COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector
Date: 2020-10-20
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: aid to agriculture, beverage industry, common organisation of markets, consumer information, designation of origin, labelling, product designation, quality control of agricultural products, viticulture, wine

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 20.10.2020  SWD(2020) 232 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION  of the   CAP measures applicable to the wine sector    {SWD(2020) 233 final}  
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 4 

2.  BACKGROUND AND FRAMEWORK OF THE INTERVENTION ....................... 6 

2.1.  Description of the EU wine sector and wine policy .......................................... 6 

2.2.  Other CAP measures ....................................................................................... 12 

2.3.  Market prospects for wine ............................................................................... 14 

3. 

IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................... 15 

3.1.  Overview  of  the  budgets  and  execution  of  the  national  support 

programmes ..................................................................................................... 15 

3.2. 

Implementation of the authorisation scheme for vine plantings ..................... 17 

4.  METHOD .................................................................................................................. 19 

4.1.  Data collection tools ........................................................................................ 19 

4.2.  Counterfactual analysis ................................................................................... 20 

4.3.  Analytical tools ................................................................................................ 20 

4.4.  Limitations of the evaluation and robustness of findings ................................ 20 

5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS ................ 22 

5.1.  Effectiveness .................................................................................................... 22 

5.2.  Efficiency ........................................................................................................ 36 

5.3.  Coherence ........................................................................................................ 43 

5.4.  Relevance ........................................................................................................ 47 

5.5.  EU added value ................................................................................................ 50 

6.  CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................... 52 

6.1.  Effectiveness .................................................................................................... 52 

6.2.  Efficiency ........................................................................................................ 55 

6.3.  Coherence of measures in the national support programmes .......................... 56 

6.4.  Relevance and EU added value ....................................................................... 57 

6.5.  Main lessons learned ....................................................................................... 58 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ................................................................ 60 

ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ........................................................... 62 

ANNEX  3:  THEORETICAL  ANALYSIS  AND  INTERVENTION  LOGIC  OF 

THE MEASURES ........................................................................................ 92 

ANNEX 4: DETAILS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION .................................................. 100 

 
 
 
ANNEX 5: METHOD ..................................................................................................... 105 

ANNEX 6: REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 110 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 TEST 

AWU 
CAP 
COMTRADE 
EC 
EMCS 
EU 
EUR 
FADN 
FAO 

FNVA 
GI 
ha 
MS 
OIV 
Oenological practices 
PDO  
PGI  
SWOT  
UAA 
USA 
USDA 
Varietal wine 

GLOSSARY 

Annual work unit 
Common agricultural policy  
United Nations International Trade Statistics Database   
European Commission  
Excise Movement and Control System  
European Union  
Euro (official currency of the Eurozone) 
Farm Accountancy Data Network  
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United 
Nations  
Farm net value added  
Geographical indication  
Hectare (unit of area equal to 10 000 m²) 
Member State  
International Organisation of Vine and Wine  
Wine making practices 
Protected designations of origin  
Protected geographical indications  
Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats  
Utilised agricultural area  
United States of America  
United States Department of Agriculture  
A varietal wine is a wine made primarily from a single 
named grape variety, and which typically displays the 
name  of  that  variety  on  the  wine  label.  Examples  of 
grape  varieties  commonly  used  in  varietal  wines  are 
Cabernet Sauvignon, Chardonnay and Merlot. 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The EU is the world’s leading producer, consumer and exporter of wine. In a context of 
declining  domestic  consumption  and  growing  opportunities  on  the  world  market,  the 
wine sector has increasingly shifted its focus on competitiveness and quality rather than 
on  volumes  of  production.  The  EU’s  wine  policy,  as  part  of  the  common  agricultural 
policy (CAP), has played a key role in this transition.  

Initially, the EU’s wine market policy aimed to manage annual variations in production. 
It has evolved over the years to concentrate on improving competitiveness and enhancing 
the  reputation  of  EU  wines,  the  simplification  of  market  management  rules,  and  on 
preserving the best traditions of EU wine growing, boosting its social and environmental 
role in rural areas.  

The  purpose  of  this  evaluation  is  to  assess  the  effects  of  the  various  instruments 
applicable to the wine sector under the Common Market Organisation Regulation1. These 
instruments are national support programmes (support measures in the wine sector which 
strengthen competitive structures), an authorisation scheme for vine planting, marketing 
and  labelling  rules2,  rules  on  protected  designations  of  origin  (PDO)  and  protected 
geographical  indication  (PGI)  wines,  certification,  monitoring  and  control  systems, 
oenological  (i.e.  winemaking)  practices  and  restrictions,  vineyard  registers,  and 
marketing  rules  to  regulate  supply.  For  2014-2018,  the  overall  budget  assigned  to  the 
national  support programmes amounted to  EUR 5 507 million.  The budget  for all CAP 
measures  applicable  to  the  wine  sector  amounted  to  EUR  6 243  million  (including  the 
budget transferred to the single payment scheme).  

This  evaluation  assesses  the  effectiveness,  efficiency,  relevance,  coherence  and  EU 
value-added  of  the  EU  wine  policy.  Evaluating  policies  regularly  is  an  obligation  laid 
down in article 34(1) and (3) of the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget 
of the Union of July 2018, and in article 110(1)(b), 2(a) and 3(b) of Regulation(EU) No 
1306/2013  on  the  financing,  management  and  monitoring  of  the  common  agricultural 
policy, which demands a periodical evaluation of the market measures. 

Besides  the  objective  of  ensuring  viable  wine  production,  the  evaluation  considers  the 
other  two  general  CAP  objectives,  namely  the  sustainable  use  of  natural  resources  and 
climate  action,  and  a  balanced  territorial  development,  with  respect  to  the  wine  policy. 
The relevant measures contained in the rural development programmes are covered in the 
analysis  of  coherence,  although  the  effects  of  these  rural  development  measures  on 
environment and rural development are not within the remit of the study. The evaluation 
also considers other EU objectives in relation to the EU’s wine policy, including public 
health  and  EU  economic  objectives  regarding  jobs,  growth,  innovation  and  support  for 
small and medium-sized enterprises.   

1  Regulation  (EU)  No 1308/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  17 December  2013 
in  agricultural  products.  https://eur-

establishing  a  common  organisation  of 
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32013R1308  
https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/plants-and-plant-products/plant-products/wine_en  

the  markets 

2  Labelling  rules  in  the  wine  sector  are  also  governed  by  Regulation  1169/2011  on  food  information  to 
consumers. However, it was not the purpose of the present evaluation to evaluate the provisions included 
in Regulation 1169/2011.  

4 

 
 
                                                 
The  geographical  scope  of  the  evaluation  is  the  EU-28  (i.e.  including  the  United 
Kingdom). The analysis covers the period following the 2013 CAP reform, notably from 
1  January  2014  onwards.  The  legislation  referred  to  in  the  text  is  therefore  that  which 
was applied during the period evaluated, although it was updated and simplified in 2018 
and  2019  to  align  it  with  the  Lisbon  Treaty.  However,  when  relevant  for  the  analysis, 
particularly when possible improvements are discussed, references are made to the new 
regulations that entered into force in March 20183 and in December 20194.  

3  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2018/273  and  Commission  Implementing  Regulation 
(EU) 2018/274. 
4 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/934 

5 

 
 
                                                 
2.  BACKGROUND AND FRAMEWORK OF THE INTERVENTION  

2.1.  Description of the EU wine sector and wine policy 

The  EU  is  the  world’s  leading  producer  of  wine.  Between  2014  and  2018,  the  average 
annual production was 162 million hectolitres5. The EU accounts for 44% of world wine-
growing  areas,  61%  of  production,  50%  of  global  consumption  and  67%  of  exports6. 
Three Member States account for 76% of EU areas under vines: Spain, France and Italy. 
The EU’s main competitors are the United States, Argentina, Chile, Australia and South 
Africa.  Close  to  15%  of  EU  domestic  production  of  wine  is  exported  to  non-EU 
countries, while around 30% of it is traded on the EU market.  

Table 1: Area under vines (including table grape vines) 2000-2018 (in 1000 ha)  

2012 

2018 

Area  
(in 1000 ha) 

2008 
1 118 
846 
769 
192 
246 
115 
102 
3 596 
478 
517 
411 
226 
198 
231 
73 
150 
173 

2000 
1 169 
907 
908 
248 
244 
131 
104 
3 989 
300 
575 
413 
201 
174 
292 
43 
147 
140 

Area in 2018 versus earlier years 
(rate of change) 
2018/2000  2018/2008  2018/2012 
0% 
0% 
-1% 
-1% 
-18% 
-4% 
1% 
-1% 
24% 
-10% 
-1% 
-2% 
3% 
-32% 
21% 
4% 
-10% 

Spain 
France 
Italy 
Romania 
Portugal 
Greece 
Germany 
EU 
China 
Turkey 
USA 
Argentina 
Chile 
Iran 
India 
Moldova 
Australia 
South 
Africa 
World 
Source: OIV, FAO 
Note:  In  China,  more  than  three  quarters  of  grape  production  is  dedicated  to  table  grapes, 
whereas this accounts for a quarter of production in the USA and less than 10% in the EU. 

-17% 
-13% 
-22% 
-23% 
-21% 
-19% 
-1% 
-19% 
192% 
-22% 
6% 
8% 
22% 
-48% 
251% 
0% 
4% 

-13% 
-6% 
-8% 
-1% 
-22% 
-8% 
1% 
-10% 
83% 
-13% 
7% 
-4% 
7% 
-34% 
107% 
-2% 
-16% 

969 
792 
713 
192 
233 
110 
102 
3 288 
706 
497 
442 
222 
206 
225 
125 
142 
162 

969 
793 
705 
191 
192 
106 
103 
3 243 
875 
448 
439 
218 
212 
153 
151 
147 
146 

124 
7 779 

132 
7 533 

135 
7 505 

126 
7 449 

2% 
-4% 

-7% 
-1% 

-5% 
-1% 

There  are  around  2.5  million  wine  growers  in  the  EU  (of  which  854 000  in  Romania 
alone)  and  3.2  million  ha  of  vineyards7.  The  EU  wine  policy  reform  of  1999  aimed  to 

5 See  EU  Agricultural Medium Term Outlook  Report 2019.  https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-
farming-fisheries/farming/documents/agricultural-outlook-2019-report_en.pdf 
6  International  Organisation  of  Vine  and  Wine  (OIV)  Statistical  Report  on  World  Vitiviniculture  2019. 
http://www.oiv.int/public/medias/6782/oiv-2019-statistical-report-on-world-vitiviniculture.pdf 
7 2015 figures, ESTAT, Vineyards in the EU.  

 
 
 
 
                                                 
balance  supply  and  demand  by  restructuring  vineyards.  It  led  to  a  10%  reduction  in 
vineyards between 2000 and 2008, mainly in  Italy, Greece and France.  In addition,  the 
implementation  of  the  voluntary  and  temporary  grubbing-up  scheme  spread  over  three 
years (the 2009-2011 financial years) led to a further 8.5% drop in the area of vineyards 
in the EU (mainly in Spain,  Italy and France) between 2008 and 2012. Since 2012, the 
EU area of vineyards has stabilised, due to a slower decrease in the area in the main EU 
producing  countries  (France,  Italy  and  Spain),  mainly  for  the  reconversion  of  old 
vineyards, while significant  decreases took  place in  Portugal  and Greece.  In the  rest  of 
the world, the area of vineyards grew by 11% between 2000 and 2012. Since then, it has 
also stabilised, the increases in China, the USA, Chile, Argentina and New Zealand being 
offset by declines in Australia and Brazil. 

The CAP is based on two ‘pillars’. The first pillar encompasses both the framework for 
market  measures,  defined  by  Common  Market  Organisation  Regulation  (EU) 
No 1308/2013,  and  direct  payments 
to  farmers,  defined  by  Regulation  (EU) 
No 1307/20138.  The  second  pillar  relates  to  the  EU’s  rural  development  policy  and  is 
defined by Regulation (EU) No 1305/20139.  

Measures  applicable  to  the  wine  sector  are  described  in  the  Common  Market 
Organisation Regulation. They are subject to the ‘horizontal regulation’10 that lays down 
the  general  rules  for  expenditures  and  the  control  system  implemented  by  the  Member 
States. 

Since  the  late  1970s,  the  main  focus  of  the  EU’s  wine  policy  has  been  the  balance 
between  supply  and  demand,  along  with  market  management  measures  (such  as 
distillation  of  surpluses)  and  planting  restrictions.  In  addition,  there  have  been  several 
schemes aimed at reducing production (with reinforced financial incentives for giving up 
vineyards in the late 1980s, and a grubbing-up scheme in the late 2000s). Measures for 
the  restructuring  and  conversion  of  vineyards  have  also  been  at  the  heart  of  the  wine 
policy since 1999 on account of their positive structural effects on the wine sector. In a 
context  of  declining  domestic  consumption  and  increasing  opportunities  on  a  very 
competitive  world  market,  the  wine  reform  adopted  in  2008  (Regulation  (EC) 
No 1234/2007) had the following three goals: 

  making EU wine producers even more competitive – improving the reputation of 

European wines and regaining market share both in the EU and outside; 

  making  the  market  management  rules  simpler,  clearer  and  more  effective  –  to 

achieve a better balance between supply and demand; 

  preserving  the  best  traditions  of  European  wine  growing  and  boosting  its  social 

and environmental role in rural areas. 

Focusing even more on competitiveness and quality, the 2013 reform (Regulation (EU) 
No 1308/2013) put an end to support for potable alcohol distillation and crisis distillation 
and  limited  enrichment  by  use  of  concentrated  must.  In  compensation,  it  introduced 

8  Regulation  (EU)  No 1307/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  17  December  2013 
establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the CAP. 
9 Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on 
support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). 

10 Regulation (EU) 1306/2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the CAP.  

7 

 
 
                                                 
measures to support the development of new products, processes and technologies in the 
wine  sector.  It  also  expanded  promotion  measures  in  EU  countries,  with  a  view  to 
informing  consumers  about  the  responsible  consumption  of  wine  and  about  the  EU 
systems  covering  designations  of  origin  and  geographical  indications.  It  also  extended 
the restructuring  and  conversion of vineyards to the replanting of vineyards where it is 
necessary following mandatory grubbing up for health or phytosanitary reasons.  

In  addition  to  its  general  goals  of  harmonising,  streamlining  and  simplifying  the 
legislation, the planting rights regime was replaced in 2015 by an authorisation scheme 
for  vine  planting  between  2016  and  2030,  enabling  competitive  producers  to  increase 
production within certain limits. 

The new Common Market Organisation focuses on increasing the marketability of wine 
products and reinforcing the ability of producers to adapt to market demand. The specific 
objectives for the wine sector are:  

 

 

 

strengthening the competitiveness of the sector; 
ensuring  a  smooth  functioning  of  the  internal  market,  notably  by  increasing  the 
marketability of wine products and ensuring an orderly growth of vine plantings; 
ensuring the quality of EU wine, taking into account consumer expectations; 
encouraging a responsible approach to crisis situations; 

 
  protecting the environment. 

These  objectives  are  addressed  through  two  sets  of  measures:  regulatory  measures  and 
national support programmes, as illustrated in the intervention logic below.  

Figure  1:  Intervention  logic  of  the  wine  measures  of  the  single  Common  Market 
Organisation (CMO) linked to their expected results 

Note: ‘R’ refers to recitals of Regulation (EU) 1308/2013. 
Source: Evaluation support study, Agrosynergie.  

8 

 
 
 
The  possibility  of  introducing  decoupled  income  support  for  wine  growers  was  made 
available after the wine Common Market Organisation reform in 2008. In 2014, the three 
countries  with  the  lowest  budgets,  the  United  Kingdom,  Malta  and  Luxembourg, 
transferred the whole of their national support programme budget to the single payment 
scheme.  Among  the  large  wine-producing  countries,  only  Spain  transferred  part  of  its 
budget. In 2014, Greece transferred part of its budget to the single payment scheme, but 
from 2015 onwards it put all of its budget into the national support programme. In total, 
13% of the EU national support programme budget was transferred to the single payment 
scheme. Specialised wine farms in  the EU have  an above-average income and, in  most 
cases,  do  not  depend  on  direct  payments.  At  close  to  EUR 30 000  per  annual  working 
unit  in  2017,  specialised  wine  producers’  income  was  significantly  above  the 
EUR 21 500  average  for  all  farms,  according  to  data  from  FADN11.  Therefore,  other 
forms of support (like restructuring) are more relevant to this sector. 

The  national  support  programmes  are  the  main  support  tool  in  the  wine  sector.  The 
beneficiaries are wine growers and wine producers, i.e. not only primary crop producers 
but also processors, as a large share of wine processing takes place on farms. This policy 
tool is  better  adapted to  the needs of the wine sector, because wine is  a  perennial  crop 
with high planting and grubbing-up costs. In addition, there is not a single wine market 
and  wine  products  are  highly  differentiated.  Price  is  not  the  only  factor  influencing 
consumer choices and is determined partly by market equilibrium and partly by quality 
and reputation.  

The European Commission published a working paper in 2016 that provides guidelines 
for  implementing  the  regulations  in  the  national  support  programmes12.  The  key 
measures eligible for these programmes are: 

  promotion  and  marketing  of  EU  wines,  including  information  on  responsible 

 

 

 

wine consumption; 
restructuring  and  conversion  activities  to  increase  competitiveness  and  adapt  to 
consumer demand; 
investments in the wine sector targeting economic performance; 
support for by-product distillation to ensure the quality of wine, while protecting 
the environment; 

  preventive  instruments  such  as  harvest  insurance,  mutual  funds  and  green 

 

harvesting to encourage a responsible approach to crisis situations; 
innovation  that  can  increase  the  marketability  and  competitiveness  of  EU 
grapevine products.  

More information on these measures is provided in the implementation chapter. 

Member States are not allowed to contribute to the costs of measures financed by the EU 
under the support programmes. Exceptions are granted for promotion, harvest insurance 

11 https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardFarmEconomyFocus/DashboardFarmEconomyFocus.
html 
12 https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/wine-guidelines-
national-support-programmes-2016-16-12_en.pdf  

9 

 
 
                                                 
and  investment  (Article  212  of  Regulation  (EU)  No 1308/2013),  in  which  case  the 
Member States must notify the European Commission of their decision to grant State aid. 

While the measures in the national support programmes are defined and financed by the 
EU, it is up to Member States to select an appropriate set of measures to meet the needs 
and particular situation of their regional and local stakeholders and to integrate them into 
national  support  programmes.  An  overview  of  the  overall  EU  legal  framework  in  the 
wine sector up to 2018 is presented in figure 39 in Annex 3.  

The  regulatory  instruments  set  out  in  Regulation  (EU)  No  1308/2013  applicable  to  the 
wine  sector  are  summarised  below  and  described  in  detail  in  Annex  4.  In  2018,  the 
European  Commission  introduced  two  new  regulations  applicable  to  the  wine  sector, 
Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2018/273  and  Commission  Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 2018/274. These regulations simplify some of the above provisions.  

The  authorisation  scheme  for  vine  plantings  (Articles  61  to  72  of  Regulation  (EU) 
No 1308/2013) establishes a safeguard mechanism for new plantings. This scheme does 
not apply in Member States that did not implement the previous planting rights system, 
and  it  is  optional  for  Member  States  whose  area  under  vines  does  not  exceed 
10 000 hectares.  

Member  States  can  authorise  the  planting  of  vines  with  approved  varieties  on  specific 
areas expressed in hectares, on the basis of applications by producers, within the limit of 
1% of their total area of vines on 31 July of the preceding year. Member States are free to 
limit the issuing of authorisations at regional level. Any limitations must be justified by a 
well-demonstrated  risk  of:  (a)  oversupply  of  wine  products;  and/or  (b)  significant 
devaluation  of  a  particular  PDO/PGI.  Member  States  are  required  to  notify  the 
Commission about the implementation of the authorisation scheme for vine plantings. 

The Common Market Organisation Regulation sets out rules on a vineyard register and 
inventory of production potential (Articles 145 to 147). The vineyard register aims to 
improve  the  management  of  this  production  potential.  It  is  compulsory  to  maintain  an 
updated vineyard register for Member States implementing the authorisation scheme for 
vine plantings or a national support programme.  

A certification system ensures the veracity of the information labelled on a wine product 
in order to protect consumers (Article 120). To facilitate verification by Member States, a 
satisfactory  level  of  traceability  must  be  ensured  and  maintained  through  rules  for  the 
transport  of  wine  (Recitals  125  and  126  of  the  Common  Market  Organisation 
Regulation).  The  ‘accompanying  document’  is  one  of  the  main  tools  for  this  purpose. 
This  document  may  also  be  used  to  certify  a  wine’s  origin,  characteristics,  vintage  or 
wine grape variety and its status as a PDO or a PGI, if applicable. 

Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2018/273  provides  for  several  measures  to 
simplify  trade  in wine products  and facilitate  their  movement  (Recital  11),  without 
impeding their traceability.  

10 

 
 
The Common Market Organisation Regulation sets out labelling and presentation rules 
(Articles 117 to 123) for wine products13, in order to ensure a smooth functioning of the 
EU market and fair competition, and to avoid consumers being misled. Wine labels must 
contain  information  about  the  category  of  the  product,  its  alcoholic  strength,  the 
provenance, the bottler and the importer (in the case of imported wine products). Specific 
requirements  exist  for  sparkling  wines,  such  as  the  obligation  to  indicate  the  sugar 
content on the label.  

Optional information can be added on the packaging of the product, such as the vintage 
year, the name of the wine grape variety, the sugar content (optional for wine other than 
sparkling wine) and traditional terms reserved for PDO/PGI wines.  

The  Common  Market  Organisation  Regulation  lays  down  general  provisions  on 
marketing  standards  and  oenological  practices  (Articles  73  to  75  and  78  to  83)  for 
wine.  These  concern  substances  used  in  production,  production  methods  including 
oenological  (i.e.  winemaking)  practices,  definitions  and  restrictions  of  must  and  wine 
coupage  and  blending,  and  disposal  of  non-complying  products.  Only  grape  varieties 
belonging to  the  Vitis  vinifera  species or crosses between the  Vitis vinifera species and 
other species of the genus Vitis are authorised for making wine products (excluding six 
specific varieties).  

Annex  VIII  of  the  regulation  defines  the  authorised  oenological  practices  for  the 
enrichment,  acidification  and  de-acidification  of  wine  products  according  to  wine- 
growing zones. The annex also provides general restrictions on the addition of water and 
alcohol, the use of fresh grapes, grape must and grape juice, blending of wines from non-
EU  countries  and  by-products.  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No 606/2009  further 
detailed the list of authorised practices, including those for the specific characteristics of 
some  types  of  wine  products  (sparkling  wines,  liqueur  wines,  coupage  and  rosé,  and 
certain  Hungarian  and  Slovak  wines).  That  regulation  was  replaced  in  2019  by 
Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2019/93414,  which  entered  into  force  on 
7 December  2019  and  contains  rules  very  similar  to  those  of  Regulation  (EC) 
No 606/2009. 

The  scheme  for  protected  designations  of  origin  (PDO),  protected  geographical 
indications (PGI) and traditional terms (Articles 92 to 116) was set up to protect the 
legitimate  interests  of  consumers  and  producers,  ensure  the  smooth  operation  of  the 
internal market and promote the production of quality products (Article 92 of Regulation 
(EU)  No 1308/2013).  It  can  apply  to  wine,  liqueur  wine,  sparkling  wine,  partially 
fermented grape must and wine from raisined/overripe grapes.  

In 2018, there were close to 1 160 wine PDOs and 440 PGIs in the EU, accounting for a 
market value of around EUR 39 418 million, i.e. 58% of EU wine production value15. 

13 In addition to the provisions of the Common Market Organisation Regulation,  wine products are also 
partly subject to Regulation 1169/2011 on food information for consumers. However, it is not the purpose 
of the present evaluation to evaluate these provisions.  

14 This new Regulation corresponds to the alignment of the Regulation with the Lisbon Treaty. 

15  Study  on  economic  value  of  EU  quality  schemes,  geographical  indications  (GIs)  and  traditional 
specialities  guaranteed  (TSGs).  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/a7281794-7ebe-
11ea-aea8-01aa75ed71a1  

11 

 
 
                                                 
The  designation  of  origin  consists  of  the  name  of  a  region,  a  specific  place  or  (in 
exceptional cases) a country used to describe a product. It can be used when the quality 
and characteristics of the wine product are essentially or exclusively due to a particular 
geographical environment with its inherent natural and human factors. The grapes used 
for its production must come exclusively from this geographical area, and its production 
must  take  place  in  this  geographical  area.  In  addition,  the  product  must  be  obtained 
exclusively from the vine varieties belonging to Vitis Vinifera.   

The geographical indication refers to a region, a specific place or (in exceptional cases) 
a country used to describe a product.  It can be used when the wine product possesses a 
specific  quality,  reputation  or  other  characteristics  attributable  to  that  geographical 
origin.  At  least  85%  of  the  grapes  used  for  its  production  must  come  exclusively  from 
this geographical area, and its production must take place in this geographical area. The 
product  must  be  obtained  from  the  vine  varieties  belonging  to  Vitis  Vinifera  or  a  cross 
with other species of the genus Vitis.  

Designations of origin and geographical indications relating to geographical areas in non-
EU countries can also be eligible for protection in the EU.  

Traditional terms are used to describe the characteristic of a PDO/PGI product (such as a 
production  method,  a  quality,  colour,  type  of  place  or  a  particular  event  linked  to  the 
history of the product) and also benefit from protection against unlawful use. Any misuse 
of  the  protected  term,  misleading  indication  or  other  practice  likely  to  mislead  the 
consumer is forbidden.   

The Common Market Organisation Regulation lays down provisions for imported wine 
products  (Article  90).  Except  as  otherwise  provided  for  in  international  agreements, 
these products are subject to the same requirements as EU products regarding designation 
of origin and geographical indications, definitions and labelling. Imported wine products 
must  be  produced  in  accordance  with  oenological  practices  authorised  by  the  EU  or 
recommended  by  the  OIV.  Imported  products  are  subject  to  presentation  of  an  import 
document.  

2.2.  Other CAP measures  

The  EU  legal  framework  encompasses  general  provisions  applying  to  the  agricultural 
sector as a whole, with sometimes equivalent objectives to those of the Common Market 
Organisation  measures  applicable  to  the  wine  sector.  This  is  particularly  true  for  the 
Rural  Development  Regulation  and  the  Regulation  on  information  provision  and 
promotion measures.   

2.2.1.  Rural Development Regulation  

The EU’s rural policy addresses a range of economic, environmental and social issues in 
rural  areas.  Member  States  are  required  to  draw  up  national  or  regional  rural 
development programmes adapted to the needs of their territories and responding to EU 
priorities such as fostering knowledge transfer and innovation in agriculture, forestry and 
rural areas. 

The  rural  development  programmes  encompass  a  set  of  measures  to  be  adopted  by 
Member States  under Regulation  (EU) No 1305/2013 on support for rural development 
by  the  European  Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural  Development  (EAFRD).  These  include 
measures  for  knowledge  transfer  and  innovation  in  agriculture,  competitiveness  of  the 

12 

 
 
agricultural sector and risk management in agriculture that may cover certain needs of the 
wine sector, such as:   

  organic farming – support can be granted, per hectare of agricultural area, to active 
farmers or groups of farmers to convert to, or maintain, organic farming practices and 
methods; 

 

investments in physical assets – support can be granted for tangible and/or intangible 
investments  which  improve  the  overall  performance  and  sustainability  of  the 
agricultural  holding  and/or  concern  the  processing,  marketing  or  development  of 
agricultural products; 

  plant insurance – aid can be granted as financial contributions to premiums for plant 
insurance  against  economic  losses  to  farmers  caused  by  adverse  climatic  events, 
animal or plant diseases, pest infestation, or an environmental incident;  

  mutual  funds  –  support  can  cover  financial  contributions  to  mutual  funds,  e.g. 
administrative costs of setting up the mutual fund or amounts paid by the mutual fund 
as financial compensation to farmers.  

The  potential  synergies  between  rural  development  support  and  wine  support 
programmes were addressed in the evaluation question on coherence.  

2.2.2.  Regulation on information provision and promotion measures  

Regulation (EU) No 1144/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council provides 
rules  under  which  information  provision  and  promotion  measures  for  agricultural 
products  implemented  in  the  internal  market  and  in  non-EU  countries  may  be  fully  or 
partially financed by the EU budget.  Its  objective is  ‘to  enhance the competitiveness  of 
the Union agricultural sector, thereby bringing about greater competitive equity both in 
the internal market and in third countries’ (Recital 3) and, notably, to increase awareness 
and  recognition  of  EU  quality  schemes.  Its  scope  is  therefore  relatively  close  to  the 
promotion measure provided for by the Common Market Organisation Regulation in the 
national support programmes.  

For wine products,  the EU may finance information provision and promotion measures 
covering wine with protected designation of origin or geographical indication status and 
wine  with  an  indication  of  the  wine  grape  variety.  This  can  occur  either  within  the 
framework of ‘simple programmes,’ along with other types of products, or be limited to 
informing  consumers  about  the  specific  scheme  (quality,  organic  production  method, 
etc.) and about responsible wine consumption.  

2.2.3.  Managing the risk of overlapping  

The  Common  Market  Organisation  Regulation  aims  to  ensure  consistency  between 
national  support  programmes  and  the  various  EU  regulations.  National  support 
programmes  cannot  support  measures  contained  in  Member  States’  rural  development 
programmes  or  research  projects  other  than  studies  linked  to  promotion  in  non-EU 
countries.  Moreover,  the  Commission  has  adopted  specific  rules  to  avoid  potential 

13 

 
 
double  funding  between  a  Member  State’s  wine  support  programme  and  its  rural 
development or promotional programmes16.   

2.3.  Market prospects for wine 

The  EU  is  the  largest  consumer  of  EU  wines,  with  five  Member  States  (France,  Italy, 
Spain,  Germany  and  the  UK)  accounting  for  over  70%  of  consumption  of  EU  wines17. 
Driven  by  health  concerns  and  changing  consumption  patterns,  the  EU’s  annual  per 
capita consumption is decreasing. This trend is expected to continue, but at a slower rate 
(-0.4%  per  year),  to  reach  around  25  litres  per  capita  per  year  by  2030,  although  large 
differences  between  countries  could  remain.  The  wine  sector  is  adapting  to  a  new 
generation of consumers with changing lifestyles and preferences. In particular, red wine 
consumption,  often  associated  with  the  traditional  dinner  at  home,  is  decreasing  across 
the  EU.  Demand  for  white,  rosé  and  sparkling  wines,  which  generally  have  a  lower 
alcohol content and can be consumed on a variety of occasions, is growing.  

The overall declining consumption of wine, together with  a further expected decline of 
the  use  of  vinified  production  for  ‘other  uses’  (e.g.  distillation  and  the  production  of 
‘processed/elaborated products’) is projected to lead to a decline in total domestic use of 
vinified production (-0.5% per year) by 2030.   

In  contrast,  wine  consumption  has  increased  strongly  in  the  United  States,  China,  the 
UK, Russia, Australia and Canada. These markets represent new development potential 
for EU wine producers, along with those experiencing a recent increase in their per capita 
rate of consumption (Angola, Hong Kong and Macao). EU exports have grown strongly 
over the last decade (+6% per year). While the volume of exports has recently stabilised, 
their  value  has  continued  to  grow.  Despite  strong  competition  from  wine-producing 
countries outside the EU and possible trade tensions, in particular with the United States, 
EU exports are expected to  keep growing to  reach 26 million hectolitres in 2030 (+1% 
per  year).  The  increase  in  exports  is  driven  by  the  high  demand  for  EU  wines  with  a 
geographical indication and sparkling wines in general.  

Due to the decline in EU demand and the slowdown in trade, the EU’s wine production is 
projected to  decline to  155 million  hectolitres (-0.5% per  year) by 2030, although  with 
annual  variability  due  to  climatic  conditions.  The  main  reason  for  this  decrease  is  the 
increasing abandonment of small vineyards (-0.9% per year) due to ageing farm owners 
and/or difficulties in competing on the market. Some of the abandoned vineyards will be 
replanted, particularly in zones eligible for producing GI wines. Abandonment of smaller 
areas and the resulting further concentration of wine production is not expected to lead to 
strong yield increases. Indeed, yields are being constrained to ensure the quality of wine 
(particularly  GI  wines)  and  the  production  of  organic  wines  and  wines  using  less  farm 
inputs.  

