Scope:

The objective of the evaluation was to carry out an assessment of the effects of the various instruments of the Common Market Organisation Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013) applicable to the wine sector, i.e. National Support Programmes (NSP), scheme of authorisations for vine plantings, marketing and labelling rules², rules on PDO/PGI wines, certification, monitoring and control systems, oenological practises and restrictions, vineyard registers, marketing rules to regulate supply. 

The evaluation focused on causal analysis, effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added value of the wine policy in relation to its objectives in terms of competitiveness and market adaptation of the EU wine sector, farm income, market balance and quality. The evaluation also considers the general objectives of the CAP measures (i.e. sustainable use of natural resources and climate actions and balanced territorial development) and the measures contained in the rural development programmes in the coherence analysis. It considers other EU objectives in relation with the EU wine policy as well, such as objectives regarding public health (Article 168 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Sustainable Development Goal 3.5) and EU economic objectives regarding jobs, growth, innovation and support to small and medium-sized enterprises.

Detailed case studies were conducted in ten regions of seven Member States, including interviews of key stakeholders such as NSP managing authorities, beneficiaries of NSP measures, PDO/PGI managing organisations, regional and national wine growers and representatives of wine producers. Monitoring data from 2008 to 2017, as well as national, EU and international statistics were used to assess the effects of the regulations. A survey addressed to 2000 wine consumers in 4 Member States, as well as web-checks of 30 online wine-retailers provided information on consumers and market expectations.

Evaluation findings

The evaluation shows that the EU’s wine policy played a key role in the transition towards liberalisation of vine planting from 2015 on and in increasing the competitiveness of the wine producers given the streamlining in the most recent wine policy reform in 2013. The reform put an end to the support for drinkable alcohol distillation, crisis distillation and enrichment by use of concentrated must (i.e. the juice, skin, seeds and stem of the grapes in concentrated form).

The reform also introduced innovation in the wine sector by encouraging the development of new products, processes and technologies. It supported promotion measures in EU countries to inform consumers about the responsible consumption of wine and about the EU systems covering designations of origin and geographical indications. 

At international level, EU rules on oenological (i.e. winemaking) practices provide a guarantee in terms of quality and safety, and the prompt adaptation of EU rules to changes in international standards – set by the International Organisation of Vine and Wine (OIV) – helps to improve marketing conditions. EU rules on oenological practices help preserve the reputation and tradition of EU wine by ensuring quality and safety. Uniform EU labelling rules provide overall added value at EU level by ensuring a level playing field and fair competition for economic operators, facilitating trade and the functioning of the single market, and providing clear information to EU consumers. However, the potential cost of labelling ingredients is considered too high for small producers. EU labelling rules generally meet the legitimate expectations of consumers, with surveys showing they consider that labels provide relatively clear and sufficient information. However, consumer and public health organisations say there is a need for more information, especially on nutritional values and ingredients. EU labelling rules led to the adaptation of EU wine production to a variety of market segments (varietal wines as well as wines that are more typical and authentic). The implementation of EU rules on labelling and the systems of monitoring and checks is judged to be efficient.

Furthermore, the quality and safety of wine products might decrease without specific EU rules.

The fact that products with less than 8.5° alcohol are not considered as wine products in the regulatory classification of grapevine products could limit EU producers from adapting to new market demand, as demand is increasing for such wine products among consumers in the EU and world-wide, with global competitors beginning to capitalise on this. In addition, EU production is lagging behind in meeting consumer demand for wine that is produced in a more environmentally sustainable way. Some EU rules on wine grape varieties appear outdated and irrelevant for improving wine quality, preserving safety or enhancing competitiveness. Restrictions on the use of six wine grape varieties and of crosses between vine varieties belonging to Vitis vinifera and other species of the genus Vitis for wines with a protected designation of origin have resulted in a disadvantage compared to non-EU countries that have no such constraints. Eliminating these rules would help achieve EU priorities on preserving biodiversity, ensuring environmental sustainability and further reducing pesticide use.

