Evaluation of the CAP measures applied to the wine sector : case study report : Italy - Veneto.
Date: 2019-03-25
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development
Subjects: Veneto, case study, reform of the CAP, rural settlement, supply and demand, viticulture, wine

Evaluation of the CAP 
measures applicable to the 
wine sector 

Case study report: Italy - Veneto 

Written by Agrosynergie EEIG 
November – 2018 

AGRICULTURE 
AND RURAL 
DEVELOPMENT 

 Agrosynergie Groupement Européen d’Intérêt Economique  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development 
Directorate C – Strategy, simplification and policy analysis 
Unit C.4 – Monitoring and Evaluation 

E-mail:  agri-evaluation@ec.europa.eu 

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Evaluation of the CAP 
measures applicable to the 
wine sector 

Case study report: Italy - Veneto 

2018 

EN 

Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union. 

Freephone number (*): 

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) 

The  information  given  is  free,  as  are  most  calls  (though  some  operators, 

phone boxes or hotels may charge you). 

LEGAL NOTICE 

The  information  and views  set  out  in  this  report  are  those  of  the  author(s)  and  do  not necessarily reflect  the 
official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this 
study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for 
the use which may be made of the information contained therein. 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2019 

Catalogue number: KF-06-18-298-EN-N 
ISBN: 978-92-79-97271-3 
doi: 10.2762/143053 

© European Union, 2018 
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

Images © Agrosynergie, 2018 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT 

Directorate Directorate C. Strategy, Simplification and Policy Analysis 

C.4. Evaluation and monitoring 

EEIG AGROSYNERGIE is formed by the following companies: 

    & 

ORÉADE-BRÈCHE Sarl  

64 Chemin del prat    

31320, Auzeville FRANCE  

Tel. : + 33 5 61 73 62 62  

Fax : + 33 5 61 73 62 90 

Email: t.clement@oreade-breche.fr  

Represented by:   

Thierry CLEMENT 

COGEA S.r.l. 

Via Po 102  

00198 Roma ITALIE 

Tel. : + 39 6 853 73 518 

Fax : + 39 6 855 78 65 

Email: fantilici@cogea.it 

Represented by:   

Francesca ANTILICI 

This case study was carried out by the expert Tocia Paola from COGEA S.r.l. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
1. 

2. 

Table of contents 

DESCRIPTION OF THE WINE SECTOR IN VENETO ............................................................................................ 1 
1.1 
INTRODUCTION TO THE CASE STUDY AREA .......................................................................................... 1 
1.2  MAIN WINE PRODUCTS OF THE REGIONS ............................................................................................ 1 
1.3  AREAS AND WINE PRODUCTION EVOLUTION, STRUCTURE OF THE PRODUCTION ............................................ 2 
STRUCTURE AND ACTIVITIES OF THE PROCESSING STAGE, TYPE OF STAKEHOLDERS ......................................... 3 
1.4 

2.2 

THEME 1: NATIONAL SUPPORT PROGRAMMES ............................................................................................. 7 
2.1  DESCRIPTION OF THE IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................ 7 
2.1.1  Financial allocation ......................................................................................................................... 7 
2.1.2  Promotion measure ....................................................................................................................... 8 
2.1.3  Restructuration and conversion measure .................................................................................... 10 
2.1.4 
Investment measure .................................................................................................................... 11 
2.1.5  Green harvesting .......................................................................................................................... 13 
2.1.6  Harvest insurance ......................................................................................................................... 13 
EFFECTS ON THE NSP AT THE LEVEL OF GROWERS ............................................................................... 14 
Information on the implementation of the restructuring and conversion measure ................... 14 
2.2.1 
2.2.2 
Information from the literature ................................................................................................... 14 
2.2.3  Synthesis of the interviews .......................................................................................................... 15 
2.2.4  Conclusion of the expert .............................................................................................................. 16 
EFFECTS OF THE NSP AT THE LEVEL OF PRODUCERS AND PRODUCTS ........................................................ 17 
2.3.1  Effects on the competitiveness key factors of wine producers ................................................... 17 
2.3.2  Effects on the capacity of operators to adapt to customers’ expectations ................................. 19 
2.3.3  Effects  of  other  factors  on  the  competiveness  and  overall  performance  of  wine 

2.3 

producers ..................................................................................................................................... 20 

2.3.4  Conclusion  of  the  expert  on  the  effects  of  NSP  measures  on  the  competiveness 

and overall performance of wine producers ................................................................................ 20 
EFFECTS OF THE PROMOTION MEASURE ........................................................................................... 21 
2.4.1  Effects of the promotion measure on the recovery/capture of foreign markets ........................ 21 
2.4.2  Effects of the promotion measure on the reputation of EU wines .............................................. 22 
2.4.3  Effects of the promotion measure on wine companies’ income ................................................. 23 
2.4.4  Additional  benefits  or  negative  effects  in  third  countries  generated  by  the 

support for promotion ................................................................................................................. 24 
2.4.5  Conclusion of the expert on the effects of the promotion measure ........................................... 24 
EFFICIENCY OF THE MANAGEMENT OF THE NSP ................................................................................. 26 
2.5.1  Achievement of the technical targets of the NSP ........................................................................ 26 
2.5.2  Selectiveness of the management procedures ............................................................................ 27 
2.5.3  Description of the management procedures of application files ................................................. 27 
2.5.4  Data on workload linked to the NSP implementation.................................................................. 28 
2.5.5  Opinion of the expert ................................................................................................................... 31 
COHERENCE OF THE NSP ............................................................................................................. 31 
2.6.1  Coherence of the objectives of the NSP with other EU/CAP objectives ...................................... 31 
2.6.2  Coherence  and  complementarity  of  the  NSP  measures  with  corresponding 

measures in the RDP .................................................................................................................... 32 
2.6.3  Conclusion of the experts on the coherence of the NSP .............................................................. 33 
RELEVANCE OF THE NSP ............................................................................................................. 33 
2.7.1  Analysis of the needs of the sector .............................................................................................. 33 
2.7.2  Opinion of the expert ................................................................................................................... 35 
EU ADDED VALUE AND SUBSIDIARITY .............................................................................................. 35 
2.8.1  Synthesis of the interviewes ........................................................................................................ 35 

2.4 

2.5 

2.6 

2.7 

2.8 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector  

i 

 
 
3. 

4. 

2.8.2  Conclusion of the expert .............................................................................................................. 36 

THEME 2: SCHEME OF AUTHORISATIONS OF VINE PLANTINGS .................................................................... 37 
SYNTHESIS OF THE LITERATURE AT NATIONAL LEVEL ............................................................................ 37 
3.1 
SYNTHESIS OF THE INTERVIEWS – REGIONAL LEVEL .............................................................................. 38 
3.2 
CONCLUSION OF THE EXPERTS ....................................................................................................... 40 
3.3 

THEME 3: WINE PRODUCTS DEFINITION, RESTRICTIONS ON OENOLOGICAL PRACTICES .............................. 41 
4.1  DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE IMPLEMENTATION AT MEMBER STATE AND REGIONAL LEVEL ......................... 41 
COMPETITIVENESS DISTORTIONS DUE TO SPECIFIC RULES ON OENOLOGICAL PRACTICES ................................. 41 
4.2 
4.2.1  Description of competing wines ................................................................................................... 41 
SYNTHESIS OF THE INTERVIEWS ..................................................................................................... 41 
4.3.1  Effects  of  oenological  practices  on  marketing  conditions  for  producers  and 

4.3 

traders .......................................................................................................................................... 41 
4.3.2  Effect of oenological practices on the safety and quality of the products ................................... 42 
4.3.3  Relevance  and  added  value  of  specific  oenological  practices  and  restrictions  on 

varieties ........................................................................................................................................ 42 
COMMENTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE EXPERT ................................................................................. 43 
4.4.1  On the effectiveness of EU rules on competitiveness and quality ............................................... 43 
4.4.2  On the relevance of EU rules and their added value compared to OIV rules .............................. 43 

4.4 

5. 

THEME 4: EU RULES ON LABELLING AND PRESENTATION ............................................................................ 44 
5.1  DESCRIPTION OF THE LABELLING RULES APPLIED AT MEMBER STATE AND LOCAL LEVEL ................................. 44 

5.2 
5.3 

5.4 

5.1.1  Description  of  specific  labelling  rules  applied  in  your  Member  State,  region  or 

main PDO/PGIs (including restrictions on variety labelling) ........................................................ 44 
5.1.2  Description of the system set up for controlling the labelling ..................................................... 45 
EXISTING NATIONAL DATA ON NON-COMPLIANCE WITH LABELLING RULES ................................................. 45 
SYNTHESIS OF THE INTERVIEWS ..................................................................................................... 45 
5.3.1  Effects  of  labelling  and  presentation  rules  on  the  adequate  information  of 

consumers .................................................................................................................................... 45 

5.3.2  Effects  of  labelling  and  presentation  rules  on  marketing  conditions  and  fair 

competition between operators .................................................................................................. 46 
COMMENTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE EXPERT ................................................................................. 47 
5.4.1  On the effectiveness of labelling rules on the adequate information of consumers ................... 47 
5.4.2  On  the  effectiveness  of 

labelling  rules  on  marketing  conditions  and  fair 

competition between operators .................................................................................................. 47 

6. 

THEME 5: CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES, MONITORING AND CHECKS ......................................................... 48 
6.1  DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RULES ................................................................ 48 

6.1.1  Description of monitoring and checks procedures applied in your Member State 

and region .................................................................................................................................... 48 
EXISTING NATIONAL DATA ON NON-COMPLIANCE AND WORKLOAD ......................................................... 57 
6.2.1  Data on workload linked to the monitoring and checks system implementation ....................... 57 
6.2.2  Existing data on fraudulent manipulation of wine ....................................................................... 57 
6.2.3  Description of the control system related to NSP implementation ............................................. 58 
6.2.4  Existing data on non-compliance with NSP rules ......................................................................... 58 
SYNTHESIS OF THE INTERVIEWS ..................................................................................................... 59 

6.2 

6.3 

ANNEXES ................................................................................................................................................................ 61 

List of tables 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector  

ii 

 
 
 
Table 1: Vineyard areas (harvested area) and production in Veneto ........................................................................... 2 
Table 2: Area by variety (ha) in Veneto ......................................................................................................................... 3 
Table 3: Number of wine growers and producers in Veneto ........................................................................................ 3 
Figure 4: Veneto: Prices of PDO wines, Euro/100kg (2010-2016)................................................................................. 5 
Table 5: NSP annual financial allocation programmed and expenditure at national level (euro) ................................ 7 
Table 6: VENETO programmed annual financial allocation and expenditure for measures implemented at 
regional level (euro) ...................................................................................................................................................... 8 
Table 7: VENETO Output indicators cumulated from 2014 to 2017 ............................................................................. 8 
Table 8: VENETO Output indicators by financial year ................................................................................................... 8 
Table 9: Implementation choices on the promotion measure ..................................................................................... 9 
Table 10: Implementation choices on the restructuration and conversion measure ................................................. 10 
Table 11: Implementation choices on the investment measure ................................................................................ 11 
Table 12: Performance indicator of the Restructuring and conversion Measure ....................................................... 14 
Table 13: National data from the “Report on the implementation of the national support programme” 
related to the financial year 2015/2016 the main: ..................................................................................................... 21 
Table 14: NSP: Measure Promotion in third countries: criteria and quantitive indicators (by year) .......................... 25 
Table 15: Rate of achievement of the foreseen expenditures per measures ............................................................. 26 
Table 16: Veneto - Rate of achievement of the foreseen expenditures per measure at regional level ..................... 27 
Table 17: Main criteria/procedure(s) ensuring the relevance of the selected applications ....................................... 27 
Table 18: SWOT analysis of the wine sector ............................................................................................................... 33 
Table 19: Planting rights available in December 2015 ................................................................................................ 38 
Table 20: Description of main local specificities in oenological practices and authorised varieties........................... 41 
Table 21: Specificities oenological practices of main competing wines ..................................................................... 41 
Table 22: Mandatory and optional indications for PDO and PGI wines ...................................................................... 44 
Table 23: Mandatory and optional indications for wines without a designation of origin ......................................... 44 
Table 24 - ICQRF inspection activity concerning wine GIs (2014-2016) ...................................................................... 57 
Table 25 – Results of the ICQRF inspection activity concerning wine GIs (2014-2016) .............................................. 58 

List of figures 
Figure 1 : Regional distribution of vineyard areas ........................................................................................................ 1 
Figure 2 : Areas of production of major PGO ................................................................................................................ 1 
Figure 3: Distribution of expenditures from 2014 to 2017 per measures .................................................................... 7 
Figure 4 - ICQRF organisational framework at central and peripheral level ............................................................... 53 
Figure 5 - Organisation of the national control system implemented in Italy to protect GIs ..................................... 54 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector  

iii 

 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Common Agricultural Policy 
United Nations International Trade Statistics Database 
Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework 
Common Market Organisation 
Combined Nomenclature 
Criterion 
European Agricultural Guarantee Fund 
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development 
European Union added value 
European Commission 
European Environment Agency  
European Economic Community 
European economic interest group 
Evaluation question 
European Union 
Statistical Office of the European Commission 
Farm Accountancy Data Network 
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 
Farm net value added 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 
Million € 
Member State 
Non-Governmental Organization 
National Support Programmes 
International Organisation of Vine and Wine 
Protected Designations of Origin (PDO) and Protected Geographical Indications (PGI) 
Producer Organisation 
Purchasing Power Standard 
Rural Development 
Rural Development Program 
Rural Development Regulation 
Sustainable Development Goals 
Small and Medium Enterprises 
Standard Output 
Single Payment Scheme 
Special Agriculture Safeguard 
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats 
Treaty on the European Union 
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 
Utilised Agricultural Area 
United States of America 
United States Department of Agriculture 
Value Added Taxes 
World Trade Organisation 

CAP 
COMTRADE 
CMEF 
CMO 
CN 
CTR 
EAGF 
EAFRD 
EAV 
EC 
EEA 
EEC 
EEIG 
EQ 
EU 
EUROSTAT 
FADN 
FAO 
FNVA 
GATT 
MIO 
MS 
NGO 
NSP 
OIV 
PDO/PGI 
PO 
PPS 
RD 
RDP 
RDR 
SDG 
SME 
SO 
SPS 
SSG 
SWOT 
TEU 
TFEU 
UAA 
USA 
USDA 
VAT 
WTO 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector  

iv 

 
 
 
 
 
 
1.  DESCRIPTION OF THE WINE SECTOR IN VENETO 

1.1 

Introduction to the case study area 

Italy is one of the main wine producing country of the EU. Its vineyard represents 20.1% of the EU area under 
vines, and covers 5.1%% of the national UUA. It is also a  key player on the EU  wine export  market. In 2016, 
41.3%  of  the  production  was  exported.  Italy  has  73%  of  its  vineyard  eligible  for  PDO/PGI,  which  is  in  the  EU 
average compared to other producing Member States. 

Veneto  is  the  focus  region  of  this  case  study.  It  is  the  third  region  of  Italy  in  term  of  area  in  vineyards, 
representing 14% of the Italian vineyard and 2.8% of total EU area under vines. It is however the region most 
specialised in wine of Italy, with 12% of its UAA dedicated to vineyards. Veneto is also the region producing the 
highest share of wine in PDO/PGI (90% of regional production). 

Figure 1 : Regional distribution of vineyard areas  

 Figure 2 : Areas of production of major PGO  

Source: based on data EEA and Corine Land Cover 

Source: Vinostore 

Vineyard areas are spread throughout many parts of the region (flat land and hills, with a limited percentage of 
mountain viticulture) with high concentration in two provinces: 38% of vineyards in the province of Treviso in 
the  north-eastern  part  of  the  region  and  a  further  35%  in  the  western  province  of  Verona.  Important 
production areas include the area of Conegliano-Valdobbiadene and Montello-Colli Asolani (Treviso), the hills 
of  Lake  Garda  and  the  number  of  small  valleys  that  compose  the  Valpolicella  area  (Verona),  the  two 
municipalities of Soave and Monteforte d'Alpone (Verona), the area of Colli Euganei (Padova), Colli Berici and 
Breganza (Vicenza). 

1.2  Main wine products of the regions 

Veneto  is  the  most  prolific  Italian  wine  region,  producing  11.2  million  hl  of  wine  in  2017.  More  than  three 
quarters of its production is white wine: Veneto represents 45% of the Italian production of white wine with 
PDO, 27% of the national production of white wine and 19% of the national production of wine.  

The subdivision by type of wine is: 47% white wines PDO, 9,2% white wines PDO, 22% white wines PGI, 12,5% 
12% other white wines without certification, 7,5% other red wines without certification.  

A  total  of  42  PDO  and  10  PGI  are  produced  in  the  region.  The  main  one  in  terms  of  volume  is  sparkling 
Prosecco,  the  best  known  is  Prosecco  but  also  red Valpolicella (in  particular Amarone  della  Valpolicella)  and 
white Soave.   The  region’s  primary  grape  varieties  are Glera,  Garganega  and Pinot  Grigio but  in  most  case  a 
large  number  of  grapes  varieties  are  used  by  each  denomination.  The  exhaustive  list  of  the  PDO  and  PGI  of 
Veneto is available in Annex.  

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

1 

 
 
 
 
Veneto is an important user of concentrated grape must and rectified concentrated grape must. Because of the 
northern location of the region, wine grapes do not always have the adequate sugar content to produce the 
required  alcohol  level.  However,  Veneto  is  not  traditionally  a  producer  of  concentrated  musts,  because  the 
entire  vineyard  crop  is  processed  into  wine.  Concentrated  musts  are  purchased  from  other  regions,  mainly 
Southern Italian regions.  There is only one producer of concentrated and rectified concentrated grape must in 
Veneto (San Gabriele in the province of Padua). 

1.3  Areas and wine production evolution, structure of the production 

According  to  the  regional  inventory  data,  in  2017  cultivated  vineyards  cover  just  over  91,300  hectares.  The 
regional vineyard area has seen a slow but consistent expansion over time, in particular + 4,5% between 2012 
and  2017.  This  evolution  is  mainly  linked  to  the  transfer  of  planting  rights,  which  between  2012  and  2014 
recorded an average of 1.567 hectares per year and a peak of over 9.000 hectares in 2015 (AVEPA). 

Vineyard areas are spread throughout many parts of the region (flat land and hills) with high concentration in 
two  provinces:  41.3%  of  vineyards  in  the  province  of  Treviso  in  the  north-eastern  part  of  the  region  and  a 
further 31.6% in the western province of Verona. According to the Regional payment agency, the number of 
wine  growers  is  29.670  in  2017  and  the  average  size  of  wine  farms  has  overall  increased  to  reach  in  2017 
around 3.1 hectares (in 2010 around 2.5 hectares). However, if the smaller and more marginal farms in the hilly 
areas are not taken into account, the average farm size is around 5 hectares. Nowadays it is more common to 
find farms with 8-10 hectares of vineyards than it was in the past. 

In line with the evolution of cultivated areas, overall wine production has increased as well.  

Table 1: Vineyard areas (harvested area) and production in Veneto 

Vineyard area (ha) 

Production (hl) 

Vineyard area (ha) 

Production (hl) 

Vineyard area (ha) 

Production (hl) 

2012 

2013 

PDO 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

48.612 

48.470 

50.534 

54.480 

63.891 

86.353 

5.928.571 

6.244.898 

6.142.857 

7.377.551 

7.540.816 

8.989.796 

PGI 

26.077 

24.628 

25.791 

21.583 

18.341 

2.836 

3.877.551 

3.948.980 

3.530.612 

3.479.592 

3.387.755 

1.836.735 

Wine without PDO/PGI 

2.107 

4.578 

3.334 

3.975 

4.364 

432,25 

646.939 

1.068.367 

582.653 

2.974.490 

1.076.531 

402.041 

Sources: Vineyard area – AVEPA (production statements) 

In 2017, wine production in Veneto touches over 11 million hectolitres, with an increase of 6% compared to 
2012.  Regional  production  accounts  for  19%  of  the  overall  national  production  and  for  45%  of  the  national 
production of white wines with PDO. These data are the last point of a very constant production growth over 
time, concentrated in the white wines, with a progression of about 350.000 thousand hectolitres per year and a 
decline in the red wine segment of about 100-120 thousand hectolitres per year (in particular red wines with 
PGI and red wines without PDO/PGI).  

PDO and PGI wines together account for 75-80% of the region’s wine production, this share sees slight annual 
variations depending on crop volumes and yield. Veneto is the third region in Italy after Toscana and Piemonte 
per  number  of  PDO-PGI  wines  (52).  PDO  wine  production  is  however  rather  concentrated  with  the  first  five 
wines, Prosecco (3,297,718 hectolitres of bottled volumes in 2017), Delle Venezie, Conegliano-Valdobbiadene, 
Valpolicella and Garda represents 89.9% of total PDO-PGI production of the region.  

Between 2012 and 2017, PDO wines are growing by 52% to 8.9 million hectolitres, with a positive contribution 
of  both  red  and  white  wines.  PGI  wines  as  a  whole  are  also  growing  by  3%  to  3.5  million  hectolitres,  while 
common  wines  (and  must,  included  here  but  not  detailed)  grow  by  15%  to  0.9  million  hectolitres,  while 
maintaining a marginal role in Veneto production. On the contrary, wines with a geographical indication show a 
gradual decrease, greater before in 2017. Also, wines without PDO/PGI (and must, included), having a marginal 
role in Veneto production, are progressively decreasing. 

In 2017, the production of grapes shows a decrease of 15.5% compared to 2016. Indeed, spring frosts, isolated 
hailstorms and a heatwave in the summer have combined to curtail the 2017 wine harvest  size in Veneto as 
well as in Italy (-26%) and other EU countries. In the ranking of the most produced grapes in Veneto, the so-
called "Prosecco World" continue to cover the lion's share: alone is worth more than half of PDO production 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

2 

 
 
 
(51.33%) with over 4.5 million tons of grapes, followed by the "Sistema Verona" (Valpolicella above all, Soave, 
Bardolino,  Bianco  di  Custoza)  with  almost  2  million  tons  of  grapes  and  the  new  denomination  "Pinot  Grigio 
delle Venezie" (1.3 million tons of grapes).  

Three  wine  grape  varieties  dominate  in  Veneto:  Glera  used  for  the  production  of  Prosecco,  Pinot  grigio  for 
white wine production and Garganega used for Soave wine production.  The last years have seen a significant 
expansion of vineyards cultivated with Glera (+100% from 2011). By the end of 2017, a decision was made by 
the regional authority to fix the ceiling  for Glera  vineyards to 24.450 hectares until 2018 (19.922 hectares in 
Veneto). The overall increase in the area under cultivation (Veneto and Friuli-Venezia Giulia) is 1.200 hectares. 
This is a consequence of the success achieved by Prosecco on foreign markets as well as the national market in 
the last years, which prompted the regional authority to allow an expansion of the cultivation of the variety to 
four other provinces besides  the province of Treviso, where it used to be grown traditionally. The success of 
this  product  is  due  to  its  being  a  pleasant  good  quality  sparkling  wine  that  can  compete  with  more 
sophisticated sparkling wines at significantly lower price.  

A  consistent  growth  also  interests  Pinot  Grigio  and  to  a  lesser  extent  Corvinone,  a  grape  variety  used  in 
Valpolicella  red  wines  production.  On  the  other  hand,  the  areas  planted  with  Merlot  and  Cabernet  varieties 
have seen a contraction. The information emerging from the interviews suggest that white wines have become 
more successful on the market compared to red Veneto wines, with the only exception of Valpolicella wines. 
According to sector representatives, the sector growth is pushed by the success of Veneto wines (high quality), 
improved  productivity  and  efficiency  at  the  agricultural  and  processing  stages  of  production  and  effective 
market strategies. 

GLERA 

GARGANEGA B. 

PINOT GRIGIO G. 

MERLOT N. 

CORVINA N. 

Table 2: Area by variety (ha) in Veneto 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

21.206,4683 

21.817,7497 

22.209,5729 

22.606,0886 

27.293,30 

31.188,46 

9.952,9817 

9.814,6716 

9.731,7962 

9.628,7712 

9.605,81 

9.420,46 

7.807,4808 

8.851,7333 

10.286,8456 

11.510,8947 

13.332,73 

14.438,76 

7.213,3540 

6.957,2368 

6.766,3431 

6.383,9630 

6.255,59 

5.952,39 

6.381,2326 

6.532,7701 

6.635,5957 

6.688,4412 

6.830,94 

6.887,69 

CABERNET SAUVIGNON N. 

3.215,7665 

3.074,3396 

2.899,2633 

2.647,0968 

2.458,17 

2.249,91 

CHARDONNAY B. 

RONDINELLA N. 

3.037,3977 

3.084,4075 

3.228,9947 

3.383,7801 

3.914,37 

4.088,16 

2.638,9933 

2.641,6417 

2.631,8677 

2.597,1130 

2.595,76 

2.571,32 

CABERNET FRANC N. 

2.368,7955 

2.263,9057 

2.161,4033 

1.991,4748 

1.921,70 

1.805,72 

TOCAI FRIULANO B. 

1.163,5790 

1.125,1156 

CORVINONE N. 

Other 

TOTAL 

1.122,2050 

1.189,3634 

1.295,77 

1.379,26 

11.811,6678 

11.513,4418 

11.654,1995 

11.413,1341 

11.092,59 

9.640,34 

76.797,7172 

77.677,0134 

79.328,0870 

80.040,1209 

86.596,73 

89.622,47 

Source: AVEPA (at 31/7) 

A  recent  study  (CREA)  shows  that  Veneto  is  the  second  Italian  region  after  Trentino  for  average  value  of 
vineyards per hectare: in 2016 136.000 euros per hectare, with an increase of 1.6% compared to 2015, a very 
high value compared to the national average value: 51,300 euros. Among the first fifteen Italian provinces per 
vineyards  value,  there  is  Treviso  (170.000  euros),  Verona  (150.000),  Venice  (82.000),  Vicenza  and  Padua  – 
75.000 and 72.000 respectively. 

1.4  Structure and activities of the processing stage, type of stakeholders  

The  Veneto  wine  industry  is  characterised  by  a  large  number  of  wine  growers  that  also  produce  wine  and 
either sell it in bulk to larger wine makers or bottle and sell it under their own brand. Some of the large wine 
making industries base their wine production on own-grown grapes as well as grapes and wine purchased in 
bulk from other producers. 

Table 3: Number of wine growers and producers in Veneto 

wine growers 

Wine producers 

Of which co-operatives 

2010 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

n.a. 

30.537 

n.a. 

30.273 

29.890 

29.670 

5.312 

39 

n.a. 

n.a. 

4.288 

40 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

3.625 

37 

Sources: AVEPA 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
It is difficult to establish the actual number of wine makers because of the large degree of integration between 
agricultural  production  and  wine  processing.  According  to  the  regional  RDP  2014-2020,  in  2012  there  were 
18.241  wine  making  companies  in  Veneto  and  1.112  wine  bottlers:  the  co-operatives  (usually  called  cantine 
sociali)  worked  49%  of  the  grapes,  the  wine  growers  that  also  make  wine  29%,  the  wine  growers  without 
processing activity that give the grapes to wine makers other than cantine sociali, 22%. 

Among  the  largest  wine  makers  of  Veneto,  we  find  some  of  the  top  wineries  in  Italy  that,  in  spite  of  being 
based in Veneto, operate at the national level. Examples are Gruppo Italiano Vini-GIV, a large size co-operative 
with 358 million euro of sales revenue in 2016 and the family-owned structures: Zonin with 193 million euro of 
sales revenue in 2016, Botter with 165 million euro, Santa Margherita with 157 million euro, Enoitalia with 148 
million euro of sales revenue, Collis Veneto Wine Group of sales revenue with 106 million euro, again in 2016.  

Co-operatives  play  a  very  important  role  in  Veneto’s  wine  sector,  representing  approximately  half  of  the 
region’s  total  wine  production.    The  wine  sector  of  Veneto  counts  50  co-operatives,  47  of  which  are 
represented by Fedagri–Confcooperative, the most important federation of agricultural and food co-operatives 
of the region.  

