Commission staff working document - Accompanying document to the Proposal for a Council Regulation on the common organisation of the market in wine and amending certain regulations - Impact assessment {COM(2007) 372 final} {SEC(2007) 894}
Date: 2007-07-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU aid, common organisation of markets, impact study, marketing, production, reform of the CAP, viticulture

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 4.7.2007 
SEC(2007) 893 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Accompanying document to the 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

on the common organisation of the market in wine 
and amending certain regulations 

Impact assessment 

{COM(2007) 372 final} 
{SEC(2007) 894} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES ........................................ 3 
1. 
PROBLEM DEFINITION .............................................................................................................. 4 
2. 
OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................................. 6 
3. 
POLICY OPTIONS....................................................................................................................... 7 
4. 
4.1. 
Options analysed in the original impact assessment and discarded in the communication.... 7 
4.1.1.  Option 1 (status quo, with possibly some limited adjustments) ............................................. 7 
4.1.2.  Option 3 (reform along CAP reform lines)............................................................................. 8 
4.1.3.  Option 4 (complete deregulation) ........................................................................................... 8 
Option chosen by the Commission ......................................................................................... 8 
4.2. 
June 2006 communication: Option 2 (profound reform of the wine CMO)........................... 8 
4.2.1. 
4.2.2.  Legislative proposal .............................................................................................................. 11 
ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS (STATUS QUO VS. LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL)........................................ 11 
5. 
Economic impact .................................................................................................................. 11 
5.1. 
5.1.1.  Market balance...................................................................................................................... 12 
5.1.2.  Prices..................................................................................................................................... 14 
5.1.3.  Competitiveness.................................................................................................................... 16 
5.1.4.  Economic impact on the potable alcohol sector ................................................................... 17 
5.2. 
Social impact......................................................................................................................... 18 
5.2.1.  Agricultural incomes............................................................................................................. 18 
5.2.2.  Agricultural employment ...................................................................................................... 22 
5.2.3.  Employment in the wine market chain and related sectors................................................... 27 
Impact on the environment ................................................................................................... 31 
5.3. 
Impact on trade and WTO conformity.................................................................................. 33 
5.4. 
5.5. 
Impact on wine quality, health and consumer protection ..................................................... 34 
5.5.1.  Wine quality.......................................................................................................................... 34 
5.5.2.  Health and consumer protection policy ................................................................................ 35 
5.6. 
Impact on management efficiency ........................................................................................ 36 
5.6.1.  Simplification........................................................................................................................ 36 
5.6.2.  Administrative costs.............................................................................................................. 37 
5.6.3.  Subsidiarity ........................................................................................................................... 39 
5.6.4.  Budget ................................................................................................................................... 39 
COMPARING THE OPTIONS ...................................................................................................... 41 
6. 
MONITORING AND EVALUATION ............................................................................................ 41 
7. 
ANNEXES ............................................................................................................................................. 42 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
1. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

In June 2006 the Commission adopted the communication "Towards a sustainable European wine 
sector"1 and its accompanying impact assessment2, in which a number of alternative options for 
the reform of the EU wine regime were described and evaluated. The Commission considered the 
"profound  reform"  option  to  be  the  most  appropriate  response  to  the  future  challenges  of  the 
European  wine  sector.  Two  variants  of  the  profound  reform  option  were  identified.  The  first 
would provide prompt solutions to the present difficulties, but requires a rapid and thoroughgoing 
adjustment of the sector. The second variant would achieve the same result, but would be phased 
in over time, allowing the rural economy and the social fabric to adjust more smoothly. 

Following  the  publication  of  the  Commission's  communication,  the  European  Parliament3,  the 
European Economic and Social Committee4 and the Committee of the Regions5, expressed their 
formal opinion on it. The Council carried out an in-depth examination and discussion. Finally, the 
Wine Advisory Committees, as well as a large number of stakeholders and institutional bodies at 
European and national level, also had the opportunity to express their view on the communication. 

Despite the large variety of opinions, there seemed to be a certain consensus on the Commission's 
analysis of the difficulties affecting the EU wine sector and on the impracticality of maintaining 
the  status  quo.  The  need  for  an  in-depth  reform  of  the  common  market  organisation  (CMO)  in 
order to find solutions to the problems experienced by the sector was generally accepted, as well 
as the objectives for the reform indicated by the Commission. Furthermore, most interested parties 
agreed on keeping a specific, although reformed, CMO for wine. On the other hand, regarding the 
specific  measures  proposed  in  the  communication,  there  has  been  an  intense  debate.  Some 
important  evolution  elements  of  the  legal  proposal  for  the  reform  of  the  wine  CMO  have  been 
influenced by this debate: first of all, it was recognised that the equilibrium on the wine market 
will  have  to  be  achieved  through  a  more  balanced  mix  of  “positive”  measures,  aiming  at 
expanding the commercial outlets of EU wine worldwide, and other measures intending to reduce 
the production potential; secondly, the consideration of environmental matters will be improved 
with  the  integration  of  vine  land  in  the  general  system  of  cross-compliance  and  by  allowing 
flexibility  to  set  limits  in  the  application  of  the  grubbing-up  programme,  in  order  to  minimise 
possible negative impacts on environmentally fragile areas. 

The  present  document  represents  an  update  of  the  impact  assessment  carried  out  in  2006  by  an 
Inter-Service Steering Group (ISSG) set up for the purpose, and aims to complement the previous 
analysis  based  on  the  new  legal  proposals  for  the  reform  of  the  wine  CMO.  As  a  self-standing 

1 

2 
3 

4 

5 

COM(2006) 319, 22.6.2006 
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/capreform/wine/com2006_319_en.pdf. 
SEC(2006) 770, 22.6.2006, http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/capreform/wine/fullimpact_en.pdf. 
T6-0049/2007 of 15 February 2007, 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2007-
0049+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN 
CESE 1569/2006 of 14 December 2006, 
http://eescopinions.eesc.europa.eu/EESCopinionDocument.aspx?identifier=ces\nat\nat321\ces1569-
2006_ac.doc&language=EN 
CdR 257/2006 fin of 6 December 2006, 
http://coropinions.cor.europa.eu/CORopinionDocument.aspx?identifier=cdr\deve-iv\dossiers\deve-iv-
012\cdr257-2006_fin_ac.doc&language=EN 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
document, however, this report also makes reference to the most relevant findings of the original 
impact  assessment.  In  the  new  study,  special  attention  was  paid  to  the  evaluation  of  the  social 
impacts of the reform, which needed to be further developed. 

This impact assessment was mainly updated by the Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural 
Development  (DG  AGRI),  with  the  additional  involvement  of  the  Directorate-General  for 
Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (DG EMPL) of the European Commission. 
The ISSG was also consulted for advice at a later stage. Finally, the document tried to take into 
account the recommendations made by the Impact Assessment Board (IAB) of the Commission.  

Again,  owing  to  the  extreme  complexity  of  the  wine  sector  and  to  the  close  interrelationships 
between  individual  issues,  this  analysis  was  not  always  able  to  address  all  impacts  in  a 
quantitative way. Thus, in certain cases, this impact assessment was based on qualitative analyses. 

2. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

The  analysis  in  the  Commission's  original  impact  assessment  pointed to  the  vital importance  of 
the European wine sector, both in terms of its weight on the world wine market and of its primary 
role within the agricultural and rural activity of wine-producing Member States (MS) and regions. 
However, in spite of the widespread reputation and the competitiveness of a large part of the EU 
wine production, the sector is increasingly confronted with a series of shortcomings: 

1. 

Steady decline in consumption over decades, resulting from profound lifestyle changes 
in society as regards nutrition. 

Wine consumption in Europe has shown a significant and continuous decline in the last 
decades, falling by an average of 750 000 hl (–0.65%) per year, or 15 million hl (–11%), 
in the last twenty years, although in the most recent years the decline in consumption has 
been less pronounced. The falling trend in wine consumption only concerns table wine, 
while  the  consumption  of  quality  wine  psr,  on  the  other  hand,  is  actually  growing 
slightly. 
DG  AGRI's  new  mid-term  outlook  for  EU-27  to  the  wine  year  2011/2012,  which 
basically confirms the assessment made in 2006, forecasts a drop in wine consumption of 
slightly more than 400 000 hl per year in the near future. 

2. 

Loss of competitiveness compared to non-EU wines. 

Imports  of  wine  from  non-EU  countries  have  attained  a  significant  level  following  an 
extraordinary  development  during  the  last  decade,  during  which  they  have  gained 
considerable market shares at the expense of domestic wines. 
In the same period, the volume of wine exported from the EU to third countries has been 
stagnating.  Since  many  studies  at  international  level  indicate  that  world  wine 
consumption  is  growing,  this  shows  that  EU  wines  have  not  been  able  to  exploit  the 
opportunities  represented  by  the  new  markets  and  that  non-EU  wines  have  been  more 
successful in gaining market share on the international scene. 
The most recent trade data, referring to the years 2005/06, seem to show that the rapid 
growth in imports has slowed down, while exports are picking up again. This new trend, 
which  had  been  partly  anticipated  by  DG  AGRI's  mid-term  outlook  for  2006  (it  was 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
forecast that the EU would keep its status as a net exporter of wine), was fully taken into 
account in this year's outlook update. However, due the effects of developments over the 
last decade, it is a fact that the wine trade balance is now much less favourable than in 
the past. 

3. 

Unsustainable market imbalance of the EU wine sector 

For  many  decades  now,  the  European  wine  market  has  suffered  from  recurring 
overproduction problems. On the one hand, the surplus generated every year has been 
partly  removed  from  the  market  at  the  Community  budget  expense  via  specific 
distillation measures; on the other hand, it has partly accumulated in private stocks, thus 
contributing to depress the wine market situation, in particular prices and the incomes of 
vine growers.  
Due to the long-term evolution in consumption and trade with third countries in the last 
decade, accompanied by a broadly stable production, which does not adapt sufficiently to 
the movements in demand, the situation is worsening year by year, apart from the annual 
conjunctural fluctuations in wine production. In recent years, overproduction seems to be 
affecting the market for quality wines as well. 
The  new  DG  AGRI  mid-term  outlook  for  the  EU-27  wine  sector  to  2011/2012  (see 
Annex 1) clearly shows that the situation concerning the accumulation of wine surplus is 
unsustainable. 

4. 

Complexity of the legal framework for wine policy 

The  heavy  administrative  burden  generated  by  the  complex  legal  framework  places 
constraints  on  EU  producers  and  further  weakens  the  competitive  position  of  the 
European wine sector. 

5. 

Insufficient consideration of environmental concerns 

Environmental  integration  is  very  limited  under  the  existing  wine  regime,  which  has 
remained significantly behind almost all other CMOs that underwent the 2003 reform of 
the  common  agricultural  policy  (CAP)  and  subsequent  reforms.  In  particular,  as  areas 
under vines are not eligible for direct payments, this land is not systematically covered 
by cross-compliance rules. This means that, for a large proportion of vine-growers, there 
is currently no environmental baseline, except that provided by environmental directives. 

In this respect, many CMO policy tools are probably not effective in achieving their objectives: 

•  the  ban  on  new  plantings  has  not  completely  managed  to  control  production  owing  to  the 
granting of new planting rights and the increase in yields in some producing Member States, as 
well as the existence of irregular and illegal plantings; 

•  the use of the grubbing-up scheme has virtually stopped; 

•  distillations  of  wine  and  other  market  tools  -  normally  designed  to  absorb  conjunctural 
surpluses  or  to  support  other  market  uses  -  encourage  overproduction,  thereby  preventing 
market balance; 

•  some  provisions  of  the  CMO  have  created  a  heavy  administrative  burden  and  have  not 

always been correctly implemented (regularisation of irregular plantings); 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
•  measures are often too strict and not flexible enough to allow efficiency and to adapt rapidly 
to new production techniques and marketing methods. For example, the labelling rules, which 
are  specific  to  wine,  are  characterised  by  the  wide  diversity  of  legal  instruments  and  the 
rigidity  of  certain  rules,  which  in  particular  make  it  difficult  to  develop  so-called  “varietal 
wines” (vins de cépage) i.e. wines made from one or more grape varieties and which emphasise 
the  name  of  the  varieties,  rather  than  the  geographical  origin  of  the  product,  for  marketing 
purposes. The rigid rules on wine-making practices also hamper innovation; 

•  the  present  dichotomy  between  table  wines  and  “quality”  wines  produced  in  specified 
regions no longer provides the appropriate framework to promote the concept of Geographical 
Indications for wines; 

•  several policy tools are currently under pressure within the WTO. 

As wine is one of the products listed in Annex I, referring to Article 32 of the Treaty establishing 
the  European  Community,  it  is  up  to  the  Union  to  lay  down  rules  for  the  establishment  of  the 
common market organisation, and therefore also to address the abovementioned problems. 

3. 

OBJECTIVES 

The  communication  "Towards  a  sustainable  European  wine  sector"  pointed  out  that  the  wine 
reform  should  be  considered  in  the  context  of  the  ongoing  process  that  began  with  the  2003 
general reform of the CAP, which was continued in 2004 (reform of cotton, hops, olive oil and 
tobacco)  and  2005  (reform  of  sugar).  The  recent  Commission  legislative  proposal to  amend  the 
remaining  main  sector  not  covered  by  the  reform,  namely  fruit  and  vegetables6,  is  another 
initiative in this direction. 

The new direction taken by the CAP represents a resolute step towards a more forward-looking, 
market-oriented and sustainable agricultural sector, thereby providing an important contribution to 
the goals of the Lisbon strategy7 and the sustainable development policy agreed at the Göteborg 
European Council8. 

The new wine regime should also align itself with the fundamental principles of the new CAP 
in order to contribute to its accomplishments; therefore, the reform of the wine sector should be 
guided  by  the  objectives  of  competitiveness  and  of  economic,  social  and  environmental 
sustainability. 

More specifically, the reformed wine CMO should achieve the following objectives: 

•  to  ensure  a  better  quantitative  and  qualitative  balance  between  supply  and  demand,  by 
providing for simple and effective rules allowing structural adjustment of the sector, including 
a reduction of production potential where necessary; 

6 
7 
8 

COM(2007) 17. 
COM(2005) 24. 
Presidency Conclusions, 15-16 June 2001. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  to enhance the competitiveness of European wine, by allowing the development of a modern 
and  dynamic  wine  sector,  capable  of  efficiently  producing  wine  and  marketing  it  on  the 
internal and the world market, thus consolidating EU leadership in the sector; 

•  to take into account the accomplishments of the CAP reform initiated in 2003, in particular its 

market orientation, its horizontal approach and cross-compliance; 

•  to safeguard producers' incomes, 

•  to take into consideration wider society concerns, such as health and consumer protection 

and environmental matters; 

•  within the general objective of competitiveness, to preserve the authenticity and the traditional 
character  of  the  product,  and  to  safeguard  vineyards  in  sensitive  areas,  where  vine-growing 
plays an important role in protecting the environment/landscapes and providing employment in 
rural areas; 

•  to fully respect international obligations with respect to WTO obligations; 

•  to simplify the legislation, by allowing a more effective and flexible framework of rules for 

production and labelling;  

•  to attain a higher degree of subsidiarity, by adapting the measures to specific conditions and 

needs, but under certain common rules in order to avoid distortion of competition, 

•  to  provide  for  the  smooth  integration  of  Bulgaria  and  Romania  into  the  EU  wine  market 
organisation, enhancing the process of modernisation and restructuring of their wine industries. 

4. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

4.1. 

Options  analysed  in  the  original  impact  assessment  and  discarded  in  the 
communication 

In the original impact assessment, the Commission identified four possible policy options for the 
EU's CMO in wine. 

Three of them were discarded in the  communication, since the results of the impact assessment 
showed that they would not provide an adequate solution to the problems of the wine sector and 
would not allow the objectives of the reform to be met. 

4.1.1.  Option 1 (Status quo, with possibly some limited adjustments) 

This option would consist in maintaining most of the tools of the existing CMO, with just a few 
specific provisions to overcome the most important problems. 

The status quo appears unsustainable in the long term, because it neither tackles the problem of 
the structural imbalance of the wine market, nor enhances the competitiveness of European wine 
nor improves the consistency with other Community policies. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
4.1.2.  Option 3 (Reform along CAP reform lines) 

This  reform  option  would  provide  for  the  full  integration  of  the  wine  sector  into  the 
mainstream  CAP,  as  reformed  since  2003.  Land  under  vines  would  be  made  eligible  for  the 
activation  of  Single  Payment  Scheme  (SPS)  entitlements  and  the  entire  budget  for  the  wine 
sector would be converted into SPS reference amounts to be distributed on a hectare basis. At 
the  same  time,  land  under  vines  would  be  subject  to  the  general  system  of  cross-compliance, 
modulation and financial discipline. 

This  option  would  allow  some  policy  objectives  to  be  achieved  in  the  long  term,  in  particular 
market equilibrium in the wine sector. Moreover, it would address environmental concerns, since 
it  allows  direct  application  of  cross-compliance  to  the  whole  area  under  vines.  However,  in  the 
short term, the sector would have to undergo quite a tough adjustment process. Public intervention 
would  mainly  focus  on  supporting  farm  incomes  as  opposed  to  rapidly  improving  the  market 
balance  by  providing  help  with  structural  adjustment.  Furthermore,  the  support  given  to  farm 
income  by  the  potential  amount  of  decoupled  payments,  on  the  basis  of  the  available  budget, 
would be too little to compensate for the loss of market support for many growers. 

4.1.3.  Option 4 (Complete deregulation) 

The  option of  complete  deregulation  would  involve  the abolition  of  all  policy  instruments  for 
the  management  of  the  production  potential  and  of  the  market.  The  budget  would  be  either 
cancelled or transferred to the second pillar for Rural Development (RD) policy in general. 

Although this orientation would make it possible to achieve a number of policy objectives in the 
long  term,  in  particular  wine  market  equilibrium  and  increased  competitiveness  of  wine 
production,  the  very  harsh  adjustment  required  by  the  immediate  implementation  of  this  policy 
and  the  lack  of  accompanying  structural  measures  would,  in  the  short  term,  generate  serious 
negative economic and social impacts on the regions concerned. 

4.2. 

Option chosen by the Commission 

4.2.1. 

June 2006 communication: Option 2 (Profound reform of the wine CMO) 

In its communication of June 2006, the Commission clearly expressed a preference for the policy 
scenario  entitled  "profound  reform  of  the  wine  CMO".  This  reform  option  would  provide  for 
in-depth revision of all the policy tools of the CMO, which nevertheless would still preserve 
its specific character. 

