Italian vine nurseries call for vineyard reconversion funding instead of removal subsidies
Miva and the Associazione Vivaisti Viticoli Friuli Venezia Giulia want public resources directed toward restructuring Italian vineyards with certified planting material, new varieties, clones and rootstocks, arguing that reconversion would address weaker demand and mounting climate and disease pressures more effectively than subsidized vine removal.
A strategy based on vineyard redesign
Italy’s grapevine nursery sector is urging policymakers to fund vineyard restructuring and reconversion rather than pay growers to remove vines. The proposal, presented on November 12 in a report published by Unione Italiana Vini, comes from Miva and the Associazione Vivaisti Viticoli Friuli Venezia Giulia, which together represent nearly all Italian grapevine nurseries.1
The associations contend that reducing planted area alone will not resolve the wine sector’s difficulties. They want vineyards redesigned around changing consumer demand, increasing weather risks and long-term climate shifts, with investment in varieties, clones and rootstocks suited to future conditions, as well as certified vines, traceability, plant-health guarantees and pre-planting research.1
Demand, climate and plant health
The proposal responds to weaker consumption in some markets, changing export conditions and the rising cost of adapting vineyards to drought, heat and disease. The choice between financing removals and reconversion could affect future grape supply, demand for nursery material, the speed of varietal renewal and growers’ ability to follow market changes, with possible consequences for the volume and mix of wines produced and for investment across the supply chain.1
Miva president Dino Scanavino and Yuri Zambon, VCR director for the Friuli Venezia Giulia nursery association, said investment should go beyond replacing old vineyards with similar plantings. They advocate choices capable of improving resilience and quality over coming decades, treating nursery production as a strategic element of the industry’s adjustment rather than merely a supporting activity.1
Their emphasis on certified planting material and stronger phytosanitary controls connects public support to the health and quality of new vineyards. They also see nursery innovation as part of climate adaptation because rootstocks and grape varieties can affect water use, resistance to disease, ripening patterns and crop consistency.1
A more flexible route for testing varieties
The Unione Italiana Vini report also presented a related proposal from nurseryman Marco Vacchetti to simplify Italy’s classification of wine-grape varieties. Because cultivation and denomination rules are closely linked under the current system, introducing new or previously excluded material can be slow; Vacchetti proposes separating the two decisions.1
Under the suggested framework, any variety entered in the national register could be cultivated, while territorial authorities would retain the power to decide whether it could be used in DOC, DOCG or IGT wines. A variety could therefore be planted, studied and evaluated without automatically becoming eligible for protected denominations.1
Supporters say this would accelerate field testing of resistant varieties and local grapes currently excluded from cultivation, avoid duplicating trials already recognized elsewhere, and generate more agronomic and winemaking evidence in working vineyards. The stated purpose is to facilitate experimentation without weakening denomination rules or removing local control over appellation standards.1
Supply control versus investment
The proposals address a longstanding tension in Italian wine between protecting geographic identity and local varieties and responding more quickly to disease, climate change and evolving consumer preferences. A more flexible cultivation system could let growers test alternatives without immediately altering the permitted composition of protected wines.1
Miva and the Friuli Venezia Giulia association are advancing reconversion as both an industrial and environmental upgrade: in their view, it could improve vineyard performance and product positioning, whereas removals would reduce capacity without necessarily answering the underlying questions of what and how Italy should produce. Adoption will depend on how Italian and European policymakers balance supply controls with investment aid, but the initiative places vineyard redesign, rather than hectare reduction, at the center of the nursery sector’s response to the wine downturn.1
Sources
Written by the Dionysus editors from the sources above.