One of the remaining cooperatives is Gruppo Italiano Vini (GIV), the largest wine making operations in Veneto 
based in the province of  Verona  (member of LegaCoop, another co-op federation).  GIV produces nearly only 
PGI  (49%)  and  PDO  wines  (49%)  and  is  strongly  orientated  towards  export  markets  (70%  of  the  production) 
both EU (Germany) and extra-EU (USA and Canada). 

In the past, wine co-operatives used to produce wine to be sold in bulk to the industry for bottling and selling. 
Production  was  geared  to  volumes  rather  than  quality.  Nowadays,  the  co-operative  sector  is  orientated  to 
produce good quality wines at low prices. A number of co-operatives still sell wine in bulk, which represents an 
important source of supply for the wine industry. Other co-operatives have developed bottling operations and 
market  their  own  brands.  The  proportion  of  PDO  and  PGI  wine  produced  by  the  cantine  sociali  has  also 
increased.    

Among the largest co-ops represented by Fedagri-Confcooperative are the Cantina di Soave (with sales revenue 
around 117 million euro in 2016), the Collis Wine Group, Cantina di Iesolo and La Marca group. The last years 
have seen some important mergers and joint-ventures being set up between cantine sociali, leading to larger 
size of operations and economies of scale both in production and commercialization, and to broader product 
range to cater for different markets.  

Cantina  di  Soave  has  acquired  the  Cantina  di  Montecchia di  Crosara,  allowing  this  co-op  to  gain  control  of  a 
large  share  of  the  total  Soave  wine  production  (which  translates  into  better  control  of  the  market)  and  to 
widen the product range.  

The  Collis  Wine  Group  is  a  consortium  created  in  2008  by  the  Cantina  di  Colognola  ai  Colli  and  the  three 
Cantine dei Colli Berici with CEVICO, a wine consortium based in Emilia-Romagna. The Collis Group, with 106 
million  euro  of  sales  revenue  in  2016,  is  a  so  called  second-degree  consortium,  where  individual  wineries 
(cantine)  are  responsible  for  collecting  the  grapes  from  their  associate  producers  (as  in  all  co-ops),  but  the 
processing is done on plants owned by the Group and not by the wineries themselves. The Collis Group also 
takes care of all product commercialisation. Both Cantina di Colognola and Cantine dei Colli Berici own shares 
of  private  wine  companies  (respectively  Casa  Vinicola  Sartori  and  Terra  e  Cielo).  The  Collis  Group  represents 
15%  of  the  entire  production  in  the  Veneto  region,  it  associates  2  400  wine  growers  for  a  total  of  6  400 
hectares  of  vineyards  across  three  provinces  of  Veneto  and  produces  a  range  of  wines  (e.g.  Cabernet, 
Valpolicella, Moscato, Prosecco) in six different wine processing plants (just over 1 million hectolitres per year).   

At the opposite end of the spectrum of the wine co-operative world, there are a number of small size wineries, 
some of which specialize in one type of top quality product for niche markets.  

The most successful cantine sociali are also the ones more export-oriented, especially towards the US market 
(i.e. Cantina di Soave, Cantina di Iesolo, Collis Group, Cantine della Valpolicella, La Marca group). 

There are 13 distilleries in Veneto, most of which produce grappa (a type of brandy not under wine CMO). Only 
4 large size distilleries produce potable alcohol and 1 distillery produces alcohol for industrial use from wine by-
products. There used to be 1 co-operative distillery which has now closed.  

Veneto  has  never  had  very  large  alcohol  distillation  operations,  as  there  was  never  any  need  to  dispose  of 
excess production – this is also shown by the upward wine production trend.  However, wine volumes used for 
potable  alcohol  distillation  have  remarkably  decreased  after  2008/2009,  partly  because  there  is  no  excess 
production and the existing stocks have slowly been used up and partly because Veneto is strongly orientated 
to wine production and its wines have lately seen a remarkable overall market expansion.  

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

4 

 
 
There  are  no  Producers  Organisations  for  wine  in  Veneto,  nor  Inter-branch  Organisations.  One  of  the  main 
reasons, as indicated by sector representatives, is to be found in the type of product. Wine is sold as a branded 
product (not a commodity such as milk or fruit and vegetables), therefore it is not possible to have centralised 
commercialisation. Each producer sells specific quality and a specific product image. Even in the case of PDO 
wines, produced by hundreds of different wine makers, it is not thinkable to leave the commercialisation of all 
products  to  one  entity  because  each  producers’  consortium  (consorzi  di  tutela)  groups  a  large  number  of 
wineries of different sizes and characteristics, producing different types of products from top range wines for 
niche markets to wines for the mass-market.   

To  some  extent  the  consorzi  di  tutela  (i.e.  the  organisations  that  manage  PDO  labels)  operate  as  inter-
professional  organisations.  Indeed,  they  bring  together  growers,  wine  makers,  merchants  and  traders  and 
oversee the coordination of the supply chain. Over the last few years the management  of PDO labels, already 
dynamic and efficient, has been even improved through a process of aggregation. Today 26 Consorzi cope with 
42 PDO labels. For example, Consorzio di Soave has acquired control over some smaller ones (Arcole, Lessini 
Durello and others) and Consorzio Vini di Venezia has been created as an umbrella organisation to manage five 
PDO labels (Lison Pramaggiore, Piave, Lison, Piave Malanotte and Venezia). The fact that these five PDO wines 
include two top-of-the-range PDO wines, another two good quality wines and one PDO for the  mass  market 
largely  distributed  through  retail  chains,  suggests  that  Consorzio  delle  Venezie  was  set  up  with  very  specific 
market strategy objectives in mind.    

The latest  news in the sector concerns the Delle Venezie  PDO denomination (Pinot  grigio): in  April 2017, the 
“Consorzio di tutela vini Doc delle Venezie” was established, the first in Italy involving three Regions, Veneto, 
Friuli Venezia Giulia and Trentino. The new Consortium aims to retrace the fortunes of Prosecco and, according 
to  the  interviewees,  it  is  a  concrete  response  to  the  reorganisation  of  the  system  and  an  example  of 
simplification.  The  new  Pinot  Grigio  Doc  "delle  Venezie"  (temporary  labelling  authorised  by  the  Ministry  of 
Agriculture in April 2017 ) will include the production of the old PGI and all the production of Pinot Grigio of 
Triveneto (22 labels), while maintaining the territorial characteristics of each area. The area of the new PDO is 
the  main  productive  region  in  the  world,  with  about  2  million  hL  (260  million  bottles)  distributed  over  more 
than 20.000 hectares: about 11,500 hectares in Veneto, 6,000 in Friuli Venezia Giulia and 2.800 in the province 
of Trento.  The area  produces 85% of the Italian Pinot  Grigio (which is 43% of the  world), 96% of production 
goes to export, United States first (37%).  

The graphs show price trends for PDO wines (domestic  producer  prices) subdivided between red and white 
wines. 

Figure 4: Veneto: Prices of PDO wines, Euro/100kg (2010-2016) 

White PDO wines 

Red PDO wines 

Source:  ISMEA 

Prices of white PDO wines clearly show the large price differential between top-quality Prosecco and the other 
most  representatives  Veneto  white  wines.  The  "phenomenon"  Prosecco  continues:  overall,  Prosecco 
Conegliano  Valdobbiadene  has  seen  a  progressive  price  increase  until  2010,  which  has  prompted  the 
development of production of Glera vineyards and at the end of 2016 it maintains a 20% premium compared to 
Prosecco.  Soave  classic  show  a  price  decrease  starting  from  2014.  For  the  other  three  white  wines,  prices 
appear fairly stable over the considered years. 

Red  PDO  wines  show  a  less  regular  trend  with  prices  increasing  until  2012,  slumping  until  2014  and  then 
stabilising or increasing again. The top-of-the range is Amarone della Valpolicella, not in the graph, prices per 
hectolitre ranging from 900 euros in 2014 to 850 euros in 2016. Valpolicella wines also registered high prices 
and a considerable increase in prices between 2014 and 2016. 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

5 

 
 
 
 
Prices of white wines are generally higher than prices of red wines, both in the case of PGI labelled wines and 
wines without GI. The wines without GI appear to be more sensitive to market conditions than the other types 
of wine, as year-on-year fluctuations seem to suggest. As for wines with geographical indication, the old Pinot 
Grigio (now PDO) benefitted from the highest market price, followed by Pinot Bianco and Chardonnay.  

2017 grapes quotations are almost all higher compared to 2016, as a result of the sharp decline in production 
but also the export performances of regional wine. The Chamber of Commerce of Verona, Treviso and Padua 
indicate an average increase in the price of Veneto grapes, equal to + 22.6. 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

6 

 
2.  THEME 1: NATIONAL SUPPORT PROGRAMMES 

2.1  Description of the implementation 

2.1.1  Financial allocation 

Up  to  now  Italy  financed  six  measures.  At  national  level,  on  the  2014-2017  implementation  period,  the 
distribution of expenditures between the measures was the following: 

Figure 3: Distribution of expenditures from 2014 to 2017 per measures 

Investments in 
enterprises  
17% 

Green harvesting  
1% 

By-product distillation 
5% 

Promotion 
30% 

Restructuration and 
reconversion 
47% 

Source: Financial monitoring data of the NSP, DG Agri 

Some measures are implemented at national level and others at regional level.  
 

The harvest insurance and by-product distillation measures are implemented at national level. 

 

Concerning the promotion measure: 30% of the annual allocation is implemented at central level by the 
Ministry of Agriculture and the other 70% is managed by regions.  

  All  of  the  financial  allocation  of  the  restructuration  and  conversion  measure,  green  harvesting  measure 
and investment measure is distributed among regions. The breakdown of the national budget by region is 
the result of yearly negotiations between regions within the State-Regions Conference. 

The table shows the annual financial allocation programmed and spent for the period under analysis at national 
level. 

Table 5: NSP annual financial allocation programmed and expenditure at national level (euro) 

Promotion 
Restructuration reconv.  
Green harvesting  
Mutual Funds  
Harvest Insurance 
Investments in 
enterprises  
Innovation 
By-product distillation 
Replanting after 
grubbing up  
TOTAL 
% of execution 

2017/2018 
progr. 
101.997.000 

140.000.000 

10.000.000 

0 

20.000.000 

45.000.000 

exp. 

2016/2017 
progr. 
101.997.000 

exp. 
82.115.848 

2015/2016 
progr. 
101.997.000 

exp. 
94.176.082 

2014/2015 
progr. 
101.997.000 

exp. 
92.058.162 

2013/2014 
progr. 
101.997.000 

exp. 
81.999.193 

140.000.000 

146.459.318 

140.000.000 

159.258.941 

140.000.000 

164.066.230 

140.000.000 

161.284.891 

10.000.000 

1.194.129 

10.000.000 

1.393.607 

10.000.000 

903.503 

10.000.000 

863.458 

0 

0 

0 

0 

20.000.000 

26.436.980 

20.000.000 

19.999.609 

20.000.000 

20.010.646 

20.000.000 

30.307.056 

45.000.000 

62.818.261 

45.000.000 

45.329.556 

45.000.000 

47.609.976 

45.000.000 

51.449.035 

20.000.000 

20.000.000 

17.927.804 

20.000.000 

16.518.869 

20.000.000 

12.031.773 

20.000.000 

11.030.996 

0 

0 

336.997.000 

336.997.000 

0,00% 

336.952.339 
99,99% 

0 

336.997.000 

0 

336.997.000 

336.676.665 
99,90% 

336.680.288 
99,91% 

336.997.000 

336.934.629 
99,98% 

Source: Ministero Politiche Agricole Alimentari e Forestali, Dipartimento delle Politiche europee e internazionali e dello Sviluppo rurale, 
Direzione Generale delle Politiche internazionali e dell'Unione europea - Piue VIII 

The  annual  programmed  financial  allocation  has  been  revised  both  at  national  level  and  at  regional  level. 
Revisions of the annual programmed allocations are the result of the necessity to take into account the actual 
territorial  needs  and  specificities.  In  order  to  use  the  all  available  resources,  the  financial  allocation  among 
measures can change, budget can be shifted between measures during the year: in 2017 on the basis of eligible 
applications, regions needed additional resources for the investment measure and for the restructuration and 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
conversion measure. On the other hand green harvesting is employed only marginally (the measure is foreseen 
only in Campania. Puglia, Basilicata and Calabria). 

The table below shows the VENETO annual financial allocation of the measures managed at regional level (after 
reformulation). 

Table 6: VENETO programmed annual financial allocation and expenditure for measures implemented at 
regional level (euro) 

Promotion 
Restructuration 
reconv. 
Investments in 
enterprises 
Total 

2017/2018 

2016/2017 

2015/2016 

2014/2015 

2013/2014 

progr. 
12.505.851 

16.224.250 

exp. 

progr. 
12.310.371 

exp. 
12.866.602 

progr. 
11.769.663 

exp. 
11.711.561 

progr. 
11.769.663 

exp. 
12.959.688 

progr. 
10.413.888 

exp. 
9.240.131 

16.221.458 

15.486.664 

15.385.918 

16.097.236 

15.389.912 

20.808.621 

14.473.996 

21.557.283 

5.624.543 

5.448.379 

8.954.317 

5.194.273 

9.478.969 

5.194.915 

8.035.799 

4.964.980 

7.219.986 

34.354.644 

- 

33.980.208 

37.307.583 

32.349.854 

37.287.766 

32.354.490 

41.804.108 

29.852.864 

38.017.400 

Source: Ministero Politiche Agricole Alimentari e Forestali, Dipartimento delle Politiche europee e internazionali e dello Sviluppo rurale, 
Direzione Generale delle Politiche internazionali e dell'Unione europea - Piue VIII 

VENETO up to now has not been concerned by the green harvesting measure. 

Table 7: VENETO Output indicators cumulated from 2014 to 2017 

Measure 

Promotion 
Restructuration and 
conversion 
Investments in 
enterprises 

Number of 
beneficiaries 
149 

5.824 

710 

Total area 
covered (ha) 

Budget 2014-2018 
(in €) 
58.769.436,00 

Execution 2014-
2017 (in €) 
46.777.982,21 

7.967,41 

77.695.534,00 

73.949.802,89 

26.427.090,00 

33.689.071,26 

Source: Ministero Politiche Agricole Alimentari e Forestali, Dipartimento delle Politiche europee e internazionali e dello Sviluppo rurale, 
Direzione Generale delle Politiche internazionali e dell'Unione europea - Piue VIII 

Table 8: VENETO Output indicators by financial year 

2017/2018  2016/2017 

2015/2016 

2014/2015 

2013/2014 

Promotion 
Number of beneficiaries (no) 
Restructuration and conversion 
Number of beneficiaries (no) 
Total Area restructured or converted  
Of wich Surface restructured  
Of wich Surface  converted  
Percentage area replanted compared to the 
surface grubbed up 
Investments in enterprises 
Number of beneficiaries (no) 
Strengthening holding equipment 
   - No beneficiaries (no) 
   - support granted (euro) 
Improvement of structures and sales methods 
   - No beneficiaries (no) 
   - support granted (euro) 
Implementation of greater development and 
integration of the supply chain 
   - No beneficiaries (no) 
   - support granted (euro) 
Development of innovations 
   - No beneficiaries (no) 
   - support granted (euro) 

38 

47 

38 

26 

1.097 
1.824,90 
1.281,6016 
543,2954 

1.499 
1.772,57 
1.175,7440 
596,82 

1.648 
2.244,95 
908,5814 
1336,3684 

801,96% 

19,94% 

1.580 
2.125,00 
492,04 
57,16 

20,78% 

207 

195 

176 

132 

207 
8.830.953 

195 
9.360.734 

176 
7.959.759 

14 
123.364 

10 
118.235 

12 
76.041 

- 
- 

- 
- 

- 
- 

- 
- 

- 
- 

131 
6.858.704 

18 
160.151 

- 
- 

5,00 
201.132 

Source: Ministero Politiche Agricole Alimentari e Forestali, Dipartimento delle Politiche europee e internazionali e dello Sviluppo rurale, 
Direzione Generale delle Politiche internazionali e dell'Unione europea - Piue VIII 

2.1.2  Promotion measure 

Italy has not activated the information operation. According with National authorities the horizontal regulation 
on promotion measures have been used to activate the information actions thus replacing the corresponding 
measure of the NSP. 

Promotion projects on third country markets can be: 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 National: the application is presented to the Ministry by proponents having operational offices in at least 3 
regions.  The  project  must  concern  the  promotion  of  productions  of  the  regions  in  which  proponents  have 
operational offices.  

 Regional:  the  application  is  presented  to  the  Regions  where  the  proponents  have  operational  office.  The 
project  must  concern  the  promotion  of  productions  of  the  region  in  which  proponents  have  operational 
offices.  

 Multi-regional: the application is presented by proponents having operational offices in at least 3 regions. Are 
funded  by  the  regional  quota  and  by  a  national  reserve  of  the  national  quota  of  3  million  euros.  The  total 
contribution of 50% of eligible costs is charged 25% regional and 25% national.  

The annual financial allocation is divided as follows: 

 30 %  at  national  level  exclusively  funds  projects  submitted  by  professional  organisations,  inter-branch 
organisations  and  national  producers'  organisations  or  and  temporary  joint  ventures  with  production  in  a 
number of regions (at least three regions); 

 70 %  is  allocated  to  the  regions  to  enable  them  to  finance,  among  other  things,  projects  submitted  by 

undertakings or temporary joint ventures with production in one region or involving a single designation. 

The following activities are foreseen: 

 promotion  and  advertising  that  highlight  quality,  safety  and  environmental  respect  to  be  implemented 

through information channels such as the press and local television; 

 participation in shows, fairs and exhibitions of international importance; 
 information and promotion campaigns, in particular on designations of origin and on geographical indications 
to be implemented in sales outlets, multiples, the catering sector in third countries and other tools (websites, 
brochures, leaflets, guided tastings and encounters with third-country operators, etc.); 

 studies on new markets, necessary for the expansion of new markets. 
Projects may concern only wines with denomination of origin, geographical indication and varietal wines. 

The measure is triggered annually through a call for proposals. 

Table 9: Implementation choices on the promotion measure 

PROMOTION Operations (IT has not activated the INFORMATION operation) 

Maximum aid is 50% of costs incurred. 

Type of aid 
and rate of 
support 

Minimum expenditure for regional al multi-regional projects: 100.000 euro by project; 50.000 euro by third country; 
10.000 euro by company participating to a temporary business association or to projects of protection consortia and by 
third country. 

Maximum expenditure for regional projects: 500.000 euro for single company; 1.000.000 for temporary business 
association and protection consortia that allocate at least 25% of the expenditure to promotion activities of the 
denomination. 

Maximum expenditure for multi-regional projects: 600.000 euro by project; 1.500.000 by protection consortia that 
allocate at least 25% of the expenditure to promotion activities of the denomination 

Beneficiaries 

The beneficiaries are professional organisations, inter-branch organisations, wine producers and their Associations, 
including temporary business ones that are representative of the sector, and public bodies. 

Eligibility and 
selection 
criteria 

CRITERION 

Project  targeting  a  new  third  country  or  a  new  third  country  market,  where  ‘new  third 
country’ means a country outside the European Union where, during the current 2014-18 
programming period, the beneficiary has not carried out promotional actions using an EU 
contribution and ‘new third country market’ means a geographical area, defined after the 
call for submission of projects, located in the territory of a country outside the European 
Union,  where,  during  the  current  2014-18  programming  period,  the  beneficiary  has  not 
carried out promotional actions using an EU contribution  
 New beneficiary  
The  beneficiary  is  a  protection  association  for  designation  of  origin  wines  that  has  been 
recognised in accordance with Article 17 of Legislative Decree No 61/2010 
The beneficiary exclusively produces and markets wines that it produced itself 
Prevalence  in  the  submitted  project  of  actions  involving  direct  contact  with  the  target 
public, as per the call for submission of projects referred to in Article 6(5) above 
The beneficiary groups together small and/or micro enterprises to a significant degree, as 
per the call for submission of projects referred to in Article 6(5) above  
a) Project targeting an emerging market, as per the call for submission of projects referred 
to in Article 6(5) above 
Project that exclusively concerns DOCG wines 

score 
Veneto 
Region 

Score 
national 

20 

20 

20 

20 

5 

5 

5 

5 

10 

20 

5 

5 

10 

10 

10 

5 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

9 

 
 
 
PROMOTION Operations (IT has not activated the INFORMATION operation) 

a)  Project  that  exclusively  concerns  wines  with  a  protected  designation  of  origin  and/or 
typical geographical indication 
Beneficiary that requests a public contribution of less than 50% 

5 

5 

10 

5 

Implementatio
n period 

2014-2018  

Information 
regarding the 
management 
of the 
measure 

The measure is managed both at national level and at regional level according to the type of project. 

Ministry and regions are in charge of the selection procedure and payments according to the type of project. 

Applications are presented to Regions. Regional authorities send to the Ministry and AGEA the final list of the projects 
eligible.  AGEA  carries  out  the  controls  before  stipulating  the  contracts.  Finally  AGEA  stipulates  the  contracts  with 
beneficiaries. 

AGEA is also in charge of controls 

2.1.3  Restructuration and conversion measure  

Restructuring  and  converting  vineyards  is  a  measure  implemented  at  regional  level.  It  is  triggered  annually 
through a call for proposals. 

Are eligible:  

  varietal conversion, that can consist of:  

- 

replanting: on the same parcel or on another parcel with or without changing the cultivation system, of 
a different vine variety, deemed to be of higher oenological and commercial value; 

-  grafting  on:  in  vineyards  already  considered  to  be  rational  as  regards  the  cultivation  methods  and 

planting pattern, and in good condition; 

  restructuring, that consists of: 

-  different  location:  this  is  replanting  the  vineyard  in  a  more  favourable  position  from  an  agronomic 

standpoint, both in terms of exposure and for climatic and economic reasons; 

- 

replanting the vineyard: this is replanting on the same parcel but  with changes to the  vine cultivation 
system; 

 

improvement of vineyard management techniques: this involves operations for rationalising interventions 
on  the  land  and  cultivation  methods  with  the  exclusion  of  routine  maintenance.  As  of  2014  funding  has 
improvement  framework  for  the  construction, 
been  added  within  the  management  techniques 
reconstruction  or  destruction  of  terraces,  with  or  without  stone  walls  (including  conversions  of  the 
connecting areas of the vineyard terraces) and the installation or improvement of the emergency irrigation 
system. 

Table 10: Implementation choices on the restructuration and conversion measure 

Type of aid and 
rate of support 

Beneficiaries 

Eligibility and 
selection 
criteria 

  Compensation to producers for the loss of revenue due to the implementation of the measure: up to 100% but not 

over 3.000euro/ha;  

  Contribution to the costs of restructuring and conversion: max 50% (75% for regions classified as less developed) on 

the basis of actual costs or on standard costs. 

Farmers (natural and legal persons)) who work vineyards of wine grape varieties or those who have replanting rights 
and who comply with the rules in force on planting and replanting. The application can also be submitted in aggregated 
form.  
  Detailed description of the actions proposed and timing 
  Actions to be undertaken in each financial year and the surfaces concerned by each action 

The minimum area eligible for the conversion and restructuring intervention is 0.50 hectares, regardless of the type of 
intervention. 

To ensure fair provision of aid and to support a significant number proponents, also operating in areas characterized by 
a small vineyard size, are admitted admit for company applying for the aid up to an area of 3 hectares. However, if the 
financial envelope allows it, it is also possible to grant aid for areas exceeding this limit. 
The selection of the applications to be financed on the basis of the available annual financial allocation is done on the 
basis of the following priorities (cumulative score) based on the call for proposals 2016/2017 

a) 
b) 
c) 
d) 

surface suitable for DOCG and PGO wines and areas located in Belluno province : 20 points; 
organic areas or in conversion towards organic: 8 points; 
surface realised using replanting rights from grubbing up or replanting authorization: 10 points; 
vineyards  made for at least 50% with classified national autochthonous vines: 6 points; 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
e) 

f) 

g) 
h) 

company conducted by an young person recorded as Imprenditore Agricolo Professionale (IAP) or 
coltivatore diretto (CD): 4 points; 
company held by a person recorded as as Imprenditore Agricolo Professionale (IAP) or coltivatore diretto 
(CD) : 3 points 
presence of helper young persons: 2 points; 
inclusion of surfaces in regional, inter-regional, national parks: 1 point 

Selection criteria provided in the dataset sent by the central team are the following: 
CRITERION 
Applicant  type  (categories  concerned:  owner  or  legal  representative  aged  between  18  and  40 
when  the  application  is  submitted;  professional  farmer;  new  beneficiary;  those  belonging  to 
supply chain groupings) 
Specific/traditional and/or certified products (categories concerned: organic products certified in 
accordance  with Regulation (EC)  No  834/2007,  Regulation (EC)  No 889/2008  and Implementing 
Regulation (EU) No 203/2012; certifications of products, processes and enterprises; PDO and PGI 
grapevine products; use of native varieties and/or varieties included in the relevant PDO and PGI 
specifications) 
Holdings in particular  situations  (categories concerned: holdings with a  ratio  between the  area 
planted  with  vines  and  the  utilised  agricultural  area  (UAA)  of  more  than  50%;  holdings  and/or 
areas planted with vines located in specific types of area such as ‘less-favoured areas’ within the 
meaning  of  Article  32  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1305/2013  and  Article  3(3)  and  (4)  Directive 
75/268/EEC;  earthquake-affected  areas  as  defined  by  Law  No  229  of  15  December  2016,  as 
amended; areas of high landscape value; areas affected by officially recognised natural disasters 
or  exceptional  circumstances;  land confiscated from  organised criminals  within the  meaning  of 
Law No 109/1996) 
Intervention  type  (categories  concerned:  investments  regarding  the  activities  referred  to  in 
Article 5(a) and (b) of the Decree; those aimed at increasing a holding’s area planted with vines; 
interventions by wine producers processing their own produce that involve the restructuring of 
at least 25% of the area planted with vines) 

score 

12 

30 

0 

20 

Implementatio
n period 

2014-2018  

Information 
regarding the 
management of 
the measure 

Applications are presented to the Paying Agency1, AVEPA for VENETO, each year. AVEPA verifies the requirements of 
each applications. A list of all applications eligible is drawn up at regional level. The selection of the applications to be 
financed on the basis of the available annual financial allocation is done on the basis of a number of priorities (selection 
criteria, see “Eligibility and selection criteria”). 
AVEPA is in charge of payments and controls (administrative and on the spot). 

2.1.4 

Investment measure  

Investments is a measure implemented at regional level. It is triggered annually through a call for proposals. 

Two types of action are implemented: Action A for micro, small and medium-sized wine farms and Action B for 
companies that carry out both the processing and marketing phases of wine products. 

Sono attivate due tipologie di azione: azione A per le aziende agricole (Azione A) e Azione B per  le imprese di 
trasformazione e commercializzazione. 

Table 11: Implementation choices on the investment measure 

Action A – Investments in wine farms 

Type of aid and 
rate of support 

Beneficiaries 

Capital grant of maximum 40 % of eligible costs: Maximum amount 200.000 euro and minimum 25.000 euro. 
The maximum eligible amount, subject to the limit referred to above, may not exceed, within a period of 4 
years, 600.000 euros, inclusive of eligible expenses within VENETO 2014-2020 RDP from 1 January 2014. 
Beneficiaries are micro, small and medium-sized agricultural enterprises. 

