COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Wine Package Accompanying the document Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Regulations (EU) No 1308/2013, (EU) 2021/2115 and (EU) No 251/2014 as regards certain market rules and sectoral support measures in the wine sector and for aromatised wine products
Date: 2025-07-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: aid to agriculture, consumer information, designation of origin, flavoured wine, labelling, non-alcoholic beverage, plantation, support policy, vineyard, viticulture

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 28.7.2025  SWD(2025) 237 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Wine Package                                                                 Accompanying the document Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Regulations (EU) No 1308/2013, (EU) 2021/2115 and (EU) No 251/2014 as regards certain market rules and sectoral support measures in the wine sector and for aromatised wine products     {COM(2025) 137 final}  
 
 
CONTENTS 

Table of Contents 
1.  ECONOMICAL, POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT.......................................... 4 

1.1  The difficulties facing the EU wine sector ..................................................................... 4 

1.2  Regulatory measures adopted since 2020 to address  the challenges facing the wine sector

6 

1.3  A High-Level Group on Wine Policy.............................................................................. 7 

2.  CONSULTATION STRATEGY AND EVIDENCE GATHERING ............................ 8 

3.  OPTIONS FOR ADDRESSING THE POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS AND CHOICE OF 
INSTRUMENTS ..................................................................................................................... 9 

4.  DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTIONS TAKEN .............................................................11 

4.1  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/340 ...............................................11 

4.2  The ‘Wine Package’ Regulation ....................................................................................11 

4.2.1 CMO Regulation ..................................................................................................... 12 

4.2.2. AWP Regulation ..................................................................................................... 16 

4.2.3 Strategic Plans Regulation ..................................................................................... 17 

5.  LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE ‘WINE PACKAGE’ .................................................... 18 

5.1  Economic impacts .......................................................................................................... 18 

5.2  Social impacts ................................................................................................................. 23 

5.3  Environmental impacts ................................................................................................. 24 

5.4  Contribution to simplification and burden reduction ................................................ 25 

ANNEXES ............................................................................................................................. 26 

Annex 1: Regulatory measures taken to address the specific problems of the EU wine sector 
since 2020 ......................................................................................................................... 26 
Annex 2. Overview of the issues raised by the participants in the High-Level Group on Wine 
Policy ................................................................................................................................ 33 
Annex 3. Reflection Document for the Second Meeting of the High-Level Group on Wine 
Policy ................................................................................................................................ 45 
Annex 4. Policy Recommendations of the High-Level Group for Wine – Timeframe for 
implementation ................................................................................................................. 56 
Annex 5. The High-Level Group Recommendations in the ‘Wine Package’ .................. 66 
Annex 6. Impact analysis: who is affected and how? ....................................................... 68 
Annex 7. Summary of the meetings of the high-level group ............................................ 74 

1 

 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

AREV 

AWP 

Assembly of European Wine Regions 

Aromatised wine products  

AWP Regulation 

Aromatised Wine Products Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 251/2014) 

CAP 

CAP Plan 

CEJA 

CEEV 

CEVI 

COGECA 

CMO 

Common agricultural policy 

CAP strategic plan 

European Council of Young Farmers 

European Committee of Wine Companies 

European Confederation of Independent Winegrowers 

European agri-cooperatives 

Common Market Organisation 

CMO Committee 

Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets – Subgroup Wine 

CMO Regulation 

Common Market Organisation Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013) 

COM 

European Commission 

COM AGRI 

Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development of the European Parliament 

COPA 

European farmers 

CSP Regulation 

CAP Strategic Plan Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2021/2115) 

DA 

DG AGRI 

GI 

GREX 

HLG 

Recommendations 

Commission Delegated Regulation 

Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development 

Geographical indication 
Expert Group for Agricultural Markets, in particular concerning aspects falling under 
the CMO Regulation - Subgroup Wine 
High-Level Group on Wine Policy 
Policy Recommendations for the Future of the EU Wine Sector: 
https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/document/download/f9ee9420-2b95-4788-8dc2-
faa3cfb8171a_en?filename=policy-recommendations-wine-sector-hlg_en.pdf  

EFOW 

EGTOP 
IA 
IFOAM 
IOSS 
MFF 
MS 
NSP 

PG 

PO 

PPP 

Simplification 
Regulation 
SME 
UTP 

Wine Package 

European Federation of Origin Wines 

Expert Group for Technical Advice on Organic Production 
Commission Implementing Regulation 
European umbrella organisation for organic food and farming 
Import One Stop Shop 
Multiannual financial framework 
EU Member States 
National strategic plan 

Producer group 

Producer organisation 

Plant protection product 

Regulation (EU) 2024/1468 amending the CSP Regulation and the Horizontal 
Regulation based on the Commission proposal of 15 March 2024 
Small and medium-sized enterprise 
Unfair trading practices 
The wine-specific recommendations of the HLG contained in the Commission 
legislative proposal of 28 March 2025 to amend the CMO Regulation, the AWP 
Regulation and the CSP Regulation 

2 

 
 
INTRODUCTION 

The EU wine sector was hit by a number of crises in 2020, and again in 2023. These included tariff 
duties applied by the US, the Covid-19 pandemic and Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine. 
The cumulative effect of these crises resulted in oversupply and an accumulation of wine stocks in 
many EU regions. This led the Commission (COM) to adopt several exceptional market measures, 
including crisis distillation ahead of the harvest to ease the market situation in the most affected 
regions and free winegrowers’ storage capacity for the upcoming new harvest. Some major wine 
production regions subsequently requested structural adjustments to production capacity in view 
of decreasing demand. 

In  April  2024,  a  coalition  of  stakeholder  organisations  sent  a  joint  letter  to  EU  Agriculture 
Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski1, urging a strategic reassessment of the EU wine sector. They 
highlighted the growing number of social, economic and climate-related challenges in recent years, 
which increasingly threaten the long-term sustainability of both wine producers and the sector as 
a  whole.  This  letter  also  underlined  the  decline  in  wine  consumption  in  the  EU,  and  signs  of 
stagnation  and  falling  market  share  in  non-EU  markets,  especially  in  certain  market  segments. 
Against that background, the coalition of stakeholder organisations called for a High-Level Group 
to be set up to reflect strategically on the future of European viticulture and wine, and identify the 
medium and long-term policies needed to maintain and develop this key sector. 

In  response  to  this  request  from  the  European  wine  sector,  Commissioner  Wojciechowski 
announced  at  the Agriculture and Fisheries Council meeting of 27 May 2024 that a  High-Level 
Group on Wine Policy (HLG) was being set up2. 

The HLG met four times, on 11 September 2024, 14 October 2024 and 15 November 2024 and 
concluded with the endorsement of Policy Recommendations for the Future of the EU Wine Sector3 
on 16 December. 

The wine sector originally requested that a HLG to develop a coherent and comprehensive strategy 
for the future of viticulture and wine in Europe to eventually be included in the next CAP. However, 
in view of the volatile international situation and extremely unfavourable climatic conditions in 
2024 in certain regions, which exacerbated the sector’s difficulties, producers, stakeholders and 
Member  States  (MS)  requested  that  the  Policy  Recommendations  be  implemented  as  soon  as 
possible. 

EU Commissioner for Agriculture and Food Christophe Hansen decided to implement the most 
urgent,  wine-specific  recommendations  of  the  HLG  as  soon  as  possible  through  a  standalone 
legislative proposal for this sector. 

On 28 March 2025, the COM proposed4 a package of targeted changes to the underlying CAP basic 
legislation  (the  Common  Market  Organisation  Regulation5,  the  Aromatised  Wine  Products 

1 ARES(2024)2649748. 
2 https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/media/news/commission-launches-high-level-group-eu-wine-sector-2024-07-08_en  
3 https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/document/download/f9ee9420-2b95-4788-8dc2-faa3cfb8171a_en?filename=policy-
recommendations-wine-sector-hlg_en.pdf. 
4 COM(2025) 137 final. 
5 Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a 
common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) 
No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007, OJ L347, 20.12.2013, p. 671 (CMO Regulation). 

3 

 
 
 
Regulation6  and  the  CAP  Strategic  Plan  Regulation7)  to  implement  these  wine-specific 
recommendations. The measures proposed in the ‘Wine Package’ will be supplemented by changes 
to some of the detailed rules of the CAP set out in secondary legislation. 

This document outlines the key challenges that the proposed measures aim to address, the process 
and  consultation  activities  that  fed  into  the  adoption  of  the  measures,  the  different  measures 
considered, and their likely impact. 

1.  ECONOMICAL, POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT 

1.1 The difficulties facing the EU wine sector 

The  aim  of  the  EU  wine  market  observatory  is  to  provide  the  EU  wine  sector  with  more 
transparency by disseminating market  data  and short-term  analysis in  a timely manner. In June 
2024, it issued a document entitled ‘Prospects of the EU wine sector’8. 

This  report  stresses  the  wine  sector’s  importance  for  the  EU’s  economy  and  society,  given  its 
estimated contribution to EU GDP (EUR 130 billion, or 0.8%) and job creation (2.9 million jobs, 
or 1.4% of EU employment) and its pivotal role in sustaining the vitality of rural areas and their 
unique landscapes and rich cultural heritage. 

Following  the  wine  reform  of  20089,  the  EU  wine  sector  shifted  to  higher  quality  and 
competitiveness,  a  development  encouraged  and  accompanied  by  EU  policies  on  geographic 
indications  (GIs)  and  national  support  programmes  designed  to  increase  competitiveness  and 
market orientation. This was reflected in the ever-increasing value of production and exports. Wine 
now accounts for the highest number and economic value of GIs among food products. More than 
two thirds of EU wine production was protected under a GI in 2023. Capitalising on, until recently, 
growing  global  demand  for  quality  wines,  the  export  value  of  EU  wines  has  continued  to  rise, 
making wine the third most valuable agri-food product exported. 

However, the success story of EU wines  may come to an end if no action is taken to adapt the 
sector to the challenges it currently faces. 

The  increased  import  duties  of  25%  ad  valorem,  which  the  USA  imposed  in  October  2019  on, 
among others, still wines exported by Germany, Spain, France and the United Kingdom has already 
had a detrimental effect on all EU wine, not only on still wines originating from the four MS that 
were subject to increased import duties. The USA is traditionally the EU’s largest export market 
for wine, both in terms of value and volume of exports. The reputation and trade of all EU wines 
sold on the US market were adversely impacted by the increase in duty, especially the lower to 

6 Regulation (EU) No 251/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the definition, 
description, presentation, labelling and the protection of geographical indications of aromatised wine products and 
repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1601/91, OJ L 84, 20.3.2014, p.14 (AWP Regulation). 
7 Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 December 2021 establishing rules on 
support for strategic plans to be drawn up by Member States under the common agricultural policy (CAP Strategic Plans) 
and  financed  by  the  European Agricultural  Guarantee  Fund  (EAGF)  and  by  the  European Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural 
Development (EAFRD) and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1305/2013 and (EU) No 1307/2013, OJ L 435, 6.12.2021, p. 
1 (CSP Regulation). 
8 https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/document/download/83588b14-0c75-43a4-b8ab-c5718bee6b01_en?filename=future-
prospects-of-the-eu-wine-sector-june-2024.pdf. 
9 Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 of 29 April 2008 on the common organisation of the market in wine, amending 
Regulations (EC) No 1493/1999, (EC) No 1782/2003, (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 3/2008 and repealing Regulations 
(EEC) No 2392/86 and (EC) No 1493/1999 (OJ L 148, 6.6.2008, p. 1). 

4 

 
 
 
mid-range priced wines, which, in absolute terms, are impacted more by a 25% import duty than 
more expensive wines purchased by connoisseurs, for whom a price increase does not operate as a 
deterrent. Furthermore, EU wines increasingly compete on the US market with wines from other 
origins, such as South America, Australia or South Africa. 

The increase in import duties, which coincided with a period of high stocks due to good harvests, 
sent shockwaves through the EU wine sector. While some US importers increased their orders to 
build stocks before the duty came into effect, there was a shortfall in sales to the USA, accompanied 
by pressure on prices, with US importers asking exporters to shoulder some of the burden in order 
to avoid passing on price increases to the US market, which would make most EU wines rather 
uncompetitive compared to wines from the US, South America or Australia. 

TABLE 1: EU wine exports to the US (Source: COMEXT) 

However,  building  a  good  reputation  on  non-EU  markets  requires  heavy  investment  in  market 
research to identify target markets and the promotion measures needed to introduce consumers in 
non-EU countries to EU wines. Therefore, when the EU’s best developed export market suddenly 
became less accessible, wine producers needed more support to gain access to or to consolidate 
their market position in other non-EU markets. MS had the option of making their wine support 
programmes more flexible to provide this much-needed support. While MS and wine producers 
welcomed the increased rate of EU support and added flexibility, gaining a permanent foothold in 
an  export  market  is  a  long-term  project,  which  is  why  the  sector  has  repeatedly  called  for  the 
maximum duration of the support for promotion to be extended to allow market consolidation. 

Just as the EU wine sector was struggling to find an outlet for the wine which could no longer be 
exported to the USA, the Covid pandemic hit Europe. The closure of hotels, bars and restaurants 
directly affected 30% of the volume, corresponding to 50% of the value, of the wine consumed in 
the EU. This mostly affected medium and higher price range wines, while lower priced wines sold 
in supermarkets were less impacted. The wines that would usually have been sold during this period 
remained unsold, with stocks putting pressure on prices and causing storage problems, especially 
for smaller producers. This shortfall was not compensated by the consumption of wine at home, 
especially as this wine was mostly from the lower price segment widely available in supermarkets, 
which remained open during the pandemic, while the wine sold in bars and restaurants tends to be 
in the mid-range price segment. 

Due  to  the  economic  uncertainties  and  cost-of-living  crisis  that  followed,  consumers  remained 
careful and demand for wine, which is still considered a luxury product, only partially recovered. 

5 

 
 
 
It did not quickly return to pre-Covid levels, as operators had hoped. Geopolitical tensions, such 
as Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and possible further US retaliatory tariffs put further 
pressure on demand and sent worrying signals to the sector, which started to question its future 
prosperity. 

These events exposed certain long-term structural trends in domestic wine consumption in the EU, 
which had until then remained hidden and been compensated for by positive demand from non-EU 
countries. Although EU consumption shrank by 1.2% per year over the last decade, this shortfall 
was easily absorbed by increased exports, until EU exports started declining in 2021, affecting still 
wines of all colours, red in particular, with a drop of about 12% in total volume between December 
2021 and December 2023. 

TABLE 2: EU wine consumption (Source: Wine short-term outlook) 

Some  underlying  reasons  for  the  structural  change  in  demand  for  wine  worldwide  are  younger 
generations’ preference for other alcoholic or alcohol-free beverages and a shift in demand away 
from traditional red wines towards lighter white still and sparkling wines, a development that is 
also linked to changing eating habits. 

In  addition  to  falling  demand,  the  climate  change  acceleration  has  put  additional  strain  on  the 
sector, with more frequent and often localised severe weather events leading to huge production 
losses, which can be catastrophic for producers, most of whom are small enterprises. Overall, wine 
production has become less predictable at EU, MS and even regional level, with huge interannual 
fluctuations that make it increasingly difficult to manage stocks and prices. 

1.2 Regulatory measures adopted since 2020 to address the challenges facing the wine 

sector 

In view of the difficult situation the EU wine sector has been facing since early 2020, the COM 
has  adopted  multiple  emergency  measures  in  response  to  specific  problems  the  sector  has 
encountered in many MS. The list of all Regulations adopted, and a short summary of their content, 
can be found in Annex 1. 

EU policy measures adopted in recent years aimed to address the logistical problems linked to the 
pandemic, when movement restrictions made routine work in vineyards difficult, and planting new 
vineyards  virtually  impossible.  In  this  climate  of  economic  pressure  caused  by  high  stocks  of 

6 

 
 
 
unsold wine, increased production costs and uncertain demand, support rates for measures under 
the support programmes were temporarily increased to allow growers and producers to continue to 
access these measures, and MS were again given additional flexibilities to change their national 
programmes in order to offer those measures most in demand. 

To address the amount of unsold wine stocks, which were not only putting pressure on prices but 
also took up storage capacity, distillation and crisis storage were temporarily made available under 
the  national  programmes,  in  addition  to  the  green  harvesting  measure10,  with  the  aim  of  re-
balancing the market to help it recover quickly after the end of the pandemic. The duration of these 
measures was extended when the Covid pandemic and the resulting restrictions lasted longer than 
originally estimated. However, when the pandemic slowly came to an end in 2021, according to 
the findings of the wine market observatory, demand on the EU market did not bounce back to pre-
Covid levels as many had hoped. Instead of making up for lost opportunities to travel, visit bars 
and restaurants or have large gatherings with friends and family, consumers were careful with their 
spending in view of the economic difficulties and the cost-of-living crisis, which were also effects 
of the pandemic and the uncertain international situation. Wine, seen as a luxury product by many, 
was not a priority purchase for households. 

To  address  the  resulting  oversupply,  measures  to  limit  the  supply  were  taken  again  in  2023, 
especially  encouraging  green  harvesting  and  supporting  crisis  distillation  and  private  storage 
within the existing wine national support programmes. For the first time, crisis distillation was also 
in demand for quality wines with geographical indications. In addition, several MS were authorised 
to grant national payments for the distillation of surplus wine stocks. 

1.3 A High-Level Group on Wine Policy 

By 2023, it had become evident that there was no way back to the situation before 2019, when a 
slow decrease in demand for wine on the single market was overcompensated by increasing exports 
to  both  traditional  and  new  export  markets.  Not  only  were  exports  threatened  by  the  uncertain 
geopolitical situation, but wine demand had started to decrease worldwide since about 2017. 

TABLE 3: Evolution of world wine consumption 
(Source: OIV State of the World Vine and Wine Sector in 2024, https://www.oiv.int/sites/default/files/2025-04/OIV-
State_of_the_World_Vine-and-Wine-Sector-in-2024.pdf ) 

10 Green harvesting means the total destruction or removal of grape bunches while still in their immature stage, thereby 
reducing the yield of the relevant area to zero. Support for green harvesting may be granted as compensation in the form 
of a flat rate payment per hectare 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
Furthermore, a shift in demand away from still red wines towards lighter white and sparkling wines 
could  be  observed,  while  a  significant  part  of  the  population,  especially  among  the  younger 
generation, replaced wine with other alcoholic beverages or limited their alcohol intake. 

Against  this  background,  the  European  wine  sector  requested  a  strategic  reassessment  of  the 
situation of the sector and possible policy options to help it adapt to this new situation. 

There was also an emphasis on the emergency measures taken since 2020, some of which had been 
extended  several  times  due  to  their  effectiveness  in  addressing  the  problems  encountered, 
especially the oversupply of wine in certain market segments. 

However, there was criticism of the delays in the legislative processes, which led to uncertainty 
and stress for wine producers, who could not be sure if and when a measure would be applied. This 
led to requests for a toolbox of emergency measures available to MS,  which could be deployed 
quickly if there were market disturbances. 

In this context, the EU wine market observatory was asked to carry out an in-depth evaluation of 
the situation and its underlying causes. It published its findings in the document ‘Prospects of the 
EU  Wine  Sector’,  which  concluded  that  there  were  structural  factors  beyond  the  conjunctural 
accumulation of crisis situations that were jeopardising the future sustainability of the EU wine 
sector and all the rural areas, jobs and companies depending on it. On this basis, the sector needed 
specific instruments designed with a long-term perspective to help it address structural problems 
and conjunctural factors and safeguard a sustainable and prosperous future, including through tools 
to manage supply, redirect production to growing market segments and help producers adapt to 
climate change. 

2.  CONSULTATION STRATEGY AND EVIDENCE GATHERING 

In view of the challenges the EU wine sector has been facing, the COM set up a High-Level Group 
made up of high-level representatives of all MS. The Group discussed challenges and opportunities 
for the sector in the light of the prospective market developments, explored and evaluated possible 
solutions to the problems identified, and formulated strategic conclusions and recommendations 
for future policy developments. 

Nine  major  EU-level  organisations  representing  the  wine  sector  were  invited  to  present  their 
analysis of the situation and outline measures to address the problems identified during the first 
meeting  of  the  HLG  on  11  September  2024.  Representatives  of  the  European  Parliament’s 
Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and of the Council were invited to all meetings 
of the HLG as observers to keep the co-legislators fully informed of the work of the HLG. 

The  urgency  of  the  situation  meant  that  it  was  not  possible  to  conduct  the  more  usual,  wider 
consultation  process.  This  ad  hoc  consultation  process,  which  encompassed  anyway  all  the 
representative EU stakeholders of the sector, resulted in a wide range of suggestions that fed into 
the HLG’s reflections on the Policy Recommendations for the Future of the EU Wine Sector. 

•  Consulting stakeholder organisations provided insights that were widely welcomed by the 
HLG  members,  gave  direction  to  the  Group’s  discussions  and  were  reflected  in  the  Policy 
the  Policy 
Recommendations.  As  a 
Recommendations document and called for urgent action to implement the recommendations 
without delay. Stakeholders also stressed the need for a stable and consistent policy framework 

the  organisations  widely  endorsed 

result, 

8 

 
 
for the wine sector, due to the long-term nature of investments of vineyards and winemaking 
infrastructure. 

•  The interventions from MS were wide-ranging. Some cited practical challenges that could 
feasibly be addressed in the short term. Other responses were far-reaching and went beyond 
the issues specific to the wine sector, including managing production potential, adapting the 
sector to the structural decline in demand, and strengthening the sector’s resilience in view of 
changing markets. 

•  Similarly, during a meeting on 5 September 2025, the European Parliament’s Committee on 
Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  welcomed  the  setting  up  of  a  High-Level  Group  on 
Wine Policy to identify several priority areas of work to support the sector. 

The  HLG  met  four  times  between  September  and  December  2024.  The  four  meetings  were 
structured in order to achieve results quickly, and focused on producing recommendations based 
on the description and assessment of the challenges confronted by the wine sector in the EU, based 
on the assessment carried out by the EU wine market observatory and its evaluation by stakeholders 
and MS. The four meetings allowed a structured discussion starting from this assessment, which 
moved quickly to considering policy options and their potential benefits and effects, an in-depth 
discussion  of  the  options  and  their  relevance  at  EU  level,  and  a  final  phase  of  drafting  Policy 
Recommendation that were supported unanimously by all 27 MS. 

o  Meeting  1:  presentation  and  discussion  of  the  challenges  for  the  wine  sector  (11 

September 2024) 

o  Meeting 2: Expert discussion on the basis of the Commission’s Reflection Document 

(14 October 2024) 

o  Meeting 3: Discussion of the draft ‘Policy Recommendations (15 November 2024) 
o  Meeting 4: Endorsement of the Policy Recommendations (16 December 2024) 

A summary of the discussions at the four meetings of the HLG is provided in Annex 7. 

The Policy Recommendations from the HLG were the basis for the legislative proposal described 
in this document, the ‘Wine Package’. The reasons why some recommendations are addressed in 
this legislative package while others are not, are explained in the sections below. 

