ANGELO GAJA PROMOTES THE “CONSTITUTION” OF EUROPEAN WINE WITH HONORS. AN INTERESTING TITLE THAT WE ALSO PROPOSE TO BETTER UNDERSTAND “CMO WINE”...

Angelo Gaja, one of the Italian wine world’s top representatives, promoted the new CMO (Common Market Organization) wine with flying colors. Here are his views on the Community Regulations, which at a closer look, however, do not seem to have enthused the experts in the wine world. Angelo Gaja, almost completely alone, has decided to speak out on what can be considered the “constitution” of European wine.

On August 1, 2009, (A+ for punctuality) despite the delay experts, the new standards developed by the Agriculture Committee in Brussels came into force. These rules will regulate the market of European wine (CMO wine). To understand the game that was played in Brussels one should take a step back and follow the trail of farm subsidies: over 75% of the largest reserves of European wine were destined to destroy surpluses, often artificially crafted. Each state in the European Union has an allotted share for financing subsidies: just a few years ago in England Blair thundered against the squandering of EU agricultural subsidies, and proposed to cut the amount in half.

Brussels has been able to seize the moment and implement a comprehensive reform with a series of rules designed to balance the market by discouraging overproduction of wine. I give them an A+ for eliminating subsidies for destruction of surplus; a B for all the various awards for grubbing up of vineyards; a B for reducing sugaring after having threatened to totally eliminate it; an A+ for progressive reduction to total elimination of subsidies for Rectified Concentrated Must (RCM). I give a C for contributions to promote of European wine markets outside the EU, which have been programmed without adequate systems of supervision. It is hopeful that past bad administrating will teach something useful for the future.

At the bargaining table the opinions and views of all European states were heard, even those that do not produce wine but are producers of spirits. The National Team of Spirits is very strong in central and northern Europe and is looking with increasing interest to expanding investments to European wine. It was a good opportunity to ally with those who more or less softly already advocated a free market, to whom I give a vote of D. Their aim is to lift the various restrictions and strings and to extend recognized legal cellars. These standards have encountered heated controversy in Italy: some of them will not come into force for about 10 years while for others, which are not strictly binding and must be accepted by our system, there is room for negotiation that will need to be explored.

What was Italy’s attitude during, the negotiations?
From the beginning, the powerful team of perennial public money wasting was blowing against the wind of reform. Italy prematurely rejoiced at Brussels repeated attempts to abolish sugaring as if it were a victory for Italian rectified concentrated must. All the other measures on the table were subjected to severe criticism. Italy excluded itself from the negotiating table and was reduced to playing a marginal role without ever being able to make an impact on issues of particular interest to us. The Italian contingent was torn by divisions of the various associations, fierce in defending their interests and incapable of generating some form of agreement to the negotiators representing us.
In the past Italy benefited from as well as wasted Community contributions, perched in defense of rectified concentrated must for which they swallowed up grant monies year after year. Italy underestimated the importance of the National Team of Spirits in the negotiations, but this is Europe and we need to recognize that in the future wine issues will no longer be discussed only by Italy, France and Spain. Italy lost the game badly, but the European tournament will go on for a long time and in order to compete we must rectify the many errors committed. A new team needs to be put together to send to Brussels, objectives clarified, a strategy of alliances redefined, without forgetting that France is Italy’s natural ally. The initiative gets an A+ because ex-Minister Paolo de Castro was appointed President of the European Parliament’s Agriculture Committee, but this is only the beginning.
Europe is here, hooray for Europe.

The rules dictated by the Agricultural Commission in Brussels were often greeted with jeers, irony, and sarcasm. That they would deliberate and pass legislature on the length and curvature of green beans, the color of eggshells and the form and size of tomatoes, attempting to establish which of these products was marketable and which not, seemed at the very least, strange. The reform introduced in Brussels on August 1, 2009 is a true one, based on public morals and common sense - a rare quality these days - and puts an end to three decades of wasting public money. On their own, wine producing countries would have never made it. The merit goes to the northern European countries. Sure, we had to pay the price of excessive liberalization but Italy must take responsibility for not being at the negotiating table. There is good reason to feel European.

Angelo Gaja