  Presentation of a Business Plan  
  Investments to be carried out in the territory of the Veneto Region; 
  Investments in compliance with the community and national regulations of the sector 
Eligible applications are selected on the basis of the following criteria based on the call for proposals 
2017/2018: 
  Investments with positive effects in terms of energy saving, global energy efficiency and environmentally 

Eligibility and 
selection criteria 

sustainable processes: maximum score 7 

  Quality of the production: maximum score 4 as follows: 

- 

production controlled by the certification body comprised between> 80% and <= 100% of the 
company production for: PGO-PGI wines production, organic production: 4 points; 

1  In  Italy  there  is  a  national  Paying  Agency,  AGEA  and  several  Regional  Paying  Agencies  (AGREA,  AVEPA,  OP  Lombardia, 

ARTEA, ARPEA, APPAG, OPPAB, ARCEA). 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                 
Action A – Investments in wine farms 

- 

- 

production controlled by the certification body comprised between> 55% and <= 80% of the 
company production for: PGO-PGI wines production, organic production: 3 points; 
production controlled by the certification body comprised between> 30% and <= 55% of the 
company production for: PGO-PGI wines production, organic production: 2 points; 

For the assignment of the score, the investment must be connected to the product / products submitted to 
the control by the certification body during the last campaign before the submission of the application. 
Organic certification: the producer must be included in the national list of organic producers 

  Holder and farm conditions: maximum score 7 

- 

- 
- 

holding run by a farmer aged between 18 and 40, established for less than 5 years at the date of 
publication of the notice. In the case of partnerships, cooperatives and joint-stock companies, the 
requirement must concern respectively the partner, to the managing partner. 
holding run by a farmer aged between 18 and 40 years 
holding with, from at least two years, full time young workers aged from 18 to 40 years 

Selection criteria provided in the dataset sent by the central team are the following: 
CRITERION 
Positive  effects  in  terms  of  energy  savings,  global  energy  efficiency  and  environmentally 
sustainable processes (Article 36 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1149) 
Organic  products  certified  in  accordance  with  Regulation  (EC)  No 834/2007,  Regulation  (EC) 
No 889/2008  and  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  No  203/2012,  and  other  certifications  of 
products, processes and enterprises 
PDO and PGI grapevine products 
Owner or legal representative aged between 18 and 40 when the application is submitted 
Membership of supply chain groupings 
Exercise of the following activities:  a) production of grape must obtained from the processing 
of fresh grapes produced by enterprises themselves, purchased, or contributed by members, 
including  for  the  purposes  of  marketing  it;      b)  the  production  of  wine  obtained  from  the 
processing  of  fresh  grapes  or  from  grape  must,  such  grapes  or  must  being  produced  by 
enterprises themselves, purchased, or contributed by members, including for the purposes of 
marketing it;  
Enterprises located in specific areas (‘less-favoured areas’ within the meaning of Article 32 of 
Regulation  (EU)  No 1305/2013;  earthquake-affected  areas  defined  by  Law  No  229  of  15 
December 2016, as amended; areas with a high landscape value or areas on land confiscated 
from organised criminals, etc. ) 

score 

15 

12 

12 
7 
15 

0 

0 

Implementation 
period 

2014-2018  

Information 
regarding the 
management of 
the measure 

Applications are presented to the Paying Agency, AVEPA for VENETO, each year.  
AVEPA verifies the requirements of each applications. A list of all applications eligible is drawn up at regional 
level. The selection of the applications to be financed on the basis of the available annual financial allocation is 
done on the basis of a number of priorities (selection criteria, see “Eligibility and selection criteria”). 
AVEPA is in charge of payments and controls (administrative and on the spot). 

Type of aid and rate of 
support 

Beneficiaries 

Action B – investment for processing and marketing 

Capital grant, maximum 30 % of eligible costs for SME, 20% for companies with less than 750 
employees and a turnover < 200 million euro; 10% for companies that do not belong to the previous 
categories. Maximum expenditure eligible for support 400.000 by applicant and minimum 50.000 
euro. 
Companies that carry out both the processing and marketing phases of wine products. 
The products processed and marketed are wine products as defined in Annex VII Part II of EU 
Regulation 1308/2013, with the exception of those listed in points 13 (concentrated grape must) and 
14 (rectified concentrated grape must). 
Companies eligible are those carrying out the following processing activities: 
  the production of grape must obtained from the processing of fresh grapes, purchased or 

produced by members, also for marketing purpose; 

  the production of wine obtained from the processing of fresh grapes or from grape must 

purchased or produced by members, also for marketing purpose; 

  the processing, refining and packaging of wine, conferred by the members and / or purchased, also 

for marketing purpose. 

Eligibility and selection 
criteria 

  registered with the Chamber of Commerce and in possession of the primary activity codes A.01.21 
"Cultivation of grapes", C.11.02 "Production of wines from grapes" and A.01.63 "Activities that 
follow the harvesting". 

Eligible applications are selected on the basis of the following criteria: 
- Investments with positive effects in terms of energy saving, global energy efficiency and 
environmentally sustainable processes: maximum score 15. The score given is equal to the 
percentage incidence of the amount related to investments attributable to the criterion on total 
investment expenditure. E.g. total amount of investments € 400,000, of which € 100,000 for 
investments falling under this criterion: points 15 x 100,000 / 400,000 = points 3.75 
- Production chain criterion: maximum score 15 attributed as follows: Number of agricultural 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Action B – investment for processing and marketing 

companies supplying raw material:  n > 750, 15 points; 500 < n ≤ 750, 14 points; 400 < n ≤ 500,  13 
points; 300 < n ≤400, 12 points; 200< n≤ 300, 10 points ; 100 < n ≤200,  8 points ; 50 <n ≤100, 6 points. 
– Quality of production criterion: maximum score 12 attributed as follows: 0.12 points for each point 
of the value derived from the percentage ratio of quantity of processed product suitable for 
producing PGO, DOCG and organic wine and total quantity of processed product . 
– Criterion of certification system of product, process: maximum score 3. Adhesion at the date of 
publication of the notice, to a product certification system different than PGO, DOCG and organic 
wine. 

Implementation period 

2014-2018 

Information regarding the 
management of the measure 

Applications are presented to the Paying Agency, AVEPA for VENETO, each year.  
AVEPA verifies the requirements of each applications. A list of all applications eligible is drawn up at 
regional level. The selection of the applications to be financed on the basis of the available annual 
financial allocation is done on the basis of a number of priorities (selection criteria, see “Eligibility and 
selection criteria”). 
AVEPA is in charge of payments and controls (administrative and on the spot). 

2.1.5  Green harvesting 

Measure not implemented in Veneto.  

2.1.6  Harvest insurance 

Harvest insurance funds some of the costs of insurance premiums paid for coverage of wine grape crop losses 
linked  to  adverse  weather  conditions  and  plant  diseases  and/or  parasite  infestations.  The  support  is  paid  to 
wine enterprises in accordance with the annual agricultural insurance plan. 

Type of aid and rate of 
support 

Beneficiaries 

Eligibility and selection 
criteria 

A maximum threshold of 65 % aid for insurance premiums was laid down in the 2016 insurance year 
for  policies  regarding  events  such  as  natural  disasters,  plant  diseases  and  parasite  infestations  (in 
accordance with the combinations envisaged by the national agricultural insurance plan) for the wine 
grape harvest insurance funded in the framework of the NSP 

The  beneficiaries  are  wine  grape  ‘producers’  where  the  term  ‘producers’  means  all  parties,  both 
natural and legal persons, who own farms that cultivate vineyards with wine grape varieties and who 
comply with the rules governing the matter. 

For the payment of the contribution, the winegrowers must: 
  be an active farmer within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013Update the 

company file with the competent paying agency 

  prepare the cultivation plan, indicating, inter alia, the crops that will be insured, as well as the 

presence of any areas under non-productive crops; 

  establish and update a holding crop plan and an individual insurance plan and either sign 

subsidised insurance policies or join collective policies; 

  download the updated individual insurance plan from the SIAN system and annex it to the 

insurance policy. 

Implementation period 

2014-2018 

Information regarding the 
management of the measure 

The aid for applications funded by the resources of Article 49 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 is paid 
by AVEPA while the aid for applications financed with the resources of the sub-measure 17.1 of the 
PRSN is paid by Agea. 

Applications  are  submitted  to  the  competent  paying  agency  each  year.  Applicants  may  only  be 
submitted electronically. 

2.2  Effects on the NSP at the level of growers 

2.2.1 

Information  on  the  implementation  of  the  restructuring  and  conversion 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
measure 

The detailed monitoring data available on the measure are the following: 

Table 12: Performance indicator of the Restructuring and conversion Measure  

 Indicators 

Number of beneficiaries (no) 

Total Area restructured or converted  

Of wich Surface restructured  

Of wich Surface  converted  

Year 

16/17 

15/16 

14/15 

13/14 

1.097 

1.825 

1.282 

543 

1.499 

1.773 

1.176 

1.648 

2.245 

909 

597 

1.336 

1.580 

2.125 

492 

57 

Total 

5.824 

7.967 

3.858 

2.534 

Total Expenditure Restructuration and conversion 

15.486.664  16.097.236  20.808.621  21.557.283  73.949.803 

% expenditure/programmed 

95% 

Rate expenditure Restructuration- conversion/Total PNS   

42% 
Source: AVEPA -  MIPAAF 

105% 

43% 

135% 

50% 

149% 

57% 

120% 

48% 

In Veneto this measure absorbed almost a 48% of the regional programme’s budget assigned to the Region and 
it has proven to be a very successful measure of the programme, as in the previous period.    

It has interested only PDO and PGI vineyards. 

Restructuring  has  mainly  interested  cultivation  methods  aimed  at  improving  vineyard  management.  In 
particular, a change from Pergola to Guyot  continues in order  to ease mechanised cropping operations (with 
the  only  exception  of  the  steep  hills  of  the  Prosecco  and Valpolicella  areas  where  PDO  production protocols 
require that most operations are done by hand). The spread of mechanization in the vineyards observed in the 
previous period continues, pushed by the need to contain production costs, the increasing size of vineyards and 
the growing difficulty in finding seasonal labour at harvest time. The RDP supports the purchase of agricultural 
machinery. 

To  ensure  fair  provision  of  aid  and  to  support  a  significant  number  of  proponents,  also  operating  in  areas 
characterized by a small vineyard size, a maximum threshold (3ha) has been set to prevent larger size farms to 
benefit more than the smaller farms.  

Applications for vineyard areas exceeding 3ha are financed afterwards, if there are still funds remaining once 
the applications that meet the minimum eligibility criteria are satisfied. 

2.2.2 

Information from the literature 

On the base of annual implementation report at national level the new measures eligible for support under the 
national programme made it possible to increase the contribution of the CMO to greater competitiveness: this 
result  was  achieved  by  backing  the  vineyard  restructuring  and  conversion  measure  with  the  investment 
measure and the measure for promotion in third country markets. This resulted in support for the structural 
adaption of winegrowing to the market (in the agricultural and transformation stages) and greater penetration 
of Italian wines in foreign markets. 

Through restructuring and conversion, with variation of the ampelographic composition of vineyards, the use 
of  improved  clones,  more  appropriate  location  of  the  vineyards  and  improvement  in  the  cultivation  systems 
and  techniques  led  during  these  years  to  better  product  quality,  reduced  production  costs  and  adaption  of 
national production potential to market demands. Aid for restructuring and conversion also made it possible to 
protect the value of the landscape and the cultural traditions linked to the actions envisaged, the preferential 
criteria used and the eligibility requirements for the support (such as incentives for the distribution of native 
varieties or traditional forms of cultivation). That is why an increase was also permitted for aid for winegrowing 
in zones with a high environmental and landscape value, identified on the basis of the slope and altitude of the 
land, or locations with terraces, steps or on small islands. 

2.2.3  Synthesis of the interviews 

IQ  1.1  To  what  extent  did  the  restructuring  and  conversion  operations  supported  by  the  NSP  impact  the 
production potential of vineyards, in terms of quantity? In terms of quality? at the level of the region / of the 
Member State? 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

14 

 
 
According to National Authorities the restructuring measure was used in Italy with a precise strategy to adapt 
the  ampelographic  composition  of  vineyards  to  market  demand:  the  NSP  allow  the  evolution  of  production 
potential of vineyards from low quality to quality PDO. 

Through restructuring and conversion, the use of improved clones, more appropriate location of vineyards and 
improvement  in  the  cultivation  systems  and  techniques  led  during  these  years  to  a  better  product  quality, 
reduced production costs and adaption of national production potential to market demand.  

Both restructuring and conversion have strengthened the identification with the territory of origin, especially 
with  promotion  of  Italian  native  vines  in  particular  in  the  last  10  years,  even  if  to  meet  market’s  demand   
international varietal wines increased (e.g pinot grigio). 

In  Veneto,  the  main  effect  of  restructuring  and  conversion  operations  supported  by  the  NSP  concerned 
quality.  As regional authorities said the strategy intends to promote (through priority criteria) the conversion 
towards  some  native  vines  used  for  the  most  successful  PDOs  such  as  Glera  (prosecco),  Corvina,  Rondinone, 
Rondinella  (Valpolicella)  and  Gargano  (Soave  Garda),  with  the  objective  of  strengthening  the  relationship 
between product and territory.  

Operators have converted mainly into varieties more demanded by the market, so the most significant growth 
regards the  Glera and  Pinot  grigio varieties, to the detriment  of other international varieties such as  Merlot, 
Cabernet, which no longer have satisfactory market results. 

The renewal rate of vineyards reported by the operators (also beneficiaries) is about 3% per year: about 1,600 
beneficiary  holdings per year  and only in 2018 there has been a  decrease in demand (600) with a  requested 
expenditure lower  compared to the available resources.  The restructuring has interested in a  significant  way 
the hilly areas and small holdings member of cooperative winemakers. 

IQ  1.2  Did  the  NSP  measures  intend  to  support  changes  in  the  vineyard  management  practices  or  foster 
specific practices? 

As the national authority pointed out,  aid for restructuring and conversion made possible to protect the value 
of the landscape and the cultural traditions linked to the  actions envisaged, through the preferential criteria 
used and the eligibility requirements for the support (such as incentives for the distribution of native varieties 
or traditional forms of cultivation). That is why an increase was also permitted for aid for winegrowing in zones 
with a  high  environmental and landscape value, identified on the  basis of  slopes and altitude of the land, or 
locations with terraces, steps or on small islands. 

As  the  regional  authorities  pointed  out,  the  Veneto  region  introduced  specific  scores  to  promote  organic 
farming and, at the same time, with the RDP, to increase  the use of all equipment  that limits environmental 
impact (mechanical weeding preferred to chemical). 

In  addition,  specific  scores  were  introduced  to  encourage  the  use  of  machinery  and  equipment  aimed  at 
reducing environmental impact. With RDP the region aimed to favor low-land-use investments by encouraging 
the renovation of buildings rather than the construction of new structures.  

Particular  attention  was  also  given  to  the  water  cycle  with  priority  towards  systems  that  guarantee  water 
savings.  

IQ  1.3  To  what  extent  did  the  NSP  result  in  changes  in  the  management  practices  of  vineyards?  Which 
practices were introduced/abandoned? Did those changes have an impact at national or regional level (e.g. 
acting as role model)? 

According  to  all  respondents  in  Veneto,  the  NSP,  especially  restructuring  and  conversion  measure  has  been 
used  to  introduce  more  efficient  techniques  in  the  vineyards  (from  pergola  to  spalliera)  in  order  to  improve 
quality of production and mechanized operations. 

As a result guyot, silvot  and  spalliera have  gradually replaced forms such as the  Pergola, also controlling the 
excessive production and allowing an optimal ripening of the grapes. 

The  “pergola”  has  been  reduced  considerably  and  is  now  located  predominantly  in  the  traditional  areas  of 
Verona where this system is a characteristic element of the landscape.  

Where  possible,  when  the  slope  of  the  vineyards  allows  it,  the  restructuring  was  aimed  at  facilitating  the 
mechanization:  according  to  interviewees,  growers  have  invested  70%  on  restructuring  and  conversion  and 
30% for the renewal of the agricultural machinery with the RDP, especially holdings whose average size allows 
economically sustainable investments. 

Aid for restructuring has been also used to introduce irrigation systems or to improve their efficiency 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

15 

 
 
 
 
IQ.1.4 Have the NSP measures impacted the costs of production? 

The NSP  measures impacted  on  costs of production supporting more  efficient  techniques in the  vineyards  in 
order to mechanize operations and therefore reduce costs. 

IQ.1.5  Have the NSP measures  resulted in a better adaptation of the vineyards structure and management 
practices to market demands?  

As said in IQ 1.1 and according to interviewees NSP measures resulted in a better adaptation of the vineyards 
structure and management practices to market demand. 

In  terms  of  variety,  preferences  go  mainly  to  indigenous  PDO  Glera  and  to  the  variety  Pinot  Grigio  (now 
certified as PDO) to adapt promptly to the market demand. 

In terms of quality there is also a significant increase of organic agriculture but in Veneto, operators have to 
deal  with  unfavourable  micro-climatic  conditions  (particularly  high  humidity)  which  make  the  method 
technically more difficult to apply and more expensive in terms of costs. 

IQ 1.6 Have the NSP measures had an impact on the income of wine growers? 

According to National authorities, at national level, there is a better remuneration of production and reduction 
of  the  gap  with  France.  The  result  seem  relevant  taking  into  account  the  structure  of  the  system  and  the 
marginality of the production areas which increases the production costs. Moreover, the operations supported 
resulted in changes in the growers’ income as investments concerned the varieties that are more acceptable to 
the  market.  The  effect  on  income  is  also  a  consequence  of  the  reduction  in  production  costs  allowed  by 
mechanization. 

Based on the interviews  in Veneto  good  results are recognized  concerning growers’ income especially  where 
investments concerned the varieties most appreciated by the market today, such as glera for prosecco,  which 
today makes about € 30,000 / ha  (in 2017, 1,17 €/kg grape according to Consorzio Prosecco DOC) and  Pinot 
grigio.  But also in the case of Soave and Valpolicella produced by cantine sociali farmers agree on the fact that 
their turnover increased, thanks to the increase in turnover of cantina. 

2.2.4  Conclusion of the expert 

 

Impact of the NSP on the production potential in terms of quantity and quality 

In Veneto, the main effect of restructuring and conversion operations supported by the NSP concerned quality.   

Regional strategies allow the conversion towards some native vines used for the most successful PDOs such as 
Glera (prosecco), Corvina, Rondinone, Rondinella (Valpolicella) and Gargano (Soave Garda), with the objective 
of strengthening the relationship between product and territory. 

Operators have converted mainly into varieties more demanded by the market, so the most significant growth 
regards the Glera and Pinot  grigio  varieties, to the detriment  of other international varieties such as Merlot, 
Cabernet, which no longer have satisfactory market results. 

The conversion rate of vineyards is about 3% per year. 

It’s important to note that restructuring and conversion operations also support adaptations to climate change, 
because clones more suitable to the cultivation environment are implanted and forms of breeding that are able 
to best bring the ripening of the grapes. 

 

Impact of the NSP on the vineyard management practices 

In Veneto the NSP, especially restructuring and conversion measure has been used to introduce more efficient 
techniques  in  the  vineyards  (from  pergola  to  spalliera)  in  order  to  improve  quality  of  production  and 
mechanized operations, in synergy with the RDP which supports the purchase of agricultural machinery.  

As a  result  guyot, silvot  and spalliera have  gradually replaced forms such as the Pergola, also controlling the 
excessive production and allowing an optimal ripening of the grapes. 

Aid for restructuring has been also used to introduce irrigation systems or to improve their efficiency. 

There is also a significant increase of organic agriculture, also because Veneto region introduced specific scores 
to promote organic farming and, at the same time, with the RDP to increase the use of all equipment that limits 
environmental impact (mechanical weeding preferred to chemical). 

Anyway  in  Veneto,  operators  have  to  deal  with  unfavourable  micro-climatic  conditions  (particularly  high 
humidity)  which  make  the  method  technically  more  difficult  to  apply  and  more  expensive  in  terms  of  costs. 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

16 

 
 
 
 
Looking ahead, the link between support and environmental sustainability could be strengthened on the model 
of National Integrated Production Quality System (SQNPI) . 
 

Impact of the NSP on the competitiveness of wine growers 

Measures for restructuring and conversion of vineyards have had a positive impact on wine growers’ incomes, 
mainly  as  a  consequence  of  investments  concerned  varieties  that  are  more  acceptable  to  the  market,  
lower  production  costs  achieved  through  better  management  and  higher 
improved  efficiency  and 
mechanisation in the vineyards.  

2.3  Effects of the NSP at the level of producers and products 

2.3.1  Effects on the competitiveness key factors of wine producers 

2.3.1.1  Synthesis of the interviews 

IQ 1.7 Could you please explain what are the current issues encountered by the wine sector in your Member 
States /region and describe the strategies implemented by the wine producers to address them? 

Based on opinions of national representatives of wine producers, wholesalers and local producers, in the last 
10 years the demand for wine has strongly increased in third countries markets and the Italian sector has held 
up the crisis thanks to exports. But the Italian supply chain is still much weaker compared to direct competitors: 
volumes grow much more than values while consumption dynamics remain more or less constant over time. 
Moreover,  in  the  areas  where  consumption  grows  (e.g  China)  Italian  companies  can  hardly  stand  up  to 
competition on volumes and production costs. 
The  major  issues  is  to  recover  competitiveness  and  strengthen  positioning  on  emerging  and  consolidated 
markets. Even the most important Italian companies are small compared to competitors and it’s important to 
seek  for  the  economic  sustainability  of  investments  bearing  in  mind  that  winemaking  enterprises  (agri-food) 
are themselves a supply chain whose driver is the wine and as such should be approached: the support strategy 
should start from the wine and get to the grape. 

So, it’s important to "follow" the market, changing the production choices with the necessary timing; changing 
cultivation techniques and applying new and more efficient systems to improve the quality of the grapes and / 
or help mechanization, introduce technological innovations in the processing phase for which it is important to 
renew the wineries. 

Looking  ahead,  the  link  between  support  and  environmental  sustainability  could  be  strengthened,  on  the 
model of National Integrated Production Quality System (SQNPI)2. 
The wine sector in Veneto is currently experiencing a positive growth phase that places it in competition with 
other  productive  sectors  of  the  Region.  The  strategies  implemented  by  the  producers  essentially  aim  to 
consolidate this growth by maintaining the traditional markets and expanding on the new ones acting on all key 
factors of competitiveness: 

-  better  management  of  winemaking  (see  also  IQ  to  1.1  to  1.5)  with    investments  in  red  wine-making 
technologies, thermo-conditioning for whites; technologies that ensure greater extraction from grapes, lower 
production  of  lees  and  optimization  of  fermentation  and  bottling  processes  (oxygenation,  traceability  of 
batches); 

- upstream/downstream integration and  collaborative networking with other firms, such as consortium Italia 
del  vino,  which  was  founded  in  Veneto  in  2009  by  7  companies  (including  GIV,  ZONIN,  SARTORI,  FERRARI, 
SANTA  MARGHERITA)  and  began  working  concentrating  both  on  the  support  of  the  CMO    and  aligning  the 
companies from the qualitative and procedural point of view;   subsequently the consortium opens  up to other 

2  The  certification  of  “Sistema  di  Qualità  Nazionale  di  Produzione  Integrata”  –  abbreviated  to  SQNPI  –  (National  Quality 
System of Integrated Production) is a certification released by the Italian Department of Agriculture that guarantees the 
sustainability  of  the  whole  production  process,  the  consumer  healthy  products,  minimizing  environmental  impact.  The 
certification is the result of many steps and strict controls throughout the production cycle made by independent third-
party bodies authorized by the Department of Agriculture. The Protocol is based on quality, environmental safety and a 
sustainable work in the vineyards in addition to a perfect traceability of each plot and each bottle as an assurance that 
the  wine  comes  strictly  from  selected  grapes  controlled  and  certified  by  SQNPI.  The  goal  is  to  minimize  the  use  of 
phytopharmaceuticals thanks to integrated control techniques in order to protect the health of the consumers, more and 
more careful about sustainability in agriculture. 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

17 

 
 
                                                                 
companies from other Italian regions to increase variety and representativeness and  today includes 18 of the 
Italian  industry’s  most  significant  wineries  and  groups  with  1  billion  turnover,  8%  of  national  exports,  2290 
employees. With the support of the CMO, around 60 million euro have been invested by consortium. 
 -  technical  know-how  and  innovation  capacity3  in  order  to  improve  quality  of  products:  for  example  
Valpolicella  Consortium    is  implementing  an  integrated  model  aimed  at  improving  the  sustainability  of  the 
vineyard  with  the  application  of  environmental  virtuous  protocols  (Risparmia  Riduci  Rispetta  RRR  project) 
certified by third parties.  So far this concerned 1000 ha out of the 8000 ha of the consortium.  In some case the 
innovations aimed to make the use of by-products more efficient. Cantine Soave with support of RDP -Mis 16.1 
has undertaken a research path aimed at developing a protocol for the organic management of vineyards. 

One  of  the  elements  characterizing  the  development  strategy  implemented  by  industries,  also    with  the 
support  of  RDP,  is  the  adoption  of  technological  innovations  aimed  at  strengthening  environmental 
sustainability  such    as  systems  for  production  of  renewable  energy  (photovoltaic  panels),  led,  systems  for 
water saving and water recycling and management of discharges.  This type of investment are very  expensive 
but in the long term it will optimize management costs. 

One  of  the  largest  industrial  companies  interviewed  (CAVIRO  group)    gave  en  interesting  input  about  the 
opportunity to support innovative investments aimed at exploiting and using by-products, besides the  alcohol,  
such  as  ubstances  to  be  used  as  additives;  the  investments  should  be  supported  by  a  preliminary  research 
phase by implementing the innovation measure. 

IQ 1.8 Did the actions undertaken by the wine producers with the support of the NSP contribute to improve 
the competitiveness key factors of EU wine products? Please explain how. 

The  implementation  of  NSP  has  allowed  a  considerable  number  of  regional  producers  to  consolidate  the 
development strategies described above in combination with the RDP with focus on a better management of 
the winemaking and marketing costs and technical  know-how and innovation capacity in order to  improve 
quality of products. 

According  to  interviewees,  in  particular  larger  industries  and  national  representatives,  the  most  appreciated 
tools by the operators are the restructuring and varietal conversion and promotion. 

The  first  was  used  to  quickly  adjust  the  structure  of  the  vineyards  with  the  varieties  most  demanded  by  the 
market. 

The promotion measure was used to strengthen the presence on highly competitive markets outside Europe, 
with  participation  in  shows,  fairs  and  exhibitions  of  international  importance;  information  and  promotion 
campaigns, in particular on designations of origin and on geographical indications to be implemented in sales 
outlets, the catering sector in third countries and other tools (websites, brochures, leaflets, guided tastings and 
encounters with third-country operators). In some cases also by structuring  sales outlets and  representative 
offices  abroad.  

The  positive  impacts  deriving  from  a  varietal  improvement  and  from  the  increase  in  sales  have  also  driven 
investments,  which  concerned  the  strengthening  of  holding  equipment  such  as  upgrading  of  production 
facilities  and  the  renewal  of  the  barrels  (almost  800  beneficiaries)    an  improvement  of  structures  and  sales 
approaches (54 beneficiaries).  

According  to  interbranch  organisations  (consorzio  DOC  e  Valpolicella)  the  measure  has  supported  the 
innovation  in  wineries  making  a  substantial  contribution  to  improvements  of  process  and  of  products  in  all 
phases of the supply chain.  

But  larger  groups  underline  how  the  average  amount  of  eligible  expenses  and  the  reduction  of  contribution 
and the target of beneficiaries (micro, small and medium-sized enterprises) does not fully support the broad-
based strategies described in IQ 1.7. 

IQ 1.9 What were the impact of the NSP measures on your supplies, in terms of quality, volume and origin? 

The impact of the NSP measures is mainly on the quality of the winegrapes (not the volume nor its origine).  

Regional production has gained in quality and market strength, since important improvements have been made 
mainly in the vineyards, changing cultivation techniques and application of new and more efficient systems. 

3 This factors  seems not to be impacted by the NSP compared to the two previus 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

18 

 
 
 
 
                                                                 
The rate of renewal of the vineyards is of 2/3% year (in hills 0.6/0.8% per year) with positive impacts on quality 
because  when  it  is  reconverted,  clones  more  suitable  to  the  cultivation  environment  and  to  the  market  are 
planted. Investments that introduce new and innovative processing technologies also have a positive impact on 
quality, food safety and environmental sustainability. 