3.  OPTIONS FOR ADDRESSING THE POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS AND CHOICE 

OF INSTRUMENTS 

Prior to the HLG, the EU wine market observatory discussed the economic challenges for the sector 
at length, and then met with stakeholders in the Civil Dialogue Group. The outcome was reported 
to the HLG and fed into the discussion at the HLG meetings that progressed to identifying the main 
challenges  that  needed  to  be  addressed,  especially  at  the  first  meeting.  The  main  stakeholders 
participated in in-depth discussions to identify possible policy solutions to the challenges (Annex 
2). The HLG discussed policy options were discussed from different perspectives (such as viability, 
cost  efficiency  and  applicability  across  the  EU). This  process  allowed  the  policy  options  to  be 
narrowed down by the second meeting (Annex 3) and fine-tuned during the third meeting (see also 
Annex  7,  with  a  detailed  summary  of  discussions). At  the  HLG’s  final  meeting,  the  members 
decided on the policy options to be retained for the Policy Recommendations and which would be 
rejected  as  less  relevant,  less  cost-efficient,  or  not  having  the  support  of  all  MS.  The 
Recommendations clearly specified and set out the way forward, identifying the agreed best policy 
options to address the challenges faced by the sector. Those Recommendations and the preferred 

9 

 
 
policy  options  defined  therein  were  supported  by  all  MS,  both  producing  and  non-producing 
countries, and were seen to reflecting the needs of the wine sector, a highly heterogeneous sector 
with many specificities in each MS and producing region. 

The  HLG  Policy  Recommendations  were  presented  to  the  Special  Committee  on Agriculture 
(SCA)  of  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament’s  Committee  on  Agriculture  and  Rural 
Development  (COMAGRI)  on  13  January  2025,  where  they  gained  broad  support  from  MS 
delegates and MEPs. 

The  establishment  of  the  HLG  and  the  full  endorsement  of  the  Recommendations  raised 
expectations  among  stakeholders,  MS  and  MEPs  that  these  Recommendations  would  be 
implemented swiftly. During discussions, the members of the HLG already asked the COM to draw 
up a roadmap for implementation. 

The COM committed to assess the Recommendations and deliver a timeline to implement them as 
soon  as  possible.  When  the  HLG  had  finished  its  work,  the  COM  assessed  the  Policy 
Recommendations  and 
implement  each 
the  most  relevant  policy 
recommendation, from which the timeline was deduced (Annex 4). 

identified 

tools 

to 

Implementing most of the HLG’s Recommendations requires  amendments to certain provisions 
that are laid down in European Parliament and Council Regulations, primarily those affecting the 
Common Market Organisation Regulation (CMO), but also the Strategic Plan Regulation (SPR). 
Only one Recommendation could be fulfilled by changing secondary legislation (see Annex 4). 
Therefore,  MS  cannot  implement  the  Recommendations  unless  the  EU  legislation  is  amended 
accordingly. 

In  this  context,  the  options  considered  to  implement  the  Recommendations  through  legislative 
amendments included: 

a)  considering all the Policy Recommendations in the proposal for the CAP post-2027; 
b)  addressing  the  Policy  Recommendations in  the  ongoing  proposal  to  amend the CMO  to 
strengthen the position of producers in the food chain or in the upcoming simplification 
package, which was at that time expected to be adopted in spring 2025; 

c)  a specific legislative proposal for wine, addressing either all the Policy Recommendations 

or the most urgent ones. 

The key consideration in choosing one of the options was the fact that swift implementation of the 
Recommendations was paramount, given the unprecedented and urgent challenges facing the wine 
sector, which had led to the establishment of the HLG. Delaying implementation until the entry 
into force of the CAP post-2027 would have been too late, in view of the very negative trends and 
prospects. It also risked making the Recommendations inefficient and was likely to trigger strong 
dissatisfaction from stakeholders, MS and MEPs who heavily relied on and invested in the HLG. 

On  the  other  hand,  amending  the  ongoing  Commission  proposal  to  strengthen  the  position  of 
producers in the food chain would have risked disrupting and delaying the process adopting both 
the said proposal and the specific provisions for wine resulting from the HLG Recommendations. 
In addition, to be fully effective, certain Recommendations require CAP legislation other than the 
CMO to be modified, and this option would complicate the need to address most Recommendations 
at the same time to ensure they are efficient and promptly implemented. 

10 

 
 
In this context, the option of a specific legislative proposal seemed the only way to ensure that the 
HLG Recommendations were implemented quickly and effectively. Although certain cross-cutting 
and more complex Recommendations must still be considered in the context of the CAP post-2027 
to ensure consistency with other sectors, the most urgent Recommendations, as well as those that 
are simpler to implement and the more sector-specific ones that need to be implemented earlier in 
view  of  the  needs  of  the  sector  as  highlighted  by  the  HLG,  were  singled  out  to  be  part  of  a 
standalone ‘Wine Package’. 

In drawing up the ‘Wine Package’ in response to the HLG’s Policy Recommendations, the COM 
took into account: (i) the expectations of farmers and MS for efficient and effective measures to 
help them face the current crisis; (ii) the nature of the problems identified; and (iii) the need for 
legislative matters to concentrate on wine-specific issues which the European Parliament and the 
Council can swiftly agree on, so that the wine sector can already benefit as of 2026. 

4.  DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTIONS TAKEN 

4.1 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/34011 

The only measure that could be implemented through secondary legislation was the extension of 
the delay vine growers have between grubbing-up and requesting a replanting authorisation, which 
had already been achieved through Regulation (EU) 2025/340. 

At an early stage of the HLG’s discussions, all participants were in favour of extending the validity 
of replanting authorisations to give growers more time to consider which varieties to plant to better 
respond  to  market  trends  and  environmental  challenges.  While  the  validity  of  replanting 
authorisations is laid down in Article 62(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, the deadline for the 
submission of applications for authorisation for replanting is laid down in the first subparagraph of 
Article  9(1)  of  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2018/27412.  Therefore,  the  COM 
immediately  started  work  on  an  Implementing  Regulation  which  was  presented  to  the  CMO 
Committee  of  December  2024  and  voted  on  5  February  2025.  This  Regulation  extended  the 
deadline for applying for a replanting authorisation from the end of the second to the end of the 
fifth wine year following the one in which the grubbing-up took place. This would allow growers 
to carry out an in-depth analysis of which vine varieties are more resistant to drought and disease, 
or more adapted to changing consumer demand to improve their competitiveness, and to decide on 
the best  time to  replant vineyards after grubbing-up and eventually  decide whether to  enter the 
wine restructuring programme. 

4.2 The ‘Wine Package’ Regulation 

The COM immediately started drafting a proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and 
of the Council amending Regulations (EU) No 1308/2013, (EU) 2021/2115 and (EU) No 251/2014, 

11 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/340 of 19 February 2025 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 
2018/274 as regards the procedure for granting replanting authorisations for vineyards, ELI: 
http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2025/340/oj  
12 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/274 of 11 December 2017 laying down rules for the application of 
Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the scheme of authorisations 
for vine plantings, certification, the inward and outward register, compulsory declarations and notifications, and of 
Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the relevant checks, and 
repealing Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/561 (OJ L 58, 28.2.2018, p. 60, ELI: 
http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2018/274/oj). 

11 

 
 
 
on  the  basis  of  the  Recommendations  which  had  been  identified  to  be  addressed  in  the  ‘Wine 
Package’  (see Annex  5).  This  proposal  included  also  aromatised  wine  products,  which  are  an 
important outlet for wine. The proposal was adopted on 28 March 202513. 

4.2.1 CMO Regulation 

Measures to better manage production potential - vine planting authorisations 

Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural 
products lays down provisions for the scheme of authorisations for vine plantings, which will be 
amended by this proposal in line with the Policy Recommendations of the HLG on the management 
of  the  production  potential,  making  it  easier  for  MS  to  address  or  prevent  the  risk  of  surplus 
production capacity in certain areas and market segments. 

Vines of wine grape varieties may only be planted or replanted in the 13 EU MS participating in 
the vine planting authorisation scheme if an authorisation has been granted. Currently, the validity 
of new planting authorisations and replanting authorisations is three years from the date on which 
they were granted, unless the replanting takes place on the same parcel or parcels on which the 
grubbing up was undertaken. In that case the validity of the replanting authorisation is six years to 
allow the soil to recover and to reduce the disease pressure. As recommended by the HLG, it is 
proposed that the validity of all replanting authorisations is extended to eight years to allow vine 
growers to better plan their future production. 

There have been calls for the extension of the validity of new planting authorisations. However, 
the HLG agreed that their validity should not be extended (i) to avoid an accumulation of possible 
production potential, and  (ii) to  avoid  the  attribution of  new planting  authorisations  (which  are 
allocated to applicants free of charge) to growers who do not intend to use them in the near future 
rather than to growers who have spotted a market opportunity they want to exploit immediately. 
For the same reason, the administrative penalty for unused new planting authorisations remains, 
although  it  is  abolished  for  replanting  authorisations.  The  HLG  estimated  that  for  replanting 
authorisations, there is no risk of crowding-out or speculation. However, a vine grower who decides 
to reduce their vineyard area should not have to bear a financial penalty. 

In  line  with  the  HLG’s  policy  recommendation,  vine  growers  who  currently  hold  planting 
authorisations which they obtained when the future of the EU wine sector looked more promising 
than  it  does  today  (authorisations  granted  before  1  January  2025),  will  not  be  subject  to  an 
administrative penalty  if they inform  the competent  authorities before the date of expiry of the 
authorisation and at the latest by 31 December 2026 that they do not intend to make use of their 
authorisation. This measure gives growers who have doubts about the economic viability of their 
vineyards  an  incentive  to  scale  down  their  production  without  creating  an  additional  financial 
burden for them. 

As  the  HLG  requested,  MS  are  given  the  possibility  of  limiting  the  issuing  of  new  planting 
authorisations at regional level for specific areas with excess supply where national or EU measures 
aimed to reduce the supply (i.e. distillation, green harvesting or grubbing-up of vineyards) are or 
have been implemented, to avoid further increasing the production potential in these areas. 

13 Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending 
Regulations (EU) No 1308/2013, (EU) 2021/2115 and (EU) No 251/2014 as regards certain market rules and sectoral 
support measures in the wine sector and for aromatised wine products (COM/2025/137 final). 

12 

 
 
 
In cases where a MS decides to set regional limits for specific areas to avoid excessive growth of 
the production potential, the MS can require that the authorisations granted for the area covered by 
the regional limit are used in that area to avoid a total decline of the vineyard area in the region 
concerned. 

Currently,  MS  may  set  limits  for  the  granting  of  planting  authorisations  at  national  or  regional 
level, while ensuring the limitations imposed are above 0% to allow at least a modest increase in 
the vineyard area and not being overly restrictive in relation to the objectives pursued. Following 
the HLG’s Policy Recommendation, MS will have the flexibility to set regional limits for specific 
areas as low as 0%, with a view to adapting the production potential to market demand. 

Furthermore,  MS  will  have  the  possibility  to  set  conditions  for  replanting  authorisations  which 
ensure that they are used in the same geographical area in which the corresponding grubbed-up 
vines were located, where maintaining viticulture in that geographical area is justified by socio-
economic  or  environmental  reasons  (for  example  to  avoid  soil  erosion),  or  to  ensure  that  the 
replanting does not take place in a different production region which is affected by a structural 
market imbalance. To avoid excessive increases in yields, MS will be able to make the granting of 
a  replanting  authorisations  subject  to  the  use  of  varieties  and  production  methods  that  do  not 
considerably increase the average yield compared to the grubbed-up vines, or that only traditional 
varieties and production methods of a given region be used where the corresponding grubbed-up 
area was located in a production region that the MS has qualified as affected by a structural market 
imbalance. The HLG recommended giving MS the possibility of limiting the transfer of replanting 
authorisations between regions, to avoid excessive yield increases and vineyards being relocated 
from areas where they are important for the landscape or for biodiversity. The HLG requested that 
MS  have  the  option  of  setting  these  conditions  when  granting  planting  and  replanting 
authorisations. 

In a context of diminishing consumption, monitoring overall production potential is very important 
for the future balance of the market. The application of the planting authorisation scheme has this 
objective,  and  it  is  therefore  proposed  in  the  ‘Wine  Package’  that  it  should  apply  in  all  wine-
producing MS when a certain vineyard area is reached in the MS concerned. 

De-alcoholised wine products 

In recent years, there has been an ever-increasing consumer demand for grapevine products with a 
reduced alcohol content, which are produced by using certain de-alcoholisation techniques allowed 
in the EU. Terms such as ‘0.0%’, ‘alcohol-free’ and ‘alcohol-light’ are widely used, but regulated 
differently in various MS. 

Indeed, in accordance with Article 4(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 on nutrition and health 
claims made on foods (Claims Regulation)14, relevant national rules may apply in the absence of 
specific EU  rules regarding  nutrition  claims referring  to  low alcohol levels,  or the reduction or 
absence of alcohol or energy in beverages which usually contain alcohol. There is therefore a need 
to harmonise the use of these terms and to define the alcohol content linked to each of them across 
the EU. This should also be reflected in the rules on labelling of wine products to better inform 
consumers  of  the  characteristics  and  production  methods  of  grapevine  products  with  a  reduced 

14 Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and 
health claims made on foods (OJ L 404, 30.12.2006, p. 9). 

13 

 
 
 
 
alcohol content, allowing the EU wine sector to benefit from this development in consumer demand 
while maintaining high quality production standards. 

This proposal harmonises the use of these terms across the EU. The term ‘alcohol-free’ will apply 
if the actual alcoholic strength of the product does not exceed 0.5% by volume, accompanied by 
the expression ‘0.0%’ if  the actual alcoholic strength  of the product  does not  exceed 0.05% by 
volume. The limit of 0.05% vol. was chosen because this is the detection threshold and the absence 
of alcohol in a product is an important criterion for some consumers who would feel misled if a 
‘zero alcohol’ product contained more than a barely detectable trace of alcohol. 

For products with an actual alcoholic strength of above 0.5% by volume and at least 30% below 
the minimum actual alcoholic strength of the category before de-alcoholisation, the term ‘alcohol-
light’ was chosen. There are several reasons for this choice. First, although specific conditions of 
use have not been set in the Annex to the Claims Regulation regarding nutrition claims referring 
to the reduction of alcohol in beverages which normally contain alcohol, the conditions of use of 
the claim ‘reduced [name of nutrient]’ apply by analogy. This claim may be made where the alcohol 
value is reduced by at least 30 %, compared to a reference product, in accordance with Article 9 of 
the Claims Regulation and the Commission guidance on the implementation of that Regulation. 
Second, the term “alcohol-light” is linked to terms used for many other food products, which makes 
this term more familiar to consumers than the term ‘alcohol-reduced’, and the conditions of use of 
the claim ‘light’ are the same as those mentioned above for the claim ‘reduced’. Finally, labelling 
wines with an alcoholic strength of for instance 8,0% or 8,5% as ‘low alcohol’ wines would have 
been misleading for consumers and not compliant with Article 7 of  Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 
on the provision of food information to consumers (FIC Regulation)15. 

High  consumer  demand  for  sparkling  wine  products  with  a  lower  alcohol  content  or  without 
alcohol  represents  an  opportunity  for  the  sector,  but  there  are  technological  limitations  on 
producing  them  under  the current  production rules on de-alcoholisation. According to  the rules 
currently in force, wine products must have reached the characteristics and the minimum actual 
alcoholic  strength  of  the  category  before  undergoing  de-alcoholisation.  The  de-alcoholisation 
process removes the CO2 from sparkling wines. Therefore, it is proposed to allow sparkling and 
aerated wines to be produced from de-alcoholised or partially de-alcoholised still wines through 
second fermentation or the addition of CO2, provided that they are labelled in a way that does not 
mislead the consumer. 

The COM does not propose applying the same rule to the categories ‘aerated semi-sparkling wines’ 
(category 9), ’semi-sparkling’ (category 8) and ‘quality sparkling’ wines (category 5). For ‘aerated 
semi-sparkling wines’, this seems not to be technically necessary, while for ‘semi-sparkling wines’, 
there is  a risk  of denaturing  the product  itself as currently defined in  the CMO regulation. The 
prestige of ‘quality sparkling wines’, which is based on the integrity of the production techniques, 
needs to be preserved. 

15 Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of 
food  information  to  consumers,  amending  Regulations  (EC)  No 1924/2006  and  (EC)  No 1925/2006  of  the  European 
Parliament  and  of  the  Council,  and  repealing  Commission  Directive  87/250/EEC,  Council  Directive  90/496/EEC, 
Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission 
Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004 (OJ L 304, 22.11.2011, p. 18). 

14 

 
 
 
 
The  obligation  to  label  de-alcoholised  wine  products  with  the  expression  ‘produced  by  de-
alcoholisation’  aims  to  better  inform  consumers  about  the  characteristics  of  grapevine  products 
with  a reduced alcohol content, while  maintaining the obligation to  provide information  on the 
production method consisting of de-alcoholisation. This should allow the EU wine sector to benefit 
from this development in consumer demand while maintaining high quality production standards, 
and to make the important distinction between these products of the wine sector and industrially 
produced low-alcohol beverages derived from grapes. 

Electronic labelling 

The possibility of providing the list of ingredients and the nutrition declaration by electronic means 
has  proven  to  be  an  effective  way  for  operators  to  inform  consumers  while  facilitating  the 
functioning of the single market and wine exports, especially for small producers. 

However,  the  absence  of  detailed  harmonised  rules  on  identifying  the  electronic  means  on  the 
physical  label  and  the  consequent  diverging  solutions  applied  by  the  MS  have  caused 
fragmentation of the single market, affecting the proper marketing of wines across the EU. 

Therefore, it is proposed that the COM be empowered to develop, in cooperation with MS, specific 
rules to identify the electronic means of providing information to consumers, in particular through 
a language-free system, in order to minimise costs and administrative burdens for operators, and 
to ensure a common approach across the EU market, while taking into account the need to make 
information easily identifiable and accessible to consumers. Such empowerment will also allow 
the electronic labelling rules to be adapted whenever necessary because of new needs arising from 
the rapid, constant progress of digitalisation. 

Management of yields and wine stocks 

It is possible for MS to adopt marketing rules to regulate supply in the wine sector to improve and 
stabilise the operation of the common wine market. In the current context of a structural decrease 
in consumption and recurrent situations of oversupply in certain regions and market segments, the 
‘Wine Package’ clarifies that such rules can include setting maximum grape yields and managing 
wine stocks. Because producer organisations play an important role in strengthening winegrowers’ 
position in the food supply chain and adapting supply to market trends, MS will also be able to 
adopt  marketing  rules  in  the  wine  sector  taking  into  account  proposals  adopted  by  recognised 
producer organisations or by recognised interbranch organisations, when they are representative in 
the economic area concerned. This is in line with the HLG’s wish to give producer organisations, 
interbranch organisations or recognised producer groups managing GIs the tools to manage yield 
stabilisation mechanisms in specified areas.  

A toolbox of measures at Member State level to address a market crisis 

In line with the principle of subsidiarity, several provisions of the ‘Wine Package’ proposal give 
national authorities greater leeway to manage production potential in a way more attuned to the 
specific situation of the wine-producing regions. 

 If there are market imbalances, MS are currently authorised to make national payments to wine 
producers for the voluntary or mandatory distillation of wine. 

This proposal authorises national payments for voluntary green harvesting and voluntary grubbing-
up of productive vineyards as additional supply management tools, given the cost-effectiveness of 

15 

 
 
removing  surplus  wine  from  the  market  before  it  is  produced. To  avoid  distorting  competition, 
limits are set for the overall amount of national payments authorised in a MS in any given year for 
distillation and green harvesting. For grubbing-up, given the structural nature of the measure and 
its higher costs, the limit for national payments is proposed to be set case by case, on the basis of 
the  specific  market  circumstances  of  the  MS  and  the  wine  regions  in  which  it  would  be 
implemented. 

This  is  the  best  way  to  transpose  the  HLG  Policy  Recommendation  to  implement  a  permanent 
grubbing-up scheme to address structural oversupply in certain regions and/or market segments, 
and to follow the suggestion of using national support to deal with the most immediate needs in 
accordance with the guidelines for state aids in agriculture and forestry sectors16 as well as giving 
MS the possibility to finance grubbing-up schemes under an amended Article 216 of the CMO 
regulation for specific needs that may arise in the longer term. 

4.2.2. AWP Regulation 

Aromatised  wine  products  (AWP)  are  another  important  outlet  for  grapevine  products.  Even 
though the HLG’s Policy Recommendations do not explicitly mention aromatised wine products, 
the rules for those products which are relevant to the HLG Recommendations must be brought into 
line  with  the  changes  introduced  for  wine  products.  This  particularly  concerns  the  rules  for 
producing and labelling de-alcoholised products. 

The current legislation restricts the sales denominations reserved for aromatised wine to products 
which reach a minimum alcohol content for each product category. 

In view of increasing consumer demand for innovative alcoholic beverages with a lower actual 
alcoholic strength by volume, this proposal allows aromatised wine products to be obtained from 
de-alcoholised or partially de-alcoholised wines. To ensure that consumers are correctly informed 
of the nature of aromatised wine products with a lower alcoholic content, rules for labelling de-
alcoholised  or  partially  de-alcoholised  wines  are  introduced,  so  that  those  aromatised  wine 
products may use the same descriptive terms in their presentation and labelling as the grapevine 
products with the corresponding alcoholic strength. 

To  minimise  costs  and  administrative  burden  for  operators,  and  to  ensure  a  common  approach 
across the Union market, the provisions concerning electronic labelling of the nutrition declaration 
and the list of ingredients of aromatised wine products will be aligned to those applied to grapevine 
products. 

To  meet  new  consumer  demand  and  the  need  for  product  innovation,  the  requirements  for  the 
aromatised  wine  product  category  ‘Glühwein’  are  amended  to  allow  the  use  of  rosé  wine  in 
production. At the same time, to avoid misleading consumers, provisions are made to forbid the 
use of the term ‘rosé’ in the labelling of a ‘Glühwein’ produced by combining red and white wine, 
or  combining  red  or  white  wine  with  rosé  wine. A  labelling  derogation  is  introduced  to  allow 
alcoholic beverages produced with the same requirements as those laid down for ‘Glühwein’, but 
using fruit wine instead of grapevine products as a main ingredient, to use the sales denomination 
‘Glühwein’ in their presentation and labelling to meet consumer demand for such products. 

16 In particular: 1.3.1.1. ’Closing of capacity for animal, plant or human health, sanitary, ethical, environmental or climate 
reasons’ and 1.3.1.2 ‘Closing of capacity for other reasons’ - Communication from the Commission (2022/C 485/01). 

16 

 
 
 
4.2.3 Strategic Plans Regulation 

The restructuring and conversion of vineyards can be supported as part of the CAP Strategic Plans 
for the sector. In order to strike a balance between the need for MS to ensure that vineyards are 
restructured  efficiently  and  the  need  to  avoid  an  increase  in  production  that  could  lead  to 
oversupply, MS will be allowed to set conditions for the implementation of the restructuring and 
conversion type of interventions that are aimed at avoiding an increase in yield and thus an increase 
the 
this 
of  production  for  vineyards  subject 
Recommendations  on  ensuring  that  policy  measures  to  manage  the  production  potential  are 
consistent and coherent; these should not be limited to the annual growth rates of areas through 
new planting authorisations, but should also take into account the restructuring and conversion of 
existing vineyards. 

interventions.  This  follows 

type  of 

to 

With  a  view  to  developing  wine  tourism  (also  known  as  oeno-tourism)  in  wine  regions  with 
protected  designations  and  protected  geographical  indications,  producer  groups  managing 
protected designations of origin and geographical indications can now be beneficiaries of the type 
of interventions promoting wine tourism in production regions. The HLG recommended taking full 
advantage  of  support  measures  for  tourism  beyond  those  already  available  in  wine  sector 
interventions.  The  proposal  will  allow  support  for  coordinated  actions  promoted  by  wine 
interbranch organisations and producer groups managing geographical indications and aimed at 
promoting wine tourism and the links with the territory of production regions. 