16 Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1149 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1150. 
17  European  Commission,  The  EU  Agricultural  Outlook  for  markets  and 
10 December 2019. 
driving-food-market-developments-combining-affordability-sustainability-and-convenience-2019-dec-
10_en  

income  2019-2030, 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/news/eu-agricultural-outlook-2019-2030-societal-demands-

14 

 
 
 
                                                 
3. 

IMPLEMENTATION 

3.1.  Overview  of  the  budgets  and  execution  of  the  national  support 

programmes  

The national support programmes are the main financial instrument of the wine common 
market organisation. For the 2014-2018 programming period, they were allocated a total 
budget  of  EUR 5 667 million.  The  Member  States’  budgets  for  the  national  support 
programmes  were  set  at  EU  level  (agreed  on  by  the  European  Parliament  and  the 
Council) as annual budgetary limits, in Annex VI of Regulation (EU) 1308/2013. They 
are  above  the  former  allocations  in  most  Member  States,  and  are  quite  similar  to  the 
ceilings for the 2009-2013 programming period18. The budgetary limits for Spain, France 
and Italy amount to three quarters of the total ceiling. 

Table 2: Yearly budgetary limits for the national support programmes 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015-
16 

From 
2017 

Italy 

France 

Spain 

Portugal 

Romania 

Germany 

Hungary 

Bulgaria 

Greece 

Austria 

Croatia 

Slovenia 

Cyprus 

Slovakia 

Czechia 

238 

172 

214 

38 

42 

23 

17 

16 

14 

8 

4 

3 

3 

3 

298 

227 

265 

52 

42 

31 

23 

21 

6 

11 

5 

4 

4 

4 

294 

224 

136 

53 

42 

32 

24 

22 

7 

11 

5 

4 

4 

4 

341 

284 

215 

66 

42 

39 

29 

27 

8 

14 

6 

5 

5 

5 

337 

280 

210 

65 

42 

39 

29 

27 

8 

14 

6 

5 

5 

5 

337 

281 

210 

337 

281 

210 

337 

281 

210 

65 

48 

39 

29 

27 

8 

14 

12 

5 

5 

5 

5 

65 

48 

39 

29 

27 

24 

14 

12 

5 

5 

5 

5 

65 

48 

39 

29 

27 

24 

14 

11 

5 

5 

5 

5 

Lithuania 

0.03 

0.04 

0.05 

0.05 

0.05 

0.05 

0.05 

0.05 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

UK 

0.3 

0.2 

0.2 

0.5 

0.3 

0.2 

0.5 

0.3 

0.2 

0.6 

0.4 

0.3 

0.6 

0.4 

0.3 

0.6 

0.4 

0.3 

EU 
Source: DG Agriculture and Rural Development, EC Regulation No 1308/2013 - Annex VI. 

1 084  1 106  1 105 

1 073 

1 087 

863 

796 

994 

18  In  Greece  and  Romania,  the  budgetary  limit  changed  significantly  between  the  two  programming 
periods.  Greece  had  EUR  20  million  per  year  on  average  between  2009  and  2013,  compared  to 
EUR 24 million since 2014, due to the re-inclusion of the decoupled payment budget (under the single 
payment scheme) in the national support programme. Romania had an increase from EUR 42.1 million 
per  year  in  the  2009-2013  programming  period  to  EUR  47.7  million  per  year  since  2014,  due  to  a 
recalculation of its budget.  

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The  budget  execution  varies  per  year  and  per  Member  State.  At  EU  level,  it  ranged 
between 88% and 94% over the 2014-2018 programming period. 

Within  the  national  support  programmes,  Member  States  are  free  to  choose  and 
implement the measures best adapted to their needs, define the budget allocation and set 
the rate of EU support for each measure within the limits laid down in EU law. For the 
2014-2018 period, the main EU measures from a financial point of view have been those 
for  restructuring  and  conversion  (49%),  investments  (22%)  and  promotion  (18%).  The 
newly introduced innovation measure has a low budget,  and has been allocated to only 
Germany,  Spain  and  Cyprus,  with  no  uptake  in  Germany.  The  measure  supporting  the 
setting up of mutual funds (Article 48 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013) has never been 
implemented by any Member State.  

Figure  2:  Share  of  each  measure,  based  on  expenditure  on  national  support 
programmes from 2014 to 2018 

Distillation; 
7% 

Other; 0% 

Innovation; 
0% 

Investment; 
22% 

Harvest 
insurance; 
3% 

Promotion; 
18% 

Restructurin
g and 
conversion; 
49% 

Note: EU expenditure, excluding the share of the budgets for national support programmes 
transferred to the single payment scheme. 
Source: DG Agriculture and Rural Development, monitoring data for the national support 
programmes. 

At  Member  State  level,  the  restructuring  and  conversion  measure  has  also  been 
predominant, but specific national choices can be noted:   

  Eight  Member  States  (Bulgaria,  Czechia,  Greece,  Hungary,  Portugal,  Romania, 
Slovenia,  Slovakia)  chose  to  focus  on  a  limited  number  of  measures  and/or  to 
allocate  above  70%  of  their  budget  to  the  restructuring  and  conversion  measure. 
Romania  and  Bulgaria  are  the  most  striking  cases,  with  more  than  93%  of  their 
budget spent on restructuring and conversion. This is logical considering the degree 
of evolution of their wine sector in relation to PDO and PGI production; 

  Seven countries (Germany, Spain, France, Croatia, Cyprus, Italy, Austria) developed 
a different strategy, sharing the budget between different measures and allocating a 
large share to promotion and/or investment. 

16 

 
 
 
 
Figure 3: Breakdown of national expenditure per measure from 2014 to 2018 

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

BG

CZ

DE

EL

ES

FR

HR

IT

CY

HU

AT

PT

RO

SI

SK

Restructuring and conversion

Promotion

Harvest insurance

Investment

By product distillation

Other

Source: DG Agriculture and Rural Development, monitoring data for the national support 
programmes. 

3.2. 

Implementation of the authorisation scheme for vine plantings  

The new authorisation scheme has been implemented since 2016, in 13 Member States.  

The Member States’ implementation choices relate to the following, and are all optional:   

  Potential decision to limit the area to be made available for new plantings, by setting 
a percentage below the standard value of 1% of the total area planted with vines, or to 
limit the issuing of authorisations at regional level.  

  Selection of eligibility criteria, among the criteria set out in Article 64 of Regulation 

1308/2013.  

  Potential selection of priority criteria (and weighting associated to each criterion) to 

grant new plantings instead of a pro-rata attribution.  

In 2018, out of the 26 490 hectares available for new plantings, 81% was granted. In six 
Member  States,  100%  or  close  to  100%  of  the  available  area  was  granted  (Czechia, 
Germany, Spain, Greece, Italy, Portugal).  

In  Italy  in  particular,  where  the  percentage  of  area  for  new  plantings  was  very  low, 
applications greatly exceeded availability.  

In contrast, in France, where the largest area for new planting was available, only 71% of 
the available area was granted in 2018, because France applies regional limits. For more 
details, see Chapter 5.2.4. 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 3: Implementation of the authorisation scheme in 2017 and 2018  

Member State 

Bulgaria  
Czechia  
Germany  
Greece  
Spain  
France  
Hungary  
Italy  
Austria  
Portugal  
Romania  
Slovenia  
Slovakia  
Total EU (13 MS)  

% decided at 
national level in 
2018 (max.  

1%)               

Area available for new plantings 
(hectare)  

2017  

2018 

1%  
1%  
0.3%  
1%  
0.52%  
1%  
1%  
1%  
1%  
1%  
1%  
1%  
1%  
-   

604  
177  
308  
628  
4 989  
7 939  
642  
6 622  
476  
1 932  
1 824  
156  
174  
26 470  

606 
178  
308  
627 
4 950  
8 101  
652  
6 522  
483  
1 916  
1 825  
156  
166 
26 490  

Area granted 
in 2018 (% of 
the area 
available)  
19%  
100.0%  
100.0%  
100%  
100.0%  
71%  
86%  
100.0%  
53%  
100%  
5%  
58%  
54%  
81%  

Source: DG Agriculture and Rural Development, monitoring data for the national support 
programmes. 

18 

 
 
  
 
 
4. 

  METHOD 

This chapter sets out the overall methodological approach adopted for this evaluation: it 
presents the data sources and collection tools, as well as the main analytical methods that 
were used. A detailed description of the methodology can be found in Annex 5. 

4.1.  Data collection tools  

Databases and information on policy implementation: These include the ‘grey literature’, 
reports and indicators available at EU and national level that provide information on the 
implementation of the regulations.  

Review  and  analysis  of  vineyard,  wine  and  other  databases:  Eurostat  data  was  given 
priority to provide contextual indicators. It was complemented by indicators from other 
databases,  such  as  Member  States’  price  notifications,  COMTRADE,  the  World  Bank, 
the USDA and the FAO. Databases focusing on vineyards and on the wine sector, such 
as OIV19 and the vineyard register, provided key indicators on the structural changes in 
the wine sector since 2008.   

Case studies: To gather detailed and contextual qualitative and quantitative information 
to complement the EU-wide information, and to understand the implementation choices 
and the effects of the regulations in the Member States, 10 case studies were carried out 
at  national  and  regional  level  in  seven  Member  States.  The  selection  procedure  for  the 
case studies and the case study reports are available as annexes to the evaluation support 
study carried out by Agrosynergie20. 

Farm Accounting Data Network (FADN): A dataset from the FADN for 2009-2016 was 
analysed  in  order  to  identify  changes  in  the  cost  of  production,  sale  prices,  value  of 
assets, and income of growers.  

Interviews: In-depth semi-structured interviews were carried out with stakeholders, based 
on  common  interview  guides,  covering  all  topics  in  the  evaluation  questions.  The  aim 
was to understand the context in which stakeholders operate and formulate judgements.  

Questionnaire  to  Member  States’  administrations:  A  questionnaire  was  used  to  collect 
specific  quantitative  data,  to  analyse  how  efficiently  the  regulations  have  been 
implemented.  The  questions  focused  on  the  workload  and  the  indirect  costs  of 
implementing the national support programmes and the control and checks system.   

Internet research on the wine offerings of online retailers:  Internet research was carried 
out  to  review  the  wine  products  of  online  retailers  and  to  check  the  positioning  of  EU 
wines  and  their  competitors  in  each  product  segment.  The  research  included  the  online 
shops of 16 retailers, either wine specialists or large national or international food retail 
chains,  from  the  main  four  wine-producing  Member  States:  Italy,  Spain,  France  and 
Portugal.  

Monographs of EU wine producers: Monographs of significant regional wine producers 
were  drawn  up  within  the  framework  of  the  case  studies.  The  selected  companies 
answered specific questions on actions that had been supported by the national  support 

19 Organisation Internationale pour la Vigne et le Vin (http://www.oiv.int/).  
20 Evaluation of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector. 
https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/evaluation/market-and-income-reports/cap-measures-wine-sector_en  

19 

 
 
                                                 
programmes. In all, 17 independent producers and cooperatives were selected (from 1-4 
per case study).  

Consumer survey: A survey in four Member States assessed the increase in consumers’ 
awareness  about  the  responsible  consumption  of  wine  and  the  EU  system  covering 
PDO/PGI, as well as their satisfaction with the safety and quality of wine products. The 
survey was conducted in two large wine-producing countries and two large net importer 
countries, and was answered by around 1 100 consumers. The outcome of this survey is 
detailed in Annex 2. 

Public consultation: This evaluation included a public consultation that ran from 7 March 
to 7 June 2019. Only 33 contributions were received by the closing date. Roughly a third 
of the respondents represented non-governmental organisations, another third represented 
a business organisation/association or trade union, and the remaining third represented a 
public  authority  or  were  EU  citizens.  The  outcome  of  this  consultation  is  detailed  in 
Annex 2. 

4.2.  Counterfactual analysis  

In  order  to  draw  valid  conclusions  about  the  effects  of  the  EU’s  wine  policy,  it  was 
necessary  to  compare  it  with  a  counterfactual  situation  where  the  policy  did  not  exist. 
Depending on the purposes of the various evaluation questions, different  counterfactual 
situations were used.  

Generally,  the  actual  situation  was  compared  to  a  theoretical  situation  without  the 
measures,  produced  from  the  analysis  of  the  intervention  logic  and  based  on  economic 
approaches derived from the literature. This theoretical analysis of the expected effects of 
the  measures  helped  to  identify  behaviour  expected  from  economic  actors  faced  with 
incentives or constraints deriving from alternative instruments.   

For  the  purposes  of  data  analysis,  an  empirical  counterfactual  situation  was  also  used. 
Before/after 2008 can be taken as a point of comparison, considering that, at the time of 
the previous evaluation in 2012, the reform had not been applied for long enough to allow 
meaningful conclusions to be drawn. Moreover, significant changes have occurred on the 
world wine market since then.  

4.3.  Analytical tools  

The  following  analytical  tools  were  used:  statistical  analysis,  Strengths  Weaknesses 
Opportunities Threats (SWOT) analysis, and matrix tabulation. 

4.4.  Limitations of the evaluation and robustness of findings  

The  findings  of  the  evaluation  are  robust,  as  they  are  underpinned  by  solid  empirical 
analysis. However, several challenges were faced in the evaluation.  

The first challenge was that the extent to which national support programmes contributed 
to  changes  in  productivity,  costs  and  income  could  not  be  assessed  in  the  evaluation 
support  study.  This  was  because  the  support  received  from  these  national  support 
programmes was either not reported, or was poorly reported, in the FADN database. 

The second main challenge related to the duration of implementation of the regulations. 
Most regulations have been implemented with very few changes since 2008: this period is 
too  long  to  make  a  comparison  between  the  situation  before  the  implementation  of  the 
regulations and after. Regarding the authorisation scheme for new plantings, the opposite 

20 

 
 
problem arose: the very short implementation period of the scheme (applicable only since 
2016) limited the assessment of its effects.  

The third main challenge was to distinguish the effects of the regulations from the effects 
of  other  factors,  e.g.  on  the  competitiveness  of  the  EU  wine  sector.  In  a  globalised 
market,  a  number  of  factors  (in  particular  the  world  economic  recovery  after  the  2008 
crisis) may have impacted the sector and diluted the effects of the measures.   

The  fact  that  Member  States  chose  to  implement  different  measures,  due  to  a  complex 
combination of local needs, political choices and external factors, limited the possibilities 
for comparisons between Member States.   

The last main challenge related to the availability of data and the accuracy of monitoring 
at  national  level.  In  particular,  notifications  to  the  European  Commission  on  operations 
supported by the national support programmes did not provide enough information to be 
evaluated.  Even  though  a  sizeable  amount  of  data  was  collected  at  national  level  to 
complement  the  information  available  at  EU  level,  the  analyses  carried  out  for  this 
evaluation were nevertheless limited.   

In  addition,  the  evaluation  was  mainly  concerned  with  the  effects  of  the  measures  on 
competitiveness  and  market  adaptation,  which  are  a  central  objective  of  the  national 
support  programmes,  and  not  with  their  effects  on  the  environment  and  rural 
development.  These  were  analysed  in  the  evaluation  questions  related  to  the  coherence 
and relevance of the policy.  

Unfortunately,  participation  in  the  public  consultation  was  very  low,  with  only  33 
respondents, so the results are not representative and should be looked at with caution. 

The  methodology  for  each  evaluation  question  was  developed  to  provide  reliable 
evidence, in  spite of these challenges. The extensive use of case studies and systematic 
cross-checking between sources helped to ensure the soundness of the results.  

21 

 
 
 
 
5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

5.1.  Effectiveness 

5.1.1.  Effects  of  national  support  programmes  on  the  competitiveness,  product 

quality and market orientation of wine growers  

The impact of the EU’s wine policy on the competitiveness of wine growers is assessed 
through  changes  in  productivity,  costs  and  income.  The  evaluation  also  looks  at  the 
adaptation  of  production  to  market  demand,  including  for  more  quality  products.  This 
evaluation question relates mainly to the restructuring and conversion measure aimed at 
wine  growers  (the 
targets  wine  processors).  The 
competitiveness of wine producers is assessed in the next question. 

investment  measure  mainly 

The productivity of wine farms is way above the average for farms in the EU, with a ratio 
of total output to total input of 144% in 2017 compared to 114% on average for all EU 
farms (FADN)21. The statistical analysis of the FADN dataset, isolating a sample of wine 
farms  in  seven  Member  States,  showed  an  overall  increase  in  the  productivity  and 
revenue  of  growers  in  2009-2016.  The  statistics  also  highlighted  very  significant 
disparities  in  the  income  of  growers  both  between  Member  States  and  between  regions 
within Member States. To a lesser extent, significant gaps were also found between wine-
producing  growers  and  growers  who  sell  their  grapes:  the  former  were  found  to  have 
significantly higher but less stable revenue.  

Figure 4: Average income and costs in EU farms specialising in vineyards  

35.000

30.000

25.000

20.000

15.000

10.000

5.000

0

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

annual income/person (FNVA EUR/AWU)

inputs/hectare (EUR/ha UAA)

Source: DG Agriculture and Rural Development, based on FADN. 

However,  as  previously  stated,  the  extent  to  which  the  national  support  programmes 
contributed to the observed changes could not be assessed in the evaluation, because the 
support received was either not reported, or was poorly reported, in the FADN database. 
In addition, the interviews with stakeholders in six Member States (sector representatives, 

21https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardFarmEconomyFocusCrops/DashboardFarmEconomyF
ocusCrops.html  

22 

 
 
  
                                                 
national authorities, wine growers and researchers) also confirmed the influence of other 
factors on the revenue of growers, such as market trends, taxes, etc.  

As pointed out in the evaluation support study, the restructuring and conversion measure, 
amounting to half of the expenditure on national support programmes, was mainly used 
to  change  varieties,  relocate  production  and  improve  management  techniques.  Some 
changes in management techniques, such as changes in density, aimed to mechanise the 
practices  in  vineyards  and  meet  the  requirements  of  PDO/PGIs.  The  selling  price  of 
PDO/PGIs is significantly above average, and the conversion to geographical indications 
can bring more value to farmers22.  

The  case  studies  revealed  that  the  restructuring  and  conversion  measure  accelerated 
changes in  the producing systems  and in  management practices at  vineyards, especially 
by enabling large-scale mechanisation and plantings better adapted to water management 
(irrigation,  higher  drought-resistant  varieties,  management  of  diseases).  Through  the 
reduction  of  humidity  thanks  to  lower  densities,  it  may  contribute  in  the  long  term  to 
lowering  the  use  of  pesticides,  though  managing  environmental  issues  was  not  a  direct 
objective  of  the  national  support  programmes.  In  addition,  wine  growers  who  also 
produce wine could use the investment support on machinery and promotional activities 
to increase their wine value. 

Figure 5: Typology of the costs supported regarding the improvement of vineyard 
management techniques 

Source: Evaluation support study, Agrosynergie. 

Nevertheless,  the  statistical  analysis  of  the  costs  of  production  revealed  increasing 
production costs per hectare in most Member States. This does not mean that the measure 
had no effect on production costs. On the contrary, very positive opinions from the wine 
sector in the interviews testify to its actual contribution. For example, mechanisation led 
to  a  reduction  in  the  cost  of  labour.  However,  positive  effects  may  have  partially  been 
offset  by  other  factors  such  as  the  increasing  costs  of  wages,  crop  protection  products, 
land rent costs, etc. Overall, it seems that the restructuring and conversion measure had a 
mitigating effect on the increase in production costs. Furthermore, in Romania, where the 

22  European  Commission,  Economic  value  of  EU  quality  schemes,  geographical  indications  (GIs)  and 
traditional  specialities  guaranteed  (TSGs),  Brussels,  October  2019.  https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-
farming-fisheries/key-policies/common-agricultural-policy/cmef/products-and-markets/economic-value-
eu-quality-schemes-geographical-indications-gis-and-traditional-specialities-guaranteed-tsgs_en  

23 

 
 
 
                                                 
measure  affected  a  very  large  share  of  professional  wine  growers,  there  has  been  a 
significant  decrease  in  the  cost  of  production  since  2010,  which  can  be  linked  to  the 
implementation of the measure leading to increasing mechanisation.  

Similarly,  the  effect  of  the  national  support  programmes  on  yields  could  not  be 
quantitatively assessed.  

National  support  programmes  financed,  in  part,  the  switch  of  vineyards  to  PDO/PGI 
production  systems,  which  have  lower  yields,  maximum  yield  ceilings  and  higher 
production  costs  than  standard  production  systems.  Furthermore,  positive  effects  of  the 
restructuring and conversion measure on yields and production costs might appear only in 
the longer term, since a vine needs at least three years before production and even more 
before  cropping  management  is  stabilised.  In  any  case,  significant  yield  increases  are 
expected in a few Member States, such as Romania and Bulgaria, due to the replacement 
of old vineyards. 

The  share  of  PDO/PGI  in  vinified  production  increased  from  61.6%  in  2009/2010  to 
62.3% in 2018/201923. The vine area under GIs increased by 6% between 2009/2010 and 
2018/2019, to  88%  of vineyards. Despite the  growing demand, the production of wines 
with an indication of the grape variety is still small in the EU. 

The  national  support  programmes  of  seven  Member  States  (Hungary,  Italy,  Portugal, 
Greece,  Slovenia,  Slovakia,  Cyprus)  clearly  aimed  to  foster  production  of  wines  with 
PDO/PGI. In most cases, this objective was implemented through an eligibility criterion 
requiring that the supported area meets the requirement for the production of PDO or PGI 
wines. 

The  results  of  the  FADN  analysis  show  that  the  EU’s  wine  policy  has  had  a  generally 
positive effect on the revenue of wine growers, through the restructuring and conversion 
measure, and of grower-producers, through investment in machinery and promotion,. The 
significant coverage of the measure (11% of the EU’s vineyard surface area) can make a 
difference  in  terms  of  competitiveness  and  advances  in  sustainable  production.  In 
addition,  a  majority  of  respondents  to  the  public  consultation  agreed  that  the  EU  wine 
measures  led  to  a  more  competitive  and  market-oriented  wine  sector.  This  was 
particularly highlighted by respondents involved in the wine business24. 

The  evaluation  support  study  could  not  provide  quantitative  data  to  show  that  the 
restructuring and conversion measure resulted in actual conversion toward more market-
adapted  varieties.  Nevertheless,  all  the  case  studies  revealed  the  contribution  of  the 
measure to a better differentiation of varieties (varieties separated by plot), much better 
phytosanitary  quality,  and,  in  many  cases,  a  focus  on  national  and  regional  varieties  to 
respond to the demand for unique, typical products.  

Conversion has often been carried out alongside other types of operation (e.g. relocation, 
installation of irrigation systems, land consolidation, etc.) and the relevance of the chosen 
variety  could  not  be  monitored.  Nevertheless,  the  positive  opinions  of  sector 
representatives  and  wine  producers  showed  how  the  measure  for  the  vineyards 
contributed  to  meeting  current  market  trends.  For  example,  in  Veneto,  the  area  planted 

23 European Commission, Wine data portal. https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DataPortal/wine.html  
24 See Question 20 of the public consultation in Annex 2. 

24 

 
 
                                                 
with  Glera  -  the  variety  used  to  produce  Prosecco  -  increased  significantly.  Conversion 
and other types of operation have contributed to a general upgrade in the quality of grapes 
(e.g. through changes in density and use of improved clones) and to a significant increase 
of production under PDO/PGI.   

5.1.2.  Effects of the national support programmes on wine producers/ products and 

external trade  

Competitiveness depends on the EU wine sector’s capacity to produce and sell products 
in various markets with specific features that make them more attractive than the products 
offered by competitors. 

The  evaluation  support  study  concludes  that  the  national  support  programmes  have 
contributed to improving the key factors of competitiveness of EU wine producers, based 
on the analysis below.  

The investment measure was implemented by Member States to improve the processing 
facilities  and  reduce  winemaking  costs.  Countries  facing  ageing  industry  infrastructure 
needed to support the modernisation of industrial equipment (Czechia, Germany, Croatia, 
Romania,  Slovakia),  whereas  others  already  benefiting  from  a  highly  competitive  and 
high-quality  wine  sector  used  the  support  to  optimise  their  processing  and  marketing 
tools  (France,  Italy).  Other  Member  States  considered  supporting  dynamic  and 
competitive  wine  holdings  and  decided  to  encourage  the  creation  of  larger-scale  wine 
companies (Austria, Germany, Greece). 

As the case studies show, the measures under the national support programmes, notably 
the  support  for  restructuring  and  investment,  have  been  widely  used  by  operators  to 
improve efficiency  and to  develop  new products  adapted to  consumer demand. Support 
for investment in modern equipment adapted to the production of new wine products (e.g. 
white  and  rosé  wines)  has  also  led  to  more  efficiency  in  wine  processing,  bottling  and 
marketing. These changes have helped to improve the quality of wine and the stability of 
products  (Germany,  Italy,  France,  Spain,  Hungary,  Romania).  In  Spain  and  Italy 
particularly,  the  investment  support  made  it  possible  to  shift  from  bulk  to  bottled  wine 
and  improve  the  overall  quality  by  converting  to  PDO/PGI  wines.  The  beneficiaries  of 
the restructuring and investment support (winegrowers/producers) who were interviewed 
indicated  that  the  progress  achieved  has  contributed  positively  to  their  turnover  and 
subsequently has improved their negotiating position in the supply chain.  

The  investment  measure  also  helped  actors  expand  their  activities  further  down  the 
production  chain  (thereby  fostering  vertical  integration).  It  supported  the  setting  up  of 
processing facilities on farms, leading to an increase in the number of independent wine 
makers, and made possible the development of on-farm sales, through the construction of 
tasting cellars. The FADN analysis showed that the average value of buildings per wine 
holding increased over 2014-2016, in all the Member States considered (Germany, Spain, 
France, Hungary, Portugal) except Italy. On-farm sales have resulted in better prices for 
producers,  who  have  thereby  enjoyed  increased  income  (France,  Germany).  Access  to 
foreign markets was also supported through the promotion measure. This support also led 
to  improved  horizontal  cooperation,  and  resulting  alignment  and  complementarity  of 
strategies implemented by wine producers, notably in Italy and Portugal.   

25 

 
 
The  national  support  programmes  have  helped  EU  wine  producers  adapt  to  market 
demand.  There  is  more  or  less  one  year  of  consumption  in  stocks,  although  when  the 
weather is particularly favourable stocks rise and the production of ‘processed/elaborated 
products’ increases slightly. However, no major issue of market balance was observed in 
2014-2018,  explaining  why  the  green  harvesting  measure  was  used  only  once  by  one 
Member  State  (Italy),  and  then  only  marginally.  This  is  particularly  positive  given  the 
context of a past structural surplus.  

Per capita consumption is decreasing slightly in the EU. The main wine consumed in the 
EU  is  red  wine,  but  red  wine  consumption  is  declining,  while  demand  is  growing  for 
specific wine products such as rosé wines (notably in France) and sparkling wines. Rosé 
is also on the rise in the United States. According to the consumer survey, the same share 
of  consumers  (32%)  look  for  protected  geographical  indications  and  for  wines  with  an 
indication of the grape variety. In addition, consumers also look for wines produced from 
environmentally friendly practices (including organic), and they are attracted by features 
such  as  authenticity  and  identity.  However,  as  the  consumer  survey  and  the  internet 
research on the wine offerings of online retailers have shown, the key purchasing criteria 
differ according to the Member State, and retailers have adapted their product range: PGI 
wines  are  the  predominant  category  of  wine  products  offered  by  EU  retailers,  although 
retailers offer a larger proportion of wine products with an indication of the grape variety 
in the UK and non-EU countries.  

Figure  6:  What  do  you  consume  most  often?  First  and  second  choice  (%  of 
respondents) 

Source: Consumer survey, Agrosynergie, based on data collected by Ifop. 

PDO wines are often produced in the largest quantities in the EU, except in Spain. Their 
prices increased in France, Hungary and Italy over 2014-2016. This was not the case for 
other types of wine, and demonstrates once more the high demand for PDO wines. Wines 
with an indication of the grape variety are still produced in very small volumes in the EU. 
Their production has increased in Italy and Spain, but, as illustrated by the high share of 
non-EU varietal wines selected by retailers (53% based on internet research), EU supply 
is still below demand, to the benefit of imports.  

Stakeholders, particularly sector representatives and representatives of wine growers, also 
indicated  that  the  varieties  grown  were  converted  to  correspond  to  consumer  demand, 
notably in France and Italy. These countries have made extensive use of the restructuring 

26 

 
 
and  investment  measures  to  develop  new  products  -  rosé  in  France  (Languedoc-
Roussillon)  and  Prosecco  in  Italy  (Veneto  and  Friuli  Venezia  Giulia).  The  promotion 
measure  has  also  enabled  producers  to  better  identify  consumers’  tastes  and  the 
expectations in foreign markets.  

Despite a 0.4% annual decline in its production over the last decade, the EU remains the 
world’s major producer of wine, with a share in world production of around 60%. As the 
total consumption of wine decreased in traditional EU markets (France, Italy, Germany), 
the  EU  producing  countries  had  to  look  for  growth  potential,  notably  outside  the  EU. 
Over  the  last  decade,  EU  exports  grew  by  almost  50%,  to  24 million hectolitres  in  the 
2019  marketing  year.  The  export  value  of  wine  products  reached  EUR 12 million  in 
2019. Spain, Italy and France are the main wine exporters, with French wine having more 
value on export markets, while Italy exports the largest quantities. The EU operates in a 
very competitive market:  non-EU countries registered strong growth in their production 
between  2000  and  2018.  Among  them,  the  main  producing  countries  are  the  United 
States,  followed  by  Australia,  Chile,  South  Africa  and  China.  New  Zealand  and 
Argentina also export significant volumes of wine. 

The majority of exports are composed of still wines bottled (68%) and sparkling wines 
(16%), while the share of still  wines  exported in  bulk  (12%)  and in  bag-in-boxes  (3%) 
remains modest. The evaluation support study shows that, from 2000 to 2017, EU bottled 
wine  exports  increased  significantly  towards  extra-EU  markets.  They  are  essentially 
composed  of  PDO/PGI  wines  and  oriented  towards  Canada,  China,  Russia  and  the 
United States. In addition, bulk wine trade increased in the EU market, with flows mainly 
oriented towards France and Germany and composed of non-PDO/PGI wines.  

Table 4: EU exports by type of packaging in 2019 (million hectolitres) 

Exports by types of packaging 

2019 (in million 
hectolitres) 

Still wines bottled 

Sparkling wines 

Still wines bulk 

Still wines bag in boxes 

Others 

Total 

% 

68% 

16% 

12% 

3% 

1% 

16 477 

3 748 

2 995 

652 

236 

24 108 

100% 

Source: DG Agriculture and Rural Development, based on ESTAT. 

After a period of stabilisation in its production over the last decade, the EU remains the 
largest  wine producer,  with 61% of world production in  2018.  In  addition,  the share of 
the  EU  in  world  wine  trade  is  high  and  very  stable  (64%  in  volume  over  2005-2018), 
meaning  that  the  EU  maintained  its  competitive  position  against  efficient  producers  in 
non-EU countries.  

27 

 
 
Figure 7: EU production as a share of world production of wine 2005-2018 (million 
hectolitres) 

production 

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

share 

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

world wine production

EU Share

Note:  The  lower  share  of  the  EU  in  world  trade  in  2017  and  2018  is  linked  to  the  low  EU 
harvest in 2017 due to adverse climatic events. 
Source: DG Agriculture and Rural Development, based on the OIV 2019 Statistical Report on 
World Vitiviniculture. 

