Here’s the EU plan to save wine from the crisis. More flexibility for countries and space for alcohol-free products

Brussels – There are more and more winemakers and fewer and fewer drinkers. One can only start from this assumption to understand the crisis in the European wine sector. And then climate change, high production costs, and excessive bureaucracy. Lastly, the bogeyman of the American tariffs. In the plan to save wine presented today (March 28) by the European Commission, there is the idea of rebalancing an equation that is not working by focusing on “alcohol-free” wines, which, it goes without saying, could open doors to new markets in Africa and in Arab countries. But also in the EU.

The reality is that consumer habits have changed; young Europeans are more health-conscious and do not drink wine like the generations before them. “In recent years, there has been a constantly evolving consumer demand for wine products with reduced alcohol content,” reads the draft regulation proposed by EU Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen. Brussels suggests making the names of low-alcohol or non-alcoholic wines more “attractive and familiar” by proposing terms such as “alcohol-free, 0.0% or alcohol light” and harmonising their use throughout the Union.

More flexibilities for governments on vine planting authorizations and for farmers on production control, more financial coverage from the EU against climate risks and promotion of wine tourism are also prominent in the plan, which largely translates the recommendations of the High-Level Group on Wine set up by the European Commission with stakeholders. Hansen says he is “confident” that these measures will help “stabilise the market” and “enable producers to seize new opportunities and respond to changing consumer expectations.”

To keep up a sector that “accounts for 60 per cent of world wine production and 60 per cent of the value of wine exported around the world,” Brussels wants to authorize member countries to take measures, such as grubbing-up (removal of unwanted or excess vines) and green harvesting (removal of unripe grapes before harvest), to prevent surplus production, help stabilise the market and protect producers from financial difficulties. Second, producers will be given additional flexibility in the replanting permit regime, which increases to eight years and suspends penalties (while for new planting permits, the proposal maintains the three-year duration and a penalty if not used, ed.), to help them with investment decisions in a “changing environment.” States will also be able to increase the maximum financial assistance from the EU to 80 per cent of eligible costs for investments in climate change mitigation and adaptation.

Moreover, The European Commission suggests adopting electronic labelling, the QR Code, to “establish a common Europe-wide identification with a symbol” instead of a word that needs translation. The QR Code, an EU official pointed out, contains the list of ingredients and nutritional values but has no effect on “health-warning”, i.e., labels warning of the health hazards of products. “If a member state wants to, it can put such labelling in place. But it has to undergo certain requirements, especially those of free movement of goods,” the source explains. And the final assessment is up to the Commission.

Then there is the wine tourism chapter: the Package plans to give producer groups that manage wines protected by geographical indications “assistance to develop wine-related tourism” and extends the duration of EU-funded promotional campaigns in third countries from three to five years.

Satisfaction emerges from the Italian sector. According to Unione Italiana Vini, the proposal put on the table by Hansen “responds to the need to develop specific and targeted regulatory interventions for our sector at such a delicate time on all fronts, from geopolitical to economic/commercial, but also environmental and social.” The president of Confagricoltura, Massimiliano Giansanti, emphasized the speed with which the European Commission has moved, but called for “the greater flexibility contained in some measures of the proposal to be applied also to financial management for better use of resources.”