IN BREVE
- The European Parliament has approved the Wine Package, receiving a mixed evaluation from FIVI, with President Rita Babini highlighting both positive aspects and critical issues.
- The confirmation of access to contributions for micro-enterprises and SMEs was welcomed; it is considered important for independent winegrowers.
- FIVI applauds the extension of replanting authorizations and measures for monitoring plant diseases and climate change mitigation.
- Criticism emerges regarding the funding of the grubbing-up measure and the limitation of wine tourism benefits to Consortia only.
- The Federation calls for a more specific CAP programming for the wine sector, emphasizing the importance of maintaining its historical specificity.
The European Parliament‘s vote on the Wine Package receives a complex assessment from FIVI – the Italian Federation of Independent Winegrowers. President Rita Babini speaks of a transition with “lights and shadows,” but significant nonetheless.
“The Wine Package is a starting point, not a finish line,” states Babini, emphasizing how the work of the High-Level Group on Wine represents “proof that the future of the wine sector must be based on dialogue and the involvement of all players in the supply chain, primarily the producers.” In the first immediate comments, several elements contained in the approved package are considered positive, especially regarding the role of small producers and small-scale businesses.
PROTECTION FOR MICRO-ENTERPRISES AND SMES
Among the most appreciated aspects is the confirmation of access to the maximum contribution percentage reserved for micro-enterprises and SMEs. A choice that, according to the Federation, recognizes the weight of independent winegrowers in the wine supply chain. Also positive is the possibility granted to Member States to favor small producers’ access to promotion measures starting from this year’s calls. “It is the recognition of the importance of Winegrowers in the wine supply chain, and of the need for even the smallest businesses to be able to access support measures,” says the President.
AUTHORIZATIONS, CLIMATE, AND PLANT DISEASES
FIVI also views the changes to the authorization system favorably. In particular, the extension of replanting authorizations to eight years and the possibility of extending new planting authorizations by 12 months in cases of force majeure or exceptional circumstances. There is also appreciation for measures dedicated to monitoring plant diseases and for the increase in the contribution percentage provided for interventions aimed at mitigating the effects of climate change.
CRITICAL ISSUES ON GRUBBING-UP AND WINE TOURISM
Alongside the positive elements, however, unresolved issues remain. “Unfortunately, some critical issues and several gaps remain,” Babini observes. “The main one concerns the inclusion of the grubbing-up measure among the sectoral ones fundable with European funds. This is a mistake, because European funds should help support the growth and competitiveness of companies.”
In the wine tourism chapter, FIVI points out a missed opportunity. The sector, defined as “constantly expanding and a very important growth lever for local companies,” could have benefited from an opening to individual producers, instead of limiting the beneficiaries to Consortia only. Also criticized is the failure to introduce greater flexibility in resource management, such as the possibility of transferring unspent funds to the following year.
CAP AND THE FUTURE OF THE SECTOR
The Federation’s gaze goes beyond the Wine Package and focuses on the prospects of the next Common Agricultural Policy. “The wine sector faces truly important challenges from every point of view: production, environmental, social, and commercial,” comments Babini. “Challenges that can only be addressed by putting agricultural production and rural supply chains back at the center.”
Hence the distancing from the European Commission’s proposal on future CAP programming. “We do not consider the proposal presented by the European Commission on the next CAP programming to be adequate,” Babini clarifies, “because specific and direct funds are needed for the wine sector.” According to FIVI, moving beyond the two-pillar structure by unifying agricultural policy with other European policies risks making wine lose that specificity historically recognized within the CAP, linked to the particular needs of companies in the sector.