According to COMTRADE data for 2016, the share of EU wine was predominant (above 
50%) in the imports of the main wine-importing countries and increased in Germany, the 
UK,  Italy,  the  USA,  Switzerland,  France  (in  volume  only),  the  Netherlands  (in  value 
only),  China  (in  volume  only)  and  Canada  (in  value  only).  However,  it  decreased  in 
Belgium, Russia, Japan, Hong Kong and Angola. The main competitors in these markets 
are  the  USA,  Chile,  Australia  and  South  Africa.  Independently  of  the  evolution  of  EU 
wine  exports,  the  competitive  pressure  from  other  producing  countries  (Chile,  USA, 
Australia, etc.) plays a significant role in the evolution of the share of EU wine products 
in  the  overall  volume/value  of  wine  imported  by  non-EU  countries.  Indeed,  while  the 
value  of  wine  exported  (from  Germany,  France,  Hungary,  Italy  and  Romania)  to 
traditional and new markets has increased, this does not often result in an increase in the 
share  of  EU  wine  in  total  wine  imports  (in  the  experience  of  France,  Hungary  and 
Romania).  

Still,  the  operators  interviewed  are  generally  satisfied  with  an  increase  in  the 
volume/value  of  their  wine  exports,  independently  of  their  market  shares  in  target 
countries (notably in Portugal).  

An analysis of internet research on products sold by online wine producers showed that 
EU  wines  remain  predominant  among  the  products  sold  by  online  retailers,  especially 
those located in wine-producing Member States. EU wines prevail in the segments of red, 
white, rosé and sparkling wines for all the online retailers considered, except in the USA 
and the UK. Among the EU wines sold by online retailers, 70% are PDO/PGI and 30% 
are  wines  with  an  indication  of  the  grape  variety.  The  analysis  could  not  ascertain 
whether non-EU varietal wines were more affordable than EU ones. 

These  positive  results  may  be  linked  to  the  efforts  made  by  EU  producers  to  improve 
their performance. However, the competitiveness of EU wine producers and products is 

28 

 
 
 
due to a multitude of social, economic, climatic and political factors. Some of the factors 
are  directly  related  to  the  strategy  implemented  by  the  producers  and  could  as  such  be 
influenced  by  the  national  support  programmes  (especially  through  restructuring  and 
conversion, investment, and promotion) and/or EU rules. Other factors are external, such 
as  market  forces,  the  structure  of  the  sector,  reputation  or  climatic  conditions,  which 
affect the environment in which producers must exchange their products.   

In the future, special attention should be paid to distance selling. The internet continues 
to transform the shape of the marketplace for all types of products, including foodstuffs. 

5.1.3.  To  what  extent  is  the  effectiveness  of  the  support  under  the  national  support 

programmes influenced by its financial architecture?   

The management of national support programmes has two key features: 

  Yearly  budget:  All  expenditure  declared  within  a  given  financial  year  must 

respect the budgetary ceilings. 

  Absence of obligatory national co-financing. 

At EU level, the rate of budget execution ranged between 88% and 94% between 2014 
and 2019. In most Member States, the rate of execution of the yearly budget is stable 
and above 80% (Czechia, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Cyprus, Hungary, Portugal, 
Slovenia). Bulgaria and Croatia recorded an increase in the uptake of the programmes 
over the period, while in Romania the execution rate, which was equal to 100% for the 
2014 programming year and in the previous programming period (2009-2013), rapidly 
decreased to  24% in  2016 and 2017 and recovered to  close to  50% in  2019. Austria 
and Slovakia show unstable execution rates, though always above 50%.  

Table 5: Budget execution (spending) rates of the national support programmes 
2014-2019 

Bulgaria 
Czechia 
Germany 
Greece 
Spain 
France 
Croatia 
Italy 
Cyprus 
Hungary 
Austria 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovenia 
Slovakia 
Total EU 

2014 
62% 
99% 
81% 
87% 
91% 
100% 
11% 
96% 
89% 
100% 
53% 
100% 
100% 
97% 
81% 
94% 

2015 
74% 
100% 
95% 
63% 
100% 
100% 
13% 
96% 
100% 
100% 
70% 
98% 
42% 
100% 
76% 
93% 

2016 
81% 
100% 
94% 
72% 
100% 
100% 
27% 
95% 
100% 
100% 
98% 
100% 
24% 
100% 
52% 
93% 

2017 
85% 
100% 
85% 
55% 
96% 
100% 
31% 
96% 
78% 
100% 
76% 
100% 
24% 
100% 
71% 
92% 

2018 
91% 
99% 
86% 
61% 
77% 
100% 
52% 
92% 
100% 
94% 
86% 
100% 
35% 
100% 
75% 
88% 

2019 
54% 
99% 
97% 
49% 
93% 
95% 
55% 
93% 
100% 
81% 
89% 
100% 
46% 
100% 
100% 
89% 

Sources: DG Agriculture and Rural Development, monitoring data for the national support 
programmes. 

29 

 
 
 
In all Member States, the driving factors behind the execution of the programme are the 
number  of  potential  beneficiaries  and  the  capacities  of  beneficiaries  to  invest.  In  the 
absence  of  obligatory  co-financing,  the  capacity  and  willingness  of  the  national  and/or 
local authorities to support the wine sector has no bearing on the implementation of the 
programme.  Among  the  stakeholders  who  were  interviewed,  some  highlighted  the 
positive effects of not having obligatory co-financing, the certainty that funds would be 
available,  the  consistency  of  funding  over  time  and  the  ring-fencing  of  funds.  On  the 
negative  side,  beneficiaries  are  required  to  provide  a  significant  level  of  financing 
themselves, which is a key issue in Bulgaria and Croatia. In Romania, the low execution 
rate  is  mainly  due  to  the  fact  that  huge  restructuring  efforts  took  place  in  the  previous 
programming  period  (with  very  high  execution  rates  in  the  wine  programme),  while  in 
the  current  period  the  needs  of  the  wine  sector  have  changed  and  Romania  is  slowly 
adapting. 

As the questionnaire addressed to Member State administrations revealed, the certainty of 
having a budget  available for a 5-year period provided a level  of visibility and security 
that facilitated the implementation of operations.  

Some countries adopted a multiannual  approach to  the management  of applications and 
expenditure (Spain, for example), which maximised execution of the budget but resulted 
in  lower  budgets  being  available  in  the  later  years  of  the  programme.  Other  countries 
(France, Hungary, Portugal, Italy) overbooked yearly budgets, carrying over execution to 
the following year. This type of management also allows for maximum execution of the 
budget, although it results in an additional workload for the managing authority.   

Where  funds  are  managed  exclusively  on  an  annual  basis,  meaning  that  the  managing 
authorities would not accept any application that went beyond the annual budgetary limit, 
the execution rates are lower but the yearly management is perceived as less constraining. 
In general, it seems that the yearly budgetary limits fostered responsiveness both from the 
administration and the beneficiaries,  as well as quick implementation  of  operations and 
closure of cases.  

The possibility for Member States to transfer funds between measures was a key source 
of  flexibility,  making  it  possible  to  overcome  potential  implementation  delays  or  a 
decrease in the sector's absorption capacity. More of the budget than planned was spent 
on  the  restructuring  and  conversion  measure  in  France,  Italy  and  Portugal,  which 
compensated  for  the  lower-than-expected  budget  execution  on  the  promotion  and 
investment  measures.  This  helped  to  counterbalance  the  constraint  of  yearly  budget 
management and allowed for optimal budgetary execution.  

5.1.4.  To  what  extent  has  EU  support  for  promotion  of  wines  been  successful  in 
strengthening the reputation of EU wines, recovering old markets and winning 
new ones worldwide?  

In  all  case  studies,  wine  operators  mentioned  that  the  EU  wine  products  with  the  best 
reputation  abroad were,  in  particular,  French red wines with  PDO from  Bourgogne  and 
Bordeaux  and  white  sparkling  wines  from  Champagne.  The  Italian  sparkling  wine 
Prosecco was also often considered to have a great reputation in international markets and 
the  German  Riesling  wine  was  said  to  be  very  well  known.  Several  case  study  reports 
mentioned red wines with PDO from Tuscany in Italy. 

30 

 
 
It is nevertheless difficult to establish a link between the promotion that was carried out, 
the reputation of EU wines and the strong increase in EU wine exports towards non-EU 
countries, particularly because of the other factors that influence the competitiveness of 
wine  products  in  today’s  global  market.  On  the  one  hand,  certain  external  factors  may 
have contributed to the increase in EU wine exports (e.g. increasing demand for specific 
products  such  as  Prosecco,  climatic  events  that  affected  the  harvest  in  other  countries, 
consumption trends in emerging countries, etc.). On the other hand, negative trends in the 
value/volume  of  EU  wine  exported  might  actually  have  been  offset  because  of  the 
promotion efforts.   

However, in all of the Member States/regions studied, almost all stakeholders stated that 
the  promotion  measure  had  a  great  impact  on  the  reputation  of  national  wines.  The 
measure  was  truly  appreciated  by  beneficiaries,  especially  in  a  context  of  intense 
competitive  pressure  from  non-EU  countries.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  outcome  of  the 
public consultation: out of 33 respondents, close to 70% agreed that promotional support 
has strengthened the reputation of EU wines. 

According to the analysis of the case studies, promotion is also needed by producers to 
improve the reputation of their wine, especially when significant efforts have been made 
to  increase  the  quality  of  their  wine  and  adapt  it  to  market  demand,  along  with  other 
measures under the national support programmes (notably, restructuring and investment).    

In  France,  Italy  and  Spain,  however,  the  administrative  burden  involved  in  justifying 
expenditure and the small annual budget were mentioned by stakeholders as two factors 
that had negative effects on the uptake of the measure and which explain the lower-than-
planned  budgetary  execution  (83%  in  the  EU  over  2014-2018).  This  might  also  be 
partially  explained  by  the  possibility  of  funding  promotion  both  through  the  national 
support  programmes  and  through  support  for  horizontal  promotion  of  agricultural 
products.  This  is  an  administrative  burden,  as  operators  may  be  obliged  to  prove  the 
absence  of  double  funding.  While  support  for  promotion  through  the  national  support 
programmes  is  obviously  tailored  to  wine,  support  for  horizontal  promotion  of 
agricultural products follows a basket approach, so that wine might be promoted together 
with other wine products such as vinegar. 

5.1.5.  To what extent has the information  measure for EU wines helped to  improve 
knowledge  about  EU  quality  schemes  and  awareness  about  the  responsible 
consumption of wine?  

An  analysis  of  the  information  campaigns  can  assess  their  reach  and  their  impact  on 
consumers’ knowledge. However, it is difficult to assess the results of the campaigns due 
to lack of detailed monitoring information. In addition, opinion polls about the impact on 
awareness  are  costly  and  lack  a  sufficient  number  of  observations.  Therefore,  the 
contractor carried out additional surveys. 

The reach of the information campaigns on the EU system of PDO and PGI carried out 
with  the  support  of  the  information  measure  was  measured  for  three  campaigns,  one  in 
Germany  and  two  in  France.  In  Germany,  22%  of  consumers  surveyed  stated  that  they 
had  seen  the  visuals  of  the  national  campaign,  but  this  was  the  case  for  only  17%  of 
surveyed consumers in France. However, this rate is considered to be satisfactory, given 
that the campaigns focused on specialist distribution channels, i.e. wine shops/wine bars.  

31 

 
 
 
The  consumer  survey  (see  Annex  2)  highlighted  the  knowledge  deficit  among  EU 
consumers  (France,  Germany,  Spain  and  the  UK)  with  regard  to  the  PDO/PGI  scheme 
applying  to  wine.  Indeed,  few  respondents  knew  the  PDO/PGI  labels  or  were  aware  of 
the characteristics of wines with a PDO/PGI designation.  

Figure 8: Share of consumers considering that the following criteria are part of the 
characteristics of wines with a PDO/PGI designation 

Specific rules for presentation and labelling

A control of the degree of alcohol by authorities
protecting PDOs/PGIs

The respect of constraints fixed by producers’ 
representatives for the management of the vineyard and 
the production 

Various wine-making operations being implemented in a
defined geographical area

The use of specific grape varieties

The respect of maximum yields per hectare

Precise taste characteristics

14% 

16% 

21% 

22% 

40% 

35% 

31% 

Wines associated with a region or geographical location

52% 

Source: Consumer survey, Agrosynergie, based on data collected by Ifop.  

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Some  of  the  denominations  that  appeared  in  information  campaigns  were  known  by  a 
majority  of  respondents  (e.g.  Monbazillac,  Languedoc,  Corbières,  etc.  in  France). 
However,  these  denominations  are  among  the  most  renowned  and  it  is  not  possible  to 
assess whether the campaigns helped to increase their reputation.  

Out  of  the  six  Member  States  that  implemented  the  information  measure,  only  two 
(Germany  and  Austria)  supported  operations  on  responsible  consumption  of  wine  that 
were implemented by the sector. France banned this measure because of possible conflict 
of  interest,  given  that  the  campaign  has  to  be  organised  by  the  wine  producers 
themselves.  The  operations  supported  by  other  Member  States  consisted  of  training 
programmes  for  a  specific  public  grouping.  No  indicators  on  the  effects  achieved  were 
reported by the Member States.   

5.1.6.  To what extent have EU rules on oenological practices in the wine sector been 
successful in reaching the objectives on marketing conditions of producers and 
traders, competitiveness of EU wines and safety and quality?  

Oenological (i.e. winemaking) practices and restrictions are defined by OIV standards, as 
well as the protection of human health, the climatic and soil conditions in specific wine-
growing zones, the possible risk of consumers being misled and ensuring an acceptable 
level  of  environmental  care.  The  comparative  analysis  of  the  Common  Market 
Organisation Regulation and the OIV International Code of oenological practices reveals 
three main differences  between them:  (1) the category of grapevine product  covered by 

32 

 
 
 
the rules;  (2) the strength of alcohol in  the products; and (3) the oenological  processes, 
additives and processing aids allowed.  

Regarding competitiveness and marketing conditions, the case study analysis shows that 
the effects of restrictions on oenological practices vary according to the market concerned 
– i.e. inside the EU or in non-EU countries – and the market segment.  

As  for  PDO/PGI  high-end  products,  the  rules  on  oenological  practices  are  made  more 
restrictive by the PDO/PGI specifications themselves (rather than by general EU rules). 
These  rules  contribute  to  their  notoriety  and  to  maintaining  their  reputation  and  their 
quality, and hence to maintaining their competitiveness.  

In  general,  EU  rules  offer  some  flexibility  in  adapting  practices  to  the  special 
characteristics of the wine-growing zones, such as the acidification or de-acidification of 
wines or the possibility to increase the maximum total alcoholic strength  up to 20%. In 
contrast,  EU  rules  prohibit,  for  reasons  of  quality,  reputational  damage  and  fraud,  the 
addition  of  water  (during  the  fermentation  process)25  to  decrease  the  degree  of  alcohol. 
Because of the warmer climate in southern Europe, wines tend to have a higher degree of 
alcohol (above 15%). With global warming, this phenomenon will increase, while there is 
an increasing demand for wines with a lower alcohol strength. Case studies revealed that 
operators  perceive  this  prohibition  as  a  major  comparative  disadvantage  vis-à-vis  main 
foreign competitors (such as the USA and Australia), where this practice is allowed.  

At international level, EU rules on oenological practices seem to provide a guarantee of 
the products in terms of quality and safety, which helps with their marketing. The quite 
prompt adaptation  of EU rules to  changes in  OIV standards also  helps  to  improve their 
marketing. However, the small differences in wine standards among different destination 
countries  for  EU  wines  might  affect  trade  slightly:  EU  wines  might  face  entry  barriers 
where  rules  are  more  demanding  (e.g.  organic  wine  in  the  USA),  but  in  markets  with 
fewer rules the competitiveness of EU wine products could decrease. 

Moreover, low-alcohol products made from wine are not covered by the Common Market 
Organisation  and  are  not  considered  as  wine  products26,  whereas  there  is  a  demand  for 
these  products  among  consumers  in  the  EU  and  in  non-EU  countries.  The  consumer 
survey carried out in four Member States showed that 45% of consumers are interested in 
wines with a low alcoholic strength (i.e. between 8% and 10%) and 25% are interested in 
drinks made from wine with an alcoholic strength of between 1.2% and 8%. The fact that 
this  category  of  wine  products  is  not  covered  by  EU  standards  could  hamper  their 
adaptation to the market as well as their competitiveness. 

In conclusion, except for the two specific rules on the minimum alcohol content and the 
prohibition of adding water, EU rules on oenological practices do not seem to have any 
impact on competitiveness. As the survey of consumers revealed, wine consumers seem 
to  be  satisfied  with  EU  wine  quality  but  the  direct  effect  of  EU  rules  on  oenological 

25 The prohibition on lowering the alcohol content by adding water has existed since the very beginning of 
the EU’s wine policy. It is part of the restrictions on authorised oenological practices (see Annex VIII, Part 
II, Art. 1 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013).  
26 The OIV sets the minimum alcohol content at 8.5% for wines, admitting derogations of down to 7% for 
specific  vineyards.  The  EU  Regulation  authorises  wines  from  8.5%  to  9%  minimum  alcoholic  strength, 
depending on the wine-growing zone, and permits derogations down to 4.5% for PDO/PGI wines.  

33 

 
 
                                                 
practices  appears  to  be  limited  at  that  level.  Consumers  consider  that  oenological 
practices are not a major criterion impacting wine quality. However, since they consider 
that EU wine quality is better than that of non-EU countries, it could be assumed that EU 
rules have been effective. 

Figure 9: First and second criteria 
having the greatest impact on wine 
quality (%) 

Figure10: Consumers satisfied with 
wine quality (%) 

Non European wines

European wines

81% 

92% 

71% 

96% 

97% 

95% 

0%

50%

100%

Total 4 MS

Net importer MS

Large wine producer MS

Source: Consumer survey, Agrosynergie, based on data collected by Ifop. 

Furthermore, consumers’ positive expectations of the safety of products correspond to the 
fact that there has been no major safety issue since 2008. The effectiveness of oenological 
rules in  ensuring product  safety and quality is  also deeply linked to  the  existence of an 
efficient control system.   

5.1.7.  To  what  extent  have  EU  rules  on  labelling  and  presentation  specific  to  the 

wine sector been effective in reaching their objectives?  

This  question  relates  to  the  effectiveness  of  labelling  rules  in  meeting  consumers’ 
legitimate  expectations,  in  improving  marketing  conditions  and  in  ensuring  a  level 
playing field for producers of all kinds of wines through simplified and harmonised rules. 
The  new  labelling  rules  introduced  in  2008  allow  non-PDO/PGI  wines  to  mention  the 
grape variety or vintage  year.  In  addition,  the rules for labelling non-EU  wine products 
circulating  in  the  EU  market  are  also  harmonised  with  those  applicable  to  EU  wine 
products. 

Regarding  the  legitimate  expectations  of  consumers,  the  results  of  a  survey  in  four  EU 
Member  States  show  that  respondents  generally  consider  that  wine  labels  provide 
relatively  clear  and  sufficient  information.  In  addition,  stakeholders  in  Germany  and 
France mentioned that the EU PDO/PGI logos were not used and are therefore unknown 
to most consumers.  

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 11: Opinions on whether labels provide clear and sufficient information 
(%) 

Source: Consumer survey, Agrosynergie, based on data collected by Ifop.  

However,  consumer  and  public  health  organisations  expressed  the  need  for  more 
information, especially concerning nutritional values and ingredients. In addition, on the 
labelling  of  ingredients,  civil  society  organisations  strongly  criticised  the  fact  that  the 
alcoholic  beverages  sector  is  not  fully  aligned  with  Regulation  (EU)  No  1169/2011  in 
terms  of  providing  food  information  (ingredients)  to  consumers,  even  though  the  rules 
apply to  all other EU food sectors. However, the cost  arising from  the possible need to 
mention  ingredients  is  considered  by  the  operators  who  were  interviewed  as  being  too 
heavy for small producers.  

Moreover, EU labelling rules do not yet address consumers’ increasing concern for more 
transparency  on  the  environmental  impact  of  food,  including  wine  products  (e.g.  on 
pesticide use). 

There  is  strong  demand  for  varietal  wines.  Mature  markets,  such  as  the  USA,  where 
varietal wines still represent more than 50% of the wine consumed, look for more typical 
and authentic wines. In this respect, EU labelling rules can improve marketing conditions.  

Labelling  rules  are  generally  considered  by  the  operators  interviewed  as  simple  to 
implement and necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the internal market.  

5.1.8.  To what extent does the certification of wine products facilitate trade/improve 

the economic conditions for marketing wine products?  

This  question  deals  with  the  level  of  detail  needed  to  balance  the  goals  of  traceability, 
simplification and facilitation of trade. Chapter 5.2.3 below looks at whether certification 
systems guarantee the quality, safety and traceability of wine products.  

Certification procedures may vary from one Member State to another and even from one 
region to another inside the same Member State. However, in all Member States/regions 
covered by a case study, the certification system seems to be very effective in ensuring 
the traceability of wine products and the veracity of the information that will appear on 
the label of the final product, and stakeholders have become used to it.   

A  similar  tendency  regarding  procedures  was  observed  in  some  central  and  eastern 
Member States (Hungary, Romania) and in some western Member States (France, Spain, 
Italy). In these central and eastern Member States, the certification procedures are more 
similar  among  all  wine  categories,  while  in  western  Member  States  there  is  a  greater 
distinction  between  certification  of  PDO/PGI  wines  and  non-PDO/PGI  wines  which 
mention the vintage year and/or wine grape variety (especially as concerns organoleptic 

35 

 
 
 
and analytical  tests).  In these Member States, the certifying and controlling bodies may 
differ according to the wine category.   

In  many  Member  States  (Germany,  Spain,  Hungary,  Portugal,  Romania),  all  PDO/PGI 
wine  products  in  a  given  wine  campaign  are  subject  to  certification  procedures,  i.e. 
administrative  control  of  information  and  analytical  and  organoleptic  (aspects  of  wine 
that  create  an  individual  experience  via  the  senses  of  smell,  taste,  etc.)  tests,  while  in 
others (France, Italy) the certification may be issued in a given year even if analytical and 
organoleptic  tests  are  not  performed  on  100%  of  wine  batches.  However,  according  to 
representatives  of  the  sector,  the  PDO/PGI  managing  organisations  are  very  well 
organised  and  are  in  contact  with  public  authorities.  They  perform  additional  checks  to 
allay suspicions.  

In  many  Member  States,  when  transporting  wine  the  consignors  have  the  possibility  to 
self-certify  the  information  about  the  wine  that  is  being  transported.  However,  the 
relevant  authorities  can  easily  check  the  validity  of  the  information  provided  in  the 
accompanying  document,  since  they  cooperate  with  other  accredited  or  public  bodies 
who  maintain  the  vineyard  register  and  other  information  on  operators.  Concerning  the 
certification of wine products for export, trade may be facilitated by the new Commission 
Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2018/273,  particularly  by  the  introduction  of  a  specific  EU 
wine export certificate which certifies the origin and health of wine products and aims to 
respond to the additional certification requirements of some non-EU countries.  

It has also been acknowledged by the authorities in many Member States that certification 
procedures  (together  with  the  procedures  for  checks)  have  been  simplified  with  the 
introduction of computerised monitoring systems to collect information on operators and 
track wine products. In addition, certification procedures have a significant impact on the 
reputation  of  wines  with  a  protected  designation  of  origin  (PDO)  or  a  protected 
geographical  indication  (PGI).  Since  the  reputation  of  a  given  PDO/PGI  is  one  of  the 
main  drivers  of  marketing  and  trade,  the  certification  procedure  indirectly  affects  trade 
and marketing conditions for wine products.   

5.2.  Efficiency 

5.2.1.  To  what  extent  has  the  expenditure  on  the  measures  financed  under  the 
national support programmes been justifiable and proportionate, including the 
administrative burden, to the benefits achieved with each measure?  

The  Commission  revised  the  rules  on  the  implementation  of  the  national  support 
programmes  in  201627  to  address  the  2014  recommendations  of  the  European  Court  of 
Auditors  to  improve  the  efficiency  of  EU  wine  policy28.  Although  the  Court  has 

Court 

European 

27  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2016/1149  and  Commission  Implementing  Regulation 
(EU) 2016/1150. 
28 
9/2014. 
https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/NewsItem.aspx?nid=4949. In its 2014 report on the management and 
results  of  EU  support  for  investment  and  promotion  in  the  wine  sector,  the  European  Court  of  Auditors 
(ECA), stated in particular the need: 
-  for  the  EC  to  ensure  that  Member  States  in  their  selection  procedures  require  beneficiaries  to  clearly 
demonstrate their need for EU aid and that normal operating costs are not financed by the EU budget: as a 
matter of fact, this was not part of the rules on application procedures set in the EU regulations; 

Auditors 

Special 

Report 

No. 

of 

36 

 
 
                                                 
 
concluded that their recommendations were implemented in most respects, the evaluation 
question will assess the efficiency of the national support programmes and the impact of 
the  new  rules  on  removing  unreasonable  burdens  (‘deadweight’)  that  affect  the  cost-
benefit ratio. 

Table 6: National support programmes – expenditure per hectare of vineyard 
(EUR/hectare), 2014-2018 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

Bulgaria 

Czechia 

Germany 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Italy 

Cyprus 

Croatia 

Hungary 

Austria 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

3 590 

3 450 

3 270 

9 350 

5 000 

2 870 

1 980 

1 910 

3 030 

3 420 

2 770 

4 140 

4 560 

2 830 

1 990 

1 700 

21 050 

13 460 

2 230 

6 570 

3 400 

3 830 

3 280 

4 380 

1 880 

4 940 

3 010 

9 170 

3 100 

4 540 

2 800 

3 450 

2 810 

3 670 

4 570 

2 830 

2 010 

1 700 

6 510 

2 190 

3 560 

2 970 

2 670 

3 440 

3 120 

4 740 

4 720 

2 890 

2 010 

2 190 

6 120 

2 240 

4 670 

2 940 

2 520 

3 550 

3 070 

4 290 

5 910 

2 890 

2 130 

1 660 

3 660 

2 410 

4 150 

2 920 

15 640 

15 820 

11 010 

3 100 

6 670 

3 090 

4 590 

3 100 

4 060 

5 080 

Average 
Source: DG Agriculture and Rural Development, monitoring data for the national support 
programmes. 

4 300 

4 300 

4 350 

3 820 

Since 2014, EU expenditure per hectare for the whole set of measures under the national 
support  programmes  has  ranged  from  about  EUR 1 700 (in  Cyprus)  to  EUR 21 050  (in 
Croatia). The differences in the average cost per hectare between Member States may be 
related to the type of operation supported, e.g. Croatia supported vineyard conversion on 
steep slopes which involve significant and costly work. In line with the European Court 
of Auditors’  recommendations, support in  all Member States is  based on  a flat  rate per 
type  of  operation  (a  standard  scale  of  unit  costs),  or  according  to  thresholds  that  were 
calculated  and  duly  justified  by  the  public  authority  in  charge  of  the  programme’s 
implementation. 

The analysis of efficiency was limited by the lack of consistency in the monitoring data. 
Nevertheless,  the cross-analysis of the information that was collected  allowed for some 
conclusions to be drawn.  

The  case  studies  revealed  that  the  ‘deadweight’  of  the  restructuring  and  conversion 
measure  is  small  (it  was  quantified  by  public  authorities  at  10%  in  Hungary  and 
considered  as  quite  limited  in  other  Member  States).  Regarding  investments,  the 

- for Member States to mitigate the risk to the economy by a systematic assessment of the reasonableness 
of project costs, including when feasible through benchmarks on common cost items. 

37 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                 
interviews  showed  that,  in  most  cases,  these  would  have  been  carried  out  even  without 
EU support, but that this support brought significant added value to the projects29. In the 
case  of  promotion,  given  the  high  administrative  burden  and  the  relatively  low  rate  of 
support (up to 50% of the total eligible expenditure), beneficiaries only apply for support 
if they are convinced of the relevance of the operations to increase their exports and truly 
need extra funds to carry out promotion: hence the level of deadweight is very low. 

On  restructuring  and  conversion,  as  well  as  investment,  the  implementation  of  the 
measure is quite efficient. Although some aspects, such as the yearly management of the 
budget,  have  been  burdensome  in  some  Member  States,  other  aspects  such  as  close 
relationships  between  the  administration  and  the  beneficiaries  and  the  use  of  standard 
scales have facilitated the management of the measures and their quick implementation, 
while ensuring operations were paid at market prices.   

However, it appeared in the interviews and in the data collected in some Member States 
that the workload related to checks is very high and not proportionate to their benefits. In 
all cases, it is  much higher than the workload  related to  the review of applications and 
management of the measures, although the system was simplified in 2016. 

Concerning  support  for  promotion,  the  analysis  showed  a  high  level  of  administrative 
burden,  in  particular  for  beneficiaries.  On  the  one  hand,  the  level  of  the  financial 
commitment  ensured  that  only  very  relevant  projects  (based  on  market  analysis  by 
applicants) were supported. On the other hand, a lot of time and money was spent by the 
sector on managing the grants, which hindered the efficiency of the measure. Although it 
is very difficult for smallholders to access support, the increase in the reputation of EU 
wines thanks to promotion campaigns benefits all producers. 

5.2.2.  To what extent have the restrictions on labelling of wines without PDO or PGI 
proven  to  be  justifiable  and  proportionate  in  relation  to  the  risk  of 
misinformation of consumers?  

This  question seeks  to  determine whether the new EU  labelling  rules helped to  prevent 
consumers  from  being  misinformed  and  whether  this  justifies  the  economic  impact 
arising  from  these  provisions.  Two  types  of  economic  impact  should  be  identified:  the 
costs to Member States of ensuring that non-PDO/PGI labels comply with EU rules and 
the impact on the sales of producers or traders that would otherwise have been able to sell 
more non-PDO/PGI wine. 

According  to  the  consumer  survey  carried  out  in  four  Member  States,  EU  consumers 
generally consider that they have a good understanding of the labels. 

29  In  particular,  faster  modernisation  and  adaptation  of  the  sector  to  market  demands  (in  Bourgogne  and 
Rheinland-Pfalz),  and  the  capacity  of  beneficiaries  to  develop  larger  and  more  relevant  projects  (in 
Bourgogne and Sicily). 

38 

 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 12: Possibility to evaluate the quality of wines thanks to the information 
on labels 

Source: Consumer survey, Agrosynergie, based on data collected by Ifop.  

Consumers generally consider that the information provided on the labels is sufficient to 
evaluate the quality of wines (72%). This percentage is higher in the UK and Spain than 
in  Germany  and  France.  This  could  be  due  to  the  fact  that,  in  the  latter  two  Member 
States, there is a high diversity of wines and that labelling is not sufficient to determine 
the characteristics of each of them.  

FR

DE

UK

17% 

31% 

12% 

18% 

14% 

17% 

43% 

57% 

10% 

24% 

12% 

17% 

37% 

Total

it  easy 

Figure 13: Easy identification of PDO/PGI wines 
thanks to wine labelling 

Furthermore, consumers who are 
aware  of  the  PDO/PGI  system 
labelling 
that  wine 
consider 
makes 
identify 
to 
PDO/PGI  wines,  even  though 
the  EU  logos  barely  appear  on 
the  labels.  Only  in  the  UK, 
where  these  types  of  wines  are 
rarely  consumed  (only  15%  of 
the  time  on  average),  39%  of 
consumers do not know whether 
it  is  easy  to  identify  PDO/PGI 
wines on labels. Indeed, the less 
PDO/PGI systems are known by 
consumers,  the  less  they  find  it  to  be  easily  identifiable  on  the  label,  which  somehow 
justifies the promotion of labelling in these Member States. 

20%
Yes, absolutely, it’s very clear 
No, not really
I don’t know PDO/PGI wines 

Source: IFOP for Agrosynergie, June 2018 

Yes, to some extent
No, not at all

100%

59% 

35% 

51% 

14% 

80%

40%

60%

6% 

5% 

9% 

0%

ES

EU  consumers  generally  consider  that  they  have  a  good  understanding  of  labels. 
However, this does not fully correspond to the opinion of stakeholders in the sector, who 
cast  doubt  on  the  fact  that  consumers  have  a  good  knowledge  of  the  PDO/PGI  system. 
During  case  study  interviews,  stakeholders  explained  that  consumers  are  used  to  the 
specific systems of their own country but do not necessarily have a good understanding 
of the quality and labelling systems of other Member States. Actually, the EU PDO/PGI 
logos  hardly  appear  on  the  labels,  because  wine  producers  consider  that  consumers  are 
more  used  to  the  specific  systems  of  their  own  country,  which  existed  before  the  EU 
PDO/PGI system, although these references are little understood in other Member States 
(an example being ‘reserva’, used in Italy and Spain). 