This option would optimally address the problems of the wine sector by concentrating budgetary 
resources on measures to achieve stabilisation of the market and the structural adjustment of 
the  sector.  Member  States  and  wine  regions  would  be  given  the  scope  to  adapt  the  measures 
available  at  Community  level  to  their  specific  conditions  and  needs,  thus  allowing  greater 
subsidiarity. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
Two variants for the "profound reform" option were identified: 

Variant A: "One-step" 

The main feature of this variant is the immediate abolition (or abolition by 1 August 2010 at the 
latest) of the planting rights system and of the grubbing-up scheme. 

Variant B: "Two-steps" 

In this variant, the first phase aims to restore market balance and the second phase to build 
improved competitiveness. The main feature of this variant would be EU support for structural 
adjustment  via  the  temporary  revitalisation  of  the  grubbing-up  scheme,  which  would  thus 
provide a strong incentive for uncompetitive producers to stop producing by means of attractive 
premia.  The  system  of  restrictions  on  planting  rights  would  be  extended  until 
31 December 2013, when it would expire. 

Variants A and B would, however, share a large number of common features: 

•  abolition of all market measures; 

•  creation  of  a  national  envelope  enabling  Member  States  to  choose,  according  to  their 
preference,  from  a  given  menu  of  measures  (various  crisis  management  measures,  green 
harvest and the vineyard restructuring/conversion scheme); 

•  transfer  of  funds  from  the  wine  CMO  to  the  European  Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural 

Development (EAFRD) in order to finance structural measures; 

•  rationalisation  and  simplification  of  so-called  regulatory  measures  (quality  policy  & 

geographical indications (GIs), labelling and wine-making practices (WMPs)); 

•  new  approach  to  wine  enrichment  (banning  of  sucrose,  abolition  of  aid  for  concentrated 

must, reduction of the maximum level of enrichment); 

•  strengthening of wine promotion and information policy; 

•  enforcement of minimum environmental requirements for the wine sector 

Table  1  summarises  the  various  impacts  of  the  different  policy  options  analysed  in  the  2006 
communication. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
Table 1: Summary table comparing the impacts of the options 

Option 1: Improved status quo

Option 2: Profound reform of the CMO

Option 3: Reform along CAP reform lines

Option 4: Deregulation

SUMMARY

IMPACTS

Market balance

Increasing surplus 

Smoothest achievement of balance 

Increasing surplus in the short and mid term 

Increasing surplus in the short and mid term

Market equilibrium in the long term

Market equilibrium in the long term

Prices

Sharp decrease due to
unsustainability of the system

Agricultural incomes

Progressive decrease due to
unsustainability of the system

Competitiveness

No improvement

Decrease in the short term 

Sharp decrease in the short and mid term

Very sharp decrease in the short and mid term

Recovery after achievement of balance 

Recovery after achievement of balance 

Recovery after achievement of balance 

Decrease in the short term 

Decrease in the mid term

Very sharp decrease in the short and mid term 

Recovery after achievement of balance 

Rapid improvement
through economic sustainability
and improved regulatory measures
allowing flexibility and innovation

Recovery after achievement of balance
No safety net mechanism
Improvement in the long run
through economic sustainability
and improved regulatory measures
allowing flexibility and innovation

Recovery after achievement of balance
No safety net mechanism
Strong improvement in the long run
through economic sustainability, freedom to farm
and improved regulatory measures
allowing flexibility and innovation

Economic and social
impacts on rural areas

Progressive deterioration due to
unsustainability of the system

Improvement due to smooth achievement
of economic sustainability

Risks due to heavy
restructuring needs

Environment

No improvement

Trade
WTO compatible

Different measures
potentially under attack

No easy solution to apply
cross-compliance on all vine area
Shifts to RD can be used to encourage
more environmentally-friendly measures

Direct applicability of
general cross compliance 

Most problems solved

Most problems solved

Most problems solved

Important risks due to
heavy restructuring needs and
possible production shifts between regions

Very difficult to apply cross-compliance
No available funds to encourage more
environmentally-friendly measures

Wine quality

Neutral

Increase through better market orientation

Increase through better market orientation

Increase through better market orientation

Health / consumer

No improvement

Stop to unacceptable support to
distillation into potable alcohol
Labelling rules more transparent
and consumer oriented

Stop to unacceptable support to
distillation into potable alcohol
Labelling rules more transparent
and consumer oriented

Stop to unacceptable support to
distillation into potable alcohol
Labelling rules more transparent
and consumer oriented

Budget

Increasing pressure

Neutral

Neutral

Possibility of savings

Subsidiarity

No improvement

Much more flexibility with national envelope
and increased RD funds

Flexibility in the implementation of the SPS

Possibly more flexibility via shift to RD

Simplification,
applicability
controllability

No improvement

Moderate simplification

Strong simplification, but specific operational
difficulties in implementing SPS in wine sector

Most problem solved

EN 

10 

E

 
  
 
4.2.2.  Legislative proposal 

The legislative proposal is broadly based on the "profound reform" option, and more precisely on 
its Variant B examined in the communication of June 2006, which it has taken a stage further. The 
"two-steps" variant was preferred to the "one-step" variant for the following reasons: 

•  the immediate abolition of the planting rights system would present short-term risks of market 
disruption, since some producers would be able to expand their production before the market 
surplus is  absorbed,  thus  slowing  down  the  adjustment  of  the  sector.  In  this  sense,  variant  B 
provides  for  a  transitional  period  before  the  full  application  of  the  reform,  which  allows  to 
restore  market  balance  via  a  softer  adjustment  of  the  sector  to  a  more  competitive  regime; 
uncompetitive  producers  would  be  offered  a  way  out  to  leave  their  activity  in  socially 
honourable conditions, thereby making room on the market for competitive operators; 

•  variant B ensures a longer time frame for the depreciation of planting rights detained by vine-

growers, whose acquisition might have represented a costly investment. 

The main new elements of the current proposals compared to the "profound reform" option of the 
2006 communication are: 

•  reduction of scope of the grubbing-up scheme (from 400 000 to 200 000 ha) and possibility 
for Member States to exempt a part of the territory from the application of the scheme, based 
on environmental considerations.   
The reduction of scope is partly justified by the slight improvement of the wine market outlook 
(see section 5.1), but is mainly due to an evolution of the proposal, which now decidedly aims 
at expanding the commercial outlets of EU wine, rather than only shrinking the wine supply; 

•  making the vine area eligible for the Single Payment Scheme (SPS) (even though this does 

not involve the creation of new SPS entitlements attached to it).  
This measure would allow producers to activate, on vine land, SPS entitlements that they have 
at  their  disposal  or  they  may  acquire.  It  would  introduce  an  important  element  of  the  CAP 
reform option into the proposal (option 3 of the communication); 

•  special emphasis on measures for the promotion of European wine on non-EU markets via the 
national  envelope  and  on  information  campaigns  on  responsible  and  moderate  wine 
consumption on the EU market. 

5. 

ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS (STATUS QUO VS. LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL) 

The following analysis will summarise, adapt and, if necessary, deepen the analysis of the original 
impact  assessment,  by  focusing  in  particular  on  the  new  aspects  introduced  by  the  legislative 
proposal. The overall impacts will be compared with those of the reference scenario, i.e. the "no 
reform" option. 

5.1. 

Economic impact 

The  starting  point  for  the  assessment  of  the  economic  impact  of  the  legislative  proposal  is  the 
most recent DG AGRI mid-term outlook for the EU-27 wine sector to 2011/2012 (see Annex 1). 
This  forecast  updates  the  results  of  a  similar  exercise  conducted  as  part  of  the  previous  impact 
assessment. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
According  to  this  revised  outlook,  assuming  an  unchanged  CMO,  the  wine  surplus  in  an 
“average”  year  will  reach,  in  the  status  quo  scenario,  24.8  million  hl  (13.9%  of  production),  or 
12.8 million hl (7.2% of production) excluding wine destined to the potable alcohol sector and 
distilled  with  the  Community  aid.  Compared  to  the  outlook  exercise  conducted  in  2006,  the 
forecast is slightly less pessimistic, thanks to the recent improvement in the outlook for the wine 
trade balance. 

5.1.1.  Market balance 

No reform 

Given  the  results  of  the  DG  AGRI  mid-term  outlook,  the  no-reform  scenario  is  clearly  not 
sustainable from an economic point of view, despite the slight downward revision of the forecast 
market surplus. 

Commission proposal 

Compared to the status quo, the following proposed measures have a positive effect on the market 
balance of the wine sector: 

•  Abolition of market measures (distillations, must aids and private storage) 

This is a fundamental measure to achieve equilibrium in the wine market, after a period of 
structural adjustment, since it removes all the economic incentives for producers that led to the 
current situation of overproduction. 
However,  in  the  short  term,  the  abolition  of  some  market  tools  supporting  the  use  of  wine 
production, such as potable alcohol distillation, could cause a greater imbalance in the wine 
market. In particular, ending support for distillation into potable alcohol would make EU wine 
alcohol less competitive in the alcoholic beverages market, leading to an overall reduction in 
the  production  of  domestic  wine-based  spirits.  As  a  result,  less  EU  table  wine  would  be 
withdrawn to supply this outlet, thereby creating an additional surplus on the wine market. This 
additional  annual  surplus  is  quantified  at  about  4  million  hl  (see  section  5.1.4).  Lastly, 
abolishing Community aid for the distillation of wine by-products, while maintaining the ban 
on over-pressing grapes, would have no impact on overall wine production. 

•  New provisions on wine enrichment (abolition of must aid and ban on the use of sucrose) 

Ending the aid for must would certainly stop the recent trend towards the artificial expansion of 
enrichment in countries or regions, mainly in Southern Europe, where enrichment has not been 
traditionally  practised.  Furthermore,  the  ban  on  the  use  of  sucrose  in  central  and  northern 
European countries would entail replacing beet sugar with concentrated grape must. This could 
contribute to a significant improvement in the market balance. According to a rough estimate 
based on available data9, the replacement of sucrose with concentrated grape must could 
immediately increase the outlets for grape must by 3.7 million hl every year. 

•  Revitalisation of the policy of permanent abandonment 

This  measure  has  an  immediate  and  durable  positive  effect  on  the  wine  market  balance, 

9 

According  to  internal  estimates,  almost  80 000  tonnes  of  sucrose  are  used  in  the  EU-27  to  enrich 
25 million hl wine. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
because it directly reduces production potential and, therefore, wine production. However, the 
decrease  in  production  is  probably  less  than  proportional  to  the  area  abandoned,  since  it  is 
primarily vineyards with low yields that are expected to be grubbed-up. Under the same yield 
assumption  as  that  used  in  the  original  impact  assessment,  the  grubbing-up  of  200 000  ha  of 
vineyard could reduce the annual wine surplus by approximately 7.5 million hl over five years. 

•  Increased funds for rural development policy 

Some  of  the  measures  eligible  for  the  RD  programmes  could  play  an  important  role  in 
enhancing the restructuring of the sector and promoting better market orientation of production 
(e.g.  early  retirement  of  vine-growers,  agri-environmental  measures).  As  indicated  in  the 
previous impact assessment, these measures could contribute to reducing the surplus by about 
1 million hl per year in the initial years of the reform. 

•  Innovative  labelling  provisions,  support  for  the  promotion  of  EU  wines  on  non-EU  markets 

and internal information scheme  
Unlike  the  foregoing  instruments,  the  aim  of  which  is  to  contain  wine  production,  these 
measures act on the demand side, helping to expand the commercial outlets for EU wine by 
improving  its  image,  and  therefore  its  competitiveness  (see  section  5.1.3).  First  of  all,  the 
reformed labelling framework will enhance new outlets for EU wines, for example by allowing 
the  large-scale  production  and  marketing  of  the  so-called  “vins  de  cépage”.  In  addition, 
external  promotion  is  expected  to  be  the  key  measure  that  will  enable  the  wine  sector  to 
recover lost markets and win new ones worldwide. On top of that, the internal information 
scheme could contribute to informing EU consumers about the domestic wine quality policy, 
which  might  reasonably  persuade  them  to  turn  their  preferences  increasingly  to  European 
wines  rather  than  to  competing  wines.  The  recent  boom  of  new  world  wines  has  shown  the 
importance of the promotion policy as the key for a successful marketing of wines worldwide. 
Given the wide scope of these measures and the considerable resources invested, we can expect 
them to gradually increase the outlets for EU wine by at least 3 million hl within two years. 

•  Financial support for green harvesting 

In  the  short-term,  this  measure,  which  is  included  in  the  national  envelopes,  generates  a 
positive effect on the wine market balance by removing part of the grape production before 
this  comes  to  maturation.  The  quantity  of  potential  wine  production  taken  off  the  market 
depends on the scale of the action, which in turn depends on the size of the likely surplus. This 
instrument  is  therefore  very  flexible  and  could  be  modulated  year  by  year  according  to  the 
needs  of  the  situation.  On  the  basis  of  the  financial  resources  allocated  via  the  national 
envelopes, it is reasonable to believe that in a single year potentially at least 2-3 million hl of 
wine production could be removed through this instrument. 

In  conclusion,  the  introduction  of  policy  instruments  aimed,  on  the  one  hand,  at  reducing 
production potential and encouraging restructuring and, on the other hand, at boosting the demand 
for EU wine will ensure a smooth transition in the short term. They will accompany the process 
of structural adjustment  of the sector, thus alleviating the adverse short-term effects linked to 
the abolition of market measures. 

In any event, the abolition of the market measures represents in economic terms the guarantee for 
the wine sector to reach structural market equilibrium in the long term. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
 
 
At  the  end  of  the  first  phase  of  the  reform,  the  market  balance  is  expected  to  be  virtually 
restored;  therefore,  the  ban  on  new  plantings  could  be  lifted  without  the  risk  of  this 
affecting the equilibrium. 

5.1.2.  Prices 

No reform 

The  forecast  of  rising  surpluses  in  the  mid-term  outlook  for  the  wine  sector  will  generate 
increasing pressure on Community intervention measures and on the corresponding budget. In the 
long run, it will therefore be increasingly difficult to clear the growing wine stocks rapidly and 
effectively  using  market  tools.  Recurrent  crises  would  lead  to  a  progressive  decline  in  prices 
and, consequently, in farm incomes. 

The short-term impact of the status quo scenario on wine prices can be simulated using the same 
methodology as the original impact assessment, in particular by linking price trends to the forecast 
development  of  wine  stocks,  but  based  on  the  updated  figures  from  the  mid-term  outlook.  Any 
conjunctural effect will again be left aside, as “average” conditions are assumed for each year. 

In short, on the basis of the new mid-term outlook, the structural surplus generated by the wine 
market in a “normal” year would be 12.8 million hl (excluding the volume of wine distilled under 
the  potable  alcohol  distillation  scheme).  In  a  "status  quo"  scenario,  this  surplus  could  be  partly 
removed by a combination of dual-purpose grape distillation (2 million hl) and crisis distillation 
(4  million  hl  on  average);  the  remaining  volume  would  accumulate  in  the  form  of  additional 
wine stocks. 

Hence, the surplus generated by the wine market would lead on average to an annual increase 
in stocks of 6.8 million hl (12.8 – 2 – 4 million hl). 

Subject to those assumptions, it is possible to give a rough idea of the scale of the impact on table 
wine prices through simple regression analysis, in which the average annual prices of table wine 
in  the  EU  are  related  to  the  level  of  wine  stocks  over  the  period  2000–2006  (more  details  on 
regression analysis can be found in Annex 2). 

The annual price data for the EU are calculated as the weighted average of the annual table wine 
price  in  France,  Italy  and  Spain,  where  those  annual  prices  are  calculated  respectively  as  the 
average of the weekly quoted price. 

On  the  basis  of  the  statistical  relationship  between  table  wine  prices  and  total  wine  stocks,  and 
assuming the level of stocks in “year 0” of the reform to be equal to the average for the period 
2000–2006,  the  decrease  in  average  wine  prices  resulting  from  an  increase  in  stocks  of 
6.8 million hl is estimated to be about 5%. 

After  a  further  increase  of  6.8  million  hl  in  wine  stocks  the  following  year,  the  price  decrease, 
compared to the initial value at the beginning of the “year 0”, would be around 11%. 

In the context of a general fall in prices, table wines would probably be the most affected, since 
they  are  the  main  beneficiaries  of  distillation  measures,  but  it  seems  unlikely  that  the  quality 
wines sector could be spared from the downward trend in prices. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
Commission proposal 

Long-term impacts 

The long-term wine market equilibrium achieved by the reformed wine CMO can be expected to 
be  mainly  accomplished  by  production  falling  into  line  with  demand,  rather  than  through  a 
downwards  adjustment  of  wine  market  prices.  For  those  reasons,  prices  (and  therefore 
agricultural  incomes)  would  reach  satisfactory  levels  and  could  be  comparable  to  those  in  the 
best years under the existing CMO, when the surplus recorded (excluding wine distilled under the 
potable  alcohol  distillation  scheme)  was  close  to  zero.  In  this  situation  of  market  balance,  the 
conditions for abolishing the ban on new plantings would finally be met. 

Conjunctural  problems  linked  to  occasional  surpluses  generated  by  exceptionally  abundant 
harvests could be tackled through crisis management measures within the national envelope. 

Short-term impacts 

The ending of all market measures would mean that the production surplus of a “normal” year, 
i.e. 12.8 million hl, could not be physically removed from the market through specific distillation 
measures, but would invariably accumulate as additional stocks, which would have the effect 
of  depressing  prices.  Besides, as indicated  in  5.1.4,  abolishing  potable  alcohol  distillation  could 
further worsen the wine market balance by 4 million hl in the short term. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  various  policy  tools  described  in  section  5.1.1  would  accelerate  the 
adjustment of production and the reduction of surpluses, thereby diminishing the accumulation of 
wine  stocks.  The  effect  of  these  tools  according  to  the  assumptions  made  under  5.1.1  is  the 
following: 

•  the  ban  on  chaptalisation,  entailing  the  replacement  of  beet  sugar  by  concentrated  grape 

musts, would lead to a reduction of 3.7 million hl in total wine production; 

•  the revitalisation of the policy of permanent abandonment would allow the abandonment of 
60 000  ha  of  vineyards  in  the  first  year  of  the  reform  and  of  50 000  ha  in  the  second  year, 
which  would  correspond  to  reducing  the  wine  surplus  by  2.3 million  hl  and  1.9  million  hl 
respectively; 

•  the  other  structural  measures  under  the  second  pillar  reduce  this  surplus  by  a  further 

1 million hl per year; 

•  the opportunities created by the new GIs and labelling framework and the new promotion 
and information policy are expected to increase the outlets for EU wine by 1.5 million hl per 
year in the first two years; 

•  green  harvesting  would  be  likely  to  be  applied  in  years  with  large  surpluses  and  could  thus 
remove 2 million hl of wine from the market in the first year and 1 million hl in the second 
year. 