Stakeholders and MS have repeatedly stated that the current maximum duration of three years for 
support  granted  for  promotion  and  communication  operations  carried  out  in  third  countries  to 
consolidate market  outlets  is  too  short to  achieve this aim. The maximum duration is  currently 
limited to three years. The HLG underlined the need to increase the duration of the support for 
promotion measures to allow for market consolidation and proposed extending the limit to five 
years,  which  was  considered  more  appropriate  for  consolidating  the  position  on  a  new  export 
market. Too long a duration for market consolidation could subtract resources for opening up and 
diversifying onto new markets. 

To provide an additional incentive for cooperation in the wine sector, certain investments carried 
out by recognised producer organisations will benefit from the same maximum rate of EU financial 
assistance as it is currently already the case for micro, small and medium-sized enterprises. This 
takes  into  account  the  suggestion  of  the  HLG  to  increase  the  attractiveness  of  producer 
organisations  in  the  wine  sector  by  treating  them  as  SMEs  for  the  purpose  of  the  common 
agricultural policy, especially as most EU wine producers are SMEs. 

To further support producers in climate change mitigation and adaptation and to the improvement 
of the sustainability of production systems, MS will have the choice of increasing the maximum 
EU financial assistance that can be provided for investments pursuing such objective to up to 80% 
of  the  eligible  investment  costs.  In  order  to  clarify  the  conditions  applicable  to  EU  financial 
assistance for investments in innovation, it is explicitly stated that no such EU financial assistance 
is to be granted to enterprises in difficulty within the meaning of the Commission Communication 
entitled  ‘Guidelines  on  State  aid  for  rescuing  and  restructuring  non-financial  undertakings  in 
difficulty’17.  The  maximum  support  rate  for  SPR  wine  types  of  interventions  has  been  raised 
temporarily in the past (see Annex 1) and experience has shown that such an increase makes them 

17 OJ C 249, 31.7.2014, p. 1, ELI: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52014XC  

17 

 
 
 
more accessible to potential beneficiaries, especially in times of crisis, when the financial position 
of producers is strained. The HLG has recommended that these investments should benefit from a 
higher rate of support to accelerate the agri-environment and climate transition and adaptation of 
the sector. 

5.  LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE ‘WINE PACKAGE’ 

Most  of  the  expected  impacts  of  the  measures  in  the  ‘Wine  Package’  are  economic,  social  and 
environmental. These measures address diverse aspects of the wine sector at all phases, from the 
production  of  grapes  to  consumption.  As  the  interconnection  of  the  measures  selected  may 
sometimes make it difficult to isolate the impact of each measure individually, it is appropriate to 
break down the assessment of the impacts by grouping them by type of measure. 

It should be noted from the outset that a precise quantification of the impacts of these measures is 
not feasible. Their actual impact will ultimately depend on the level of uptake of the measures, 
both at MS and farmer level, on the production and market situation in the coming years, which 
cannot be foreseen with accuracy, as well as on the pre-existing national legislative framework and 
existing supply chain structures. However, a qualitative estimation of the effects of the elements of 
the  proposal  has  been  summarised  in Annex  6  and  is  based  on  the  information  available  from 
discussions in the wine market observatory, the HLG and exchanges with  MS and stakeholders 
along the process of development of the package. 

As the proposal is  focused  on the  wine sector, no assessment of the impact  on other economic 
sectors  is  carried  out,  despite  the  well-known  induced  economic  benefits  generated  by  it,  as 
explained in the study titled “Economic, social and environmental importance of the wine sector 
in  the  EU”  by  PWC18.  The  following  sections  will  assess  the  likely  economic  advantages  and 
disadvantages  stemming  from 
the  selected  measures  for  businesses,  consumers,  and 
administrations. They will also assess the likely social and environmental impacts of the measures. 

5.1 Economic impacts 

The policy measures introduced through the ‘Wine Package’ are expected to generate substantial 
economic benefits across the wine sector, from producers to consumers, as well as to reduce some 
administrative costs for public administrations. For winegrowers, they offer increased stability and 
adaptability.  Measures  such  as  extended  replanting  authorisation  periods,  tools  for  yield 
stabilisation and support for restructuring enable producers to better respond to market trends and 
environmental challenges. Access to enhanced funding opportunities strengthens their capacity to 
invest in innovation and sustainability, which is essential for long-term competitiveness. For actors 
further  along  the  supply  chain,  such  as  cooperatives,  producer  organisations  and  exporters,  the 
measures  reinforce  their  position  in  the  food  chain  by  expanding  access  to  financial  support, 
reducing  administrative  barriers,  and  providing  clearer  rules  for  market  interventions.  A  more 
stable market  environment  and enhanced support  provide benefits  for cooperative models, help 
balance power in commercial relationships, and support more equitable value distribution. 

Consumers benefit from a wider range of wine products, including low and non-alcoholic wines, 
which will be more clearly regulated and labelled. This responds directly to shifting preferences, 
particularly among younger generations, while reinforcing transparency and product recognition. 

18 https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/m0780by1gj1vnzfl1qo4n/Report-PwC-on-EU-wine-
sector_full_032024.pdf?rlkey=dui2nddbh4mxtj8q942x78q99&e=1&dl=0  

18 

 
 
 
The  promotion  of  regions  and  territorial  sustainability  in  wine-producing  regions  also  helps 
connect consumers with cultural and environmental values. 

Public administrations will also see gains. Accelerated procedures to intervene in case of market 
crisis,  harmonised  electronic  labelling,  extended  validity  of  replanting  authorisation  and  longer 
duration of promotional measures will reduce the administrative burden and make the regulatory 
framework more responsive and easier to manage. National authorities are granted more flexibility 
to tailor responses to regional needs, without being delayed by long legislative procedures. 

Taken together, these measures modernise the EU wine sector’s economic model. They enhance 
its ability to cope with structural challenges such as declining demand, climate risks and global 
competition,  while  preserving  its  cultural,  social  and  environmental  value.  By  creating  a  more 
adaptable, competitive and consumer-oriented sector, the ‘Wine Package’ lays the groundwork for 
renewed economic vitality and sustainable growth. 

Policy measures aimed at adapting the production to the future demand 

The proposal brings forward a comprehensive set of tools that will allow MS to better align wine 
production and production potential with future market demand. By enabling national and regional 
authorities  to  introduce  tailored  limits  and  conditions  on  planting  authorisations,  extending  the 
validity of replanting rights, and empowering producer organisations and groups to set rules for 
yield limitations and stock management, this set of tools creates the basis for a more balanced and 
stable  wine  market.  These  changes  are  expected  to  significantly  reduce  the  volatility  and 
uncertainty  that  currently  burden  producers  and  traders,  particularly  in  regions  where  repeated 
surplus accumulation has led to market distortions and financial stress. 

A more predictable market environment will help reduce transaction costs across the supply chain 
by fostering greater trust and coordination among the different actors, winegrowers, cooperatives, 
bottlers,  distributors,  and  exporters.  For  cooperatives,  producer  organisations,  and  producer 
groups, this improved stability means they can better plan and implement their collective strategies 
with less exposure to sudden price drops or oversupply crises. 

Increased  predictability  will  also  support  long-term  investments,  both  at  the  level  of  individual 
winegrowers and within collective structures. With fewer disruptions, winegrowers will be better 
positioned to invest in adapting vineyards to climate change, such as the selection of more resilient 
grape  varieties  or  the  adoption  of  more  suitable  agricultural  practices. At  the  winery  level,  the 
environment will be more conducive to developing innovative products that respond to evolving 
consumer preferences. On the commercial side, stronger market signals and reduced uncertainty 
will  help  producers  expand  into  new  export  markets,  invest  in  branding,  and  consolidate  their 
international presence. 

Over  time,  if  these  measures  are  implemented  effectively,  they  are  also  expected  to  reduce  the 
sector’s  reliance  on  exceptional  public  interventions  such  as  crisis  distillation  or  grubbing-up 
schemes. These  emergency  responses,  while  sometimes  necessary,  are  costly  to  administer  and 
audit, and often come with significant financial implications for both EU and national budgets. A 
more stable, self-regulating market will therefore not only improve economic resilience within the 
sector but will also bring savings in public expenditure and reduce the administrative burden for 
authorities. 

19 

 
 
Additionally, the proposal includes enhanced tools to address  emerging or acute market  crises–
such as green harvesting, distillation, and grubbing-up which can now be applied more precisely 
and flexibly at the regional level. This ensures that national administrations can react much more 
swiftly to imbalances or anticipated risks, with interventions tailored to the specific conditions of 
different wine-producing areas. The result is a more dynamic and responsive system of governance 
that combines long-term structural adjustment with short-term crisis mitigation. 

Enhanced support for investments meeting the objective of climate and environment 

The proposal to increase the maximum support rate to 80% for eligible investments under the wine 
sectoral interventions within the CAP is expected to act as a powerful incentive for modernisation 
and transformation throughout the wine value chain. By substantially raising public support, this 
measure is likely to trigger a surge in investments, both in tangible and intangible assets, across a 
wide range of critical areas. For winegrowing farms, the higher support rate can significantly ease 
the  financial  burden  of  investing  in  modern,  climate-resilient  farming  systems.  This  includes 
precision agriculture technologies for vineyard management, water-saving irrigation systems, and 
other sustainable viticultural practices that reduce environmental impact and improve long-term 
resilience. In addition, it will support investments in digital tools and farm-level data systems that 
enhance  monitoring,  decision  making,  and  traceability.  At  the  processing  stage,  wineries  and 
cooperatives  will  be  encouraged  to  upgrade  their  facilities.  This  covers  infrastructure  for 
vinification, bottling, storage, and temperature control, as well as energy-efficient technologies that 
lower  operational  costs  and  carbon  emissions. The  measure  will  also  facilitate  the  adoption  of 
advanced  automation  and  digitalisation  tools  to  improve  efficiency,  product  consistency,  and 
compliance with quality standards. 

A major feature of the increased support is that it will promote innovation throughout the sector. 
This  includes  the  development  of  new  wine  products,  such  as  low,  and  non-alcoholic  wines  or 
wines with  novel  profiles more attuned to  consumer taste,  as  well as  new  ways to  valorise  by-
products  derived  from  grape  and  wine  residues,  contributing  to  a  more  circular  and  resource-
efficient  economy.  Innovative  processes  and  technologies  aimed  at  improving  sustainability, 
reducing  input  use,  or  enhancing  the  authenticity  and  traceability  of  wines  will  be  critical  to 
maintaining competitiveness and meeting evolving consumer expectations. Moreover, investments 
in marketing tools and commercial infrastructure will strengthen the connection between producers 
and  consumers,  especially  in  a  market  where  differentiation  and  storytelling  are  becoming  key 
success factors. 

Although total public expenditure allocated to the wine sector under the CAP will remain capped 
within a fixed financial envelope, the higher support rate is expected to attract a larger share of that 
budget towards these forward-looking investment measures. By shifting resources toward activities 
that enhance structural resilience, environmental sustainability, and market adaptability, the policy 
aims to future-proof the sector. This reallocation will help wine producers better withstand climate 
change and market fluctuations while positioning them to meet the shifting demands of consumers 
both within the EU and on international markets. 

Measures  to  support  de-alcoholised  products  (wine  and  aromatised  wine  products)  and  for 

adapting products to demand 

The  proposal  introduces  a  harmonised  naming  system  for  de-alcoholised  and  partially  de-
alcoholised  wines,  along  with  new  processing  rules  specifically  designed  to  facilitate  the 

20 

 
 
production  of  low  and  non-alcoholic  sparkling  wines.  These  products  currently  represent  the 
fastest-growing segment within the de-alcoholised wine category, driven by increasing consumer 
interest  in  lighter,  healthier  lifestyle  choices  and  alternative  drinking  options.  By  allowing  and 
defining  more  attractive  denominations–such  as  ‘alcohol-free’  and  ‘alcohol-light’–the  proposal 
aligns wine labelling with terminology already familiar to consumers through similar categories in 
other beverages like beer. This change will make it easier for consumers to identify the products 
that match their preferences and to moderate their alcohol intake if they wish, without forgoing the 
experience of wine consumption. 

From  the  perspective  of  the  wine  sector,  this  harmonisation  brings  significant  benefits.  First,  it 
eliminates  the  current  fragmentation  in  labelling  rules  across  MS,  where  inconsistent  national 
regulations  have  created  confusion  and  added  complexity  for  producers  and  retailers.  The 
establishment of EU-wide denominations means that operators will no longer need to redesign and 
reprint different labels for each national market within the single market. This not only simplifies 
logistics and compliance but also leads to substantial savings in production and distribution costs, 
particularly for small and medium-sized wine businesses. 

For retailers, harmonised labelling improves the efficiency of stocking, marketing, and consumer 
communication,  helping  them  manage  inventory  more  effectively  and  reducing  the  risk  of 
regulatory  non-compliance.  The  uniformity  of  labelling  rules  will  also  lower  transaction  costs 
throughout  the  supply  chain,  especially  at  the  retail  level,  where  inconsistent  national 
interpretations have previously posed challenges in shelf management and consumer messaging. 

Public  administrations,  too,  will  benefit  from  the  new  framework.  Clearer,  unified  labelling 
standards  reduce  the  burden  of  monitoring,  enforcement,  and  legal  interpretation.  Compliance 
becomes  easier  to  verify,  and  the  number  of  disputes  over  labelling  or  product  classification  is 
likely  to  decrease.  In  the  long  term,  this  contributes  to  more  efficient  governance  and  lower 
administrative costs at both national and EU levels. 

The  proposal  also  introduces  critical  technical  changes  to  the  processing  rules  governing  the 
production  of  sparkling  wines  with  reduced  or  no  alcohol.  Under  the  current  legislation,  the 
production of such wines within the scope of wine law is extremely limited, both technically and 
legally,  forcing  some  producers  to  operate  outside  the  formal  wine  framework–resulting  in 
inconsistencies  in  quality  and  a  lack  of  consumer  guarantees.  The  updated  rules  now  make  it 
technically  feasible  and  legally  secure  to  produce  de-alcoholised  and  partially  de-alcoholised 
sparkling wines using recognised oenological practices, including second fermentation and CO₂ 
addition, without undermining the integrity of the product. 

These regulatory  adaptations  are expected to  catalyse significant  growth  in this niche, enabling 
more producers, especially traditional winemakers interested in innovation, to enter the low and 
non-alcoholic  segment  with  confidence.  By  lowering  production  barriers  and  clarifying  the 
regulatory environment, the proposal reduces both financial and legal uncertainty, enabling cost-
effective production while maintaining quality standards. This not only widens the portfolio of EU 
wine  offerings  but  also  helps  European  producers  compete  more  effectively  with  non-EU 
beverages in this dynamic market segment. Other parts of the proposal that contribute to increasing 
product portfolios while finding new outlets for wine are those proposing increased flexibility in 
producing certain aromatised wine products such as Glühwein. 

21 

 
 
For consumers, the impact will be equally positive: a wider selection of  low and non-alcoholic 
sparkling wines will become readily available, offering greater choice at more competitive prices, 
while maintaining quality. 

Measures to harmonise wine labelling 

The current EU labelling rules19 give wine operators the option of providing the list of ingredients 
and nutrition declaration through electronic means rather than on the physical label. In practice, 
this often takes the form of a QR code placed on the bottle. This innovation represents a significant 
step  forward  in  terms  of  flexibility,  efficiency,  and  cost  reduction,  particularly  for  producers 
engaged in cross-border trade. By allowing digital labelling, the system has reduced the need to 
print and manage multiple versions of physical labels for different markets, which is especially 
beneficial for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and exporters operating within the EU 
single  market.  However,  despite  its  potential,  the  implementation  of  the  existing  electronic 
labelling  provisions  has  faced  notable  challenges.  The  current  legal  framework  does  not 
sufficiently  harmonise  the  presentation,  format,  or  visual  identification  of  the  QR  code  used  to 
access  digital  product  information.  As  a  result,  MS  have  interpreted  and  applied  the  rules 
inconsistently, causing confusion among operators, particularly those distributing their products in 
multiple countries, and limiting the full potential of this digital tool. The proposal to introduce a 
harmonised format for electronic labels, including the possible use of a standardised, language-
free symbol to indicate the  information content  available through the QR code, addresses these 
shortcomings, aiming to remove the need for translating text or redesigning labels for each national 
market, making  compliance easier and significantly reducing  costs associated with multilingual 
packaging and re-labelling. This harmonisation will bring substantial benefits to wine producers, 
especially SMEs, who often lack the resources to navigate complex and divergent national labelling 
requirements. With a clearer, more predictable legal  framework, these operators will be able to 
design  labels  that are valid EU-wide, enhancing  operational  efficiency and reducing  the risk of 
non-compliance.  Transaction  costs  throughout  the  supply  chain,  particularly  in  dealings  with 
retailers and during export, will decrease as labelling procedures become simpler and less prone to 
legal uncertainty. 

Retailers will also benefit from the proposed harmonisation, as they will face fewer compliance-
related  questions  and  a  reduced  need  to  verify  the  national-specific  acceptability  of  labels. 
Furthermore,  commercial  disputes  and  product  returns  due  to  labelling  inconsistencies  are 
expected  to  decline  significantly,  saving  time  and  resources  for  all  parties  involved.  Public 
administrations will likewise see advantages. A harmonised and unambiguous labelling standard 
will  make  enforcement  and  audit  processes  more  straightforward,  reducing  both  administrative 
workload  and  the  number  of  disputes  over  non-compliance.  National  authorities  will  no  longer 
need to interpret variable implementations of the same rule or deal with frequent questions and 
complaints from businesses and consumers about the format or language of digital labels. 

Measures on promotion and wine tourism 

The  proposal  brings  forward  two  key  improvements  aimed  at  enhancing  the  long-term 
competitiveness and regional value of the EU wine sector. First, it extends the maximum duration 

19 https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/media/news/new-rules-wine-labelling-enter-application-2023-12-07_en 

22 

 
 
 
of promotion projects for market consolidation from three to five years. Second, it opens access to 
wine tourism support measures for producer groups managing GIs. 

In  today’s  increasingly  complex  and  unstable  global  market  environment,  wine  operators  face 
mounting difficulties in maintaining their position in export markets. Geopolitical tensions, shifting 
trade  relations,  and  evolving  consumer  preferences  demand  sustained  and  adaptable  marketing 
efforts. While a three-year support period for promotion may have sufficed in more stable times, it 
has become clear that longer engagement is now necessary for meaningful market consolidation. 
Extending  the  maximum  duration  to  five  years  provides  wine  exporters,  many  of  whom  are 
cooperatives  or  SMEs,  with  the  time  and  support  they  need  to  establish  a  stable  commercial 
presence abroad, build customer loyalty, and adapt to external disruptions. Crucially, this extended 
support period does not entail any increase in public expenditure, as it remains within the limits of 
each Member State’s national wine envelope. On the administrative side, longer project durations 
could also reduce the burden on public authorities and applicants by decreasing the frequency of 
project approvals, reporting, and renewals. 

In parallel, the proposal expands eligibility for wine tourism support to include producer groups 
managing GIs.  Until now, such support was limited to interbranch organisations, which tend to 
operate  across  broader  territories  and  which  do  not  exist  in  every  wine-producing  region.  GI 
producer groups,  on the  other hand, are deeply  embedded in  their  specific local  contexts. They 
represent producers who work directly with the land and are custodians of the unique heritage, 
practices, and environmental features associated with protected designations. Empowering these 
groups to design and implement wine tourism projects will likely lead to a more substantial and 
geographically diverse uptake of the measure. These initiatives have the potential to integrate wine 
promotion  with  regional  culture,  local  gastronomy,  traditional  crafts,  and  natural  landscapes, 
offering  a  richer  and  more  authentic  experience  for  visitors. This,  in  turn,  generates  economic 
spillover effects  across  rural  areas, boosting  income for small  businesses  and strengthening the 
tourism ecosystem. Such projects are particularly important for rural wine-producing regions with 
limited economic opportunities and demographic decline. By anchoring economic activity in the 
territory and making local traditions more visible and accessible, wine tourism can help sustain 
vibrant rural communities. Tourists will also benefit from a broader and higher-quality offering of 
cultural and recreational services developed through these initiatives. 

5.2 Social impacts 

The  structural  challenges  that  the  EU  wine  sector  has  faced,  and  the  challenges  linked  to  the 
economic downturn, have put considerable pressure on the social fabric of many rural areas. The 
‘Wine  Package’  has  to  a  great  extent  been  proposed  to  bring  relief  to  a  sector  that  provides  a 
livelihood  to  thousands  of  small  producers  spread  all  over  EU  rural  areas  in  wine-producing 
countries. In parallel with the improved economic impact and enhanced market stability, the social 
impacts of the proposal are expected to be highly positive, particularly in rural areas. 

It  will  be  beneficial  for  many  vine  growers  and  wine  producers,  a  huge  majority  of  whom  are 
smallholders  living  in  rural  environments,  many  of  which  do  not  have  alternative  economic 
activities due to the limitations set by climate, topography and often isolation from main  urban 
areas and centres of production and provision of services. 

The  flexibilities  put  forward  in  the  proposal  concerning  the  use  of  planting  and  replanting 
authorisations and the waiving of administrative penalties in certain cases will reduce pressure on 

23 

 
 
producers confronted with enormous uncertainty concerning the viability of their business, giving 
them  more  time  and  capacity  to  adapt  their  investments  and  resources  to  the  evolution  of  the 
market. The possibility to further control the growth of vine planting areas in territories under stress 
will  also  contribute  to  reduce  pressure  over  them.  Other  measures  proposed  to  facilitate  the 
management of wine production and adapt it to actual demand are also part of the set of measures 
bringing relief to highly vulnerable areas and segments of the EU society, especially in rural areas. 

Other  measures  proposed  to  facilitate  Member  States  tailoring  certain  measures  to  address 
overproduction in certain regions and areas or setting conditions for their implementation that are 
adapted to the characteristics of specific territories and social and economic situations will also be 
beneficial for those areas and their inhabitants, in particular when they are carried out in agreement 
with most producers of that specific region or producing areas (such as an area under a geographic 
indication). 

Measures to facilitate wine tourism will potentially increase the attractiveness of certain rural areas 
and will increase the number of visitors, which will be beneficial for the rural population far beyond 
those directly dedicated to wine production. 

The measures  aiming  at  facilitating the production and labelling  of  wines and aromatised wine 
products with reduced alcohol content, or with no alcohol at all, will also have an effect on the 
wider society, bringing benefits to consumers, responding to the increasing societal demand for 
products with lower alcohol content or alcohol-free, which has been identified as one of the key 
factors  in  the  fall  in  consumption  of  grapevine  products.  The  proposal  brings  this  concern  for 
certain lifestyles, in particular of the younger generations, in line with maintaining the EU cultural 
asset that wine represents and increasing the attractiveness of this product to 21st century society 
and their attachment to the territories where it is produced and their values. Consumers will gain 
access to higher quality products without alcohol but with the guarantees of quality of European 
wine production, and will be better informed of their characteristics, ingredients and production 
methods, in a manner harmonised across the EU. 

5.3 Environmental impacts 

The proposal contains several measures that are expected to bring benefits for the environment. By 
providing MS with tools to further prioritise the planting of vineyards in sensitive areas and avoid 
the re-location of existing vineyards away from such areas, the proposal promotes better protection 
of valuable and unique landscapes in many rural areas across the EU and protection of soils where 
vineyards  are  maintained,  especially  on  slopes  where  soil  erosion  is  prevented.  Moreover,  by 
simplified labelling and packaging of grapevine products it will prevent waste associated with the 
necessity  to  provide  different  labels  for  the  same  wine  sold  in  different  MS.  In  addition,  by 
increasing the Union contribution to costs for investments and innovation pursuing the objective 
contributing to climate change mitigation and adaptation, the proposal is expected to bring benefits 
in terms of resilience, reduction of energy consumption or better efficiency, biodiversity, and land 
use. 