39 

 
 
 
 
In addition, interviewees who are operators in the wine sector and sector representatives 
are  concerned  that  the  growing  number  of  PDOs  and  PGIs  could  negatively  affect  the 
reputation of EU quality schemes and make them more vulnerable to fraud. Mislabelling 
is a relatively frequent form of fraud. In all Member States, cases of non-compliance with 
EU labelling have been identified. The main issue is fraud regarding a wine’s country of 
origin. The other types of labelling fraud identified in the four Member States studied are: 
(i) insufficient  visibility of the wine’s origin; (ii) use of misleading marketing symbols; 
(iii)  inclusion  of  references  which  are  not  legally  admitted;  and  (iv)  fraud  related  to  a 
missing identity or number, alcohol content, variety, etc.  

Figure 14: Categories of food fraud with alcoholic beverages 

Source: EU Food Fraud Network (https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/food-fraud/ffn_en) 

The  efficiency  of  labelling  restrictions  for  non-PDO/PGI  wines  is  not  a  big  issue  for 
stakeholders.  Indeed,  labelling  is  not  a  main  cause  of  fraud  during  investigations.  The 
control of labelling restrictions does not produce an additional workload for the relevant 
authorities.  They  add  to  the  complexity  of  the  regulation  for  operators,  but  during 
interviews  stakeholders  generally  considered  the  time  spent  to  be  acceptable  and 
necessary to reduce misuse and fraud.  

According  to  the  evaluation,  the  potential  economic  impact  of  restricting  labelling  of 
grape varieties for non-PDO/PGI wines is limited since it concerns specific varieties on 
specific markets (i.e. mature markets that value varietal wines). 

5.2.3.  To  what  extent  is  the  system  of  monitoring  and  checks  in  the  wine  sector 
efficient  in  addressing  the  risks  of  fraudulent  manipulation  of  wine  and  in 
guaranteeing  the  quality,  safety  and  traceability  of  wine  products  or  the 
correct implementation of rules on the national support programmes?  

This evaluation question aims to look in detail at the way the system of monitoring and 
checks is organised to ensure compliance with EU rules governing the wine sector, and 
the safety  and traceability  of wine products.  It  also seeks to  understand whether checks 
are conducted consistently across Member States. The analysis also looks at the extent to 

40 

 
 
 
which  Member  States  cooperated  in  cases  of  transnational  issues  such  as  fraud  and  at 
potential  problems  encountered  at  Member  State  level  when  attempting  to  apply  EU 
rules. 

All  Member  States  and  regions  covered  by  the  case  studies  have  put  in  place  a 
computerised  vineyard  register  managed  by  public  authorities  allowing  the  relevant 
authorities to  have  access to  all necessary information on operators involved with  wine 
products.  Thus,  the  administrative  and  on-the-spot  checks  can  be  performed  more 
efficiently.  Moreover,  good  cooperation  was  observed  between  the  different  competent 
bodies involved in checks, from grape production to the final product. This cooperation is 
necessary since several such bodies are involved in the monitoring and checks system.  

In  all  Member  States  covered  by  the  case  studies,  the  national  customs  agency  is  in 
charge  of  issuing  accompanying  documents  through  the  Excise  Movement  and  Control 
System (EMCS) to operators before the transport of wine products. All the accompanying 
documents are registered in the EMCS, allowing the checking of all wine movements in 
real  time.  All  Member  States  seem  to  be  prepared  for  mandatory  use  of  an  electronic 
accompanying  document  (‘e-ADs’,  with  the  Administrative  Reference  Code  (ARC)  or 
the  specific  administrative  code  (MVV)  code)  by  2021.  The  EMCS  information  and, 
where  available,  the  national  information  system  for  e-ADs  can  be  linked  to  the 
computerised  vineyard  register  to  enable  greater  traceability  of  the  wine  product  along 
the  production  chain.  In  the  wine  sector,  the  control  system  requires  a  coordinated 
approach and access to information kept by the authorities responsible for checks in the 
wine sector and customs and tax authorities.  

The more bodies that are involved in checks, the more cooperation is required to identify 
fraud  and  avoid  overlaps.  The  necessary  cooperation  between  competent  bodies  was 
already identified by the European Commission as the third phase of the EMCS project, 
which started in 2012, incorporating the recording of checks, the reporting of events that 
occurred  during  shipments,  and  the  exchange  of  information  in  EMCS  to  facilitate 
administrative cooperation between Member States30.  

Even if it is  hard to  assess the efficiency of monitoring and checks, since many factors 
could affect the level of fraud that is detected, the system of checks on wine products in 
the Member States can be considered highly reliable given the different levels of checks 
that range from wine growing to the marketing of the final product. These checks verify 
compliance with EU rules on production, labelling and marketing, and the traceability of 
wine products.  

Moreover, as stated in Commission Staff Working Document (SWD(2017) 131 final), the 
elimination of paper and the associated increase in efficiency, the freeing up of resources 
in order to focus on higher-risk movements, and the improved control of movements have 
all been identified as clear advantages that accrue from the electronic environment.  

The overall efficiency of the management of national support programmes is analysed in 
Chapter  5.2.1,  which  concludes  that  checks  are  one  of  the  heaviest  phases  in  terms  of 
workload.  It  should  be  noted  that  the  fraud  related  to  the  support  of  non-eligible 
operations  was  not  studied.  However,  since  the  changes  introduced  in  2016,  the  use  of 

30 Commission Staff Working Document (SWD(2017) 131 final).  

41 

 
 
                                                 
standard simplified costs has been added as a reimbursement method for the promotion 
measure,  which  is  the  third  highest  measure  in  terms  of  expenditure  in  the  national 
support programmes.  

The  new  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2018/273  and  Commission 
Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2018/274  enforce  the  general  principles  of  checks  laid 
down  in  Regulation  (EU)  No  1306/2013  and  Regulation  (EU)  2017/625.  They  also 
introduced  checks  based  on  risk  analysis,  which  are  more  efficient.  These  new 
regulations  provide  explicit  and  simplified  requirements  to  guarantee  the  quality,  the 
safety  and  the  traceability  of  wine  products.  Nevertheless,  given  the  nature  of  the 
measure, 100% of beneficiaries of the restructuring and conversion measures must still be 
checked to ensure the sound use of EU funds. In addition, several Member States perform 
100% on-the-spot checks (Germany, Italy, Portugal) for the promotion measure. 

5.2.4.  What  was  the  impact  of  the  authorisation  scheme  for  vine  plantings  on  wine 

growers?  

The system  has  only been in  place since 2016,  so information  is  available only  for the 
past three  years  and most of its effects can only be anticipated. The evaluation showed 
that Member State administrations, as well as growers, are in the process of assimilating 
the  new  system  and  of  adapting  it  to  local  needs,  taking  advantage  of  subsidiarity, 
particularly  with  regard  to  eligibility  and  priority  criteria.  Furthermore,  Member  States 
may limit the issuing of authorisations at regional level. 

Only  Germany  (0.3%)  and  Spain  (0.5%  in  2019  and  2020)  chose  to  apply  a  lower 
percentage than the default rule of 1% of the total area planted with vines in the previous 
year. In Spain, this choice was justified by a latent risk of imbalance between supply and 
demand, and by the potential increase in production related to climatic conditions and to 
the modernisation of Spanish vineyards. In Germany, this choice relates to the fact that 
even a small increase in production could result in significant falls in producer prices and 
disturbance  of  the  market  for  German  quality  wines,  in  the  context  of  a  fragile  market 
that has been declining in recent years31. 

To avoid having to issue authorisations for very small areas using a very low allocation 
coefficient on all applications, Member States may apply one or several priority criteria, 
which are made public before the application deadline.  

Some  Member  States  have  set  up  relatively  simple  selection  procedures.  Bulgaria  and 
Slovakia  chose  not  to  apply  any  eligibility  or  priority  criteria  for  the  applications. 
Romania  and  Czechia  applied  eligibility  criteria,  but  no  priority  criteria.  Slovenia  and 
Austria have not applied any eligibility criteria but used specific priority criteria. In some 
of  those  Member  States,  this  choice  of  a  ‘simple’  methodology  for  the  selection  of 
applicants seems to be related to low demand for new plantings (see Table 3). In contrast, 
Greece,  France,  Hungary,  Italy  and  Portugal  have  developed  selection  procedures 
involving  up  to  five  priority  criteria  reflecting  their  national  priorities,  in  a  context  of 
high demand for new vineyard areas (particularly in Italy and France).  

31 Source: Justification of the limitation of the percentage at national level (Annex III.4 of Reg. 2015/561) 
submitted by Spain and Germany for 2016 and 2017.  

42 

 
 
                                                 
The system offers a large degree of flexibility to Member States to target specific groups 
(such as new entrants, young or smaller producers, applicants having respected the rules 
in the past32), areas (with natural constraints) and practices (preserving the environment). 

The analysis showed that the scheme could result in an increase in the area under vines 
that  is  small  (thanks  to  the  1%  or  lower  maximum  and  regional  ceilings),  so  it  cannot 
threaten the balance of the EU wine market. The transitional possibility of conversion of 
the old planting rights, more than from the granting of new authorisations, may result in a 
significant increase in production potential or, to the extent where the conversion is not 
carried  out,  in  a  loss  of  production  potential.  The  old  planting  rights  that  could  be 
converted  into  new  authorisations  amounted  to  235 611 hectares  in  2016,  i.e.  around 
ten times more than the yearly area available under the system of planting rights. From 
2016 to 2019, 63% of these planting rights were converted into authorisations.  

Under the previous scheme, the purchase of planting rights made it possible for growers 
to quickly invest in the expansion or development of a new type of vineyard, but it was 
costly  for  producers.  In  contrast,  under  the  new  system  planting  authorisations  are 
granted to applicants free of charge, based on criteria which are made public in advance, 
so  the  new  system  is  fairer.  Planting  authorisations  are  not  transferable  and  an 
administrative  penalty  is  applied  if  they  are  not  used  before  the  end  of  their  validity, 
thereby  excluding  speculation.  On  the  downside,  in  Member  States  where  demand  for 
planting authorisations is high, applicants cannot be sure to be granted the authorisation 
they applied for and it can slow down growers’ projects. 

5.3.  Coherence 

5.3.1.  To  what  extent  are  the  objectives  of  the  national  support  programmes  in  the 
wine sector coherent with: other CAP objectives, EU public health objectives, 
and EU economic objectives such as jobs and growth, innovation and support 
for small and medium-sized enterprises?  

This  question  focuses  on  the  consistency  between  the  measures  under  the  national 
support programmes that contribute to the objective of viable food production on the one 
hand,  and  the  other  two  general  objectives  of  the  CAP  on  the  other,  i.e.  sustainable 
management  of  natural  resources  and  of  climate  action  and  balanced  territorial 
development. It also covers their consistency with the EU objectives of public health and 
of economic development. 

The  systematic  analysis  of  the  expected  and  observed  effects  of  wine  policy  measures 
shows  a  general  coherence  with  EU  environmental  objectives.  For  example,  the 
measures contributed to: (i) reducing the need for pesticides in France (the lower density 
of grapes led to fewer risks due to moisture); (ii) maintaining traditional landscapes such 
as  terraces  (Germany,  Portugal,  Italy);  (iii)  relocating  vineyards  to  areas  where  water 
availability  is  greater  (although  this  also  creates  a  potential  loss  for  landscapes  where 
vineyards  are  abandoned,  such  as  in  La  Rioja);  (iv)  optimising  the  use  of  water  with 

32 ‘Prior behaviour of the producer’ is defined in Annex II.I of Reg. 2015/560: the applicants shall not have 
vines planted without authorisation or planting rights. Member States may further require compliance with 
other conditions,  such as the  fact the applicants  no longer have  vineyards in production, or authorisation 
previously granted that has expired due to non-utilisation.  

43 

 
 
                                                 
investments  in  more  efficient  irrigation  systems;  and  (v)  the  use  of  grape  varieties 
resistant to diseases and/or drought, adapted to local conditions.  

Figure 15. Contribution of measures in the national support programmes to 
CAP/EU objectives 

Source: Agrosynergie 

However, except for by-products distillation which encourages the collection, processing 
and  valorisation  of  by-products,  the  measures  were  not  designed  to  foster  directly 
sustainable management and climate action in the wine sector. Although the measure of 
restructuring  and  conversion  of  vineyards  has  as  objective  the  improvement  of  the 
competitiveness and quality of wine production, the evaluation support study found that it 
also contributed to climate adaptation, as producers switched to varieties that were more 
resistant to drought and irregular precipitation.  

Moreover, the contribution of the measures applicable to the wine sector depends on how 
the measure is implemented in the Member States. In the case of the investment measure, 
the use of priority criteria was not sufficient to provide a real opportunity to foster overall 
energy  efficiency  and  environmentally  sustainable  processes.  As  the  interviews  with 
sector  representatives  and  representatives  of  winegrowers  revealed,  only  the  wealthiest 
producers  made  such  expensive  environmentally  friendly  investments.  A  large  share  of 
the  respondents  to  the  public  consultation  carried  out  for  this  evaluation  (see  Annex  2) 
also mention poor consistency33. 

33 Consistency with other CAP objectives, such as sustainable use of natural resources, climate action and 
balanced  territorial  development,  was  acknowledged  by  only  42%  of  respondents,  largely  in  the  wine 
business (21%), while 30%, largely non-governmental organisations (27%) had the opposite opinion. 

44 

 
 
 
                                                 
Therefore, more could be achieved. In particular, the restructuring measure could play a 
more  significant  role  in  adapting  EU  vineyards  to  climate  change  and  protecting 
biodiversity.  

Regarding coherence with EU health objectives, promotion and information campaigns 
on EU quality schemes highlighted the quality of EU wine products. These also comply 
with  well-defined  EU  standards  of  production,  ensuring  a  high  level  of  safety  for 
consumers. In addition, the public consultation showed that 52% out of 33 respondents, 
largely  the  wine  business  (24%),  considered  EU  wine  policy  to  be  consistent  with  EU 
public  health  objectives,  while  33%  of  the  respondents,  largely  non-governmental 
organisations but also the wine business (6%), had the opposite opinion. 

However,  between  2014  and  2018  less  than  2%  of  the  actions  implemented  under  the 
promotion and information measure related to information. Of these, only a few related to 
responsible  wine  consumption  (only  two  were  implemented  in  the  Member  States 
covered by the case studies). Operators are indeed not keen to communicate against their 
own interests. In addition, some Member States, France and Romania for instance, chose 
to  exclude  such  operations  from  financing  under  the  national  support  programmes 
because  of  the  risks  of  conflict  of  interest  (linked  to  promoting  health  and  lower  wine 
consumption by actors in the wine supply chain whose interest is to sell wine).  

Therefore,  although  there  is  no  major  inconsistency,  the  coherence  between  EU  wine 
policy and the EU’s public health objectives could be strengthened, as underlined in the 
farm  to  fork  strategy34,  in  particular  by  not  leaving,  to  avoid  conflict  of  interest,  the 
warning  concerning  responsible  alcohol  consumption  up  to  economic  operators  in  the 
sector. It should rely on a shared vision between health and sectoral stakeholders of what 
is  a  ‘high  level  of  human  health’,  i.e.  based  on  SMART  indicators35,  as  well  as  the 
strategy to reach this goal. This could include, for example, the rules on the labelling of 
wine  products  and/or  the  latest  scientific  evidence  on  efficiency  of  awareness  raising 
campaigns funded or supported by the wine industry.  

The national support programmes are, overall,  fully consistent with the EU’s economic 
and social and CAP objectives. In terms of viable food production, the measures helped 
to increase the productivity of vineyards and the revenue of growers (some of whom are 
also  producers),  as  illustrated  in  Chapter  5.1.1.  They  also  made  it  possible  to  improve 
production processes, to adapt to market demand and to develop market share in export 
markets,  thus  contributing  to  economic  growth  in  the  regions  and  Member  States 
concerned.  

Finally,  measures  in  the  national  support  programmes  contributed  to  balanced  regional 
development by contributing to the maintenance of an agricultural activity in lands where 
other  agricultural  activities  are  not  always  possible  (e.g.  on  steep  slopes  or  in  remote 
areas with no other alternatives in Germany, Italy and Portugal). They also contributed to 
maintaining or developing downstream activities in rural areas, such as wine processing, 
distilleries and wine tourism (e.g. through support for wine-testing cellars). 

34  Farm  to  fork  strategy  –  for  a  fair,  healthy  and  environmentally  friendly  food  system.  See 

https://ec.europa.eu/food/farm2fork_en.   

35 S(pecific)M(easurable)A(chievable)R(elevant)T(imely) indicators used in monitoring and evaluation. 

45 

 
 
                                                 
5.3.2.  To  what  extent  have  the  measures  applied  under  the  national  support 
programmes  in  the  wine  sector  been  coherent  and/or  complementary 
the  rural  development 
compared 
programmes, in the horizontal promotion measures for agricultural products, 
including organic production, and in other EU policies?  

the  corresponding  measures 

in 

to 

This  question  focuses  on  the  consistency  of  the  national  support  programmes  with  the 
corresponding  measures  contained  in  the  rural  development  programmes  and  the 
horizontal  regulation  on  promotion  measures  for  agricultural  products.  It  also  covers 
consistency  with  measures  in  other  EU  policies  with  similar  objectives,  beyond  the 
objectives  of  environmental  sustainability  and  human  health  assessed  in  the  previous 
chapter. 

The  case  studies  and  interviews  found  that  overall  there  is  an  interplay  between  the 
measures  in  rural  development  programmes  and  national  support  programmes,  notably 
for  investments  and  restructuring  and  conversion.  In  the  case  of  operations  eligible  for 
support  under  both  schemes  (e.g.  diversification  through  the  creation  of  wine-tasting 
cellars, irrigation), demarcation criteria inserted in the national support programmes and 
checks  ensure  that  double  financing  is  avoided.  For  example,  the  national  support 
programmes  apply  to  existing  vineyards  and  investment  in  wineries  only,  while 
investments in new plantations and machinery can be supported under rural development 
programmes.  Support  for  winemaking  equipment  cannot  be  supported  under  rural 
development  programmes  in  France,  while  in  Italy  they  are  used  to  support  renewable 
energy production systems. In Portugal, crop insurance for wine grapes is financed under 
national  support  programmes,  while  other  forms  of  crop  insurance  are  financed  under 
rural development programmes.  

The  overarching  regulation  on  promotion  is  not  very  widely  implemented  in  the  wine 
sector, except in Italy for information actions, because of the constraints associated with 
applying  for  this  support,  which  limit  the  interest  of  the  eligible  wine  operators. 
Therefore, no particular issue arose from the articulation between regulations.  

The measures in the national support programmes are consistent with other policies such 
as Horizon 2020 and the European Regional Development Fund. Indeed, Horizon 2020 is 
appropriate  for  supporting  research  and  innovation  programmes  over  the  2014-2020 
period.  In  Portugal,  it  has  been  used  as  a  source  of  funding  for  innovation  and 
investigation projects by some wine companies and stakeholders. The European Regional 
Development Fund supports investments by small and medium-sized enterprises, with the 
objective  of  strengthening  economic  and  social  cohesion,  and  investments  for  external 
promotion, some of which are also eligible under the national support programmes. It has 
been used by Portuguese wine producers to finance their promotion actions in European 
markets,  thus  complementing  the  support  for  promotion  in  non-EU  countries  granted 
through the national support programmes.  

46 

 
 
5.4.  Relevance 

5.4.1.  To  what  extent  have  EU  restrictions  on  the  classifiable  wine  grape  varieties 
and the wine grape varieties that may be used for the production of PDOs and 
PGIs  proven  to  be  relevant  for  preserving  or  improving  the  quality  of  EU 
wines and enhancing their competitiveness?  

This question examines the relevance of EU rules on restrictions concerning varieties to 
be used in the production processes, providing that: 

  only grape varieties belonging to the species Vitis vinifera or crosses between 
the species Vitis vinifera and other species of the genus Vitis are authorised to 
make wine products,  excluding six specific varieties: Noah, Othello,  Isabelle, 
Jacquez, Clinton and Herbemont; 

  PDO  wine  products  must  be  obtained  only  from  varieties  belonging  to  Vitis 

vinifera; 

  Member  States  are  responsible  for  classifying  authorised  varieties  on  their 
territory,  to  reinforce  the  preservation  of  essential  characteristics  of  specific 
wines such as PDO/PGI wines. 

The EU rules on wine grape varieties were initially set up to preserve and improve wine 
quality,  competitiveness  and  safety  of  wine  products.  They  also  play  a  role  in 
environmental protection and climate action, as illustrated in Figure 15.  

The  analysis  of  the  match  between  EU  legislation  and  the  needs  of  the  wine  sector, 
identified  by  stakeholders  who  were  interviewed,  shows  that  the  EU  rules  on  banned 
varieties  and  the  restrictions  on  crossings  for  PDOs  no  longer  seem  to  be  necessary  to 
preserve or improve wine quality and safety. Studies such as Arche Noah (2017) showed 
that  there  is  no  proven  risk  for  human  health  linked  to  the  six  prohibited  varieties.  In 
addition, technological advances in winemaking have made it possible to produce quality 
wine  even  with  these  supposedly  less  qualitative  varieties.  In  addition,  specifications 
laying  down  the  list  of  varieties  authorised  for  each  PDO  already  ensure  that  the 
combination between the varieties used and all other factors lead to satisfactory quality. 
Moreover, using a wider range of varieties could also lead to more different wines with 
specific  organoleptic  characteristics  and  thus  make  it  possible  to  enhance  the  range  of 
wine products.  

The EU restrictions on wine grape varieties mentioned above were also expected to help 
improve  the  competitiveness  of  EU  wines.  However,  these  restrictions  resulted  in  a 
competitive disadvantage for EU producers, as some foreign countries permit the use of 
the six EU-prohibited varieties in winemaking and improve the performance of varieties 
by  crossing  Vitis  species,  thereby  obtaining  plants  that  are  resistant  to  disease  and/or 
climatic conditions. In addition, the prohibition of the six varieties was also initially made 
as  a  kind  of  production  regulation,  since  these  varieties  are  very  productive.  However, 
other  policy  tools  can  regulate  production  today,  such  as  the  authorisation  scheme, 
marketing  rules  to  improve  and  stabilise  the  operation  of  the  common  market  in  wines 
and the restructuring measure, which can limit support for specific varieties.  

Furthermore, the wine-producing Member States  have developed their own national  list 
of authorised varieties that are more adapted to their territory and climatic conditions.  

47 

 
 
The wine sector faces  new challenges today in  terms  of biodiversity  and environmental 
sustainability, including climate change. The restriction of varieties for PDO wines does 
not permit the use of some resistant plants and therefore does not help vineyards to adapt 
better to climate hazards or wine growers to reduce the use of inputs, which is a growing 
societal  demand.  Moreover,  a  wide  range  of  varieties  would  give  wine  growers  more 
possibilities in terms of better adapting the vine to the local soil and climate conditions. 
Therefore, the restriction on the use of inter-specific vine varieties for PDO wines does 
not seem to be relevant to addressing the current environmental issues in the wine sector.  

Finally,  the  need  to  accelerate  research  on  disease-  and  pest-resistant  plants  and  to 
develop  more  in-field  experiments  before  planting  a  non-native  variety  to  assess  how 
vines  adapt  to  local  conditions  is  not  among  the  objectives  of  the  Common  Market 
Organisation.  However,  the  rural  development  policy  and  the  Horizon  2020  work 
programme  for  research  and  innovation  can  address  this  need,  by  supporting  research, 
knowledge  transfer  and  actions  to  disseminate  information.  Providing  more  and  better 
information on this interplay to the potential beneficiaries could be beneficial to the wine 
sector.  

5.4.2.  To what extent were the national support programmes relevant?  

Relevance is defined as the extent to which an intervention’s objectives are pertinent to 
needs,  problems  and  issues.  The  question  assesses  the  match  between  the  choice  of 
measures and the actual needs of the EU wine sector. Similarly, the budget allocation is 
analysed in line with the European Court of Auditors’ recommendation in its 2014 report 
on  the  wine  sector36,  which  states  that  the  Commission  should  analyse  how  the  budget 
allocated to the national support programmes for 2014-2018 matches the needs of the EU 
wine sector and the absorption capacity of the Member States. This chapter also explores 
the relevance of EU wine policy for the development of the wine sector. 

The actual needs were identified through case studies and, at EU level, through the use of 
a  SWOT  analysis,  based  on  information  from  interviews  with  national  authorities  and 
stakeholders. Table 7 below relates the measures in the national support programmes to 
the  needs  of  the  wine  sector.  Figure  3  in  Chapter  3.1  sets  out  the  share  of  the  budget 
allocated to each measure in 2014-2018. 

The  interviews  with  beneficiaries  revealed  that  measures  in  the  national  support 
programmes  are  generally  relevant  to  the  needs  of  the  sector,  especially  because  they 
offer a range of tools that can be adapted to the various levels of development of diverse 
supply  chains  in  the  EU  (restructuring  and  conversion,  investment,  promotion). 
Depending on their specific needs, not all of the measures have been budgeted for in all 
Member States.  

The measures that address risks - like crop insurance - remain relevant, although mutual 
funds  to  insure  producers  against  market  fluctuations  have  never  been  implemented. 
Positive market trends over the period studied might explain why the measure has never 
been  used.  However,  it  could  be  useful  to  investigate  in  more  detail  the  potential 

36 European Court of Auditors Special Report No.9/2014. Is the EU investment and promotion support to 
the  wine  sector  well  managed  and  are  its  results  on  the  competitiveness  of  EU  wine  demonstrated? 
Luxembourg, 1 July 2014. 

48 

 
 
                                                 
impediments to implementing the measure. Similarly, the policy seemed relevant for the 
balance  of  the  domestic  market,  as  the  market  was  at  a  relative  equilibrium  in  recent 
years.  It  could  explain  why  green  harvesting  has  been  very  limited,  having  only  been 
used in some Italian regions to prevent market crises due to overproduction.  

Table  7:  Correspondence  between  measures 
programmes/CAP and the needs of the sector  

in 

the  national  support 

Measures in the national support 
programmes 

Restructuring and conversion of vineyards 
Investment 
Innovation 

Promotion and information 
Green (premature) harvesting 
Mutual funds 
Harvest insurance 
By-products distillation 
Basic payment scheme 
Source: Agrosynergie, based on case studies. 

Sector needs 

Adaptation of vineyards to market and climate changes 
Adaptation of the production structure to market changes 
Technological  adaptation  of  vineyards  and  the  production 
structure to market and climate changes 
Reputation and product recognition, marketing 
Production volatility 
Market volatility 
Production volatility 
Environmental issues 
Low remuneration of growers 

By-product distillation is relevant as an incentive for producers to choose the elimination 
process that is the most environmentally friendly, and that also fosters innovative uses of 
wine by-products for energy or industrial purposes.  

The set of measures was relevant for the development of the EU wine sector, increasing 
its competitiveness and market adaptation, as illustrated in previous chapters. In addition, 
the promotion  measure for external  markets  provided an actual incentive to  orient wine 
products  towards  growing  international  markets,  and  thus  helped  to  develop  new  trade 
opportunities.  

However,  some  needs  identified  during  the  interviews  are  not  fully  addressed  by 
measures in the national support programmes. These include problems of maintenance or 
adaptation for the smallest growers (although they have received relatively more support 
than  large  farms  compared  to  the  previous  programming  period),  the  need  for  a  better 
trained  workforce,  issues  of  business  renewal  between  generations  and  environmental 
issues,  such  as  adaptation  to  climate  change,  the  preservation  of  biodiversity  and  the 
lower use of pesticides.  

The budget  absorption  capacity was  good in  most  cases (see  Table 5 in  Chapter 5.1.3), 
except  in  the  case  of  Romania,  where  the  budget  was  devoted  to  the  restructuring 
measure  and  used  massively  by  large  producers  until  2014.  At  present,  restructuring  is 
carried out by small producers and for small vineyards in a Member State where most of 
the vine area is extremely fragmented. The needs of the sector have also shifted towards 
other  measures,  such  as  the  promotion  of  wines  in  non-EU  countries,  information 
campaigns  in  Member  States  and  investments  in  facilities  and  equipment  for  the 
production and marketing of wine products, for which, however, the uptake capacity has 
been  slow  so  far.  The  possibility  of  updating  the  initial  budget  during  the  programme 
period  should  facilitate  higher  absorption  rates,  but  this  rate  depends  mostly  on  the 
beneficiaries’ ability to invest. 

49 

 
 
In terms of the relevance of the allocated budget per Member State, the situation varies 
between countries. For instance, in France the budget seems to be tailored to the needs of 
the sector, since it was fully used without any need to use selection criteria. On the other 
hand, in Spain there was much more demand than available budget resources. The range 
of  measures  and/or  the  allocation  of  EU  budget  support  might  therefore  need  to  be 
reassessed in  the future  programming period.  In  Germany, the  absorption of the budget 
(85%)  in  recent  years  appeared  to  be  limited  in  part  by  the  administrative  means 
dedicated to managing the programme and by businesses’ capacity to invest.  

These findings on the relevance of EU wine policy are borne out by the outcome of the 
public  consultation.  Out  of  33  respondents,  48%  said  that  the  wine  policy  met  their 
needs,  mainly  the  wine  business  and  public  authorities,  while  15%,  mainly  non-
governmental  organisations  (12%),  had  the  opposite  opinion.  Except  for  green 
harvesting, a majority of respondents confirmed the need for the various measures in the 
national support programmes.  

5.5.  EU added value 

5.5.1.  To what extent are distinct definitions for wine products, oenological practices 
and  rules  on  authorised  wine  grape  varieties  justifiable  and  provide  added 
value in addition to the international standards?  

As described in Chapter 3, although EU rules on marketing standards are mainly in line 
with  the  rules  set  up  by  the  OIV,  there  are  some  noticeable  differences  regarding,  for 
example,  the  degree  of  alcohol  and  the  list  of  authorised  substances  in  the  wine 
production  process.  In  addition,  Member  States  may  require  additional  restrictions  to 
reinforce the preservation of essential characteristics of specific wines such as PDO/PGI 
wines. 

Based  on  the  analysis  of  the  differences  between  the  various  sets  of  rules  and  the 
stakeholders’  opinions,  this  question  assesses  the  added  value  of  EU  rules  compared  to 
OIV rules and to rules that would be decided at Member State level. 

The evaluation results reveal that the quality and safety of wine products may decrease if 
international  standards  replaced  EU-specific  rules,  especially  concerning  oenological 
practices, since international standards may sometimes be less stringent.   

In  addition,  the  evaluation  identified  that  EU  rules,  in  particular  for  PDO/PGI  wines, 
allow  recognition  of  specific  local  features,  which  makes  for  better  competitiveness  of 
EU wine producers compared to those from non-EU countries.  

However, the advantage of the OIV recommendations is that they can be adopted by non-
EU  countries,  allowing  for  consensus  among  the  various  countries  and  thereby 
contributing  to  transparency  between  markets  and  reducing  distortions  of  competition. 
Although  this  conformity  with  international  standards  could  indeed  help  international 
trade,  it  may  induce  a  lower  differentiation  among  EU  products.  This  demonstrates  the 
added value of EU rules compared to international standards.  

In  terms  of  wine  grape  varieties,  there  is  no  international  definition  of  vine  varieties 
suitable  to  produce  wine  products.  The  existence  of  rules  at  EU  level  is  therefore 

50 

 
 
 
essential,  even  if  the  rules  need  to  be  adapted  to  the  current  needs  of  the  sector  and 
society.  

The definition of rules at EU level limits the risk of distortion among Member States in 
terms  of oenological  practices and wine  grape varieties, compared to  national  decisions 
by Member States. Thus, the current EU legislation on oenological practices, although it 
could be improved as explained in Chapter 3, has real added value compared to rules that 
would be decided at Member State level. Furthermore, the national classification of wine 
grape varieties may better enhance autochthonous wine-growing conditions. 