Under these assumptions, the surplus generated by the wine market in the first year after reform 
would lead on average to an increase in stocks of 6.3 million hl (12.8 + 4 – 3.7 – 2.3 – 1 – 1.5 – 
2 million). In the second year of the reform, wine stocks would continue to increase, but “only” 
by 2.9 million hl (12.8 + 4 –3.7 – (2.3 + 1.9) – (1+1) – (1.5+1.5) –1 million). 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
On  the  basis  of  the  same  regression  analysis  conducted  for  the  no-reform  scenario,  i.e.  relating 
table wine prices to total wine stocks, the decrease in the average table wine prices resulting 
from the trend in stocks is estimated at 5% in the first year and at 7% after two years.  

Therefore, prices would be roughly equal to those of the status quo scenario in the first year, but 
would already be more favourable starting from the second year, with prospects of a rapid and 
full recovery afterwards, given the favourable trend in stocks. 

Again,  table  wines  would  probably  be  the  most  affected  by  the  drop  in  prices,  but  quality 
wines would probably be affected by the general downward trend too. 

5.1.3.  Competitiveness 

No reform 

As  the  impact  assessment  annexed  to  the  June  2006  communication  showed,  the  increasing 
erosion of the market share of EU wines relative to competing wines, both on the domestic and on 
the export markets, indicates a worrying loss of competitiveness of our wine sector, particularly 
in  the  low  and  medium-quality  segment.  The  CMO  has  not  helped  to  improve  this  situation, 
which would probably become even worse without a resolute change of policy. 

Commission proposal 

The following measures, contained in the proposed legislation, would contribute significantly to 
improving the competitiveness of the EU wine sector: 

•  ending  market  measures  would  encourage  structural  adjustment  in  the  wine  sector, 
prompting  uncompetitive  holdings  -  whose  production  is  currently  mostly  intended  for 
distillation - to abandon the activity. The overall competitiveness of the sector would thereby 
increase; 

•  the  revitalised  grubbing-up  programme  and  the  strengthened  rural  development  dimension 
would facilitate structural adjustment and help to increase the average size of wine holdings 
in the EU; 

•  confirming the restructuring programme and strengthening rural development measures would 
permit continued modernisation of vineyards, thus contributing to greater cost-effectiveness 
and better market orientation of EU wine production; 

•  the  vigorous  information  and  promotion  policy  proposed  by  the  Commission  would 
underpin ambitious marketing strategies, which should enable the EU wine sector to regain its 
lead position on the world stage, and eventually exploit the new opportunities provided by the 
emerging  markets.  Besides,  increased  funds  for  the  internal  information  campaigns  could 
contribute to better informing consumers about EU quality policy, thus improving the image of 
EU  wines,  and  about  the  beneficial  effects  on  health  of  responsible  and  moderate  wine 
consumption; 

•  more  flexibility  in  the  procedure  for  approving  new  wine-making  practices  (WMPs)  would 
increase  the  scope  for  innovative  techniques.  The  possibility  of  authorising  specific  WMPs 
for export only would allow EU producers to operate on the world market under conditions of 
equal opportunity with non-EU competitors; 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
•  simplifying the GI system and the labelling provisions would increase transparency for the 
consumer.  Moreover,  greater  flexibility  in  the  regulatory  framework  would  provide  new 
marketing  opportunities  for  EU  wines:  for  example,  allowing  the  wine  variety  and  vintage 
year to be indicated for wine without GI would enhance the expansion of the “vins de cépage” 
segment, which has been one of the key factors  in the recent overwhelming success of some 
non-EU wines; 

•  the  abolition  of  the  planting  rights  system,  from  2014  onwards,  would  provide  for  the 
possibility  to  expand  the  vine  area  without  restrictions,  thus  allowing  to  the  most  efficient 
producers  to  optimise  the  size  of  their  holdings  and  operate  at  the  most  convenient 
production scale; however, the rules regulating the access to GIs and protected denominations 
would de facto partly restrict the area eligible for protected designations. 

As  to  the  proposals  on  enrichment,  although  this  practice  is  nearly  always  economically 
profitable for producers (even with unsubsidised concentrated musts) the abolition of the aid to 
concentrated musts and the ban on the use of sucrose would lead to an increase in production 
costs compared to the current situation. The cost increase would depend on the price category of 
the enriched wine and it would be highest for low-priced table wines. For this category of wines, 
it is estimated that production costs may grow by about 10% in the case of producers currently 
enriching  wine  with  sucrose  and  by  20%  for  those  currently  enriching  with  subsidised 
concentrated must. 

5.1.4.  Economic impact on the potable alcohol sector 

No reform 

Under the existing CMO, the distillation scheme for potable alcohol allows distillers to purchase 
wine alcohol at below the market price, thus allowing their production costs to be comparable to 
those  of  other  spirit  drinks.  The  net  price  paid  by  distillers  to  purchase  their  wine  is 
€0.737/%vol/hl, which is equal to the difference between the distillation aid (€1.751/%vol/hl) and 
the minimum price to be paid to the producer (€2.488/%vol/hl). 

Commission proposal 

The abolition of subsidies on potable alcohol distillation would oblige distillers to purchase table 
wine  at  market  prices,  which  currently  stand  at  about  €2/%vol/hl.  Given  the  short-term  price 
reduction (see section 5.1.2) and taking into account that wines with the lowest quality are used, 
ultimately  distillers  will  probably  have  to  pay  approximately  €1/%vol/hl  more  for  their  raw 
material than they do at present. 

This corresponds to an increase in production costs of €0.4 per litre of brandy (40 %vol.) and of 
the order of €0.15 per litre of fortified wines, depending on the method of production, which is 
based on the addition of wine alcohol. 

Theoretically,  this  cost  increase  could  either  be  transferred  to  consumers  via  an  increase  in  the 
price  of  the  final  product,  or  lead  distillers  and  the  other  actors  in  the  market  chain  to  accept  a 
reduction of their margins. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
In this respect, it is important to mention that the retail price of brandy also reflects the level of 
taxes and excise duties. Excise duties on alcohol vary considerably from one MS to the other, but 
are generally quite high on spirits. In the case of brandies, for example, excise duties range from 
€6.45/%vol/hl  in  Italy  (corresponding  to  €2.58/litre)  to  €55.19/%vol/hl  in  Sweden  (or 
€22.08/litre). Finally, the industrial price of brandy is very small compared to the retail price. 

Therefore,  the  adjustment  occurring  after  the  increase  in  wine  alcohol  costs  will  most  probably 
consist in a corresponding price increase of the final products. 

Finally, given that the retail price of a one-litre bottle of brandy, even in countries with a low level 
of excise duties, is usually about €10, the impact of the production cost increase on the price 
of  brandy  will  be  relatively  limited  (normally  less  than  5%).  For  fortified  wines,  the 
corresponding percentage increase in the retail price will also depend on the price segment of the 
wine,  but  it  would  normally  be  even  lower  than  for  brandy,  because  their  alcoholic  strength  is 
lower. 

While it is likely that, for a part of the market, in particular high-quality products, demand will not 
be  significantly  reduced  by  a  small  price  increase,  this  may  be  different  for  lower-quality 
products,  since  EU  wine  alcohol  loses  competitiveness  in  the  alcoholic  beverages  market 
(compared  with  both  alcohol  produced  from  other  raw  materials  and  wine  alcohol  that  could 
potentially  be  produced  in  non-EU  countries).  Studies  analysing  the  response  of  brandy 
consumption  to  the  increase  of  excises  suggest  that  the  demand  for  this  spirit  drink  might  have 
quite  a  high  price  elasticity.  Therefore,  a  non  negligible  drop  in  the  consumption  of  wine 
alcohol  may  happen,  despite  the  small  size  of  the  cost  increase.  On  the  basis  of  a  qualitative 
judgement, the additional surplus on the wine market is put, as in the original impact assessment, 
at about 4 million hl. 

5.2. 

Social impact 

5.2.1.  Agricultural incomes 

No reform 

As  mentioned  in  section  5.1.2,  the  long-term  deterioration  of  prices,  due  to  the  gradual 
accumulation of wine surpluses, will lead to a significant worsening of farm incomes in the wine 
sector. 

In the short term, the impact of the status quo scenario on incomes can be simulated applying the 
same method as that used in the original impact assessment, based on information from the Farm 
Accountancy Data Network (FADN). In particular, seven “model farms” were built to represent 
the  most  typical  wine  producers  in  five  of  the  largest  wine-producing  EU  regions  (Poitou-
Charentes and Languedoc-Roussillon in France, Puglia and Sicily in Italy and Castilla-La Mancha 
in  Spain).  The  possibility  to  enlarge  the  scope  of  the  analysis  to  more  regions  is  limited  by  the 
small  size  of  FADN  sample  of  wine  holdings.  The  analysis  focuses  mainly  on  table  wine 
producers,  since  they  are  the  main  beneficiaries  of  the  market  measures  and  therefore  most 
affected by an unfavourable market situation. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
For each of these “model farms”, the farm income was simulated for three consecutive years, by 
applying  the  drop  in  wine  price  calculated  under  5.1.2.  The  income  indicator  used  for  the 
analysis, which is the most common for agricultural activity, is the Farm Net Value Added per 
Annual Work Unit (FNVA10/AWU). 

The FNVA/AWU of the table wine model farms in "year 0" is quite low (less than €10 000) in all 
the regions considered, except in the Poitou-Charentes region, where the income of wine farmers 
is boosted by the production of Cognac. 

The results of this simulation exercise indicate that the price decrease would have a significant 
impact  on  agricultural  incomes  which,  after  one  year,  would  fall  by  between  5%  for  non-
specialised  table  wine  producers  in  Sicily  and  17%  for  specialist  table  wine  producers  in 
Languedoc-Roussillon.  After  two  years,  agricultural  incomes  in  those  two  regions  would 
decline by 10% and 38% respectively. 

Due to its static nature (unchanged farm features and constant cost structure), this method tends to 
overestimate  the  fall  in  income,  because  it  does  not  consider  any  economic  adjustments  by  the 
farms. 

The sharper fall in income in Languedoc-Roussillon is due to the higher degree of specialisation 
of  farms,  which  makes  them  completely  dependent  on  the  wine  market  situation.  Moreover, 
despite  being  currently  more  profitable  than  their  Italian  and  Spanish  counterparts,  French 
producers have higher production costs and a higher ratio of costs to revenue, so that even a small 
decrease in price could lead to negative margins.  

By  contrast,  farmers  in  Southern  Italy  and  in  Castilla-La  Mancha,  despite  the  loss  of  income, 
manage to maintain a certain profitability thanks to their low-input production system. 

10 

Farm net value added = Total farm output + Balance current subsidies and taxes – Intermediate consumption 
– Depreciation. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Graph  1:  Trend  in  FNVA/AWU  of  seven  typical  wine  farms  in  five  EU  regions  in  the  no 
reform scenario 

35000

30000

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0

€

n

i

/

U
W
A
A
V
N
F

Poitou
Charentes -
Table wine and
cognac

Languedoc
Roussillon -
Table wine
specialist

Puglia (1) -
Table wine

Puglia (2) -
Mixed table
wine and olives

Sicily (1) - Table
wine

Sicila (2) -
Mixed table
wine and olives

Castilla La
Mancha - Table
wine specialist

Source: DG AGRI – FADN (and DG AGRI projections) 

year 0

year 1

year 2

Commission proposal 

As mentioned under 5.1.2, wine market equilibrium achieved by the reformed wine CMO in the 
long  term  will  contribute  to  the  stabilisation  of  prices,  and  consequently  to  a  considerable 
improvement of agricultural incomes. 

The short-term impact of the Commission proposal on farm incomes is estimated using the same 
method as that used in the no reform scenario. 

Following the same static approach, which assumes unchanged farm features, and in particular a 
constant  cost  structure,  the  results  of  this  simulation  exercise  indicate  that  the  price  decrease 
would have a quite significant impact on agricultural incomes, which would fall, after the first 
year,  by  between  5%  for  non-specialised  table  wine  producers  in  Sicily  and  17%  for  table 
wine specialists in Languedoc-Roussillon. After two years, agricultural incomes in those two 
regions would decline by 6% and 24% respectively. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Graph 2: Trend in FNVA/AWU of seven typical wine farms in five EU regions before and 
after the implementation of the reform 

35000

30000

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0

€

n

i

/

U
W
A
A
V
N
F

Poitou
Charentes -
Table wine and
cognac

Languedoc
Roussillon -
Table wine
specialist

Puglia (1) -
Table wine

Puglia (2) -
Mixed table
wine and olives

Sicily (1) - Table
wine

Sicila (2) -
Mixed table
wine and olives

Castilla La
Mancha - Table
wine specialist

Source: DG AGRI – FADN (and DG AGRI projections) 

year 0

year 1

year 2

Like  in  the  case  of  the  impact  on  prices  (section  5.1.2),  the  level  of  income  in  the  first  year 
would  be  equal  to  that  in  the  status  quo  scenario,  but  would  be  higher  from  the  second  year 
onwards. 

Graph  3:  FNVA/AWU  of  seven  typical  wine  farms  in  five  EU  regions  in  the  second  year 
after the reform – comparison between status quo and the reform scenarios 

35000

30000

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0

€

n

i

/

U
W
A
A
V
N
F

No reform

Commission
proposal

Poitou
Charentes -
Table wine and
cognac

Languedoc
Roussillon -
Table wine
specialist

Puglia (1) -
Table wine

Puglia (2) -
Mixed table
wine and olives

Sicily (1) -
Table wine

Sicila (2) -
Mixed table
wine and olives

Castilla La
Mancha - Table
wine specialist

Source: DG AGRI – FADN (and DG AGRI projections) 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Therefore,  the  merit  of  the  reform  proposed  by  the  Commission  is  that  it  reduces,  even  in  the 
short term, the level of the income loss compared to the no reform option. 

Apart  from  the  analysis  of  vine-growers'  income,  the  impact  on  the  income  of  agricultural 
holdings  leaving  the  wine  sector  should  also  be  mentioned.  In  this  respect,  the  grubbing-up 
scheme and, eventually as a last option, increased funds for early retirement measures under rural 
development could provide adequate support for non-competitive or older vine-growers, thus 
enabling  them  to  leave  the  activity honourably.  This  is  particularly  important  given  that,  after 
the reform, wine producers will be confronted with much more demanding conditions in terms 
of market competition, and at the same time the sector is characterised by a high proportion of 
older farmers (according to the Eurostat Farm Structure Survey, 62% of them are aged 55 and 
over). 

On the basis of the level of the premium proposed in the first year of the reform, the grubbing-up 
scheme  would  provide  uncompetitive  producers  with  a  sum  of  money  per  hectare  that  is 
equivalent to the margin from several years of vine-growing. Naturally, the exact number of years 
depends  on  the  individual  profitability  of  producers  and,  on  average,  this  differs  considerably 
from one wine region to the other, varying between 1.3 and 6 years of the margin derived from 
the corresponding number of abandoned hectares. 

On  the  other  hand,  linking  the  grubbing-up  of  vineyards  with  the  granting  of  SPS  entitlements 
could  provide  viable  alternatives  to  farmers  intending  to  convert  their  production  to  other 
agricultural  activities,  by  avoiding  them  being  penalised  in  relation  to  other  producers  who 
enjoy historical payment rights. 

5.2.2.  Agricultural employment 

Introduction: analysis and trends of agricultural employment in the wine sector 

Vine-growing and wine production play an important role in the level of activity and employment 
in rural areas of many Member States and their regions. 

In  2005  there  were  about  1.3 million  holdings  with  vineyards  for  wine  production11  in  the 
EU-25, representing more than 20% of all EU farms. 

Those  farms  absorbed  about  1.4  million  Annual  Work  Units  (AWU),  which  corresponds  to 
more than 20% of the total AWU employed in EU agriculture. The family labour force is still 
very prevalent, but there is also considerable employment of regular non-family labour in some 
regions.  Alongside  the  permanent  jobs,  there  is  also  seasonal  employment  in  the  harvest.  Italy 
employed  the  highest  number,  with  455 000  AWU  (33%  of  the  EU-25  total),  followed  by 
Portugal  with  227 000  units  (17%).  Together,  these  two  countries  account  for  half  of  the  total 
labour force employed in vineyards. Employment is also significant in France (13%), Spain (11%) 
and Greece (10%). Hence, the Mediterranean countries employ 84% of the total labour force used 
on holdings with vineyards. 

11 

Eurostat, Farm Structure Survey 2005. 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
                                                 
However, it is not easy to determine the exact number of working units actually given over to the 
vine-growing  activity,  since  holdings  with  vineyards  might  have  mixed  production,  with  the 
alternative  crops  being  possibly  even  more  important  economically  than  wine.  Therefore,  the 
abovementioned data overestimate the employment related to pure vine-growing. 

In  2005  specialised  wine  farms12,  for  which  vine-growing  is  the  most  important  agricultural 
activity,  numbered  only  about  500 000  and  employed  less  than  500 000  AWU.  They  represent 
roughly one third of all wine holdings and of the total labour force respectively, but account for 
70% of the area under vines. These holdings and the workers on them are the most dependent on 
vine-growing, although this activity is not necessarily the sole activity in their case either. On the 
other  hand,  focusing  only  on  this  category  of  holdings  would  be  to  completely  neglect  the 
importance of vine-growing as a complementary economic activity in non-specialised wine farms. 

Another (more theoretical) approach to the determination of total employment involved in vine-
growing  is  to  calculate  it  using  a  technical  coefficient  of  labour  input  per  hectare  of  vine  area. 
According to some Eurostat estimates13, based on a sample of purely vine-growing holdings, the 
labour force necessary to cultivate 1 ha of vineyards is 0.19 AWU. By this calculation method, the 
working units corresponding to the 3.4 million hectares of vineyards in the EU-25 would be about 
640 000 AWU. 