IQ 1.10 Did the actions undertaken by the wine producers with the support of the NSP contribute to changes 
as regard the organisation and coordination of the operators in the supply chain? 

In  Veneto  the  wine  production  system  is  characterized  by  the  presence  of  very  structured  groups  and 
cooperatives that adopt integrated and innovative supply chain management models. In this respect, the NSP 
does  not  seem  to  be  exercising  a  particular  action  except,  perhaps,  for  the  increase  in  the  number  of 
companies that tends to incorporate the production cycle and to expose alone on the market, as suggested by 
Regional Authorities. 

For  Consorzio  Prosecco  Doc  the  promotion  measure  was  an  opportunity  to  implement  network  and 
partnership within the associated companies which together have decided about the strategies of promotion 
and the third countries where to address it. 

2.3.2  Effects on the capacity of operators to adapt to customers’ expectations 

2.3.2.1  Synthesis of the interviews 

IQ 1.11 Did the NSP measures contribute to the capacity of operators to adapt to customers’ expectations, 
using innovative integrated approach? 

As  Local  interbranch  organisation  Consorzio  prosecco  DOC  points  out,  to  meet  the  growing  demand  for 
prosecco,  the  pre-existing  varieties  (eg  merlot,  cabernet)  have  been  replaced  (thanks  to  NSP)  with  the  Glera 
variety  and  it  was  necessary  to  expand  the  production  area:  to  adapt  to  customers’  expectations,  the  new 
authorized  surfaces  must  obligatorily  adhere  to  the  organic  quality  system.  The  Consortium  is  therefore 
carrying  out  actions  for  the  systematization  and  homogenization  of  these  methods  at  the  level  of  the 
associated companies. 

Moreover, thanks to the promotion measure, the companies associated to the consortium have been induced 
to make a network and to decide together markets and promotion strategies to be adopted. 

IQ 1.12 What types of supported investment were made to adapt to the evolving demand? 

As already said in EQ 1.8 investments have been mainly in varietal conversion with changes in the cultivation 
system,  improvement  of  vineyard  management  techniques,  installation  or  improvement  of  emergency 
irrigation system, restructuring of the wineries, building, modernization and / or improvement of bottling lines, 
purchase of barriques or establishment of sales outlets, diversification of Brands.  

The  investments  concerned  mainly  equipment  for  the  processing  (pressing,  filtering  press,  laboratory 
equipment)  and  marketing  (sales  outlets  and    representative  officea  abroad);  in  the  cellar  investments 
concerned  machineries  and  equipment  to  improve  the  quality  of  the  product  (fermentation  at  controlled 
temperature for white wines, cleaning of musts before fermentation, technologies to ensure greater extraction 
from grapes, lower production of lees and optimization of fermentation and bottling processes: oxygenation, 
traceability of batches) and finishing processes (autoclaves for prosecco, barrique in the case of valpolicella), 
thanks  to  the  score  provided  in  the  calls  for  tenders,  the  companies  have  turned  to  investments  aimed  at 
global energy and water savings (scores for a reduction of at least 15%). 

Concerning promotion, the actions most used by operators are those related to the participation in organized 
initiatives  to  target  the  organized  large  retail  channels  and  HORECA  and  the  incoming  ,  this  latter  very 
functional to communicate both the value of the product and its link with the territory. 

IQ  1.13  Did  the  promotion  measure  was  used  to  support  studies  of  new  markets  to  identify  consumers’ 
preferences? 

According to regional authorities market studies have been financed in 2013 with regional funds.    

According to interviewees it seems that they are not considered a priority. 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
2.3.3  Effects of other factors on the competiveness and overall performance of wine 

producers 

2.3.3.1  Synthesis of the interviews 

IQ 1.14 How did the market shares evolved for your major wine products? on intra and extra EU markets? 
What are the main factors explaining these changes? 

Interviewees represent a very significant share of Veneto exports: on the basis of their information, the main 
export countries remain at the EU level, the UK Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, while non-EU countries are 
the United States and Canada. Thanks to the promotional activities, however, market shares are being acquired 
in some Asian countries  such as  China, Japan where  some companies and Consorzio Prosecco Doc have  also 
activated permanent offices.  

IQ 1.15 What are the other factors that could have had an impact on the competitiveness, product quality 
and market orientation of the EU wine sector (e.g. evolving demand, increased competition, climate change, 
etc.)? 

In  some  countries  (Russia  or  other  Eastern  countries)  the  current  macroeconomic  dynamics  (e.g.  embargo) 
limit exports. 

In other cases tax levers are an obstacle: Chile, for example, has managed  to obtain bilateral agreements on 
wine with almost all the Asian countries to de-tax Chilean wines: in Japan, Chile has become the first exporter 
(while before it was the third); same thing for Australia that will probably replace the US after the introduction 
of duties on Chinese products. 

2.3.4  Conclusion of the expert on the effects of NSP measures on the competiveness 

and overall performance of wine producers 

The  implementation  of  NSP  has  allowed  a  considerable  number  of  regional  producers  to  consolidate  their 
development strategies aiming at recovering competitiveness and strengthening their positioning on emerging 
and consolidated markets. In that way, NSP measures had a leverage effect even if it’s not quantificable. 

NSP,  in  combination  with  the  RDP,  has  allowed  producers  to  improve  management  of  the  winemaking  and 
marketing  costs,  quality  of  products  with  technical  know-how  and  innovation  capacity,  and  to  implement 
collaborative networking with other firms. 

The most appreciated tools by the operators are the restructuring and varietal conversion and promotion. The 
first was used to quickly adjust the structure of the vineyards with the varieties most demanded by the market. 

The  positive  impacts  deriving  from  a  varietal  improvement  and  from  the  increase  in  sales  have  also  driven 
investments,  which  concerned  the  strengthening  of  holding  equipment  to  improve  quality  and  close  the 
production cycle. 

The  result  as  suggested  by  Regional  Authorities  is  the  increase  in  the  number  of  companies  that  tends  to 
expose alone on the market. 

But larger groups underline how the  maximum rate of eligible expenditure  and the reduction of contribution 
and the target of beneficiaries (micro, small and medium-sized enterprises) does not fully support the broad-
based strategies able to strengthen positioning on emerging and consolidated markets, so the  contribution to 
competiveness and overall performance of wine producers seems to be weakened by an implementation that 
encourages the dispersion and fragmentation of investments.   

Adding to the comment see also 3.4.5  

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
2.4  Effects of the promotion measure 

2.4.1  Effects of the promotion measure on the recovery/capture of foreign markets 

2.4.1.1  Evolution of the market shares of national wines on the main foreign markets 

At national Level  

Table 13: National data from the “Report on the implementation of the national support programme” 
related to the financial year 2015/2016 the main: 

Volume 
destination in hl 

of 

exports 

per 

Value 
destination in EUR 

of 

exports 

per 

Evolution  of 
the  wine 
export of Italy compared to 
2015 

USA  
China 
Russia 
Canada  
Australia  
Central/South America4  

3 014 860.48 
277 160.41 
296 039.89 
669 525.36 
96 871.67 
253 834.46 

10. 235. 619. 311 
90. 566. 437 
67. 813. 159 
280.927. 994 
42. 338. 213 
75. 690. 747 

+ 3,3% 
+ 12,9% 
+10,3% 
+3,7% 
+ 8,9% 
+10,4% 

Application under the CMO enabled the funds to finance, indirectly, also the promotion of company brands. It 
was  therefore  possible,  thanks  to  the  joint  efforts  of  the  administration  and  producers,  to  exploit  fully  the 
opportunities to strengthen the competitiveness of Italian wines in non-EU markets. Enterprises participating in 
the measure have seen their image boosted on foreign markets, with a consequent increase in sales; they have 
become  more  competitive  and  have  helped  increase  the  renown  and  reputation  of  Italian  wine  in  markets 
considered as difficult to penetrate. Particular attention has been given to traditional markets, such as the USA 
and Canada, but also to new markets, especially Eastern Europe (Russia) and South East Asia (China, India). 

In 2017, Italian wine import to China exceeded € 143.3 million in value, with an increase of + 18% on 2016 and, 
the  Italian  share  has  risen  from  4.93%  in  2015  to  6.05%  in  2017.  But  still  remains  far  behind  compared  to 
France (39.43%), Australia (26.04%), Chile ( 11.76%) and Spain (6.94%) 5. 
As a  result of the actions taken, the beneficiaries continued to see a  general increase  in sales  volume in  the 
target countries despite the awareness that other concomitant factors (independent of promotion) may have 
affected the result. 

In general, the objective of affirming the image and increasing the reputation and awareness of the quality of 
the wines of the companies represented in the target countries has been achieved. 

National Authorities report that Exports increased by 8.5% compared to 2016 with revenues increasing by 9%. 
Third countries represent 34% of the exports in quantity and 50% of the relative revenues. 
Based on analysis of Business Strategies – “Osservatorio del vino Paesi terzi” in  2017 6 the increase in value of 
sales in non-EU countries was 5.9%, for an estimate of approximately 3.4 billion euro lower than France (+9,8% 
more than 4,8 Billion €) Spain  (+9,7%), Australia (+12%) e Cile (+7,2%) 

It  follows  a  virtuous  path  of  growth  (+33%  in  extra-EU  countries  in  the  last  5  years),  but  elements  that 
contribute to a  growth crisis  are  stressed: average price in stagnation (2,77 euro/liter-  +1,5  on  2016 for Italy 
and  6,07 euro/liter- +3,1% on  2016 for France), weakness in fast-developing markets such as the Asian ones, 
phase of reflection in the USA. 
According to annual survey carried out by Mediobanca, forecasts for 20187 indicate that seven companies will 
record an increase in revenues of more than 10%.  These are La Marca (+ 30.7%), Farnese (+ 28%), Ruffino (+ 
15.5%), Enoitalia (+ 14.5%), Contri (+ 14.1%), Fratelli Martini (+ 13.3%) and Mezzacorona (+ 13.1%). 

4 It concerns in particular Brasil and Mexico 
5 http://www.inumeridelvino.it/2018/02/cina-importazioni-di-vino-2017.html 
6 

https://www.bsnstrategies.com/it/news-eventi/vino-italia-superpotenza-a-bassi-regimi-nel-2017-francia-vola-ballotta-

gap-con-la-francia-su-cina-e-giappone-sale-a-14mld-di-euro-/ InfoDoc-Feb-2018.pd 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                                 
Overall,  the  survey  suggests  a  significant  growth  (+  6.5%)  of  the  turnover  of  Italian  wineries,  thanks  to  an 
increase in domestic sales (+ 5.2%), and, above all, to good export results. 

Shipments  over  the  border  have  increased  by  7.7%  overall,  with  peaks  of  21.2%  for  those  towards  Asian 
markets and 20% for those towards South America. 

Mediobanca also saw an increase in investments (+ 26.7%) and employment in the Italian wine sector (+ 1.8%) 
for 2017. 

At Regional level  
Based  on  annual  analysis  of  “Osservatorio  del  Vino8”,  overall  Veneto  wine  exports  reach  151  destinations 
worldwide,  although  94%  of  these  sales  are  concentrated  in  20  countries.  56%  of  the  Veneto  market  is 
concentrated  in  the  United  Kingdom,  the  United  States  of  America  and  Germany.  The  United  Kingdom  also 
confirms its leadership of purchases from  Veneto for  2016, with a  double-digit  annual increase  compared to 
2015  (+  13.5%),  while  the  United  States  and  Germany  markets  continue  to  go  at  different  rates,  with  in 
particular, the German market is stable (+ 0.6%).  

Are increasing the Netherlands, Austria, France, Poland and Belgium markets, while exports to Norway (-5.7%) 
and Japan (-9.5%) are decreasing. 

Based on report of Veneto Agricoltura, in 2016, the value of Veneto wine exports as a whole, broke through the 
two  billion  euro  mark  for  the  first  time,  thanks  in  particular  to  prosecco.  On  the  other  hand,  international 
transactions for regional still wines are stable. 

The latest update, relating to the first quarter of 2017, shows a further growth in Veneto wine exports, with a 
turnover of nearly 470 million euros, + 7.9% compared to the same period of the previous year. 

Based on Istat data the increase in value of exported wines in the period 2014-2017 is + 29%.  

2.4.2  Effects of the promotion measure on the reputation of EU wines 

2.4.2.1  Synthesis of the interviews 

IQ 3.1 What are the EU wine products benefiting from the best reputation abroad? Please specify: 

According to interviewees, denomination (e.g. prosecco, pinot grigio delle Venezie, amarone) is the key factor. 
The origin is important for some regions such as Toscana and Veneto and for premium products in France. In 
China for exemple the wine is red and French because French have worked a lot on information9 in relation to 
the quality of their wines.  

IQ 3.2 Did the promotion measure contribute to strengthen the reputation of the national wines? 

The  common  opinion  of  stakeholders  is  that  the  measure  had  certainly  contributed  to  strengthen  the 
reputation  of  the  national  wines,  especially  on  new  markets.  According  to  regional  authorities  especially  the 
incoming  actions10  have  allowed  a  better  knowledge  of  wines  characterized  by  production  techniques  that 
greatly affect their value (for example Amarone) and have also favored a better identification between product 
and territory.  

Interbranch organisation such as Prosecco DOC Consortium report that measure works in the countries where 
the information channels allow to reach a wide audience of potential consumers.  In other countries, as China, 
where information channels are limited by censorship, formation actictivities are more suitable. 

IQ 3.3 Apart from the NSP, were there any other factors that could have impacted the reputation of national 
wine products abroad? 

7 Mediobanca 2018_ Indagine sul settore vinicolo. The survey was carried out with the aim of tracing the management and 
equity trends of the main Italian wineries and based on the analysis of the aggregate volumes for the period 2012-2016, 
integrated with the forecasts of the companies regarding the pre-final data for 2017 

8 http://www.uiv.it/tag/osservatorio-del-vino/ 
9 Italy has not activated the information operation.  The horizontal regulation on promotion measures have been used to 

activate the information actions thus replacing the corresponding measure of the NSP 

10 Incoming actions correspond to the reception and journey of the buyers to visit the territories of production 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

22 

 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
At national level an increase of exports to third countries (Canada, China, South East Asia) is observed despite 
very strong competitors such as France.  (For exemple the  sparkling wine brand  “ASTI” has managed to enter 
the Chinese women's market). The contribution of the NSP is positive and when the measure was not promptly 
implemented, as in last year (2017), some companies reported decreases in sales. 

While  all  interviewees  agree  on  the  positive  dynamics  of  exports  thanks  also  to  a  repositioning  on  markets, 
national  representatives  of  industries  and  wholesalers  express  doubts  about  the  increase  in  value  of 
production. 

Compared  to  more  than  16.000  operators  who  have  made  commercial  movements  of  wine,  the  success  of 
Italian exports is based on a maximum of 100 Italian operators and on 15 between PDOs/PGIs: this means that 
the  success  is  the  combination  of  some  territories  and  some  companies.  Therefore,  the  increase  on  market 
shares is mainly about the few operators that export volumes. 

The  rate  of  growth  of  volumes  does  not  yet  corresponds  to  a  well-matched  speed  of  growth  in  value  (as 
reported in 2.4.1.1)  and this happens in a context in which consumption dynamics are more or less constant 
over time and areas where consumption is developing are those in which Italian companies risk to be always 
losers when competing on volumes. 

In  Veneto  all  interviewed  operators  stated  that  the  measure  helped  some  aggregations  and  professional 
growth in most structured and better organized companies and helped them to be competitive at international 
level. Investments in promotion are generally successful and also in the medium / long term, for example when 
creating structures in the export countries. 

The role of importers still remains fundamental. 

A  rather  widespread  opinion  is  that  the  measure  could  have  been  much  more  effective  if  it  had  focused  on 
wider  projects  carried  out  by  representative  group  of  producers  supporting  the  promotion  of  the  most 
recognizable denominations on foreign markets. 

On the other hand, the Region wanted, in line with the national call, also setting limits to eligible expenditure, 
to  broaden  the  target  achievable  without  prejudice  to  the  priority  given  to  the  actions  organized  by  the 
Consortia: the opinion of the regional authority is that the trend of growth in exports recorded in recent years 
is  not  only  attributable  to  large  groups  but  also  to  small  companies  producing  the  most  well-known  names 
(Amarone, Soave, Prosecco, Pinot Grigio etc..); an indirect confirmation can be found also on the evolution of 
the number of winemaking and bottling companies, that shows an increase, proving that a growing number of 
companies tends to close the production cycle and to expose alone on the market. 

Among the factors that have limited the effectiveness of the support, it is possible to mention: 

 

 

 

 

criteria  concerning  the  aggregative  component  of  small  and  micro  companies  and  new  beneficiary/ies 
pushed  to  the  constitution  of  temporary  business  associations  not  always  able  to  carry  out  actions  that 
followed  the  stipulation  of  stable  and  continuous  contracts.  The  priority  given  to  new  aggregations  is  a 
penalisation for the companies (and groups of companies) that have been supported in the previous years 
because  it  reduces  the  marketing  pressure  that  they  exercise  and  therefore  the  effectiveness  of 
investments:  a  selection  criterion  based  on  the  hypothetical  increase  in  value  of  production  would  have 
been more appropriate. 
the measure was used to promote companies (labels) rather than strong and recognizable  denomination 
(as  in  France)  and  this  has  split  the  intervention  by  putting  companies  of  the  same  territories  in 
competition; the measure showed all the limits in the management of the wine heritage at national level, 
the role of the consortia, which according to some operators should be totally rethought, more efficient 
and less bureaucratic. No Italian name currently has an office abroad. 
In Italy the strategy of Promotion measure aims  primarily to support  small and medium-sized enterprises 
but  in  the  opinion  of  the  operators,  small  producers  should  be  able  to  take  advantage  of  aggregation 
actions organized by the consortiums or by the more structured companies already established on foreign 
markets; 
the  criterion  concerning  the  new  markets  contradict  the  economic  assumption  that  the  allocation  of 
resources  must  be  concentrated  in  the  segments  with  the  highest  multiplier  effect;  if  producers  gain 
positions  in  competitive  high  density  market  ,  the  fact  that  it  is  not  possible  to  return  to  those  markets 
goes in favor of all non-European production.  

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

23 

 
 
2.4.3  Effects of the promotion measure on wine companies’ income 

2.4.3.1  Synthesis of the interviews 

IQ 3.4 Are there spill-over effects of the promotion support on wine producers’ income? 

All  operators  in  Veneto  agree  that  the  measure  has  helped  to  support  exports  and  show  good  correlations 
between  the  increase  in  turnover  and  promotional  actions,  especially  the  more  structured  and  organized 
groups. As previously mentioned, in fact, the design of the measure in Italy with the priority given to small and 
medium-sized  enterprises  and  the  penalization  of  large  producers  and  cellars  consortia    has  reduced  the 
potential  impact  on  producers'  income  because  small  companies  do  not  have  the  strength  to  conquer  and 
consolidate market shares. 

In fact, corporate turnovers are guaranteed both by opening new markets and consolidating their presence on 
those with a high competitive intensity. 

IQ 3.5 Were there any other factors that could have impacted the wine producers’ income? 

See also IQ 3.3 

Representatives of the sector, industry unions as well as some wine industries underlined that the allocation 
decided at national level, 70% regional and 30% national projects, limits the financing of larger projects which 
can strengthen the national supply chain more effectively. In addition in order to recover competitiveness and 
consolidate the conquered markets, it is necessary to promote aggregation and not to weaken companies with 
strong and recognizable brands.  

Furthermore  in  Italy,  unlike  in  France,  every  region  and  provinces  are  considered  suitable  for  viticulture  and 
there are a lot of PDOs and PGIs: almost all Italian terroir became PDO and this message can be destructive. 

At local level (both in Siciliy and in Veneto) some representative of interbranch organization says the Russian 
market is inconstant due to the no regular management of the import policy (little clarity on the concessions 
given to the importers).   

2.4.4  Additional  benefits  or  negative  effects  in  third  countries  generated  by  the 

support for promotion 

2.4.4.1  Synthesis of the interviews 

IQ  3.6  Are  there  any  additional  benefits  or  negative  effects  arising  from  the  promotion  operations 
implemented in third countries? 

Opinion  of  representatives  of  the  sector/interbranch  organisations/  industry  unions  is  that  limited  budgets 
available have caused i) the fragmentation of interventions; ii) split resources in short-term actions; iii) induced 
temporary  aggregations  managed  without  expertise  that  only  benefited  those  who  promoted  them;    iv) 
promote labels instead of names  has  put companies of the same territories in competition. 

Also the measure, to be more effective, should be flanked by actions of information to encourage consumers' 
knowledge  of  quality  products11.  Promotion  in  third  countries  measure  could  be  used  to  inform  about  the 
PDO/PGI scheme and the high standars of the Union products, especially in terms of quality, food safety or the 
environment. 

2.4.5  Conclusion of the expert on the effects of the promotion measure 

11  Italy  has  not  activated  the  information  operation.  According  with  National  authorities  the  horizontal  regulation  on 
promotion  measures  have  been  used  to  activate  the  information  actions  thus  replacing  the  corresponding  measure  of 
the NSP 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                 
As  already  noted  in  201112,  wine  competitiveness  is  based  on  product  image/quality  in  the  case  of  the  high 
quality wines (PDO mainly), whereas for varietal wines is based on the relationship between price and quality 
(i.e. the highest quality at the lowest price). In third-country markets and Northern EU markets (e.g. UK) wine 
consumption  is  still  the  prerogative  of  the  main  international  varieties  produced  by  the  multinational 
companies of the US, Australia, South Africa, etc. (e.g.  Chardonnay, Merlot, Cabernet-Sauvignon) and, as the 
price is an important criteria considered by the buyer in its purchas decision, price determines market access.  

To add to the problem is the fact that in Italy it was decided to allow the name of the variety only for the seven 
international ones, exactly the same varieties produced and marketed by the large multinationals and for wich 
competion on price is much more difficult for Italian companies. 

It  is  shared  belief  that,  on  foreign  markets,  Italian  wines  sell  well  either  because  they  are  well-established 
names, popular with a relevant part of the consumer market (e.g. Prosecco, Amarone etc.) or because of the 
variety (Pinot Grigio). Compared to more than 16.000 operators who have made wine movements, the success 
of Italian exports is based on a maximum of 100 Italian operators and on 15 PDOs/PGIs: this means that the 
success is the combination of some territories and some companies.  

Even if the wine sector in Veneto is currently experiencing a positive growth phase that places it in competition 
with other productive sectors of the Region, the most important regional companies are even small compared 
to  international  competitors:  if  the  possibility  given  to  individual  wine  makers  to  push  their  own  brands  is 
judged  positively,    the  opinion  of  the  same  producers    is  that,  to  achieve  the  objective  of  increasing  the 
competitiveness  of  Italian  wines  on  foreign  markets”,  it  may  be  more  effective  to  promote  Italy  and  well-
established names, before promoting different labels or brands, in a  similar way as France did. It is not very 
effective to promote at the same time Italy, the regions, the consorzi (i.e. PDO labels) and industry brands. 

In Italy (and in Veneto), this measure has been implemented to promote companies (labels) rather than strong 
and  recognizable  names  and  this  has  split  the  intervention  by  putting  companies  of  the  same  territories  in 
competition.  
Large producers and the 2nd level consortia were penalized whereas small producers could take advantage of 
aggregation actions organized by the consortiums or by the more structured companies already established on 
foreign markets. 

According to the representative organizations of producers and traders, selection criteria should be used (and 
we would also add impact assessment indicators) referable to the expected increase in value of production. 

Table 14: NSP: Measure Promotion in third countries: criteria and quantitive indicators (by year) 

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES 

INDICATORS 

Improve the sector’s competitiveness, 
including through groupings 

Exploit the value of products with 
designations of origin and geographical 
indications and specific recognised types 
of product. 

Assessment of the development of 
the image of Italian wines in third 
countries (trends in trademarks, the 
renown of denominations, etc.) 

Encourage penetration into new markets 
or emerging countries 

Comparison with the export trends 
of the main competitor countries and 
the world average (value/volume) 

Encourage the penetration of Italian 
grapevine products in traditional 
markets 

Trend in the % of exports as 
compared to the previous year 
(value/volume), broken down into 
non-sparkling and sparkling wines 

Source: PNS _Italy 

Realized  

National Authorities 
will quantify all the 
indicator at the end of 
programme 

QUANTITATIVE 
OBJECTIVES 
100 projects 
500 actions, as follows: 
300 actions aimed at 
consumers 
200 actions aimed at a 
targeted public 

200 designations involved 

30% of projects carried 
out exclusively on new 
markets or in emerging 
countries 

60% of projects with 
actions in traditional 
countries 

12 Evaluation des mesures appliquées  au secteur vinicole dans le cadre de la Politique Agricole Commune 2012_Case Study 

Veneto 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

25 

 
 
 
 
                                                                 
2.5  Efficiency of the management of the NSP 

2.5.1  Achievement of the technical targets of the NSP  

At national level: 

Table 15: Rate of achievement of the foreseen expenditures per measures 

Source: DG Agri, March 2018 
  Restructuration and conversion: According to the implementation report of the financial years 2016/2017 
the results of the measure restructuring and conversion of vineyards confirmed the interest of operators in 
adjusting their production potential. The number of beneficiaries (6.675) decreased slightly compared to 
the  previous  financial  year  (2015/2016),  for  an  area  eligible  for  aid  of  12.885  hectares,  slightly  down  (in 
2015/2016, 15.258 ha and in 2014/2015 13.828 ha).  

  Green  harvesting:  there  is  a  sharp  drop  in  interest  in  the  measure  starting  in  2012.  In  2015/2016  the 
expenditure  was  quite  limited  (around  1.300.000  euro).  This  was  slightly  above  the  levels  of  the  three 
previous years (around 860.000 euro in 2013/2014 and EUR 900.000 in 2014/2015), but significantly lower 
than  in  2011  (almost  EUR 24  million).  In  particular,  365  hectares  of  vineyards  were  subjected  to  green 
harvesting in 2015/2016 (13.778 hectares in 2011) and only three regions, Campania, Apulia and Calabria, 
all located in Southern Italy, paid an aid for this measure. According to the implementation reports of the 
financial years 2015/2016 and 2016/2017, given that production levels in recent years have been slightly 
lower than the national average, the limited use of the measure is in line with the fact that is no need to 
eliminate production surpluses. 

  Harvest insurance:  in the financial year 2015/2016 the expenditure was around 20.000.000 euro (equal to 
the  programmed  financial  allocation),  a  total  of  12.980  producers  were  involved,  with  a  total  of  24.401 
insurance  certificates  and  over  10 million  quintals  insured.  In  the  subsequent  financial  year  (2016/2017) 
the expenditure was higher than the programmed financial allocation (around 26.500.000 euro), a total of 
13.686 producers were involved, with a total of 29.200 insurance certificates and over 10,2 million quintals 
insured. The recourse to the measure mainly occurs in the north of Italy, where there is a greater risk of 
adverse weather events. 
Investments:  in  the  financial  year  2015/2016  the  regions  that  used  it  the  most  were  Sicily,  followed  by 
Veneto  and  Piedmont.  In  the  financial  year  2016/2017,  the  regions  that  used  it  the  most  were  Sicily, 
followed by Veneto, by Emilia Romagna and Abruzzo. 

 

  By product distillation: the use of the measure has been increasing: in the financial year 2015/2016  by-
product distillation allowed the elimination of 4,9 million quintals of marc and lees, with a production of 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

26 

2016/20172015/20162014/20152013/2014Promotion81%92%90%80%Restructuring & conversion105%114%117%115%Green harvesting12%14%9%9%Harvest Insurance132%100%100%152%Investment140%101%106%114%Byproductdistillation90%83%60%55% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
over 167.000 hectolitres of raw alcohol. In 2016/2017, the measure allowed the elimination of 5,6 million 
quintals of marc and lees, with a production of over 187.000 with a production of over hectolitres of raw 
alcohol. 