5.5.2.  To  what  extent  is  the  subsidiarity  provided  for  in  the  EU  political  and  legal 
framework  for  wine  producers  and  production,  in  the  form  of  the  national 
support programmes, sufficient and appropriate compared to the objective of 
achieving EU added value?  

This  evaluation  question  aims  to  assess  whether  the  design  of  the  national  support 
programme  framework  at  EU  level,  and  the  flexibility  given  to  Member  States  in  the 
implementation of the programmes, have maximised the added value of the programmes. 

The  answers  to  the  evaluation  questions  on  effectiveness  and  the  analysis  above 
acknowledged  the  added  value  of  the  EU  framework  and  funding  in  accelerating  the 
modernisation  of  the  sector  and  ensuring  that  it  enters  and  maintains  its  position  and 
competitiveness  in  international  markets.  In  particular,  all  stakeholders  agree  that 
modernisation and adaptation to the market demands of the sector would have been much 
slower in the absence of EU funding and might have left small players behind.  

On  consistency,  the  analysis  showed  that  the  EU  framework  was  a  key  instrument  in 
creating a level playing field among Member States and ensuring the smooth functioning 
of  the  EU’s  internal  market.  In  terms  of  relevance,  though  some  Member  States  would 
like more flexibility in adapting the measures to their specific needs, no major need of the 
sector  was  left  unanswered,  as  shown  in  Chapter5.4.1.  The  EU  framework  also 
sometimes brought a strategic approach and long-term planning to the management of the 
sector, which was also facilitated by the consistency of the measures and by the budgets 
over time.   

Efficiency is the criterion for which EU added value was found to be most questionable. 
The  study  showed  a  high  level  of  complexity  and  bureaucracy,  which  stakeholders 
identify as the price to pay for receiving EU funding.   

51 

 
 
 
 
6.  CONCLUSIONS 

The objective of the evaluation is to carry out an assessment of the effects of the various 
instruments  of  the  Common  Market  Organisation  Regulation  (Regulation  (EU) 
No 1308/2013) applicable to the wine sector.  

The evaluation assesses the common evaluation criteria i.e. causal analysis, effectiveness, 
efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added value of the wine policy in relation to its 
objectives in terms of competitiveness and market adaptation of the EU wine sector, farm 
income, market balance and quality. The evaluation also considers the general objectives 
of  the  CAP  measures  (i.e.  sustainable  use  of  natural  resources  and  climate  actions  and 
balanced  territorial  development)  and  the  measures  contained  in  the  rural  development 
programmes  in  the  coherence  analysis,  although  the  effects  of  the  measures  on 
environment  and  rural  development  are  not  under  the  focus  of  the  evaluation.  The 
geographical  scope  of  the  evaluation  is  the  EU-28  and  covers  the  period  following  the 
implementation of the 2013 CAP reform, notably from 1 January 2014 onwards. 

Several challenges were faced in the evaluation support study, including  

 

the  timing  of  the  evaluation,  with  most  regulations  having  been  implemented 
with very few changes since 2008 (making a comparison between the situation 
before the implementation of the regulations and after difficult), or the contrary, 
with a very short implementation period, i.e. 2016-2017 regarding the scheme of 
authorisation  for  new  plantings  (limiting  the  assessment  of  the  effect  of  the 
scheme); 

  The  difficulty  to  distinguish  the  effects  of  the  regulations  from  the  effects  of 

 

 

other factors, e.g. on the competitiveness of the EU wine sector;  
the  difficulty  for  a  generalised  assessment,  due  to  the  variation  of  the 
implementation choices and of the definition of the national support programme 
measures  across  the  Member  States  (related  to  a  complex  combination  of  the 
local needs, political choices and external factors);  
the limited availability of data and accuracy of the monitoring at Member States 
level,  with  substantial  data-gaps were found in  the monitoring of the operation 
supported by the national support programmes.  

The EU is the world’s leading producer, consumer and exporter of wine. In a context of 
declining  domestic  consumption  and  growing  opportunities  on  the  world  market,  the 
wine sector increasingly focused on competitiveness and quality rather than on volumes 
of production. The evaluation showed that the EU’s wine policy effectively accompanied 
this transition, starting with the end of support for potable alcohol distillation.  

6.1. 

Effectiveness 

Effects on economic performance along the EU wine supply chain  

Wine growers have incomes and productivity rates that are above average for farms in 
the  EU  (around  40%  higher  in  2017)  and  both  continued  to  increase  over  the  period 
under  review.  The  restructuring  and  conversion  measure,  representing  50%  of  wine 
policy expenditure and covering more than 10% of EU vineyards, accelerated changes 
in the production systems and in the management practices of vineyards, especially by 
enabling large-scale mechanisation and plantings better adapted to water management. 
In  contrast,  production  costs  per  hectare  increased  in  most  Member  States.  Although 

52 

 
 
 
mechanisation led to lower labour costs, the focus on quality (conversion to PDO/PGIs, 
change in varieties, reduction in density and yields) implied higher costs.  

In  addition,  the  investment  measure  was  largely  used  by  operators  to  become  more 
efficient  in  wine  processing  (reducing  wine  making  costs),  bottling  and  marketing.  It 
also  helped  actors  further  down  the  production  chain.  It  supported  the  setting  up  of 
processing facilities on farms, leading to an increase in the number of independent wine 
producers, and facilitated the development of on-farm sales through the construction of 
tasting cellars. 

The low uptake of the innovation measure is a missed opportunity. 

EU rules on oenological practices had limited effects on competitiveness, depending on 
the market and product concerned:   

For PDO/PGI high-end products, the PDO/PGI specifications are more restrictive 
- 
than the general EU rules, and they contribute to their notoriety and to maintaining their 
reputation and their quality and hence their competitiveness.  

In  general,  EU  rules  on  oenological  practices  do  not  have  a  major  impact  on 
- 
competitiveness  compared  to  other  factors.  EU  rules  offer  some  flexibility  in  adapting 
practices  to  the  special  characteristics  of  the  wine-growing  zones.  However,  the  EU 
restriction on adding water to ensure the quality of the final product leads to a distortion 
of competition compared to the United States and Australia.   

At international level, EU rules on oenological practices provide a guarantee in terms of 
quality  and  safety,  and  the  prompt  adaptation  of  EU  rules  to  changes  in  international 
standards also helps improve marketing conditions.  

EU labelling rules generally favour a level playing field and fair competition in the EU’s 
internal  market,  although 
the  mandatory  requirements  set  by  EU  rules  were 
complemented  in  some  Member  States  in  addition  to  the  rules  set  by  PDO/PGI 
specifications.  However,  the  possible  cost  arising  from  mentioning  ingredients  is 
considered to be too heavy for small producers.   

Effects on adaptation to the market  

Wine consumption within the EU has declined almost continuously since 2008, notably 
in  traditional  consuming  countries,  even  though  it  is  tending  to  stabilise.  Nevertheless, 
consumption  has  increased  strongly  in  some  non-EU  countries,  representing  new 
development  potential  for  EU  wine  producers.  There  is  more  or  less  one  year  of 
consumption  in  stocks  and  exports  are  key  to  maintaining  EU  market  balance.  In 
addition, the authorisation scheme for vine plantings effectively limits area increases. 

While  production  increased  in  non-EU  countries  over  the  last  decade,  EU  production 
stabilised. However, the  EU remains the largest  wine producer, with  more than 60% of 
world production. During the same period, EU wine exports increased significantly (+6% 
per  year).  They  are  essentially  composed  of  PDO/PGI  wines  and  oriented  towards 
Canada, China, Russia and the United States.  

In  2016,  the  share  of  EU  wine  was  predominant  in  the  imports  of  the  main  wine-
importing countries. On the other hand, EU producers lost market share in countries that 
are of secondary importance in terms of their level of consumption. EU wines also remain 
predominant among the wines sold by online retailers.  

53 

 
 
These  positive  results  may  be  linked  to  the  efforts  made  by  EU  producers  to  improve 
their performance. However, the competitiveness of EU wine producers and products is 
due  to  a  multitude  of  social,  economic,  climatic  and  political  factors.  External  factors, 
such as market forces or climatic conditions, can significantly affect the competitiveness 
of  EU  wine  products.  But  some  factors  are  also  directly  associated  with  the  strategy 
implemented  by  the  producers,  and  these  are  influenced  by  the  national  support 
programmes  and/or  EU  rules.  The  national  support  programmes  have  therefore  helped 
improve  the  competitiveness  of  EU  wine  producers/products  in  the  context  of  very 
positive market developments.   

The promotion  measure was particularly appreciated by beneficiaries in  light  of intense 
competition from non-EU countries. Promotion allows them to improve the reputation of 
their wines, especially when significant efforts have been made to increase their quality, 
with the help of other measures in the national support programmes.  

Consumption  trends  are  characterised  by  a  growing  demand  for  specific  wine  products 
such  as  rosé  wines  and  sparkling  wines.  Consumers  also  look  for  quality  wines  with 
protected  geographical  indications  or  wines  produced  from  environmentally  friendly 
practices, and they are attracted by features such as authenticity and identity. The demand 
for  varietal  wine  products  is  also  growing  in  the  EU,  as  well  as  for  wines  with  lower 
alcohol content.   

The restructuring and conversion measure contributed to a general upgrade in the quality 
of grapes and derived products, to the development of market-adapted varieties (notably 
to  a  significant  increase  in  production  under  PDO/PGI),  and  to  better  differentiation  of 
varieties  (varieties  separated  by  plot).  To  some  extent,  the  eligibility  criteria  on 
conversion  led  to  a  focus  on  national  and  regional  varieties  that  meet  the  demand  for 
unique,  typical  products.  In  addition,  Member  States,  notably  France  and  Italy,  have 
made  extensive  use  of  the  investment  measure  (along  with  the  restructuring  and 
conversion measure at growers’ level) to develop new products (e.g. rosé in Languedoc- 
Roussillon  and  Prosecco  in  Veneto).  Moreover,  the  promotion  measure  enabled 
producers to better identify consumers’ tastes and the expectations in foreign markets. 

The  wine  area  under  GIs  increased  by  6%  between  2009  and  2018,  to  88%  of  EU 
vineyards. PDO wines are often those produced in the largest quantities, except in Spain. 
Although  their  production  has  increased  in  Italy  and  Spain,  varietal  wines  are  still 
produced in very small volumes in the EU and fall below demand. 

EU  rules  on  oenological  practices  help  to  preserve  the  reputation  and  tradition  of  EU 
wines by providing guarantees of quality and safety. Their effectiveness is closely linked 
to  the  effectiveness  of  checks  and  is  guaranteed  by  the  certification  systems  restricting 
crop management operations in the vineyard, wine grape yields, oenological practices and 
ageing  operations.  Certification  systems  therefore  foster  the  production  of  quality  wine 
and allow competent authorities to trace all operations, from vineyard to outlets, to ensure 
the veracity of the information labelled on marketed products and therefore the quality of 
the products.  

Furthermore, the support for restructuring and conversion resulted in the maintenance of 
vineyards in traditional wine-growing areas and particularly in areas with steep slopes.  

EU labelling rules generally meet the legitimate expectations of consumers. In particular, 
the  consumers  who  were  surveyed  considered  that  labels  provide  relatively  clear  and 

54 

 
 
sufficient information (See Figure 25-27 in Annex 2 Stakeholder consultation). Consumer 
and  public  health  organisations  expressed  the  need  for  more  information,  especially  on 
nutritional values and ingredients. EU labelling rules led to the market adaptation of EU 
production to a variety of market segments (varietal wines, as well as wines that are more 
typical and authentic).  

The fact that products with less than 8.5° alcohol are not considered to be wine products 
in the regulatory classification of grapevine products potentially limits their adaptation to 
market demand.  Indeed, there is a demand for such wine products among consumers in 
the  EU  and  non-EU  countries,  and  non-EU  countries  are  beginning  to  offer  them.  In 
addition,  consumer  demand  for  wine  that  is  produced  in  a  more  environmentally 
sustainable way and labelled as such is not yet being met.  

Some  stakeholders  are  concerned  that  the  growing  number  of  PDOs  and  PGIs  could 
negatively affect the reputation of EU quality schemes. Moreover, the consumer survey 
highlighted the knowledge deficit among EU consumers (in France, Germany, Spain and 
the  UK),  with  few  respondents  being  aware  of  the  characteristics  of  wines  with  a 
PDO/PGI designation.  

6.2. 

Efficiency   

A  major  factor  in  the  high  execution  rate  of  the  national  support  programmes  is  the 
certainty that  the  budget will be available over a 5-year period. This  provided visibility 
and  security  and  therefore  helped  the  implementation  of  operations.  The  absence  of 
national co-financing also increased the programme’s efficiency.  

Member States applied various strategies to the yearly management of funds (either via a 
multiannual  approach  or  on  a  strict  annual  basis).  In  general,  yearly  budgetary  limits 
fostered  responsiveness  both  from  administrators  and  beneficiaries,  as  well  as  quick 
implementation and closure of operations. The possibility of transferring funds between 
measures was a key source of flexibility and allowed for optimal execution of the yearly 
budgets, making it possible to overcome potential implementation delays or a decrease in 
the sector's absorption capacity.   

In the absence of detailed data, it was not possible to draw conclusions on the cost-benefit 
ratio of the measures. The implementation of the restructuring and investment measures 
was quite efficient. Though some aspects have been burdensome in some Member States, 
other aspects, such as the close relationships between the administration and beneficiaries 
and the use of standard scales, have facilitated the management of the measures and their 
quick implementation, while ensuring operations were paid at market prices.  

Concerning  support  for  promotion,  the  analysis  showed  a  high  level  of  administrative 
burden,  particularly  for  beneficiaries.  On  the  one  hand,  the  level  of  budgetary 
commitments  ensured  that  only  very  relevant  projects  (based  on  market  analysis  by 
applicants) were supported. On the other hand, a lot of time and money was spent by the 
sector to manage the grants, which hindered the efficiency of the measure.  

With  the  simplification  of  checks  introduced  in  2016,  with  a  broader  use  of  standard 
simplified costs and the introduction of checks based on risk analysis in 2018, the system 
of  checks  under  the  national  support  programmes  became  more  efficient.  Indeed,  the 
workload related to checks was previously very high. 

55 

 
 
EU rules on labelling and on monitoring and checks are judged to have been efficient. EU 
labelling rules are generally considered to be simple to implement, especially since they 
were set many years ago. Labelling restrictions for non-PDO/PGI wines do not produce 
an  additional  workload  for  bodies  who  administer  checks,  but  they  do  add  to  the 
complexity  of  regulations  for  operators.  The  potential  economic  impact  of  restricting 
labelling possibilities for non-PDO/PGI wines is limited.  

The  systems  of  monitoring  and  checks  are  considered  to  be  highly  reliable.  Their 
efficiency  was  considerably  improved  by  the  digitalisation  of  information  and  the 
introduction  of  plans  for  checks  based  on  risk  analysis.  Although  they  vary  from  one 
Member State to another, all relevant authorities have a well-established system allowing 
them to have access to all necessary information for conformity checks. Member States 
have developed cooperation networks between relevant authorities and, to a lesser extent, 
between Member States.  

6.3.  Coherence of measures in the national support programmes  

The  national  support  programmes  are  generally  coherent  with  the  EU’s  environmental 
objectives.  However,  they  were  not  designed  to  foster  directly  sustainable  management 
and  climate  action,  except  for  distillation  of  by-products  and  for  the  introduction  of 
priority  criteria  on  environmental  sustainability.  In  particular,  the  restructuring  and 
conversion measure has  the potential to play a very significant role in the adaptation of 
EU vineyards to climate change and protection of biodiversity. It can facilitate large-scale 
mechanisation and plantings better adapted to water management. Through the reduction 
of  humidity  around  vine  plants  and  grape  bunches  thanks  to  lower  densities,  it  may 
contribute in the long term to lowering the use of pesticides.  

However,  its  contribution  depends  on  how  the  measure  is  implemented  in  the  Member 
States. In the case of the investment measure, the use of priority criteria was not sufficient 
to  provide  a  real  opportunity  to  foster  overall  energy  efficiency  and  environmentally 
sustainable  processes,  since  only  the  wealthiest  producers  could  afford  such  expensive 
investments.  

There  is  no  major  inconsistency  between  measures  in  the  national  support  programmes 
and EU health objectives. Campaigns on EU quality schemes highlighted the quality of 
EU  wine  products  and  their  compliance  with  EU  standards  that  ensure  a  high  level  of 
safety for consumers. There was limited interest among wine stakeholders in campaigns 
on  health  protection.  Some  Member  States  chose  not  to  finance  information  on 
responsible  consumption  under  the  national  support  programmes  because  of  possible 
conflicts of interest. The consistency between the EU’s wine policy and EU public health 
objectives could therefore be improved. 

Since the horizontal regulation on promotion is not very widely applied, except in Italy, 
no overlapping issue arose between the national support programmes and the horizontal 
regulation on promotion measures for agricultural products.  

Overall, EU wine policy is fully consistent with the EU’s economic and social and CAP 
objectives. The measures in the national support programmes contributed to viable food 
production,  to  economic  growth  in  the  regions  and  Member  States  concerned  and  to 
balanced  territorial  development  by  contributing  to  the  maintenance  of  agricultural  and 
downstream activities in remote rural areas.  

56 

 
 
There is an overall interplay between rural development programmes and measures in the 
national support programmes, notably the measures for investment and restructuring and 
conversion.  Indeed,  the  investment  measures  are  designed  so  as  to  complement  each 
other.  In  the  case  of  operations  eligible  for  both  schemes,  checks  ensure  that  double 
financing is avoided.  

The measures in the national support programmes are consistent with other policies such 
as Horizon 2020 and the European Regional Development  Fund.  Indeed,  Horizon 2020 
has  been  used  in  some  Member  States  as  another  source  of  funding  for  innovation  and 
research  projects  by  some  wine  companies  and  stakeholders.  The  European  Regional 
Development Fund also supports investments by small and medium-sized enterprises.  

6.4.  Relevance and EU added value  

The measures in the national support programmes are generally relevant to the needs of 
the sector, especially because they offer a range of tools that can be adapted to the various 
levels  of  development  of  EU  local  supply  chains  (restructuring  and  conversion, 
investment, promotion).  

To address risks, the support for harvest insurance against natural disasters appears to be 
relevant. In contrast, the support for mutual funds has not been implemented. In a context 
of  relative  market  balance,  green  harvesting,  a  measure  that  aims  to  restore  market 
equilibrium,  was  implemented  only  to  a  very  limited  extent,  also  because  of  its 
complexity. By-product distillation is relevant as an incentive for producers to choose the 
elimination  process  that  is  the  most  environmentally  friendly  and  which  also  fosters 
innovative uses of wine by-products for energy or industrial purposes.   

However,  some  needs  are  not  or  not  sufficiently  addressed  by  the  EU’s  wine  policy. 
These  include  the  maintenance  or  adaptation  of  the  smallest  operators,  the  need  for  a 
better trained workforce, issues of business renewal between generations, environmental 
issues  (adaptation  to  climate  change,  biodiversity  and  pesticide  use)  and  adaptation  to 
market demand for lower alcohol wines and sustainable products.   

In terms of the relevance of the budget allocated per Member State, the situation varies. 
The  capacity  for  budget  absorption  was  good  in  most  cases,  except  in  Romania,  where 
the budget devoted to the restructuring measure exceeded the actual needs. On the other 
hand, in Spain, there was much more demand than available budget.  

The EU framework provided added value by accelerating the modernisation of the sector, 
and  by  ensuring  its  maintenance  and  its  competitiveness  at  international  level.  In 
particular, the adaptation of the sector to market demand would have been slower without 
EU  funding  and  might  have  left  small  players  behind.  The  EU  framework  was  a  key 
instrument  in  creating  a  level  playing  field  among  Member  States.  In  some  Member 
States, the EU framework also brought a strategic approach and long-term planning to the 
management of the sector, which was also facilitated by the consistency of the measures 
and  by  the  budgets  over  time.  However,  such  a  strategic  approach  was  difficult  to 
implement  in  some Member States.  In  addition,  EU added value  was found to  be more 
questionable as regards the efficient implementation of the wine measures, due to a high 
level of complexity and bureaucracy.  

EU rules on wine grape varieties are needed, since no international standards have been 
defined regarding grapevine varieties suitable for wine production. In contrast, there are 

57 

 
 
international  standards for oenological  practices, and EU rules are broadly aligned with 
these.  The  definition  of  rules  at  EU  level  for  oenological  practices  and  wine  grape 
varieties  provides  real  added  value,  limiting  the  risks  of  distortion  between  Member 
States,  recognising  specific  local  situations  and  filling  a  gap  in  international  standards. 
They are also relevant for the competitiveness of EU wine producers by inducing a higher 
differentiation  between  products.  Furthermore,  the  quality  and  safety  of  wine  products 
may decrease without specific EU rules.   

Some EU rules on wine grape varieties seem to be no longer relevant to improving wine 
quality,  preserving  safety  or  increasing  competitiveness.  Restrictions  on  the  use  of  six 
wine grape varieties and of crosses between vine varieties belonging to Vitis vinifera and 
other species of the genus Vitis for PDO wines result in a disadvantage compared to non-
EU countries which allow the use of these varieties. The end of these rules would respond 
to current priorities of preserving biodiversity, environmental sustainability and reducing 
pesticide use.   

Uniform EU labelling rules provide overall added value at EU level in terms of ensuring 
a  level  playing  field  and  fair  competition  for  economic  operators,  facilitating  trade  and 
the  functioning  of  the  single  market,  and  providing  clear  information  to  consumers. 
However, the added valued of the PDO/PGI scheme at EU level is not well recognised by 
consumers since EU logos hardly ever appear on the labels.  

6.5.  Main lessons learned 

Member States do not provide adequate justification for their strategic choices regarding 
the  measures  that  are  implemented,  nor  adequate  monitoring  of  the  effects  achieved  by 
these  different  measures.  The  examination  of  the  implementation  reports  for  the 
evaluation  revealed  that  the  type  and  quality  of  the  information  provided  is  not 
homogeneous among Member States and the annexes are filed in a non-standardised way 
by each country. 

Strategic  choices  regarding  the  measures  applicable  to  the  wine  sector  could  be  better 
justified. This should be the case in the next programming period, because the national 
support  programmes  for  wine  will  be  part  of  the  CAP  strategic  plans.  In  their  plans, 
Member  States  will  develop  their  intervention  logic  based  on  a  needs  assessment.  The 
measures will have to  contribute to all the nine CAP objectives and in particular to the 
three environmental and climate related objectives.  

In  addition,  national  support  programmes  could  contribute  to  tackling  environmental 
challenges and incentivising changes to practices in vineyards and in wine production to 
achieve  a  transition  towards  sustainable  practices,  in  line  with  the  environmental 
ambition of the new CAP, in line also with the European Green Deal. The environmental 
objectives of the CAP must apply to the sector. In this respect Member States can use the 
opportunities offered by Article 51 of the proposed strategic plans37.  

More attention should also be paid to the monitoring of the programmes.  

37      CAP  strategic  plans  –  Proposal  for  a  regulation  COM  (2018)392.  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52018PC0392&from=EN 

58 

 
 
                                                 
Market  adaptation  could  be  improved,  especially  to  address  the  demand  for  varietal 
wines, for wines with lower alcohol (all the more in the context of climate change) and 
for wines produced from environmentally friendly practices.  

Although the measure of restructuring and conversion of vineyards has as objective the 
improvement of the competitiveness and quality of wine production, the evaluation found 
that it also contributed to climate adaptation, as producers switched to varieties that were 
more  resistant  to  drought  and  irregular  precipitation.  But  more  could  be  achieved.  In 
particular,  the  restructuring  measure  could  play  a  more  significant  role  in  adapting  EU 
vineyards to climate change and protecting biodiversity.  

Some  potential  for  simplification  was  identified  regarding  the  administrative  burden 
involved  in  justifying  expenditure  under  the  promotion  measure.  This  could  lead  to  a 
higher uptake of the measure. 

Regarding innovation and the information on responsible wine consumption, there might 
be  other  policies  better  placed  to  promote  them  than  the  wine  policy.  A  strengthened 
coherence between the objectives of the wine policy and the EU health objective could 
rely  on  a  concerted  vision  between  health  and  sectoral  stakeholders  of  what  is  a  ‘high 
level  of human health’, i.e. based on SMART indicators38, as well as of the strategy to 
reach this goal. 

After  two  programming  periods  involving  the  national  support  programmes,  some  new 
needs  for  support  have  emerged  in  some  Member  States,  such  as  the  possibility  for 
Member States to use a share of the budget for ad hoc measures. 

38 S(pecific) M(easurable) A(chievable) R(elevant) T(imely) indicators used in monitoring and evaluation. 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

Lead DG, Decide planning/CWP references 

Lead DG: Directorate-General Agriculture and Rural Development (DG AGRI) 

Decide planning reference: PLAN/2017/1957 

Organisation and timing 

This was a policy evaluation project included in the DG AGRI evaluation plan for 2017-
2021. It followed the better regulation guidelines on evaluations. The evaluation includes 
an  external  evaluation  support  study,  contracted  through  a  service  request  under  a 
framework contract, conducted in line with the DG AGRI procedure for the organisation 
and management of policy evaluations carried out by external contractors. The technical 
and  contractual  management  of  the  project  was  supervised  by  DG  AGRI  Unit  C.4,  in 
charge of monitoring and evaluation. 

An Interservice Steering Group was set up by the Commission in January 2017, with a 
mandate to provide information, prepare the terms of reference, monitor the work of the 
external  study  team,  discuss  and  give  advice  on  the  approval  of  the  final  report,  and 
comment on the draft evaluation staff working document. 

The  Interservice  Steering  Group  was  composed  of  the  Secretariat-General  of  the 
Commission  and  DGs  TRADE,  COMP,  ENV,  CLIMA,  JRC,  RTD,  REGIO,  BUDG,  
GROW, SANTE and AGRI (12 different units). The Steering Group started its meetings 
in January 2017 and held eight meetings. 

The evaluation roadmap was published from 9 November until 7 December 2017 and set 
out the context, scope and aim of the exercise. The roadmap presented the questions to be 
addressed  under  the  five  categories  of  effectiveness,  efficiency,  relevance,  consistency 
and  EU  added  value.  Following  criticism  from  NGOs  that  public  health  was  missing 
from  the  scope  of  the  evaluation,  this  dimension  was  strengthened  in  the  evaluation 
questions. 

The public consultation for this evaluation was held from 7 March until 7 June 2019.  

The evaluation  project  carried out  by the external  contractor started in  April 2017. The 
final  deliverable  was  received  on  4  September  2018  and  was  accepted.  The  external 
evaluation provided the basis for this staff working document. 

Evidence, sources and quality 

An  external  independent  study  is  the  basis  for  the  conclusions  presented  in  this 
document. A contract was signed on 27 April 2017 with Agrosynergie. 

The contractor has exploited the available data sources. The limitations of their analysis 
related  to  the  availability  of  accurate,  detailed  and  homogenous  data,  and  the 
particularities of the FADN system are clearly explained. 

The  contractor  even  revised  their  calculations  when  new  FADN  data  came  in  after 
evaluation question 1 had already been answered. The period for which FADN data was 
available  was  very  limited.  The  contractor  cross-checked  their  use  of  trade  data  at  the 
request of the Interservice Steering Group. 

60 

 
 
From  the  start  of  this  evaluation,  it  was  clear  that  the  availability  of  data  on 
implementation would be limited, given the short period during which the reformed CAP 
has been in place and the time it takes before FADN data becomes available.  

Note  that  the  evaluation  period  was  a  time  of  significant  changes  to  the  way  in  which 
direct  payments  worked.  The  methodological  approach  designed  for  each  evaluation 
question had to consider these factors to enable as deep an analysis as possible within the 
limitations faced.  

61 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION 

Several  different  forms  of  stakeholder  consultation  were  carried  out  as  part  of  this 
evaluation. 

Interviews were conducted with stakeholders at European level, including consumer and 
sector representatives.  

In the Member States and regions, case studies were carried out with:  

  national authorities in charge of the national support programmes and of applying 
the  various  regulatory  measures  (oenological  practices,  authorisations  for  vine 
plantings, etc.), as well as their counterparts at regional level; 

  bodies in charge of the administrative management of the measures under review, 

and of checking and monitoring their impact; 

 

representatives  of  wine  growers/producers,  particularly  those  in  charge  of  the 
main PDO/PGI locally, and interbranch organisations; 

  wine growers, producers, wineries and wine houses benefiting from  the  national 

support programmes; 

 

 

representatives of consumer associations; 

if relevant, researchers or technical organisations. 

Additional information was gathered through:  

  a questionnaire to relevant authorities in the Member States; 

  a consumer survey; 

  consultation of wine producers (17 independent producers and cooperatives); 

  a public consultation. 

The detailed results of the public consultation and the consumer survey are presented in 
this annex. 

Public consultation 

The  public  consultation  on  evaluating  the  CAP  measures  applicable  to  the  wine  sector 
was  originally  open  for  feedback  from  7  March  to  31  May  2019.  The  feedback  period 
was  prolonged  by  1  week  and  by  7  June,  when  the  consultation  closed,  a  total  of  33 
contributions had been received.  

Data cleaning and merging 

At  the  beginning  of  the  questionnaire,  respondents  were  able  to  say  if  they  were 
contributing as a business association, a company/business organisation, an EU citizen, a 
non-governmental  organisation,  a  public  authority,  a  trade  union  or  ‘other’.  All  the 
respondents  who  declared  that  they  were  replying  as  an  individual  in  their  personal 
capacity were categorised as an ‘EU CITIZEN’. The categories of business association, 
company/business organisation and trade union were combined under ‘BUSINESS’.  

When  analysing  answers  to  questions,  the  options  ‘strongly  agree’  and  ‘agree’  were 
merged as a ‘POSITIVE’ response and ‘strongly disagree’ and ‘disagree’ were merged as 

62 

 
 
‘NEGATIVE’. The  response ‘neither agree nor disagree’ is  labelled  as ‘NEUTRAL’ in 
the results.  

In  the  questionnaire,  it  was  possible  to  give  multiple  answers  to  a  question.  In  seven 
questions, one or two respondents had selected two answers, and in those cases the data 
was cleaned to reflect an opinion. Instead of ‘Don’t know’, a positive, neutral or negative 
response was recorded.   

Characteristics of the sample 

Answers  were  received  from  14  out  of  28  Member  States. 
Most  of  the  responses  came  from  Belgium  (six  reactions 
from European organisations located in Brussels), Italy (five 
reactions) and France and Portugal (four reactions each). 

Roughly  one  third  of  the  respondents  represented  a  non-
governmental  organisation,  another  third  represented  a 
business  organisation/association  or  trade  union,  and  the 
remaining  third  represented  a  public  authority  or  were  EU 
citizens.  

Country 
Austria 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Czechia 
France 
Ireland 
Italy 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 
UK 
Grand total 

Total  

1 
6 
1 
1 
4 
1 
5 
1 
1 
4 
1 
3 
2 
2 
33 

Profile of the respondents 

12% 

33% 

37% 

18% 

I am giving my contribution as  Total 
11 
BUSINESS 
6 
EU CITIZEN 
12 
NGO 
PUBLIC AUTHORITY 
4 
33 
Grand Total 

BUSINESS

EU CITIZEN NGO PUBLIC AUTHORITY

Of the NGOs, 9 out of 12 were European health- and alcohol-focused organisations. The 
remaining three were pro-agriculture organisations. In the business category, most of the 
respondents represented wine growers and sellers. In the public authorities category, the 
respondents were government institutions.    

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Results of the data analysis 

General observations on the closed questions: 

Throughout the questionnaire, responses were more positive than negative. Respondents 
also  used  the  ‘Don’t  know’  –option,  especially  in  questions  that  asked  about  specific 
wine measures, where in some cases 30% of respondents chose ‘Don’t know’. In general, 
NGOs (mainly health-focused organisations) disagreed on the benefits of EU wine policy 
regarding  labelling,  information  and  promotion.  Other  groups,  business,  citizens  and 
public authorities gave more positive responses to all the questions.    