Although in 2005 Romania and Bulgaria were yet not members of the EU, Eurostat data from 
the  2005  Farm  Structure  Survey  show  that  the  wine  sector  of  these  two  countries  has  very 
particular  characteristics,  which  make  them  very  different  even  by  comparison  with  the  other 
wine-producing Member States that joined the EU in 2004. Bulgaria and especially Romania have 
an  extremely  large  number  of  holdings  with  vineyards  (about  1.1  million,  of  which  almost 
90%  are  in  Romania),  employing  a  huge  agricultural  labour  force  (about  150 000  AWU  in 
Bulgaria  and  700 000  in  Romania).  These  figures  are  remarkable,  particularly  in  relation  to  the 
relatively  limited  extent  of  the  area  under  vines  in  the  two  new  Member  States,  and  can  be 
explained  by  the  particularly  small  and  fragmented  structure  of  vine-growing  holdings 
(0.36 ha vineyards per farm in Bulgaria and 0.17 ha in Romania) and the highly inefficient use of 
labour  (3  and  4  AWU  per  hectare  vineyard  respectively).  Furthermore,  less  than  10%  of 
Bulgarian  and  Romanian  holdings  with  vineyards  are  specialised  in  vine-growing,  whereas  the 
figure for the rest of the EU is 35%. Finally, Eurostat data indicate that a large part of the wine 
production is intended for family consumption only. All these elements demonstrate that a large 
part of the Bulgarian and Romanian wine sector is far from competitive. 

Looking at the evolution of agricultural holdings with vineyards over time, the time series of the 
results from the Farm Structure Survey for the EU14 since 1990 shows a dramatic drop in the 
number  of  holdings  with  vineyards  (from  2.1  million  in  1990  to  1.1  million  in  2005, 
corresponding to a fall of 48% over the whole period or to -4.3% on average per year) and in the 
corresponding level of employment (from 2.1  to 1.2 million AWU, that  is -45% or -3.9% per 

12 

13 
14 

Specialised wine farms are holdings which derive more than two-thirds of their total Standard Gross Margin 
(SGM) from vines. The SGM of a plant crop is defined as the value of one hectare’s production minus the 
cost of the variable inputs needed to obtain that production and is calculated as an average at regional level. 
Eurostat, Agricultural statistics – Quarterly bulletin (Special issue: Farm Structure Survey 2003), May 2005. 
The  EU  total  is  calculated  only  on  wine-producing  Member  States  of  the  EU-12  for  which  complete 
information from Farm Structure Survey is available over the period 1990-2005, that is France, Italy, Spain, 
Portugal, Greece, Luxembourg, United Kingdom. Germany is therefore excluded. 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
                                                 
year).  On  the  other  hand,  the  decline  in  the  vineyard  area  between  1990  and  2005  was  more 
modest and amounted to 10%, or 0.7% per year. 

Graph 4: Trend in the number of holdings, vineyard area and agricultural employment in 
holdings with vineyards in the EU14 in the period 1990 to 2005 

3 500 000

3 000 000

2 500 000

2 000 000

1 500 000

1 000 000

500 000

0

0
9
9
1

1
9
9
1

2
9
9
1

3
9
9
1

4
9
9
1

5
9
9
1

6
9
9
1

7
9
9
1

8
9
9
1

9
9
9
1

0
0
0
2

1
0
0
2

2
0
0
2

3
0
0
2

4
0
0
2

5
0
0
2

Vineyard area (ha)

Employment (AWU)

Number of holdings

Source: Eurostat, Farm Structure Survey 

On  the  basis  of  these  trends,  it  can  be  concluded  that  holdings  with  vineyards  have  been 
systematically employing, on average, about 1 AWU since 1990, regardless of their average vine 
area. On the other hand, the average vine area per farm has been continuously increasing over 
time (from 1.49 in 1990 to 2.57 ha in 2005) and the labour force per hectare of vineyard has 
been constantly falling (from 0.67 AWU/ha to 0.41 over the same period). 

These results are a clear indication of a longstanding and profound restructuring process that 
is taking place in the  European  wine sector, leading to an expansion  of the average  farm size 
and a rationalisation of the labour input, within the context of a slight reduction of vine areas. 

Against this general background, it is useful to compare the trend of employment in holdings with 
vineyards during two different periods: 

•  the first period, from 1990 to 1997, during which the Community applied a vigorous approach 
to tackling the problem of wine overproduction by means of a policy creating incentives for the 
permanent  abandonment  of  vine  area.  In  that  period,  an  average  of  around  53 000  ha  of 
vineyards were grubbed-up yearly with a Community premium; 

•  the  second  period,  between  1997  and  2005,  during  which,  partly  also  because  of  an  initial 
temporary  improvement  of  the  wine  balance,  the  grubbing-up  scheme  was  virtually  stopped 
and, on the contrary, new planting rights were introduced following the most recent reform of 
the wine CMO in 1999. 

In both periods, the long-term farm restructuring process mentioned above entailed a reduction of 
agricultural  employment  in  the  wine  sector.  However,  between  1990  and  1997,  the  substantial 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
 
drop in vine area (-1.3% per year), initiated by the grubbing-up policy in those years, added to the 
effect  of  the  restructuring,  thus  resulting  in  a  sharper  loss  of  jobs  compared  to  the  period  post-
1997, which was characterised by a substantially stable vine area. 

Graph 5: Trend in vineyard area and agricultural employment in holdings with vineyards in 
the periods 1990 to 1997 and 1997 to 2005 

-1.3%/year

-4.6%/year

3 500 000

3 000 000

2 500 000

2 000 000

1 500 000

1 000 000

500 000

0

3 500 000

3 000 000

2 500 000

2 000 000

1 500 000

1 000 000

500 000

0

-3.3%/year

0
9
9
1

1
9
9
1

2
9
9
1

3
9
9
1

4
9
9
1

5
9
9
1

6
9
9
1

7
9
9
1

7
9
9
1

8
9
9
1

9
9
9
1

0
0
0
2

1
0
0
2

2
0
0
2

3
0
0
2

4
0
0
2

5
0
0
2

Vineyard area (ha)

Employment (AWU)

Vineyard area (ha)

Employment (AWU)

Source: Eurostat, Farm Structure Survey 

In short, while the yearly reduction of agricultural employment averaged about 4.6% in the period 
1990-97, it amounted to only about 3.3% between 1997 and 2005. 

Therefore, we can assume that a basic 3.3% yearly reduction of agricultural employment in the 
wine  sector  is  the  consequence  of  the  general  process  of  rationalisation  in  farm  structures, 
increasing  labour  efficiency  and  adaptation  to  declining  wine  consumption,  leading  to  a  lower 
need for labour input per hectare. On the other hand, the additional drop recorded in the years 
1990-97 can be attributed for the most part to the policy incentives to abandon part of the vine 
area  (grubbing-up  premium).  In  particular,  data  seem  to  show  that  a  1.3%  decrease  in  the  area 
under vines in the period 1990-97 caused an additional drop of 1.3% in the employment level, as 
compared to the trend when there was no reduction in area. 

Impacts: No reform 

In  the  status  quo  scenario,  in  the  absence  of  policy  tools  encouraging  the  reduction  of  the 
production  potential  the  evolution  of  agricultural  employment  in  the  wine  sector  would 
probably continue to follow the historical downwards trend (-3.3% per year). At the same time, 
the most important structural problems of the sector, namely the uncompetitive nature of a large 
part of the production and the high average age of vine growers, would remain unsolved. 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
 
Impacts: Commission proposal 

The  revitalisation  of  the  grubbing-up  scheme  in  the  first  five  years  of  application  of  the  wine 
reform will bring about, along with the reduction of the cultivated vine area, a more significant 
reduction of agricultural employment in the wine sector compared to the no-reform scenario. 

The corresponding percentage reduction of the total vine area is calculated on the basis of the vine 
area eligible for the grubbing-up premium, year on year (from 60 000 ha in 2008 to 20 000 ha in 
2012). Thereafter, based on the observed relationship between the trend in vine area and the trend 
in employment, the percentage fall in the level of occupation in wine holdings is estimated (a 1% 
decline in area denotes a further 1% reduction in occupation, in addition to the normal downward 
trend). 

In short, it is expected that in the year following the most intense grubbing-up of vineyards (2009) 
agricultural employment in wine farms will fall by 5.1%; this percentage will gradually decrease 
over the following years and go back to 3.3% after the abolition of the grubbing-up scheme. 

In the following graph, the complete long-term forecast of the agricultural employment under the 
Commission proposal is compared with the corresponding projection for the status quo. 

Graph  6:  Forecast  of  agricultural  employment  (AWU)  in  holdings  with  vineyards  for  the 
EU-25 under the reform scenario compared to the status quo – 2005/2015 

1 375 000

1 600 000

1 400 000

1 200 000

1 000 000

800 000

600 000

400 000

200 000

0

1 050 000

985 000

985 000

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Commission proposal

No reform

Source: Eurostat, Farm Structure Survey 2005 and DG AGRI projection 

The  graph  shows  that,  in  2013,  i.e.  at  the  end  of  the  5-year  grubbing-up  programme,  the 
difference in overall employment according to the two policy scenarios is about 65 000 AWU 
(or 6.2%) for the whole EU-25. 

In other words, the impact of the Commission reform proposal will be to slightly accelerate 
the  normal  long-term  trend  towards  rationalisation  in  the  use  of  the  labour  input  and 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
 
reduction of agricultural employment. In particular, it is interesting to observe that the overall 
level  of  employment  at  the  end  of  the  transitional  period  of  the  reform  (2013)  equals  that 
which would be attained two years later (2015) under the status quo scenario. 

Actions financed via the Rural Development and/or the Structural Funds (in particular the 
European Social Fund) should be put in place to accompany the loss of employment in the 
sector. 

On the other hand, if we considered only the specialised wine holdings rather than all holdings 
with vineyards, the number of working units forecast for 2013, calculated according to the same 
methodology,  would  be  about  355 000  in  the  status  quo  scenario  and  around  333 000  with  the 
reform, giving a difference of approximately 22 000 AWU for the EU-25. 

Finally, the incentives to abandon vine area are not the only instrument determining the pace of 
restructuring of the wine sector, and thus the rate of the reduction in agricultural employment. On 
the  contrary,  the  speed  of  this  development  also  depends  on  all  the  policy  tools  having  an 
impact  on  the  profitability  of  wine  farms:  the  less  profitable  the  sector,  the  harsher  the 
restructuring and therefore the more acute the probability of job losses. 

In  this  sense,  given  that  the  reform  proposed  by  the  Commission  increases  the  level  of  farm 
income in the long term and limits its reduction in the short term, compared to the status quo (see 
section 5.2.1), its impact on employment would probably be further mitigated, although it is 
not possible to quantify precisely this effect. 

In the end, by encouraging the soft exit of farms with low profitability, the reform will generally 
enhance labour efficiency. This will contribute to improving the quality and the sustainability 
of employment in the sector in a context of a more balanced market situation, and will thus lay 
the foundations to stabilise its overall level in the coming years. 

Given  the  special  features  of  the  wine  sector  in  Bulgaria  and  Romania,  the  two  new  Member 
States  were  not  considered  in  the  previous  analysis,  as  it  would  probably  not  have  been 
appropriate to describe the likely evolution of their wine sector. On the basis of the data on farm 
structures  it  is  clear  that,  irrespective  of  the  reform  of  the  wine  CMO,  the  wine  sector  in 
Bulgaria  and  Romania  still  has  to  undergo  a  long  and  deep  restructuring  process  before 
attaining a level of efficiency and competitiveness comparable to that of other EU Member States. 
The  EU  policies  all  together  (e.g.  wine  CMO,  rural  development,  regional  policy)  should 
operate  in  synergy  to  accompany  this  process,  which  will  inevitably  lead  to  a  steady 
contraction of agricultural employment. 

5.2.3.  Employment in the wine market chain and related sectors 

Introduction 

The socioeconomic dimension of vine cultivation extends beyond the agricultural activity in the 
vineyards and should also take into account: 

•  the production of wine not taking place directly on the farm, i.e. in cooperative cellars or in 

private wineries; 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
•  indirect  economic  activities  linked  to  wine  production:  trade  and  marketing  of  wine, 
production  of  oak  casks,  bottles,  labels,  capsules,  corks  etc.,  development  of  wine  tourism 
(hotels, bars, restaurants, etc.), production of spirits, distillation of wine and wine by-products. 

Wine production carried out by cooperative and private wineries contributes to the economy and 
employment  in  the  wine  regions,  since  wine  production  generally  takes  place  close  to  the  area 
where the grape is produced, for reasons that are both technical and legal. 

The other indirect economic activities also contribute to the rural development of wine regions, 
to the extent to which they are carried out within the production areas. This will mainly depend on 
the characteristics of the sector in the different wine regions. Given the wide range of situations, it 
is almost impossible to assess the socioeconomic relevance of these specific activities. However, 
their looser link to vine-growing suggests that the contribution of these activities in terms of the 
value  added  and  employment  of  wine  regions  is  more  modest  than  the  purely  wine  producing 
activity. 

According  to  the  most  recent  results  available  from  the  Structural  Business  Statistics,  in  2004 
there  were  about  76 000  persons  employed  in  the  activity  of  wine  production  in  the  EU-2515, 
corresponding  to  approximately  8 600  cooperative  cellars  or  private  wineries.  The  highest 
number  of  employed  persons  was  registered  in  Spain,  with  23 400  units  (31%  of  the  total), 
followed by Italy with 16 400 units (22%) and France with 13 100 (17%). Together, these three 
countries  represent  70%  of  the  total  labour  force  employed  in  wine-making  activities  outside 
farms.  The  employment  level  in  Portugal  (10%),  Hungary  (7%)  and  Germany  (5%)  is  also 
significant.  As  for  the  two  newest  Member  States,  Romania  employed  4 300  persons,  which 
represents  a  level  comparable  to  that  of  Germany  and  Hungary,  while data  for  Bulgaria  are  not 
available. 

As  expected,  employment  in  wine-making  structures  is  related  to  the  overall  level  of  wine 
production  in  the  different  countries,  but  it  also  reflects  the  organisation  of  their  wine  market 
chain and their production structures. 

Looking at the trend in the number of persons employed in cooperatives or wineries in the three 
most important wine countries (France, Italy and Spain)16, the time series of the results from the 
Structural Business Statistics since 1995 shows a substantial degree of stability in the number 
of  workers,  or  even  an  increase  in  Spain.  This  trend  visibly  contrasts  with  the  clear  declining 
trend registered in agricultural employment linked to vine-growing. 

15 

16 

The  total  excludes  Greece,  due  to  complete  data  unavailability;  for  Luxembourg,  Malta,  Slovenia  and  the 
United Kingdom, data refer to years before 2004, since the most recent value is missing. 
The analysis focused on the most representative wine-producing countries due to the incompleteness of the 
statistical series for other Member States. 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Graph 7: Trend in the number of persons employed in the wine-making sector– 1995/2004 

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Spain

France

Italy

Source: Eurostat, Structural Business Statistics 

This  graph  shows  that  the  profound  restructuring  process  affecting  agricultural  holdings  with 
vineyards  over  recent  years  has  concerned  wine  processing  structures  to  a  lesser  extent.  The 
average size of the processing units in each of the three main wine countries has varied between 6 
and 9 persons during the period under review. 

In fact, despite a certain tendency towards the regrouping and the merging of wine cooperatives, 
the overall level of employment has remained relatively stable thanks to the greater added value 
generated by wine processors through modernisation and extending the scope of their activities, 
by gradually incorporating additional tasks, e.g. wine bottling or marketing of the product. 

Impacts: No reform 

In  the  status  quo  scenario,  employment  in  the  wine  processing  sector  and  in  the  rest  of  the 
market chain, as well as in the wine-related sectors, is not expected to change markedly in the 
future.  Nevertheless,  employment  may  well  be  adversely  affected  if  the  deteriorating  income 
situation  of  individual  wine  producers  (see  section  5.2.1)  is  passed  on  to  cooperatives  and  thus 
forces them to restructure. 

Impacts: Commission proposal 

The  new  approach  proposed  by  the  Commission,  namely  to  prevent  the  production  of  wine 
surpluses  (by  means  of  instruments  like  the  grubbing-up  programme  or  support  for  green 
harvesting) rather than in the ex-post clearing of the market through distillation measures, could 
bring  about  a  reduction  in  EU  wine  production.  More  precisely,  the  departure  of  some  vine-
growers,  who  had  been  used  to  sending  their  production  to  wineries,  and  were  encouraged  to 
grub-up  their  vineyards,  could  entail  a  sudden  loss  of  wine  production  for  the  wineries 
concerned. 

As a consequence of the overall reduction in wine production, a significant structural adjustment 
of the wine processing sector could take place; this would push wine cooperatives to increase in 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
size or to merge, in order to achieve an optimum size. On the one hand, this process could lead 
to a possible loss of jobs, but on the other hand it could enhance the rationalisation of the wine 
processing industry, which has shown certain problems of inefficiency due to its small size, in 
particular  with  respect  to  marketing  activities.  At  the  same  time,  the  increase  in  resources 
intended  for  rural  development  measures  in  the  wine  regions  could  boost  the  existing  tendency 
among wine processors to increase the value added of their production, by extending the scope of 
their activity within the wine market chain. 

The impact of the Commission proposal on the wine distilleries sector is a different matter. In 
nearly all important wine-producing countries (i.e. France, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Greece), the 
activity of this industry is currently determined by the distillation schemes of the wine CMO. 

According to national sources, the wine distilleries sector in Italy, France and Spain is made up of 
256 distilleries,  employing  a  total  of  6 800  workers.  Data  about  other  Member  States  are  not 
available, but they should be less important than in the three main wine-producing countries. 

Apart from those deriving their profit mainly from the production of wine spirits or grape marc 
spirits (brandies, grappa, etc.), and some others producing alcohol from raw materials other than 
wine,  the  economic  existence  of  the  majority  of  wine  distilleries  is  largely  guaranteed  by 
Community support for the distillation of by-products, which represents a large share of their 
business. 

If  wine  by-products  distillation  ceases  to  be  obligatory  and  subsidised,  wine  producers  and 
distillers will have to redefine their mutual relations on the basis of the new situation. On the one 
hand,  it  is  absolutely  vital  for  distillers  to  compress  their  costs,  rationalise  their  structure  and 
increase  the  scope  and  the  value  of  their  output,  so  as  to  make  their  activity  economically 
profitable even in the absence of Community distillation aid. On the other hand, wine producers 
will also face a new challenge in order to comply with sound environmental management of the 
residues  of  wine-making  (see  section  5.3);  in particular,  if  they  do  not  manage  to reutilise  their 
marcs and lees on the farm, they might be interested in continuing to deliver their by-products to 
the  distilleries,  if  necessary  for  free,  or  perhaps  even  paying  for  it  themselves,  as  is  already the 
case for the disposal of waste in other agricultural sectors. 

The following scheme represents, in a simplified form, the possible impact of the abolition of the 
compulsory by-products distillation scheme on the profitability of distilleries in the production of 
raw wine alcohol currently going to intervention. The calculation is made under the assumption 
that wine producers deliver for free their products to distilleries and that the market price for the 
raw wine alcohol (to be used in the fuel sector) is about €55/hl of pure alcohol17. 