The provisions that address managing production potential should bring environmental benefits in 
land  use  by  avoiding  expanding  vineyard  areas  beyond  the  needs  defined  by  demand,  and  for 
natural  resources,  by  avoiding  excess  production  and  so  reducing  unnecessary  consumption  of 
water and other inputs, helping to optimise the management of the territory by adjusting production 
to demand. Excess production is also a source of waste and additional consumption of energy and 

24 

 
 
other resources. Preventing it would also avoid the negative perverse effects of producing grapes, 
turning them into wine or other grapevine products, storing and then eventually destroying them. 

A  number  of  provisions  setting  conditions  for  vine  planting  are  aimed  at  protecting  valuable 
historical landscapes with high environmental value, avoiding land abandonment and the negative 
effects  associated  with  it  in  Mediterranean  and  other  environments  where  wine  is  produced, 
including soil loss and erosion, increased risk of fire, and reduced water retention and flood control 
capacity.  The  measures  proposed  to  preserve  certain  vineyards,  together  with  those  aiming  at 
preventing excessive growth of areas planted with vineyards should also contribute to securing the 
conservation  of  high  landscape  diversity,  with  benefits  for  biodiversity  and  the  countryside, 
increasing the attractiveness of the wine-producing areas to visitors. 

The new rules proposed for the production of de-alcoholised sparkling wines will bring savings in 
terms of energy and raw materials used to produce them, by reducing the number of steps necessary 
to obtain them without negatively affecting their final characteristics. 

The proposed measures on digital labelling will contribute to the EU objectives on digitalisation 
and dematerialisation, which can in turn also bring environmental benefits in the long term, by 
reducing  the  use  of  labelling  materials  and  facilitating  the  presentation  of  information  on 
recyclability and resource efficiency, for example. 

The  proposed  increase  in  the  maximum  support  rate  for  measures  addressing  climate  change 
adaptation  and  mitigation  will  contribute  to  the  EU  environment  and  climate  objectives  and 
increase the attractiveness of these types of measures, with a potential positive effect on the share 
of EU financial resources dedicated to environmental sustainability in the support programmes for 
the  wine  sector  under  the  Strategic  Plans  Regulation.  In  addition,  they  will  foster  long-term 
investments on more efficient technologies and resource management models, contributing to long-
term sustainability and supporting the continuation of vine growing activity in areas that would 
otherwise face land abandonment and its potential negative effects on the wider environment (e.g. 
desertification, water quality, erosion). 

5.4 Contribution to simplification and burden reduction 

Several  elements  in  the  proposal  aim  to  contribute  to  simplification,  reducing  bureaucracy  and 
administrative burden for wine producers, operators, and administrations, and adapts the provisions 
in  the  regulation  to  the  needs  of  territories,  avoiding  one-size-fits-all  measures  that  are  often 
burdensome to implement and less effective. 

The proposal will also contribute to the EU’s digitalisation objective. Wine is the first foodstuff for 
which digitalisation of part of the information provided to consumers has been applied. The wine 
sector  is  facing  all  the  advantages  and  challenges  of  digitalisation,  and  this  proposal  aims  at 
improving  the  performance  of  such  systems,  by  considering  both  the  needs  of  operators  and 
consumers.

25 

 
 
ANNEXES 

Annex  1:  Regulatory  measures  taken  to  address  the  specific  problems  of  the  EU  wine 
sector since 2020 

Regulation (EU) 2020/13220 was aimed at alleviating the effects of the countermeasures at 
a  level  not  exceeding  USD  7.5  billion  annually  in  response  to  EU  subsidies  to Airbus, 
authorised by the World Trade Organization (WTO), allowing the United States of America 
to impose a 25% ad valorem import duty on still wines exported to the US by Germany, 
Spain, France and the United Kingdom. To allow EU operators respond to these exceptional 
circumstances  in  export  markets  all  over  the  world  following  the  import  duty  regime 
imposed  by  the  US  and  address  this  unpredictable  and  precarious  situation,  as  an 
exceptional measure, the maximum EU contribution to promotion measures under Article 
45(1)(b)  of  Regulation  1308/2013  was  increased  from  50%  to  60%  of  the  eligible 
expenditure for a period of 12 months. 

Regulation  (EU)  2020/13321  allowed  further  flexibility  in  the  implementation  of  the 
‘promotion  in  third  countries’  measure  by  enabling  MS  to  amend  their  national  support 
programmes in the wine sector not only twice per financial year, but  also to change the 
promotion  measure  whenever  necessary  to  address  the  effects  of  the  25%  ad  valorem 
import duty imposed by the US on 18 October 2019 on, among others, still wines exported 
to the US by Germany, Spain, France and the United Kingdom. 

Regulation (EU) 2020/41922 also allowed further flexibility in the implementation of the 
‘promotion in third countries’ measure to address the effects of the 25% ad valorem import 
duty  imposed by the US  on, among  others, still wines exported to  the US by Germany, 
Spain, France, and the United Kingdom. In order to allow beneficiaries to strengthen their 
promotion actions and to consolidate their presence on the targeted markets, Member States 
were authorised to extend the duration of the support to already selected operations under 
the promotion measure beyond the maximum duration of five years within the limit of the 
programming period ending on 15 October 2023. Authorising changes to the destination 
market  helped  beneficiaries  carrying  out  promotion  operations  in  the  US to  target  other 
markets  and  prevent  further  economic  losses,  as  well  as  providing  assistance  to 
beneficiaries carrying out operations in other third countries affected by the repercussions 
of the import duty regime imposed by the US on that particular market, who consequently 
wished  to  redirect  their  efforts  elsewhere.  Support  could  be  paid  for  individual,  fully 

the  Council  as  regards  Union  contribution 

20 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/132 of 30 January 2020 laying down an emergency measure 
in the form of a derogation from Article 45(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and 
of 
the  wine  sector, 
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2020/132/oj 
21  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2020/133  of  30  January  2020  derogating  from  Commission 
Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1150 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 
of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the national support programmes in the wine sector, 
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2020/133/oj 
22 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/419 of 30 January 2020 derogating from Delegated Regulation 
(EU) 2016/1149 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as 
regards the national support programmes in the wine sector, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2020/419/oj  

the  promotion  measure 

to 

in 

26 

 
 
 
 
implemented  actions  even  if  the  overall  operation  was  not  implemented  as  originally 
approved. 

Regulation (EU) 2020/59223 was aimed at addressing the shortfall in demand for wine, with 
the ongoing closure of hotels, bars and restaurants directly affecting 30% of the volumes, 
corresponding  to  50%  of  the  value,  of  wine  consumed  in  the  EU,  which  was  not 
compensated by the consumption of wine at home. In combination with the record harvest 
in  2018  and  the  fact  that  the  EU  wine  market  had  already  been  subject  to  aggravating 
conditions throughout 2019, especially the imposition in 2019 of additional import tariffs 
by the US, the EU’s main wine export market, wine stocks were at their highest level since 
2009.  Distillation  of  wine  (with  the  use  of  the  resulting  alcohol  limited  to  industrial 
purposes)  and  crisis  storage  were  temporarily  eligible  for  support  under  the  support 
programmes in the wine sector, with beneficiaries only eligible for one of the two measures. 
MS were given the possibility to grant additional aid to the administrative costs of already 
established  mutual  funds  for  another  12  months  during  the  2020  financial  year  and  the 
maximum Union contribution to the measures ‘restructuring and conversion of vineyards’, 
‘green harvesting’, ‘harvest insurance’ and ‘investments’ was temporarily increased24 for 
operations selected by the competent authorities not later than 15 October 2020. Because 
of the insurmountable difficulties arising at all stages of wine production and marketing 
due to Covid restrictions, the EU support could also cover harvest insurance where losses 
are a consequence of a human pandemic. 

Regulation  (EU)  2020/60025  was  aimed  at  addressing  low  prices,  reduced  consumption, 
transport and sales difficulties by allowing MS to adapt their national support programmes 
for reasons related to the crisis due to the COVID-19 pandemic more often than twice per 
financial year, to allow them to optimise the measures already in place, to include further 
measures,  to  increase  the  number  of  interventions  and  make  such  adjustments  more 
frequently,  taking  account  of  the  market  situation.  Green  harvesting  operations  were 
facilitated by an extension of the deadline for the submission of applications for support as 
well as the deadline for  carrying  out  such operations  and  MS  did  not need to  provide a 
specific justification for the application of green harvesting and establish an analysis of the 
expected market situation. 

Regulation (EU) 2020/60126 extended, by 12 months, the validity of planting and replanting 
authorisations  which  would  have  expired  in  2020  and  postponed  the  deadline  for  the 

23  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2020/592  of  30 April  2020  on  temporary  exceptional  measures 
derogating  from  certain  provisions  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1308/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council to address the market disturbance in the fruit and vegetables and wine sectors caused by the COVID-19 
pandemic and measures linked to it, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2020/592/oj  
24 To 60% (80% in less developed regions) for restructuring and conversion of vineyards, 60% for green harvesting 
and harvest insurance and 50% (60% in less developed regions, 75 % in the smaller Aegean islands and 80% in 
the outermost regions) for investments. 
25  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2020/600  of  30  April  2020  derogating  from  Implementing 
Regulation  (EU)  2017/892,  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2016/1150,  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  No 
615/2014,  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2015/1368  and  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2017/39  as  regards 
certain  measures 
ELI: 
to 
http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2020/600/oj  
26 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/601 of 30 April 2020 on emergency measures derogating 
from Articles 62 and 66 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as 

the  COVID-19 

pandemic, 

address 

caused 

crisis 

the 

by 

27 

 
 
 
 
grubbing up of vineyards that had been subject to anticipated replanting to address logistical 
problems  and  shortage  of  workforce  due  to  Covid  rules.  Growers  wanting  to  renounce 
planting or replanting authorisations that were due to expire in the year 2020 could do so 
without incurring the administrative penalty. 

Regulation (EU) 2020/88427 was aimed at addressing the market disturbance on the wine 
market due to the pandemic. Measures included paying for actions that had been completed 
even if the overall operation has not been fully implemented under the wine strategic plan, 
allowing  the  partial  implementation  of  restructuring  and  conversion  of  vineyards, 
investments, and innovation operations without sanction. Green harvesting was facilitated 
by exceptionally allowing it on the same parcel in two consecutive years and the three-year 
limit for support for the setting up of mutual funds granted under the support programmes 
was temporarily lifted to further encourage a responsible approach to crisis situations and 
provide better opportunities for growers to  preserve their incomes in  this  time of crisis. 
Temporary flexibility facilitated changes to operations under the support programmes in 
the wine sector. 

Regulation (EU) 2020/97528 was aimed at addressing the severe oversupply by allowing 
for  agreements  and  decisions  of  farmers,  farmers’  associations  or  associations  of  such 
associations,  or  recognised  producer  organisations,  associations  of  recognised  producer 
organisations and recognised interbranch organisations concerning the production of wine 
grapes  and  of  wine,  on  a  temporary  basis  for  a  period  of  six  months.  These  measures 
included transformation and processing, storage, joint promotion, quality requirements and 
temporary  planning  of  production.  The  competent  authorities  of  the  Member  State, 
including the competition authorities of that state, had to be informed about the wine grapes 
and  wine  covered  by  those  agreements  or  decisions,  on  the  agreements  concluded  and 
decisions  taken  and  on  the  volume  of  production  of  wine  grapes  and  of  wine  and  time 
period covered by them. 

Regulation (EU) 2020/127529 allowed, in view of the worsening situation of the wine sector 
since the publication of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/592 and hospitality activities only 
partially resuming, beneficiaries of the measures ‘distillation of wine in case of crisis’ and 
‘aid for crisis storage of wine’ to obtain advance payments covering 100% of the amount 
of EU support and allowed the payments made by MS complementing EU support for those 
measures to no longer be subject to State aid rules in order to facilitate national payments 
and  to  maximise  the  quantity  of  wine  withdrawn  from  the  market. The  increases  in  the 
maximum  Union  contribution  to  the  measure  ‘promotion’,  introduced  by  Implementing 

the  wine  sector 

regards the validity of vine planting authorisations and the grubbing up in case of anticipated replanting, ELI: 
http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2020/601/oj  
27 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/884 of 4 May 2020 derogating in respect of the year 2020 from 
Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/891 as regards the fruit and vegetables sector and from Delegated Regulation 
(EU)  2016/1149  as  regards 
the  COVID-19  pandemic,  ELI: 
http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2020/884/oj  
28 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/975 of 6 July 2020 authorising agreements and decisions on 
market stabilisation measures in the wine sector, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2020/975/oj  
29  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2020/1275  of  6  July  2020  amending  Delegated  Regulation  (EU) 
2020/592  on  temporary  exceptional  measures  derogating  from  certain  provisions  of  Regulation  (EU)  No 
1308/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  to  address  the  market  disturbance  in  the  fruit  and 
vegetables  and  wine  sectors  caused  by  the  COVID-19  pandemic  and  measures  linked  to  it  ELI: 
http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2020/1275/oj  

in  connection  with 

28 

 
 
 
Regulation  (EU)  2020/132,  and  to  the  measures  ‘restructuring  and  conversion  of 
vineyards’,  ‘green  harvesting’,  ‘harvest  insurance’  and  ‘investments’,  introduced  by 
Delegated Regulation  (EU) 2020/592,  were  not  sufficient to  allow most of the potential 
beneficiaries  to  implement  those  measures  in  2020  and  the  amounts  spent  under  the 
budgetary limits for the national support programmes from 16 October 2019 up to the end 
of April 2020 were below the usual average of expenditure between 16 October and the end 
of April  of  the  following  year  supported  under  the  budget  limits  fixed  for  the  support 
programmes in the wine sector. Therefore, the maximum Union contribution to the measure 
‘information’ was temporarily increased by 20% and the already increased contributions 
were increased by additional 10 % to the measure ‘promotion’, as currently laid down in 
Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/132 and to the measures ‘restructuring and conversion 
of vineyards’, ‘green harvesting’, ‘harvest insurance’ and ‘investments’, as currently laid 
down in Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/592, all with retroactive effect. 

Regulation (EU) 2021/7830 extended the application of measures to address the crisis in the 
EU wine sector which were introduced by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/600 for the 
duration  of  the  2021  financial  year,  given  that  the  lengthy  duration  of  the  restrictions 
imposed  by  MS  to  address  the  COVID-19  pandemic  and  the  resulting  severe  economic 
disruption to the main outlets for wine and the ensuing negative effect on the demand for 
wine exacerbated oversupply  in  the EU  wine sector, which had already started with  the 
imposition by the US of tariffs on the imports of EU wines in October 2019. Because some 
MS reported that during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic they were not in a position to 
re-examine the standard scales of unit costs applied to certain measures in the programmes, 
for  the  years  2020,  2021  and  2022,  MS  were  given  the  possibility  to  extend  the  period 
during which such re-examination must be carried out from every second year to the fourth 
year  following  the  last  calculations.  To  avoid  discrimination,  this  flexibility  applied 
retroactively as of the date of entry into force of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/600. 

Regulation (EU) 2021/9531 extended several measures introduced by Delegated Regulation 
(EU)  2020/592  (advance  payments,  crisis  distillation  and  storage,  increased  support  for 
promotion measures, restructuring, green harvesting, harvest insurance and investments) 
until  15  October  2021  because  the  wine  market  had  not  managed  to  regain  its  balance 
between supply and demand and the upcoming high yield 2020 harvest, expected to exceed 
the 2019 harvest by approximately 10 million hectolitres of wine further exacerbating the 
situation. 

30 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/78 of 27 January 2021 amending Implementing Regulation 
(EU)  2020/600  derogating  from  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2017/892,  Implementing  Regulation  (EU) 
2016/1150,  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  No  615/2014,  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2015/1368  and 
Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/39 as regards certain measures to address the crisis caused by the COVID-
19 pandemic, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2021/78/oj  
31 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/95 of 28 January 2021 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 
2020/592  on  temporary  exceptional  measures  derogating  from  certain  provisions  of  Regulation  (EU)  No 
1308/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  to  address  the  market  disturbance  in  the  fruit  and 
vegetables  and  wine  sectors  caused  by  the  COVID-19  pandemic  and  measures  linked  to  it,  ELI: 
http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2021/95/oj  

29 

 
 
 
Regulation (EU) 2021/37432 provided for the continued implementation of the measures to 
address  the  crisis  in  the  EU  wine  sector  which  were  introduced  by  Regulation  (EU) 
2020/884  to  provide  operators  with  the  necessary  flexibilities  to  implement  support 
programmes  in  the  EU  wine  sector  in  view  of  the  continuing  market  imbalance.  The 
measures  concerned  were  the  additional  flexibility  for  the  implementation  of  green 
harvesting  on  the  same  parcel  for  two  or  more  consecutive  years  and  the  flexibility  to 
introduce  changes  to  ongoing  operations.  For  operations  that  could  not  be  fully 
implemented, fully implemented actions were eligible for EU support, as long as the overall 
objective of the operation was achieved. 

Regulation (EU) 2021/176333 extended certain flexibilities introduced by Regulation (EU) 
2020/600, allowing MS to make changes to their national support programmes whenever 
necessary until 15 October 2021, because of the high stocks and continuing decline in wine 
consumption due to the effects of the Covid pandemic coupled with the tariffs on EU wines 
imposed by the US. MS were then able to introduce such changes to their national support 
programmes  whenever  necessary  until  15  October  2022,  but  during  that  period,  the 
measures crisis distillation and crisis aid for storage were no longer available. 

Regulation (EU) 2021/202634 addressed the uncertainty about duration of the crisis, which 
remained difficult to predict due to the rapid mutability of the virus, further deepening the 
existing significant disturbance of the EU wine market. Because the recovery of the sector 
was  expected  to  take  longer  than  could  be  anticipated  at  the  beginning  of  2021,  it  was 
considered appropriate to continue to offer temporary and exceptional support to the EU 
wine  sector  to  avoid  the  increase  in  bankruptcies  that  has  been  reported. Therefore,  the 
maximum Union financial contribution to the support for harvest insurance was increased 
to  70%  of  the  cost  of  the  insurance  premiums  paid  for  by  producers  for  insurance  for 
operations  selected  from  4  May  2020  to  15  October  2021,  and  to  80%  for  operations 
selected from 16 October 2021 to 15 October 2023 and the application of increased support 
rates for restructuring,  investments and green harvesting  was  extended  until  15 October 
2022. 

Regulation (EU) 2021/202735 extended, due to the continuing decline in wine consumption 
resulting from the Covid pandemic, the application of certain provisions of Regulation (EU) 
2020/884 from 15 October 2021 to 15 October 2022, allowed green harvesting on the same 

and 

amending  Delegated  Regulation 

32 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/374 of 27 January 2021 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 
2020/884 derogating in respect of the year 2020 from Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/891 as regards the fruit 
and vegetables sector and from Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1149 as regards the wine sector in connection 
with 
(EU)  2016/1149,  ELI: 
the  COVID-19  pandemic, 
http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2021/374/oj  
33 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1763 of 6 October 2021 amending Implementing Regulation 
(EU) 2020/600 as regards the derogations from Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1150 to address the crisis 
caused by the COVID-19 pandemic in the wine sector, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2021/1763/oj  
34 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2026 of 13 September 2021 amending Delegated Regulation 
(EU) 2020/592 as regards certain temporary derogations from Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council to address the market disturbance in the wine sector caused by the COVID-19 
pandemic and their period of application, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2021/2026/oj  
35 Commission Delegated  Regulation (EU) 2021/2027 of 13 September 2021 amending Delegated Regulation 
(EU) 2020/884 as regards the derogations from Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1149 to address the crisis caused 
by  the  COVID-19  pandemic  in  the  wine  sector,  and  amending  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2016/1149,  ELI: 
http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2021/2027/oj  

30 

 
 
 
parcel for two or more consecutive years for 2020, 2021 and 2022, doubled support rates, 
and  allowed  more  than  one  marketing  year  to  be  covered  to  increase  the  incentive  for 
operators in the wine sector to set up mutual funds. 

Regulation (EU) 2023/122536 added ‘crisis distillation’ to the eligible measures of the wine 
support programme and introduces flexibility for ‘green harvesting’ in view of low wine 
consumption and sales, combined with increased input costs for the agricultural production 
and wine processing threatening to significantly disturb the EU wine market. To increase 
the effectiveness of EU financial resources that could be allocated to these crisis measures, 
MS were  allowed to  complement the Union financial assistance with  national  payments 
covering up to 50% of the support granted for the two crisis measures. The maximum EU 
contribution to  five measures (‘promotion’, ‘restructuring and conversion of vineyards’, 
‘green harvesting’ and ‘investments’) was temporarily increased to align the sector more 
closely with market demands. MS are allowed to provide some flexibilities to beneficiaries 
in order to adapt the planned operations following a simplified procedure and to allow their 
partial  implementation  in  duly  justified cases. The flexibilities related to operations that 
started to be implemented during the 2023 financial year. 

Regulation  (EU) 2023/131737 allowed  MS,  in  view of the accumulation of wine stocks, 
reduced consumption, income losses of wine producers and sale difficulties, to facilitate 
green harvesting, by introducing changes to their national support programmes in the wine 
sector whenever necessary during the 2023 financial year (but not later than 15 October 
2023), to set the deadline for the submission of applications for support for green harvesting 
between 15 April and 31 July, to set a deadline after that application deadline for carrying 
out  green  harvesting  operations  and  to  apply  green  harvesting  without  establishing  a 
justification based on the expected market situation. 

Regulation  (EU)  2023/146538  provided  for  emergency  financial  support  for  different 
agricultural  sectors  affected  by  specific  problems  impacting  the  economic  viability  of 
agricultural producers, which covered compensations to farmers for the impacts of several 
adverse  weather  events  as  well  as  for  the  market  consequences  of  Russia’s  war  of 
aggression  against  Ukraine,  and  also  included  the  possibility  for  wine-producing  MS  to 
allocate additional financial support for crisis distillation measures, reinforcing the capacity 
of the measure adopted  with  the above-mentioned  Regulation  (EU) 20234/1225  and  for 
which the financial allocation within the national support programmes was limited. Two 
MS (France and Germany) made use of this additional possibility. 

36  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2023/1225  of  22  June  2023  on  temporary  exceptional  measures 
derogating  from  certain  provisions  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1308/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council  to  address  the  market  disturbance  in  the  wine  sector  in  certain  Member  States  and  derogating  from 
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1149, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2023/1225/oj  
37  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2023/1317  of  28  June  2023  on  temporary  derogation  from 
Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1150 as regards certain measures to address the market disturbance in the 
wine sector; ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2023/1317/oj  
38  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2023/1465  of  14  July  2023  providing  for  emergency  financial 
support  for  the  agricultural  sectors  affected  by  specific  problems  impacting  on  the  economic  viability  of 
agricultural producers. OJ L 180, 17.7.2023, p. 21–27; ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2023/1465/oj. 

31 

 
 
 
Regulation  (EU)  2024/199539  granted  EU  financial  support  in  a  total  amount  of 
EUR 15 million  (with  possibility  of  national  payments  up  to  200%  of  the  EU  financial 
support) to remove part of the volume in stock from the Portuguese wine market for the 
most  affected  market  segment  of  red  wines  protected  by  a  denomination  of  origin  or  a 
geographical indication. 

Regulation  (EU)  2024/214640  extended,  by  12  months,  the  validity  of  planting  and 
replanting authorisations that expire in the year 2024, to be used in regions of Spain, Italy 
and France that have been affected by severe drought or excessive rainfalls, during winter 
and  spring  2024.  Alternatively,  these  authorisations  could  be  renounced  without  an 
administrative penalty. 