When  comparing  the  measures  in  the  national  support  programmes  (Q17),  respondents 
were  most  positive  about  those  relating  to  ‘investments  in  enterprises’,  ‘information  in 
Member  States  on  responsible  consumption  of  wine  on  behalf  of  the  wine  industry’, 
‘promotion in third countries of the high standards of EU wines with PDO/PGI/indication 
of  wine  grape  variety’,  ‘harvest  insurance’  and  ‘mutual  funds’.  All  these  measures 
received over 60% positive responses. Relatively speaking, the most negative responses 
related to ‘green harvesting’, with 33% negative and 45% positive, and ‘information in 
Member  States  of  the  Union  PDO/PGI  system  for  wine’,  with  36%  negative  and  58% 
positive responses.  

When  asked  which  of  the  measures  have  led  to  an  increase  in  income  (Q22),  the  most 
positive  responses  were  given  to  ‘promotion  in  third  countries  of  the  high  standards  of 
EU  wines  with  PDO/PGI/indication  wine  grape  variety’  (61%),  ‘investments  in 
enterprises’  (58%)  and  ‘restructuring  and  conversion  of  vineyards’  and  ‘information  in 
Member States of the Union PDO/PGI system for wine’ (both 52%).    

For the questions on efficiency (Q30) and consistency (Q31), views are divided. 42% of 
respondents agreed that measures for the wine sector provided value for money, whereas 
27% of respondents disagreed. Similarly, 42% of respondents agreed that the wine policy 
measures are consistent with other CAP objectives, while 30% disagreed. When asked if 
the  wine  policy  measures  are  consistent  with  EU  objectives  regarding  public  health 
(Q32), 33% of respondents disagreed and 52% agreed.  

In the question about relevance (Q33), 48% of respondents agreed that EU wine policy 
fits the needs of the wine sector, 21% were neutral and 15% disagreed. The numbers are 
almost the same for the question on EU added value (Q34), where 52% of respondents 
agreed, 21% were neutral and 12% disagreed with the statement.    

Summary of the open questions: 

With regard to consistency (Q31), contributions from business emphasised how the wine 
measures  generate  economic  activities  in  rural  areas.  NGOs  stressed  how  the  wine 
measures are not consistent with the EU’s health commitments (Q32). Public authorities 
noted  that  the  wine  measures  indirectly  contribute  to  protection  of  the  landscape  and 
biodiversity. 

In  the  question  on  EU  added  value  (Q35),  respondents  representing  business 
organisations  named  fair  competition  and  levelling  the  playing  field  as  the  most 
prominent  benefits  of  EU  wine  policy  measures.  One  of  the  NGOs  also  mentioned 
promotion in non-EU markets. Most comments from NGOs emphasised a need for wine 
measures  that  support  wine  growers  who  want  to  change  towards  alcohol-free 

64 

 
 
agricultural  production.  Public authorities commented that  restructuring  and conversion 
of vineyards would not have been as effective or happened at all without these measures.    

The last question (Q36) was a free text question, which inspired mainly comments from 
NGOs  encouraging  the  EU  to  ensure  consistency  between  its  agricultural  and  health 
policies.  Respondents  from  business  wanted  the  wine  measures  to  stay  in  place,  new 
measures to be introduced, and existing measures to be adapted from an environmental 
point of view.  

Questions  

Q15. Are you aware of the EU wine policy? 
All but one respondent answered yes to this question.  

Q16. If so, to what extent do you agree/disagree with the EU wine policy? (N=32) 

Respondent 
BUSINESS 
EU CITIZEN 
NGO 
PUBLIC 
AUTHORITY 
TOTAL 

 POSITIVE 
28% 
3% 
3% 

NEUTRAL 
9% 
6% 
6% 

NEGATIVE 
0% 
3% 
28% 

6% 

41% 

0% 

22% 

6% 

38% 

Q17. To what extent do you agree/disagree that an EU policy for the wine sector should 
contain measures as shown below, that are at present included in the national support 
programmes in the wine sector of the CAP (N=33) 

Q17a. Restructuring and conversion of vineyards  

Respondent 

 POSITIVE 

NEUTRAL 

NEGATIVE 

BUSINESS 
EU CITIZEN 
NGO 
PUBLIC 
AUTHORITY 
TOTAL 

30% 
6% 
9% 

6% 

52% 

3% 
0% 
12% 

3% 

18% 

0% 
12% 
3% 

3% 

18% 

Q17b. Investments in enterprises  

Respondent 

 POSITIVE 

NEUTRAL 

NEGATIVE 

BUSINESS 
EU CITIZEN 
NGO 
PUBLIC 
AUTHORITY 
TOTAL 

30% 
15% 
6% 

9% 

61% 

3% 
3% 
0% 

3% 

9% 

0% 
0% 
18% 

0% 

18% 

65 

DON'T 
KNOW 
0% 
0% 
12% 

0% 

12% 

DON'T 
KNOW 
0% 
0% 
12% 

0% 

12% 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Q17c. Information in Member States on responsible 
consumption of wine on behalf of the wine industry  

Respondent 
BUSINESS 
EU CITIZEN 
NGO 
PUBLIC 
AUTHORITY 
TOTAL 

 POSITIVE 
27% 
15% 
9% 

NEUTRAL 
3% 
3% 
0% 

NEGATIVE 
3% 
0% 
27% 

9% 

61% 

3% 

9% 

0% 

30% 

Q17d. Information in Member States on the Union PDO/PGI 
system for wine (The European Union schemes of 
geographical indications, known as protected designations 
of origin (PDO) and protected geographical indications 
(PGI), promote and protect names of quality agricultural 
products and foodstuffs)  

Respondent 
BUSINESS 
EU CITIZEN 
NGO 
PUBLIC 
AUTHORITY 
TOTAL 

 POSITIVE 
27% 
15% 
9% 

NEUTRAL 
3% 
0% 
0% 

NEGATIVE 
3% 
3% 
27% 

6% 

58% 

3% 

6% 

3% 

36% 

Q17e. Promotion in third countries of the high standards of 
EU wines with PDO/PGI/indication of wine grape variety  

Respondent 
BUSINESS 
EU CITIZEN 
NGO 
PUBLIC 
AUTHORITY 
TOTAL 

 POSITIVE 
30% 
15% 
9% 

NEUTRAL 
3% 
0% 
3% 

NEGATIVE 
0% 
3% 
24% 

9% 

64% 

3% 

9% 

0% 

27% 

Q17f. By-product distillation (i.e. recycling by-products from wine making for 
industrial or energy purposes)  

Respondent 

 POSITIVE 

NEUTRAL 

NEGATIVE 

BUSINESS 
EU CITIZEN 
NGO 
PUBLIC 
AUTHORITY 
TOTAL 

27% 
15% 
9% 

6% 

58% 

3% 
0% 
3% 

6% 

12% 

3% 
3% 
0% 

0% 

6% 

66 

DON'T 
KNOW 
0% 
0% 
24% 

0% 

24% 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Q17h. Harvest insurance (to safeguard producers’ income against losses as 
a consequence of natural disasters, adverse climatic events, diseases or 
pest infestation)  

Respondent 

 POSITIVE 

NEUTRAL 

NEGATIVE 

BUSINESS 
EU CITIZEN 
NGO 
PUBLIC 
AUTHORITY 
TOTAL 

27% 
18% 
9% 

6% 

61% 

3% 
0% 
6% 

3% 

12% 

3% 
0% 
3% 

0% 

6% 

DON'T 
KNOW 
0% 
0% 
18% 

3% 

21% 

Q17i. Green harvesting (i.e. total destruction or removal of grape bunches 
while still in their immature stage, thereby reducing the yield of the relevant 
area to zero in order to prevent market crises)  

Respondent 

 POSITIVE 

NEUTRAL 

NEGATIVE 

BUSINESS 
EU CITIZEN 
NGO 
PUBLIC 
AUTHORITY 
TOTAL 

18% 
9% 
9% 

9% 

45% 

6% 
0% 
0% 

3% 

9% 

9% 
9% 
15% 

0% 

33% 

DON'T 
KNOW 
0% 
0% 
12% 

0% 

12% 

Q17j. Mutual funds (covering the setting up of mutual funds by producers 
seeking to insure themselves against market fluctuations)   

Respondent 

 POSITIVE 

NEUTRAL 

NEGATIVE 

BUSINESS 
EU CITIZEN 
NGO 
PUBLIC 
AUTHORITY 
TOTAL 

21% 
15% 
18% 

6% 

61% 

9% 
3% 
0% 

3% 

15% 

3% 
0% 
6% 

0% 

9% 

DON'T 
KNOW 
0% 
0% 
12% 

3% 

15% 

Q18. Are you a beneficiary of funding schemes that are part of the EU wine policy? 
Two out of 33 respondents said that they are beneficiaries of EU wine policy.  

Q19. If so, for which activities are you supported by EU funding? 
Restructuring  and  investment  (twice),  insurance,  integrated  territorial  development, 
community-led local development. 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Q20.  The  EU  wine  policy  is  aimed  at  the  progressive  improvement  of  the 
competitiveness  and  the  market  orientation  of  the  wine  sector.  To  what  extent  do  you 
agree/disagree that the wine sector became more competitive and market-oriented due to 
the EU measures? (N=33) 

Respondent 

 POSITIVE 

NEUTRAL 

NEGATIVE 

BUSINESS 
EU CITIZEN 
NGO 
PUBLIC 
AUTHORITY 
TOTAL 

30% 
9% 
6% 

6% 

52% 

3% 
6% 
18% 

6% 

27% 

0% 
0% 
3% 

0% 

3% 

DON'T 
KNOW 
0% 
3% 
9% 

0% 

18% 

Q21. One of the ways in which the EU aims to improve the competitiveness of EU wine 
is  to  support  information  measures  on  Union  quality  schemes  and  responsible 
consumption  in  the  EU  and  promotion  measures  on  the  added  value  of  the  EU  wines 
abroad.  To  what  extent  do  you  agree/disagree  that  the  support  of  promotion  has 
strengthened the reputation of EU wines? (N=33) 

Respondent 

 POSITIVE 

NEUTRAL 

NEGATIVE 

BUSINESS 
EU CITIZEN 
NGO 
PUBLIC 
AUTHORITY 
TOTAL 

30% 
15% 
9% 

12% 

67% 

0% 
3% 
0% 

0% 

3% 

3% 
0% 
15% 

0% 

18% 

DON'T 
KNOW 
0% 
0% 
12% 

0% 

12% 

Q22.  To  what  extent  do  you  agree/disagree  that  the  following  CAP  measures  of  the 
national support programmes in the wine sector have led to an increase of incomes in the 
wine sector? (N=33) 

Q22a. Restructuring and conversion of vineyards  

Respondent 

 POSITIVE 

NEUTRAL 

NEGATIVE 

BUSINESS 
EU CITIZEN 
NGO 
PUBLIC 
AUTHORITY 
TOTAL 

30% 
6% 
6% 

9% 

52% 

3% 
3% 
3% 

3% 

12% 

0% 
6% 
0% 

0% 

6% 

Q22b. Investments in enterprises  

Respondent 

 POSITIVE 

NEUTRAL 

NEGATIVE 

BUSINESS 
EU CITIZEN 
NGO 
PUBLIC 
AUTHORITY 
TOTAL 

30% 
12% 
6% 

9% 

58% 

3% 
6% 
0% 

3% 

12% 

0% 
0% 
3% 

0% 

3% 

68 

DON'T 
KNOW 
0% 
3% 
27% 

0% 

30% 

DON'T 
KNOW 
0% 
0% 
27% 

0% 

27% 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Q22c. Information in Member States on responsible consumption of wine on 
behalf of the wine industry  

Respondent 

 POSITIVE 

NEUTRAL 

NEGATIVE 

BUSINESS 
EU CITIZEN 
NGO 
PUBLIC 
AUTHORITY 
TOTAL 

27% 
3% 
6% 

6% 

42% 

6% 
15% 
0% 

6% 

27% 

0% 
0% 
9% 

0% 

9% 

DON'T 
KNOW 
0% 
0% 
21% 

0% 

21% 

Q22d. Promotion in Member States of the Union PDO/PGI system for wine 
(The European Union schemes of geographical indications, known as 
protected designations of origin (PDO) and protected geographical 
indications (PGI), promote and protect names of quality agricultural products 
and foodstuffs)  

Respondent 

 POSITIVE 

NEUTRAL 

NEGATIVE 

BUSINESS 
EU CITIZEN 
NGO 
PUBLIC 
AUTHORITY 
TOTAL 

27% 
9% 
9% 

6% 

52% 

6% 
6% 
0% 

6% 

18% 

0% 
3% 
3% 

0% 

6% 

DON'T 
KNOW 
0% 
0% 
24% 

0% 

24% 

Q22e. Promotion in third countries of the high standards of EU wines with 
PDO/PGI/indication of wine grape variety  

Respondent 

 POSITIVE 

NEUTRAL 

NEGATIVE 

BUSINESS 
EU CITIZEN 
NGO 
PUBLIC 
AUTHORITY 
TOTAL 

30% 
12% 
9% 

9% 

61% 

3% 
3% 
0% 

3% 

9% 

0% 
3% 
3% 

0% 

6% 

DON'T 
KNOW 
0% 
0% 
24% 

0% 

24% 

Q22f. By-product distillation (i.e. recycling by-products from wine making for 
industrial or energy purposes)  

Respondent 

 POSITIVE 

NEUTRAL 

NEGATIVE 

BUSINESS 
EU CITIZEN 
NGO 
PUBLIC 
AUTHORITY 
TOTAL 

18% 
9% 
3% 

6% 

36% 

12% 
6% 
6% 

6% 

30% 

3% 
3% 
0% 

0% 

6% 

69 

DON'T 
KNOW 
0% 
0% 
27% 

0% 

27% 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Q22g. Innovation (for development of new products, 
processes and technologies)  

Respondent 

 POSITIVE 

NEUTRAL 

BUSINESS 
EU CITIZEN 
NGO 
PUBLIC 
AUTHORITY 
TOTAL 

27% 
12% 
9% 

3% 

52% 

3% 
6% 
0% 

9% 

18% 

DON'T 
KNOW 
3% 
0% 
27% 

0% 

30% 

Q22h. Harvest insurance (to safeguard producers’ income against losses as 
a consequence of natural disasters, adverse climatic events, diseases or 
pest infestation)  

Respondent 

 POSITIVE 

NEUTRAL 

NEGATIVE 

BUSINESS 
EU CITIZEN 
NGO 
PUBLIC 
AUTHORITY 
TOTAL 

15% 
12% 
6% 

6% 

39% 

15% 
3% 
3% 

3% 

24% 

3% 
0% 
0% 

0% 

3% 

DON'T 
KNOW 
0% 
3% 
27% 

3% 

33% 

Q22i. Green harvesting (i.e. total destruction or removal of grape bunches 
while still in their immature stage, thereby reducing the yield of the relevant 
area to zero in order to prevent market crises)  

Respondent 

 POSITIVE 

NEUTRAL 

NEGATIVE 

BUSINESS 
EU CITIZEN 
NGO 
PUBLIC 
AUTHORITY 
TOTAL 

15% 
3% 
3% 

6% 

27% 

9% 
6% 
3% 

6% 

6% 
9% 
3% 

0% 

24% 

18% 

DON'T 
KNOW 
3% 
0% 
27% 

0% 

30% 

Q22j. Mutual funds (covering the setting up of mutual funds by producers 
seeking to insure themselves against market fluctuations)  

Respondent 

 POSITIVE 

NEUTRAL 

NEGATIVE 

BUSINESS 
EU CITIZEN 
NGO 
PUBLIC 
AUTHORITY 
TOTAL 

9% 
9% 
3% 

6% 

27% 

18% 
6% 
6% 

3% 

33% 

3% 
0% 
0% 

0% 

3% 

70 

DON'T 
KNOW 
3% 
3% 
27% 

3% 

36% 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Q23.  To  what  extent  do  you  agree/disagree  that  the  support  of  promotion  of  wines 
contributed to recovering old markets and creating new markets outside the EU? (N=33) 

Respondent 

 POSITIVE 

NEUTRAL 

NEGATIVE 

BUSINESS 
EU CITIZEN 
NGO 
PUBLIC 
AUTHORITY 
TOTAL 

30% 
12% 
6% 

9% 

58% 

3% 
3% 
6% 

3% 

15% 

0% 
0% 
15% 

0% 

15% 

DON'T 
KNOW 
0% 
3% 
9% 

0% 

12% 

Q24.  One  of  the  EU  wine  policy  objectives  is  to  ensure  a  balance  between  supply  and 
demand and a stable operation of the wine market. To what extent do you agree/disagree 
that  the  wine  market  became  more  balanced  due  to  the  EU  relevant  measures, 
particularly the scheme of authorisations  for balanced and stabilised vine plantings, the 
measure  of  restructuring  and  conversion  of  vineyards  and  the  quality  scheme  covering 
protected designations of origin (PDOs) and protected geographical indications (PGIs)? 
(N=33) 

Respondent 

 POSITIVE 

NEUTRAL 

NEGATIVE 

BUSINESS 
EU CITIZEN 
NGO 
PUBLIC 
AUTHORITY 
TOTAL 

18% 
9% 
6% 

12% 

45% 

15% 
6% 
3% 

0% 

24% 

0% 
3% 
15% 

0% 

18% 

DON'T 
KNOW 
0% 
0% 
12% 

0% 

12% 

Q25. One of the objectives of the EU wine policy is to control and ensure the compliance 
of wines with the Union rules and the traceability of wine products. To what extent do 
you agree/disagree that the controls are effective and that compliance of wine is ensured 
in the EU? (N=33) 

Respondent 

 POSITIVE 

NEUTRAL 

NEGATIVE 

BUSINESS 
EU CITIZEN 
NGO 
PUBLIC 
AUTHORITY 
TOTAL 

27% 
15% 
9% 

9% 

61% 

6% 
3% 
3% 

0% 

12% 

0% 
0% 
3% 

0% 

3% 

DON'T 
KNOW 
0% 
0% 
21% 

3% 

24% 

Q26. The EU wine policy seeks to improve the functioning of the EU’s internal market 
through  labelling  rules,  in  the  interest  of  both  consumers  and  producers  (for  example, 
indication of the alcohol and sulphites content, of the provenance and whether the wine 
bears a geographical indication). To what extent do you agree/disagree that the labelling 
rules improve the functioning of the internal market? (N=33) 

Respondent 

 POSITIVE 

NEUTRAL 

NEGATIVE 

BUSINESS 
EU CITIZEN 
NGO 
PUBLIC 
AUTHORITY 
TOTAL 

24% 
18% 
9% 

9% 

61% 

9% 
0% 
6% 

0% 

15% 

0% 
0% 
15% 

0% 

15% 

71 

DON'T 
KNOW 
0% 
0% 
6% 

3% 

9% 

 
 
 
 
 
Q27. Information measures on behalf of the wine industry are part of the EU wine policy 
and  are  aimed  at  informing  consumers  about  responsible  consumption  of  wine  and 
warning against the risk associated with harmful alcohol consumption. To what extent do 
you  agree/disagree  that  the  information  measures  have  improved  knowledge  of 
consumers about the responsible wine consumption and the risks associated with harmful 
alcohol consumption? (N=33) 

Respondent 
BUSINESS 
EU CITIZEN 
NGO 
PUBLIC 
AUTHORITY 
TOTAL 

 POSITIVE 
27% 
6% 
6% 

NEUTRAL 
6% 
12% 
3% 

NEGATIVE 
0% 
0% 
27% 

9% 

48% 

3% 

24% 

0% 

27% 

Q28.  Promotion  measures  focus  on  the  improvement  of  knowledge  about  EU  quality 
schemes  covering  Protected  Designations  of  Origin  (PDO)  and  Protected  geographical 
indications (PGI). To what extent do you agree/disagree that these information measures 
have improved knowledge about PDO and PGI schemes for wine? (N=33) 

Respondent 

 POSITIVE 

NEUTRAL 

NEGATIVE 

BUSINESS 
EU CITIZEN 
NGO 
PUBLIC 
AUTHORITY 
TOTAL 

30% 
9% 
9% 

12% 

61% 

3% 
3% 
0% 

0% 

6% 

0% 
6% 
15% 

0% 

21% 

DON'T 
KNOW 
0% 
0% 
12% 

0% 

12% 

Q29.  The  EU  wine  policy  measures  are  part  of  the  Common  Market  Organisation  for 
agricultural  products,  regulated  under  the  Common  Market  Organisation  Regulation. 
This means that co-financing by the Member States is not obligatory. To what extent do 
you agree/disagree that the absence of mandatory co-financing by the Member States has 
facilitated and led to more effective wine policy measures? (N=33) 

Respondent 

 POSITIVE 

NEUTRAL 

NEGATIVE 

BUSINESS 
EU CITIZEN 
NGO 
PUBLIC 
AUTHORITY 
TOTAL 

21% 
6% 
9% 

9% 

45% 

9% 
6% 
0% 

3% 

18% 

3% 
6% 
12% 

0% 

21% 

DON'T 
KNOW 
0% 
0% 
15% 

0% 

15% 

Q30.  Did  the  measures  for  the  wine  sector  under  the  CAP  that  were  included  and 
available under the national support programme of your Member State provide value for 
money? (N=33) 

Respondent 

 POSITIVE 

NEUTRAL 

NEGATIVE 

BUSINESS 
EU CITIZEN 
NGO 
PUBLIC 
AUTHORITY 
TOTAL 

24% 
3% 
6% 

9% 

42% 

6% 
9% 
0% 

3% 

18% 

0% 
6% 
21% 

0% 

27% 

72 

DON'T 
KNOW 
3% 
0% 
9% 

0% 

12% 

 
 
 
 
 
Q31.  The  EU  wine  policy  is  part  of  the  CAP.  Besides  improvement  of  the 
competitiveness  of  EU  products,  the  CAP  objectives  are  sustainable  use  of  natural 
resources, climate action and balanced territorial  development.  Are the EU wine policy 
measures coherent with other CAP objectives? (N=33) 

Respondent 

 POSITIVE 

NEUTRAL 

NEGATIVE 

BUSINESS 
EU CITIZEN 
NGO 
PUBLIC 
AUTHORITY 
TOTAL 

21% 
9% 
3% 

9% 

42% 

12% 
3% 
3% 

3% 

21% 

0% 
3% 
27% 

0% 

30% 

DON'T 
KNOW 
0% 
3% 
3% 

0% 

6% 

If  so,  please  give  some  examples  of  support  measures  or  types  of  operation  that 
contributed to those objectives. 

There were 16 responses to this open question. Respondents representing  business gave 
seven answers. Several contributions mentioned that the support given to the wine sector 
has helped maintain an economic activity in rural areas. In addition, given that European 
vineyards  are  mainly  located  in  hilly  areas,  it  contributed  to  the  protection  of  the 
landscape  while  mitigating  hydrogeological  risks.  It  also  encouraged  investments  in 
resource  efficiency.  By-product  distillation  measures  have  contributed  positively  to 
environmentally friendly elimination of wine by-products and to innovative use of these 
products to produce energy. Investment measures have allowed wine companies to invest 
in environmental, social and economic sustainability of wineries and vineyards, reducing 
their water and carbon footprint and improving their pest management and biodiversity. 
The  measures  regarding  the  restructuring  and  conversion  of  vineyards  also  help  in  that 
respect.  Finally,  innovation  measures  provide  important  incentives  to  develop  new 
products,  processes  and  technologies  that  contribute  to  the  sustainable  development  of 
the wine sector. In new planting, priority is assigned to organic producers. 

Respondents  representing  NGOs  gave  six  answers  to  the  open  question.  Most  of  them 
represented health organisations, and they pointed out that wine is an alcoholic beverage. 
Excessive  alcohol  consumption  is  one  of  the  main  risk  factors  for  the  entire  burden  of 
mortality and disease in the EU. Therefore, the promotion of wine is not in line with the 
obligation  of  Article  168(1)  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  EU  (TFEU)  to  ensure  a 
high  level  of  human  health  and  the  EU's  commitment  to  meeting  Sustainable 
Development  Goal  3.5  (Strengthen  the  prevention  and  treatment  of  substance  abuse). 
NGOs also  claimed that there has been insufficient emphasis on the need to reduce the 
use  of  pesticides  in  viniculture.  According  to  NGOs  the  EU’s  wine  policy  is  not 
consistent with the CAP objective of balanced territorial development. 

Public authorities (three answers) mentioned that EU wine policy included measures for 
the  conscious  use  of  pharmaceuticals  and  for  the  moderate  use  of  plant  protection 
products.  They  also  underlined  that  the  measure  for  restructuring  and  conversion  of 
vineyards has indirect benefits for the environment as it ensures that vineyard cultivation 
continues in areas where other crops are not possible, thereby maintaining the landscape 
and  ecosystems  (biodiversity)  and  territorial  balance.  In  addition,  aid  for  restructuring 
supports  the  introduction  of  varieties  more  adapted  to  drought  or  training  systems  for 
vines that allow drip irrigation and more efficient use of water. 

73 

 
 
 
Q32. Do  you agree that the EU wine policy measures, which also  include measures on 
labelling,  authorised  oenological  practices  and  information  measures  on  behalf  of  the 
wine industry informing consumers about responsible consumption and warning against 
the risk associated with harmful alcohol consumption, are consistent with EU objectives 
regarding public health? (N=33) 

Respondent 

 POSITIVE 

NEUTRAL 

NEGATIVE 

BUSINESS 
EU CITIZEN 
NGO 
PUBLIC 
AUTHORITY 
TOTAL 

24% 
9% 
9% 

9% 

52% 

3% 
6% 
0% 

0% 

9% 

6% 
0% 
27% 

0% 

33% 

DON'T 
KNOW 
0% 
3% 
0% 

3% 

6% 

Q33. Does the EU wine policy fit the needs of the wine sector? (N=33) 

Respondent 

 POSITIVE 

NEUTRAL 

NEGATIVE 

BUSINESS 
EU CITIZEN 
NGO 
PUBLIC 
AUTHORITY 
TOTAL 

27% 
6% 
3% 

12% 

48% 

6% 
9% 
6% 

0% 

21% 

0% 
3% 
12% 

0% 

15% 

DON'T 
KNOW 
0% 
0% 
15% 

0% 

15% 

Q34. To what extent do you agree/disagree that wine policy measures defined at the EU 
level (including the national support programmes) are better able to achieve objectives to 
improve  the  Union  common  wine  market  than  if  defined  at  national/regional  level? 
(N=33) 

Respondent 

 POSITIVE 

NEUTRAL 

NEGATIVE 

BUSINESS 
EU CITIZEN 
NGO 
PUBLIC 
AUTHORITY 
TOTAL 

27% 
9% 
6% 

9% 

52% 

6% 
3% 
9% 

3% 

0% 
3% 
9% 

0% 

21% 

12% 

DON'T 
KNOW 
0% 
3% 
12% 

0% 

15% 

Q35. In your opinion, what are the most prominent benefits of EU wine policy measures 
and funding that Member States acting on their own could not have achieved? 

There were 15 responses to this open question. 

Business  operators  (eight  answers  in  total)  noted  in  particular  that  EU  wine  policy 
measures and funding provide a suitable framework for fair competition among EU wine 
producers. They also  guarantee a true internal market,  with similar rules applied across 
the  EU,  and  provide  for  balanced  development  of  wine  markets  thanks  to  the  planting 
authorisation scheme.   

Alcohol  policy  falls  within  the  competence  of  the  Member  States  and  the  EU  has  a 
supporting role. This is a fundamental principle, which rests upon the need to address the 
impact alcohol consumption has on society. As drinking habits are deeply entwined with 
national  culture,  there  is  no  one-size-fits-all  policy  that  can  address  variations  between 
countries.  

74 

 
 
 
 
 
NGOs  (four  answers)  highlighted  that  EU  wine  policy  provides  a  consistent  and 
necessary  framework  for  fair  competition  between  European  wine  growers.  It  is 
important  that  the  measures  are  adapted  at  regional  level  to  take  into  account  local 
production conditions.  

Some  NGOs  consider  that  EU  agriculture  needs  to  undergo  a  vast  transformation  to 
contribute  to  the  creation  of  a  future-oriented,  sustainable  food  system.  Wine  policy 
measures  and  funding  in  the  short  to  medium  term  should  be  reoriented  towards 
supporting  and  encouraging  wine  growers  who  want  to  make  the  transition  towards 
alcohol-free agricultural production. 

One NGO said it was difficult to justify the budget spent on wine policy, particularly for 
promotion, referring also to the analysis of the European Court of Auditors (ECA, 2014, 
Special  Report  No  9),  which  concludes  that  ‘The  need  for  an  additional  investment 
measure specific to the wine sector is not demonstrated’.  

Public authorities (three answers) mentioned the added value of the conversion measure 
for  vineyards  that  were  abandoned  and  which,  without  this  incentive,  would  have 
remained  unproductive.  In  addition,  without  EU  support  such  an  effective  level  of 
vineyard restructuring would not have been possible. Furthermore, a common policy and 
common  funds  make  it  possible  to  guarantee  that  all  Member  States  have  the  same 
resources and rules  to  achieve common objectives for the wine sector as  a whole. This 
prevents differences in availability of resources and disparity of interests from leading to 
unfair competition between Member States. 

Additional contributions received as file uploads  

There  were  seven  file  uploads,  of  which  two  files  were  the  same,  so  a  total  of  six 
different  file uploads were received. All  the uploaded files had a  clearly  stated agenda, 
proposal or recommendation with supporting arguments. Below are the recommendations 
from each uploaded file: 

File  1.  ‘The  trio  of  regions/producers/European  institutions  make  it  possible  to  adapt 
decisions.  The  renationalisation  of  agricultural  policies  would  not  make  it  possible  to 
obtain coherent policies in response to the diversity of regional needs.  

Themes  to  be  developed  for  wine  products  under  official  quality  signs:  anticipating 
climate change, environmental and public health concerns, rural development through the 
development of territories and products.’    

File  2.  ‘The  CAP  for  the  period  after  2020  and  with  regard  to  the  wine  sector  should 
continue with the following principles: to maintain agricultural activity in all the regions 
of Europe, especially in the outermost regions; the principle of equality – promoting and 
ensuring measures  that lead to  a more level  playing field  in  farming, thus  reducing the 
gap between the centre and the peripheries; the principle of rejuvenation – by fighting for 
the rejuvenation of the agricultural sector, creating measures, on the one hand, to ensure a 
dignified exit for farmers from the sector and, on the other, to intensify support for young 
people entering the sector.’ 

File  3.  ‘We  propose  that  Article  43  of  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2016/1149  on  the 
prohibition  of  double  financing  be  amended,  maintaining  a  simplified  system  that 

75 

 
 
 
 
continues to ensure that double financing is avoided and that this continues to be done by 
means of simple criteria that do not disadvantage small rural entrepreneurs. We suggest 
that this modification is oriented in one of the following ways:  

- Admit that investments of less than EUR 500 000 in the wine sector of microenterprises 
and small rural enterprises can be subsidised following integrated territorial development 
strategies.  

-  Provide  for  the  possibility  for  each  Member  State  to  decide  that  part  of  its  available 
budget should be set aside for investments of less than EUR 500 000 by rural micro and 
small enterprises.’  

File 4. ‘Phase out health-incompatible subsidies: Using public money efficiently implies 
the need to maximise the co-benefits from this investment, while phasing out support for 
activities  which  burden  our  healthcare  systems.  Certain  products  originating  from 
agriculture,  like  wine,  are  associated  with  the  main  risk  factors  for  non-communicable 
diseases (NCDs). NCDs account for the vast majority of deaths and diseases in the EU 
and  amount  to  approximately  EUR 700  billion  per  year  in  healthcare  costs.  The  CAP 
should divert funding from products and activities that are inconsistent with public health 
objectives,  while  offering  producers  incentives  to  diversify  into  other  types  of 
production. In particular, public funding for wine promotion should be phased out.’ 

File 5. ‘We call on the European Commission and the European co-legislators to end the 
exemption of alcoholic beverages from EU Regulation 1169/2011. To protect the health 
of the population, alcoholic beverages should be required by law to list their ingredients 
and  nutritional  values,  and  to  display  those  values  legibly  on  the  product’s  label. 
However, ingredients and nutritional information should not be displayed in a way that 
could suggest that the product in question is healthy (low calories, organic sugar, vegan, 
etc.). 

