he said, "where you could not adjust the fat content and
the water content of milk; you had to have a specific level, because
that is what naturally came from the cow". The Wine CMO's
attitude to wine enrichment was, he believed, similar. "What
it is … saying is that we can only produce wine in the natural
way as opposed to producing wine in a way that has the alcohol
level correctly worked out … There is only one traditional
way of doing this, in the way that there probably was only one
traditional way of milking your cow" (Q 104). Sarah
Appleby, of the FSA, summed it up with the question: "What
makes a wine a wine? Is it because it has gone through a traditional
process? Or is it a composite product with the addition of alcohol
to some fruit base" (Q 106).
73. In our earlier report we quoted Philip Gregan
as saying that the EU attitude to wine production, and in particular
the linking of wine quality with the concept of terroir,
contained "flawed theology" (Q 707). These may
perhaps seem harsh words. But it is fair to say that, in taking
evidence during our inquiry, we have found that attitudes to reform
of the EU wine sector sometimes migrate from the socio-economic
and take on a cultural flavour, as if reform is associated by
some with advancing philistinism. While we understand the concerns
which are felt in some quarters, we do not believe that reform
will have the dire consequences which appear to be foreseen. We
concur with the view of New Zealand Winegrowers that "being
consumer-led does not mean that wine will inevitably become a
commodity catering to the lowest common denominator. In fact,
the international wine market is highly sophisticated and there
is strong consumer demand for products at all quality levels"[26].
74. The Commission is not, in any case, suggesting
that traditional wine-making practices should be abandoned. Indeed,
while it is proposed that some oenological techniques which are
approved by the OIV but currently banned within the EU should
be allowed, other proposals—for example, on the use of sucrose—are
more restrictive than the status quo. EU wine-makers who wish
to continue to use traditional practices will be free to do so
and, if they can find a market for wines produced in this way,
they will no doubt continue as they have done. Perhaps the real
cause of concern, however, is that, with distillation subsidies
removed, traditional wine-makers who cannot find a market for
their products may have to modify their products, by adapting
them to consumer demand, in order to do so. Understandable as
such concerns may be, the current regime, with its heavy reliance
on distillation subsidies and its over-restrictive network of
regulations, cannot be allowed to continue.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
75. Finally, we turn to the environmental impact
of reform. Giuseppe Castiglione, the Member of the European Parliament
designated as Rapporteur for the Commission's Proposal,
suggested to us that "in many parts of Europe, if there were
no more vineyards, from the environmental point of view it would
be a real catastrophe" (Q 266). On the other hand, Emmanuel
Jacquin, Head of the Wine Reform Unit at the European Commission,
told us that there were environmental drawbacks as well as advantages
from wine-growing, stemming from the use of pesticides and erosion.
Dietrich Guth, German SCA representative, underlined these problems.
"Maybe the effect [of reducing wine growing] on the environment
will be even better", he suggested, "because we are
using a huge amount of pesticides in those regions or, if you
look at wine production in Germany in the valleys and the hills,
there we have a problem of soil erosion" (Q 463).
76. The Commission's plan is to use the Single
Farm Payment to safeguard the environment where vineyards are
grubbed up. In Emmanuel Jacquin's words:
"We want to improve the positive side of the
environmental benefits brought by vineyards by introducing environmental
conditions and by using cross-compliance more and more …
When the vineyards ask to be grubbed up, we can check whether
this will cause environmental damage and we can oblige the farmers
to respect a certain number of conditions to ensure that we take
care of the soil. The main instrument that we will use for this
is to grant a Single Farm Payment to the grubbed-up area so that
it will become automatically subject to cross-compliance for the
whole farm, even if the farmer has only grubbed up one hectare"
(Q 321).
Moreover, the Commission's proposal states that,
"to avoid social and/or environmental problems, Member States
will be allowed to limit grubbing-up in mountains and steep slopes
vineyards as well as in regions under specific environmental constraints"[27].
And the proposed transfer of funds from Pillar I (Wine CMO) to
Pillar II (Rural Development) includes "agri-environment
support to cover additional costs and income foregone in providing
and maintaining vinescapes/cultural landscapes"[28].
77. Against this background we do not believe
that there need be serious cause for concern as regards the environmental
consequences of reform, although the practical impact of cross
compliance measures will need to be monitored closely.
13 References in this chapter are to the evidence published
as HL 144, Part II Back
14
The Special Committee on Agriculture is an official level committee
in Brussels which prepares the work of the Council of Agriculture
Ministers Back
15
COPA-COGECA is the EU-wide representative organisation of wine
producers and cooperatives Back
16
COM(2007)372 Final, Section 3.1 Back
17
COM(2007)372 Final, Section 3.1 Back
18
Equivalent to 14 hectares Back
19
Equivalent to 40 hectares Back
20
Appellation d'Origine Controllee Back
21
Institut Nationale d'Appellations d'Origine Back
22
COM(2007)372 Final, Article 18 Back
23
COM(2007)372 Final, Section 3.1 Back
24
COM(2007)372 Final, Section 3.4 Back
25
See HL 144, Part I, Paragraph 80 Back
26
HL 144, Part II, Page 174 Back
27
COM(2007)372 Final, Section 3.6 Back
28
COM(2007)372 Final, Section 3.3 Back