17 

In current wine alcohol tenders, the sale price of wine alcohol is about €45/hl of pure alcohol; however, that 
price  is  lower  than  real  market  price,  since  the  costs  for  the  removal  of  the  alcohol  are  at  charge  of  the 
buyers. 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(values in €//hl of  
pure alcohol) 

Currently 

Reform 

Revenues: 

– sale of alcohol 

€165.4 

€55 

Costs: 

– payment to producer 

Margin: 

€99.5 

€65.9 

€0 

€55 

According to this static scheme, distillers' margins on the production of raw wine alcohol would 
decrease  by  €10.9/hl  of  pure  alcohol.  Under  these  conditions,  some  distilleries  would  have  a 
chance  to  adapt  to  the  new  situation,  even  because  another  part  of  their  production,  namely 
alcoholic  beverages,  has  a  significant  market  demand.  Increased  Rural  Development  funds  are 
available  to finance  investments  aiming  e.g.  at  developing  new  technologies,  in  order  to  reduce 
costs or find new outlets for the production. 

Nevertheless, some of the distilleries would probably close down. According to the opinion of 
an Italian professional organisation, big distilleries, mainly producing raw alcohol for intervention 
would be more at risk than small ones, which are rather oriented to the production of grape marc 
spirits. In total, the Italian distillery sector could lose 75% of its jobs. 

This assessment is difficult to be verified: although the distillery industry will be undoubtedly put 
under strong pressure by the abolition of subsidised distillations, the judgment is based on a fully 
static view, i.e. it does not consider any adaptation capacity of the sector. 

In any event, the Community can hardly continue to support a business which is not economically 
profitable and largely relies on public support. Wine-producing regions could again make use of 
the increased funds transferred to the Rural Development pillar to undertake restructuring actions 
aimed at finding conversion possibilities for the distilleries that are closing down. 

5.3. 

Impact on the environment 

No reform 

Even if wine production has beneficial effects for the environment, it also exerts a considerable 
number  of  environmental  pressures,  notably  in  terms  of  soil  degradation,  intensive  use  of  plant 
production  products  and  disposal  of  waste/by-products  from  vine-growing  and  wine-making. 
Increasing use of irrigation and the effects of excessive specialisation might also result in risks for 
the environment in certain regions. 

Despite  all  the  environmental  implications,  the  existing  wine  CMO  contains  few  explicit 
references  to  environmental  concerns  and  the  degree  of  environmental  integration  is  very 
low  compared  to  other  market  organisations  which  went  through  the  2003  CAP  reform.  In 
particular,  vineyards  are  not  systematically  covered  by  the  cross-compliance  system,  although 
some  wine  producers  and  vine  areas  are  de  facto  already  affected,  due  to  the  direct  payments 
received  for  other  types  of  area  cropped  on  the  farm,  which  could  be  cut  in  the  event  of  non-
compliance with the rules. According to FADN estimates, 74% of professional wine producers 
in  the  "old"  EU-15  Member  States  and  57%  of  the  corresponding  total  vine  area  are 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
already  subject  to  cross-compliance  obligations,  but  with  considerable  variations  at  Member 
State level, the biggest coverage being in Greece and the smallest in France and Germany. 

The  status  quo  would  therefore  leave  the  wine  regime  lagging  significantly  behind  almost  all 
other CMOs in terms of environmental integration. 

Commission proposal 

Many  new  measures  introduced  by  the  reform  proposal  would  create  beneficial  effects  for  the 
environment: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

making vine land eligible for the SPS will extend the scope of "cross compliance" in 
the wine sector. More and more wine producers will be covered by the general scheme 
through  the  gradual  acquisition  (via  the  free  market  or  occasionally  via  the  reserve)  of 
SPS entitlements; 

adapting  one  standard  of  the  good  agricultural  and  environmental  condition  under 
Annex IV of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 will guarantee the maintenance of vineyards 
in good vegetative conditions; 

systematically  linking  support  measures  granted  under  the  wine  CMO  to 
cross-compliance rules (e.g. the premium for permanent abandonment and some of the 
measures  eligible  for  the  national  envelope,  i.e.  restructuring  and  green  harvest)  will 
enforce compliance with the environmental baseline, including for wine producers not 
receiving direct payments; 

transferring new funds to the second pillar, as an additional envelope earmarked for 
wine-producing  regions,  would  strengthen  the  possibility  of  introducing  financial 
incentives, e.g. in the form of agri-environmental measures for environmentally-friendly 
production (such as organic farming) which go beyond the environmental baseline; 

strengthening  permanent  abandonment  would  have  a  positive  impact  overall  on  the 
environment,  since  it  generally  reduces  monoculture  and  the  associated  environmental 
pressure. At the same time, the cross-compliance rules associated with the premium for 
permanent abandonment and the SPS entitlement granted on the grubbed-up area would 
help  to  prevent  the  adverse  impact  of  land  abandonment.  Furthermore,  the  possibility 
granted to MS to exclude from the permanent abandonment scheme vines in areas with a 
specific  and  recognised  environmental  value,  which  could  otherwise  be  endangered, 
would also considerably reduce the environmental risks. 
Regarding  the  use  of  vine  land  after  grubbing-up,  historical  records  show  that  the 
situation  is  quite  different  from  one  MS  to  another18:  in  Portugal,  vines  were  mainly 
replaced by maize and then sugar beet; in France by arable land and fallow land; in Spain 
by cereals, olive trees (particularly in Castilla-La Mancha), vines to produce table grape 
and orchards; in Germany, by fallow land and in some cases by forest land; in Italy, in 
the Po Valley by arable land, in the hilly regions of Trentino and Romagna by orchards 
and in Southern Italy by olive trees; in Greece, finally, by olive trees. 
It  some  cases,  e.g.  in  Castilla-La  Mancha  in  Spain,  grubbed-up  vineyards  were 
abandoned,  either  immediately  after  grubbing-up  or  later,  since,  due  to  the  arid 

18 

What land use for sustainable agriculture?’, European Commission, DG AGRI. 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
– 

conditions, the cereals that were often cultivated after the vines were not as profitable as 
expected. In general, vineyards were also rarely replaced by forest; 

removing  the  support  to  all  distillation  measures  has  a  positive  impact  on  the 
environment  by  removing  the  incentives  to  this  practice,  which  requires  considerable 
quantities of energy and contributes to pollution due to the transport of wine and wine-
products to the distilleries. Furthermore, if wine by-products are indeed reutilised on the 
farm, thus replacing mineral fertilisers, they could help to improve organic matter in the 
soil. On the other hand, it is obvious that residues/wastes from wine-making need to be 
dealt with in a proper manner, in order to avoid environmental risks (acidification of the 
soil,  infiltration  of  alcohol  in  underground  waters,  air  pollution  by  ethanol  and  ozone 
production, etc.). In the Member States that are currently withdrawing by-products under 
supervision,  no  environmental  concerns  have  been  raised.  In  Member  States  currently 
applying  the  compulsory  distillation  of  by-products,  individual  wine  producers  or 
cooperatives which, under the proposed system, are not in a position to utilise their marc 
and  lees  on  the  farm,  e.g.  as  organic  fertiliser  after  an  appropriate  composting  or 
anaerobic process, should approach the problem as a residues/waste management issue. 
This  problem  is  common  to  many  agricultural  sectors  and  is  particularly  demanding  in 
animal  husbandry.  In  general,  there  are  many  alternatives  available  for  the  proper 
management of the residues/wastes from wine-making: they include direct spreading of 
dried  matter  on  the  soil,  composting,  use  as  biomass,  or  even  distillation.  There  is 
probably no optimal technique; on the contrary, the optimal solution, which could also be 
a mix of different disposal methods, depends on the type of by-products (marc, lees) and 
the specific local conditions (e.g. distance between vineyard and wine-making facilities; 
pre-existence 
other 
by-products/residues/wastes; possibility of exploiting the bio-energy produced; existence 
of  a  market  for  distilled  products,  such  as  grape  marc  spirits  (grappa)  or  bio-ethanol). 
Therefore,  appropriate  disposal  and/or  recovery  options,  in  line  with  EU  legislation, 
should be put in place at national or regional level. Rural development funds, which will 
be available in higher amounts for wine regions via transfers from the first pillar, could 
be  usefully  employed,  if  necessary,  to  develop  alternative  disposal  techniques.  On  the 
other  hand,  controls  should  be  tightened  up,  and  penalties  for  abuse  imposed  in 
accordance with the requirements of the environmental legislation; 

production 

facilities 

energy 

from 

the 

for 

of 

of 

– 

making the authorisation of new WMPs easier could enable speedier approval of more 
environmentally  friendly  practices  and  processes.  Environmental  aspects  should  be 
decisive when considering whether to authorise the use of WMPs. 

5.4. 

Impact on trade and WTO conformity 

The impact of the Commission proposal on trade dynamics is essentially linked to the impacts on 
the  competitiveness  of  the  EU  wine  sector,  which  was  analysed  in  section 5.1.3.  Another 
important exogenous factor is the development of international negotiations, both at multilateral 
level (WTO) and at bilateral level (trade agreements), which are important for ensuring full access 
to  our  export  markets  worldwide  and  to  achieve  better  international  protection  for  our 
geographical indications. For this reason, a coherent domestic wine regime, fully consistent with 
our  international  obligations,  is  essential  for  a  sound  and  credible  position  in  international 
discussions, which would justify and strengthen a firm EU position on GIs and WMPs. 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
No reform 

The existing wine regime includes a series of measures, which could potentially be questioned 
in the WTO context: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

market measures: 
distillations  (including  the  taking-over  of  alcohol),  must  aid  and  private  storage,  which 
represent  the  bulk  of  wine  CMO  expenditure,  are  classified  as  Amber  Box  measures, 
which are the most trade-distorting type of internal support; 

export refunds: 
WTO negotiations might lead to an agreement on phasing out all export subsidies; 

quality policy/GIs:   
the existing quality  regulatory framework is criticised by our international partners and 
does not allow optimal international protection of our geographical indications under the 
WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs); 

labelling provisions: 
our  labelling  rules  are  severely  criticised  by  non-EU  countries,  who  consider  them 
discriminatory. 

Commission proposal 

The proposal would make the wine CMO more WTO-friendly, given that: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

all  market  tools,  currently  classified  as  Amber  Box  support,  including  export  refunds, 
would be abolished; 
some  of  the  new  measures  proposed,  such  as  the  revitalised  programme  of  permanent 
abandonment  and  the  second-pillar  structural  measures  are  classified  as  Green  Box, 
which is the less trade-distorting type of support. As to the national envelope, the most 
important measures, i.e. the support for restructuring and conversion of vineyards and for 
promotion are considered as Green Box. For the remaining measures, i.e. risk and crisis 
management tools or green harvest, the classification should be established in the context 
of the WTO on the basis of their exact definition; 

making  vine  land  eligible  for  the  SPS  will  extend  the  applicability  of  EU  decoupled 
payments and therefore generally strengthen the "green box" status of this policy tool; 

the modifications in quality policy, GI system and the labelling framework would be in 
line with WTO relevant provisions. 

5.5. 

Impact on wine quality, health and consumer protection 

5.5.1.  Wine quality 

No reform 

The  existing  regulatory  framework  on  WMPs  already  ensures  quality  and  conformity  with 
product  definitions:  European  wines  as  a  whole  have  a  reputation  for  high  quality.  Apart  from 
WMPs,  at  least  one  other  CMO  measure  has  played  an  important  role  in  gearing  production 
towards  improving  quality:  the  programme  for  restructuring  vineyards,  introduced  in  the  1999 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
reform,  has  supported  the  conversion  of  vineyards  with  a  view  to  adapting  wine  production  to 
consumers' demand for quality. 

Commission proposal 

The  reform  proposal  would  contribute  to  the  further  improvement  of  wine  quality  through  the 
abolition  of  market  measures,  which  currently  provide  support  mainly  to  lower-quality  wines, 
thus encouraging continued production. The better market orientation of the CMO should tend to 
favour the segment of higher quality wines, which are increasingly appreciated by consumers. 

The  abolition  of  Community  aid  for  distillation  of  wine  by-products,  maintaining  the  ban  on 
grape overpressing, is not likely to have a negative impact on overall wine quality. 

Finally, the greater flexibility introduced with respect to WMPs should only enhance the scope for 
innovative techniques without giving rise to any risk of lower wine quality. 

5.5.2.  Health and consumer protection policy 

No reform 

In the existing wine CMO, some market measures might have an adverse impact on public health. 
Potable alcohol distillation is considered as such a controversial measure because it subsidises 
the transformation of wine into a beverage of higher alcohol content. Moreover, allowing cheaper 
production of wine spirits encourages demand, thus conflicting with concerns about the risks of 
damage to health. Secondly, the aid for must and the authorisation  of sucrose have led to an 
artificial expansion in the use of enrichment, which is intended to increase the alcohol strength of 
wine,  but  also  allow  higher  yields,  hence  lowering  wine  quality.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
restructuring scheme might have a beneficial impact on public health, because it aligns production 
with the demand for higher-priced quality wines, often consumed with meals and in moderation. 

Lastly,  the  existing  quality  regulatory  framework  and  the  labelling  rules  seem  to  be  geared 
more  to  the  producer  concerns  than  to  consumer  information  and  protection.  They  lack  clarity 
and  transparency,  and  tend  to  confuse  consumers,  preventing  them  from  appreciating  the 
qualitative differences between products. 

Commission proposal 

The abolition of subsidised potable alcohol distillation and of the aid for must is likely to have a 
beneficial impact on public health. Furthermore, by allowing the wine surplus to be absorbed in 
the  long  term,  wine  prices  will  go  up  (see  section  5.1.2),  thus  making  wine  less  accessible  to 
young consumers, for whom alcohol consumption is particularly price-sensitive. 

Moreover,  the  proposed  simplification  of  quality  policy,  geographical  indication  system  and 
labelling  rules  could  rightly  address  the  concern  for  consumer  information  and  health 
protection.  Education  and  information  campaigns  could  provide  additional  instruments  to 
enhance  consumer  awareness  of  the  harmful  effects  of  excessive  consumption,  in  addition  to 
wine labelling. 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
5.6. 

Impact on management efficiency 

5.6.1. 

Simplification 

No reform 

The existing wine sector is well known as one of the most complex regimes in agriculture, due to 
the wide range of legal obligations, implementing rules and control procedures that operators and 
administrations have to comply with. In this sense, EU legislation is just the "tip of the iceberg" 
when it comes to the complex mass of rules that exist at national, regional and local level. 

The complexity of the wine regime is in large part intrinsically linked to the characteristics of the 
product and most provisions are essential for a proper functioning of the market (e.g. the need to 
implement a system of complete traceability of the product, which ensures health, protection and 
transparency for consumers; the complex nature of the CMO instruments for the management of 
production potential, market support and the so-called regulatory measures; or the meticulousness 
of the control system, which helps to prevent inappropriate management of public funds or fraud). 

However, successive layers of EU legislation have probably complicated the system more than is 
necessary, with an uncontrolled proliferation of obligations and legal requirements, leading over 
time  to  a  growing  burden  on  economic  operators,  who  find  it  more  and  more  difficult  to 
comprehend  wine  legislation.  This  situation  is  a  serious  obstacle  to  the  normal  development  of 
production  activity,  thus  potentially  hampering  competitiveness.  Furthermore,  the  more 
complicated  the  legislation,  the  greater  the  need  for  monitoring,  notification  and  control  and,  at 
the same time, the greater the risk of fraud. 

Commission proposal 

Although it is unrealistic to abandon the overall structure of the wine legislation completely, since 
it  is  necessary  to  guarantee  certain  standards  for  the  smooth  running  of  the  sector  and  for 
consumer protection, a major objective of the Commission proposal for the reform of the wine 
sector is simplification. 

Given that the majority of the provisions that may involve some complexity will not be laid down 
until  the  Commission  implementing  regulation  stage,  it  is  not  possible  to  make  a  sufficiently 
detailed  assessment  of  the  achievements  of  the  reform  in  terms  of  simplification.  However, 
generally speaking, the task of simplification will be accomplished along the following lines: 

•  simplification of the legal text of the wine CMO, after careful screening of all provisions with 

a view to cutting out unnecessary complexity and redundancy; 

•  rationalisation  and  simplification  of  administrative  and  statistical  monitoring  tools, 
through  a  clear  definition  of  administrative  and  statistical  needs  in  relation  to  reporting 
requirements and the choice of the most appropriate instruments (including making maximum 
use of the vineyard register); 

•  abolition of the most complex measures, either immediately (all distillation schemes, private 
storage  of  wine  and  public  storage  of  alcohol,  must  aid  and  export  refunds)  or  after  a 
transitional period, including the planting rights system and grubbing-up scheme. However, the 
new measures within the national envelope will probably require new monitoring tools; 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
•  harmonisation of labelling rules by setting up a single legal framework applicable to all the 

different categories of wine. 

5.6.2.  Administrative costs 

In  the  general  context  of  simplification,  particular  emphasis  is  given  to  the  issue  of  the 
administrative costs that legislation imposes on producers and public administrations.  

Administrative costs can be defined as the costs incurred by enterprises and public authorities in 
meeting  legal  obligations  to  provide  information  on  their  action  or  production,  either  to  public 
authorities or to private parties. Information is to be construed in a broad sense, i.e. including the 
costs  of  labelling,  reporting,  monitoring  and  assessment  needed  to  provide  the  information  and 
registration. 

Some  of  the  provisions  of  the  wine  CMO  (e.g.  the  notification  of  specific  activities,  the 
submission  of  recurring  reports  and  communications  to  national  administrations  or  to  the 
European  Commission,  the  issuing  of  documents  in  order  to  benefit  from  Community  support) 
entail  significant  administrative  costs  for  operators  in  the  sector  and  national  administrations, 
which might have a negative impact on their economic activity. 

One  of  the  main  objectives  of  the  Commission  proposal  for  the  reform  of  the  wine  sector  is  to 
simplify the regime, by establishing clearer rules for all the actors in the wine sector and cutting 
red tape, where possible. 

The Commission is committed to identifying and measuring the administrative costs incurred by 
enterprises  and  public  authorities  and,  if  possible,  to  cutting  out  all  the  obligations  which 
represent an unnecessary burden for them. 

However,  assessing  the  total  administrative  cost  set  off  by  the  wine  CMO  is  an  extremely  far-
reaching  and  burdensome  task,  due  to  the  imposing  number  of  measures  entailing  a  cost  for 
economic operators and public administrations, and because of the complex way in which each of 
these  measures  is  implemented  at  national,  regional  and  local  level.  Retrieving  the  relevant 
information, even for a rough estimation of the total cost, demands a considerable effort. 