We  also  support  the  right  of  national  governments  to  take  initiatives  to  increase  public 
health  by  including  additional  labelling  information.  This  may  include  information  on 
allergens  but  also  different  health  warnings,  for  example  on  legal  age  limits,  drinking 
during  pregnancy,  drinking  and  driving,  and  the  link  to  cancer  and  other  diseases.  It 
should  be  ensured  that  these  warnings  are  legibly  displayed  next  to  the  information  on 
the ingredients and nutritional values.’ 

File 6. ‘Five recommendations concerning EU’s wine promotion subsidies: 

-  While  we  are  supportive  of  promotional  measures  for  agricultural  products  that  are 
components of a healthy diet, wine – as a product with scientifically proven health risks – 
should not be considered a priority product. 

-  In  the  evaluation  of  project  proposals,  public  health  perspectives  must  be  taken  into 
consideration next to the other evaluation criteria. 

-  No  promotional  measures  should  be  funded 
advertisements, in particular through the use of social media. 

that  expose  youth 

to  alcohol 

-  The  principle  should  be  strictly  enforced  that  no  promotional  activities  should  be 
funded that the beneficiary would have undertaken regardless of EU support. 

The EU should enforce tighter scrutiny of the disbursed funds to combat fraudulent use 
of the subsidies.’ 

76 

 
 
Q36. If you wish to add further information – within the scope of this questionnaire – 
please feel free to do so here.  

There  were  15  responses  to  this  open  question.  Business  operators,  who  gave  four 
answers, proposed to increase flexibility in the management of annual ceilings, allowing 
10-15% of the financial ceiling to be available even beyond 15 October each year. They 
also called for the current budget for national support programmes to be maintained and 
for new measures to fight against technical and commercial barriers to trade. The need to 
adapt the measure for restructuring and conversion of vineyards from an environmental 
point of view was mentioned several times.  

NGOs gave 10 answers. All their answers included the following common concerns:  

 

It  is  essential  that  a  public  health  perspective  should  always  be  taken  into 
account  when  considering  policies  around  alcohol.  Alcohol-related  harm  is 
widespread across Europe and has a significant impact on health, welfare and 
justice budgets; 

  All  alcohol  producers  should  display  ingredients  and  nutritional  values  on 
their  packaging.  Consumers  have  the  right  to  know  what  they  are  drinking. 
Printing  nutritional  information  on  the  labels  allows  consumers  to  better 
monitor their diets, and make healthier choices; 

  There is no justification to have a separate budget for the wine sector under 

the CAP; 

  A way to reorient wine funding in the short to medium term would be to help 

wine growers adjust to alcohol-free agricultural production; 
  Measures to promote wine are an unnecessary use of EU funds. 

Consumer survey 

This chapter presents the analysis of the results of the wine consumer survey carried out 
within  the  framework  of  the  evaluation  support  study39.  This  survey  was  conducted  by 
the French Institute of Public Opinion (IFOP) on behalf of Oréade-Brèche. The data was 
collected online, from 11-19 June 2018, on a sample of more than 500 consumers in four 
Member States, resulting in total of 2 105 answers.  

To  reflect  the  characteristics  of  a  variety  of  consuming  Member  States,  large  wine 
producer  Member  States  and  net  wine  importer  Member  States  were  chosen  for  the 
survey (France, Spain, Germany and the UK), with the following distribution: 

Table 8: Number of wine consumers answering the survey  

Large wine producer Member States  Net wine importer Member States 

Spain 

560 

France 

UK 

Germany 

506 

512 

527 

39 All details can be found at: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/40e40902-5051-11e9-
a8ed-01aa75ed71a1/language-en  

77 

 
 
 
                                                 
The  survey  was  in  three  parts.  The  first  part  set  out  the  profile  of  consumers  and  their 
consumption  habits.  The  second  part  focused  on  consumers’  satisfaction  with  the  rules 
on  labelling  and  oenological  practices  and  the  third  part  on  their  knowledge  about  the 
PDO/PGI quality scheme. 

6.5.1.  Description of the sample of consumers 

The sample included equal proportions of men and women. In Spain, a low proportion of 
people over 65 years old were questioned (10%), while in France, the UK and Germany 
between 22% and 28% of those surveyed were more than 65 years old. In all countries, 
one in five respondents were between 50 and 64 years old. However, more 25-49 year-
olds were questioned in Spain (58%) than in the other countries (41% to 44%). Only 7% 
of the respondents were between 18 and 24 years old, whatever the Member State.  

Most of the respondents  surveyed were employed (58%) and  half of them  were from  a 
higher socio-professional category. A quarter of respondents were retired. In Spain, more 
employed people were surveyed (64%) and fewer retired people (12%) than in the other 
countries.  Two  thirds  of  respondents  lived  in  an  agglomeration  of  more  than 
20 000 inhabitants. 

6.5.2.  Consumption habits 

On average, 58% of respondents said they drink wine almost once a week. Respondents 
from net importer Member States drink less than half the amount of wine daily than those 
from  large  producer  Member  States.  In  addition,  more  respondents  in  net  importer 
Member  States  consumed  wine  occasionally  (once  a  month  or  less)  than  in  large 
producer Member States (32% against 21%). 

Figure 16: During the last 12 months, how often did you drink wine? (%) 

Source: Consumer survey, Agrosynergie, based on data collected by Ifop. 

The consumers were questioned on their preferences (first and second choice) regarding 
the type of wine: red wine, white wine, rosé wine, sparkling wine, sweet wine or liqueur 
wine.  Red  wine  is  the  most  popular  type  of  wine  consumed  by  the  respondents, 
especially  in  Spain  (46%).  White  wine  is  the  second  most  popular  wine,  except  in 
France, where it is rosé wine.  

78 

 
 
 
Figure 17: What types of wine do you consume most often? (first choice) (%) 

Source: Consumer survey, Agrosynergie, based on data collected by Ifop. 

Figure 18 : Q2 - What types of wine do you consume most often? (second choice) 
(%) 

Source: Consumer survey, Agrosynergie, based on data collected by Ifop. 

The results were also analysed by awarding two points to the first choice and one point to 
the second choice. The results are shown in Figure 20. 

79 

 
 
 
 
Figure 19: What types of wine do you consume most often? First and second choices 
(%) 

Source: Consumer survey, Agrosynergie, based on data collected by Ifop. 

6.5.3.  Labels 

Consumers  were  asked  about  their  preferences  regarding  wine  labels  –  PDO/PGI, 
organic, environmental label, varietal wines, etc. – and were asked to state their first and 
second  preferences.  French  and  Spanish  respondents  most  often  consume  PDO/PGI 
wines (53% and 62%, respectively), followed by  varietal wines (30% and 19%).  In the 
UK, 75% of respondents most often drink varietal wines. The results were analysed by 
awarding two points to the first choice and one point to the second choice.  

Figure 20: Most often, do you consume...? First and second choice (%) 

Source: Consumer survey, Agrosynergie, based on data collected by Ifop. 

The results show a huge difference between UK consumers and the other consumers who 
were  surveyed.  UK  consumers  primarily  look  at  the  variety  of  wine  when  it  comes  to 
labelling, while PDO and PGI labels are only a secondary factor for them. On average, 
42%  of  UK  consumers  do  not  know  what  is  on  the  labels  of  the  wines  they  consume. 
They  also  show  a  higher  interest  than  consumers  in  the  other  Member  States  in  wines 
with organic or other environmental labels (44% of UK consumers consume these wines 
most  frequently,  compared  to  around  19%  in  the  other  Member  States  that  were 
surveyed). 

80 

 
 
 
 
6.5.4.  Origins 

Consumers  were  asked  about  their  preferences  regarding  the  origin  of  the  wine  they 
purchase: EU wines or non-EU wines. There is a great difference between UK consumers 
and consumers from the other Member States: most consumers from France, Spain and 
Germany  consume  EU  wines  (between  76%  and  92%),  compared  to  only  38%  of  UK 
consumers.  In  addition,  25%  of  UK  consumers  do  not  know  where  the  wine  they 
consume comes from. 

Figure 21: Most often, do you consume wine produced inside or outside the EU? 
(%) 

Total

UK

DE

FR

ES

38% 

73% 

76% 

85% 

92% 

14% 

13% 

Wines produced inside the EU

37% 

25% 

10% 

14% 

Wines produced outside the EU

6% 

9% 

4% 

4% 

Most often you do not know in
which area the wines that you
consume are produced

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90% 100%

Source: Consumer survey, Agrosynergie, based on data collected by Ifop. 

6.5.5.  Purchase criteria 

Consumers  were  asked  about  their  two  main  criteria  when  choosing  which  wine  to 
purchase:  brand,  origin,  degree  of  alcohol,  etc.  The  results  were  analysed  by  awarding 
two points to their most important criterion and one point to their second most important 
criterion.  Even  if  the  price  of  the  product  is  the  main  common  purchase  criterion  (for 
20% of respondents), the main criterion differs between Member States.  

In the UK, the main criterion for consumers is the price, while in Germany it is the brand, 
in France the sign of quality on the label and in Spain the origin of the product. The wine 
grape  variety  is  more  important  for  respondents  in  the  UK  (22%)  than  France  (17%), 
Germany (16%) and Spain (13%).  

81 

 
 
 
Figure 22: Which of the following are the two criteria that most influence your 
choice when purchasing wine? (First and second choice, Total 4 MS) (%) 

Source: Consumer survey, Agrosynergie, based on data collected by Ifop. 

Consumers were asked whether they refer more to grape variety or PDO/PGI labels when 
purchasing quality wine. In large producer Member States (France and Spain), most wine 
consumers  consider  that  PDO/PGI  wine  is  a  criterion  when  purchasing  quality  wine  – 
compared to the grape variety – whereas 82% of UK consumers consider that the grape 
variety is a better criterion. In Germany, there is not a clear preference for either criterion 
when purchasing quality wine. 

Figure 23 : If you had to choose a quality wine, which of these two criteria would 
you prefer? (%) 

Source: Consumer survey, Agrosynergie, based on data collected by Ifop. 

Consumers were asked about their interest in alcohol-reduced wine products. They could 
select two products for which they would like the offer to grow. The share of people who 
think the offer should grow for wines that are slightly alcoholic (with an alcohol degree 
between  8°  and  10°)  or  for  sweet  wines  or  drinks  (made  from  wine  with  a  degree  of 
alcohol between 1.2° and 8°) is about 46%. 

82 

 
 
 
 
Figure 24: Regarding the alcohol content, would you like the offer to grow among 
the following categories? (left: first choice, right: second choice) (%)  

Source: Consumer survey, Agrosynergie, based on data collected by Ifop. 

6.5.6.  Satisfaction with the rules on labelling and oenological practices 

Consumers  were  asked  for  their  opinion  on  the  information  provided  by  wine  labels. 
They  generally  considered  that  labels  provide  clear  and  sufficient  information  (86%  of 
respondents). 

Figure 25: Do you think that, in general, the information on the wine label provides 
clear and sufficient information about the product? (%) 

Source: Consumer survey, Agrosynergie, based on data collected by Ifop. 

A second question aimed to assess consumers’ level of satisfaction with information on 
ingredients,  nutritional  information,  information  on  calorie  content,  information  on  the 
degree of alcohol, and health warnings. 

83 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 26: Dissatisfaction with the information regarding the proposed items 
(number of respondents) 

Source: Consumer survey, Agrosynergie, based on data collected by Ifop. 
(‘Do you think that, in general, the information contained on the labels is satisfactory or not as 
regards…?’) 

The  answers  are  quite  homogenous  for  all  four  Member  States,  even  though  German 
consumers  are  generally the least  satisfied  with  the information  provided  on labels  and 
Spanish consumers appear to be the most satisfied.  

Consumers  are  generally  very  satisfied  with  the  labelling  of  alcohol  content  and,  to  a 
lesser  extent,  of  ingredients.  They  are  least  satisfied  with  the  information  on  calorie 
content  and  nutritional  information.  The  only  significant  difference  between  Member 
States concerns health warnings, where German consumers tend to be dissatisfied while 
French consumers are generally satisfied.  

Consumers  were  asked  about  the  information  on  the  quality  of  wines  contained  on  the 
labels.  Overall,  three  quarters  of  consumers  consider  that  the  information  provided  on 
labels is sufficient to assess wine quality, especially consumers in the UK and Spain. 

Figure 27: Do you think that, in general, the information contained on labels makes 
it possible to evaluate, or not, the quality of the wine? (%) 

Source: Consumer survey, Agrosynergie, based on data collected by Ifop. 

84 

 
 
 
 
The  following  question  focused  on  the  identification  of  PDO/PGI  wines.  37%  of  UK 
respondents indicated that they did not know what PDO/PGI means. In the other Member 
States, three quarters of consumers consider that labelling enables them to easily identify 
wines which hold a PDO or PGI. 

Figure 28: Would you say that wine labelling makes it easy to identify PDO or PGI 
wines? (%) 

Source: Consumer survey, Agrosynergie, based on data collected by Ifop. 

6.5.7.  Opinion on wine safety  

Firstly, consumers were asked their opinion on the safety of EU and non-EU wines and 
the criteria that have the greatest impact on safety. Two thirds of respondents think that 
the  risk  in  terms  of  sanitary  quality  of  EU  wines  is  rather  high  or  very  high,  which  is 
quite similar for wines from non-EU countries. However, consumers from large producer 
Member States do not have such an opinion: 44% of them think that EU wines present 
very low or low sanitary risk.  

In Germany, 96% of respondents think that the health risk is rather high/very high for EU 
wines and 80% think that the health risk is rather high/very high for non-EU wines. 

Figure 29: Consumers considering that the health risk regarding the sanitary 
quality (i.e. in terms of hygiene and product safety) of EU wines and wines 
produced in non-EU countries is rather high or very high (%) 

Source: Consumer survey, Agrosynergie, based on data collected by Ifop. 

Secondly, consumers were asked which criteria they thought had the most significant and 
second  most  significant  impact  on  the  sanitary  quality  of  wines.  Overall,  62%  of 
respondents  said  that  cultural  practices  had  the  most  significant  or  second  most 

85 

 
 
 
 
significant impact on wine safety, followed by 54% who said the same about oenological 
practices.  30%  of  respondents  considered  that  oenological  practices  had  the  most 
significant impact on wine safety (whether they live in a net importer or a large producer 
Member  State),  followed  by  29%  who  thought  that  cultural  practices  had  the  most 
significant impact.  

Figure 30: Which of the following criteria do you think have the greatest impact on 
the sanitary quality of wine? First and second criteria (%) 

Source: Consumer survey, Agrosynergie, based on data collected by Ifop. 

6.5.8.  Opinion on wine quality  

Consumers were asked for their opinion on the taste quality of wines (EU wines and non-
EU wines) and the factors that had the greatest impact on taste. Most were satisfied with 
the quality of EU wines (96% were quite satisfied or highly satisfied). In addition, they 
were  more  satisfied  with  the  quality  of  EU  wines  than  that  of  wines  from  non-EU 
countries (with which 81% of respondents were still quite satisfied or highly satisfied). 

Figure 31: Dissatisfaction with wine quality (% of respondents)  

Source: Consumer survey, Agrosynergie, based on data collected by Ifop. 

Secondly, consumers were asked which criteria they thought had the most significant and 
second most significant impact on the taste quality of wines. 41% of respondents thought 
that wine grape variety had the most significant impact on wine quality, followed by 26% 
who thought that environmental factors had the most significant impact. 

86 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 32: Which of the following criteria do you think have the greatest impact on 
the taste quality of wine? First and second criteria (%) 

 Source: Consumer survey, Agrosynergie, based on data collected by Ifop. 

6.5.9.  The impact of information measures on the PDO/PGI system 

Consumers were  asked  whether or not they have already  seen certain  wine labels: AB, 
PDO,  PGI  (all  respondents),  and  additional  labels  for  French  respondents  (‘Vignoble 
responsable’, ‘Terra vitis’, ‘Haute Valeur environnementale’). In addition, the consumers 
were asked whether they were aware of the differences between PDO and PGI labels. 

Figure 33: Share of consumers having already seen the labels AB, PDO or PGI 

Source: Consumer survey, Agrosynergie, based on data collected by Ifop. 

87 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 34: Share of French consumers having already seen the labels ‘Vignoble 
responsable’, ‘Terra vitis’, ‘Haute Valeur environnementale’ 

Source: Consumer survey, Agrosynergie, based on data collected by Ifop. 

Figure 35 : Do you personally know what differentiates protected designation of 
origin (PDO) and protected geographical indication (PGI) wines from other wines? 
(%) 

Source: Consumer survey, Agrosynergie, based on data collected by Ifop. 

88 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 36: Share of consumers considering that the following criteria are part of the 
characteristics of wines with a PDO/PGI designation (%) 

Source: Consumer survey, Agrosynergie, based on data collected by Ifop. 

6.5.10. Information campaign 

Consumers  from  Germany,  the  UK  and  France  were  questioned  to  assess  their 
knowledge about information campaigns supported by the information measure under the 
national support programmes (Spain does not implement this measure). All respondents 
were  asked  about  specific  PDO/PGI  wines  that  were  promoted  during  information 
campaigns. 

89 

 
 
 
Figure 37: Which of the following names do you know, if only by name?  (%) 

Source: Consumer survey, Agrosynergie, based on data collected by Ifop. 

90 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
French  and  German  respondents  were  also  asked  about  their  knowledge  of  specific 
information  campaigns  that  concerned  quality-tested  wine  areas  (in  Germany),  and 
Languedoc PDO/PGI wines and PDO/PGI wines from Bergerac and Duras (in France).  

Figure 38: Have you heard about the information campaign concerning40? (%) 

Quality-tested wine areas 
(Germany) 

Languedoc PDO/PGI wines 
(France) 

PDO/PGI wines from 
Bergerac and Duras (France) 

40 Pictures of the information campaign were provided to respondents. 

91 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX  3:  THEORETICAL  ANALYSIS  AND  INTERVENTION  LOGIC  OF 
THE MEASURES  

The  following  analysis  aims  to  formulate  hypotheses  about  the  effects  of  the  CAP 
measures  applicable  to  the  wine  sector,  as  predicted  by  economic  theory.  The  general 
theoretical  effects  of  the  CAP  measures  and  reforms  have  already  been  described  in 
several  evaluation  studies  and  other  works41.  Thus,  the  analysis  below  is  focused  on 
recalling features specific to the wine sector and summarising the main expected effects 
of the CAP measures. Figure presents an overview of the overall EU legal framework in 
the wine sector at the time that the external evaluation support study was carried out. 

Figure 39:  Overall EU legal framework in the wine sector 

Source: Evaluation support study by Agrosynergie. 

41 See for instance, Évaluation des mesures appliquées au secteur vinicole dans le cadre de la Politique 
Agricole  Commune,  COGEA,  2012  for  a  detailed  background  on  the  theoretical  foundations  of  CAP 
changes  over  time  or  Évaluation  des  mesures  appliquées  au  secteur  oléicole  dans  le  cadre  de  la 
Politique Agricole Commune, Agrosynergie, 2009, for a detailed theoretical analysis of the effects of 
decoupling in the case of a perennial crop.  

92 

 
 
 
                                                 
Economic characteristics of the wine sector  

Vine is a perennial crop, with a long lead time (3 years). The planting of vine, like its 
grubbing  up,  represents  significant  costs,  which  constitute  barriers  to  entry  to,  and 
barriers  to  exit  from,  the  sector.  This  implies  that  farms  face  rigidity  of  adaptation.  In 
general,  it  is  not  possible  to  assert  that  producers’  choices  between  different  crops  are 
totally  substitutable.  The  production  choices  are  based  on  medium-  and  long-term 
projections of expected profitability.   

Furthermore, if ‘most  agricultural crops are commodities with a standard quality whose 
price is unique and defined by the market’ (Delord et al., 2015), in the case of wine, price 
is  not  an essential  factor in  the choice to  consume wine,  and quality and reputation  are 
other  important  parameters  (COGEA,  2012).  There  is  a  high  cultural  dimension  in  its 
consumption  and  consequently  wine  products  are  highly  differentiated  and 
heterogeneous, with different corresponding levels of price. Thus, globally, there is not a 
single  wine  market,  with  each  segment  of  wine  products  having  its  own  market 
(Montaigne and Coelho, 2006). 

Another  specific  characteristic  of  wine  production  in  the  EU  is  the  high  degree  of 
integration of the production process: historically, wine has been produced on-farm. Even 
though the number of village cooperatives has developed in EU regions where vines have 
been  planted  since  the  beginning  of  the  20th  century,  in  the  regions  benefiting  from  a 
designation of origin system, vine farms benefit from higher prices and are the standard 
model.   

In  non-EU  producing  countries,  the  wine  production  structure  is  radically  different  and 
this diversity in the structure of the wine industry has become more pronounced in recent 
decades  (Rastoin  et  al.,  2006).  The  emergence  of  new  producing  countries  was 
accompanied  by  the  restructuring  of  supply  characterised  by  a  fringe  oligopoly,  i.e.  ‘a 
small number of very large leaders (oligopoly  dominant) and  a multitude of very small 
businesses (fringes):  

  At  world  level,  a  dominant  group  of  powerful  multinational  firms  was  set  up, 
based on a large-scale strategy, a strong marketisation of products and the capture 
of  distribution  networks.  This  strategy  finds  its  resources  in  a  growing 
financialisation  of  the  governance  of  such  multinational  firms  (Rastoin  et  al., 
2006).  

  On  the  other  hand,  the  EU  wine  industry  remains  characterised  by  its  atomistic 
structure  (although  small  wineries  also  recently  emerged  in  other  parts  of  the 
world) (Pomarici, 2016).  

The  integration  of  wine  production  on-farm  is  an  additional  explanation  for  the  wine 
sector’s rigidity of adaptation, since wine production infrastructure is added to vines as a 
factor of production that is fixed in the short term.  

Expected effects of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector  

The  overall  rationale  behind  the  CAP  reform,  which  started  in  2003,  was  to  lower  the 
EC’s intervention level in the market and to let agricultural producers adapt their choices 
to market signals, in order to maximise economic welfare, i.e. benefits for both producers 
and  consumers.  In  terms  of  instruments,  this  was  implemented  through  area  payments 

93 

 
 
decoupled  from  production,  the  single  payment  scheme  covering  the  majority  of 
agricultural sectors, replaced by the basic payment scheme as from 2015. The vineyards 
were  initially  not  covered  by  the  single  payment  scheme,  because  of  the  specific 
characteristics of the wine sector.   

Despite  the  fact  that  this  was  not  fully  adapted  to  the  wine  sector,  the  possibility  of 
introducing  direct  decoupled  income  support  to  vine  growers  was  made  available  to 
Member States after the wine Common Market Organisation reform of 2008, which has 
only been chosen by Spain, Luxembourg, Malta and the UK.   

Other instruments were developed to support adaptation to market changes, in line with 
the spirit of the 2003 CAP reform, some of which had been introduced before the reform 
of the wine Common Market Organisation of 2008:  

(1) in  the  short  term,  various  tools  are  provided  for  to  cover  risk  management  at 
farm  level:  green  harvesting  and  mutual  funds  as  concerns  price  risks,  harvest 
insurance  as  concerns  production  risks.  These  have  been  introduced  to  support 
income  stabilisation.42  They  may  also  have  indirect  effects  on  competitiveness 
by favouring private investment  in  the agricultural  sector, because it should  be 
perceived by farmers and other private investors as a more stable sector;  

(2) in the longer term, subsidies to improve production factors have been set up to 
allow  adaptation  to  market  changes  and  boost  competitiveness,  at  the  various 
levels of the supply chain: vineyard restructuring or reconversion at the grower 
level,  investment  support  at  winery  level,  promotion  support  at  exporter  level, 
etc.  

To  be  competitive,  farmers  and  firms  have  a  range  of  opportunities.  The  two  main 
strategies are (i) to  lower their costs including factor costs (land, labour or capital) and 
(ii) improve technology, technical performance and productivity of factors (Dwyer et al., 
2012). Thus, several investment strategies can be perceived:  

 

 

 

 

to modernise farms and investment in new equipment, to reduce production costs 
and enhance factor productivity;  

to increase the added value of agricultural products, by developing niche markets, 
short supply chains, quality schemes, product differentiation, etc.;  

to develop new economic activities (especially non-agricultural ones);   

to improve human capital, including supporting start-ups by young farmers.  

These  possible  instruments  were  included  in  the  national  support  programmes,  leaving 
Member States to choose how to implement them depending on the local context.  

In  addition,  historical  schemes  related  to  plantings  and  quality  recognition  were 
maintained but adapted to the renewed international context.  

Scheme of authorisations for vine plantings  

The prohibition of new vine plantings was initiated in 1976 at EU level, and even before 
then in several Member States, to cope with the continuously decreasing EU demand for 

42 Crisis distillation and other possibilities to withdraw quantities from the market were also financed 
up to 2012.  

94 

 
 
                                                 
wine. Nowadays, given the changes in demand and the development of vineyards outside 
the EU, the relevance of the scheme is debated and it has progressively been adapted.  

On the one hand, the scheme can be assimilated to a regime of quotas, although applied 
to  a production factor and not  to  a production volume.  Indeed, farmers are supposed to 
produce  up  to  the  quantity  for  which  marginal  cost  equals  the  marginal  revenue 
(Agrosynergie,  2011).  The  prohibition  of  new  vine  plantings  helps  to  prevent  wine 
growers producing up to this optimal quantity, and by doing so it generates a unitary rent 
equal  to  the  difference  between  the  price  and  the  marginal  cost.  Therefore,  in  terms  of 
income,  it  is  supposed  to  guarantee  a  margin  to  efficient  growers.  Concerning 
competitiveness, it also restricts the development of the farms with lower cost structure. 
The scheme therefore reduces the overall competitiveness of the sector and contributes to 
the maintenance of all types of farms.   

Given  that  planting  rights  were  often  set  per  region  (or  protected  area),  this  reasoning 
explains  why  production  could  be  maintained  in  regions  with  low-efficiency  sectors, 
while it was not possible to develop production in regions facing increasing demand. The 
liberalisation of the system would thus lead to the disappearance of unviable production, 
increase the competitiveness of the sector and lower prices for consumers.  

On the other hand, theoretical arguments support the maintenance of a system of control 
over plantations. Firstly, an underlying objective supporting the abolition of this indirect 
quota system is the possibility for farms to achieve economies of scale. However, Delord 
et al. (2015) show, on the basis of FADN data for France, that it is not possible to identify 
decreases  in  production  costs  for  farms  with  bigger  sizes  and  that  ‘differences  in 
profitability are based on differences in  the selling price of wine. These  differences  are 
related to the location and the designation of origin (PDO wines)’.  

Furthermore,  in  terms  of  efficiency  and  equity,  a  production  quota  system  could  seem 
preferable to any other instrument supporting growers’ income since it has no budgetary 
cost. Income support is thus borne by the consumer. Given that consumers take account 
of  quality  and  reputation  as  well  as  price  when  choosing  which  wine  to  consume,  they 
may be willing to pay a price that includes such income support for growers.  

At a more macro-economic level, the removal of control over plantations might not allow 
proper  adaptation  to  demand  (Montaigne  and  Coelho,  2006).  Planting  rights  have  a 
patrimonial value that has prevented growers from grubbing up vines. Once removed, the 
loss  of  patrimonial  value  might  lead  to  a  significant  decrease  in  production  potential, 
while  the  high  cost  of  planting  vines  and  the  long  time  needed  for  growing  and  wine 
production would prevent a rapid increase in wine production in the event of an increase 
in demand.   

The  removal  of  vine  planting  restrictions  could  also  result  in  the  disappearance  of  the 
wine  sector  in  regions  that  were  traditionally  occupied  by  vines  because  the  low 
agronomic  potential  of  the  land  meant  that  no  other  agricultural  activity  was  possible. 
Besides  the  risk  of  losing  production  in  highly  specific  terroirs  that  contribute  to  the 
quality  consumers  are  looking  for,  there  is  a  high  risk  of  land  abandonment  in  regions 
where  the  maintenance  of  vines  also  has  positive  environmental  effects  (wildfire 
prevention, etc.).   

95 

 
 
  
Quality policy, marketing standards and trade  

As  explained  in  COGEA  (2012),  the  economic  hypotheses  on  which  the  CAP  reforms 
implemented since 1992 rely (the search for efficiency in market equilibrium) face three 
main  market  failures:  market  power  (i.e.  the  concentration  of  processing/distribution 
sectors leading to imbalances in the distribution of added value along the supply chain); 
market forces (market prices do not take into account positive or negative forces such as 
environmental degradation); and ‘information asymmetry’.  

Asymmetric information results from the lack of transparency on market transactions that 
generate  uncertainty  about  products’  quality.  When  uncertainty  about  the  quality  of 
products is too significant, buyers might cancel their transaction or accept them only at a 
much lower price. Information asymmetry can exist at various levels of the supply chain 
(commercial  relations  between  firms  or  purchase  by  the  final  consumer).  Among 
instruments  that  can  help  to  combat  asymmetric  information,  three  are  particularly 
important in the EU wine sector:  

- the definition of marketing standards that ensure a minimum quality for the product;   

- the  protection  of  designations  of  origin  (PDO)  and  geographical  indications  (PGI) 
that guarantee certain characteristics of the product and a specific production process;  

- the  definition  of  labelling  rules  that  guarantee  a  certain  level  of  information  to  the 
consumer.  

On the international market, the OIV and the EU have long set marketing standards and 
the protection of Geographical Indications (GIs) (Hannin et al., January 2006). However, 
with the arrival of new producers on the world wine market and the debate around trade-
related  aspects  of  intellectual  property  rights  (TRIPS)  at  the  World  Trade  Organization 
(WTO),  these  standards  and  protections  have  been  questioned.  Indeed,  like  trademarks, 
GIs are intellectual property tools and allow wine producers to benefit from a competitive 
advantage  linked  to  product  differentiation  (Porter,  1990)43.  As  described  above,  new 
producing countries are characterised by bigger multinational firms that promote private 
wine brands. This vision of intellectual property is also the one promoted by the World 
Trade Organization and  is  theoretically justified  by higher  efficiency. According to this 
logic, marketing standards and GI protection are, to a certain extent, considered to act as 
non-tariff barriers.   

Regarding  marketing  standards,  the  2008  wine  Common  Market  Organisation  reform 
generally  aligned  EU  rules  with  those  of  the  OIV.  However,  some  specific  situations 
remain concerning definitions, oenological practices and authorised varieties.  

For  GIs,  several  economic  arguments  justify  their  protection:  GIs  result  from  the 
collective  construction  of  terroir  products  combining  specific  agro-climatic  potential,  a 
socio-technical process and a consumption model. They provide public goods related to 
the  availability  of  food  produced  locally  (i.e.  self-sufficiency),  local  development  and 
employment in rural areas and the management of natural resources (mainly biodiversity 

43 Marketing standards were introduced as early as 1954 and the resolution on GIs in 1992. See Hannin H. 
et al, L’Office international de la vigne et du vin et l’Organisation mondiale du commerce: Les enjeux de 
la normalisation dans le secteur viti-vinicole à l’aube du 21ème siècle, Cahiers d’économie et sociologie 
rurales, n°55-56, 2001. 

96 

 
 
                                                 
and landscapes). Furthermore, the recent development of the number of GIs (not only in 
the  wine  sector)  responds  to  consumer  demand  (Belletti  et  al.,  2015)  (Allaire,  2011). 
However, in the event of saturation of supply due to the development of too many GIs for 
one  specific  sector,  Akerlof  showed  that  their  reputational  assets  would  suffer  and  the 
effects  of  asymmetric  information  would  show  (through  a  price  decrease  and/or 
ineffective functioning of markets) (COGEA, 2012).  

Intervention logic   

This part analyses the intervention logic of the Common Market Organisation Regulation 
measures related to the wine sector. For clarity, the intervention logic is presented in two 
parts. Figure 40 explores the links between long-term CAP objectives, objectives specific 
to the wine sector and expected outcomes, as defined in the Recitals. Figure 41 describes 
the impact of the two sets of measures (measures in the national support programmes and 
regulatory measures) on expected results.  