Regulation  (EU)  2024/215941  extended  the  validity  of  unused  planting  and  replanting 
authorisations that expire in the years 2024 and 2025 that were to be used in the regions 
most affected by market disturbances, as identified by the Member State, by three years or 
otherwise  allowed  them  to  be  renounced  without  an  administrative  penalty  because  of 
disturbances in the wine market due to the fall in domestic consumption and the weakening 
of exports to third countries for certain wine categories, in particular for red wines  from 
some production regions.

39  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2024/1995  of  19  July  2024  on  a  temporary  exceptional  crisis 
distillation  measure  to  address  the  market  disturbance  in  the  wine  sector  in  Portugal  in  the  marketing  year 
2024/2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2024/1995/oj  
40 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2146 of 2 August 2024 on temporary emergency measures 
derogating in respect of the year 2024 from certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council and from Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/891 to resolve specific 
problems  in  the  wine  and  fruit  and  vegetables  sectors  caused  by  adverse  meteorological  events,  ELI: 
http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2024/2146/oj  
41  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2024/2159  of 12 August  2024  on  temporary exceptional  measures 
derogating  from  certain  provisions  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1308/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council concerning the scheme of authorisations for vine plantings to address the market disturbance in the Union 
wine market, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2024/2159/oj  

32 

 
 
 
Annex 2. Overview of the issues raised by the participants in the High-Level Group on Wine Policy 

This  is not a legally binding  document.  It was prepared by  the departments  of the  Commission and does not  commit the European Commission.  The 
explanations, which are part of the assessments of the suggestions submitted by Member States and stakeholders in respect of certain EU legal acts are 
provided for information purposes only. In the event of a dispute involving  EU law, under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, it is 
ultimately for the Court of Justice of the European Union to provide a definitive interpretation of the applicable EU law. 

Issues raised by stakeholder organisations 

Organisation 

Challenges identified 

Suggested solutions 

European Wine Regions 
(AREV) 

•  need to defend the rich traditions of EU 

wine-producing regions 

•  need of a global vision for the wine-

• 

producing sector and coordination 
between policies 
structural crisis, declining wine 
consumption worldwide due to societal 
changes 

•  volatile geopolitical situation 
• 

climate change 

European Committee of 
Wine Companies 
(CEEV) 

• 

increased costs of production and 
distribution 

•  decline of wine consumption in the EU 

Introduce emergency measures and risk insurance. 

• 
•  Allow for more flexibility in the management of the EU wine envelope. 
•  Make wine production more competitive: 
•  Reinforce promotion, including at EU level 
•  Create a sustainability logo. 
•  Consider wine in trade agreements 
•  Support the development of new products. 
•  Reinforce the wine market observatory. 
•  Educate consumers, including about drinking wine in moderation. 
•  Reinforce support for adaptation to climate change, including through 

new disease- and pest resistant varieties, and the use of new technologies. 

•  SIMPLIFICATION of the CAP strategic plan, in particular for the 

promotion and communication measure. 

•  EXPORTS - Improve market access for EU wine by, among others, an 

improved procedure to fight technical barriers to trade. 

33 

 
 
 
 
Organisation 

Challenges identified 

Suggested solutions 

•  uncertainty in world wine trade, especially 

•  PRODUCT innovation with complete legal framework for de-alcoholised 

and partially de-alcoholised wines. 

•  SINGLE MARKET improvement through a language-free system based 

on digital (one wine label for the EU). 

•  MODIFICATION of EU distance selling policy to simplify e-commerce 

rules for wine products. 

•  LEVEL PLAYING FIELD and LEVERAGE EU principles for 

sustainable wine production and communication. 

in key export markets 
change in consumer trends 

• 
•  mismatch between offer and demand for 
certain categories of wine and certain 
regions 

•  proliferation of negative climatic events 
• 
complex and burdensome regulatory 
environment 

•  demonisation of wine in health policy 
• 
continuing growth in all non-alcoholic 
drinks categories; inability of the EU wine 
sector to respond to consumers’ needs and 
meet demand 

European Confederation 
of Independent 
Winegrowers 
(CEVI) 

•  global geopolitical situation, inflation, 

•  Preserve the CAP legal framework and increase the budget dedicated to 

economic uncertainties global market and 
economic instabilities 

•  decline in wine consumption 
• 

climate change and adverse 
meteorological events 

•  precarious and very uncertain situation 
faced by independent winegrowers 

the Common Market Organisation (CMO). 

•  Ensure wine will continue to be classified as an agricultural product, 

benefiting from the CMO measures. 

•  Ensure a balanced allocation of the CAP aids in favour of small-scale 

producers, specifically through the differentiated rates set out in Article 
59(2) of Regulation 2021/2115 in favour of micro, small and medium-
sized enterprises. 

•  Apply these differentiated rates to the measure ‘promotion in third 

countries’ (Article 58(1k) of Regulation 2021/2115). 

34 

 
 
Organisation 

Challenges identified 

Suggested solutions 

•  Set up a toolbox to help MS choose and finance themselves the measures 
best fitted to their national situation: distillation, grubbing-up, green 
harvesting, private storage, possibility to extend planting authorisation in 
time of crisis, higher flexibility for all measures in time of crisis. 

•  These measures must be accessible to all winegrowers, even the smallest 

businesses. 

•  Extend the validity of planting authorisations (Article 62(3) of 

Regulation 1308/2013): to eight years for replanting, five years for new 
plantings, and by as many years as needed ‘in time of crisis’. 

•  Differentiate micro-enterprises from SMEs as a criterion for granting 

new planting authorisations in Article 64(2h) of Regulation 1308/2013 to 
give MS the possibility to prioritise them. 

•  Establish a one stop shop’ for distance selling to private consumers 

within the EU to simplify the payment of excise duties. 

•  Preserve the CAP budget dedicated to promotion of agricultural products 

(Regulation 1144/2014). 

•  Consider wine and spirits as a strategic economic sector so that it can 

benefit from limited commercial agreements. 

•  Set up a safety net/emergency fund to shield winegrowers from the 

challenges/loss in market share arising from global events. 

•  Enable national representative organisations of independent winegrowers 
to benefit from the CAP promotion aid measure targeted at wine tourism 
(Article 58(1)(i) Regulation 2021/2115). 
Improve the functioning of harvest insurances so that they can refer to an 
‘average without weather-related events’. 

• 

35 

 
 
Organisation 

Challenges identified 

Suggested solutions 

•  Financially support the acquisition of equipment to prevent the 
consequences of climate change (hail, frost, drought, etc.) 

•  Support R&D to equip winegrowers with the tools to efficiently combat 

climate change and its consequences. 

•  Support R&D to equip winegrowers with the tools to adapt to climate 

change, including through the development of new genomic techniques, 
under a proper regulation. 

European Farmers 
(COPA) 

• 
structural crisis in the sector 
•  need to rebalance the market 

Proposals along three axes: market, climate, consumers 
Replanting authorisations: 

•  Extend deadline to eight years, eliminate administrative penalty 

(retroactive). 

•  Limit new planting authorisations in areas that have taken crisis 

measures (distillation, private storage, grubbing-up). 

•  Set the new annual planted area at 0.0%. 
•  Managing of the offer (temporary/ definitive grubbing-up) 

Funding: 

•  Transfer unused funds to the following year, to be kept within the 

sectoral funds and used to finance crisis measures. 
•  Create mutual funds, with public and private financing 
• 

finance cyclical crisis measures and, on occasion, grubbing-up measures. 
Speed up the adoption process for crisis measures and allow greater flexibility in 
project implementation: 

•  A ‘menu’ of measures available to MS to make project implementation 

easier and quicker. 

36 

 
 
 
Organisation 

Challenges identified 

Suggested solutions 

European Agri-
Cooperatives 
(COGECA) 

•  The MS, in justified contexts of crisis, and in cooperation with the COM, 

can activate these measures directly. 
(Examples: modifying the project without prior approval; allowing 
payment for a single action and partial project implementation; 
postponing planting authorisation deadlines, etc.) 

Promotion: 

•  Extend promotion measures to the European internal market. 
•  Support markets without time limits. 
• 
•  Wine tourism: increase projects to improve attractiveness of 

Improve clarity and predictability of the process. 

winegrowing areas. 
Strengthen the role of cooperatives: 

•  Unfair practices: support for the changes proposed in the Directive 

(written contracts, payments on time, sales below production prices, 
same rules for third countries, etc.). 

•  Producer organisations / cooperative associations: 

o  Possibility of deciding selling prices (derogation from competition 

o 

law) 
Investment aid: consider the threshold for public contributions to 
cooperatives/OPs as SMEs. 

Climate: 

•  R&D: devote more resources to new varieties, water scarcity, sustainable 
production tools, pest control, production techniques adapted to climate 
change. 

37 

 
 
 
 
Organisation 

Challenges identified 

Suggested solutions 

•  Biodiversity: increase EU contribution to projects that actively aim to 

improve, adapt and simplify oenological practices. 

•  New categories of products, such as ‘natural wine’ or ‘wines made from 

low-alcohol grape varieties’. 

Green claims: 

•  Keep the possibility of a simplified methodology for claims derived from 

eco-regimes. 

•  Budget to monitor pests (Flavescence dorée and others). 
• 

Insurance 
o  Boost current systems, facilitate access, affordable prices. 
o  Develop EU safety net system. 
o  Extend cover to all stages of winemaking. 

Labelling: 

•  All types of labelling must follow the principles of harmonisation and 

digitisation. 

•  Fair minimum prices (above production costs). 
•  Select the most suitable areas for vineyards. 
•  Restrict the expansion of vineyard areas. 
•  Tackle land concentration and land grabbing. 
•  Provide public support for vineyards of environmental, historic and 

cultural high value 

•  Ensure stricter protection of origins (PDO and PGI). 
•  Exit free trade agreements on agriculture 

38 

European Coordination 
Via Campesina 

• 

• 

• 

• 
• 
• 

low prices paid for grapes (value-chain 
imbalances) 
sharp increase in production costs (prices 
and volumes) 
changes in consumption (less 
consumption, new tendencies) 
international competition 
international trade agreements 
climate change (variability of production) 

 
 
Organisation 

Challenges identified 

Suggested solutions 

•  unfair CAP supports 
• 

industrialisation (mechanisation and 
genetic manipulation) 
rural abandonment 

• 

European Federation of 
Origin Wines 
(EFOW) 

• 

• 

a steady decline in wine consumption over 
the past decade, which is forecast to 
continue 
consumption becoming occasional 
(Consumers are reporting a desire to drink 
less for their health, and in a number of 
MS public authorities are combating all 
alcohol consumption.) 
a decline in red wine consumption and a 
drop in sales of entry-level still wines 
•  growth in value in the premium/super-

• 

premium segments 

•  Eco-scheme to support density decrease (and alternation with other 

cultures and landscape elements). 

•  VAT exemption for operations between winegrowers and winemakers. 
•  Cap and modulate CAP payments (cap to 100 000 euro per farm) and 

ensure a fairer distribution of CAP supports. 

•  Derogate the possibility of arbitrary harvest selection (e.g. in Italy, with 

Galan Law of 2010). 

•  Specify on the label the type of harvest and the origins of the wine. 
•  Adapt the investment supports to small and medium holdings. 
•  Make free-licensed management software available to wineries (for 

proper recording and traceability of PDO and PGI wines). 

•  Acknowledge and regulate natural wine. 

Develop a toolbox for MS. 

• 

In the event of a crisis, MS should be able to implement one or more 
measures to: 
o 

reduce production potential via grubbing-up, green harvesting or 
managing the percentage of vine planting authorisation, 

o  support private storage in anticipation of market improvement, 
o  eliminate part of the production via crisis distillation. 

Implement conditionality. 

•  Any operator benefiting from crisis support should: 

o 

forgo requesting new planting authorisations for four consecutive 
campaigns and relinquish all replanting authorisations in its 
portfolio; 

39 

 
 
Organisation 

Challenges identified 

Suggested solutions 

•  difficulty for no/low-alcohol wines to 

o 

• 

• 

• 

establish themselves 
strong competition from other alcoholic 
beverages, whose consumption is not 
declining. 
exports stagnation and an increased risk of 
trade conflicts. 
climate fluctuations disrupting production 
capacity, both reducing and increasing it, 
heavily impacting operators and 
destabilising the sector 

forgo requesting aid that risks increasing their production for four 
consecutive campaigns (e.g. restructuring/replanting and investment, 
unless the investment aims to improve the farm's climate 
performance or biodiversity); 

o  not benefit from crisis aid for two consecutive campaigns. 

•  NB: exercise caution with affiliated companies, corporate groups, and 

• 

intermediary entities, as they may circumvent the established 
conditionality. 
If a Member State implements the measures above, it should reduce its 
production potential at the national level or at the level of the production 
regions that have benefited from the support measures mentioned above. 

Develop mutual fund schemes. 

•  Replenish a mutual fund with the unspent budgets from the wine 
programmes. These funds could be allocated to support crisis 
management and the ecological transition. E.g. financing the industrial 
transformation of surpluses, developing an insurance scheme, financing 
the green toolbox. 

Improve the vine planting authorisation scheme. 

•  Allow MS to set the growth rate of planting authorisations at 0% at the 
national level, at the level of production regions, or at the level of a 
geographical indication. 

•  A recognised GI producer group should have the power to recommend: 

o  Not to grow (set the percentage to 0) 

40 

 
 
Organisation 

Challenges identified 

Suggested solutions 

o  a ban on the planting of non-GI wine in its geographical area by 
demonstrating a risk of excess supply or a significant risk of 
devaluation of its GI. 

Invest in promotion to reverse declining consumption. 

• 

Improve the promotional tool in the CAP strategic plans by changing the 
definition of ‘market’ (China or the United States are ‘continents’) and of 
‘continuity’ (go beyond the five-year limit). 
o  Remove the requirement to present three bids for each expense and 

allow the use of reference costs by action and market and/or price 
scales. 

o  Simplify procedures, e.g. speed up the processing of modifications 

requests, no penalties for cost efficiency improvements, improve the 
justification of expenses. 

•  Allow new actors to promote wine tourism (Beyond interprofessional 
bodies, recognised GI producer groups should also be eligible for this 
measure.) 
Introduce improvements to the EU agricultural promotion policy. 
o  Simple programmes should be available to GI wines alone, without 

• 

them having to be associated with another agri-food GI product, such 
as GI spirits. 

o  The European Research Executive Agency should produce a guide 

for the justification of expenses and the evaluation of simple projects 
for all MS. 
the costs of specialised consultants in the application and justification 
of these funds should be eligible. 

o 

41 

 
 
Organisation 

Challenges identified 

Suggested solutions 

Facilitate the diversification of sales channels. 

•  The wine programmes should support operators willing to develop direct 

sales activities. 

•  Support distance and online wine sales by: 

o  establishing a one stop shop for excise payment; 
o  extending the duties exemptions granted to offline sales to online 
sales (quantities of products purchased in the country of origin, 
transported by the buyer, and intended for personal use). 

Incentivise sustainability. 

•  Promote a sustainable approach to viticulture and viniculture. 

EU law should encourage the optimal use of resources in territories. For 
example, in the case of fortified wines with an appellation, EU aid should 
be used so that the brandy comes from the wine region. 

•  Encourage climate change adaptation and biodiversity preservation. 
o  Adapt the restructuring/reconversion measure to ensure that 

replanting occurs at a later stage. 
o  Lifespan of replanting authorisations: eight years. 
o  Operators should replant starting from the sixth year. 
o  Condition: operators take measures to increase biodiversity on 

the unplanted plots and improve soil quality. 

o  Co-financing should be available for five years and at 80% of these 

o 

costs. 
Increase to 80% the co-financing level for measures under Article 
58(m) of the Strategic Plans. 

o  Allow the co-financing of: 

42 

 
 
Organisation 

Challenges identified 

Suggested solutions 

• 

• 

advisory services with a focus on environmental measures and 
climate change adaptation. 
guides and training on sustainability practices for recognised GI 
producer groups. 

o  Aid for operators conducting experiments in their vineyards to adapt 

to climate change. 

Ensure truth in labelling. 

•  Support the status quo on de-alcoholised wines (not available to GIs). 
•  No objection to rebrand this segment as alcohol-free. 
•  Opposition to changes allowing partially de-alcoholised wines to be 

labelled as low-alcohol wines. 
o  Ongoing advancements in developing resistant grape varieties and 
potentially new genomic techniques could enable operators to 
produce wines with naturally low alcohol content. 

o  The term low-alcohol wine should be reserved for such wines to 
prevent misleading consumers about the winemaking process. 

•  Complement the wine growers’ organic toolbox for plant protection. 
•  The authorisation of potassium phosphonate would make organic 

viticulture more environmentally friendly through a parallel reduction in 
copper and increased production reliability. 

Organics Europe 
(IFOAM) 

•  The organic vineyard area is increasing 

worldwide, but there are major challenges 
due to climate change: frost damage and 
downy mildew. 

•  The use of plant protection products 

(PPPs) in viticulture is particularly 
widespread, including in organic 
viticulture. 

43 

 
 
 
Organisation 

Challenges identified 

Suggested solutions 

•  Fungus-resistant grape varieties can 

manage with significantly fewer PPPs, but 
the establishment of these new grape 
varieties is a long and difficult process. 

•  Copper-containing PPPs, which are 

allowed for organic vineyards, are not 
suitable for securing the harvest during 
long periods of rainfall. 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 3. Reflection Document for the Second Meeting of the High-Level Group on Wine Policy 

Issues to be addressed: 

1)  MANAGEMENT OF THE PRODUCTION POTENTIAL 

➢  Adjust production potential to structural decline in demand worldwide and stabilise/decrease the EU vineyard area 
➢  Stabilise yield 

Possible actions 
Permanently 
reduce 
vineyard area 

the 

Policy tools 
Definitive grubbing-
up 

Possible features 
A  one-shot,  exceptional  EU 
market  measure  over  two  or 
three  marketing  years  (as  in 
2009-2011),  with  EU  support 
and possibly co-financed 
Permanent  possibility  within 
the  sectoral  interventions  with 
EU support/co-financed  

Pros/cons/ questions 
May  permanently  reduce  production  potential  and  balance 
supply  when  combined  with  other  measures.  Could  be 
implemented under Article 219 CMO. 
➢  Is such a measure cost-efficient and sufficiently effective in 

the long term (valid question for all grubbing-up)? 

It would be a new type of wine intervention in the future SPR, 
with  additional  conditions  e.g.  targeted  regions,  planting 
authorisations,  etc.  For  it  to  be  triggered,  MS  would  have  to 
amend their strategic plans for wine. 

➢  As there is one EU wine market (even if segmented), isn’t 
there  a  risk  that  interventions  without  an  EU  perspective 
may be regretted or generate imbalances? 

➢  Is there a risk that some MS may go too far? Is there a need 
for a specific ceiling of expenditure, such as for the current 
sanitary grubbing-up? 

➢  Considering  the  high  cost  of  grubbing-up,  wouldn’t 
available resources be taken away from more constructive 
measures for the sector? 

Flexibility, speed and subsidiarity ensured. No use of resources 
dedicated  to  other,  more  productive  measures.  EU  context 
ensured, including EU legal framework for the justification of 
the intervention.  

Permanent possibility with MS 
support subject to authorisation 
by  the  COM  (like  the  current 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Possible actions 

Policy tools 

Possible features 
possibility for crisis distillation 
under the CMO) 
Conditions/priorities/coherence 
for any grubbing-up measure 

Temporarily 
reduce 
vineyard area 

the 

Delayed  replanting 
scheme 

Growers  who  grub  up  a 
vineyard  only 
replant  after 
[eight] years. 

46 

Pros/cons/ questions 

Conditions should ensure coherence, efficiency of the measure 
and minimise the negative social and environmental effects : 
➢  Tailor-made  to  focus  on  target  regions  (e.g.  with  proven 
oversupply)  and  segments  (e.g.  red  wines)  experiencing 
oversupply. 

➢  Subject to and as part of a wine structural adjustment plan 

drawn up by MS. 

➢  With safeguards for environmentally sensitive areas, special 

landscape features. 

➢  Defining priorities, such as for more productive vineyards 
and some types of wine producers (e.g. above 55 years) 
➢  Policy  coherence,  e.g.  by  excluding  beneficiaries/regions 
using the grubbing-up scheme from receiving new planting 
authorisations for [X] years 

➢  Excluding  vineyards  that  benefited  from  restructuring 
support in the last [X] years from support for grubbing up. 
➢  Incompatibility  with  granting  support  for  restructuring  in 
the same region (and/or to the same beneficiary) during the 
[X] following years. 

➢  Would it be pertinent to restrict the use of the land grubbed-
up  (no  wine  production  on  the  same  parcel  during  [X] 
years)? 
➢  Would 

increase 
‘dormant  production  potential’  not 
uncertainty in the market and pose a risk of increasing the 
area in  the years ahead  when consumption might  be even 
lower? 

➢  Is compensation for a temporary reduction cost-efficient in 
a  context  of  decreasing  consumption?  Would  it  not  take 

 
 
 
 
Possible actions 

Policy tools 

Possible features 

Pros/cons/ questions 

resources  away  from  positive  measures  in  favour  of 
producers who want to invest? 

➢  Should a delay in replanting be made obligatory under the 
restructuring  and  reconversion  measure,  but  with  no 
additional support compared to a standard restructuring or 
reconversion operation? 

➢  Could  a  voluntary  delay  without  compensation  for  the 
income loss be reached by an extension of the period before 
replanting,  giving  producers  more  time  between  the 
decision on grubbing-up and the decision on planting (e.g. 
by extending the deadline between the grubbing-up and the 
application for replanting authorisations)? 

➢  Do  you  think  a  lower  maximum  percentage  could  be 
beneficial/effective  in  combating  the  structural  problems, 
given that MS can already set a very low level (even though 
above 0%)? 

➢  Should this lower ceiling be temporary or permanent? 
➢  Should  a  lower  maximum  (of  [0]%?)  be  obligatory  for 
MS/regions  using  a  grubbing-up  or  crisis  distillation 
scheme?  For  all  wines  or  only  for  the  specific  types  of 
wine/regions in crisis? 

➢  Would  a strict 0% growth rate be an  excessive barrier  for 

new entrants? 

➢  What about keeping the current maximum percentage and 
combining it with stricter eligibility and priority criteria for 
granting authorisations (e.g. market and landscape criteria)? 

➢  Key 

question: 

for 
to 
distillation/grubbing up (reduction of production) and allow 
new authorisations (increase potential/production)?  

balance 

paying 

how 

Limit 
future 
increases  in  the 
vineyard area 

Lower 
the 
maximum % of new 
authorisations  that 
can be granted 

Reduce  the  current  maximum 
rate (1%) to a lower level for all 
MS. 

Allow  MS  to  go  to  0%  (at 
national and regional level). 

or 

For  MS 
regions 
implementing  crisis  measures 
(crisis  distillation  or  grubbing-
up), set the availability of new 
planting to [0]% for [X] years. 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
Possible actions 

Policy tools 
Reduce  the  number 
valid 
of 
authorisations 
in 
circulation  

authorisations 

Possible features 
Allow MS to waive the penalty 
for 
granted 
before  a  certain  date  [31  July 
2024]  if  they  are  relinquished 
before a certain deadline. 

Pros/cons/ questions 
The  amount  of  authorisations  in  circulation  is  important  and 
represents  future  production  potential.  It  has  grown  with 
successive extensions of validity. 
➢  Would  setting  a  deadline  for  relinquishing  authorisations 
without penalty incentivise some growers to give them up? 
➢  Any  other  idea  about  how  to  reduce  the  amount  of  these 
authorisations? (e.g. empower MS to remove the penalties 
as  an incentive  for growers to  relinquish them in cases of 
national/regional market imbalance)?  