At regional level: 

Table 16: Veneto - Rate of achievement of the foreseen expenditures per measure at regional level 

Source: Ministero Politiche Agricole Alimentari e Forestali, Dipartimento delle Politiche europee e internazionali e dello Sviluppo rurale, 
Direzione Generale delle Politiche internazionali e dell'Unione europea - Piue VIII 

The regional wine sector is very vital: viticulture is today the most important crop thanks  in particular to the 
PGO  Valpolicella  (whose  production  area  has  remained  constant  due  to  a  strict  production  disciplinary)  and 
Prosecco, which from the Valdobbiadene area (today DOCG) has expanded to all the provinces of Veneto and 
Friuli.  

The  PGO  has  given  a  lot  of  breath  to  the  Veneto  region  viticulture:  in  2015,  9-10,000  rights  were  purchased 
outside Veneto. This has been the cause of the strong demand for restructuring and conversion: and in turn the 
greater quantity of grapes to be transformed has pushed investments for processing, thanks also to the ability 
of  the  Veneto  businesses  to  market  the  product  on  world  markets.  The  expenditure  was  therefore  also 
supported on the investment front. 

Furthermore, access to the Restructuring and conversion measure was favored by the advance payment of 80% 
(even  if  Veneto  had  always  given  100%).  It  is  also  to  be  considered  that  the  vitality  of  the  sector  and  the 
economic sustainability of wineries are an element that facilitates access to credit. 

The  reduction  in  the  number  of  applications  observed  over  the  last  two  years  on  the  Restructuring  and 
conversion  measure,  probably  due  to  a  saturation  of  the  sector,  has  allowed  to  finance  all  the  eligible 
applications that have achieved the minimum score. Overbooking financing was made possible thanks to the 
use  of  expenditure  savings.  To  increase  the  response,  the  percentage  of  eligible  expenditure  has  been 
progressively reduced. 

2.5.2  Selectiveness of the management procedures 

Table 17: Main criteria/procedure(s) ensuring the relevance of the selected applications 

Promotion 

Cf § 2.1 

Restructuring & conversion 

Cf § 2.1 

Green harvesting 

Not implemented in Sicily 

Harvest Insurance 

Investment 

By product distillation 

Cf § 2.1 

Cf § 2.1 

Cf § 2.1 

Innovation 

Not implemented in Italy 

Source: Regional and National Authorithies, National and regional legislation 

2.5.3  Description of the management procedures of application files 

Promotion measure: 

The  measure  is  managed  both  at  national  level  and  at  regional  level  according  to  the  type  of  project.  The 
measure is triggered annually through calls for proposals. 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

27 

2016/20172015/20162014/20152013/2014Promotion105%100%110%89%Restructuring&conversion95%105%135%149%Investment164%182%155%145% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ministry and regions are in charge of the selection procedure and payments according to the type of project. 

Applications are presented to Regions. Regional authorities send to the Ministry and AGEA the final list of the 
projects  eligible.  AGEA  carries  out  the  controls  before  stipulating  the  contracts.  Finally  AGEA  stipulates  the 
contracts with beneficiaries. 

AGEA is also in charge of controls. 

Restructuring & conversion:  

Restructuring  and  converting  vineyards  is  a  measure  implemented  at  regional  level.  It  is  triggered  annually 
through a call for proposals. 

Applications  are  presented  to  the  Paying  Agency,  AVEPA  for  VENETO,  each  year.  AVEPA  verifies  the 
requirements of each applications. A list of all applications eligible is drawn up at regional level. The selection 
of the applications to be financed on the basis of the available annual financial allocation is done on the basis of 
a number of priorities (selection criteria, see “Eligibility and selection criteria”). 

AVEPA is in charge of payments and controls (administrative and on the spot). 

Green harvesting 

Measure not implemented in Veneto  

Investment measure: 

It is a measure implemented at regional level. It is triggered annually through a call for proposals. 

Applications are presented to the Paying Agency, AVEPA for VENETO, each year.  

AVEPA verifies the requirements of each applications. A list of all applications eligible is drawn up at regional 
level. The selection of the applications to be financed on the basis of the available annual financial allocation is 
done on the basis of a number of priorities (selection criteria, see “Eligibility and selection criteria”). 

AVEPA is in charge of payments and controls (administrative and on the spot). 

Harvest Insurance: 

The  aid  for  applications  funded  by  the  resources  of  Article  49  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1308/2013  is  paid  by 
AVEPA while the aid for applications financed with the resources of the sub-measure 17.1 of the PRSN is paid 
by Agea. 

Applications  are  submitted  to  the  competent  paying  agency  each  year.  Applicants  may  only  be  submitted 
electronically. 

By product distillation: 

Applications are submitted to the paying agency in accordance with the procedures and deadlines set by AGEA. 

2.5.4  Data on workload linked to the NSP implementation 

Based on answers to IQ 2.4, please summarize the costs related to the administration and payment of the NSP. 
The costs related to controls are not included. 

Workload in Full-time equivalent (FTE) 

Other cost (premises, IT, equipment) 

na 

National authorities 

Payment services 

Administrators /  

na 

30  

National authorities: 

The  management  of  the  program  requires  a  considerable  amount  of  bureaucratic  obligations  related  to  the 
management of the program and attributable to the following factors: 

 

the financial mechanism of the program foresees on one hand a strict deadline for the expenditure of the 
annual financial allocation (to be carried out by the end of the corresponding financial year, i.e. by October 
15th, excluding any carry-over of residual availability to subsequent years), and on the other hand strong 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

constraints  concerning  possible  modifications  to  the  contents  of  the  program  (it  is  possible  to  intervene 
only twice during the year and the last time by 30 June, therefore at a very early stage respect to the end of 
the financial year). 
It  should  also  be  considered  that  at  the  moment  of  the  budget  allocation  among  the  different  measures 
chosen,  it  is  impossible  to  ensure  the  correspondence  between  actual  expenditure  and  expected 
expenditure as it is not possible to foresee the effective adhesion of producers to the measures. Moreover, 
the  program  contains  measures,  i.e.  the  green  harvest  and  the  restructuring  for  phytosanitary  reasons, 
whose activation is  linked to unexpected exogenous factors (market  trend). It is not  possible to take into 
account the changes to be made to the eligible expenditure following the results of the checks. 
 

The complexity of the reporting foreseen for the support program is often excessive and  of little real 
value for monitoring 

In Veneto: 

AVEPA is composed of a central office and seven peripheral offices with dedicated areas (viticulture, vineyard 
register,  NSP).  2  or  3  people  per  counter  making  about  25  people  dealing  with  the  Restructuring  and 
conversion measure; 15 people for investments and about 30 people dealing with the NSP. 

In the organization of the Region, the wine sector is the one with the highest human resources intensity, also 
because  of  its  economic  and  social  importance.  In  relation  to  the  measures  of  the  CMO,  3  people    are 
permanently employed  and further collaborations are possible during peak periods.  The system is considered 
to be very demanding.  

2.5.4.1  Synthesis of the interviews 

2.5.4.2  Questions related to the effects of the financial parameters 

IT 2.5 Compared to a budget that would have been manage on a 5 year period, have the yearly management 
of  the  NSP’s  budget  fostered  an  orderly  implementation  of  the  measures  on  all  the  duration  of  the 
programme?  

Both  the  regional  authority  and  the  paying  agency  consider  that  the  yearly  management  of  the  budget  is 
certainly  more  demanding  but  it  is  also  more  orderly  and  faster  and  the  results  are  even  better  for  the 
beneficiary.  The  region  has  chosen,  among  other  things,  not  to  activate  the  two-year  projects  on  the 
investments measure. 

IT  2.7  Have  the  yearly  management  of  the  NSP’s  budget  fostered/hindered  the  selection  of  the  more 
relevant  applications?  Have  it  been  an  obstacle  to  the  support  of  multiannual  projects  or  structuring 
projects? 

The  yearly  management  has  guaranteed  the  timely  granting  (within  the  year)  of  the  contribution.  As 
mentioned in the previous question, the region has chosen, among other things, not to activate the two-year 
projects on the investments measure. 

IT 2.9 Have the yearly budgetary limits created a specific workload, related in particular to the need to close 
the budget each year? 

At national level, the management of the program requires a considerable amount of bureaucratic obligations 
attributable to the following factors: 

 

 

the financial mechanism of the program foresees on one hand a strict deadline for the expenditure of the 
annual financial allocation (to be carried out by the end of the corresponding financial year, i.e. by October 
15th, excluding any carry-over of residual availability to subsequent years), and on the other hand strong 
constraints  concerning  possible  modifications  to  the  contents  of  the  program  (it  is  possible  to  intervene 
only twice during the year and the last time by 30 June, therefore at a very early stage respect to the end of 
the financial year). 
It  should  also  be  considered  that  at  the  moment  of  the  budget  allocation  among  the  different  measures 
chosen,  it  is  impossible  to  ensure  the  correspondence  between  actual  expenditure  and  expected 
expenditure as it is not possible to foresee the effective adhesion of producers to the measures. Moreover, 
the  program  contains  measures,  i.e.  the  green  harvest  and  the  restructuring  for  phytosanitary  reasons, 
whose activation is  linked to unexpected exogenous factors (market  trend). It is not  possible to take into 
account the changes to be made to the eligible expenditure following the results of the checks. 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

29 

 
 
 
 
  The  complexity  of  the  reporting  foreseen  for  the  support  program  is  often  excessive  and  has  no  real 

monitoring value. 

For  regional  authorities,  the  commitment  of  the  structure  is  burdensome,  especially  as  regards  the 
introduction  of  certain  investments  that  require  "certification",  has  made  procedure  more  complex  and 
burdensome  for  both  the  beneficiaries  and  the  offices.  The  good  results  achieved  justify  the  ongoing 
reorganization of the regional structure to increase efficiency. 

IT 2.6 Have the absence of obligatory co-financing facilitated the access to support for beneficiaries? Please 
give details per measure 

In  Veneto  there  would  not  be  delays  anyway  even  if  there  were  regional  funds  because  the  system,  despite 
being  very demanding,  works efficiently. 

IT 2.10 Have the absence of obligatory national co-financing facilitated the management of the funds at the 
level of the managing authorities? 

See IT.Q 2.6 

IT  2.8  Did  the  absence  of  obligatory  national  co-financing  encourage  the  Member  State  to  reach  the  EU 
budgetary limit, financing sometimes less relevant operations?  

No because: - i) to access the benefits the  company must prove that it has a minimum score of 2 points and  
that    means  that  investments  had  to  guarantee  at  least  one  of  the  parameters  identified  by  the  selection 
criteria ;  

ii) the demand for support  was always higher than supply ;  iii)  funding was granted to areas in difficulty. 

2.5.4.3  Questions related to the overall effectivness of the programme 

IT 8.1 Have the traceability of the expenses been improved compared to the previous programming period? 
If so, how? 

No changes are detected 

IT 8.2 How do  beneficiaries  demonstrate their actual need of EU support, and that normal operating costs 
are not financed by the EU budget? Please detail per measure if needed.  

See  point 6.2.2 and 8.4  

IT  8.3  Do  you  think  that  the  measures  have  supported  actions  that  would  have  been  carried  out  anyway 
(without the EU support)? Please detail per measure if needed. 

Based on opinion of  interbranch organisation without  the support  of the NSP it would not  have reached the 
level  of  modernization  achieved  at  least  in  some  Italian  areas:  in  particular  the  NSP  has  favored  the  smaller 
companies  that  would  not  have  faced  the  investments  of  restructuring  and  conversion  of  the  vineyards  and 
the costs did not replace or cover normal operating costs. 

Relevance  of  support  is  more  significant  because  60%  of  the  Italian  product  comes  from  cooperation  whose 
social base is made up of small and very small growers:  in other words support allows smaller growers to carry 
out the changes requested by the market. 

In Veneto the demand for support in all years (except 2017) was higher than supply.  

Opinion  of  regional  authorities  and  intebranch  organisation  is  that  probably  only  the  companies  and 
cooperatives  already  structured  and  with  sufficient  liquid  assets  would  have  made  the  investments  without 
support  and  in  fact  the  large  production  companies  (including  cooperatives)  had  to  do  without  the  NSP 
because investiment measure has been addressed to small and medium-sized enterprises.  

IT 8.4 How do you make sure that the costs of the supported operations correspond to the market prices for 
similar operations? Please detail per measure if relevant. 

The (average) risk connected to the control of the adequacy of costs and the recognition of expenses (at the 
time the payment  request  is  presented) is reduced with admissibility and refund of expenses on the basis of 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
detailed procedures to guarantee the reasonableness of costs and in order to reduce the chances of error both 
on the part of the beneficiary and the instructor. 

On this subject, audits by the European Court of Auditors have already established the good practice followed 
by Veneto in the period 2007-2013 (Special Report No. 8/2012 of the European Court of Auditors). 

Furthermore, as the regional payment agency reports, in the case of structuring and conversion of vineyard the 
operations are carried  out  by specialized companies and farmers  which are very careful to the quality of the 
work done, for which invoices and payments are absolutely traced and only small misalignments can occur in 
relation to the surfaces (more or less) that fall within normal. 

Also for investments, traceability of the expenses is guaranteed, as described in Point 6.2.2. 

2.5.5  Opinion of the expert 

 

Effects of the financial parameters 

POSITIVE EFFECTS 

NEGATIVE EFFECTS 

Yearly budgetary limits 

Order and efficiency of expenditure 

Absence  of  obligatory 
national co-financing 

- 

Work overload 

Lack of flexibility in time management 

- 

  Relevance of the selected application and risk of deadweight  

High relevance in particular for the restructuring and investment measures, for which the risks of deadweight 
are  very  low  also  thanks  to  selection  criteria  and  the  percentage  of  co-financing  that  favor  access  to  small-
medium sized companies that do not have sufficient liquid assets  to make their own investments. 

In relation to the measure of promotion, the selection criterion that rewards temporary aggregations, in some 
cases  has  led  wineries  with  less  commercial  experience  to  rely  on  consulting  company  more  interested  in 
bringing home the project than to pursue the objectives of the measure.  

Larger projects that can guarantee greater  sustainability for investments have not  been favored:  if  it is true 
that large internationalized groups can promote themselves with their own funds, on the other hand, they can 
act as vehicle for smaller companies. 

  Good practices set at Member State and/or regional level ensuring the justifiability of the expenditures: 

Control of the adequacy of costs 

2.6  Coherence of the NSP 

2.6.1  Coherence of the objectives of the NSP with other EU/CAP objectives  

2.6.1.1  Synthesis of the interviews 

IQ 12.1 According to you, are the objectives of the NSP coherent with: 

- 

- 

- 

the EU overall objective of environmental sustainability? 

the EU overall objective as regards public health and prevention of harmful alcoholic use? 

the EU overall objective of balanced territorial development? 

There is a  substancial coherence with regard to the  overall EU objectives of environmental sustainability and 
balanced territorial development and as regard public health. 

The measures of NSP work effectively  in raising standards of the Italian wines,  in terms of quality,  food safety 
and  the environment. 

The NSP promotes Italian PDOs e PGIs system, sustainable viticulture practices (organic wine production)  and 
the  improvement  of  energy  and  environmental  performance  related  to  wine  production,    and    meets  
consumer expectations in relation to  respect of the environment and food safety standards.      

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Furthermore all NSP objectives are strongly coherent with the objective of balanced territorial development as 
far  as  concern  the  job  opportunities  offered  by  wine  sector  that  involves  up  to  1.3  million  people,  including 
those directly  (in  vineyards,  wineries and commercial distribution), and indirectly  (  related activities, service 
and  industries) involved. 

2.6.2  Coherence  and  complementarity  of  the  NSP  measures  with  corresponding 

measures in the RDP 

2.6.2.1 

Identification of measures with similar objectives 

Wine NSP measure 

RDP 

Demarcation criteria with RDP 

Restructuration 
conversion of vineyards 

and 

Measure  4.1.  “support  for 
holdings 

investments  in  agricultural 

The  measure 
under the NSP measure 

is  exclusively  financed 

Investments 

Promotion 

Measure  4.2.  “Investments  for  the  processing  and  the 
marketing of agricultural products”  

Type of action / operation 

Measure  3.2  “Support  for  information  and  promotion 
activities carried out in EU  market” 

Territorial approach 

2.6.2.2  Synthesis of the interviews 

IQ 13.1 According to you, are there synergies/complementarities between the NSP measures and: 

- 

- 

- 

the corresponding measures in the RDP? 

the  corresponding  measures  contained  in  the  horizontal  regulation  on  promotion  measures  of 
agricultural products? 

the corresponding measures contained in other EU policies? 

According  to  the  National  authorities,  the  horizontal  regulation  on  promotion  measures  has  been  used  to 
activate the information actions, thus replacing the corresponding measure of the NSP. 

There  is  a  great  level  of  synergies  between  all  NSP  measures  implemented  in  Veneto  and  the  RDP:  the  two 
tools can be considered as complementing each other.  

Measure 4.1 of RDP supports investments for mechanization where the restructuring of the vineyards of NSP 
was mainly aimed at improving mechanized operations. 

Measure for restructuring of NSP gives priority to farmers with organic areas or in conversion where Measure 
11 support organic farmer and those interventions aimed to the maintenance of environmental aspects such as  
hedges and groves in viticulture areas, thus coming towards the greatest sensitivity of citizenship for respect of 
the environment.  

Many investments in wineries have also been integrated by the introduction of renewable energy production 
systems supported by measure 4.2 of RDP. 

Another important synergy in Veneto is with Measure 3.2 of RDP wich has been well used to promote prosecco 
in the EU countries: anyway, in this case interbranch organisations such as Consorzio  notes that the measure 
was mainly used for participation in fairs and events that, in their opinion, are outdated and ineffective tools of 
promotion. 

IQ 13.2 Is the risk of overlapping avoided? 

There  are  no  problems  of  consistency  or  overlapping  between  wine  CMO  measures  and  rural  development 
measures.  

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In relation to the investment measure, the RDP excludes all interventions envisaged in the Ministerial Decree 
1831  of  04/03/2011  -  defining  the  investments  eligible  under  the  NSP  -  and  subsequent  amendments,  in 
particular: 

- Purchase of IT equipment and related programs aimed at: 

- Business management  

- Control of technological systems for processing, storage and product handling 

- Development of information and communication networks 

- Marketing of productions 

- Purchase of wooden barrels including barriques for the refinement of quality wines (PGO) 

-  Purchase  of  laboratory  analysis  equipment  instruments  for  chemical-physical  analysis  of  the  grapes,  of  the 
must  and  the  wines  for  the  sampling,  control  and  improvement  of  the  qualitative  parameters  of  the 
productions 

- Purchase of equipment and furnishing elements for the creation of retail sales points, exhibition and tasting of 
wine products 

- Purchase of equipment for processing and marketing of wine products for specific activities 

The control is made by CUAA. 

IQ 13.3 Did you benefit from Rural Development Programme measures? If yes, which one(s)? 

Witnesses  interviewed  benefited  in  particular  from  Measure  4.1  in  relation  to  the  purchase  of  agricultural 
machinery;  Measure  4.2  in  relation  to  investments  aimed  at  ensuring  greater  environmental  sustainability, 
energy  savings  (e.g.  photovoltaic  panels  in  the  logistics  warehouse,  LED  lighting)  and  water  saving  and  to 
optimize the management of discharges. 

In one case the activation of Measure 16 has been reported as part of a general process of  conversion to the 
organic method. 

2.6.3  Conclusion of the experts on the coherence of the NSP 

There is a substancial coherence wth regard to the EU objectives of environmental sustainability and balanced 
territorial development and public health 

In relation to RDP objectives thanks to clear demarcation beetwen measures, the two tools can be considered 
as complementing each other. 

2.7  Relevance of the NSP 

2.7.1  Analysis of the needs of the sector 

Table 18: SWOT analysis of the wine sector 

STRENGHS 

WEAKNESSES 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

amplitude  of  the  offer,  in  line  with  market  trends  (RDP   
Veneto 2014-2020 and witnesses) 

strong and recognizable names on the market (witnesses) 

good value for money (RDP Veneto 2014-2020) 

good professionalism of the operators 

the  propensity  of  companies  to  exploit  economies  of  scale 
and scope and export-oriented  (RDP Veneto 2014-2020 and 
witnesses) 

presence of good research centers (RDP Veneto 2014-2020) 

OPPORTUNITIES 

growing national market for quality wines (all witness) 

expansion of the sparkling and regional autochthonous wine 
markets in the new emerging markets (all witness) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

high  incidence  of  structural  costs  in  business  management 
(RDP Veneto 2014-2020) 

high bureaucratic burdens (RDP Veneto 2014-2020) 

fragility of logistics (RDP Veneto 2014-2020) 

fragmentation  of  the  offer  (within  the  denomination) 
blurring  of  marketing  policies  and  difficulties  in  leadership 
(all  witness    wine  industries,  cooperatives  and  national 
representatives) 

THREATS 

Strong  competition  on  the  major  export  markets  (wine 
industries, cooperatives and national representatives) 

System  authorizations  system  binds  the  development  of 
potential vitivincolo (all witness) 

Source: own elaboration, based on the main sources used 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

33 

 
 
 
The main needs of the sector are the following, in that order: 

1.  Need  n°1  strengthening  of  the  names  on  emerging  markets  and  consolidation  of  positions  on 
traditional  markets  by  promoting  the  Italian  system  and  Italian  names  and  not  fragmenting 
promotional activities 

2.  Need n°2 increase in wine production potential and dimensional growth of companies (do not penalize 

the aggregation processes of the production components) 

3.  Need  N  3  support  for  restructuring  and  conversion  and  environmental  sustainability  of  production 

processes  

4.  Support for innovations in the transformation phase and attention to innovations for the recycling of 

sub-products.   

Synthesis of the interviews 

IQ  15.2.  From  your  point  of  view,  are  the  NSP  measures  suited/well  designed  to  address  the  need  of  the 
wine sector at the EU level? national level? At regional level? 

National and regional authorities agree with the fact that NSP measures are suited to address the need of the 
wine  sector  at  national  and  regional  level  and  the  proof  is  that  the  efficiency  in  spending  is  very  high  (99%) 
both at national and regional level.  In order to increase the number of beneficiaries, the contribution threshold 
has also been reduced.  
National representatives of the cooperative world hope to extend this type of support to other sectors13.  
However, both national representatives of the wine sector and industries (especially the bigger ones) challenge 
the logic underlying the design of the measures that seems more oriented towards guaranteeing "at least one 
drop at all", rather than strengthening the competitiveness of the system. 

In other words, where the driver of the supply chain is the wine and the impact indicator is expressed by the 
dynamics of flows and product value, the design of the strategy "forgets" the bottle and concentrates on the 
vineyard. 

For example the measure of investments, with the progressive reduction of the percentage of contributions as 
the  size  of  the  company  increases,  discourages  aggregation,  which  instead  is  fundamental  considering  the 
strong competition on the major export markets that requires adequate dimensions. 

In addition to large industrial groups,  are particularly penalized  the cooperative model: an investment made 
by a large cooperative group has positive repercussions on the income of its social base that consists of small 
and very small  farmers, wich, of course,  could not make it  by themselves.  

The margin of autonomy left at the regional level was not sufficient to "correct" the approach underlying the 
CMO: also in Veneto, the large industrial groups were excluded from the support because they were too "big". 

About  promotion measure, both national and regional operators highlighted that priority criteria concerning 
the  aggregative  component  of  small  and  micro  companies,    established  at  national  level,    and  criteria 
concerning  new beneficiary/ies pushed to the constitution of temporary business associations  are not always 
able to carry out actions that followed the stipulation of stable and continuous contracts. The priority given to 
new  aggregations  reduces  marketing  pressure  and  therefore  the  effectiveness  of  investments:  a  selection 
criterion based on the increase in value of production would have been more appropriate. 

Preventing the continuity of promotional actions in the highly competitive markets where all the competitors 
invest a lot and continuously, is a favor to all non-European production. 

IQ 15.3. How did the increase of the NSP budget in 2014 impact the management of the NSP? 

No significant elements are noted in this regard. 

IQ 15.4. Are the budgets on each measure appropriate to address the needs of the sector? 

Based on report of National and regional Authorities the contribution threshold has been reduced in order to 
increase the number of beneficiaries. 

13 Although this comment has not been thorough it is assumed that one thinks of all  sector (e.g dairy or meat production 

sector) except fruit and vegetable sector 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                                 
National  representatives  evaluate  positively  the  increase  in  the  budget  assigned  to  the  Measures  for 
Investments and Promotion (from 45 to 60  Meuro) but  in relation to the Promotion  Measure, the allocation 
decided at national level of the quota 70 (Regions) / 30 (Italy) limits the financing of larger projects, where one 
of the greatest needs is to support the Country System and the strongest names  also with a view to favoring 
small producers. 

IQ 15.5. From your point of view, can the NSP and the scheme of authorisation allow for the development of 
the wine production and consumption? are those schemes needed to maintain the supply/demand balance? 

According  to  national  and  regional  authorieties,  national  representatives  of  wine  sector  and  local  producers 
and  interbranch  organizations,  the  scheme  of  authorisation  does’t  allow  for  the  development  of  the  wine 
production.  

The reasons are explained in I.Q 11.1; 11.2 

2.7.2  Opinion of the expert 

The measures of restructuring and conversion vineyards, investment and promotion are very relevant tools for 
wine sector.  

In fact, the measures have well intercepted the demand oriented to improve the competitiveness of the wine 
production  chain  and  to  direct  production  to  meet  market  demand,  highlighting  a  substantial  coherence 
between the budget spend on each measure and the actual needs of the sector. 

At  level  of  growers,  the  NSP  relevance  is  highlighted  by  the  fact  that,  in  Italy,  the  Italian  production  is 
concentrated  (60%)  in  cooperatives  wich  are  composed  of  small  and  very  small  growers  to  whom  the  NSP 
support allowed to make the changes requested by the market. 

The NSP has supported small and medium wineries in the introduction of process and product innovations, but 
the  economic  sustainability  of  the  investments  they  made  is  only  guaranteed  if  the  names  within  which  the 
individual labels are placed, are reinforced. 

From  this  point  of  view  the  design  of  the  measures  (both  in  relation  to  the  EU  design  and  to  the  choices  at 
national/regional level) in the more structured and dynamic Italian realities such as Veneto, did not fully satisfy 
the needs of: 
 

i) strengthening and consolidating the names on the emerging markets and on traditional ones;  

 

ii) increase in wine production potential and dimensional growth of companies 

The  promotion  of  the  "Italian  System"  and  of  the  Italian  denominations  has  been  undersized  and  the 
aggregation processes of the production components have been penalized. 

2.8  EU added value and subsidiarity 

2.8.1  Synthesis of the interviewes 

IQ 17.1. In your opinion, what would have been done (/how would have the wine sector been supported) at 
national or local level, in the absence of the EU NSP? 

Regional Authorities recognize that without EU NSP the resources available at regional level could not provide 
adequate support for the regional wine sector. 

Based on opinion collected by interviewed at all level,  without support  smaller fams and companies would not 
have faced restructuring and conversion investments,  the vineyard renewal rate observed (on average 3%) and 
the level of modernization achieved at the regional level would hardly have been achieved.  

Moreover, even in the most dynamic realities such as Veneto, without support, investments would have been 
made only by the most structured companies with sufficient liquid assets and access to credit and, inter alia, to 
a lesser extent than what was possible: this in particular for the Promotion investiments. 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
IQ  17.2.  From  your  point  of  view,  did  the  fact  that  the  support  was  provided  to  the  wine  sector  in  the 
framework of EU regulation create an added value?  

EU regulation creates a homogeneous context in relation to the forms of support and their application at the 
level of all European countries and, in agreement with the national authority, the NSP has provided not only 
financial  instruments  but  also  intervention  strategies  at  the  sector  level  (vineyard  retraining)  that  have  been 
integrated at national level, with the promotion policies of the made in Italy. 

Due to the Italian public debt, imagining only national public support would be absolutely penalizing. 

However,  National  representatives  of  the  wine  sector  point  out  that  an  overall  industrial  vision  of  the  wine 
system has been lacking and the NSP has been solved in a multiplicity of interventions that  at the global level 
did not generate the expected added value. 