This  intervention  logic  was  prepared  based  on  in-depth  analysis  of  the  regulatory 
framework,  presented  in  Chapter  2.2,  and  the  theory-based  analysis  of  the  measures, 
presented in Chapter 3.2.  

The general objectives of the 2003 CAP reform focused on: (1) viable food production; 
(2)  balanced  territorial  development;  and  (3)  sustainable  management  of  natural 
resources  and  climate  action.  These  are  set  out  in  specific  objectives  dedicated  to  the 
wine  sector  in  the  Common  Market  Organisation  Regulation.  The  various  measures  in 
the  national  support  programmes  and  the  regulatory  measures  are  designed  to  achieve 
these objectives in line with the expected results that are formulated in the Regulation’s 
recitals:  

(1)  To  ensure  viable  food  production,  the  Common  Market  Organisation 
Regulation aims to increase competitiveness of EU wines, to ensure the smooth 
functioning  of  the  internal  market,  to  meet  consumers’  expectations  and  to 
preserve the best traditions of wines. To do so, the measures should facilitate 
crisis  management,  improve  the  marketability  of  wine  products,  improve  the 
management  of  wine  growing  potential,  provide  a  level  playing  field,  and 
ensure  the  quality,  safety  and  traceability  of  wine  products.  All  the  measures 
contribute to one or more of these expected results.  

(2)  The objective of balanced territorial development in the wine sector should be 
reached by preserving the best traditions of wines. In terms of expected results, 
this  should  ensure  the  quality  of  wines,  the  traceability  of  wine  products  and 
the improved management of wine growing potential. These results should be 
achieved  through  measures  in  the  national  support  programmes  (promotion, 
restructuring  and  conversion  of  vineyards,  innovation  and  distillation  of  by-
products)  and  regulatory  measures  (authorisation  scheme  for  vine  plantings, 
Protected  Designations  of  Origin  and  Protected  geographical  indications, 
marketing standards and oenological practices).  

(3)  Finally,  several  measures  should  contribute  to  sustainable  management  of 
natural  resources  and  climate  action:  measures  in  the  national  support 
programmes (restructuring and conversion of vineyards, promotion, investment 
and  innovation,  by-product  distillation),  regulatory  measures  (protected 

97 

 
 
designation  of  origin  and  protected  geographical  indication)  and  cross-
compliance with CAP rules that apply to all agricultural sectors.  

Figure 40: Intervention logic of the wine measures in the single Common 
Market Organisation, presenting objectives and expected results  

Source: Based on the Common Market Organisation Regulation. R refers to recitals of 
Regulation (EU) 1308/2013 

98 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
Figure 41: Intervention logic of the wine measures in the single Common 
Market Organisation linked to their expected results  

Source: Based on the Common Market Organisation Regulation. R refers to recitals of 
Regulation (EU) 1308/2013 

99 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 4: DETAILS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION 

This  part  describes  the  implementation  of  each  measure  in  the  national  support 
programmes  in  the  15  Member  States  concerned44.  It  is  based  on  the  information 
reported by Member States in their annual implementation reports.  

  Support for promotion and information45 (of EU PDO or PGI wines, in non-
EU  countries  to  improve  their  competitiveness,  and  in  the  EU  to  inform 
consumers  about  the  responsible  consumption  of  wine  and  about  the  EU 
systems covering PDO and PGI)    

The  promotion  and  information  measures  have  been  included  in  all  the  national 
support  programmes  except  in  Czechia.  Over  2014-2018,  6 660  beneficiaries  were 
supported in carrying out more than 10 000 actions to promote their wines. More than 
85% of beneficiaries come from Spain, France and Italy.  

The  following  table  presents  the  outputs  of  the  measure,  distinguishing  between 
information  in  Member  States  and  promotion  in  non-EU  countries.  Lithuania  did  not 
implement  any  measure  over  the  evaluation  period  but  planned  to  implement  the 
promotion measure in 2019, with an estimated budget of EUR 45 000. 

Table 9: Number of beneficiaries and operations in support of promotion and 
information in the Member States, from 2014 to 2018 

MS  

Number of beneficiaries  

Number of operations  

Total 
beneficiaries  

Total 
operations  

Information  

Promotion   Information  

Promotion  

Bulgaria  

Germany  

Greece  

Spain  

France  

Croatia  

Italy  

Cyprus  

Hungary  

Austria  

Portugal  

Romania  

Slovenia  

Slovakia  

0 

17 

0 

0 

10 

0 

0 

3 

0 

26 

0 

2 

2 

0 

11 

79 

200 

2 934 

1 449 

23 

1 265 

0 

24 

128 

395 

16 

70 

6 

0 

28 

0 

0 

10 

0 

0 

3 

0 

120 

0 

3 

4 

0 

80 

294 

715 

3 648 

1 696 

33 

583 

0 

241 

630 

824 

27 

1 300 

18 

11 

96 

200 

2 934 

1 459 

23 

1 265 

3 

24 

154 

395 

18 

72 

6 

80 

322 

715 

3 648 

1 706 

33 

583 

3 

241 

750 

824 

30 

1 304 

18 

Total (14 MS)  

60 

6 600 

168 

10 089 

6 660 

10 257 

Source: DG Agriculture and Rural Development, monitoring data for the national support 
programmes. 

44 The national support programme in Lithuania only started in 2019. 
45 Art. 45 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013. 

100 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
  Restructuring and conversion46 (varietal  conversion,  relocation of vineyards, 
replanting following mandatory grubbing up for health or phytosanitary reasons, 
improvements to vineyard management techniques)  

This  measure  was  implemented  in  all  the  Member  States.  It  reached  close  to 
150 000 beneficiaries and covered around 364 000 hectares, i.e. around 11% of the total 
EU area under vines. Bulgaria, Romania and Slovenia allocated more than 90% of their 
budget  to  this  measure,  which  was  also  received  significant  attention  in  Czechia, 
Slovakia and Portugal. However, the highest expenditure was in Italy (EUR 730 million 
between  2014  and  2018,  representing  30%  of  total  expenditure),  France  (21%)  and 
Spain (16%).  

Between  2009  and  2017,  EU  expenditure  on  this  measure  ranged  between  EUR 
326 million  in  2009  and  close  to  EUR 600  million  in  2012  and  2013.  Since  2015,  the 
expenditure has stabilised at around EUR 500 million a year, half of the budget that is 
available through the national support programmes. 

Table 10: Number of beneficiaries and operations in support of restructuring and 
conversion in the Member States, from 2014 to 2018 

MS  

Number of 
beneficiaries  

Number of 
operations  

Total area 
covered (ha)  

Total EU 
expenditure 
( MEUR)  

Replanting 
(EUR/ha) 

Bulgaria  

Czechia  

Germany  

Greece  

Spain  

France  

Croatia  

Italy  

Cyprus  

Hungary  

Austria  

Portugal  

Romania  

Slovenia  

Slovakia  

672 

12 049 

8 019 

4 911 

40 435 

60 058 

21 

888 

581 

26 228 

7 328 

86 

121 873 

22 

37 580 

21 744 

2 015 

6 059 

4 176 

14 414 

1 499 

1 786 

168 

14 

11 455 

6 621 

14 939 

1 891 

2 445 

272 

13 561 

1 587 

8 429 

3 491 

105 229 

103 255 

302 

67 223 

1 227 

14 044 

3 896 

25 199 

14 227 

1 281 

1 294 

104 

21 

52 

45 

409 

538 

3 

750 

12 

122 

27 

268 

100 

23 

14 

5 388 

0 

193 862 

Total (15 MS)  
364 245 
Source: DG Agriculture and Rural Development, monitoring data for the national 
support programmes. 

216 387 

2 488 

5 388 

  Green  harvesting47  (total  destruction  or  removal  of  grape  bunches  while  still 

immature to reduce the yield to zero)  

In  the  2014-2018  programming  period,  this  measure  was  only  implemented  in  Italy,  to 
rebalance  the  wine  demand/supply  ratio.  However,  even  in  Italy  the  measure  was 

46 Art. 46 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013. 
47 Art. 47 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013. 

101 

 
 
                                                       
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
                                                 
employed marginally: this seems to relate to lower production levels in recent  years, as 
well as to a drop of interest in the measure. From 2014 to 2018, it represented a total of 
EUR 5 000 and concerned 1 380 hectares.  

  Mutual funds48
fluctuations) 

 (support for setting them up to insure producers against market 

This measure was not chosen in any Member State. Mutual funds are not successful in 
the CAP in general and this tool, which works as income insurance, is not well known. 
Besides,  it  needs  cash  flow  from  the  funders  and,  unfortunately  in  agriculture  (and  in 
every economy activity recently), liquidity is missing. In addition, some Member States, 
such  as  France,  chose  to  support  mutual  funds  through  rural  development  rather  than 
their national support programmes. 

  Harvest  insurance49  (support  to  safeguard  producers’  incomes  against  losses 
from natural disasters, adverse climatic events, diseases or pest infestations) 
This  measure  has  been  implemented  in  six  Member  States  (Germany,  Italy,  Czechia, 
Portugal,  Romania  and  Slovakia),  providing  insurance  support  for  more  than 
120 000 hectares.  Other  Member  States  implement  harvest  insurance  as  part  of  rural 
development (e.g. France) or through a national budget (e.g. Spain).  

Table 11: Number of beneficiaries and financed insurance policies in the Member 
States, from 2014 to 2018 

Source: DG Agriculture and Rural Development, monitoring data for the national support 
programmes 

 

Investments50  (support  for  tangible  or  intangible  investments  in  processing 
facilities and winery infrastructure, marketing structures and tools)  

This  measure  has  been  implemented  in  11  Member  States  for  close  to  27 000 
beneficiaries.  As  in  the  previous  programming  period,  Bulgaria,  Greece,  Portugal  and 
Slovenia chose not to support investment in enterprises for 2014-2018. France spent the 
most on investments (EUR 402 million from 2014 to 2017, representing 45% of its total 
expenditure). Italy and Spain also spent significant amounts on investments (representing 
24% and 19% respectively of their total expenditure). 

48 Art. 48 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013. 
49 Art. 49 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013. 
50 Art. 50 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013. 

102 

 
 
 
                                                 
Table 12: Number of beneficiaries and operations supported by the investment 
measure in the Member States, from 2014 to 2018 

MS 

Number of 
beneficiaries 

Number of 
operations 

Total EU 
(MEUR) 

Germany 

Spain 

France 

Croatia 

Italy 

Cyprus 

Hungary 

Austria 

Romania 

Slovakia 

1 755 

1 247 

832 

1 681 

13 442 

12 550 

121 

4 902 

86 

327 

177 

3 494 

10 

346 

4 176 

6 621 

23 

156 

24 

198 

73 

215 

502 

6 

274 

9 

13 

28 

2 

3 

26 622 

Total 
(11MS) 
Source: DG Agriculture and Rural Development, monitoring data for the national support 
programmes. 

26 399 

1 128 

  By-product distillation51 (support for the voluntary or obligatory distillation of 

by-products of wine making, in accordance with the legislation)  

In  contrast  to  the  former  distillation  scheme,  which  aimed  to  reduce  surpluses,  this 
measure  is  available  to  Member  States  that  want  to  ensure  the  quality  of  wine  by 
preventing the over-pressing of grapes, while also protecting the environment. It has been 
implemented  by  six  Member  States  (Spain,  France,  Italy,  Hungary,  Romania  and 
Portugal)  and  around  25  million  hectolitres  of  by-products  were  distilled  between  2014 
and 2018. 

Table 13: Number of beneficiaries of the by-product distillation measure and 
outputs of the measure in the Member States, from 2014 to 2018  

Source:  DG  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development,  monitoring  data  for  the  national 
support programmes, * Starting in 2016 in RO. 

51 Art. 52 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013. 

103 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 

Innovation52  (support  for  tangible  or  intangible  investments  to  develop  new 
products, processes and technologies for the wine categories in the legislation)  

This  measure  has  been  included  in  the  national  support  programmes  for  Spain  and 
Cyprus. Expenditure for 2014-2018 totalled EUR 130 000 and supported seven different 
operations. To set an example, as explained in the 2016 implementation report for Spain, 
the measure supported operations such as developing alternative methods to the use of 
SO2, techniques or treatments to control the evolution and stability of wine, methods for 
the production and preservation of wines with low alcohol content, etc. 

52 Art. 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.  

104 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 5: METHOD 

The following data sources were used for the evaluation: 

Data collection tools  

Databases and information on policy implementation  

The  grey  literature,  reports  and  indicators  available  at  EU  and  national  level  provided 
information on the implementation of the regulations. In particular:  

  Regarding 

the  national  support  programmes: 

the  2014-2018  programmes 
submitted  by  Member  States,  the  implementation  reports  and  the  financial  and 
technical data notified by the Member States on the national support programmes 
were  reviewed  to  provide  information  on  the  implementation  of  the  programmes 
since  2014.  The  national  support  programmes  technical  data  from  the  national 
support programmes was particularly useful in providing comparable information 
at EU level and was used, in particular, to answer evaluation questions 1 to 4 on 
the effectiveness of the national support programmes.    

  Regarding  the  authorisation  scheme  for  vine  plantings:  the  data  on  the  scheme’s 
implementation  by  Member  States  that  was  notified  at  EU  level  was  used  in 
evaluation question 11.  

Review and analysis of vineyard, wine and other databases  

Eurostat data (including the COMEXT and Newcronos databases) was given priority in 
provide contextual indicators.  It  was  complemented by indicators from other databases, 
such as COMTRADE, the World Bank, the USDA and the FAO. Databases focusing on 
vineyards and on the wine sector, such as the OIV and the vineyard register, provided key 
indicators on the structural changes in the wine sector since 2008.   

Farm Accounting Data Network  

A  dataset  from  the  FADN  was  analysed  to  identify  changes  in  the  cost  of  production, 
sales  prices,  value  of  assets,  and  income  of  growers.  The  analysis  focused  on  holdings 
specialised  in  vine  growing,  identified  in  the  FADN  classification  as  ‘Type  of  Farm 
n°35’, defined as a farm whose gross product from vine growing is above two thirds of 
the total standard output of the holding. The analysis was conducted on data for the 2009-
2016 period and focused on the Member States covered in the case studies. The FADN 
classification  of  farm  production  helped  to  identify  three  categories  of  growers 
represented in the sample and of interest for the evaluation:   

1.  Wine processors, processing their own production and wine, with less than 10% of 

purchased grapes;  

2.  Mixed growers, processing their own production and wine, with less than 10% of 

purchased grapes, and selling grapes;  

3.  Wine grape suppliers, exclusively selling wine grapes for processing wine.  

105 

 
 
 
 
Table 14: Distribution of specialised wine growers according to their 
activity in 2016  

Total number of specialised winegrowers 53  

Processing wine with more than 80% of purchased 
grapes  
Processing wine with >10% of purchased grapes  
Processing wine with <10% of purchased grapes  

Of which also selling wine grapes  

DE   ES   FR   HU   IT   PT    RO  
1097   64  
488  
None   None   None   4  

112  
1252   237  
None   None   None  

649  

None   3  
30  
335  
12  
179  
ES  
DE  

None   8  
1034   19  
13  
84  
HU  
FR  

None   None   3  
1  
83  
314  
1  
40  
108  
RO  
PT   
IT  

905  

151  

99  

Exclusively selling wine grapes for processing wine  

40  
Source: FADN data, processed by Agrosynergie.  

149  

602  

42  

The  analysis  was  also  performed  at  regional  level,  when  satisfactory  samples  were 
available.  

Table 15: Processed samples in the case study regions, per type of wine 
grower  

Wine processors   Mixed wine growers   Wine grape suppliers  

IT-Sicily  

IT-Veneto  

DE-Rheinland-Pfalz  

FR-Languedoc-Roussillon  

FR-Bourgogne  

ES-La Rioja  

ES-Castilla la Mancha  

X  

X  

X  

X  

X  

X  

X  

Source: FADN data, processed by Agrosynergie.  

X  

X  

X  

X  

The  FADN  indicators  did  not  help  to  identify  beneficiaries  and  non-beneficiaries  of 
support under the national support programmes. Hence, the analysis investigated changes 
in  the  indicators  for  the  whole  sample,  without  using  a  counterfactual.  Details  of  the 
indicators and the methods of analysis are available in the annex.  

Case studies  

In order to gather detailed and context-specific qualitative and quantitative information to 
complement  the  EU-wide  information  that  was  collected,  and  to  understand  the 
implementation choices and the effects of the regulations in the Member States, 10 case 
studies were carried out at national and regional level.   

The  Member  States  and  regions  covered  by  the  case  studies  were  selected  to  form  a 
representative  sample  of  the  situation  in  the  EU  (particularly  regarding  biogeographic 
conditions,  the  characteristics  of  the  sector  and  the  implementation  of  EU  regulations). 
The  selection  procedure  for  the  case  studies  is  available  in  Annex  2.  The  table  below 

53

 The total number of specialised wine growers is not the sum of the displayed category: some other types 

of growers that were of less interest for the purposes of the evaluation, do not appear in the table.  

106 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
                                                 
summarises  the  characteristics  of  the  10  Member  States  covered  in  the  case  studies, 
according to the criteria used in the selection.   

Table 16: Summary table of the selected case study regions according to 
indicators  

MS  

CAP implementation 
choices  

% area under 
vines in UAA  

Share in the  
EU area under 
vines  

Type of 
regions  

Share of  
PDO/PGI  

Total Exports 
in 2016  

Programmed 
budget  

(MEUR) / 
Execution rate 
(2017)  

DE – 
Rheinland  
Pfalz  

ES – Castilla 
la Mancha  

Spain – La 
Rioja  

France – 
Languedoc 
Roussillon  

France-  
Bourgogne  

Italy –  
Veneto  

Issue of abandonment of 
areas  under  vines.  Area 
available 
new 
plantings < 1%  

for 

Most  supported  region 
for restructuring measure 
and  
important region for 
distillation  

Restructuring  measure 
used  for  100%  of  quality 
wine  

54%  of  total  support 
from  National  support 
programmes  and 
top 
region  for  restructuring 
measure 
terms  of 
in 
budget allocation  

Region  with  the  largest 
investment 
number  of 
measure 
beneficiaries 
for enterprises  
2nd largest user region of 
EAGGF resources  

7.1%  

1.5%  

A  

100.0%  

DE: 43.9%  

DE: 38.9 / 85%  

10.3%  

13.5%  

CIIIb  

46.2%  

ES: 61%  

210.3 / 96%  

18.7%  

1.4%  

CII  

100.0%  

23.9%  

7.4%  

CII/ CI  

32.5%  

FR:  
29.3%  

FR: 280.5 / 100%  

1.7%  

1.0%  

CI  

97.6%  

11.6%  

2.8%  

CII / CI  

92.0%  

Italy - Sicilia  

user  

Top  
resources  

region  

of  

EAGGF  
6.5%  

2.9%  

CIIIb  

73.0%  

Hungary  

Portugal – 
Norte   

Focus  
conversion  

on  

restructuring  

1.2%  

&  

2.0%  

CI  

97%  

12.7%  

2.6%  

CII / CI  

76.4%  

the  most 
Douro 
is 
for 
supported 
region 
the 
restructuring,  and 
case of  

Verde 

Vinho 
is 
remarkable  in  terms  of 
market.   

IT: 41.3%  

336.9 / 96%  

26.3%  

29.1 / 100%  

PT:  
41.7%  

PT: 65.2 / 100%  

Romania  

Focus  
conversion  

on  

restructuring  

1.3%  

&  

5.7%  

28.8%  

3.4%  

47.7 / 24%  

Source: Eurostat database, national support programmes and OIV database.  

Information  was  collected  through  in-depth  semi-structured  interviews  and  by  sourcing 
and analysing national and regional statistics, literature and other data sources. The case 
study reports are available as annexes to this report.  

Interviews  

In-depth semi-structured interviews were carried out, based on common interview guides, 
covering  all  the  topics  of  the  evaluation  questions  to  help  identify  qualitative  aspects 
useful for understanding the context and for formulating the evaluation judgements. For 
details on the interviewed stakeholders, see Annex 2. 

Questionnaire to Member States’ administrations  

107 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
A  questionnaire  was  used  to  collect  specific  quantitative  data,  to  analyse  the  efficiency 
with  which  the  evaluated  regulations  were  implemented.  The  questions  focused  on  the 
workload  and  indirect  costs  related  to  the  implementation  of  the  national  support 
programmes and the system of controls and checks, distinguishing in particular the Full 
Time Equivalent (FTE) dedicated to each activity, at national and regional level.   

The questionnaire was sent by email to the national public authorities of all the Member 
States  covered  by  the  case  studies.  Answers  were  collected  from  five  Member  States 
(Germany, Hungary, Italy, Portugal, Romania).  

Internet research on the wine offerings of online retailers  

Internet research was carried out to review the assortments of wine products offered by 
online retailers and to check the positioning of EU wines and their competitors, on each 
product segment54. The internet research included the online shops of 16 retailers, either 
wine specialists or large national or international food retail chains, from:    

- four wine-producing Member States (Italy, Spain, France and Portugal); 

-  five  Member  States  that  consume  a  high  share  of  non-national  wines  (Germany, 
Denmark, the UK, Sweden and Belgium); 

- three significant non-EU markets for EU wine products (the United States, Canada and 
China). 

The  wine  offering  was  classified  according  to  10  criteria,  including  the  type  of  wine 
indicators 
(red/rosé/white), 
(PDO/PGI), the variety, the region/area of production, etc.   

information  on  designated  origin  and  geographical 

The  information  collected  through  the  internet  research  was  mainly  used  in  evaluation 
question  1.2  to  analyse  the  type  of  wine  products  offered  by  retailers  and  the  extent  to 
which  EU  products  correspond  to  their  offering.  The  positioning  of  EU products  in  the 
global  offering  of  retailers/wine  specialists  was  also  examined  and  compared  with  the 
results of the previous evaluation to identify the evolution of the shares of EU products. 
An analysis of websites  in  non-EU  countries  complemented the  findings in  response to 
evaluation question 3.  

Monographs of EU wine producers  

Monographs  of  significant  wine  operators  at  regional  level  were  drawn  up  within  the 
framework  of  the  case  studies.  The  selected  companies  answered  specific  questions  on 
the actions they had undertaken with support from the measures in the national support 
programmes, to provide practical examples of the national support programmes measures 
used by the industrial sector and the results achieved.   

Seventeen  independent  producers  and  cooperatives  were  selected  (from  one  to  four  per 
case study). The information gathered was used to analyse the competitiveness factors of 
wine producers and the investments they made to adapt to demand and the development 
of  their  product  range  (evaluation  question  1.2).  The  monographs  helped  to  collect  the 
information  necessary  to  assess  the  spill-over  effects  of  the  promotion  measure  on 

54  The  product  segments  were  determined  on  the  basis  of  the  wine  offering  analysed,  considering  the 
differences in quality, prices, types of products, etc.  

108 

 
 
                                                 
strengthening  the  reputation  of  EU  wines,  recovering  new  markets  and  winning  new 
ones, in the analysis supporting the answer to evaluation question 3.  

Consumer survey (see Annex 2)  

A survey assessed the increase in consumers’ awareness about responsible consumption 
of wine and about the EU system covering PDO/PGI, as well as consumers’ satisfaction 
in terms of the safety and quality of wine products.   

The survey was conducted by the French Institute of Public Opinion (IFOP), in a sample 
of four Member States chosen to reflect the variety of consuming Member States. Large 
wine  producer  Member  States  and  net  wine  importer  Member  States  were  chosen 
(France,  Spain,  Germany  and  the  UK),  with  a  distribution  described  in  the  following 
table.  

Table 17: Number of wine consumers answering the survey  

Large wine producer Member States  

Net wine importer Member States  

Spain  

560  

France  

506  

UK  

512  

Germany  

527  

The survey included three parts:   

- 

consumer profile and consumption habits;  

consumers’  satisfaction  with  the  rules  on  labelling  under  Regulation  1308/2013 

- 
and oenological practices;  

- 

knowledge about the PDO/PGI quality scheme.  

The full statistical analysis of this survey is available in Annex 2 to this report.   

Quality assessment 

The  Interservice Steering Group  (ISG) for the external  evaluation  carried out  a  quality 
assessment  of  the  external  evaluation  support  study  of  the  contractor  of  this 
evaluation, in particular the quality of the methodology, the reliability of the data and the 
robustness of the analysis and findings.  

It judged that the report could be approved as it complied fully with the conditions of the 
contract and relevant professional evaluation standards. 

109 

 
 
 
ANNEX 6: REFERENCES   

Académie des sciences (1956), Compte rendu de la séance du 19 mars 1956.  

Agrosynergie (2011), Evaluation of CAP measures applied to the sugar sector.  

Agrosynergie (2018), Evaluation of the impact of the CAP measures towards the general 
objective ‘viable food production’.  

Allaire, G. (2011), Petits agriculteurs et marchés locaux dans le contexte de la politique 
agricole commune. European Parliament.  

Anderson, K. (2018), Asia and other emerging regions, Cambridge.  

Approval  report  -  Application  A119  -  Addition  of  water  to  facilitate  wine  fermentation 
(2016), Food Standards Australia New Zealand.  

Arche  Noah  (2017),  Forbidden  fruits:  the  fabulous  destiny  of  Noah,  Othello,  Isabelle, 
Jacquez, Clinton and Herbemont, Brussels and Vienna. 

Aurand,  J.-M.  (2018),  Secteur  vitivinicole:  un  marché  mondialisé,  des  consommateurs 
exigeants.  

Belletti, G., Marescotti, A. and Touzard, J.-M. (2015), Geographical indications, Public 
goods and sustainable development: The roles of actors' strategies and public policies.  

BEUC (2018), Position on alcohol industry self-regulatory proposal.  

CEEV (2018), About the EU wine sector. Available at: http://www.ceev.eu/about-the-eu-
wine-sector (Accessed: 15/01/2018 2018).  

Charles, P. (2013), How to make it in the wine business, Available at: MarketWatch.  

COGEA (2012), Évaluation des mesures appliquées au secteur vinicole dans le cadre de 
la Politique Agricole Commune.  

COPA-COGECA  (2007),  Wine  Common  Market  Organisation  reform:  Analysis  and 
proposals.  

Delord,  B.,  Montaigne,  E.  and  Coelho,  A.  (2015),  ‘Vine  planting  rights,  farm  size  and 
economic performance: Do economies of scale matter in the French viticulture sector?’, 
Wine economics and policy, pp. 22-34.  

DGCCRF, L. d. l. (2001), Dosage des Glycols dans le vin.  

Dwyer,  J.,  Ilbery,  B.,  Kubinakova,  K.  and  Buckwell,  A.  (2012),  How  to  improve  the 
sustainable  competitiveness  and  innovation  of  the  EU  agricultural  sector:  Agriculture 
and  rural  development,  Directorate-General  for  internal  policies,  policy  department  B,       
structural and cohesion policies.  

EC (2006), Towards a sustainable European wine sector: European Commission.  

EC  (2017),  Exchange  of  views  on  the  WINE  market,  2016  Comext  Wine  Trade  results: 
European Commission.  

Eurocare (2018), What's in this drink? Eurocare's position on ingredients and nutritional 
information.  

110 

 
 
  
FranceAgriMer (2016), Vins commercie exterieur Bilan 2015.  

FranceAgriMer (2017), Les chiffres de la filière viti-vinicole 2006/2016.  

FranceAgrimer  (2018),  Les  synthèses  de  FranceAgriMer  2018  -  Filière  VIN, 
Observatoire économique mondial des vins rosés.  

FranceAgriMer and CNIV (2016), Analyse des filières vitivinicoles des principaux pays 
producteurs dans le monde - Analyse comparée des filières.  

Françot,  P.  and  Geoffroy,  P.  (1956),  Le  méthanol  dans  les  jus  de  fruits,  les  boissons 
fermentées, les alcools et les spiritueux.  

Gnekow and Ough (1975), Methanol in wine and musts: source and amounts.  

Hannin, H., Codron, J.-M. and Thoyer, S. (January 2006), Agriculture Standards.  

ISMEA  (2017),  The  states  of  European  GI  wines  sector:  a  comparative  analysis  of 
performance.  

Jackson, R. S. (2017), Wine Tasting: A Professional Handbook: Academic Press, pp. 430.  

Joint  self-regulatory  proposal  from  the  European  alcoholic  beverages  sectors  on  the 
provision  of  nutrition  and  ingredients  listing  (guiding  principles)  (2018),  AICV,  CEVI, 
CEEV, The Brewers of Europe, Copa Cogeca, EFOW, SpiritsEurope.  

Menghini,  S.  (2015),  ‘The  new  market  challenges  and  the  strategies  of  the  wine 
companies’, Wine Economics and Policy, 4(2), pp. 75-77.  

Montaigne, E. and Coelho, A. (2006), Réforme de l’organisation commune du marché du 
vin: Parlement Européen.  

Montaigne,  E.  and  Coelho,  A.  (2012),  ‘Structure  of  the  producing  side  of  the  wine 
industry: Firm typologies, networks of firms and clusters’,  Wine Economics and Policy, 
1(1), pp. 41-53.  

Moreno-Arribas, M. V. and Sualdea, B. B. (2016), Wine safety, consumption and human 
health. Springer.  

OIV (2002), Resolution Viti 1/2002.  

OIV (2012), POINT DE CONJONCTURE VITIVINICOLE MONDIALE 2012.  

OIV (2013a.), International list of vine varieties and their synonyms.  

OIV ‘World Vitiviniculture situation in 2012’, 36th World Congress of Vine and Wine.  

OIV (2017a.), Distribution of the word’s grapevine varieties.  

OIV (2018), State of the vitiviniculture world market.  

OIV, ‘State of World Vitiviniculture’, 37th World Congress of Vine and Wine.  

OIV (2017b.), Global economic vitiviniculture data.  

Pomarici, E. (2016), ‘Recent trends in the international wine market and arising research 
questions’, Wine economics and policy, pp. 1-3.  

Porter, M. (1990), The competitive advantages of nations. The Free Press.  

PYMNTS (2016), Millennials vs Baby Boomers: Raise a glass to purchasing preferences.  

111 

 
 
Rastoin,  J.-L.,  Montaigne,  E.  and  Coelho,  A.  M.  (2006),  ‘Globalisation  du  marché 
international du vin et restructuration de l’offre’, INRA Sciences sociales, 5-6.  

Renault, C., Chever, T., Romieu, V., Henri,  L. and Cogoluenhes,  C. (2017),  Le marché 
alimentaire  bio  en  2016:  Estimation  de  la  consommation  des  ménages  en  produits 
alimentaires biologiques: AND International, available at:  
http://www.agencebio.org/sites/default/files/upload/documents/4_Chiffres/Etudes/Le%20
marche%2 0bio%202016%20-%20Agence%20BIO.pdf 

Reynolds, A. G. (2010) 'Managing wine quality: 

Viticulture and wine quality': Woodhead Publishing, pp. 624.  

UFC-Que-Choisir (2017), Grands crus de Bordeaux. Les pesticides toujours là mais...  

USDA (2015), Wine Annual Report and Statistics.  

USDA (2016), UK Wine Market report 2016.  

USDA (2017), Overview of the German wine sector.  

Vecchio,  R.,  Decordi,  G.,  Grésillon,  L.,  Gugenberger,  C.,  Mahéo,  M.  and  Jourjon,  F. 
(2017),  ‘European  consumers’  perception  of  moderate  wine  consumption  on  health’, 
Wine economics and policy: Vol. 6, pp. 14-22.  

Wang,  N.  (2017),  ‘Europe’s  wine  consumption  falls  while  Asia’s  surges’,  The  drinks 
business.  

Welke,  J.  E.,  Manfroi,  V.,  Zanus,  M.,  Lazzarotto,  M.,  Cláudia  and  Zini,  A.  (2013), 
Differentiation  of  wines  according  to  grape  variety  using  multivariate  analysis  of 
comprehensive 
time-of-flight  mass-
spectrometric detection data.  

two-dimensional  gas  chromatography  with 

WineAustralia (2016), UK Europe Export Report Review.  

Zamparotti, T., Hernandez, G. and Bolt, K. (2012), Assessment of the added value of the 
EU strategy to support Member States in reducing alcohol-related harm: COWI for the 
European Commission. 

112