More effective use of 
for 
authorisations 
future 
new 
plantings 

target  new  planting 
Better 
(currently 
authorisations 
possible via eligibility criteria). 

Keep  duration  of  validity  and 
strengthen  penalties  for  non-
use. 

Temporarily 
delay 
increase 
vineyard area 

the 
in 

Extension  of 
validity 
replanting 
authorisations 

the 
of 

All  replanting  authorisations 
could  be  extended 
to  [six] 
years, with removal of penalties 
for their non-use. 

or 

48 

Better targeting could align planting with market demand and 
land development. 
➢  Can  you  think  of  other  methods  to  steer  new  planting 
oversupplied  market 

away 

from 

authorisations 
segments/regions? 

Replanting  authorisations  should  be  subject  to  different 
treatment  than  new  planting  authorisations.  New  planting 
authorisations  are  more  sensitive  to  speculation  and  directly 
increase the production potential. Therefore, a relatively short 
validity  and  a  proportionate  penalty  are  necessary  for  new 
planting authorisations. 
In  contrast,  replanting  authorisations  keep  the  production 
potential stable, and an extension of their validity merely delays 
the replanting of the same area (see below). 
A  longer  validity  period  increases  the  ‘dormant’  production 
potential, which increases uncertainty in the future development 
of  the  market.  However,  extending  the  validity  of  replanting 
authorisations could spread their use over a longer period, and 
some would be relinquished if there is no penalty. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Possible actions 

Policy tools 

Possible features 
Extend  the  validity  of  existing 
replanting  authorisations  only, 
with  removal  of  penalties  for 
non-use  and  the  possibility  for 
MS  to  extend  the  validity  of 
future replanting authorisations 
in duly justified cases. 

Avoid excessive 
yield increases 
on a given area  

Reconversion 
support for 
vineyards 

Set conditions for the 
restructuring and reconversion 
measure which limit yield 
increases. 

Conditions 
replanting 
authorisations 

for 

Conditions  to  be  set  by  MS  to 
increase  when 
avoid  yield 
vineyards are replaced. 

Stabilise 
yields/production 
(temporary) 

Yield 
mechanism 

stabilisation 

In 
the  CMO  Regulation, 
include the possibility of such a 
mechanism,  activated  through 
interprofessional  organisations 

49 

Pros/cons/ questions 
same 

➢  Wouldn’t 

the 

for  new  planting 
treatment 
authorisations  lead  to  speculation?  Would  extending  their 
validity not go against the objective to reduce the amount of 
authorisations in circulation? 

➢  Should  the  current  duration  of  validity  for  replanting 
authorisations  be  kept,  but  with  the  possibility  for  MS  to 
extend  the  validity  to  [eight]  years  in  duly  justified  cases 
(such as weather events, market imbalance, etc.) or should 
there be a general extension of their validity?  

➢  Do you think it is feasible/appropriate to set a general 

condition that yields of reconverted vineyards (or features 
having similar effects) should not increase? Or should the 
condition be limited to certain situations? Which ones? 
➢  Should we differentiate between PDO/PGI (for which 

yields are set in their technical specifications) and non-GI 
wines? 

MS could set conditions on maximum yields (or characteristics 
having similar effects) when granting replanting authorisations. 
In case of transfer of authorisations between certain areas, MS 
may be allowed to set maximum planted areas or even prohibit 
replanting in areas with  different characteristics (e.g. to avoid 
vineyards  moving  away  from  environmentally  sensitive  areas 
or slopes). 
➢  Should  there  be  stricter  rules  allowing  MS  to  prohibit  at 
national  level  the  transfer  of  replanting  authorisations 
within  a  holding,  e.g.  from  one  region  to  another,  from 
slopes to the plain? 

This would give more responsibility to the sector for preventing 
market imbalances. 
➢  Should  the  extension  of  rules  (Article  164  CMO)  be 

reinforced for the wine sector? 

 
 
 
Possible actions 

Policy tools 

Green harvesting 

for 

Possibility 
producer 
organisations 
to 
withdraw wine from 
the  market 
(e.g. 
distillation) 

Possible features 
producer 

or 
organisations 
(extension of rules) for a certain 
area. 
sectoral 
wine 
Make 
intervention rules more flexible 
to allow MS to reallocate funds 
dedicated to green harvesting in 
case  of  non-use  in  specific 
years. 

Recognised  POs  can  adopt 
marketing 
their 
rules 
members  and  act  in  case  of 
conjunctural supply excess. 

for 

Pros/cons/ questions 
➢  Should the possibility for the MS under Article 167 CMO 

(national marketing rules) be improved? How? 

Green  harvesting  occurs  late  in  the  financial  year.  Financial 
flexibility would make it possible to keep this measure available 
in the SP, with no risk of losing the unspent money allocated to 
it. 

➢  Considering the existing possible transfer of unused funds 
between  measures  (Article  101  SPR),  which  additional 
flexibilities would you deem useful? 

In  some  other  sectors,  this  kind  of  operations  by  POs  or 
cooperatives recognised as POs can be partially financed within 
operational programmes run by such POs. 

➢  Would it be useful to allow MS to fund these programmes 

with the area payments, as in some other sectors? 

➢  Or would allowing the possibility of withdrawal with no use 

of public funding be enough? 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
2)  POLICY MEASURES TO STRENGTHEN THE RESILIENCE OF THE SECTOR IN A CHANGING MARKET AND 

AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE 

Issues to be addressed: 

➢  Strengthen the position of winegrowers. 
➢  Protect winegrowers against losses due to severe weather events. 
➢  Increase the resilience of the sector in the long term. 

Possible actions  Policy tools 
the 
Strengthen 
position 
of 
growers 
in  the 
food chain 

The rules on unfair trading 
practices (UTP) should take 
vine  growers’  concerns  into 
account. 
Strengthen 
cooperatives. 

POs 

and 

Encourage  growers  to  join 
producer organisations. 

Protect  growers 
income 
from 
losses 

Develop 
encourage 
and 
uptake  of  risk  management 
tools 

Possible features 
Enforcement  of 
Directive by MS 

the  UTP 

Pros/cons/ questions 
➢  Do you see any specific aspect to be improved in relation to 

the wine supply chain? 

Co-ops  and  POs  considered  as 
SMEs regardless of their size 

➢  Considering that cooperatives (first level) and POs represent 
a  group  of  small  producers,  should  they  be  considered 
always as SMEs regardless of their size? If so, what could be 
done? 

➢  Further incentive for setting 

Setting up aid already planned under Article 77(8)(b) SPR. 

up 

for  MS 

➢  Obligation 

to 
recognise  POs  in  the  wine 
sector  
➢  Setting 

up 
dedicated 
schemes  with 

insurance 
public support. 

➢  Which  other  measures  would  make  it  more  attractive  for 

growers to cooperate? 

Such  tools  are  already  supported  by  the  CAP.  However,  the 
uptake  is  rather  weak,  as  only  a  few  MS  have  strong  national 
agricultural insurance schemes. 

➢  Setting  up  mutual  funds 
with contributions from the 
EU/MS/regions 
and 
growers. 

➢  What should be improved in the CAP to increase the uptake 

of these tools? 

➢  Would an EU re-insurance scheme be a game changer? How 

do you see it could be structured within the CAP? 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Prevent crop losses. 

Improving  EU  support 
for 
investments  preventing  crop 
losses. 

Promote 
adaptation 
change. 

long-term 
climate 

to 

➢  Support for investments for 
climate 
adaptation 
change 
(including 
restructuring/reconversion) 

to 

the  burden  of 
Reduce 
applying certain oenological 
practices 

➢  Research and innovation on 
climate  change  adaptation 
options 
of 
Authorisation 
sugaring/acidification up to the 
current additional limit without 
prior 
of  MS 
authorities  (while  keeping  ex 
post control) 
Wine sectoral interventions  Pluriannual 

agreement 

management  of 
sectoral programmes  

financial 
the  wine 

52 

➢  What  about  guaranteed  funds  (instead  of  grants  to  all 

farmers), with EU funding covering the residual risk? 

For granting support for investments in vineyards, set conditions 
and priorities (and/or a higher support rate) favouring prevention 
measures and adaptation measures. 
E.g.  reconversion/restructuring  support  could  be  subject  to 
priorities  or  conditions  that  new  vineyards  should  be  more 
adapted to climate change and less prone to losses. 
➢  Key question: how can farmers better adapt to the risk (e.g. 

practices)? 

➢  Already  possible  under  the  SPR,  but  could  this  goal  be 

reinforced? 

➢  What about making it mandatory for wine-producing regions 
to have adaptation plans for vineyards, with criteria that are 
embedded into all intervention / market measures to ensure 
an effective implementation by the sector? 

➢  Do you have other ideas of how growers can be supported to 

better address climate risks? 

➢  Can this be applied without the risk of abuse? 

This would provide MS more flexibility and allow them to carry 
over unused amounts to the next year. 
➢  Should there be a limit of [20%] of the annual envelope for 
the  carry-over  (to  ensure  continuous  implementation  and 
avoid  concentration  of  expenditure  in  the  last  years  of  the 
programme)? 

➢  How  to  avoid  concentration  in  the  last  year(s)  of  the 

programming period? 

Optimise the use 
of  the  envelope 
of 
the  wine 
sectoral 
interventions 

 
 
 
 
 
 
3)  POLICY MEASURES TO ADAPT TO MARKET TRENDS AND HARNESS MARKET OPPORTUNITIES 

Issues to be addressed: 

➢  Adapt production to market trends 
➢  Reach consumers on the internal and external market 

Possible actions  Policy tools 
Enhance 
market 
surveillance 
tools 

market 
EU 
observatory  (MO),  price 
reporting 

wine 

Possible features 
Strengthening  the  collection 
of 
of 
information and analysis. 

sharing 

data, 

Meet  consumer 
demand 

on 

oenological 
Rules 
practices  (OPs)  adapted 
to consumer preferences 

➢  Complete the framework 
of 
de-
alcoholised  and  partially 
de-alcoholised wines. 

rules 

for 

➢  Allow  for  wines  with 
low  alcohol 

naturally 
content. 

Pros/cons/ questions 
Surveys  of  MS/experts  on  specific  topics,  beyond  price 
notifications,  could  be  one  way  to  strengthen  the  MO. 
However, strong and consistent cooperation and support from 
the national authorities and the sector is needed. 

➢  Are  the  MS  (and  the  sector)  willing  to  commit  to  this 

project? 

➢  The  rules  on  de-alcoholised  wines  merit  to  be  completed 
while preserving the integrity of these wines. What is your 
view? 

➢  Demand  for  naturally  low-alcohol  wines  is  growing. 
Shouldn’t they be allowed on the market while identifying 
the category for consumers? 

New  labels  for  further 
segmentation 
market 
consumers 
meeting 
demand 

A new EU label for: 

➢  ‘natural  wines’ 

(‘vins 

nature’) 

➢  ‘sustainable wines’ 

➢  A common definition for these products would need to be 
found. Do you think such labels could bring benefits to the 
sector? 

➢  On  sustainability,  currently  there  is  a  multitude  of  often 
opaque  private  certification  schemes,  including  some  run 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
➢  ‘heroic/historic wines’ 
➢  ‘naturally 

low-alcohol 

wines’ (see above). 

Labelling  rules:  simplify 
and 
more 
make 
informative 

Complete 
and 
simplify/harmonise  the  rules 
for digital labels.  

Defend  the  specific  value 
of  wine  and  differentiate 
from  other  alcohol 
it 
products  

Reach 
consumers on 
export markets 

Promotion 
or 
information  measures: 
make them more effective 
and efficient 

Emphasise  the  link  between 
the  European 
wine  and 
culture; 
and 
landscape 
the  public  about 
inform 
moderate 
consumption, 
particularly  as  part  of  the 
Mediterranean 
and 
about the difference between 
wine  and  other  alcoholic 
beverages. 
➢  Allow  promotion 

for 
more than three years on 
the same market. 

diet, 

a 

➢  Provide 
scheme 
producers 
their access. 

simplified 
small 
improve 

for 
to 

54 

by retailers. A harmonisation of criteria and procedures for 
the certification of sustainability could bring transparency 
and economies of scale. However, inserting general criteria 
(e.g. OIV) in EU legislation would still leave a wide margin 
for different schemes on the market. Setting stricter criteria 
in EU law, on the other hand, risks making the scheme too 
rigid and burdensome. What is your opinion? 

➢  Would sustainability labelling create problems for organic 

wine?  

➢  How  could  digital  labels  (presentation  and  content)  be 
improved  considering  the  interests  of  the  sector  (single 
label  for  all  EU  countries)  and  the  right  of  consumers  to 
easy access to information? 

➢  Do  you  have  ideas  about  how  this  could  be  facilitated  at 

EU/MS level?  

➢  The  three-year  limit  no  longer  exists,  but  are  there  other 

hurdles? 

➢  How could the promotion policy tools be improved further 

to be more effective? 

➢  What could a simplified scheme for small producers look 

like? 

 
 
 
 
 
Support wine tourism 

Strengthen the current tool.  Already possible for interbranch actions, but rarely used. 

Reach 
consumers  on 
the 
internal 
market 

Promotion on the internal 
market 

Improve attractiveness of 
wine in Horeca  

Include the excise duty in 
the import one stop shop 
system 
(IOSS) 
to 
facilitate 
cross-border 
distance sales of wine 
Innovative packaging 

Action 
research 
innovation  

on 
and 

Support research 

possible 

schemes 

for 
Already 
information  campaigns  on 
quality 
and 
moderate consumption. 
Possible agreements between 
producers  and  Horeca  on 
reducing wine markups. 

➢  Should individual operators also be eligible for support? 
➢  How  to  ensure  consistency  with  the  other  tools,  such  as 

RDP (individual producers can apply already)? 
➢  How could the promotion policy be improved? 

Excessive markups in Horeca are to the detriment of consumers 
and  producers  and  sometimes  discriminate  against  wine  in 
favour of other alcoholic beverages. 
➢  Private 

agreements 

between 

allowed 

could 

be 

producers/POs and Horeca. 

➢  Do you have other ideas? 
TAXUD  currently  has  a  project  group  with  MS  which  is 
looking  for  solutions  to  modernise  the  procedure  for  the 
distance  sale  of  alcoholic  drinks  subject  to  excise  duties.  Do 
you have specific proposals for wine? 

Do you see any regulatory barriers to be removed, or actions to 
be  taken  at  EU  level,  to  promote  the  use  of  innovative 
packaging that would better meet consumer demand? 

research 

and 
Dedicated 
innovation package from the 
vineyard to consumers which 
could benefit the sector (e.g. 
climate 
plant  protection, 
new 
change 
varieties, 
digital, 
winemaking  practices,  cellar 
technologies, 
innovative 
packaging/labels). 

adaptation, 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 4. Policy Recommendations of the High-Level Group for Wine – Timeframe for implementation 

As requested by the participants of the HLG, stakeholders and members of the European Parliament, the Commission worked on a time frame for 
the implementation of the HLG recommendations, identifying those actions that are wine specific and can be implemented in the short term. 

Title of the action 

Rec. 
No 

Short description (Ref to HLG 
recommendation) 

Timeline/tool  Comments 

ADDRESSING THE MANAGEMENT OF THE PRODUCTION POTENTIAL 

1 

A permanent grubbing-up 
scheme: 
(a)  with State aid 
(b) as a national crisis measure 
under Article 216 of the 
CMO regulation 
(c)  with CAP support 

(a)  assisting State aid applications 
(b) amendment of Article 216 CMO to 

include the measure and an 
empowerment for detailed rules 
(c)  assessment of options by the COM  

(a)  as needed 
(b) AM 

CMO 

(c)  CAP 

reform 

Elements to be considered in 
corresponding DA/IA: 
•  grubbing-up schemes should be 

targeted at solving specific problems of 
regions or market segments 

•  common general principles and criteria 
for eligibility and priority criteria, to 
be chosen by MS 
in the context of a structural 
adjustment plan of the region 
concerned 

• 

•  exclusion of certain vineyards with a 

high value for the landscape 
•  consistency with decision on new 

planting authorisations 

•  consistency with restructuring 
measures under the NSP. 

•  maintaining the agricultural destination 

of land previously planted with 
vineyards 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
Title of the action 

Rec. 
No 

Short description (Ref to HLG 
recommendation) 

Timeline/tool  Comments 

2 

New planting authorisations 

(a) Allow MS to set new authorisations at 

a)AM CMO 

3 

Replanting authorisations 

0% at regional or geographical 
indication level (also for regions 
benefiting from grubbing-up or crisis 
distillation measures). 

(b) Give MS more flexibility in the 
allocation and management of 
authorisations. 

IA: Extend the maximum period between 
the grubbing-up and the application 
deadline for the corresponding replanting 
authorisation. 

Done 

(a)  extend the validity of replanting 
authorisations to eight years. 

(b) abolish the administrative penalty for 
non-use of replanting authorisations. 

AM CMO 

(b) MS already have a lot of flexibility 
(regional limits, priority criteria etc.). 
Further changes (such as more 
eligibility/exclusion criteria) would 
need a more in-depth discussion. 

•  Extension of the period already 

achieved with Implementing Act  
•  This extension in the CMO may 

require a change to the IA to adjust the 
maximum length of the period. 

4 

Scheme to relinquish unused 
pre-2024 authorisations 
without penalty 

Growers may, before a certain deadline, 
relinquish all valid planting authorisations 
granted before 2024 without penalty.  

AM CMO 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Rec. 
No 

5 

Title of the action 

Short description (Ref to HLG 
recommendation) 

Timeline/tool  Comments 

Allow MS to set yield limits 
for restructuring measures 

Allow MS to set verifiable conditions 
aimed at limiting excessive yield 
increases in vineyards that receive support 
through the restructuration/reconversion 
measure. 

AM SPR 

6 

New conditions for 
planting/replanting 
authorisations  

Allow MS to set conditions when 
granting planting and replanting 
authorisations, including for limiting 
transfers within the same holding, aiming 
to prevent excessive increases in yields 
and avoid any excessive reduction of 
vineyard area in sensitive regions. 

AM CMO 

Goes together with Recommendation No 
2(b). 

7 

Green harvesting 

(a)  Increased flexibility and 

Already possible 

simplification for green harvesting. 
Possibility to reallocate resources in 
the wine sectoral programmes during 
the year between types of 
intervention. 

(b) Add green harvesting to the measures 
of Article 216 of the CMO regulation 
to allow financing with national 
budget. 

58 

AM CMO 

Goes together with Recommendation No 
1(b). 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Title of the action 

Rec. 
No 

Short description (Ref to HLG 
recommendation) 

Timeline/tool  Comments 

8 

Yield stabilisation mechanism  Give producer organisations, interbranch 

AM CMO 

organisations or recognised producer 
groups managing GIs the tools for the 
management of yield stabilisation 
mechanisms. 

To verify complementarity with current 
Article 164 (extension of rules) and Article 
166a (supply management for GIs). 
Actually, setting limits to yields could be 
covered by Article 166a as regards GIs. 
Also, Article 167 allows MS to adopt 
supply management measures on the base 
of interbranch agreements.  

•  STRENGTHENING THE RESILIENCE OF THE SECTOR IN A CHANGING MARKET AND ITS ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE 

CHANGE 

9 

Improving exports and market 
access  

10 

UTP and Supply chain 

COM: to maintain ambitious strategy to 
expand market access, address trade 
barriers, and protect wine products from 
unrelated trade disputes.  

• 

Strengthen the bargaining capacity of 
growers, review the list of unfair 
practices, or improve the framework on 
contracts, and the cross-border 
enforcement of the provisions of the UTP 
Directive. 

ongoing 
• 
‘targeted’ AM 
CMO 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Rec. 
No 

11 

Title of the action 

Strengthen producer 
cooperation 

Short description (Ref to HLG 
recommendation) 

Timeline/tool  Comments 

Treat cooperatives and POs in the wine 
sector as SMEs for the purposes of the 
common agricultural policy. 

AM SPR 

For cooperatives not needed as can be 
recognised as POs by the MS 

12 

Risk management 

(a)  Improve the existing risk management 

CAP reform 

tools, including by exploring 
mechanisms of EU re-insurance or co-
insurance. 

(b) Reinforce options in the CAP to 
support insurance and mutual 
schemes, to strengthen national 
insurance schemes through de-risking 
strategies and innovative insurance 
solutions that better share the risks. 

Change the rules for the calculation of 
losses for climate compensation schemes 
for the CAP and State aid.  

AM SPR in 
Omnibus 
Simplifi-
cation 

(a)  Ensure consistency of all relevant 

CAP reform 

interventions in the support 
programmes (market, restructuring 
and investments measures) with the 
guidelines and criteria defined in 
mandatory adaptation plans. 

60 

13 

Improve prevention of crop 
losses and adaptation to 
climate change 

Refers to the request of a new calculation 
method for the “Olympic average” . 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Title of the action 

Rec. 
No 

Short description (Ref to HLG 
recommendation) 

Timeline/tool  Comments 

(b) Increase the support rate for climate 
risk prevention measures that are in 
line with those plans. 

AM SPR 

14 

Support new wine-producing 
MS 

Ensure that all EU policies supporting the 
wine sector take into account the needs of 
MS where wine production has recently 
started or may develop in the near future.  

15 

Organic wine 

Request the Expert Group for Technical 
Advice on Organic Production to assess: 

(a)  the use of potassium phosphonate as a 
plant protection product to control 
downy mildew on organic grapevine; 

(b) the de-alcoholisation processes for 
partially de-alcoholised products. 

61 

Open the possibility of financing wine 
interventions in MS without a wine 
envelope. 

Two EGTOP expert meetings planned in 
March and Plenary in June 2025. 

CAP reform 

AM CMO: 
Planting 
authorisations 
to apply to 
MS as from a 
certain 
vineyard area. 

a)Spring 2025 

b)upon 
receipt of 
application  

 
 
 
 
 
 
Rec. 
No 

16 

Title of the action 

Short description (Ref to HLG 
recommendation) 

Timeline/tool  Comments 

Encourage the use of new 
technologies 

CAP reform 

(a)  Make the latest research findings 
into climate change adaptation 
easily accessible to the farming 
community. 

(b) Extend the list of eligible 
investments under wine 
interventions to include the latest 
relevant technologies. 

17 

Maximise use of envelopes of 
wine sectoral programmes 

Flexibility in the financial management of 
the wine sectoral programmes, including 
transfers between financial years, by: 

(a)   and (b) already possible 

CAP Reform 

(c)  to be explored also e.g. in 

connection with the proposal on 
the national agricultural reserve 

(a)  easier transfer of financial allocations 

between types of intervention; 
(b) more flexible rules for advance 

payments; 

(c)  Carry over and allowing the use of 
unspent funds in the sectoral 
programmes for supporting crisis 
management measures. 
(d) Increase support rates for 

interventions aiming to improve the 
sustainability of wine production. 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Title of the action 

Rec. 
No 

Short description (Ref to HLG 
recommendation) 

Timeline/tool  Comments 

(e)  Allow the use of exceptional wine 

sectoral interventions within the CAP 
strategic plan in case of market 
disturbance by making the 
amendment procedure faster and more 
flexible. 

ADAPTING TO MARKET TRENDS AND HARNESSING MARKET OPPORTUNITIES 

18 

Reinforce the wine market 
observatory 

(a)  Reinforce the observatory’s capacity 

to collect and analyse relevant 
homogeneous market information 
including through increased data 
sharing. 

(b) Better monitor the development of 

demand and consumer preferences in 
traditional and new potential export 
markets. 