IQ 17.3. Do you know of any specific cases in which a lack of flexibility in the EU framework has hindered the 
added value of the programme? 

In accordance with regional authorities, the rules are necessary and must be respected but there is a general 
consensus in highlighting the restrictive interpretation of the Regulation regarding the duration of promotion 
actions  that  severely  limits  the  access  of  those  who  have  already  benefited:  this  rule  strongly  penalizes  the 
larger  groups  that  still  constitute  a  tow  even  for  the  little  ones.  The  market  by  its  nature  is  frequented  by 
important groups. 

IQ  17.4.  Would  you  have  any  proposal  of  improvement  in  the  sharing  of  responsibilities  between  EU  and 
Member States:  

  Regarding the design of the measure? 

  Regarding the implementation of the programmes? 

Please specify which measure is concerned. 

The most significant elements collected regarding the design of the measure concern the promotion measure:  
criteria of new beneficiary/ies pushed to the constitution of temporary business associations not always able to 
carry out actions that followed the stipulation of stable and continuous contracts. 

The criterion concerning the new markets contradict the economic assumption that the allocation of resources 
must be concentrated in the segments with the highest multiplier effect and  goes in favor of all non-European 
production. 

About  the  implementation  of  the  programme,  the  mechanism  which  envisages  a  very  strict  deadline  for  the 
annual  budget  should  be  accompanied  by  greater  flexibility  in  managing  changes  to  the  programme,  and  in 
particular changes to the financial table, in order to promote spending of all the available funds through more 
timely modulation of the funds across the measures.  

2.8.2  Conclusion of the expert 

- 
NSP measures are suited to address the need of the wine sector at national and regional level and 
the  proof  is  that  the  efficiency  in  spending  is  very  high    (99%)  both  at  national  and  regional  level.  Is 
significant that national representatives of the cooperative world hopes to extend this type of support to 
other sectors. 
- 
The  implementation  of  NSP  has  allowed  a  considerable  number  of  regional  producers  to 
consolidate  the  development  strategies  also  in  combination  with  the  RDP  with  focus  on  a  better 
management of the winemaking and marketing costs. 

- 

-  Without  support,  the  varietal  and  structural  adaptation  of  the  vineyards  and  the  level  of 
modernization  achieved  at  regional  level  in  the  transformation  and  bottling  processes  observed 
would be difficult to achieve.  
There is a  substancial coherence wth regard to the EU objectives of environmental sustainability, 
public health and balanced territorial development.  The NSP promotes Italian PDOs e PGIs system, 
sustainable  viticulture  practices  (organic  wine  production)    and  the  improvement  of  energy  and 
environmental  performance  related  to  wine  production:  so  the  NSP          meets    consumer 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
expectations in relation to  respect of the environment and food safety standards and contribute to 
the territorial development.     
Furthermore all NSP objectives are also strongly coherent with the objective of balanced territorial 
development as far as concern the creation and/or maintenance of job opportunities. 

- 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

37 

 
3.  THEME 2: SCHEME OF AUTHORISATIONS OF VINE PLANTINGS 

3.1  Synthesis of the literature at national level14 

The scheme of authorisations of vine planting assigns to the Regions a reference role in the management of the 
vineyard potential15. 
The available area  (1%) is calculated in percentage ratio with regional potential area; to individual applicants 
the available area is allocated proportionally to the requested and eligible area. 

The  system  has  shown  many  critical  and  elusive  phenomena:  many  farmers,  in  2016,  deliberately  required 
much  larger  areas  than  they  could  get  (even  hundreds  of  hectares,  with  short-term  rental  contracts),  well 
knowing that - with the pro-rata criterion - they would receive a significantly lower allocation.  

Moreover, the pro-rata criterion has allowed "non traditional vine growers" with large areas required, creating 
a distortive mechanism. 

The  changes  adopted  in  2017  and  2018  (MD  527  del  30/1/2017  e  MD  935  del  13/2/2018)  aimed  to  correct 
these distortions through the introduction of constraints as follow: 

 
 

the obligation to maintain the vineyard implanted for at least five years; 
the grubbing up of the vineyards planted with new authorisation, before the expiry of the five years 
from the date of planting, does not give rise to re-planting permits; 

  maximum  threshold  of  50  hectares  for  each  application  (which  may  be  further  reduced  by  the 

individual Regions) 

  minimum  quota  of  between  0.1  and  0.5  hectares  to  all  applicants,  in  the  event  that  the  admissible 
applications are found to be greater than the available area (as has happened in the last two years) 
the possibility to use the acquired rights obtained as a result of vineyard grubbings in land rented in a 
different Region only after 6 years from the date of registration of the rent.  

 

These changes discourage farmers from requesting authorizations in less competitive regions (such as Umbria 
or Lazio) and then move the vineyard to more competitive regions, such as Veneto or Friuli. 

Therefore, the implementation of the new  scheme has seen the contrast between the Central-South Regions 
and those of the North-East. 

The system has determined a national average allocation of 9.5% of the area requested for 2016 and 3.9% for 
the year 2017 but with strong differences between Regions: in 2016 the Veneto Region was first in Italy with 
applications for 34.677 hectares of new vineyards on 66.000 hectares required overall on the whole national 
soil. 

In  2017,  as  review  TerraEvita  reported  and  shown  in  the  following  table,  were  requested  Authorizations  for 
165.000 hectares compared to an availability of 6.500 hectares: in Veneto and Friuli, the requests exceed even 
the surfaces that are currently cultivated.  

Table 18  Vineyard plant authorization requests: outcome of the second year (2017) 

REGIONS 

Required 
surfaces 
(ha) (ha) 

Number of 
applications 
(N°) 

Regional 
Vineyard  area 
(ha) 

Plafond* 
(1%) (ha) 

Grantable 
surface/n° 
applications  
(ha) 

Medium 
surfaces 
required (ha) 

ABRUZZO 

BASILICATA 

P.A. BOLZANO 

CALABRIA 

CAMPANIA 

1.967 

364 

236 

336 

856 

706 

92 

589 

105 

521 

EMILIA-ROMAGNA 

8.398 

1.958 

31.648 

5.023 

5.433 

10.656 

24.073 

51.451 

316 

50 

54 

107 

241 

515 

0,45 

0,54 

0,09 

1,02 

0,46 

0,26 

2,79 

3,96 

0,4 

3,2 

1,64 

4,29 

14Edagaricole 2017.  White paper: Impianti viticoli 

https://elearning.unite.it/pluginfile.php/56824/mod_resource/content/0/1_monografia_VVQ_15_03_2017.pdf 

15 M.D.  12272 15 /12/2015 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

38 

 
 
 
                                                                 
REGIONS 

Required 
surfaces 
(ha) (ha) 

Number of 
applications 
(N°) 

Regional 
Vineyard  area 
(ha) 

Plafond* 
(1%) (ha) 

Grantable 
surface/n° 
applications  
(ha) 

FRIULI VENEZIA GIULIA 

29.264 

1.571 

LAZIO 

LIGURIA 

LOMBARDIA 

MARCHE 

MOLISE 

PIEMONTE 

PUGLIA 

SARDEGNA 

SICILIA 

TOSCANA 

P.A. TRENTO 

UMBRIA 

VALLE D'AOSTA 

VENETO 

TOTALI 

239 

95 

2.213 

349 

942 

678 

14.870 

599 

8.434 

3.909 

189 

116 

14 

90.827 

164.895 

127 

94 

620 

159 

151 

737 

1.765 

197 

1.349 

862 

462 

54 

31 

7.233 

19.383 

24.861 

18.676 

1.570 

22.846 

17.160 

5.378 

46.693 

86.541 

26.269 

99.221 

58.225 

10.234 

12.787 

456 

86.597 

249 

187 

16 

228 

172 

54 

467 

865 

263 

992 

582 

102 

128 

5 

866 

645.798 

6.459 

0,16 

1,47 

0,17 

0,37 

1,08 

0,36 

0,63 

0,49 

1,34 

0,74 

0,68 

0,22 

2,37 

0,15 

0,12 

0,33 

Medium 
surfaces 
required (ha) 

18,63 

1,88 

1,01 

3,57 

2,19 

6,24 

0,92 

8,42 

3,04 

6,25 

4,53 

0,41 

2,15 

0,45 

12,56 

8,51 

Source: (https://terraevita.edagricole.it/attualita/vigneto-lincredibile-escalation-delle-autorizzazioni-dimpianto/ ) 

(*) to the total must be added the 168 ha of 2016 waivers 

Below  are  reported  two  shared  opinions  (Confagricoltura  Veneto)  in  the  Veneto  wine  industry  (Marchesini: 
http://www.tviweb.it/veneto-autorizzazioni-viticole-sistema-2018-non-aiuta-la-crescita; L. Frescobaldi: corriere 
vitivinicolo n 11 del 16_4_2018). 

Three years after the introduction, the budget of the new scheme of authorisations is rather disappointing: the 
results of recent years do not meet the demands of regional entrepreneurs. 

In 2016, at the debut of the new system, the Veneto Region was the first in Italy, with applications for 34.677 
hectares of new vineyards out of 66.000 hectares required overall on the whole national soil. 

In  2017,  compared  to  an  availability  of  865  hectares,  7.233  applications  were  submitted  for  over  90.000 
hectares, equal to 60% of the total national applications, which were 165.000. 

This year, according to industry observers, the number could rise further, on the wave of Prosecco and export 
growth for Amarone. 

L. Frescobaldi (president of one of the largest groups in Italy) argues that the system is proving to be a snare to 
productive  and  competitive  development,  because,  limiting  the  possibility  of  new  vineyards  in  areas  with 
greater possibilities discourages entrepreneurs (that indeed are turning out of Italy) and it triggers a process of 
entrepreneurial weakening with consequent depletion of some areas of the Italian vineyard. 

Table 19: Planting rights available in December 2015 

Surfaces rights  

Sources: AVEPA (31/12/2015) 

mq 

           123.289.649  

3.2  Synthesis of the interviews – regional level 

IT 11.1 Do you assume that the new scheme of authorisations will impact the structure of the vineyard (in 
terms of distribution of varieties, type of wine, size of holdings, age structure of the vineyard), at  regional 
level? at national level? Are there already evidences of such effects? 

According  to  the  National  Authority,  the  new  authorization  system  replaced  the  system  of  planting  rights 
which, in the Italian case, worked well. 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
The current System represents a necessary compromise to avoid complete liberalization. 

Probably  the  1%  threshold,  deriving  also  from  indications  of  the  productive  world,  has  underestimated  the 
dynamics of the demand and this explains the boom of requests received in the 1st year (66.000 ha compared 
to an availability of 6.000). 

On the other hand, the national framework is complex and regional interests are conflicting, for which it has 
been  necessary  to  introduce  priority  criteria  and  minimum  and  maximum  thresholds  that  will  prevent  the 
uncontrollable growth of agro -industrial vineyards. 

Even the national representatives of the sector agree on this: in a stable consumption framework (even if with 
variable localization) the system guarantees a balance between supply and demand but it should have a dual 
purpose:  on  the  one  hand  it  must  allow  development  margins  to  the  different  production  areas  to  seize 
business opportunities; on the other hand, it must avoid phenomena of speculative hoarding that do not help 
those who speculate or who are being defrauded  (as it happened for example for Nero d'avola in Sicily, Soave 
in Veneto). 

As  it  is,  the  first  condition  is  not  satisfied:  the  evolution  of  wine-growing  areas  at  national  level  indicates  a 
decrease of more than 1%. 

In  Veneto  all  respondents  (regional  authorities,  interbranch  organization,  beneficiaries  ...)  agree  that  the 
system limits the possibilities for developing the regional wine heritage. 

The  regional  authority  also  recognizes  elements  of  unconstitutionality  concerning  the  freedom  of  private 
economic initiative (art 41 of the Constitution). 

Furthermore the constraint  to use the acquired rights in land rented in a different Region only after 6 years 
from the date of registration of the rent (see point 3.1) limits the freedom of leaseholder, provided for by law 
Patti Agrari (n2013/82 Art 16 et seq),  to carry out land transformations with the agreement of the landowner.  

While  aware  of  the  need  of  other  regions  to  protect  some  of  their  productions,  one  cannot  ignore  the 
possibilities offered by the market; again, according to the opinion of the regional authorities, the system is not 
an adequate instrument for the regulation between supply and demand, because this is normally carried out 
within  the  denominations.  Moreover,  considering  that  the  most  important  denominations  of  the  Veneto 
occupies practically the entire territory dedicated to viticulture, it seems clear that where there is no vocation it 
will be difficult to develop. 

According to regional operators (producers and beneficiaries) the system should be managed at national level. 

IT 11.2 If so, do you assume that the new scheme of authorisations will result in a vineyard structure that will 
be better adapted to the markets expectations? Are there already evidences of such an effect? 

In Veneto both the beneficiaries and interbranch organization agree that the current system strongly limits the 
adjustment  of  vineyard  structure  to  market  expectations.  It  works  only  for  those  who  have  previously 
purchased rights. 

IT 11.3 Do you assume that the new scheme of authorisations will impact the economic value of vineyards? 
Are there already evidences of such an effect? 

Interbranch organization at national level points out that with the previous regime, rights in Italy had reached 
incredible  levels  of  price  (unlike  in  Spain,  and  in  France);  new  scheme  of  authorisations,  even  making  them 
free, have not prevented speculation, stop now only thanks to the corrections recently made. 

The  continuity  of  speculation  on  the  sector  shows  that  the  system  cannot  be  managed  locally  but  needs  a 
nationwide management based on the full functionality of the wine register. 

In fact, it is necessary to avoid that the rigidity of the system creates a surge in the value of the vineyards in the 
most  precious  wine-growing  areas  and  with  greater  opportunities  for  business:  in  Veneto  the  operators 
(regional authority, interbranch organization beneficiary) point out how the system has made it difficult to find 
new surfaces and has strongly increased the price/ha of vineyards like the Glera, which has reached values of 
500.000 euros/ha  in the Valpolicella and Valdobbiadone areas. 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

40 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
3.3  Conclusion of the experts 

 

contribute to the competitiveness of wine growers  

The rigidity of the system can generate significant increases in the value of vineyards in the most prized wine 
areas with greater opportunities for business. This is reflected in high nominal values of real estate assets and 
in inflated balance sheets that make the sector less ready to react to changes. 

 

enable an increase of the production potential, while keeping the balance between demand and supply  

In a context of overall stable  consumption, the system guarantees a balance between supply and demand, in 
particular avoiding speculative phenomena. 

But due to its rigidity, the system doesn’t enable an increase of the production potential:  first because the 
evolution of wine-growing areas at national level indicates a decrease of more than 1%; second because it does 
not allow, in the different production areas, development margins to capture business opportunities.  

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
4.  THEME  3:  WINE  PRODUCTS  DEFINITION,  RESTRICTIONS  ON  OENOLOGICAL 

PRACTICES  

4.1  Detailed  description  of  the  implementation  at  Member  State  and 

regional level 

Table 20: Description of main local specificities in oenological practices and authorised varieties 

Geographical level for the 
rule  

All Italian  PDO  

Type of wine 
product 
concerned 

Still 
sparkling wines 

wine, 

Authorised wine grape varieties 

Regional PDO Prosecco  

Sparkling wines 

Description of the specific rule (compared to EU standards defined in the 
regulation) 

The use of oak chip isn’t permitted 

Principal grape wine variety: Glera  

Accessory  grape  wine  variety:  Verdiso,  Bianchetta  trevigiana,  Perera, 
Glera lunga, Chardonnay,Pinot bianco, Pinot grigio e Pinot nero (vinificato 
in bianco) 

4.2  Competitiveness  distortions  due 

to  specific 

rules  on  oenological 

practices 

4.2.1  Description of competing wines 

Table 21: Specificities oenological practices of main competing wines 

Main differences in oenological practices and variety authorised 

None of the witnesses interviewed reported situations in which the rules 
on oenological practices generate competitive distortions 

PDO/PGI wine 

EU competitor 1 

EU competitor 2 

Abroad competitor 1 

Abroad competitor 2 

Varietal wine 

EU competitor 1 

EU competitor 2 

Abroad competitor 1 

Abroad competitor 2 

4.3  Synthesis of the interviews  

4.3.1  Effects  of  oenological  practices  on  marketing  conditions  for  producers  and 

traders 

5.10  Did  oenological  practices  as  applied  in  your  Member  State/region/PDO-PGI  territory  help  to  improve 
the marketing conditions of concerned wines?  

The widespread opinion of interviewees is that the rules are necessary and help to regulate the market. 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
IQ  5.11  Were  oenological  practices  as  applied  in  your  Member  State/region/PDO-PGI  area  more  or  less 
constraining than for main competing wines? 

National Authorities and national representatives of producers  judge positively the progressive homologation 
of the EU rules with the rules of the OIV. 

In Italy the OIV rules are already applied and in the production disciplinary rules are more restrictive both in 
relation to the enology practices and in relation to the use of the varieties. 

The example  of more restrictive practices that determine competitive disadvantages in the Intra EU countries 
are the sugaring, admitted in France and Germany and prohibited in Italy. 

In non-EU countries, the case of the United States has to be mentioned: USA do not adhere to the OIV rules 
and admits the use of water up to 7% as well as the use of resins to remove impurities. 

IQ 5.12 Are the decisions of the EC concerning the changes in marketing standards taken in a timely manner? 
Can you provide examples? 

National representatives of  the  sector and largest  industrial groups  (es: CAVIRO, MEZZACORONA)  noted that  
the process of DG Agri has been streamlined and the response is now faster thanks to the dialogue between 
the EC and OIV but a certain slowness remains.  

4.3.2  Effect of oenological practices on the safety and quality of the products 

IQ 5.1 How do EU rules on oenological practices contribute to the safety of EU wine products? 

The common opinion of the respondents is that the rules are necessary and contribute to regulating the market 
and food safety. 

IQ 5.2 Was there any major safety issue related to EU wine products in your Member State during the last 10 
years? 
The stakeholders do not mention any major safety issue. 

4.3.3  Relevance and added value of specific oenological practices and restrictions 

on varieties 

IQ 14.2 For what reasons were restrictions regarding varieties initially set up? 
According to national representatives of the sector and interbranch organization, the restrictions were initially 
set up to defende national PDO and PGI. 

IQ 14.3 Are the initial justifications for restrictions still relevant today? 
According to national representatives of sector and interbranch organization the reason initially set up is still 
relevant.  

IQ 14.4 Today, what are the issues at stake regarding the use of varieties in wine production? 

The  main  issues  treated  with  interviewees  concern  the  use  of  varieties  that  can  modify  or  improve  the 
organoleptic  characteristics  of  the  product  by  intercepting  the  demands  of  the  market  (softer  wine/more 
structured wine). While it is considered correct to link varieties to denominations, on the other hand the link 
should  not  hinder  improvements.  In  Italy  and  Veneto,  however,  very  strict  disciplinary  rules  are  adopted, 
sometimes  at  the  limit  of  religious  orthodoxy,  even  when  the  inclusion  of  varietals  tends  to  improve  the 
composition in order to adapt it to the reference markets. In these cases the Consortium should be ready to 
collect consumer requests, even if respecting tradition. 

It  is  necessary  to  be  ready  for  changes,  including  climate  change,  and  work  towards  greater  sustainability. 
According to regional authority, hybrid varieties are interesting and should be explored, for example, in relation 
to resistant varieties. 

Operators agree that the main factors involved are a greater sustainability (resistance to diseases) and a better 
organoleptic  composition  responding  to  market  demands,  even  if  at  the  level  of  consortium  representatives 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(e.g. Valpolicella) the opinion is that before starting the varietal composition you can explore different roads at 
the level of oenological practices, for example. 

IQ 16.4 What would be the consequences of applying strictly OIV definitions, rules on oenological practices 
and rules concerning authorised wine grape varieties in the EU? 

The progressive homologation of the EU rules with the rules of the OIV is considered positive. 

In Italy the OIV rules are  already applied and in the production disciplinary rules are more restrictive both in 
relation to the enology practices and in relation to the use of the varieties 

But  there  is  a  need  to  align  the  Codex  Alimentarius  (to  which  the  World  Trade  Organization  refers  in 
commercial disputes) and the OIV by updating the list of additives of Codex alimentarius  for wines (narrower 
than OIV one) and inclusion of  practices and additives recognized by the OIV. 

4.4  Comments and conclusions of the expert  

4.4.1  On the effectiveness of EU rules on competitiveness and quality 

In Italy it recognizes the need and the effectiveness of the rules in order to regulate market and food safety but 
no significant contribution to competitiveness emerge.   

For  competitiveness,  the  most  relevant  information  collected  the  need  to  align  the  Codex  Alimentarius  (to 
which the World Trade Organization refers in commercial disputes) and the OIV by updating the list of additives 
of Codex alimentarius for wines (narrower than OIV one) and inclusion of practices and additives recognized by 
the OIV. 

4.4.2  On the relevance of EU rules and their added value compared to OIV rules 

In Italy the OIV rules are already applied and in the production disciplinary rules are more restrictive both in 
relation to the enology practices and in relation to the use of the varieties. 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

44 

 
 
 
 
5.  THEME 4: EU RULES ON LABELLING AND PRESENTATION 

5.1  Description of the labelling rules applied at Member State and local level 

5.1.1  Description of specific labelling rules applied in your Member State, region or 

main PDO/PGIs (including restrictions on variety labelling) 

Labelling rules applied in Italy are regulated by law no 238/2016 on the “Organic discipline of vines cultivation 
and of production and trade of wine”. 

Mandatory and optional indications for PDO and PGI wines and for wines without a  designation of origin are 
summarized below. 

Table 22: Mandatory and optional indications for PDO and PGI wines 

Mandatory indications 

Optional indications  (Reg. Ce 607/2009): 

1. The designation of origin or geographical indication followed 
respectively  by  the  words  "Protected  Designation  of  Origin"  or 
PDO, "Protected Geographical Indication" or PGI, or the related 
traditional terms used in the country; 

2. the actual alcoholic strength by volume; 

3. indication of origin; 

4.  the  indication  of  the  bottler  or,  for  the  sparkling  wine 
categories, of the producer or seller and, if any, of the importer 
in the case of imported wines; 

5.  the  indication  of  the  sugar  content,  for  the  sparkling  wine 
categories; 

6. the presence of allergens; 

7. the identification number and / or lot; 

8.  the  vintage  of  the  grapes,  only  for  DOP  wines  (Legislative 
Decree 61/2010); 

1.  Grape  varieties,  only  if  they  represent  at  least  85%  of  the 
varieties used 

2. the sugar content; 

3. traditional mentions; 

4. the community symbols of the PDO / PGI; 

5. UE Logo related to the presence of allergens 

6.  the  community  symbols  of  the  PDO  /  PGI, 
indications 
concerning  the  aging  and  /  or  processing  method  (eg  superior, 
new, etc.); 

7. References to the production method (fermented in cask, etc.). 

8. Use of terms such as abbey, castle, fortress, etc. referred to the 
farm  but  only  if  all  processing  operations  take  place  in  the  area 
mentioned 

9.  the  name  of  a  smaller  or  larger  geographical  unit  of  the 
delimited area of production of the PDO / PGI; 

10. nutritional declaration (EU Reg. 1169/2011); 

9. the indication of the quantity; 

11. further indications. 

Table 23: Mandatory and optional indications for wines without a designation of origin  

Mandatory indications   

Optional indications   

1. Name of the product followed Sales name 

2. Alcoholic strength by volume. 

3. indication of provenance 

5. References to the bottler (name and / or brand + address). 

6. . Sugary content (for sparkling wines only). 

7. Indication regarding the presence of allergens 

8. Lot 

9. Indication of the quantity. 

1. References (name or trademark + address) to other commercial 
in  the  supply  chain  (eg  manufacturer, 
operators 
distributor, etc.). 

involved 

2. UE Logo related to the presence of allergens 

3. Vintage of the grapes, only if at least 85% of the grapes come 
from the same vintage. 

4.  Varieties  of  the  grapes,  but  only  if  they  belong  to  the 
typologies  admitted  by  the  Mipaaf,  in  the  Circular  of  30/07/09 
(Cabernet  franc,  Cabernet  sauvignon  Cabernet,  Chardonnay, 
Merlot, Sauvignon, Syrah.). 

5. Sugary content (for non-sparkling wines). 

Law 238/2016 has introduced some innovations that may have implications from the point of view of labeling 
and presentation.  

- 

For the protection and classification of designations of origin and geographical indications (Article 43), 
the text regulates the labelling and presentation of wines of PDOs and PGIs, traditional indications and 
other  indications  reserved  for  PDOs  and  PGIs,  introducing  the  novelty  of  allowing  the  use  of 
geographical names reserved  to a PDOs and/or a  PGIs. Therefore, in order to indicate the territorial 
location  of  the  winery  or  of  the  vineyards,  the  name  of  the  Region  or  Province  of  another  PDO/PGI 
may  appear  on  the  wine  label,  even  if  that  Region  or  Province  is  recognised  as  PDO  or  PGI.  This  is 
possible provided that such indication is clearly separated from the mandatory ones and provided that 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

45 

 
 
 
 
it is reported among the supplementary information related to the history of the wine, the origin of 
the grapes and processing techniques.  
- 

The introduction of "native  italic  vine" or "italic  vine": in  particular only varieties of wine grapes 
recognised as such on the basis of criteria identified in a ministerial decree belonging to the species 
Vitis  vinifera,  of  proven  origin  from  Italy  and  whose  presence  is  recorded  in  delimitated 
geographical  areas  of  the  national  territory;  the  use  of  the  term  "native  italic  vine"  and  its 
synonyms  can  be  used  only  for  labeling  and  presentation  of  specific  DOCG16  (controlled  and 
guaranteed denomination of origin), PDO and PGI wines. 

- 

- 

- 

- 

The  name  of  the  designation  of  origin  and  of  the  geographical  indication  and  other  traditional 
indications  can  not  be  used  to  designate  similar  products  or  used  in  such  a  way  as  to  create 
confusion in consumers concerning the identification of products. 

It is forbidden to refer to a  geographical area  of any  dimension in the labeling, presentation and 
advertising of wine products without PDO or PGI. 

It  is  allowed  to  indicate  in  the  labeling  and  presentation  of  PDO  or  PGI  products  referring  to 
interregional or inter-provincial or inter-municipal areas, the name of a smaller administrative area 
reserved to another PDO or PGI falling within the same territorial area (location,  municipality or a 
fraction a sub-area (wine-growing subregion or part of it) an administrative area) 

In the case of two or  more  grape varieties, the one present  to a  lesser extent  must  represent  at 
least  15%  of  the  total.  Previously  the  presence  of  small  quantities  of  high  value  grapes  could  be 
used to promote products of lower quality. 

5.1.2  Description of the system set up for controlling the labelling 

The indications on the label of non PDO-PGI wines must be guaranteed by the traceability system regulated by 
the ministerial decree of 19 March 2010 described in 6.1 

5.2  Existing national data on non-compliance with labelling rules 

NA 

5.3  Synthesis of the interviews  

5.3.1  Effects  of  labelling  and  presentation  rules  on  the  adequate  information  of 

consumers 

IQ 6.2 Do EU rules on labelling allow an adequate, clear and sufficient information on the products?  

According with National Authorities EU rules on labelling and controls allow an adequate, clear and sufficient 
information on the products (despite oenological practices are not reported on the label). 

 In  the  opinion  of  Italian  representatives,  "information  and  transparency  on  the  list  of  ingredients  must  be 
guaranteed to consumer. If an industry uses sucrose, it cannot fail to indicate it 

IQ 6.3 
nutritional aspects? 

Is  the  information  provided  sufficient  as  regards  health  warnings,  alcohol  content,  calorie  and 

In  March  2018,  the  EU  wine  sector  presented  a  self-regulatory  proposal  to  the  EU  Health  Commissioner, 
Vytenis  Andriukaitis.  The  proposal  comes  after  a  two-year  delayed  call  by  the  EU,  which  opted  for  a  self-
regulatory  approach  to  alcohol  labelling.  Under  the  current  regime,  alcoholic  beverages  are  not  obliged  to 
indicate the list of ingredients and nutrition declaration, which is not the case for other foods. 