In Table 4 of Annex 3, a complete list of EU wine legislation measures that potentially involve 
administrative costs was compiled. The possible evolution of each of these measures in the light 
of  the  Commission  proposal  was  examined.  This  assumption  does  not  preclude  the  future 
Commission position when establishing the implementing regulations of the reformed wine CMO, 
therefore this exercise is subject to a certain margin of error. 

From this first screening, it emerges that 55 of the existing 99 measures entailing administrative 
costs (i.e. 55%) would probably remain in force, in one form or another, after the reform of the 
wine  CMO;  other  35,  mainly  reporting  obligations  linked  to  market  measures,  would  be 
abolished  immediately  after  the  entry  into  force  of  the  reform  in  2008;  finally,  eight  measures 
would  be  removed  from  2014  onwards,  when  the  planting  rights  system  and  the  grubbing-up 
scheme will be cancelled. 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
To  give  an  idea  of  the  absolute  impact  of  the  Commission  proposal  on  the  overall  level  of 
administrative costs, the cost reduction related to the abolition of legal obligations was quantified 
in monetary terms at the level of the single measures. 

The key analytical steps to assess the total administrative cost generated by the single measures 
consist in identifying: 

•  the target group affected by the obligation (administration, wine producer, distiller, etc.), as 

defined by the scope of the legislation; 

•  the required action related to each type of obligation and to the considered target group, 

which can be deduced logically according to the nature of the obligation; 

•  the time needed by the individual to fulfil each required action; 

The  time  needed  for  each  action  by  national  administrations  is  obtained  via  an  overall 
estimation  method,  taking  into  account  the  use  of  human  resources  input  in  the  competent 
offices,  as  reported  by  a  national  expert.  Similarly,  an  expert  judgment  was  also  used  to 
estimate the time needed by economic operators for the relevant action; 

•  tariff per hour for each target group; 

The tariff is determined on the basis of the average labour cost of the various wine –producing 
countries for each individual economic sector, which is derived from hourly wages data in the 
latest relevant Eurostat survey (2004); 

•  annual frequency of the obligation, which is defined by the scope of the Regulation; 

•  number of entities affected by the obligation;   

This information corresponds, in the case of national administrations, to the number of wine- 
producing Member States, whereas the number of individuals is retrieved from statistical data 
or  other  information  reported  to  the  Commission  in  the  context  of  the  wine  market 
management. 

The total administrative cost can basically be obtained by multiplying the hours needed to carry 
out a given action, the rate per hour, the number of entities and the frequency of obligations per 
year, and adding the product of the above for all required actions and all legal obligations. 

In order to reduce the complexity of the analysis, only the measures abolished from 2008 onwards 
were considered, and in particular the reporting obligations linked to the market measures and the 
trade with third countries. The detailed results of the analysis are set out in the Tables 5 and 6 of 
Annex 3. 

The  results  of  the  analysis  show  that  the  abolition  of  the  reporting  obligations  linked  to  market 
measures  and  to  trade  with  third  countries  would  involve  an  immediate  reduction  of  about 
€25 million  per  year  in  total  administrative  costs  (on  the  basis  of  2004  cost  data),  of  which 
roughly €14 million for national administrations and €11 million for private enterprises. 

Further, a much more significant cut in administrative costs would be expected from 2014 
onward, when the complex planting rights system will come to an end. This mechanism currently 
entails the heaviest bulk in terms of administrative charge, because it requires to be managed 
at the level of individual producer and of single land parcel. 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
 
 
Finally, it should be remembered that, owing to the introduction of new measures, in particular as 
part of the national envelopes (e.g. crisis management tools, green harvesting and promotion) and 
the application of cross-compliance provisions, the reformed wine CMO is also likely to generate 
new  reporting  obligations,  which  will  entail  additional  administrative  costs  for  operators. 
However,  as  the  detailed  implementation  of  the  new  measures  is  left  to  Commission 
implementing regulations, it is not possible at this stage to evaluate the scale of these additional 
costs. In any event, given the very important savings linked to the abolition of the planting rights 
system,  the  net  impact  of  the  fully  implemented  reform  on  administrative  costs  should 
normally remain largely positive. 

5.6.3. 

Subsidiarity 

The  Commission  proposal  would  increase  subsidiarity  of  the  wine  CMO  by  making  national 
envelopes  available,  whereby  each  wine-producing  Member  State  will  be  able  to  choose,  from 
among  a  list  of  alternative  measures,  the  ones  that  best  fit  the  particular  situation  of  its  wine 
sector. An analogous effect will be achieved by the transfer of funds to the second pillar, which 
will increase the financial resources available for ad-hoc regional rural development strategies. 

5.6.4.  Budget 

The Commission proposal is broadly based on the principle of budget neutrality, which means 
that the wine sector will be awarded a budget in line with its historical expenditure, namely about 
€1.3 billion  per  year.  Therefore,  there  will  be  no  change  in  the  overall  level  of  support  to  the 
sector; but simply better value for money from Community funds. 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
6. 

COMPARING THE OPTIONS 

Table 2: Summary table comparing the Commission proposal with the no reform scenario 

SUMMARY
IMPACTS

No reform

Commission proposal

Market balance

Increasing surplus

Smoothest achievement of balance

Prices

Sharp decrease due to
unsustainability of the system

Decrease in the short term

Recovery after achievement of balance

Competitiveness

No improvement

Improvement through economic sustainability,
improved regulatory measures and promotion policy
and abolition of planting rights

Economy of the
potable alcohol sector

No change, but
high risks in terms of WTO

Slight increase in production costs
Possible reduction in demand

Agricultural incomes

Progressive decrease due to
unsustainability of the system

Agricultural 
employment

Progressive deterioration due to
unsustainability of the system

Employment in the 
wine market chain
and related sectors

Progressive deterioration due to
unsustainability of the system

Environment

No improvement

Decrease in the short term
Way out for uncompetitive producers

Recovery after achievement of balance

Accelerating restructuring trend in the short term

Improvement due to achievement
of economic sustainability in the long term

Accelerating restructuring trend in the short term

Improvement due to achievement
of economic sustainability in the long term

Linkage to cross compliance for support measures
and through SPS eligibility
Shifts to RD allowing environmental measures

Trade
WTO compatible

Different measures
potentially under attack

Most problems solved

Wine quality

Neutral

Increase through better market orientation

Health / consumer

No improvement

Stop to support to distillation into potable alcohol
Labelling more transparent and consumer oriented

Simplification

No improvement

Administrative costs

No improvement

Subsidiarity

No improvement

Important simplification
due to suppression of planting right system
and complex market measures

Reduction of administrative burden
due to suppression of planting right system
and complex market measures

Much more flexibility with national envelope
and increased RD funds

Budget

Increasing pressure

Neutral

S
T
C
A
P
M

I

I

C
M
O
N
O
C
E

S
T
C
A
P
M

I

I

L
A
C
O
S

I

I

Y
C
N
E
C
F
F
E
T
N
E
M
E
G
A
N
A
M

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
7. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

Monitoring and  assessing  the  economic,  social  and  environmental  effects  of  EU  public 
policies has become a standard element of the political process. 

Most EU legislative acts include monitoring of their implementation by Member States, 
and  of  their  impact  and  effectiveness  at  EU  level  in  order  to  propose  further  action  or 
redirection of the measures, if necessary. 

Many  of  the  actions  needed  to  apply  the  common  policy  on  wine  to  be  developed  by 
Member States and relevant stakeholders. Considerable experience in monitoring exists 
in  the  Commission  departments  and  in  the  Member  States.  Hence,  there  is  scope  for 
cooperation,  sharing  of 
indicators  and 
enhancement of analytical tools used to monitor and assess policies. Existing statistical 
systems covering wine production potential, market trends, micro- and macro-economics, 
the  evolution  of  regional  patterns,  and  the  environment  provide  a  complex  framework 
and need to be simplified, adapted and reshaped to provide sufficient information in this 
context. 

improvement  of  core 

information,  and 

The  reformed  wine  policy  would  need  to  be  monitored  and  evaluated  in  relation  to  a 
whole  range  of  potential  impacts  identified  in  this  report.  This  needs  an  assessment  of 
progress  towards  meeting  the  objectives  listed  in  part  3  and  of  all  types  of  impacts 
identified in part 5. 

The basis for reporting on progress should be a common framework for monitoring and 
assessment, to be proposed in the legal act. 

The new wine CMO will be included in the multi-annual evaluation programme for CAP 
policies. 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
ANNEXES 

Annex 1: 

Mid-term forecasts for the EU-27 wine sector to 2011/2012 

Annex 2: 

Impact  on  prices  –  Regression  analysis  between  average  annual  prices  of  table 
wine and wine stocks 

Annex 3: 

Analysis of administrative costs 

Annex 4: 

List of acronyms 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
ANNEX 1:  
MID-TERM FORECASTS FOR THE EU-27 WINE SECTOR TO 2011/2012 

The  table  below  represents  the  summary  market  balance  of  the  EU-27  wine  sector  to  the  year 
2011/12,  as  forecast  by  DG  AGRI,  assuming  an  unchanged  policy  framework  and  based  on  a 
“normal year” in terms of wine production19. 

On the basis of different assumptions regarding the trends in vine areas, wine yields, consumption 
and trade balance, three alternative scenarios are constructed: “average” (or “most likely”), “low 
surplus” (or “most optimistic”), and “high surplus” (or “most pessimistic”). 

For each of the three scenarios, the market balance – defined as the difference between the total 
availability and the total use of  wine production – is estimated.  Two  alternative market balance 
indicators are calculated, which differ in terms of how they consider the volumes of wine distilled 
in the context of the potable alcohol distillation. In SURPLUS 1, those volumes are considered as 
a  production  surplus  rather  than  an  actual  market  outlet,  whereas  in  SURPLUS  2,  they  are 
regarded  as  a  market  outlet  of  wine  production  and  therefore  deducted  from  the  production 
surplus. 

Table 3: Supply balance for the EU-27 wine sector at the horizon 2011/12 

olympic WINE YEAR WINE YEAR

FORECASTS 2011/2012

AVERAGE
1999-2003

2004/05

2005/06
(e) 

Average
Scenario

Low surplus High surplus

Scenario

Scenario

PRODUCTION 

180.4

192.8

173.4

179.0

173.9

184.1

SURPLUS 1 (a)
in % of the production

21.9
12.2%

33.1
17.1%

12.0
6.9%

24.8
13.9%

SURPLUS 2 (b)
in % of the production

10.5
5.8%

22.1
11.4%

-1.0
-0.6%

12.8
7.2%

16.7
9.6%

5.7
3.3%

37.2
20.2%

24.2
13.1%

(a) including wine withdrawn for distillation into potable alcohol
(b) excludes wine withdrawn for distillation into potable alcohol
(e) estimated

19 

In this mid-term forecast, wine production is intended as the sole vinified production, which means that the 
production of grape juices is excluded by the analysis. As a matter of fact, long-time series on grape juices 
production are not easily available. 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 2:  
IMPACT ON PRICES 

Regression analysis between average annual prices of table wine and wine stocks 

No reform 

Regression analysis between EU average annual prices of table wine and total wine stocks
Stocks in 1 000 hl and prices in €/°vol/hl

Historic data

Vintage year

2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Avearge 2000-06

Total wine
stocks on 31.07

Average price

142 221
161 900
156 725
151 758
155 766
174 509
166 438
158 474

3.23
2.78
2.84
3.32
3.36
2.72
2.58
2.97

Simulation
stocks increasing by 6.8 Mio. hl per year

Vintage year

Stocks on 31.07

Simulated price
(linear model)

% variation
compared to year 0

Simulated price
(exp model)

% variation
compared to year 0

year 0
year 1
year 2

158 474
165 274
172 074

2.97
2.82
2.66

-
-5%
-11%

2.97
2.81
2.66

-
-6%
-11%

Commission proposal 

Regression analysis between EU average annual prices of table wine and total wine stocks
Stocks in 1 000 hl and prices in €/°vol/hl

Historic data

Vintage year

2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Avearge 2000-06

Total wine
stocks on 31.07

Average price

142 221
161 900
156 725
151 758
155 766
174 509
166 438
158 474

3.23
2.78
2.84
3.32
3.36
2.72
2.58
2.97

Simulation
stocks increasing by 6.3 Mio. hl in the year 1 and by additional 2.9  Mio. Hl in the year 2

Vintage year

Stocks on 31.07

Simulated price
(linear model)

% variation
compared to year 0

Simulated price
(exp model)

% variation
compared to year 0

year 0
year 1
year 2

158 474
164 774
167 674

2.97
2.83
2.76

-
-5%
-7%

2.97
2.82
2.75

-
-5%
-7%

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Table 4: Evolution of measures currently entailing administrative costs in the light of the reform 

ANNEX 3:  
ASSESSMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS 

Information to be notified 

Legal basis 

Time and frequency 

Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine 

every decision to grant or withdraw recognition to a producer 
organisation 
decisions adopted the previous year by virtue of the possibilities 
offered by paragraph 1 [laying down marketing rules to regulate 
supply on first marketing] (obligation for Member States which have 
availed themselves of these possibilities) 
any stricter condition that the Member States impose, in respect of 
oenological practices and processes, to ensure the preservation of the 
essential characteristics of quality wines psr, table wines which are 
described by a geographical indication and are produced in their 
territory, sparkling wines and liqueur wines 
list of quality wines psr which the Member States have recognised, 
stating, for each of these quality wines psr, details of the national 
provisions governing the production and manufacture of those 
quality wines psr 
names and addresses of the authorities responsible for ensuring 
compliance with Community rules in the wine sector 
laboratories authorised to carry out official analyses in the wine 
sector 
list of the names of the quality sparkling wines psr 

trade marks for a wine or a grape must identical to geographical 
units specified in paragraph 2 
list adopted by the producer Member State of vine varieties or 
synonyms that may be indicated even if the name of that variety is 
repeated in the same expression 

Art. 40(1)(c) of Reg. 1493/1999 

within two months 

Art. 41(3) of Reg. 1493/1999 

every year (no specific deadline is 
given) 

Art. 42(4) of Reg. 1493/1999 

whenever applicable 

Art. 54(4) of Reg. 1493/1999 

whenever applicable 

Art. 72(1) and (2) of Reg. 1493/1999 

whenever applicable 

Art. 72(1) and (2) of Reg. 1493/1999 

whenever applicable 

Annex VI D 2 third subparagraph of 
Reg. 1493/1999 
Annex VII F 4 first subparagraph of 
Reg. 1493/1999 
Annex VIII E 2 second subparagraph 
(d) of Reg. 1493/1999 

whenever applicable 

whenever applicable 

whenever applicable 

Type of 
obligation

Possible 
need for 
notification 
in the new 
framework20 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

maintained 

maintained 

maintained 

maintained 

maintained 

maintained 

maintained 

maintained 

maintained 

20 

EN 

This assumption does not preclude the future Commission position when establishing the implementing regulations of the reformed wine CMO. 

45 

 
 
                                                 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1227/2000 of 31 May 2000 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 on the common 
organisation of the market in wine, as regards production potential 

Regularisation of plantings (in respect of each wine year the total 
area for which a derogation [from Art. 2(2) of Reg. 1493/1999] has 
been applied for, the total area for which a derogation has been 
granted and the total area for which a derogation has been refused) 
total areas for which new planting rights have been granted in 
respect of areas intended for new planting carried out under 
measures for land consolidation or measures concerning compulsory 
purchases in the public interest adopted under national legislation, 
wine-growing experiments, draft nurseries 
total area for which new planting rights have been granted in respect 
of areas whose wine or vine products are intended solely for the 
consumption of the vine grower's family. However, where a 
Member State makes use of the derogation in paragraph 7 [i.e. a 
Member State provides that such areas shall not be subject to the 
grubbing-up requirement], it shall instead communicate an estimate 
of the total area concerned, which shall be based on the results of the 
monitoring carried out. 
whether producers have paid for the grant of new planting rights 

any areas which Member States have designated in which the 
premium for the permanent abandonment of vine-growing may be 
granted and any conditions to which that designation is subject 
total area grubbed up in return for a premium under Chapter II of 
Title II of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 
estimates for grubbing-up with premium under Chapter II of Title II 
of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 for the following wine year 
total area grubbed up solely in return for a national aid and the total 
amount of aid paid 
proportion of the area concerned grubbed up in return for national 
aid, in addition to a premium under Chapter II of Title II of 
Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999, and the total amount of national aid 
paid in this context 
statement of restructuring and conversion expenditure validated at 
30 June of the current financial year and the total area concerned 

any requests for the subsequent financing of restructuring and 
conversion expenditure in the current financial year in excess of the 
financial allocations made pursuant to Article 14(1) of Regulation 
(EC) No 1493/1999, and the total area concerned in each case 

Art. 2(7) and table 1 of the Annex to 
Reg. 1227/2000 

4 months (at the latest) after the 
end of the marketing year 

Art. 3(10)(a) and Table 2.1 of the 
Annex to Reg. 1227/2000 

4 months (at the latest) after the 
end of the marketing year 

Art. 3(10)(b) and Table 2.1 of the 
Annex to Reg. 1227/2000 

4 months (at the latest) after the 
end of the marketing year 

Art. 3(10)(d) of Reg. 1227/2000 

Art. 7 of Reg. 1227/2000 

4 months (at the latest) after the 
end of the marketing year 
no deadline (probably once) 

Art. 10(2)(a) and Table 3.1 of the 
Annex to Reg. 1227/2000 
Art. 10(2)(b) and Table 3.2 of the 
Annex to Reg. 1227/2000 
Art. 11(b) and Table 3.1 and 3.2 of the 
Annex to Reg. 1227/2000 
Art. 11(c) and Table 3.1 and 3.2 of the 
Annex to Reg. 1227/2000 

4 months (at the latest) after the 
end of each marketing year 
4 months (at the latest) after the 
end of each marketing year 
4 months (at the latest) after the 
end of each marketing year 
4 months (at the latest) after the 
end of each marketing year 