(c)  Give legal certainty to interbranch 

organisations supplying market data 
collection and use of this data 
regarding the  

to be 
developed 

Depends on the extent the members will 
be willing to increase their contributions 
and financial means for acquiring 
additional market data; MS must also 
commit to notifying information in a 
comprehensive and timely manner. 

To be explored if this implies a legislative 
change in the CMO. 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Rec. 
No 

19 

Title of the action 

Short description (Ref to HLG 
recommendation) 

Timeline/tool  Comments 

Tailor wine products to 
demand 

(a)  fully and partially de-alcoholised 

a) AM CMO 

wines 

(b) natural low-alcohol wines 

20 

Electronic labelling 

Further harmonise (and complete) the 
rules on electronic labelling 

b) to be 
explored 

AM CMO 

Modification of some oenological 
practices, and labelling rules for de-
alcoholised wines. 

Empower COM to adopt a delegated act 
on: 
- the use of the QR code for presenting 
information to consumers; 
- identification of the QR code on the label 
(pictogram); 

b) already possible for MS 

21 

Promotion 

22 

Wine tourism 

AM SPR 

(a)  Increase the duration of the support 
for promotion measures to allow for 
market consolidation in third 
countries. 

(b)  Possible simplified scheme for small 

producers. 

Allow support for coordinated actions 
promoted by wine interbranch 
organisations, producer organisations. and 
producer groups managing geographical 
indications.  

AM SPR 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Rec. 
No 

23 

Title of the action 

Short description (Ref to HLG 
recommendation) 

Timeline/tool  Comments 

Electronic system for excise 
for cross-border distance sale 
of wine 

Cooperation with TAXUD on speeding up 
the development of a system comparable 
to the IOSS  

Long-term 

Depends on technical progress and MS 
cooperation/compatibility of MS systems – 
difficult to accelerate. 

24 

Encourage research and 
innovation 

Research package dedicated/better 
attuned to wine. 

Horizon 
(R+D+i) 

Make innovation more accessible to 
producers through dedicated training, 
advisory services, and other tools. 

CAP reform 

 AM = amendment 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 5. The High-Level Group Recommendations in the ‘Wine Package’ 

MANAGEMENT OF THE PRODUCTION POTENTIAL – AUTHORISATIONS 

•  Validity of eight years for all replanting authorisations (no administrative penalty if they are not used) to give growers time to analyse 

market demand. 

•  Possibility for MS to set rules for replanting authorisations (preserving vineyards on slopes and terraces, preserving landscape, 

avoiding soil erosion, etc.) 

•  Possibility for MS to limit the issuing of new planting authorisations at regional level for areas with excess supply. 
•  One-off measure: No administrative penalty for unused authorisations for new plantings granted before 1 January 2025 if renounced by 

31 December 2026 

MANAGEMENT OF THE PRODUCTION POTENTIAL – OTHER MEASURES 

Possibility for MS to: 

•  Lay down rules to regulate supply, set maximum yields and rules for the management of stocks, in cooperation with representative 

producer organisations or interbranch organisations. 

•  Make national payments to wine producers not only for the voluntary or mandatory distillation of wine but also for voluntary green 

harvesting and voluntary grubbing up of productive vineyards in duly justified cases of crisis. 

•  Lay down conditions in their CAP strategic plans to ensure that there is no increase in yield for the vineyards subject to restructuring 

and conversion 

GRAPEVINE PRODUCTS WITH A REDUCED ALCOHOL CONTENT AND LABELLING 

•  New definitions: 

o  ‘alcohol-free’ : actual alcoholic strength does not exceed 0.5 % by volume, to which ‘0.0%’ is to be added if the actual alcoholic 

strength does not exceed 0.05% by volume. 

o  ‘alcohol-light’: actual alcoholic strength above 0.5% by volume, but at least 30% below the minimum actual alcoholic strength of 

the category before de-alcoholisation. 

•  Labelling of those products: addition of the expression 'produced by de-alcoholisation.’ 
•  De-alcoholised sparkling wine and aerated sparkling wine may also be obtained from de-alcoholised or partially de-alcoholised wines 

(in the past, a sparkling or aerated sparkling wine had to be de-alcoholised). 

•  The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts on: 

o 

the identification of the electronic means (QR code, etc.) by means of a pictogram or symbol instead of words on the package or the 
label. 

66 

 
 
o  updates of certain labelling provisions, to simplify the presentation of information and to adapt to future technological progress 

or new requirements on information relevant to consumers. 
SUPPORT FOR WINE SECTOR INTERVENTIONS UNDER THE STRATEGIC PLAN 

•  Producer groups managing protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications will be eligible for support to 

promote wine tourism in production regions. 

•  The duration of promotion and communication operations aimed at the consolidation of market outlets will be extended from three 

years to five years. 

•  The maximum rate for Union financial assistance for investments and for innovation will be granted not only to micro, small and 

medium-sized enterprises but also to recognised producer organisations. 

•  The financial assistance for these investments will be increased to 80% of eligible investment costs for investments contributing to 

climate change mitigation and adaptation. 

•  The Union financial assistance can be increased from 50% to 80% of eligible costs for investments and innovations that enhance the 
sustainability of wine production, if they are linked to the objective of contributing to climate change mitigation and adaptation. 

AROMATISED WINE PRODUCTS - REDUCED ALCOHOL CONTENT, GLÜHWEIN AND LABELLING 

•  Aromatised wine products with a lower actual alcoholic strength may be obtained from grapevine products that have undergone a full 
or partial de-alcoholisation process. The sales denominations of those products must be supplemented by the same terms as those laid 
down for grapevine products. 

•  The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts on: 

o 

the identification of the electronic means (QR code, etc.) by means of a pictogram or symbol instead of words on the package 
or the label. 

o  updates of certain labelling provisions, to simplify the presentation of information and adapt to future technological progress or 

new requirements on information relevant to consumers. 

•  “Glühwein” may also be produced entirely or partially from rosé wine and the sales denomination “Glühwein” may be used in the 

labelling of alcoholic beverages obtained from fruit wine 

67 

 
 
 
Annex 6. Impact analysis: who is affected and how? 

The policy measures proposed under the ‘Wine Package’ generate a broad range of direct and 
indirect economic benefits across the wine supply chain, from winegrowers and producers to 
retailers, public administrations, and consumers. 

For  winegrowers,  the  measures  provide  greater  flexibility  and  stability,  notably  through 
extended replanting authorisation periods, yield management tools and more targeted support 
for investments. This enables them to plan over longer time periods, adapt more effectively to 
climate change and invest in sustainable vineyard practices and technologies. These changes 
also reduce uncertainty linked to volatile prices or overproduction, improving resilience and 
lowering the likelihood of financial distress. 

Producers  and  cooperatives,  including  small  and  medium-sized  wineries  and  producer 
organisations, benefit from a more predictable market environment, clearer rules and increased 
support  rates  for  investment–up  to  80%  for  projects  related  to  innovation,  processing, 
marketing,  and  adaptation  to  climate  change.  These  incentives  encourage  structural 
improvements  in  winery  infrastructure,  digitalisation  of  processes,  and  product  innovation, 
including the development of low and non-alcoholic wines. The extension of promotion project 
durations  from  three  to  five  years  offers  more  realistic  timelines  for  consolidating  export 
markets,  particularly  important  in  a  context  of  geopolitical  instability.  The  support  for 
collective wine tourism projects managed by producer groups also enhances local visibility and 
attracts  new  income  streams,  while  reinforcing  links  between  wine,  territory,  and  rural 
development. 

Distributors, wholesalers, and retailers gain from a more stable and coordinated supply chain. 
Reduced  overproduction  and  more  consistent  supply  help  stabilise  prices  and  facilitate 
inventory  planning.  The  harmonisation  of  e-labelling  rules  across  the  EU,  including  a 
standardised, language-free QR  code, makes it easier to manage labelling and reduces  risks 
linked to regulatory divergence between MS. This lowers transaction costs, especially in cross-
border trade, and decreases the incidence of product returns or disputes over compliance. 

Public  administrations  stand  to  benefit  from  a  simplified  regulatory  environment.  More 
harmonised  rules  reduce  the  burden  of  audits,  inspections,  and  enforcement  actions, 
particularly in areas like labelling and crisis measures. With clearer criteria and fewer national 
deviations,  legal  disputes  are  expected  to  decline,  freeing  up  administrative  capacity  and 
enabling better-targeted public oversight. By encouraging market balance through tools like 
green  harvesting,  distillation,  and  grubbing-up,  the  sector  also  becomes  less  reliant  on 
emergency crisis interventions, easing pressure on public budgets over time. 

Consumers are also direct beneficiaries of the proposed measures.  Clearer categories for low 
and  non-alcoholic  wines,  along  with  standardised  names  and  production  methods,  support 
more informed purchasing choices and enable consumers to select products that better align 
with  their  lifestyle  and  health  preferences.  The  expansion  of  wine  tourism  projects  also 
improves  the  overall  wine  experience,  connecting  consumers  more  deeply  with  regional 
culture, landscapes, and sustainable practices. 

Altogether,  this  proposal  provides  potential  economic  benefits  with  no  additional  costs  for 
operators  and  public  administrations. Its impacts  are described in  detail  in  Section 6. These 
impacts cannot be precisely quantified, because their actual impact will depend on (i) the extent 

68 

 
 
of uptake of the measures, (ii) how MS apply the instruments given to them, (iii) the production 
and market situation in the following years, which cannot be foreseen with accuracy, (iv) the 
pre-existing national legislative framework, and (v) existing supply chain structures. Benefits 
calculated based on reasonable assumptions and relevant data available are summarised in the 
following table. 

Summary of costs and benefits 

Table 1 - Overview of benefits 

I. Overview of benefits (total for all provisions) – preferred option 

Description 

Amount 

Comments 

Direct benefits 

Benefits for winegrowers and their associations 
EUR 339 million / 
More flexibilities in 
year 
planting and a more stable 
market 

Farmers  and  their  associations  benefit  from  a  more  predictable  wine 
market in the long term, improving increased long term predictability of 
the  wine  market,  which  leads  reinforced  relations  and  better  price 
transmission  along  the  supply  chain.  A  more  stable  market  would 
especially favour the cooperation between producers and their collective 
inititiaves. These elements are expected to lead to increased revenue and 
more stable incomes for winegrowers. 

By reducing uncertainty around pricing, volumes and sales, winegrowers 
can make more informed investment decisions that are expected to lead to 
better  profitability  (because  farmers  are  less  willing  to  invest  in 
productivity-enhancing  assets  in  the  absence  of  predictable  cash  flows, 
which may lead to sub-optimal investment decisions in the long-term). 

This reduction in income volatility is expected to translate into an average 
margin  improvement  of  around  1%  of  the  annual  income  per  farm  per 
year.42  This  rate  of  improvement,  which  specifically  refers  to  the  dairy 
sector, can be reasonably be assumed valid also for the wine sector. Based 
on this, and considering that the income generated by the EU winemakers 
is  about  EUR 29.4  billion43,  it  is  estimated  that  in  the  long  term  the 
stabilising  effect  of  such  measures  could 
income  by 
approximately EUR 294 million a year. 

improve 

Moreover,  extending  the  validity  of  the  replanting  authorisations  and 
removing  the  administrative  penalty  in  case  of  non-use,  would  reduce 
financial losses for winegrowers. Assuming a reasonable average turnover 
of commercial vineyards (30 years), an average applicable penalty (500 
€/ha) plus the loss of the land value for not planting the vineyards (20 000 
€/ha), and that the replanting does not occur on 2,5% of the hectares with 
replanting  authorisations  due  to  the  currently  short  validity  period,  the 
financial losses prevented can be estimated in EUR 45 million. 

More resilience, 
adaptability, and innovation 
due to investments aimed to 

EUR 90 million / 
year 

Shifting  resources  toward  activities  that  enhance  structural  resilience, 
environmental  sustainability,  and  market  adaptability  will  help 
winegrowers to better withstand climate change and market fluctuations, 

42 Briner, S. and Finger, R., The effect of price and production risks on optimal farm plans in Swiss dairy 
production considering two different milk quota systems, Journal of Dairy Science, Vol. 96, No. 4, 2013, pp. 
2234–2246. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2012-6086 .  
43 Source: Eurostat–Economic Accounts of Agriculture 

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
climate and environment 
objectives 

while positioning them to meet the shifting demands of consumers both 
within the EU and on international markets. 

Easier production methods 
for de-alcoholised sparkling 
wines 

EUR 25 million / 
year 

Labelling harmonisation 

EUR 50 million 

Wine promotion and 
tourism  

EUR 142 million / 
year 

While a quantification of the market benefits does not seem feasible, the 
benefits of better resilience to adverse climatic effects can be  estimated 
considering  the  related  damage  that  winegrowers  bear  every  year. 
Considering  the overall losses in agriculture  and wine sector in the last 
years due to climate change and extreme events4445, it can reasonably be 
assumed that a better adapted production system can in average reduce the 
damages due to climate events by 5% a year. Based on that and the total 
value  of  EU  wine  production46,  the  total  benefits  can  be  estimated  at 
EUR 90 million per year on average in the long term. 

Producing sparkling wine products not from the de-alcoholisation of those 
products, but from de-alcoholised still wines would save costs and better 
meet  the  growing  demand  for  this  type  of  products.  According  to 
experts47,  there's  a  growing  market  potential  for  European producers  as 
the size of the global market for non-alcoholic wine will grow from almost 
€8  billion  today  to  €14  billion  by  the  end  of  2031.  Assuming,  very 
conservatively, that the EU producers will be able to capture half of this 
growth, half of which is made up by de-alcoholised sparkling wines, and 
that with this proposal producers would reduce their production costs for 
around  10%  of  the  production  value,  the  additional  income  for 
winegrowers  can  be  estimated  at  EUR 25  million  a  year  for  the  next 
several years. 

With a clearer legal framework, winegrowers will be able to design labels 
that are valid EU-wide. The real gains in terms of operational efficiency, 
reduced  transactional  costs  and  risk  of  non-compliance  are  difficult  to 
estimate. 

Cost savings of EUR 50 million on printing and re-printing labels for wine 
exported across the EU can be estimated based on (i) the total volume of 
bottled  wine  yearly  exported  within  the  single  market,  (ii)  the  average 
label costs48, and (iii) bottles that do not need a new label (conservatively 
estimated at around 20%). 

Extending the maximum duration to five years gives wine exporters (many 
of  whom  are  cooperatives  or  SMEs)  the  time  and  support they  need  to 
establish a stable commercial presence abroad, build customer loyalty, and 
adapt to external disruptions. While there will be benefits of this extension 
in terms of maintaining or expanding market share in foreign markets, it 
is  not  possible  to  quantify  them  with  a  certain  accuracy,  considering  a 
great uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of the promotion actions in 
different markets and of the forthcoming geopolitical situation.  

In  2023,  wine  tourism  in  the  EU  generated  approximately  EUR 14.2 
billion in revenue, the effects on the whole economy included, marking an 
18% increase over the previous year49. More wine tourism projects will 
also  increase  direct  and  local  sales  of  wine,  with  a  higher  margin  for 
winegrowers. 

There is no data or study available that could help quantifying the effects 
of wine tourism on the whole EU wine sector. Based on the above figures, 

44 Clima, Coldiretti: nel 2023 da eventi estremi 6 miliardi di danni all'agricoltura | Teleborsa.it 
45 WineRisk 
46 PwC Report, Economic, social and environmental importance of the wine sector in the EU. March 2024 
47 Non-alcoholic wines seen as key to reviving Europe's declining wine industry | Euronews 
48 Wine - European Commission 
49 France Wine Tourism Market Size & Trends 2025-2035 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
however,  if  we  conservatively  estimate  a  very  modest  improvement  of 
revenue for winegrowers only of 1% due to wine tourism’s new projects, 
the total benefits would result in EUR 142 million  

Based on the impacts described in Section 6 above, the assessment of impacts of the proposal 
can be summarised in the following table. 

71 

 
 
 
 
 
Summary of the impacts of the proposal  

Measures in the proposal 

Domain 

Impact 

MANAGEMENT OF THE PRODUCTION POTENTIAL ADAPTING 
IT TO FUTURE DEMAND: PLANTING RIGHTS 

Validity of eight years for all replanting authorisations (no penalty if not 
used)  

Possibility for MS to set rules for replanting authorisations (preserving 
vineyards on slopes and terraces, landscapes, avoiding soil erosion, etc.) 

Possibility for MS to limit the issuing of new planting authorisations at 
regional level for areas with excess supply 

No administrative penalty for unused authorisations for new plantings 
granted before 1 January 2025 if renounced by 31 December 2026 

MANAGEMENT OF THE PRODUCTION POTENTIAL ADAPTING 
IT TO FUTURE DEMAND : OTHER MEASURES 

Possibility for MS to: 

• 

Lay down rules to regulate supply, set maximum yields and rules 
for the management of stocks, in cooperation with representative 
producer organisations or interbranch organisations. 
•  Make national payments to wine producers not only for the 

voluntary or mandatory distillation of wine, but also for voluntary 
green harvesting and voluntary grubbing up of productive 
vineyards in duly justified cases of crisis. 
Lay down conditions in their CAP strategic plans to ensure that 
there is no increase in yield for the vineyard subject to restructuring 
and conversion 

• 

INNOVATIVE GRAPEVINE AND AROMATISED WINE PRODUCTS 
WITH REDUCED ALCOHOL CONTENT, AND LABELLING 

New definitions and denominations: 
- ‘alcohol-free’ : actual alcoholic strength does not exceed 0.5 % by volume, 
accompanied by ‘0.0%’ if the actual alcoholic strength does not exceed 
0.05% by volume 
- ‘alcohol-light’: actual alcoholic strength above 0.5% by volume, but at least 
30% below the minimum actual alcoholic strength of the category before de-
alcoholisation 
Labelling of those products: addition of the expression 'produced by de-
alcoholisation.’ 

De-alcoholised sparkling wine and aerated sparkling wine may be obtained 
from de-alcoholised or partially de-alcoholised wines. 

Aromatised wine products with a lower actual alcoholic strength may be 
obtained from grapevine products that have undergone in full or in part a de-
alcoholisation process. 
The sales denominations of those products must be supplemented by the 
same terms as those laid down for grapevine products 

72 

ECO: economy 
SOC: society 
ENV: environment 
ECO 
SOC 
ENV 
ECO (better capacity to adapt to market 
trends without being penalised) 
SOC (relief for producers, better capacity 
for decision making) 
ENV 
ECO 
SOC (benefits for cultural heritage and 
preserving vulnerable rural areas) 
ENV (conservation of environmental 
assets) 
ECO (balancing offer and demand) 
SOC (benefits for rural areas under 
stress) 
ENV (avoids misuse of land and 
resources) 
ECO (better capacity to adapt to market 
trends without being penalised) 
SOC (relief for producers) 
ENV 
ECO 
SOC 
ENV 

ECO (market stabilisation, better tools 
for dealing with crises) 
SOC (producers' groups' involvement in 
decision making) 
ENV 

ECO 
SOC 
ENV 
ECO (Improved income for the sector, 
benefiting wine producers and production 
areas) 
SOC (promotion of no- and low- alcohol 
beverages; better information for 
consumers) 
ENV 

ECO (significant savings in production 
costs) 
SOC 
ENV (savings on natural resources and 
Energy) 
ECO (significant savings in production 
costs) 
SOC (better information for consumers) 
ENV 

+ + 
+ + 
+ 
+ + 

+ + 

o 
o 
+ 

+ + 

+ + 
+ 

+ 

+ + 

+ 
o 
+ + 
+ + 
o 

+ + 

+ + 

o 

+ + 
+ 
+ 
+ + 

+ 

o 

+ + 

o 
+ 

+ 

+ 

o 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Commission is empowered to adopt, for both wine and aromatised wine 
products, delegated acts on: 
- The identification of the electronic means (QR code, etc.) by means of a 
pictogram or symbol instead of words on the package or the label 
- Updates of certain labelling provisions, to simplify the presentation of 
information and adapt to future technological progress or new requirements 
on information relevant to consumers 

ECO (significant savings in production 
and trading costs) 
SOC (access to information for 
consumers) 
ENV (savings in raw materials and 
energy) 

Glühwein may also be produced from rosé wine. 
The sales denomination “Glühwein” may be used in the labelling of 
alcoholic beverages obtained from fruit wine. 

SUPPORT FOR WINE SECTOR INTERVENTIONS UNDER THE 
STRATEGIC PLAN: WINE TOURISM AND PROMOTION 

Producer groups managing protected designations of origin and protected 
geographical indications will be eligible for support to promote wine tourism 
in production regions 

Extension of the duration of promotion and communication operations aimed 
at consolidating market outlets from three years to five years. 

SUPPORT FOR WINE SECTOR INTERVENTIONS UNDER THE 
STRATEGIC PLAN: ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE 
Granting the maximum rate for Union financial assistance for investments 
and for innovation not only to micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, 
but also to recognised producer organisations. 

Increase in the financial assistance for these investments to 80% of eligible 
investment costs for investments contributing to climate change mitigation 
and adaptation. 

Permitted increase in the EU financial assistance from 50% to 80% of 
eligible cost for investments and innovations that enhance the sustainability 
of wine production, if they are linked to the objective of contributing to 
climate change mitigation and adaptation 

ECO (diversification of products based 
on wine) 
SOC 
ENV 
ECO 
SOC 
ENV 
ECO: (economic diversification in wine-
producing rural areas) 
SOC: (benefits for rural areas: jobs, 
social fabric) 
ENV: (heritage, landscapes, more 
sustainable tourism promoted) 
ECO: (greater market consolidation) 
SOC 
ENV 

ECO (benefits for the sector across the 
EU) 
SOC (benefits for organisations often 
settled in rural areas) 
ENV (promotes investments in 
sustainability) 
ECO (benefits for the sector across the 
EU) 
SOC (promotes investments in rural 
areas, benefits for the whole community) 
ENV (contributes to conservation, 
adaptation, and management of natural 
resources) 
ECO (promotes innovation and increases 
economic sustainability of producers and 
producing areas) 
SOC (helps wine-producing rural areas 
preserve their livelihood, benefits for the 
whole community) 
ENV (contributes to conservation, 
adaptation, and management of natural 
resources) 

+ + 

- 

+ 

+ 

o 
o 
+ + 
+ 
+ + 
+ + 

+ + 

+ 

+ + 

o 
o 

+ + 

+ 

+ 

+ + 

+ 

+ + 

++ 

+ 

+ + 

73 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 7. Summary of the meetings of the high-level group 

Meeting 1:  presentation  and  discussion  of 
(11 September 2024) 

the  challenges  for 

the  wine  sector 

First part: Consultation of the main stakeholder organisations 

The stakeholder organisations invited to present their assessment of the situation of the EU 
wine sector and their opinions on possible solutions to the problems identified were: the 
Assembly  of  European  Wine  Regions  (AREV);  the  committee  of  EU  wine  companies 
(CEEV); the European Council of Young Farmers (CEJA); the Confederation of European 
the  Committee  of  Professional  Agricultural 
Independent  Winegrowers  (CEVI); 
Organisations  (COPA); 
the  General  Confederation  of  Agricultural  Cooperatives 
(COGECA); the international farmers' organisation Via Campesina (ECVC); the European 
Federation  of  Origin  Wines  (EFOW);  and  IFOAM  Organics  Europe  (the  European 
umbrella organisation for organic food and farming). 

All these organisations except CEJA accepted the invitation and agreed to share their vision 
in  a  20-minute  presentation  on  the  morning  of  11 September  2024.  The  suggestions 
received from stakeholder organisations are summarised in Annex 2. 

Second part: Expert discussion following input from stakeholders 

In the afternoon, after the European Commission's presentation of the conclusions of the 
European Wine Market Observatory's report on ‘Prospects of the European Wine Market’, 
the  MS  had  a  first  round  of  discussions  on  the  policy  solutions  to  address  the  current 
challenges and ensure the long-term sustainability of the sector. 