16 Identifies the geographical origin of a wine and can only be  used for those wines of particular value that, for at least 5 

years, have been classified as PDO. 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

46 

 
 
 
 
  
                                                                 
Discussion  on 
labelling  requirements  has  reopened  also  the  discussion  about  sugar.  Several  Italian 
organisations would be ready to challenge the nutritional labeling of alcohol in the part concerning information 
on wine ingredients. 

The proposal was developed jointly by CEEV (for the industrial part) and COPA COGECA (agricultural producers 
and cooperation) and represents a compromise between the various representatives except for the indication 
of sugar. For Mediterranean operators (to whom the use of sugar is forbidden) the use of sucrose to enrich the 
alcohol content of wines should at least be indicated on the label. For producers of Northern Europe (to which 
"sugaring"  is  allowed)  the  use  of  sucrose  leaves  no  residues  in  wine  and  therefore  should  not  be  counted 
among the ingredients. This latter position seems to be prevalent. 

In  the  opinion  of  Italian  representatives  "information  and  transparency  on  the  list  of  ingredients  must  be 
guaranteed to consumer. If an industry uses sucrose, it cannot fail to indicate it". In the opinion of industrial 
producers, labeling rules that are being discussed represent a great injustice for Italy, in particular in relation to 
the obligation to declare the practice of sweetening: it is not the same thing if this is made with concentrated 
must instead of sucrose also for the greater costs. 

IQ 6.4 
sufficient information on the products? 

For foreign wines sold on the local market, do the languages used allow an adequate, clear and 

Yes,  concerning  the  most  relavant  information  such  as  indication  of  origin;  the  actual  alcoholic  strength  by 
volume; the presence of allergens. 

IQ 6.5 
adequate, clear and sufficient information on the products? 

Is there any other type of information that would be necessary to add on the labels to ensure an 

In  the  opinion  of  Italian  representatives  "information  and  transparency  on  the  list  of  ingredients  must  be 
guaranteed  to  consumer.  If  an  industry  uses  sucrose,  it  cannot  fail  to  indicate  it".  An  investment  would  be 
necessary  to  integrate  them  with  elements  of  differential  communication  (dematerialization  of  the  label)  to 
enhancing the link between product and territory and consumer knowledge.  

IQ 9.1 
PDO/PGI labelling? 

To what extent do consumers understand the specificities of PDO/PGI labelling compared to non-

Representatives of the sector recognize that consumers (in foreign countries) don’t understand the specificities 
of PDO/PGI labelling compared to non-PDO/PGI labelling. 

Furthermore  in  Italy,  unlike  in  France,  every  region  and  provinces  are  considered  suitable  for  viticulture  and 
there are a lot of PDOs and PGIs: almost all Italian terroir became DO and this message can be destructive. 

IQ 9.2 
misled?  

Without labelling restrictions applied to non-PDO/PGI wines, to what extent would consumers be 

As  concern  national  market  restrictions  applied  to  non-PDO/PGI  wines,  they  allow  consumers  to  be  well 
informed about the quality of product they are buying. 

In foreign countries, consumers don’t understand (yet) the specificities of PDO/PGI labelling compared to non-
PDO/PGI labelling. 

5.3.2  Effects  of  labelling  and  presentation  rules  on  marketing  conditions  and  fair 

competition between operators 

IQ 6.6 

Did the new rules on labelling allow an increase in the quantity of production marketed/traded? 

In the opinion of interviewees, the new rules have not had any effect in terms of quantity. 

Opinion of wholesalers is that control system at the base of labelling restrictions applied to non-PDO/PGI wines 
is not a marketing instrument: on the foreign markets, the product is presented by the entrepreneur and not 
by the certification body. 

IQ 6.7 

Did the new rules on labelling allow an increase in the value of production marketed/traded? 

The product's attractiveness is mainly given by the label graphics while the information must be clear just on 
the denomination. 

IQ 6.10 

Do the new rules contribute to ensure a fair competition between operators? 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

47 

 
 
 
 
For Italian operators (to whom the use of sugar is forbidden) the use of sucrose to enrich the alcohol content of 
wines should at least be indicated on the label to ensure fair competition between EU producers.  

. 

IQ 6.11 
competition between operators? 

In  your  opinion,  what  changes  would  be  necessary  in  the  labelling  rules  to  ensure  a  fair 

The various representatives of Italian wine world agree that the use of sucrose to enrich the alcohol content of 
wines should at least be indicated on the label. 

A significant change would be the dematerialization of the label: the cost of updating a web page is much lower 
than that of a label and this also guarantees the claims of a consumer who wants to keep being informed. 

IQ 6.8 

Were the rules on labelling simple to implement? 

No particular problems were highlighted 

IQ 6.9 
instance)? 

What would be the consequence of rules requiring more detailed information (on ingredients for 

It  may  be  critical  to  adapt  the  information  using  the  language  of  the  importing  country  because  this  implies 
unsustainable additional costs for the exporting companies.  

As  said  in  I.Q  11  the  dematerialization  of  the  label  could  be  a  possible  solution:    also  because  with  the 
electronic label one could integrate informations on terroire and/or enological practices that enhance the link 
between the product and its territory and consumer knowledge. 

5.4  Comments and conclusions of the expert  

5.4.1  On  the  effectiveness  of  labelling  rules  on  the  adequate  information  of 

consumers 

The rules on labeling provide the consumer with adequate information. The risk derives from the homologation 
of the wine to other agro-industrial products:  as emphasized by the chairman of Copa-Cogeca, Thierry Coste, 
“Wine is an agricultural product that constantly evolves and does not have a fixed recipe.”  

For istance the caloric impact is only one of the many factors that describe it, but it must be kept in mind that 
the nutritional values of the wine can vary from harvest to harvest and sometimes even from batch to batch. 

Furthermore, being the caloric content linked to the alcohol level, less aware consumers could be induced to 
prefere nutritionally poor foods (such as diet  sodas) or less alcoholic beverages like beer,  in order to  reduce 
the excess of calories in the diet.  

For the same reasons doubts expressed by operators about the use of harmfulness thresholds (like traffic light 
system adopted in England) linked with alcohol content, seem reasonable. 

5.4.2  On  the  effectiveness  of  labelling  rules  on  marketing  conditions  and  fair 

competition between operators 

From the opinions gathered, a further articulation of the labeling rules and, in particular those on the caloric 
content, will make it necessary to produce different and updated wine labels, increasing the costs. 

For Italian operators (to whom the use of sugar is forbidden), the use of sucrose to enrich the alcohol content 
of wines should at least be indicated on the label to ensure fair competition between EU producers. 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

48 

 
 
 
 
6.  THEME 5: CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES, MONITORING AND CHECKS 

6.1  Description of the local implementation of the rules 

Law  n.  238  -12/12/2016  -  Organic  discipline  of  the  cultivation  of  the  vines  and  of  the  production  and  the 
commerce of the wine - (Known as “Testo unico del vino”17) constitutes the national reference discipline of the 
Italian wine sector in raletion to: 

- 

- 
- 
- 

the regulation for the production and marketing of wine products, including quality policy, labeling, 
controls and penalties 
the system of sanctions related to authorizations for the vineyards 
the keeping of registers (Inward and outward register) by operators in the wine sector 
the system of sanctions for aromatised wine products and spirit drinks. 

The  Testo  unico  del  vino  was  developed  with  a  participatory  process  that  involved  all  the  most  important 
stakeholders  in  the  wine  sector:  therefore  the  rules  that  have  been  introduced  and  /  or  declined  are 
generally shared. 

6.1.1  Description  of  monitoring  and  checks  procedures  applied  in  your  Member 

State and region  

The  Ministry  establishes a  vineyard register, managed by the Regions within the  SIAN (National Agricultural 
Information  System)18  on  the  basis  of  the  data  referring  to  the  company  file,  which  contains  updated 
information on the wine production potential; each vineyard unit suitable for the production of wine grapes is 
entered in the register with the information about   the suitability for the production of wines DOCG, DOC and 
IGT. 

The informations must be available to the bodies responsible for checks, including the control bodies, as well as 
the recognized protection consortia19. 
The authorization system for vineyards is managed within the SIAN services. 

All  mandatory  declarations,  accompanying  documents  and  registers  in  the  wine  sector,  information, 
communications, self-certifications, data and related updates that companies in the wine sector are required to 
provide to the Public Administration and to other subjects identified by the relevant legislation - are part of the 
SIAN services wich are operating for 1984. 

From 1 January 2017 all operations related to the production of wine (harvesting, crushing, bottling, marketing 
etc) must be communicated to SIAN  in electronic form (Registro Telematico Vino – RTV) and communications 
must faithfully follow the progression of the processing steps (dematerialization within SIAN). Before 2017, it 
was a paper register.  

Holders  of  oenological  establishments  with  an  annual  production  equal  to  or  less  than  50  hectoliters  with 
related direct sales or catering activities are exempt from the obligation to maintain the electronic register. 

The presence of telematic registers guarantees a quicker verification of all the characteristics of producers and 
wines, since it is no longer necessary to go to the company to check the information and data reported on the 
registers themselves, but it is possible to perform online checks. 

There  are  almost  15.000  registered  operators  on  RTV  and  around  16%  of  them  produce  1.000  or  more 
hectolitres  per  year.  By  this  the  ICQRF  is  now  able  to  daily  check  on  line  the  stocks  and  movements  of  over 
438,000  wine  storing  containers  and  monitor  more  than  20.000.000  oenological  and  movement  operations 
carried out annually by the Italian wineries20.  
The first year of operation of the computerized register of wine has already given important results in terms of 
fight  against  frauds.  In  fact,  querying  the  register  allows  having  precise  data  on  individual  movements  and 
stocks for each company.  

17 Entered into force on 12 January 2017 
18 SIAN is the NATIONAL information system of services in the agricultural, agri-food and forestry sector made available by 

the Ministry of Agricultural, Food and Forestry Policies and Agea – Payment Agency for Agricultural. 

19 Organisation managing a specific PDO or PGI 
20 MIPAAF- IQCRF 2017_Report 2017 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

49 

 
 
                                                                 
Also, it allows a dynamic monitoring on high- risk operators behaviour.  

In addition to allowing official control authorities to monitor and verify on line each operation and movement 
carried out by all operators on national territory, the register provides important data for the knowledge of the 
wine market. Starting from 1 January 2018, ICQRF publishes the data of RTV in a report called “Cantina Italia”, 
in an aggregated form every two weeks, available on the website www.politicheagricole.it. 

All the subjects to whom functions of public interest are assigned, such as analysis laboratories, control bodies 
for PDO and PGI wines, consortiums and tasting commissions for wines can access to the on line register. 

As tool adopted by the Italian Parliament  in 2014 to  the  Coordination and planning of controls  and limit the 
overlapping of controls on agricultural enterprises,  a single Register of inspections on Agricultural Enterprises – 
(Registro Unico dei Controlli sulle Imprese agricole - RUCI) is implemented21. 
Data from the "Supervision Database" are also automatically added in RUCI. This database is the information 
base  shared  between  ICQRF  and  other  competent  Authorities  (Regions  and  APs)  which  collects  information 
such as: supervisory activity of authorities in charge (ICQRF – Regions and APs); control activity carried out by 
CBs and, in particular, non-compliances and the list of operators included in the certification system. 

RUCI is a repository containing the identification and main information related to the inspections carried out on 
agricultural  enterprises  from  over  120  supervisory  and  control  bodies  such  as  ICQRF,    Regions    and  
Autonomous   Provinces   (APs),   certification   bodies (CBs) and Carabinieri:  enterprise tax code; data from the 
authority carrying out the control, the competent authority for the control; premises and date of inspection; 
type of control; sector concerned; outcome of the control. 

Through the “RUCI”, the ICQRF has been able to optimize the inspection activities avoiding overlapping controls 
on agricultural enterprises. On 31st of December 2017, in the RUCI was recorded data on over 507.000 controls 
performed by the ICQRF, Regions, Control Bodies and Carabinieri. 

The immediate consultation of the RUCI is allowed to the staff of all the administrations, bodies and organisms 
that  carry  out  the  controls  on  the  agricultural  enterprises  and  on  the  wine-producing  enterprises:  therefore, 
when preparing individual inspections, it is necessary to check whether inspections have already been carried 
out by other control bodies on the subject to be inspected. 

6.1.1.1  Description of the control and certification system for PDO and PGI wines 

For  the  control  of  all  stages  of  production  (wine  growers,  wine  maker,  bottler)  of  PDO  and  PGI  wines  is  in 
charge a Certification and Control Body, wich can be public authority or private company. 

Public  CBs  are  local  public  entities  authorised  by  the  Central  Inspectorate  for  Quality  Safeguarding  and  Anti-
fraud of foodstuffs and agricultural products (Ispettorato Centrale della Tutela della Qualità e della Repressione 
Frodi dei prodotti agroalimentari — ICQRF); private CBs must be accredited by ACCREDIA. 

Following an agreement between ACCREDIA and the ICQRF, the accreditation procedures for CBs performing 
inspection and certification for foodstuffs, wines and spirits have been harmonised and streamlined. 

Each GI is controlled by a Control Body, chosen by the  Protection Consortium from the list of authorised CBs 
and subsequently approved by the MiPAAF (see also point 6.1.1.2) 

The  conformity  of  wines  with  the  production  specification  of  the  PDO  or  PGI  is  verified  with  control  of  the 
requirements of the specification and characteristics for consumption, chemical and organoleptic parameters. 

The only phase of control in charge of the Protection Consortia is that of the product on the market through 
the  surveillance  agents:  a  sampling  plan  is  agreed  with  the  ICQRF  and  the  samples  taken  are  subjected  to 
chemical-physical and organoleptic analysis to verify their correspondence with the sample originally submitted 
for certification. 

21  Implemented  in  force  of  the  Decree  of  the  Ministers  of  Agricultural,  Food  and  Forestry  Policies  and  the  Minister  of 

Interior of 22 July 2015 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                 
The control plan foresees the following steps: 

Phase 

Action 

sample 
/ years 

e
p
a
r
g
f
o
n
o
i
t
c
u
d
o
r
P

e
n
w

i

f
o
n
o
i
t
c
u
d
o
r
P

g
n

i
l
t
t
o
B

d
n
a

g
n
i
t
e
k
r
a
m

a
n
o
i
z
e
f
n
o
c

i

n
i
v
o
t
n
e
m

The producers concerned make  an annual claim for the production of the grapes and of the 
DO  and  IG  wines  at  the  same  time  as  the  harvest  declaration  and  /  or  the  declaration  of 
production.  For each harvest, the hectares and the total number of grapes claimed must  be 
declared,  to  which  the  hectoliters  required  by  the  production  regulations  must  correspond. 
The reporting of the grapes is presented by the producers directly to the Sian  

CB acquires data of the declarations by Regions or directly by SIAN and carries out a sample 
inspection  in  farm  to  verify  the  compliance  of  surface  and  total  number  of  grapes  declared 
and of the production yield of the vineyard with production disciplinary 

10% 

The company requires the certification of wine  
CB  control  for  the  quantitative  correspondence  on  the  loads  and  on  the  movements  of  DO 
wines and DO acts 
Verification  of  the  consistency  of  the  wine  loads  at  DO  and  conformity  with  with  the 
declaration of harvest and / or of the declaration of production  
Compliance with online register from SIAN. 
CB  carries out an annual inspection at the winemakers, to check:  
-  the  quantitative  correspondence  of  the  product  and    correspondence  to  the  relevant 
documents and records of the winery 
 –  the  compliance  of  the  technological  operations  with  the  provisions  of  the  product 
specification 
CB  carries  out  a  sample  to  the  analysis  laboratory  connected  to  the  control  body,  which 
verifies the compliance with the chemical and physical parameters (alcohol, acidity, extracts, 
etc.) provided for by the production specification. 
Organoleptic  test  by a tasting commission, to verify, even  in  this case, the compliance with 
the organoleptic characteristics required by the specification 
For PGI wines is compulsory  only the analytical examination 
Documentary  control  for  the  quantitative  compliance  on  the  handling  of  loading  and 
unloading of wines with DO 
Annual inspection at the bottling companies, to ascertain the quantitative correspondence of 
the product held with the corresponding documents and winery records 
Verification of the correct use of DO in closure and labeling systems 

.

.

O
D
a

100% 

10% 

5% 

100%22 

100% 

15% 

Once obtained the  suitability from the laboratory and the commission, the company can boast of the  DOC  / 
DOCG  and  can  request  the  State  stamps  to  be  applied  on  the  bottles:    state  stamp,  which  contains  an 
alphanumeric code, is an anti-counterfeiting tool that is a guarantee for DOC/DOCG wines. 

Until now, the state stamp mark could only be provided by the Institute of Printing and Mint of the State: L 238 
provides that it can also be printed by authorized printers. 

For a PDO wine, the average cost is around 4 cents per liter of wine but the cost of the items included in the 
control plans varies widely between regions, and even between individual names of the same region. 

Two  accredited  control  bodies  operate  in  Veneto:  ValoreItalia  and  Siquiria:  many  Veneto  wines  (Bardolino, 
Amarone, Valpolicella, Soave, etc.). Through the site of the control body Siquria (www.siquria.it/tracciabilita), 
always with the insertion of the mark data (4 capital letters and then the numbers), one can check the name of 
the producer, his contact details, the name of the wine and the bottling lot. 

6.1.1.2  Description of the control system and certification of non-PDO and PGI wines 

For varietal wines, the control and certification system (established by Ministerial Decree n. 381 of March 19, 
2010) requires that producers are required to submit themselves to the control of suitable structures to carry 
out the verification and certification of the entire production process (public authorities, control bodies with a 
specific  ministerial  decree,  control  bodies  pursuant  to  art.  14  of  the  law  of  21  December  1999,  n.  526). 

22 For PDO wine organolectic test are systemic (100%) when production is over 10.000 hl; analytical checks are sampled. 
When production is lower than 10.000 hl both analytical and organolectic cheks   are sampled. 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                 
Producers  must  communicate  the  CB  chosen  to  the  Region  in  which  they  are  responsible,  as  well  as  to  the 
Central Inspectorate for the Protection of Quality and Fraud Prevention of Agri-Food Products. 

The  control  body  (CB)  must  guarantee,  through  a  documentary  verification,  the  truthfulness  of  the  optional 
indications  mentioned  on  the  wine  label  and,  in  this  sense,  it  must  verify  the  documentation  relating  to  the 
purchase or production of the bacht destined for packaging. 

The procedures for monitoring and certification provide for the following provisions: 

a) 

b) 

in the case of products obtained directly  from the company production, the CB  verifies  through the 
SIAN  services  the  harvest  declaration,  as  well  as  any  other  documentation  necessary  to  ensure 
effective control over the product and in particular  to guarantee the quantitative compliance of the 
loads of the wines designated with the name of the variety and / or of the vintage and of the items 
subject to control; 
in the case of products purchased or conferred, the CB verifies the official transport  documentation 
showing, in addition to the mandatory indications provided for in EU and national legislation, also the 
indication  of  the  year  of  production  of  the  grapes  and  /  or  the  name  of  one  or  more  varieties  of 
grapes used to obtain the product. In this case the transport document will constitute attestation of 
conformity. 

Subjects who produce varietal wines are required to communicate to the structures responsible for checking 
the beginning of the bottling operations together and / or subsequently the lot number assigned to the lot or in 
the case of wines marketed in bulk to the importing Member States or Third Countries; the start date of the 
shipments. 

Following  the  communication,  the  CB  verifies  the  existence  of  the  requisites  for  the  claim  of  the  optional 
indications and in the event that irregularities are detected, CB within 3 working days wil notify the user, the 
Region and the Central Inspectorate for the protection of quality and fraud prevention of food products. All of 
the products and the lots are verified every year. 

The same control procedure is applied for sparkling wines designated with the name of the wine grape variety 
and / or vintage of production thereof. 

6.1.1.3  Use of accompanying document 

The  M.D n. 7490 of  2 July  2013 defines the national provisions  implementing  Regulation (EC) no. 1234/2007 
[now R. (EU) No 1308/2013], Regulation (CE) n. 436/2009, now Reg. EU 273/2018, as regards the accompanying 
documents for the transport of wine products. 

The decree (art. 16) provides that the procedures for the issuance of the MVV document in electronic format 
will be established, within the services of SIAN, with the determination of the Head of the Central Inspectorate 
Department for the Protection of Quality and Fraud Removal of Agri-Food Products. 

With the MIPAAF decree of April 13, 2018 the new Electronic MVV (MVV-E) is established. 

The MVV E replaces the accompanying paper documents for the transport and handling of wine products. 

The MVV-E document is issued through a special feature integrated in the electronic register. 

For the release of MVV-E the consignor is registered at SIAN and is provided with an ICQRF code. 

The MVV-E can be used as a certification, and by certification it is meant: 

- 

- 

the certificate of origin or provenance, of the quality and characteristics of the wine product, of the 
vintage or of the grape varieties from which it is obtained and, where appropriate, of the PDO or 
PGI;  
certification for export. 

Certification is not mandatory, but may be required by the destination country. 

The MVV-E containing the certification must be printed and signed by the consignor. 

The provision was eagerly awaited by the producers because it allows to simplify the bureaucratic steps: the 
online model replaces all paper requirements, i.e. the "transport documents" of wine and wine products, from 
vineyards to the winery, from this to the bottling plant, to distribution in Italy and abroad. 

The  Certificate  will  also  be  available  in  English,  French,  German,  Spanish  and  Chinese,  and  will  allow  the 
operator  not  to  request  certifications  and  /  or  certificates  from  other  public  bodies  (ASL,  Chambers  of 
Commerce). 

For now, the adoption and use of MVV-E takes place on a voluntary basis in order to allow operators a gradual 
transition to the new document issuing system. Subsequently, it will pass to mandatory use. 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

52 

 
 
6.1.1.4  Competent authorithies and control bodies for GIs 

Herein  after  are  described  the  Competent  authorithies  and  control  bodies  for  GIs  and  the  system  of 
protection  and  control  applied  to  wine.  The  source  is  the  study:  “Protection  and  control  of  geographical 
indications for agricultural products in  the EU Member states” made in 2017 by  European Union Intellectual 
Property Office.  

6.1.1.4.1 

Central authority 

The  National  Central  Authority  (NCA)  is  the  Central  Inspectorate  for  Quality  Safeguarding  and  Anti-fraud  of 
foodstuffs and agricultural products (Ispettorato Centrale  della Tutela della Qualità  e della Repressione Frodi 
dei prodotti agroalimentari — ICQRF) — Department of Central Inspectorate for Quality Safeguarding and Anti-
Fraud of Foodstuffs and Agricultural Products — a central department within the Ministry of Agricultural, Food 
and Forestry Policies. 

The NCA has a central office in Rome, ten decentralised inspection offices and nineteen local units, as well as 
six laboratories. From an organisational point of view, the ICQRF is divided into two main offices: 

 

 

The  Directorate-General  for  the  Accreditation  of  Control  Bodies,  Certification  and  Consumer 
Protection  (Direzione  Generale  per  il  riconoscimento  degli  organismi  di  controllo  e  certificazione  e 
tutela del consumatore — VICO); 
The Directorate-General for Prevention and Enforcement of Agri-Food Fraud (Direzione Generale della 
prevenzione e del contrasto alle frodi agro-alimentari — PREF). 

The  VICO  is  responsible  for  recognition/approval  and  withdrawal/suspension  of  Control  Bodies  (CBs)  for  the 
inspection  of  GIs  and  TSG  products,  as  well  as  for  the  approval  of  control  plans  and  the  associated  costs  of 
inspections by CBs and public control authorities.  

However, the PREF is responsible for planning and coordination, as well as for monitoring and assessment of 
the  inspections  carried  out  by  the  ICQRF’s  decentralised  offices  and  laboratories.  PREF  conducts  accurate 
monitoring  of  the  regional  offices  and  laboratory  control  activities  through  constant  measurement  of 
inspection outcomes. 

The  ICQRF  has  the  task  of  authorising  the  —  private  or  public  —  certification  and  CBs  that  certify  quality 
products (i.e. GIs, including wines, organic products and spirits, voluntary certifications of quality). The ICQRF 
also approves the control plans for each GI and the costs of controls paid for by producers. 

ICQRF  plays  an  intensive  coordination  and  guidance  role  for  the  harmonization  of  the  controls  on  operators 
and  of  the  activities  of  CBs.  ICQRF  is  also  responsible  for  the  supervision  of  CBs  (in  cooperation  with  the 
regional authorities and the autonomous provinces of Trento and Bolzano).  

ICQRF officers have the legal status of inspectors and can carry out inspection activities concerning the whole 
agri-food sector (including the phytosanitary, seed and fertiliser sectors).  

The ICQRF has the capacity to implement its inspection activity throughout all the production phases, following 
their  annual  control  plan.  Following  the  principles  of  food  traceability,  established  in  Regulation  (EC)  No 
178/2002, ICQRF officers may also implement inspection activities at retailer and supermarket levels. 

All ICQRF laboratories work in compliance with ISO/IEC 17025:2005, ‘and all the analyses performed by ICQRF 
laboratories  are  accredited  by  the  Italian  National  Accreditation  Body  (Ente  Italiano  di  Accreditamento  — 
ACCREDIA), which is recognised at European level, in accordance with the criteria defined in Regulation (EC) No 
765/2008 setting out the requirements for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of 
products,  which  is  compliant  with  ISO/IEC  17011:2004,  ‘Conformity  assessment  —  General  requirements  for 
accreditation bodies accrediting conformity assessment bodies’. 

The  harmonisation  of  the  quality  system  of  ICQRF  laboratories  is  guaranteed  by  a  competent  ICQRF  office 
(PREF IV), which manages and supports the adoption of well-defined management procedures, as well as the 
management  of  corrective  measures  (in  the  event  of  non-compliance)  provided  by  ACCREDIA  during  its 
periodical audit activity. ICQRF laboratories develop also research activities.  

ICQRF laboratories carry out an average of nearly 10 000 samples analysed per year. 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

53 

 
 
Figure 4 - ICQRF organisational framework at central and peripheral level 

Source: “protection and control of geographical indications for agricultural products in the EU Member states” European 
Union Intellectual Property Office, 2017 

The  ICQRF  department  has  around  758  employees.  Amongst  these,  there  are  18  managers  (office  directors,  plus  two 
general  directors  and  the  chief  of  the  department).  The  table  below  summarises  employees’  distribution  (including 
management)  across  ICQRF  central  and  regional  offices  and  laboratories.  Staff  has  undergone  several  reorganization 
processes, both in central and regional offices of ICQRF and laboratories. 

6.1.1.4.2 

Control bodies 

CBs  must  be  specifically  authorised  by  the  MiPAAF.  Each  GI  is  controlled  by  a  single  CB,  chosen  by  the 
Producers  Group  (PG)  from  the  list  of  authorised  CBs  and  subsequently  approved  by  the  MiPAAF.  The 
authorisation is valid for 3 years, after which renewal is required. When the renewal occurs, the PGs or, where 
available, the GI protection consortium, may request that the authorised CB be replaced, for justified reasons. 

The CBs that are currently responsible for the controls on agri-food GIs are:  

 
 
 

48 CBs authorised for foodstuffs (20 private and 28 public); 
30 CBs authorised for wines (8 private and 22 public); 
6 CBs authorised for spirits (3 private and 3 public). 

Public  CBs  are  local  public  entities  authorised  by  the  ICQRF  to  carry  out  controls  on  GIs  (e.g.  chambers  of 
commerce or regional agencies or institutes).  

All private CBs must be accredited by ACCREDIA, which ensures impartiality and competence of these bodies 
through  inspection  audits  and  periodic  support  audits  during  the  controls,  in  order  to  assess  the  work  of 
inspectors.  The  CB  is  accredited  in  accordance  with  the  technical  requirements  established  in  ISO/IEC 
17065:2012. 

Following an agreement between ACCREDIA and the ICQRF, the accreditation procedures for CBs performing 
inspection and certification for foodstuffs, wines and spirits have been harmonised and streamlined. 