Art. 16(1)(b) of Reg. 1227/2000, as 
amended by Reg. 1841/2003, as well as 
Table 4.2 of the Annex to 
Reg. 1227/2000 
Art. 16(1)(c) of Reg. 1227/2000, as 
amended by Reg. 315/2003, as well as 
Table 4.3 of the Annex to 
Reg. 1227/2000 

not later than 10 July each year 

by 30 June of each marketing year 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

maintained 

removed 
from 2014 on 

removed 
from 2014 on 

removed 
from 2014 on 
maintained 

removed 
from 2014 on 
removed 
from 2014 on 
removed 
from 2014 on 
removed 
from 2014 on 

maintained 

maintained 

EN 

46 

 
 
amended expenditure forecasts, and the total areas concerned, for 
subsequent financial years until the end of the period provided for 
implementing the restructuring and conversion plans, in accordance 
with the allocation for each Member State 
in respect of each wine year, broken down for each plan, the area 
initially subject to the plan and its average yield, and the area 
resulting from restructuring and conversion and its estimated 
average yield 
inventory of vineyard areas in respect to the situation on a date 
chosen by the Member State, containing information on the 
following: areas under vines classified as varieties for the production 
of wine, stock of existing planting rights, source or sources of the 
information contained in the inventory 
classification of vine varieties, making clear any changes made 

when, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 and Regulation 
(EC) No 1227/2000, Member States communicate to the 
Commission the measures adopted, they shall also provide a brief 
synopsis of such provisions 

Art. 16(1)(d) of Reg. 1227/2000, as 
amended by Reg. 315/2003 as well as 
Table 4.4 of Reg. 1227/2000 

by 30 June of each marketing year 

Art. 18(2) and Table 5 of 
Reg. 1227/2000 

4 months (at the latest) after the 
end of each marketing year 

Art. 11(4) of Reg. 1493/1999; 
Art. 19(3), (4), (6) as well as 
Tables 6.2, 7.2 and 8.2 of the Annex to 
Reg. 1227/2000 

Art. 20(9) and Table 9 of the Annex to 
Reg. 1227/2000, as amended by 
Reg. 1841/2003  
Art. 21(1) of Reg. 1227/2000 

annually 

during each wine year 

no deadline 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

maintained 

maintained 

removed 
from 2014 on 

maintained 

maintained 

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1607/2000 of 24 July 2000 laying down detailed rules for implementing in particular the Title relating to quality wine produced in specified 
regions 

demarcation of areas in immediate proximity to a specified region 
(quality wines) 
names and addresses of the competent bodies authorised by the 
Member States to downgrade quality wines psr 
data for each wine marketing year on quantities of quality wine psr 
downgraded on the territory of the given Member States 

Art 2 of Reg. 1607/2000 

Art. 10(5) of Reg. 1607/2000 

Art. 11 of Regulation 1607/2000 

no deadline 

no deadline 

no later than 1 November 
following the wine year in which 
downgrading is declared 
by 31 March of the year following 
the downgrading 

1 

1 

2 

maintained 

maintained 

maintained 

volume of each quality wine psr downgraded originating in a 
Member State, downgraded by another Member State in the course 
of a year21 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 of 25 July 2000 laying down certain detailed rules for implementing Regulation (EC) 1493/1999 on the common organisation of 
the market in wine and establishing a Community code of oenological practices and processes 

Art. 12(5) of Reg. 1607/2000 

maintained 

1 

Application for aid to the competent authority and all the 
compulsory documents that must be submitted (grape juice) 
Application for aid to the competent authority and all the 
compulsory documents that must be submitted (aid for must used to 
increase the alcoholic strength of wine products) 

Art. 8 of Reg. 1623/2000 

whenever applicable 

Art. 14 of Reg. 1623/2000 

whenever applicable 

3 

3 

removed 
from 2008 on 
removed 
from 2008 on 

21 

Besides the Commission, the Member States of origin of the quality wines psr concerned are also addressee of this notification. 

EN 

47 

 
 
                                                 
Application for private storage aid and conditions for granting the aid 

Art. 37 of Reg. 1623/2000 

Whenever applicable 

list of the approved distillers (to be forwarded to the Commission 
electronically); all subsequent amendments to that list (to be 
forwarded immediately) 
Aid to be paid to distillers for compulsory distillation  

Art. 42(3) first subparagraph of 
Reg. 1623/2000, as amended by 
Reg. 1774/2004 
Art. 48 of Reg. 1623/2000 

no deadline 

apportionment of the total quantity of wine to be distilled in the 
region concerned among the individual wine producers in that 
region 
simplified arrangements for presenting evidence of the payment of 
the minimum buying-in price for distillation of the by-products of 
wine-making (agreement of the Commission is to be obtained) 
total volume covered by contracts or declarations submitted for 
distillation [Art. 29 of Reg. 1493/1999] during the period referred to 
in paragraph 1 [i.e. from 1 October to 23 December] 
total volume under approved contracts 

Aid to be paid for optional distillation  

list of the names of the tenderers whose tenders are eligible for 
consideration under Article 97 of this Regulation, the prices offered, 
the quantities requested, the locations and the types of alcohol 
concerned and the precise uses to be made of the alcohol (these data 
have to be submitted by the intervention agency concerned) 
list of the tendering securities checked and accepted (these data have 
to be submitted by the intervention agency concerned) 

exact location and references of the various vats of alcohol meeting 
the quality requirements and containing a total quantity of alcohol 
not less than that indicated in the request of the Commission [on the 
quantity and type of alcohol and the quality of the lots of alcohol 
that may be offered for sale] 

checks introduced by the Member States to apply paragraph 1 [to 
ensure that the Community rules concerning the disposal of alcohol 
obtained by distillation are complied with] 
quantities of grape must processed into concentrated grape must or 
rectified concentrated grape must during the period of validity of the 
contract in the case of aid for the private storage of wine and must 
under Title III, Chapter I, of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999, and the 
quantities so obtained 

Art. 53(2) second subparagraph first 
indent of Reg. 1623/2000 

no deadline (yearly?) 

Art. 60(1) second subparagraph of 
Reg. 1623/2000 

no deadline (probably once) 

Art. 63a(4) of Reg. 1623/2000, as 
amended by Regulations 1795/2002 
and 1774/2004 
Art. 63a(6) third subparagraph of 
Reg. 1623/2000 
Art 64 of Reg. 1623/2000 

Art. 82(6) of Reg. 1623/2000 

Art. 88(6) of Reg. 1623/2000 

Art. 95(1) of Reg. 1623/2000 

by 15 January of the current year 
at the latest 

by 20 March of the current wine 
year at the latest 
Whenever applicable 

not more than two working days 
after the closing date for 
submission of tenders 

not more than two working days 
after the closing date for 
submission of tenders 
no more than 12 days after 
receiving the request of the 
Commission 

Art. 101(1) to (3) of Reg. 1623/2000 

before the checks start 

Art. 103(1)(a) of Reg. 1623/2000 as 
amended by Reg. 625/2003 

no later than 31 December of the 
wine year following that in which 
the contracts were concluded 

3 

1 

3 

2 

2 

2 

2 

3 

2 

2 

2 

4 

2 

removed 
from 2008 on 
removed 
from 2008 on 

removed 
from 2008 on 
removed 
from 2008 on 

removed 
from 2008 on 

removed 
from 2008 on 

removed 
from 2008 on 
removed 
from 2008 on 
phased out 
from 2008 on 

phased out 
from 2008 on 

phased out 
from 2008 on 

phased out 
from 2008 on 

removed 
from 2008 on 

EN 

48 

 
 
 
the quantities of products under contract at 16 February in the case 
of aid for the private storage of wine and must under Title III, 
Chapter I, of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 
in the case of distillation under Articles 27, 28 and 30 of Regulation 
(EC) No 1493/1999, quantities of wine, wine lees and wine fortified 
for distillation that have been distilled in the previous two months 
in the case of distillation under Articles 27, 28 and 30 of Regulation 
(EC) No 1493/1999, quantities of alcohol, broken down into neutral 
alcohol, raw alcohol and spirits distilled from wine, produced during 
the previous period, taken over by the intervention agencies during 
the previous period, disposed of by the intervention agencies during 
the previous period and the percentage of those quantities exported 
and the selling prices charged, held by the intervention agencies at 
the end of the previous period 
quantities of alcohol physically removed during the previous month 
under a tendering procedure (concerning the disposal of alcohol 
taken over by the intervention agencies, as referred to in Article 31 
of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999) 
quantities of alcohol physically removed during the previous month 
following a public sale (concerning the disposal of alcohol taken 
over by the intervention agencies, as referred to in Article 31 of 
Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999) 
quantities of wine distilled during the previous month in the case of 
distillation under Article 29 of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 
quantities of alcohol which qualified for secondary aid during the 
previous month in the case of distillation under Article 29 of 
Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 

number of producers who have received aid in the case of aid for 
concentrated and rectified concentrated must used for enrichment as 
provided for in Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 
quantities of wine enriched in the case of aid for concentrated and 
rectified concentrated must used for enrichment as provided for in 
Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 
quantities of concentrated grape must and rectified concentrated 
grape must used for enrichment, expressed in terms of potential 
alcoholic strength by volume per hectolitre and broken down by the 
wine-growing zone of origin in the case of aid for concentrated and 
rectified concentrated must used for enrichment as provided for in 
Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 

Art. 103(1)(b) of Reg. 1623/2000 as 
amended by Reg. 625/2003 

by 5 March of the current wine 
year at the latest 

Art. 103(2)(a) of Reg. 1623/2000 as 
amended by Reg. 625/2003 

at the end of October, December, 
February, April, June and August 

Art. 103(2)(b) of Reg. 1623/2000 as 
amended by Reg. 625/2003 

at the end of October, December, 
February, April, June and August 

Art. 103(3)(a) of Reg. 1623/2000 as 
amended by Reg. 625/2003 

at the end of each month 

Art. 103(3)(b) of Reg. 1623/2000 as 
amended by Reg. 625/2003 

at the end of each month 

Art. 103(4)(a) of Reg. 1623/2000 as 
amended by Reg. 625/2003 
Art. 103(4)(b) of Reg. 1623/2000 as 
amended by Reg. 625/2003 

Art. 103(5)(a) of Reg. 1623/2000 as 
amended by Reg. 625/2003 

Art. 103(5)(b) of Reg. 1623/2000 as 
amended by Reg. 625/2003 

Art. 103(5)(c) of Reg. 1623/2000 as 
amended by Reg. 625/2003 

at the end of each month 

at the end of each month 

no later than 31 December of the 
wine year following the current 
one 
no later than 31 December of the 
wine year following the current 
one 
no later than 31 December of the 
wine year following the current 
one 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

removed 
from 2008 on 

removed 
from 2008 on 

removed 
from 2008 on 

removed 
from 2008 on 

removed 
from 2008 on 

removed 
from 2008 on 
removed 
from 2008 on 

removed 
from 2008 on 

removed 
from 2008 on 

removed 
from 2008 on 

EN 

49 

 
 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2729/2000 of 14 December 2000 laying down detailed implementing rules on controls in the wine sector  

Art. 3(2) of Reg. 2729/2000 

single liaison body responsible for contacts with the liaison bodies 
of other Member States and with the Commission, designated by the 
Member States 
cases when the product which is the subject of the controls referred 
to in the first subparagraph [where a competent body of a Member 
State undertakes control activities on its territory] originates in a 
third country, if the marketing of this product may be of specific 
interest to other Member States 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 883/2001 of 24 April 2001 laying down detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards trade with third 
countries in products in the wine sector 

Art. 7(1) first and second subparagraph 
of Regulation 2729/2000 

whenever applicable 

no deadline 

maintained 

maintained 

1 

4 

information on the quantities and countries of origin of products for 
which import licences have been issued during the preceding week 

Art. 5 first subparagraph and Annex I 
of Reg. 883/2001 

applications for export licences with advance fixing of the refund 
lodged between Wednesday of the preceding week and Tuesday, or 
the absence of applications, specifying the zone of destination as 
referred to in Article 9(6) 
quantities for which export licences were issued on the preceding 
Monday or, as the case may be, within the interval referred to in 
Article 9(8) [third working day following publication of the single 
acceptance percentage in the Official Journal of the European 
Communities], specifying the zone of destination as referred to in 
Article 9(6) 
the quantities for which licence applications have been withdrawn 
pursuant to Article 9(8) during the preceding week, specifying the 
zone of destination as referred to in Article 9(6) 
quantities for which licences have been issued but not used, together 
with the zone of destination as referred to in Article 9(6), specifying 
the quantities referred to in paragraph 1 and the refund rate 
quantities for which refunds have been granted without a licence 
under the second subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) 
No 800/1999, specifying the quantities referred to in paragraph 1 
and the refund rate 
lists of official or officially recognised bodies that the Member 
States propose should issue attestations proving that the wine in 
question meets the conditions for access to the concessions provided 
for in the agreements with third countries 

Art. 12(1)(a) and Annex V of 
Reg. 883/2001 

Art. 12(1)(b) and Annex V of 
Reg. 883/2001 

every Thursday, or on the first 
working day thereafter if the 
Thursday is a public holiday 
each Wednesday or the following 
working day if the Wednesday is a 
public holiday 

each Wednesday or the following 
working day if the Wednesday is a 
public holiday 

Art. 12(1)(c) and Annex V of 
Reg. 883/2001 

Art. 12(2)(a) and Annex V of 
Reg. 883/2001 

each Wednesday or the following 
working day if the Wednesday is a 
public holiday 
before the 15th of each month for 
the previous month 

Art. 12(2)(b) and Annex V of 
Reg. 883/2001 

before the 15th of each month for 
the previous month 

Art. 34a(1) of Reg. 883/2001 as 
inserted by Reg. 812/2002 

whenever applicable 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

? 

removed 
from 2008 on 

removed 
from 2008 on 

removed 
from 2008 on 

removed 
from 2008 on 

removed 
from 2008 on 

maintained 

Commission Regulation (EC) No 884/2001 of 24 April 2001 laying down detailed rules of application concerning the documents accompanying the carriage of wine products 
and the records to be kept in the wine sector 

Obligation to draw up accompanying documents for the carriage of 
wine products 

Art 3(1) of Reg. 884/2001 

whenever applicable 

2 

maintained 

EN 

50 

 
 
 
 
Registers required to keep inwards and outwards for any natural or 
legal persons and groups of persons who hold wine products. 
name and address of the authority or authorities responsible for 
implementing this Regulation [Reg. 884/2001 laying down detailed 
rules of application concerning the documents accompanying the 
carriage of wine products and the records to be kept in the wine 
sector] as well as any subsequent changes concerning these 
competent authorities 
name and address of any bodies empowered by a competent 
authority for the purposes of implementing this Regulation 
[Reg. 884/2001 laying down detailed rules of application concerning 
the documents accompanying the carriage of wine products and the 
records to be kept in the wine sector] (where appropriate) as well as 
any subsequent changes concerning these bodies 

Art 11(1) of Reg. 884/2001 

whenever applicable 

Art. 20(1) first indent and Art. 20(2) 
first indent of Reg. 884/2001 

whenever applicable 

2 

1 

maintained 

maintained 

Art. 20(1) second indent and Art. 20(2) 
first indent of Reg. 884/2001 

whenever applicable 

1 

maintained 

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1282/2001 of 28 June 2001 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the gathering 
of information to identify wine products and to monitor the wine market and amending Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 

the estimates referred to in Article 14(c) of the likely quantity of 
wine products obtained on the territory of the Member States [for 
the current marketing year] 
national summary of the stock declarations [provided for in 
Article 6], referred to in Article 14(b) 
the appraisals referred to in Article 14(d) of those particulars 
allowing supplies of wine products and quantities used on the 
territory of the Member States to be estimated [for the current 
marketing year] 
provisional report on the preceding wine year (addressee of this 
report is Eurostat, the Statistical Office of the European 
Communities) 
final report for the wine year before the preceding wine year, as 
referred to in Article 14(e) (addressee of this report is Eurostat, the 
Statistical Office of the European Communities) 
national summary of the production declarations [provided for in 
Article 4], referred to in Article 14(a) or an estimate of that 
summary; the coefficients used to convert the quantities of products 
other than wine from quintals into hectolitres of wine in the various 
production regions (where appropriate) 
prices and quantities marketed, together with any other information 
deemed useful for assessing market developments in the production areas 
any important new facts likely to alter substantially the assessment 
of available quantities and quantities used based on definitive 
information for past years 

Art. 16(1)(a) and Art. 14(c) of 
Reg. 1282/2001 

Art. 16(1)(b) and Art. 14(b) of 
Reg. 1282/2001 
Art. 16(1)(c) and Art. 14(d) of 
Reg. 1282/2001 

Art. 16(1)(d) and Art. 14(e) of 
Reg. 1282/2001 

Art. 16(1)(d) and Art. 14(e) of 
Reg. 1282/2001 

by 15 September and 30 
November of the current wine year 
at the latest 
by 30 November at the latest 

by 30 November at the latest 

by 15 November at the latest 

by 15 March at the latest 

Art. 16(1)(e), and Art. 14(a) and Art. 9 
third paragraph of Reg. 1282/2001 

by 15 February at the latest (where 
an estimate is sent, the definitive 
result must be sent by 15 April at 
the latest) 

Art. 16(2)(b) of Reg. 1282/2001 

Art. 17 of Reg. 1282/2001 

every second Tuesday from 
1 August 2001 
whenever applicable 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

maintained 

maintained 

maintained 

maintained 

maintained 

maintained 

maintained 

maintained 

EN 

51 

 
 
 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 of 29 April 2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the description, 
designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products 

control requirements laid down by the Member States [for 
circulation for certain quality wines psr and quality sparkling wines 
psr as referred to in Article 29 aged in bottles for a long period 
before sale] 
[in case of types of bottle to qualify for inclusion in Annex I:] the 
facts justifying recognition of each type of bottle; the characteristics 
of the types of bottle meeting the requirements in paragraph 2 and 
the wine for which they are reserved 
terms that are not defined in the Community rules but the use of 
which is regulated in the Member State concerned [in order they 
may be used for the indication of the sales designation on the labels 
of Title II products] 
traditional specific terms, determined by the Member States, that 
may be used for grape must in fermentation intended for direct 
human consumption and wine of overripe grapes produced in their 
territory [to be included in the sales designation of such products 
described using a geographical indication] 
expressions specified by the Member States [indications showing the 
activity of the bottler, the consignor, or persons involved in 
marketing, using expressions such as "wine-grower", "harvested 
by", "merchant", "distributed by", "importer", "imported by", or 
other similar expressions] and conditions defined by the Member 
States relating to their use 
minimum total acidity content set by the Member States as a 
condition for the use of the terms listed in paragraph 1(a) and (b) 
[“dry” and “medium dry”], for use as a complementary criterion in 
the case of certain wines produced in their territory 
minimum residual sugar content set by the Member States as a 
condition for the use of the terms listed in paragraph 1(d) [“sweet”], 
which may not be lower than 35 grams per litre in the case of certain 
quality wines psr produced in their territory 
indication of a specific colour of table wines, table wines with a 
geographical indication and quality wines psr specified by the 
Member States for the wines produced in their territory and the 
conditions relating to the use of such indication that they defined 
list of authorised competitions, of which the awards and medals may 
be featured on the labels of table wines with a geographical 
indication and quality wines psr 