The national support programmes have played a key role in improving the competitiveness of EU wine producers and products in the context of very positive market developments, in particular increasing demand from third countries. The measures in the national support programmes are generally relevant to the needs of the sector, especially because they offer a range of tools that can be adapted to the various levels of development of EU local supply chains (i.e. restructuring and conversion, investment, and promotion). However, some needs are not or are not sufficiently addressed by the EU’s wine policy. These include the survival or adaptation of the smallest operators, the need for a better-trained workforce, renewal of businesses between generations, environmental issues (adaptation to climate change, biodiversity and pesticide use), and adaptation to market demand for lower alcohol wines and sustainable products. 

The EU framework was a key instrument in creating a level playing field among Member States. In some Member States, the EU framework also introduced a strategic approach and long-term planning in the management of the sector, which was also facilitated by the consistency of the measures and the budgets over time. However, such a strategic approach was difficult to implement in some Member States. EU added value was also less clear when it came to the efficient implementation of measures in the national support programmes, due to a high level of complexity and bureaucracy.

The national support programmes are generally consistent with the EU’s environmental objectives but they could contribute more to these. In particular, the restructuring measure contributes to climate change adaptation but was not designed to do so and could be adapted to have an even bigger impact. There could also be a higher degree of coherence between the EU’s wine policy and EU public health objectives.

Overall, the EU’s wine policy is fully consistent with EU economic, social and CAP objectives. An overall complementarity also exists between measures in the rural development programmes and the national support programmes, notably those relating to investment, restructuring and conversion.

Estimated savings and benefits

The analysis of efficiency of the measures was limited by the lack of consistency in the monitoring and collected data. While a quantification of savings and benefits was not carried out, an inventory was elaborated of inefficiencies and of efficiencies of the wine policy, in particular the management of the National Support Programmes.

Inefficiencies found:

• Yearly budgetary limits were a source of additional workload for the managing authority.

• The workload related to controls was very high, especially for the investments and restructuring measures, which required on the spot checks of 100% of the operations. The investment measure has been implemented in a limited number of Member States. In Rheinland-Pfalz for example it required 0.53 full time equivalent (FTE) for an average of € 753.000 per year. The task force for controls represented 18 FTE.

• A survey of the investment measure was conducted in France. Around 14% of the beneficiaries would have made the same investment without the support, which represents a substantial amount of deadweight of the measure.

• A high level of administrative burden was highlighted concerning the promotion measures, in particular at the level of beneficiaries. The management costs of the promotion measures are in Rheinland-Pfalz 2.7 FTE plus software of € 184.000 plus its maintenance of € 15.000/year. For Portugal 14.8 FTE plus € 50.000 for software and 15 FTE in Romania.

• The collected figures show that the control of the implementation of the restructuring and conversion measures is generally more demanding for the local administrations than the administration of the measures.

Efficiencies observed:

• Absence of national co-financing.

• Certainty of the availability of the budget over a 5-years period.

• The possibility of transferring funds between measures was a key source of flexibility and optimized the execution of the yearly budget.

• EU labelling rules are generally considered to be simple to implement.

• The efficiency of monitoring and checks of EU rules was considerably improved by the digitalisation of the information and the introduction of controls based on risk analysis.

• The amount of FTE necessary for the administration of the wine scheme is quite similar in Hungary, Portugal and Romania: between 5.1 and 8. It represents 33 million € distributed per FTE in Portugal, 19 million € per FTE in Hungary and 10 € per FTE in Romania.

² Labelling rules in the wine sector are also framed by Regulation 1169/2011 on food information to consumers, however the latter was not within the scope of this evaluation.

Implementation by Commission

The Commission has taken a number of steps to address some of the evaluation findings. For example, in the context of the common labelling framework that facilitates trade while ensuring a level playing field for all relevant operators, while matching the general rules on consumer information rights and public health, the Regulation on a Common Organisation of the Markets has been amended to include as compulsory particulars in the labels of grapevine products the provision of a list of ingredients and a nutrition declaration, which will be compulsory as from December 2023. Specific provisions for the labelling of the list of ingredients will be defined in the secondary legislation.

Addressing the concerns highlighted by the evaluation regarding the fact that products with less than 8.5° alcohol are not considered as wine products in the regulatory classification of grapevine products, and following the latest reform of the CMO Regulation, products resulting from de-alcoholisation and partial de-alcoholisation are allowed to be considered as wine products, when they meet the other EU wine rules. The CMO has also included provisions to allow for the use of hybrids of V. vinifera with other species of the genus Vitis to produce wines with protected geographic indications.