Throughout  the  day  there  was  a  large  consensus  among  stakeholders  and  MS  on  the 
importance of the wine sector, which provides work in rural regions and helps to maintain 
the unique landscape, attracting tourists and providing an income for farmers in regions 
where very few, if any, alternative crops can be cultivated. The diverse nature of the sector, 
where  99%  of  producers  are  micro-enterprises  or  SMEs,  was  also  underlined.  ,  with  a 
different economic situation not only between MS, but also between regions, types of wine 
and market segments, which calls for a flexible and targeted wine policy. 

MS agreed with the stakeholders’ assessment of the situation and suggested some policy 
approaches to overcome the main challenges facing the sector. 

To support farmers facing crop losses due to severe weather events, there was a call for a 
stronger insurance scheme or mutual funds financed by the EU, MS and/or regions as well 
as the winegrowers themselves, underlining the need to mutualise the major risks at EU 
level (EU re-insurance). 

It  was  acknowledged  that  MS  already  have  a  tool  kit  of  emergency  measures  at  their 
disposal, allowing crisis distillation in case of market imbalance and granting support to 
farmers who have lost crops due to severe weather conditions. However, these tools seem 
insufficient to face the challenges ahead and can only be used with a considerable delay 
(state  aid  notification,  amendment  of  the  Strategic  plan)  which  severely  hampers  their 
efficiency.  MS  requested  a  ringfenced  budget  for  the  sector,  with  flexibility  between 
measures and a carry-over of any unused budget to the following year. 

74 

 
 
To  address  the  oversupply  of  wine,  especially  red  wines  in  certain  regions,  some 
participants called for a grubbing-up programme, coupled with a prohibition on granting 
any new vine planting authorisations in the region concerned for a number of years. This 
restriction  could  also  apply  to  regions  where  a  crisis  distillation  programme  had  been 
implemented. One stakeholder was against support for grubbing-up. Some stakeholders and 
MS advocated for a system of temporary grubbing up, where the replanting could only take 
place after a number of years, with compensation for the grower. 

Any grubbing-up scheme would need to be targeted to avoid the grubbing up of vineyards 
with a special value for the environment and the landscape, for example on steep slopes or 
in regions with few alternative crops. 

There  was  a  consensus  that  in  the  current  uncertain  market,  the  validity  of  replanting 
authorisations would need to be extended to eight years. 

The unstable climatic conditions cause high variations in grape production, therefore some 
participants requested that production be stabilised, not only through the yield limitations 
which  are  already  in  place  for  wines  with  geographical  indications,  but  through  green 
harvesting  measures  (which  should  be  available  in  all  national  strategic  programmes) 
and/or the possibility to make it obligatory in regions with exceptionally high yields to use 
part of the grape harvest for other purposes (such as distillation or sweeteners), to avoid 
accumulating stocks and putting pressure on prices. 

More support should be made available for precision farming and water management and 
for  research  into  more  disease  or  drought  resistant  wine  varieties.  Many  participants 
considered  the  use  of  new  genomic  techniques  pertinent  for  the  development  of  such 
varieties. 

Some participants did not see the declining demand for wine as an irreversible long-term 
trend, citing the example of gin  and tonic. This drink is currently very popular with the 
younger  generation,  but  was  considered  old-fashioned  20  years  ago.  To  follow  in  its 
footsteps,  wine  would  need  to  shed  its  image  as  elitist  beverage  and  become  more 
accessible (a fun drink that can be shared with friends). In this context, it is important to 
inform  the  consumer  about  the  regional  origin  of  the  wine  and  to  create  a  link  to  the 
producer, also through wine tourism. 

Participants  agreed  that  promotion  of  EU  wine  on  third  country  markets  needs  to  be 
reinforced  and  that  limiting  the  support  to  three  years  for  each  market  does  not  allow 
consolidation of market positions. While many suggested greater promotion of wine on the 
EU market, others claimed that this would be counter-productive, leading to a competition 
between EU wine makers in a saturated market. 

All agreed on the importance of the link between wine and the European landscape and 
culture  and  of  moderate  consumption  in  connection  with  the  Mediterranean  diet.  This 
should  be  well  communicated  to  consumers,  while  anti-alcohol  campaigns  and  policies 
should not treat wine in the same manner as other alcoholic beverages. 

Several speakers suggested that fully and partially de-alcoholised wines should be made 
more attractive and recognisable for consumers with labels similar to the ‘zero’ or ‘light’ 
labels currently applicable to beer. It could also be helpful to create logos for ‘natural wines’ 

75 

 
 
(produced with a minimum of oenological intervention), wines with a naturally low alcohol 
content  (the  current  minimum  alcohol  content  of  wine  in  the  EU  is  8.5%)  and  wines 
produced in a sustainable way, and to better inform consumers about these products to make 
them more recognisable and attractive. 

The organic wine sector was satisfied with the past growth in area and optimistic about the 
sales perspectives, but highlighted several challenges. It deplored the lack of alternatives 
to copper for treating mildew and asked for access to potassium phosphonate. 

Some participants need winemaking practices to be more flexible so they can better adapt 
to consumer demand. They ask, for example, that derogations currently allowed be granted 
faster or not require prior authorisation, as long as the wines are labelled correctly. Allowing 
the  same  label  to  be  used  on  all  bottles  sold  in  EU  countries,  with  some  information 
available off-label, would lower the cost and be especially beneficial for smaller producers, 
while at the same time allowing consumers to get more information about the product. 

The inclusion of the excise duty into the IOSS system should be accelerated to facilitate 
cross-border  distance  sales  of  wine,  which  currently  represents  a  huge  administrative 
burden. 

While all participants welcomed the creation of the HLG, some asked for the findings and 
recommendations  to  be implemented urgently  rather than after  the adoption of the CAP 
post-2027. 

Meeting  2:  Expert  discussion  on  the  basis  of  the  Commission’s  Reflection  Document 
(14 October 2024) 

Based on the presentations from stakeholders and the subsequent discussion between the 
High  Representatives  of  MS  in  the  first  meeting  of  the  HLG,  the  COM  drew  up  the 
‘Reflection document for the second meeting of the  HLG’ (Annex 3) which was sent to 
participants in advance of the meeting. 

This document structures the possible actions in three blocks and sets out the related policy 
tools, their potential features and their possible advantages, disadvantages and questions 
about their implementation. 

The three blocks are: 

1.  adapting the production potential to the structural decline in demand worldwide and 

stabilising/reducing the EU vineyard area and the yield 

2.  strengthening the long-term resilience of the sector in a changing market and against 
climate change, through policy measures to strengthen the position of wine growers and 
protect wine growers against losses due to severe weather events  

3.  adapting  production  to  market  trends  and  harnessing  opportunities  to  reach 

consumers inside and outside the single market. 

Adapting the production potential 

Participants  emphasised  the  need  to  align  wine  production  with  the  ongoing  structural 
decline in global demand to better manage production potential. Various policy measures 
to  help  balance  supply  were  considered,  including  permanently  reducing  vineyard  areas 

76 

 
 
through  measures  like  grubbing  up  vineyards.  There  was  also  debate  about  temporary 
schemes that delay replanting, aimed at controlling production growth in the near future. 

Concerns were raised about the cost-effectiveness of some of these measures, their long-
term impact, and whether such measures might lead to market imbalances across different 
EU  regions.  Several  participants  highlighted  the  need  to  ensure  consistency  with  other 
measures by setting suitable conditions and priorities, such as the delivery of authorisations 
to plant new vineyards in regions benefiting from grubbing up or crisis distillation support 
measures, and to avoid negative effects in environmentally and socially sensitive areas. 

The  meeting  also  covered  strategies  to  stabilise  yields,  setting  rules  for  reconversion 
support of vineyards, for example, and establishing conditions for planting authorisations. 
Discussions  explored  temporary  measures  to  manage  yield  fluctuations  (such  as  a  yield 
stabilisation mechanism, possibly managed by producer organisations) and the potential for 
green harvesting. 

Strengthening the long-term resilience of the sector 

The group discussed ways to 

•  protect wine growers against market fluctuations and climate change, 
•  strengthen the position of growers within the supply chain, 
• 
•  strengthen and encourage cooperative models, and 
•  optimise the use of the wine sectoral programmes. 

improve the enforcement of the Unfair Trading Practices Directive, 

To mitigate the increased income losses caused by unexpected weather events, the group 
also explored: 

•  ways of reinforcing risk management tools, such as expanding insurance schemes and 

mutual funds to protect growers 

•  how  the  EU  policy  framework  and  budget  can  further  support  climate  change 

adaptation 

•  prioritising sustainable vineyards for restructuring support 
•  how to help growers better adapt to climate risks 

Adapting  production  to  market  trends  and  harnessing  opportunities  to  reach 
consumers inside and outside the single market 

The meeting examined how production could better align with consumer preferences and 
market  dynamics. The  importance  of  strengthening  market  surveillance  through  the  EU 
Wine Market Observatory was highlighted, with a focus on improving data collection and 
analysis. 

Measures to adapting to changing consumer preferences such as the growing demand for 
low-alcohol  wines,  were  also  discussed,  alongside  the  consideration  of  introducing  new 
labelling denominations like ‘natural wine’ and ‘sustainable wine’ to satisfy a demand for 
greater market segmentation. 

77 

 
 
Discussions also touched on options to simplify and enhance labelling rules, in particular 
for electronic labels, and on defending the unique value of wine and distinguishing it from 
other alcoholic beverages. 

The  group  reflected  on  ways  of  making  wine  promotion  and  consumer  information 
strategies  more  efficient.  Particular  attention  was  given  to  supporting  wine  tourism  and 
improving the attractiveness of wine in HORECA establishments. 

Measures to  facilitate  cross-border distance sales, such as including  excise duties  in  the 
IOSS  system,  were  also  discussed,  alongside  the  potential  for  innovative  packaging 
solutions. 

The session concluded with a reflection on needs and a call for more action on research and 
innovation. 

Meeting 3: Discussion on the draft policy recommendations (15 November 2024) 

Based on a draft document summarising the recommendations of the HLG, concerning the 
management  of  the  production  potential,  most  MS  expressed  support  for  a  grubbing-up 
scheme,  although  there  were  differing  opinions  on  its  implementation,  duration,  and 
financing. 

Some MS were satisfied with the draft recommendations under discussion, which proposed 
to use solely national funding for such a scheme. Others advocated the possible inclusion 
of EU funding from the agricultural reserve to complement national funds, particularly for 
short-term  measures  aimed  at  reducing  the  current  structural  oversupply.  Some  MS 
suggested that the grubbing-up scheme should be incorporated into the existing  sectoral 
interventions framework in the long-term, but a few MS opposed this idea. 

Reflecting the diversity of the EU wine sector, participants agreed that any grubbing-up 
scheme  would  require  a  clear  EU-level  framework  with  general  conditions  but  allow 
flexibility for MS to tailor implementation according to their specific needs. 

There was broad support for giving MS the possibility to set the percentage for new planting 
authorisations to 0% of the vineyard area of the previous year in case of market difficulties, 
on a national or regional level. 

Many  MS  supported  extending  the  validity  of  replanting  authorisations  to  eight  years, 
without  penalties  for  non-use.  For  new  planting  authorisations,  most  MS  agreed  that  a 
shorter validity period and penalties should be maintained to prevent speculative practices. 
The  suggestion  to  remove  penalties  for  all  unused  authorisations  still  valid  and  granted 
before 2024 was also welcomed, and this point was reflected in the recommendations later. 
There was also widespread support for extending the maximum period allowed between 
grubbing-up and the application for replanting authorisations. 

Some  MS  saw  green  harvesting  as  a  useful  measure  to  address  conjunctural  excess  of 
production, and discussions focused on the possibility to facilitate and optimise the tool by 
setting the right provisions in legislation on their activation and financing. 

There was general  agreement among  MS  on the recommendations  for strengthening the 
resilience of the sector to a changing market and its adaptation to climate change. However, 

78 

 
 
some participants called for stronger language, particularly regarding the need to defend 
the sector against unfair trading practices, to make the necessary measures more explicit in 
the text. 

While  there  was  broad  support  for  the  idea  of  treating  cooperatives  as  SMEs  and  of 
supporting  producer  organisations  implementing  operational  programmes  in  the  wine 
sector, some MS expressed reservations and raised doubts on the latter. 

Participants also supported the concept of requiring sectoral adaptation plans to be adopted 
at  regional level  to  make investments  more  resilient,  and insisted  on  the need to  keep a 
consistent approach and avoid new burdensome procedures. 

The  reference  in  the  document  to  the  possible  inclusion  of  potassium  phosphonate  in 
organic agriculture received mixed reactions. While some delegations strongly supported 
its use, others expressed concerns and insisted that the viability of this substance has already 
been assessed. Given the lack of alternatives to the use of copper in organic agriculture, the 
HLG  could  however  agree  to  recommend  a  scientific  re-evaluation  of  potassium 
phosphonate by the expert group for technical advice on organic production (EGTOP). 

On  risk  management  and  insurance  schemes,  there  was  a  strong  call  for  measures  to 
enhance  growers'  access  to  insurance  and  mutual  funds,  including  through  the  possible 
establishment of an EU-level re-insurance system. Several MS advocated allowing unused 
funds from the sectoral intervention to be carried over through multiannual programming 
or by reallocating the unused funds to manage crisis situations. 

In  the  framework  of  the  discussion  on  the  recommendations  for  adapting  the  sector  to 
market trends and harnessing market opportunities, participants supported enhancing the 
role of the Market Observatory in the context of the need for enhanced and more immediate 
market  information.  At  the  same  time  they  emphasised  the  need  to  avoid  creating 
unnecessary  administrative  burdens  for  administrations  and  operators  and  demanded 
homogeneity of the information to be provided. 

There  was  general  convergence  on  the  need  to  strengthen  and  simplify  the  promotion 
measures, and to pay particular attention to options to reinforce the provision of information 
and promotion with wine tourism, though there were no specific proposals on the additional 
needs in this respect. However, several MS stressed the importance of maintaining health 
concerns as a limiting factor for promotion in the recommendations. 

Broad support was expressed for introducing new oenological practices, especially for de-
alcoholised  wines  and  those  with  a  naturally  low  alcohol  content,  and  a  focus  on 
harmonised  labelling  of  those  products  to  provide  clear  and  consistent  information  to 
consumers  while  avoiding  contentious  particulars  and  denominations  that  may  mislead 
consumers. 

Significant backing was also given to the uniform implementation of electronic labelling 
rules and a plea for completing the e-labelling legal framework. However, there was no 
consensus on the specific needs. Some suggested language-free or pictogram-based digital 
labels,  while  others  advocated  a  closer  alignment  of  wine  labelling  rules  with  those  on 
general food information to consumers’ regulations. 

79 

 
 
MS agreed to send their written contributions in form of track changes and comments by 
Monday 25 November 2024. On this basis, the Commission produced a revised version of 
the draft recommendations, which was sent to the national authorities on 8 December 2024 
to allow all participants of the HLG to endorse the final policy recommendations at the last 
meeting on 16 December 2024. 

Meeting 4: Endorsement of the policy recommendations (16 December 2024) 

All  16 MS  that  took  the  floor  expressed  their  satisfaction  with  this  initiative,  the  work 
carried  out  and  the  results. They  all  endorsed  the  HLG  policy  recommendations  for  the 
future  of  the  EU  wine  sector.  Those  MS  that  did  not  take  the  floor  gave  their  tacit 
endorsement. 

As  a  general  comment,  several  MS  highlighted  the  need  to  implement  these 
recommendations promptly and declared their readiness to support the resulting legislative 
process. The Commission committed to start working on a roadmap for the implementation 
of the recommendations at the beginning of 2025. 

Acknowledging  that because of its consensual  nature, the document may not  have fully 
satisfied every participant in each of the points raised, the Commission invited MS to make 
statements  for  the  record.  Some  MS  regretted  that  some  of  their  requests  had  not  been 
included in the final policy recommendations document. 

Spain advocated a longer validity for new planting authorisations and suggested that MS 
should also provide a justification to the Commission if they wish to grant the maximum 
possible  area  of  new  planting  authorisations  (1%  of  the  vineyard  area  of  the  preceding 
year), not only in cases where they wish to go below that level. 

France  would  have  liked  more  ambition  on  some  topics,  including  on  supporting  both 
definitive and ‘temporary’ grubbing-up with national and EU funds. It requested an increase 
of the available financial ceiling for Article 216 of Regulation (EU) 1308/2013 to cover 
grubbing-up and green harvesting in addition to distillation. 

Italy, like France, would have preferred that (i) the recommendation on labelling explicitly 
referred  to  the  MS  ‘and  the  Commission’  to  ensure  a  harmonised  approach,  and  (ii)  a 
reference to a ‘language-free system’ be added at the end of the second part of the point. 

The Commission explained that it does not have any empowerment to ensure a harmonised 
approach across the single market and that it therefore depends on the decision that each 
individual  MS  may  take  on  their  own  labelling  identification  system.  Furthermore,  the 
Commission  clarified  that  it  has  supported  and  will  continue  to  support  MS  in  this 
endeavour.  It  recalled  that,  in  the  previous  week's  meeting  of  the  expert  group,  the 
Commission  had  presented  the  situation  of  the  QR  code  identification  in  each  MSs  to 
encourage a harmonised approach. As there was no consensus, it will be up to each MS to 
assess  the  situation  and  take  a  decision  on  their  own  system.  In  the  longer  term,  the 
identification of the QR code with a language-free system can be considered when the CMO 
regulation is revised. 

Italy and Portugal insisted that promotion measures on the internal market for moderate 
wine consumption should not be limited to totally or partially de-alcoholised wine products. 

80 

 
 
All  products  that  can  be  called  wine  should  be  treated  equally  as  far  as  promotion  is 
concerned. 

Portugal also underlined the need to act on the demand side as well as on the supply side, 
and called for innovative ideas here, building on the different character of each wine derived 
from the ‘terroir’ and linked to heritage, culture, rural areas, etc. 

Germany suggested addressing the most urgent issues already now in the framework of the 
CMO amendments linked to strengthening the farmer’s position in the food chain and in 
the rules on Unfair Trading Practices., The Commission explained that adding additional 
elements at this advanced stage would risk considerably delaying this completion of this 
procedure. 

Germany and Austria insisted on the usefulness of carrying over of unused funds from the 
Support Programmes to the next year. 

Austria  regretted  that  there  was  no  suggestion  to  use  unspent  funds  for  biodiversity 
measures. 

Other  MS  explicitly  and  firmly  supported  the  document,  including  Romania,  Hungary 
(which  supported  the  idea  of  presenting  the  outcome  of  the  group  to  the  Council  as 
suggested by Germany), Bulgaria (noting that the recommendations fit the diversity of the 
sector across the EU), Greece, Slovenia (emphasising the need to support smallholders both 
domestically and in other countries), Czechia, the Netherlands (underlining the importance 
of innovation for new producing countries), Cyprus, Luxembourg, Denmark (highlighting 
the need to consider new producing countries in the recommendations). 

The Commission closed the session thanking all MS for their engagement and support and 
stated  that  the  recommendations  should  help  the  sector  gain  a  new  momentum  in  the 
coming years. 

After a short break, the ‘Policy Recommendations’, which had been made available to the 
participating stakeholders before the meeting, were officially presented to stakeholders in 
the presence of EU Commissioner for Agriculture and Food Christophe Hansen. 

Stakeholders  welcomed  the  group's  work  and  the  policy  recommendations  document, 
calling  for  a  speedy  implementation,  and  made  statements  on  the  results  of  the  group's 
work. 

AREV underlined (i) the need for a crisis fund for the sector, (ii) the importance of securing 
the economic viability of the sector, and (iii) the need to advance precision farming and 
water management. It expressed some concern about the risk linked to definitive grubbing-
up. It also suggested optimising the use of the EU Wine Market Observatory. 

CEEV stressed that the long-term reduction in consumption is the main structural problem 
and  called  for  an  export  strategy  with  new  products,  new  markets,  and  language-free 
labelling. It advocated defining sustainable wine production to avoid a costly proliferation 
of  private  certification  schemes.  It  also  highlighted  competitiveness,  resilience  and 
sustainability as keywords present in the recommendations. 

CEVI insisted on national funding for grubbing-up to preserve the budget of the National 
Support  Programme  for  measures  that  strengthen  the  competitiveness  of  producers.  It 

81 

 
 
warned of a fragmentation of the EU wine policy if the National Support Programme (NSP) 
measures are too differentiated between regions. It also insisted that the promotion policy 
should benefit both de-alcoholised and traditional wines, and that small and independent 
winemakers should be at the centre of the wine policy measures, also  when it comes to 
wine tourism. 

COPA  and  COGECA  shared  the  view  of  CEVI  on  promotion  and  requested  a  timely 
implementation of the recommendations. 

COPA demanded that grubbing-up schemes be financed both nationally and with EU funds. 
It  highlighted  the  importance  of  consolidating  export  markets  with  the  EU  promotion 
policy. 

COGECA called for an increase in the NSP budget and more flexibility on management 
(multiannual  and  allowing  transfers  between  measures).  It  asked  the  group  to  work  on 
harmonisation  of  labels.  It  also  called  for  further  research  and  alternatives  for  organic 
viticulture,  mentioning  that  potassium  phosphonate  could  represent  an  alternative  to 
copper, particularly for MS from Central and Eastern Europe. 

ECVC underlined the importance of the rules on  unfair trading practices and the role of 
small producers. It advocated both degressive aid based on beneficiary size and helping 
SMEs  access  support  measures.  It  also  proposed  diversification  aid  for  holdings 
permanently abandoning wine production, as well as more support for precision agriculture 
that could reduce water needs. 

EFOW welcomed the recommendations on the management of the production potential and 
the toolbox of measures that MS can use. They saluted the greater flexibility proposed in 
wine  planting  authorisations  while  asking  for  strict  rules  on  planting  authorisations  in 
regions with protected geographical indications. It opposed concentrating promotion on de-
alcoholised products and suggested implementing some recommendations in the currently 
ongoing CMO revision. 

IFOAM  underlined  the  growing  importance  of  the  organic  wine  sector  in  the  EU  and 
reported that there is no consensus among its members on the use of potassium phosphonate 
on organic wines, which should in any case only be temporary and in the framework of a 
copper reduction programme. 

In  his  closing  speech,  EU  Commissioner  for Agriculture  and  Food  Christophe  Hansen 
replied to the statements from the stakeholders’ organisations. He underlined his support 
for  the  wine  sector  and  agreed  that  the  wine  sector  needs  to  become  more  profitable  to 
better  withstand  future  challenges.  He  stressed  that  some  recommendations  can  only  be 
addressed  in  the  longer  term  with  a  revision  of  the  CMO. The  implementation  of  some 
elements of the recommendations has already started, including the work to improve the 
CMO and UTP. However, the work on reciprocity of imports needs to advance. 

Commissioner  Hansen  pointed  out  that  the  EUR 450 million  of  the  agricultural  reserve 
must address all kinds of emergencies and may not suffice to satisfy all demands. He drew 
attention to his planned simplification package to free farmers (including wine producers) 
from red tape, and called on MS to review which of their national rules create barriers for 

82 

 
 
the  sector,  for  example  for  wine  tourism.  He  also  emphasised  the  importance  of  new 
markets, promotion, and the technical simplification of excise duty for inter-EU trade. 

The  Commission  committed  to  start  to  assess  the  measures  put  forward  in  the  policy 
recommendations and to propose a timeframe for their possible implementation. 

The HLG policy recommendations were made available on the Europa website. 

83