The full list of approved CBs for foodstuffs, wines and spirits can be found on the MiPAAF website. 

6.1.1.4.3 

Police forces: Carabinieri, Polizia and Guardia di Finanza 

The Command of Carabinieri for Agricultural and Food Policies is a ‘specialised department’ of  the Carabinieri, 
encompassing an  Operational Coordination Unit and an Anti-Fraud Unit  (Nuclei Antifrodi Carabinieri  — NAC) 
based  in  Parma,  Rome  and  Salerno.  It  operates  throughout  the  country  and,  if  necessary,  also  abroad,  in 
compliance with the current legal provisions and MiPAAF directives. For international coordination activities, a 
liaison officer with the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) is based in Brussels. 

The  Command  depends  on  the  Ministry  and  carries  out  specific  controls  collaborating  with  the  ICQRF  in  the 
prevention and repression of fraud in the agri-food industry. 

The  Guardia  di  Finanza  (the  Italian  Economic  and  Tax  Police  corps),  activities  are  aimed  at  contrasting  the 
various  illicit  phenomena  that  threaten  industrial  property,  ‘Made  in  Italy’ products,  and  consumer  safety.  It 
acts  along  three  lines:  i)  oversight  of  customs  areas,  complementing  Customs  activities;  ii)  economic 
control  of  the  territory  and  monitoring  the  movement  of  goods  on  the  road  and  in  points  of  sale;  iii) 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

54 

 
 
 
 
investigations  into  illicit  supply  chains  or  the  production  of  illegal  goods,  aiming  to  identify  criminal 
organisations. 

6.1.1.4.4 

Consortia for protection of GIs 

As far as wine GIs are concerned, the MiPAAF recognises consortia based on specific requirements, in terms 
of  representativeness  and  certified  production.  Those  groups  of  producers  are  assigned  with  functions  of 
protection, promotion, enhancement, consumer information and general care of GIs.  

Consortia  are  also  in  charge  of  the  surveillance  activity  on  the  market  and  may  employ  inspectors  with  the 
qualification  of  public  agents.  These  inspectors  may  carry  out  any  type  of  verification,  inspection  or  control 
after the products bearing a GI certification have been put on the market, carrying out the ‘surveillance’ duties 
of the producers’ Protection Consortia. 

6.1.1.4.5 

Coordination measures between national authorities 

In  relation  to  coordination  measures  between  national  authorities,  there  is  currently  no  specific  institutional 
protocol signed between the ICQRF and other national authorities for carrying out specific inspection activities 
to protect Italian GIs. However, the ICQRF cooperates constantly with the other national authorities (Guardia di 
Finanza,  Carabinieri,  etc.)  and  especially  with  the  Italian  Customs  Agency,  mainly  through  the  exchange  of 
information and data. 

6.1.1.5  Organization of the system of monitoring and checks 

Field controls for both GI and conventional products are implemented through the network of ICQRF regional 
offices  and  laboratories.  These  provide  evidence  of  inspection/sampling  activities  carried  out  by  ICQRF 
inspectors through chemical analyses. 

Public  and  private  CBs  are  delegated  by  the  central  authority  to  carry  out  controls  on  GIs,  in  order  to  check 
whether  operators  that  wish  to  certify  their  products  as  a  GI  follow  the  requirements  set  in  the  relevant 
product specifications.  

The  organisation  of  the  national  control  system  implemented  in  Italy  to  protect  GIs  is  organised  at  different 
levels: 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

55 

 
Figure 5 - Organisation of the national control system implemented in Italy to protect GIs 

Source: “protection and control of geographical indications for agricultural products in the EU Member states” European 
Union Intellectual Property Office, 2017 

6.1.1.6  Performance of controls 

6.1.1.6.1 

Planning and procedural aspects 

At the end of September each year, PREF I (the office of the central administration, in charge of planning the 
national  control  activity)  edits  the  Annual  Strategic  Plan  for  Inspection  Activities.  Each  regional  office  and 
laboratory sets up its own Annual Control Activity Planning Document  before the  end of October, describing 
the inspections planned throughout the year. Indeed, those planning documents define control activity goals 
addressed to each agri-food sector, with appropriate explanations for each single planned goal. 

At  the  end  of  this  process,  usually  around  mid-December,  the  planning  documents  of  the  decentralised 
inspection offices and laboratories are sent to the ICQRF’s Head of Department for approval. In addition, the 
ICQRF organises and plans its inspection activity both with respect to conventional products and to GIs on the 
basis of a risk analysis model, which helps the PREF I office, as well as the regional offices, to plan the yearly 
inspection activities in a very effective way. 

The ICQRF stated that the frequency of official controls undertaken at GI operators depends on risks identified 
at  each  production  step  in  the  product  specifications.  ICQRF  regional  offices  perform  controlling  activities  at 
each stage of the production chain (from raw material producers to market level), following the principles of 
product traceability.  

This  means  that  if,  for  example,  ICQRF  officers  find  any  irregularity  during  an  inspection  activity  (e.g. 
concerning  the  way  a  GI  is  labelled),  they  can  trace  back  all  the  production  stages  by  executing  deeper 
investigations in order to check further irregularities. 

During their activity, ICQRF inspectors follow a well-defined inspection procedure established in the ‘Inspection 
Checklist’,  which  establishes  which  products  have  to  be  monitored,  the  types  of  controls  by  operators,  the 
treatment  establishments  to  be  checked,  etc.  Generally,  the  checklists  report  all  the  different  operators 
belonging to the production chain of a given sector in a very detailed way. 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

56 

 
 
The control plan for each GI sets the frequency of controls and the proportion of the products that is analysed 
by sampling. 

Producers are informed about the control by the CB inspectors, since each operator has a quality officer whose 
presence is required during the control activities. If irregularities are detected, inspectors can carry out further 
inspection without prior warning. 

6.1.1.6.2 

Controls during the production phase 

Controls  during  the  production  phase  have  two  phases:  the  sampling  and  the  Chemical  and  organoleptic 
analysis.  Sampling  and  analysis  play  a  relevant  role  regarding  the  quality  and  effectiveness  of  the  inspection 
activity. Once the sample has been taken, it is sent to the ICQRF laboratory that carry out chemical analyses.  

6.1.1.6.3 

Controls on the market 

CBs are responsible for controlling GI products before they are placed on the market. Public authority and the 
protection consortia authorised by the MIPAAF are responsible for the surveillance of the use of  the name in 
the marketplace.  

Some consortia use specialised personnel, the agenti vigilatori (supervisory agents), who carry out verifications 
at points of sale, markets, etc. to verify the correct use of GIs. Those inspectors are formally authorised by the 
MIPAAF and operate according to a control plan that is agreed between the consortium and the MIPAAF. The 
role of the consortia in market controls is of great importance because it allows the identification, not only in 
Italy but also abroad, of any misuse of designations. Any misuse is promptly reported to the public authority 
which  has  the  obligation  —  according  to  the  recently  introduced  ex  officio  procedure,  that  is  to  say,  a 
procedure that is meant to be started by public authorities regardless of a request — to intervene immediately 
in order to stop any illicit use. 

As  regards  the  control  activity  at  market/retail  level  conducted  by  the  public  authorities,  ICQRF  inspectors 
check  whether  products  placed  on  the  markets  are  compliant  with  requirements  on  commercial  quality 
specified in relevant provisions and declared by the producer or operator placing them on the market. 

When agri-food products do not meet the requirements specified in the relevant EU and national legislation, 
the director of the regional office may decide on the following actions: 

 
 

 
 

administrative sanctions; crime reports; 
ordering  reclassification  or  assigning  products  to  other  specified  treatments;  ordering  withdrawal  of 
products from the market; 
ordering destruction of products at the expense of owner; 
prohibiting  storage  of  products  in  inappropriate  conditions  or  transportation  of  products  using 
inappropriate means of transport. 

6.1.1.7  Administrative sanctions system 

ICQRF is the single Italian authority responsible for imposing fines and  other administrative sanctions for the 
infringement  of  GIs  for  both  PDO  and  PGI  non-wines  and  wines.  The  regional  and  central  ICQRFs  are  always 
informed about any major non-compliance, as the regional ICQRF has the legal authority to impose penalties 
and thanks to the SIAN services and control performed directly by the ICQRF. 

In cases of severe non-compliance detected by an inspector, the following protocol applies: the operator has 
thirty  days  to  appeal  against  severe  non-compliance,  and  fifteen  days  against  minor  non-compliance.  After 
that, the regional ICQRF can implement the subsequent sanction. 

The  operator  that  has  committed  the  irregularity  is  prohibited  from  using  the  protected  name  of  GI  on  the 
products until satisfactory remedies have been implemented. 

6.1.1.8  Ex officio commitment for wines 

At EU level, the ICQRF is the Italian liaison body (a sort of ex officio authority for quality wines) responsible for 
contacts with the liaison bodies of other Member States and with the European Commission. In particular, the 
liaison body receives and forwards requests for cooperation with a  view to implementing the regulation and 
represents Italy vis-à-vis other Member States or the European Commission. 

In this framework, the ICQRF plays the role of liaison authority for the protection of GI wines throughout the 
EU. 

For this purpose, the ICQRF has entrusted one of its two Directorates-General, namely DG PREF — Unit PREF III. 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

57 

 
From 2014 to date, 866 liaison authorities procedures have been initiated to stop the unlawful use of the most 
popular Italian PDO and PGI wines in European Union territory. 

The  administrative  procedure  is  usually  generated  by  a  report  from  a  PG,  from  a  consumer,  or  following  in-
house web market research. 

At national level, similar to foodstuffs, activities are carried out by regional ICQRF offices. The implementation 
of these controls is based on an annual plan, drawn up on a risk analysis, and performed by ICQRF inspectors 
using operational procedures and checklists. 

The  producer  groups  and  the  regional  ICQRF  agree  on  a  plan  for  market  controls  every  year.  This  plan  is 
transmitted to the central administration of the ICQRF for the final green light. The PGs have to report regularly 
on  their  activities  to  the  competent  regional  ICQRF.  If  there  are  any  deviations  from  the  plan,  they  must  be 
communicated to the regional ICQRF and approved by the central administration of the ICQRF. In  2016,  151 
plans for market controls on PDO and PGI wines were approved by the central administration of the ICQRF. 

For GI spirit drinks and GI aromatised wines, the Italian ex officio authority is currently the Directorate- General 
for  International  and  EU  Policies  (PIUE,  Unit  VIII)  of  the  MiPAAF,  while  the  ICQRF  acts  as  the  national 
enforcement authority. 

6.1.1.9  E-commerce controls 

The growing popularity of e-commerce in the agri-business sector requires a renewed commitment from public 
authorities  towards  consumer  protection,  in  particular  with  respect  to  the  fight  against  counterfeiting, 
imitations, misuses and evocations of GIs. 

Regarding controls on e-commerce, the very heart of the strategy relies on specific ‘agreements’ with the main 
global  players,  also  called  internet  hosting  providers  —  IHPs  (on  which  online  commerce  is  gradually 
concentrating), which recognise the inspectorate as a GI rights holder, together with the consortia, and allows 
them to take down irregular listings on the platforms. 

In this context, in May 2014, the MiPAAF signed an important Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the 
protection of GIs on the internet with the Italian Association of GI Consortia (AICIG) and eBay. The MoU assigns 
a central role to the ‘Verified Rights Owner Programme (VeRO)’ created by eBay, through which IPRs owners 
can  easily  report  any  infringement  of  their  rights.  Through  the  VeRO  programme,  the  ICQRF,  on  its  own 
initiative and/or at the request of a GI Group, has been empowered to send eBay a ‘notice of GI infringements’, 
whenever an unauthorised use of those is found on the eBay platform. 

From 2014 to date, 628 fake GI listings were removed from the eBay platform, such as a ‘Chianti’ wine kit, a 
cheese kit and ‘Parmesan cheese’ from Florida. 

Similar cooperation began with Alibaba in 2015 and has led to the removal of 121 irregular listings that were 
misusing and evoking Italian GI foodstuffs, preventing conspicuous quantities of generic products being sold to 
the European B2B market as GIs.  

The  cooperation  was  strengthened  in  September  2016,  with  the  signing  of  an  official  MoU,  which  extended 
protection to the  Alibaba  Group’s B2C platform as well, reducing  further the irregular  listings’ removal time, 
and  providing  education  and  training  initiatives  aimed  at  sellers  and  consumers  on  the  meaning  and  the 
importance of European GIs. 

Finally,  in  2016,  another  protection  activity  also  began  with  Amazon,  which  led  to  the  removal  of  197  328 
irregular listings that were misusing and evoking Italian GIs. 

Similar new initiatives are currently being planned by the ICQRF with some important social networks, such as 
Facebook and Instagram, which are also up-and-coming e-commerce platforms. 

E-commerce controls on GI foodstuffs are also carried out nationally by the regional ICQRF offices. In order to 
ensure uniformity of the modus operandi, the operational procedures for e-commerce controls are set out on 
paper  in  a  yearly  ‘e-commerce  circular’,  which  is  sent  to  the  local  units.  For  the  same  purpose,  periodical 
training opportunities for the local offices are carried out by video conferences from the central ICQRF staff. 

At national level, in 2016, 450 e-commerce controls had been planned. 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

58 

 
 
 
 
6.2  Existing national data on non-compliance and workload 

The table below contains the main parameters of ICQRF inspection activity concerning wine GIs from 2014 to 
2016. 

Table 24 - ICQRF inspection activity concerning wine GIs (2014-2016) 

Inspections (No) 
Inspected Operators (No) 
Irregular Operators (%) 
Products checked (No) 
Irregular products (%) 
Samples analysed (No) 
Irregular samples (%) 

2014 
6.046 
4.861 
19.9 
8.980 
13.9 
1 220 
12.0 

2015 
5.955 
4.272 
27.2 
8.764 
20.9 
859 
7.1 

2016 
6.453 
5.597 
35.0 
10.273 
23.6 
1 155 
8.5 

Source: “Protection and control of geographical indications for agricultural products in the EU Member states” European 
Union Intellectual Property Office, 2017 

6.2.1  Data on workload linked to the monitoring and checks system implementation 

Type of check 

Workload in Full-time equivalent (FTE) 

Vineyard register 

Declarations  
- 
- 
- 

Production 
Harvest  
Stock  

Inward and outward register 

Accompanying documents 

Labelling certification 

Authorities 

Operators 

Other 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

… 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

6.2.2  Existing data on fraudulent manipulation of wine 

The table below contains the main results of ICQRF inspection activity concerning wine GIs from 2014 to 2016. 

Table 25 – Results of the ICQRF inspection activity concerning wine GIs (2014-2016) 

Seizures (No) 
Seizures value (EUR) 
Crime reports (No) 
Administrative sanctions (No) 

2014 
156 
3.409.723 
59 
975 

2015 
141 
17.932.401 
29 
675 

2016 
113 
5.048.793 
49 
880 

Source: “Protection and control of geographical indications for agricultural products in the EU Member states” European 
Union Intellectual Property Office, 2017 

6.2.3  Description of the control system related to NSP implementation 

The  competent  authorities  for  implementation  of  the  NSP  are  central  government,  the  regions  and 
autonomous provinces, AGEA and paying agency, ICQRF for checks. 

At  National  level  monitoring  is  carried  out  by  the  paying  agency  both  directly  and  through  the  delegated 
control body AGECONTROL.  

At Regional level monitoring is carried out by the paying agency AVEPA, except for the promotion measure, for 
wich  the  checks  are  carried  out  by  the  AGEA,  both  directly  and  through  the  delegated  control  body 
AGECONTROL. The check aimed at verifying whether the supporting documents for expenditure are consistent 
and that there is no double invoicing for the same activity. This check is carried out on 100% of documents and 
projects. There are also on-the-spot checks on a sample of 30% of the promotional events in the third countries 
while they are taking place. 

For Investiment and Restructuration and Conversion measures, a description of control procedures adopted in 
Veneto by Avepa is summarized below. 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
MEASURE 

METHOD OF CARRYING OUT THE CHECK 

INVESTMENTS 

Checks  on  a  sample  of  intervention  to  verify  compliance  with  the  conditions  of 
eligibility for the support and compliance with the commitments made in respect of 
the investments made. Ex-post control applicable to investments 

Administrative controls (documentary and IT) on the applications for support / for 
payment  and  accompanying  documentation.  Eligibility  of  support  is  checked 
against  the  objective  and  subjective  requirements  set  out  in  the  calls  for 
contribution.  

NORMATIVE 
REQUIREMENTS 

Reg. (EU) 
1308/2013 Reg. 
(EU) n. 555/2008 

CONTROL 
CRITERIA 

Technical 
inspection 
sample 

Systematic 
administrative 

by 

Systematic documentary and IT controls on all applications and communications 
involving authorisation and/or changes to the vineyard register. 

Systematic 
administrative  

VENETO VINEYARD 
REGISTER 

Farm checks on a sample of applications to verify the consistency between the 
data in the vineyard register subject to amendment or application for authorisation 
and the actual data in the on-the-spot check. 

Technical by 
sample 

Pre-payment checks.  

Administrative controls (documentary/IT) on all applications and related payment 
claims to verify compliance with the eligibility criteria laid down in the legislation in 
force.  

Systematic 
administrative 

Farm controls on a sample of applications to verify the reliability of the vineyard 
information in the vineyard register 

RESTRUCTURATION 
AND CONVERSION 

Post-payment checks  

Administrative controls (documentary/IT) on the applications for acceptance of the 
supported operation and the technical/accounting documentation attached to the 
application for acceptance.  

On-farm check for the acceptance of the financed works. 

Technical 
sample 

by 

Systematic 
administrative 

Technical 
Systematic 

On-farm control on the fulfilment of commitments made when the application for 
support  was submitted 

Technical 
sample 

by 

Reg. (UE) 
1308/2013 Reg. 
(CE) n. 555/2008 
Reg. (CE) n. 
436/2009 DGR 
2257/2003 

DGR 291/2010 

Reg. (UE) 
1308/2013 Reg. 
(CE) 555/2008 

DM 15938/2013 
DGR 1936/2015; 
314/2014; 
766/2016 

6.2.4  Existing data on non-compliance with NSP rules 

Not available 

6.3  Synthesis of the interviews  

IQ 7.1 to 7.3 Is the certification procedure simple to apply?  

Two accredited certifying bodies operate in Veneto: ValoreItalia and Siquiria. 

In the opinion of operators, the system is burdensome and complex, but it works. 

Based  on  the  UIV  analisys  for  a  PDO  wine,  the  average  costs  for  certification  operations  are  0,42  €/hl  for 
Inspection and documentary checks; 0.40 €/hl for the laboratory analysis phases; 0,10 €/hl for the tasting. 

IQ 7.4 
marketed or exported? 

When change occurred in the certification system, did it allow an increase in the quantity of wine 

The most important change has been the (recent) introduction of the computerised register of the sector - Italy 
is  the  first  in  Europe.  The  presence  of  telematic  registers  guarantees  a  quicker  verification  of  all  the 
characteristics  of  producers  and  wines,  since  it  is  no  longer  necessary  to  go  to  the  company  to  check  the 
information and data reported on the registers themselves, but it is possible to perform online checks. 

Another  important  change,  introduced  by  L  238,  concerns  the  reduction  of  chemical  analysis  for  small  PDO 
(production < 10.000 hl, wich are 70% of total DO) from systemic (100%)  to  sample (10%). 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
It’s shared opinion that this change will have a positive impact on production costs23. 

IQ 10.1 
EU requirements? 

Did you encounter any difficulties or problems in the implementation of monitoring and checks 

Concerning the obligation to keep and send electronically the winery registers 

The National representatives of the wine sector  and local interbranch organisations (such as  Confagricoltura, 
Fedagri,  consorzi  DOC  etc.)  welcomed  the  simplification  of  the  formalities  that  could  reduce  the  time  for 
bureaucracy. 

But  the  obligation  to  keep  and  send  electronically  the  winery  registers  for  the  wine  sector  was  not  easy  to 
implement, especially for smaller companies: in Veneto, as interbranch organisations sais, at 30 June 2017 (first 
date  identified  by  Italy  to  complete  the  procedure  for  activating  the  official  register)  only  35%  of  3.100 
companies interested had fulfilled the obligation. 

The winemakers can choose wheather to work directly within SIAN system or use another software, but data 
are send to SIAN anyway. 

As Fedagri reported, the winemakers had to self-finance the transition to the new computerized management 
system, but they preferred it to the alternative proposed by IQCRF to work directly online on the SIAN system, 
because this solution is more practical only for smaller companies and because SIAN system is not particularly 
performing. 

IQ 10.2 
to NSP implementation? 

Did you encounter any difficulties or problem in the implementation of the control system related 

Regional  authorities  and  Paying  Agency  have  not  encountered  particular  difficulties  or  problems  in  the 
implementation of the control system related to NSP implementation.  

In relation to the control system related to NSP for beneficiaries:  

a)  growers report average fixed costs to access support (from € 300 to € 500) not directly proportional to 

the area invested, which, therefore, penalize smaller ones;  

b)  They  highlight  possible  criticalities  in  relation  to  the  implementation  of  the  vineyard  register  with 
regard to the rigidity of the error tolerated in the transition from aerofotogrammetry (by use of GIS) to 
the  graph.  That  means  that  in  areas  as  Valpolicellla  or  Glera  (prosecco),  where  values/sqm  are  very 
high (50 € / sqm),  slight deviations could represent significant losses in assets; 

c)  Beneficiaries  of  promotion  measure  report  an  excessive  rigidity  of  the  document  control: 
correspondence  between  planned  and  realized  expenditure  is  required  for  each  item;  that  prevents 
physiological  adaptations  to  changed  conditions  in  a  field  where  the  evolutions  are  very  rapid 
(estimates  in  the  design  phase  are  made  about  two  years  before  the  implementation  of  the 
intervention):  for example, a stand at a lower cost can be found after one year but the company can 
not benefit from it because it hasn’t foreseen that cost in the planning phase. 

23 Somma G. 50 milioni di euro e una giungla di tariffe. Corriere Vitivinicolo n 37 _27/11/2017.  

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

61 

 
 
 
 
     
                                                                 
ANNEXES 

List of the interviews 

Organisation 

MIPAAF – PIUE VII – Settore Vinicolo 

Fedagri Confcooperative 

Lega Cooperative 

FEDERVINI 

Veneto Region 

Veneto Region 

Veneto Region 

Veneto Region_- Avepa _PA_ 

Consorzio Prosecco DOC 

Consorzio Valpolicella 

Cantine Sartori 

Italia del Vino _Consorzio 

Federdoc 

Gruppo Caviro 

Federdoc 

Gruppo Caviro 

Cantine Soave 

Cantine Soave 

Cantine Soave 

Cantine Soave 

Cantine Soave 

Cantine Soave 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

62 

 
 
 
 
Documents and reports collected 

Aspen Institute, 2017 Wine survey 2017- Italia  

Cecilia Manzo, Reti sociali e innovazione in viticultura. Franco Angeli 2017 

Cogea, 2012 Evaluation des misures appliquees au secteur vincole dans le cade de la PAC 

Cogea 2014 -Study on the competitiveness of European wines__en_2014_COGEA 

European Union Intellectual Property Office EUIPO, 2017, Protection and control of geographical indications for 
agricultural products in the EU Member states”, www.euipo.europa.eu  

ISMEA  –  QUALIVITA,  2017,  RAPPORTO  2017  sulle  produzioni  agroalimentari  e  vitivinicole  italiane  DOP,  IGP  e 
STG 

ISMEA 2016 Complementarietà e demarcazione del sostegno con particolare riferimento ai settori vitivinicolo, 
olivicolo e ortofrutticolo: analisi dei PSR 2014-2020 

Mediobanca, 2018 Indagine sul settore vinicolo  

Somma G. 50 milioni di euro e una giungla di tariffe. Corriere Vitivinicolo n 37 _27/11/2017 

Sourin V. G. Castelli, 2015 Il nuovo quadro normativo per il settore vitivinicolo- Informatore Agrario 5/2017 

Veneto  Agricoltura  2013-  Valutazione  Impatti  del  PSR  sul  settore  vitivinicolo  del  Veneto.  Rapporto  3-risultati 
PSR/OCM  

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

63 

 
 
 
List of the PDO-PGI, with their type (red/white/rosé/sparkling) and grape varieties used 

RED  WHITE 

ROSE 

SPARKLING 

1  AMARONE DELLA VALPOLICELLA 
2  ARCOLE 
3  BAGNOLI DI SOPRA O BAGNOLI 
4  BAGNOLI FRIULARO O FRIULARO DI BAGNOLI 
5  BARDOLINO 
6  BARDOLINO SUPERIORE 
7  BIANCO DI CUSTOZA O CUSTOZA 
8  BREGANZE 
9  COLLI ASOLANI - PROSECCO O ASOLO - PROSECCO 
10  COLLI BERICI 
11  COLLI DI CONEGLIANO 
12  COLLI EUGANEI 
13  COLLI EUGANEI FIOR D'ARANCIO  
14  CONEGLIANO VALDOBBIADENE - PROSECCO 
15  CORTI BENEDETTINE DEL PADOVANO 
16  GAMBELLARA 
17  GARDA 
18  LESSINI DURELLO O DURELLO LESSINI 
19  LISON 
20  LISON - PRAMAGGIORE 
21  LUGANA 
22  MERLARA 
23  MONTELLO - COLLI ASOLANI 
24  MONTELLO ROSSO O MONTELLO 
25  MONTI LESSINI 
26  PIAVE 
27  PIAVE MALANOTTE O MALANOTTE DEL PIAVE 
28  PROSECCO 
29  RECIOTO DELLA VALPOLICELLA 
30  RECIOTO DI GAMBELLARA 
31  RECIOTO DI SOAVE 
32  RIVIERA DEL BRENTA 
33  SAN MARTINO DELLA BATTAGLIA 
34  SOAVE 
35  SOAVE SUPERIORE 
36  VALDADIGE 
37  VALDADIGE TERREDEIFORTI O TERREDEIFORTI 
38  VALPOLICELLA 
39  VALPOLICELLA RIPASSO 
40  VENEZIA 
41  VICENZA 
42  VIGNETI DELLA SERENISSIMA O SERENISSIMA 
43  DELLE VENEZIE 
44  ALTO LIVENZA 
45  COLLI TREVIGIANI 
46  CONSELVANO 
47  MARCA TREVIGIANA 
48  VALLAGARINA 
49  VENETO 
50  VENETO ORIENTALE 
51  VERONA O PROVINCIA DI VERONA O VERONESE 
52  VIGNETI DELLE DOLOMITI 

PDO 
PDO 
PDO 
PDO 
PDO 
PDO 
PDO 
PDO 
PDO 
PDO 
PDO 
PDO 
PDO 
PDO 
PDO 
PDO 
PDO 
PDO 
PDO 
PDO 
PDO 
PDO 
PDO 
PDO 
PDO 
PDO 
PDO 
PDO 
PDO 
PDO 
PDO 
PDO 
PDO 
PDO 
PDO 
PDO 
PDO 
PDO 
PDO 
PDO 
PDO 
PDO 
PGI 
PGI 
PGI 
PGI 
PGI 
PGI 
PGI 
PGI 
PGI 
PGI 

 
 
 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 

 

 
 
n.d. 

 
 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 

n.d. 
 
n.d. 
n.d. 
n.d. 
n.d. 
n.d. 
n.d. 
n.d. 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
n.d. 
 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

n.d. 
n.d. 

n.d. 
n.d. 
n.d. 
n.d. 
n.d. 
n.d. 
n.d. 

 

 

 

 

 

n.d. 

 

 

 
 

n.d. 
n.d. 

n.d. 
n.d. 
n.d. 
n.d. 
n.d. 
n.d. 
n.d. 

 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
n.d. 

 

 
 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 
n.d. 
n.d. 

n.d. 
n.d. 
n.d. 
n.d. 
n.d. 
n.d. 
n.d. 

Source: ISMEA 

AGROSYNERGIE – Case study report: Italy - Veneto 
Evaluation study of the impact of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
K
F
-
0
6
-
1
8
-
2
9
8
-
E
N
-
N

10.2762/143053