Art. 5(1) second subparagraph of 
Reg. 753/2002, as amended by 
Reg. 316/2004 

no deadline 

Art. 9(3) of Reg. 753/2002 

whenever applicable 

Art. 12(1)(b) of Reg. 753/2002, 
as amended by Reg. 316/2004 

whenever applicable 

Art. 14(2) of Reg. 753/2002 

whenever applicable 

Art. 15(2) fourth subparagraph of 
Reg. 753/2002 

whenever applicable 

Art. 16(2)(a) and (3) of Reg. 753/2002 

whenever applicable 

Art. 16(2)(b) and (3) of Reg. 753/2002 

whenever applicable 

Art. 17 of Reg. 753/2002 

whenever applicable 

Art. 21 of Reg. 753/2002 

whenever applicable 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

maintained 

removed 
from 2008 on 

maintained 

maintained 

maintained 

maintained 

maintained 

removed 
from 2008 on 

removed 
from 2008 on 

EN 

52 

 
 
indications concerning the method of production of table wines with 
a geographical indication and quality wines psr specified by the 
Member States for the wines produced in their territory, as well as 
the conditions they defined relating to their use 
facts justifying recognition of each traditional term 
traditional terms included in the legislation of the Member States 
that meet the above requirements [i.e. they are specific in itself and 
precisely defined in the Member State's legislation; they are 
sufficiently distinctive and/or enjoy an established reputation on the 
Community market; they have been traditionally used for at least 
10 years in the Member State in question; they are used for one or 
more Community wines or categories of Community wine] and the 
wines for which they are reserved 
any traditional terms that cease to be protected in the country of 
origin 
conditions specified by the Member States relating to the use of 
names of enterprises for wines produced in their territory 
indications specified by the Member States stating that table wines 
with a geographical indication and quality wines psr have been 
bottled on the producer's holding or by a producer group or in an 
enterprise located in the production region or, in the case of quality 
wines psr, in the immediate proximity of the production region; the 
conditions relating to the use of such indications, defined by the 
Member States 
list of names of geographical units smaller than the Member State 
that may be used in case of table wines described as “Landwein”, 
“vin de pays”, “regional wine”, etc. and the provisions regulating the 
use of the terms and unit names 
any subsequent change to the list and to the provisions referred to in 
(a) [list of names of geographical units smaller than the Member 
State that may be used in case of table wines described as 
“Landwein”, “vin de pays”, “regional wine”, etc. and the provisions 
regulating the use of the terms and unit names] 
List of the types of geographical units concerned drawn up by 
producer Member States and the names of the specified regions to 
which these geographical units belong, covered by the derogation 
applying until 31 August 2003 provided for in point (b)  
List of the names of local administrative areas, or parts thereof or 
one of the names of such areas (geographical units smaller than the 
specified region) used as being representative of all the local 
administrative areas over whose area that geographical unit extends 
draw up by producer Member States 

Art. 22(2) of Reg. 753/2002 

whenever applicable 

Art. 24(7)(a) of Reg. 753/2002 
Art. 24(7)(b) of Reg. 753/2002 

whenever applicable 
whenever applicable 

Art. 24(7)(c) of Reg. 753/2002 

whenever applicable 

Art. 25(2) of Reg. 753/2002 

whenever applicable 

Art. 26(2) of Reg. 753/2002 

whenever applicable 

Art. 28 first paragraph(a) of 
Reg. 753/2002 

whenever applicable 

Art. 28 first paragraph(b) of 
Reg. 753/2002 

whenever applicable 

Art. 31(3) third subparagraph of 
Reg. 753/2002 

whenever applicable  

Art. 31(3) fourth subparagraph of 
Reg. 753/2002 

whenever applicable 

EN 

53 

1 

1 
1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

maintained 

maintained 
maintained 

maintained 

removed 
from 2008 on 
removed 
from 2008 on 

maintained 

maintained 

maintained 

maintained 

 
 
definition of conditions relating to the use of the names of 
geographical units, listed for the purposes of the second indent of 
Annex VII(B)(1)(c) to Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 [labelling of 
the products may be supplemented by reference to a geographical 
area larger than the region defined in order to specify the origin of a 
quality wine psr], which are larger than the specified region 
expressions specified by the Member States for wines produced in 
their territory for the purposes of the third indent of Annex 
VII(B)(1)(c) to Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999, indicating that a 
wine has been bottled in a specified region, and conditions relating 
to their use 
traditional specific terms, specified by Member States that may be 
used for liqueur wines and semi-sparkling wines produced in their 
territory [to be included in the sales designation of such products 
described using a geographical indication] 

Art. 32 of Reg. 753/2002 

whenever applicable 

1 

maintained 

Art. 33(2) of Reg. 753/2002 

whenever applicable 

Art. 38(4) of Reg. 753/2002 

whenever applicable 

1 

1 

1 

maintained 

maintained 

maintained 

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2392/86 of 24 July 1986 establishing a Community vineyard register 

Vineyard register collecting, for each holdings with vine, 
information relating to: identity and situation, references of the 
parcels under vines, general characteristics, characteristics of the 
vines it contains and the products produced therefrom, wine 
production, changes in grape-growing potential, intervention 
measures, premiums collected, products processed and oenological 
practices 

Art. 2(1) of Reg. 2392/1986 

whenever applicable 

Types of obligation 

1. Notification of specific activities 

2. Submission of recurring reports 

3. Application for subsidy or grant 

4. Inspection 

EN 

54 

 
 
 
 
Table 5: Annual reduction of administrative costs following the proposed abolition of reporting obligations currently contained in 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 

Commission Regulation (EC ) No 1623/2000 of 25 July 2000 laying down certain detailed 
rules for implementing Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 

Tariff 
(€ per 
hour) 

Time  
(hour) 

Price (per 
action or 
equip) 

Freq  
(per 
year) 

Nbr of 
entities 

Total nbr 
of 
actions 

Total  
cost 

Regulatory 
origin 
(%) 

No. 

Ass. Art. 

Type of obligation 

Description of required 
action(s) 

Target group 

i 

e

i 

e

Int 

EU 

Nat 

Reg 

Filling forms and tables 

Producer 

1 

2 

3 

14 

14 

14 

35 

37 

37 

37 

4 

42 (3) 

42 (3) 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

48 

48 

48 

63 

63 

63 

92 

92 (3) 

95 (1) 

Application for subsidy 
or grant 
Application for subsidy 
or grant 

Application for subsidy 
or grant 
Inspection 

Application for subsidy 
or grant 
Application for subsidy 
or grant 

Application for subsidy 
or grant 
Notification of 
(specific) activities 
Notification of 
(specific) activities 
Application for subsidy 
or grant 
Application for subsidy 
or grant 

Application for subsidy 
or grant 
Application for subsidy 
or grant 
Application for subsidy 
or grant 

Application for subsidy 
or grant 
Application for general 
authorisation or 
exemption 
Submission of 
(recurring) reports 
Submission of 
(recurring) reports 

EN 

Submitting the information 
(sending it to the 
designated recipient) 
Filling forms and tables 

Inspecting and checking 
(including assistance to 
inspection by public 
authorities) 
Filling forms and tables 

Submitting the information 
(sending it to the 
designated recipient) 
Filling forms and tables 

Producing new data 

Adjusting existing data 

Filling forms and tables 

Submitting the information 
(sending it to the 
designated recipient) 
Filling forms and tables 

Filling forms and tables 

Submitting the information 
(sending it to the 
designated recipient) 
Filling forms and tables 

Producing new data 

Producing new data 

Submitting the information 
(sending it to the 
designated recipient) 

6.2 

6.2 

16 

2 

21.4 

16033 

21.4 

5100 

Producer 

National 
administration 
National 
administration 

Producer 

Producer 

6.2 

6.2 

6 

1 

99 

12 

343106 

109140 

37 

6 

National 
administration 
National 
administration 
National 
administration 
Distiller 

Distiller 

National 
administration 
Distiller 

Distiller 

National 
administration 
National 
administration 

National 
administration 
National 
administration 

21.4 

20110 

430354 

21.4 

21.4 

20.3 

20.3 

21.4 

20.3 

20.3 

21.4 

21.4 

21.4 

21.4 

2 

1 

450 

1 

43 

21 

9135 

20 

8954 

191616 

9135 

20 

198485 

73702 

150 

21 

450 

1 

9275 

3444 

7 

1 

55 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2981 

2981 

295715 

2971 

2971 

36840 

8 

8 

8 

8 

2744850 

873120 

17327 

17327 

644564 

17327 

17327 

107427 

8 

9 

9 

455 

455 

7 

505 

505 

7 

6 

6 

6 

8 

9 

9 

3442832 

385 

193 

455 

4156425 

1365 

27710 

7 

1341309 

505 

4613175 

1010 

20503 

7 

6 

6 

6 

1389395 

442210 

899 

128 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

E

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
10 

101 (1) et (3) 

Inspection 

11 

103 (1) a 

12 

103 (1) b 

13 

103 (2) a 

14 

103 (2) b 

15 

103 (3) a 

16 

103 (3) b 

17 

103 (4) a 

18 

103 (4) b 

19 

103 (5) a 

20 

103 (5) b 

21 

103 (5)c 

Submission of 
(recurring) reports 

Submission of 
(recurring) reports 

Submission of 
(recurring) reports 

Submission of 
(recurring) reports 

Submission of 
(recurring) reports 

Submission of 
(recurring) reports 

Submission of 
(recurring) reports 

Submission of 
(recurring) reports 

Submission of 
(recurring) reports 

Submission of 
(recurring) reports 

Submission of 
(recurring) reports 

Inspecting and checking 
(including assistance to 
inspection by public 
authorities) 
Submitting the information 
(sending it to the 
designated recipient) 
Submitting the information 
(sending it to the 
designated recipient) 
Submitting the information 
(sending it to the 
designated recipient) 
Submitting the information 
(sending it to the 
designated recipient) 
Submitting the information 
(sending it to the 
designated recipient) 
Submitting the information 
(sending it to the 
designated recipient) 
Submitting the information 
(sending it to the 
designated recipient) 
Submitting the information 
(sending it to the 
designated recipient) 
Submitting the information 
(sending it to the 
designated recipient) 
Submitting the information 
(sending it to the 
designated recipient) 
Submitting the information 
(sending it to the 
designated recipient) 

National 
administration 

National 
administration 

National 
administration 

National 
administration 

National 
administration 

National 
administration 

National 
administration 

National 
administration 

National 
administration 

National 
administration 

National 
administration 

National 
administration 

21.4 

3200 

68480 

21.4 

21.4 

21.4 

21.4 

21.4 

21.4 

21.4 

21.4 

21.4 

21.4 

21.4 

50 

50 

30 

30 

30 

30 

30 

30 

30 

30 

30 

1070 

1070 

642 

642 

642 

642 

642 

642 

642 

642 

642 

1 

1 

1 

6 

6 

6 

12 

12 

12 

12 

12 

12 

6 

8 

8 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7 

6 

8 

8 

42 

42 

42 

84 

84 

84 

84 

84 

84 

410880 

100% 

8560 

100% 

8560 

100% 

26964 

100% 

26964 

100% 

26964 

100% 

53928 

100% 

53928 

100% 

53928 

100% 

53928 

100% 

53928 

100% 

53928 

100% 

Total administrative costs 

of which: for national administrations 

for private enterprises 

€ 20 970 140 

€ 11 067 781 

€ 9 902 359

EN 

56 

E

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 6: Annual reduction of administrative costs following the proposed abolition of reporting obligations currently contained in 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 883/2001 

Commission Regulation (EC) No 883/2001 of 24 April 2001 laying down detailed 
rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards trade 
with third countries in products in the wine sector 

Tariff 
(€ per 
hour) 

Time 
(hour) 

Price 
(per action 
or equip) 

Freq 
(per 
year) 

Nbr of 
entities 

Total 
nbr of 
actions 

Total 
cost 

Regulatory origin 
(%) 

No. 

Ass Art. 

1 

Art 5 (1) and 
annex I 

Art 5 (1) and 
annex I 

Art 5 (1) and 
annex I 

2 

Art 9 (1) 

Art 9 (1) 

3 

Art 12 (1)(a) 
and annex V 

Art 12 (1)(a) 
and annex V 

Art 12 (1)(a) 
and annex V 

4 

Art 12 (1)(b) 
and annex V 

Art 12 (1)(b) 
and annex V 

Art 12 (1)(b) 
and annex V 

Type of 
obligation 

Submission of 
(recurring) 
reports 
Submission of 
(recurring) 
reports 
Submission of 
(recurring) 
reports 

Application for 
general 
authorisation or 
exemption 
Application for 
general 
authorisation or 
exemption 

Submission of 
(recurring) 
reports 
Submission of 
(recurring) 
reports 
Submission of 
(recurring) 
reports 

Submission of 
(recurring) 
reports 
Submission of 
(recurring) 
reports 
Submission of 
(recurring) 
reports 

Description of 
required action(s) 

Retrieving relevant 
information from 
existing data 
Filling forms and 
tables 

Submitting the 
information 
(sending it to the 
designated 
recipient) 
Filling forms and 
tables 

Submitting the 
information 
(sending it to the 
designated 
recipient) 
Retrieving relevant 
information from 
existing data 
Filling forms and 
tables 

Submitting the 
information 
(sending it to the 
designated 
recipient) 
Retrieving relevant 
information from 
existing data 
Filling forms and 
tables 

Submitting the 
information 
(sending it to the 
designated 
recipient) 

Target group 

i 

e

i 

e

Int 

EU 

Nat 

Reg 

National 
administration 

National 
administration 

National 
administration 

21.4 

21.4 

21.4 

1.0 

1.5 

0.5 

21.4 

52 

32.1 

52 

10.7 

52 

7 

7 

7 

364 

7 790 

100% 

364 

11 684 

100% 

364 

3 895 

100% 

Producer 

6.2 

4.0 

24.8 

52 

364 

18 928 

469 414 

100% 

Producer 

6.2 

0.5 

3.1 

52 

364 

18 928 

58 677 

100% 

21.4 

52 

42.8 

52 

10.7 

52 

21.4 

52 

32.1 

52 

10.7 

52 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7 

364 

7 790 

100% 

364 

15 579 

100% 

364 

3 895 

100% 

364 

7 790 

100% 

364 

11 684 

100% 

364 

3 895 

100% 

National 
administration 

National 
administration 

National 
administration 

National 
administration 

National 
administration 

National 
administration 

21.4 

21.4 

21.4 

21.4 

21.4 

21.4 

1.0 

2.0 

0.5 

1.0 

1.5 

0.5 

57 

EN 

E

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5 

Art 12 (1)(c) 
and annex V 

Art 12 (1)(c) 
and annex V 

Art 12 (1)(c) 
and annex V 

6 

Art 12 (2)(a) 
and annex V 

Art 12 (2)(a) 
and annex V 

Art 12 (2)(a) 
and annex V 

7 

Art12 (2)(b) 
and annex V 

Art12 (2)(b) 
and annex V 

Art12 (2)(b) 
and annex V 

8  Art 18 (1) and 

Art 4 of 
Reg. 800/1999 
  Art 18 (1) and 

Art 4 of 
Reg. 800/1999 
Art 18 (2) 

9 

Submission of 
(recurring) 
reports 
Submission of 
(recurring) 
reports 
Submission of 
(recurring) 
reports 

Submission of 
(recurring) 
reports 
Submission of 
(recurring) 
reports 
Submission of 
(recurring) 
reports 

Submission of 
(recurring) 
reports 
Submission of 
(recurring) 
reports 
Submission of 
(recurring) 
reports 

Application for 
subsidy or grant 

Retrieving relevant 
information from 
existing data 
Filling forms and 
tables 

Submitting the 
information 
(sending it to the 
designated 
recipient) 
Retrieving relevant 
information from 
existing data 
Filling forms and 
tables 

Submitting the 
information 
(sending it to the 
designated 
recipient) 
Retrieving relevant 
information from 
existing data 
Filling forms and 
tables 

Submitting the 
information 
(sending it to the 
designated 
recipient) 
Filling forms and 
tables 

National 
administration 

National 
administration 

National 
administration 

National 
administration 

National 
administration 

National 
administration 

National 
administration 

National 
administration 

National 
administration 

21.4 

21.4 

21.4 

21.4 

21.4 

21.4 

21.4 

21.4 

21.4 

Producer 

6.2 

Application for 
subsidy or grant 

Producing new 
data 

National 
administration 

21.4 

1.0 

2.0 

0.5 

2.0 

4.0 

1.0 

2.0 

4.0 

1.0 

7.0 

7.0 

21.4 

52 

42.8 

52 

10.7 

52 

42.8 

12 

85.6 

12 

21.4 

12 

42.8 

12 

85.6 

12 

21.4 

12 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7 

364 

7 790 

100% 

364 

15 579 

100% 

364 

3 895 

100% 

84 

3 595 

100% 

84 

7 190 

100% 

84 

1 798 

100% 

84 

3 595 

100% 

84 

7 190 

100% 

84 

1 798 

100% 

43.4 

52 

364 

18 928 

821 475 

100% 

149.8 

52 

364 

18 928 

2 835 414 

100% 

Inspection 

National 
administration 

Inspecting and 
checking (including 
assistance to 
inspection by public 
authorities) 

21.4 

100.0 

2 140.0 

1 

7 

7 

14 980 

100% 

Total administrative costs 

  of which:  for national administrations 

for private enterprises 

€ 4 326 392 

€ 2 976 826 

€ 1 349 566 

EN 

58 

E

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 4:  
LIST OF ACRONYMS 

AWU 

CAP 

CMO 

Annual Working Unit 

common agricultural policy 

common market organisation 

DG AGRI  Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development 

EAGGF 

European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund 

EU 

FADN 

FNVA 

GI 

IAB 

ICM 

IPM 

ISSG 

MS 

OIV 

OP 

PDO 

PGI 

European Union 

Farm Accountancy Data Network 

Farm Net Value Added 

Geographical Indications 

Impact Assessment Board 

Integrated Crop Management 

Integrated Pest Management 

Inter-Service Steering Group 

Member States 

International Organisation of Vine and Wine 

Oenological Practices 

Protected Denominations of Origin 

Protected Geographical Indications 

QWpsr 

Quality Wine produced in specified regions 

RD 

SGM 

SPS 

TBT 

TRIPs 

TW 

UAA 

WMPs 

WTO 

Rural Development 

Standard Gross Margin 

Single Payment Scheme 

Technical Barriers to Trade 

Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 

Table Wine 

Utilised Agricultural Area 

Wine-making Practices 

World Trade Organisation. 

EN 

59 

   EN