Wine Economics and Policy 12(1): 81-99, 2023 Firenze University Press www.fupress.com/wep ISSN 2212-9774 (online) | ISSN 2213-3968 (print) | DOI: 10.36253/wep-12781 Wine Economics and Policy Citation: Étienne Montaigne, Sam- son Zadmehran, Alfredo Coelho, Yacine Messaoudène (2023). Analysis of the 2007-2008 Hérault premiumized grubbing-up campaign: a tool to better understand Fischer-Boel’s 2008-2011 grubbing-up campaigns and the desire in 2022 to reintroduce locally premiu- mized grub-ups. Wine Economics and Policy 12(1): 81-99. doi: 10.36253/wep- 12781 Copyright: © 2023 Étienne Montaigne, Samson Zadmehran, Alfredo Coe- lho, Yacine Messaoudène. This is an open access, peer-reviewed article published by Firenze University Press (http://www.fupress.com/wep) and dis- tributed under the terms of the Crea- tive Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distri- bution, and reproduction in any medi- um, provided the original author and source are credited. Data Availability Statement: All rel- evant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information fi les. Competing Interests: The Author(s) declare(s) no confl ict of interest. Analysis of the 2007-2008 Hérault premiumized grubbing-up campaign: a tool to better understand Fischer-Boel’s 2008-2011 grubbing- up campaigns and the desire in 2022 to reintroduce locally premiumized grub-ups Étienne Montaigne1, Samson Zadmehran2,*, Alfredo Coelho3, Yacine Messaoudène4 1 L’Institut Agro, SupAgro Montpellier, 34060 Montpellier, France 2 MoISA, Univ Montpellier, CIRAD, CIHEAM-IAMM, INRAE, Institut Agro Montpellier, France 3 Department Enterprises and Territories, Bordeaux Sciences Agro, 33170 Gradignan, France 4 CIHEAM-IAMM, UMR MoISA, F-34093, Montpellier, France E-mail: etienne.montaigne@supagro.fr; zadmehran@gmail.com; alfredo.coelho@agro- bordeaux.fr *Corresponding author. Abstract. In 2022, in Bordeaux due to a structural oversupply, grape growers’ syndi- cates have asked to reimplement premiumized grub-ups in order to bring the market back to equilibrium. However, in today’s CMO no legal basis exists to conduct such a policy. In this article, we go over the policy of planting rights (transformed in 2016 into planting authorization) and of premiumized grub-ups. In undertaking this histor- ical review of Europe’s grubbing-up policy, we analyze in detail Pierre Bartoli’s 1982 thesis and studies of the Observatoire de l’Hérault (Dyopta) that take into account experts’ opinions and statistical viewpoints. Th is review enables us to present the main indicators in order to “objectively” analyze data that we received from a 2007/2008 grubbing-up campaign in Hérault. Our originality is the analysis of a subset consisting of 341 Vinifl hor applications for grubbing-up premiums, which represents 20% of all benefi ciaries receiving premiums. Th e applications were later sent with the applicants’ consent to a development agency that transmitted them to us. Within this subset, we selected 51 grape growers with whom we conducted a qualitative and quantitative sur- vey. Our goal was to identify their real motivations for grubbing up their vines. We then put forward synthesized results explaining the qualitative interviews and run the data through an econometric model. Th e main results are that many grape growers grubbed up only a small fraction of their vineyards mainly to cash in on the premi- ums in times of dire wine crisis. Grubbing ups of young “improving varietals” rein- forces this analysis. Furthermore, the 2007/2008 grubbing-up campaign comes a year just before the 2008/2011 Fischer-Boel grubbing-up campaigns that wanted to reduce Europe’s vineyard of 175,000 ha of vines by eliminating the least effi cient grape grow- ers. We thought it would be interesting to shed light on this 2008 wine CMO policy by using the results of the 2007/2008 grubbing-up campaign. Keywords: sustainability, wine sector, CAP Reform, FADN. 82 Étienne Montaigne et al. 1. INTRODUCTION Unlike the New World’s viticulture, the potential of the European grape production is controlled through planting rights introduced by the 1976 wine CMO and planting authorizations since 2016 and the 2013 CMO1. Planting rights gave the EU the possibility to control the area planted in vines and therefore participated to the long-term regulation of the wine market. Histori- cally, the UE wine market was also controlled by other short-term methods such as distillation, but it is another method that has attracted our attention: grub-ups and specifically premiumized ones. Interestingly, it seems that one could imagine grub-ups as the flip side of plant- ing rights: the EU commission enlarges the area planted in vines by issuing additional rights and diminishes it by introducing permanent grub-ups. Currently under the 2013 CMO, premiumized grub-ups are no longer availa- ble as a policy tool to control the production potential of European vineyards. However, today in 2022, Bordeaux’s grape growers’ syndicates are seeking to reintroduce a legal framework to be able to use them. In this paper we had access to data from the 2007/2008 Hérault grubbing-up campaign that consists of 341 application files that the Hérault Chamber of Agriculture received and transmitted to us. The particu- larities and importance of our data are linked to its rari- ty (individual grubbing-up data is difficult to access) and to the fact that it sits at the end of the 1999 wine CMO and right before the beginning of the 2008 wine CMO. The 2007/2008 Hérault grubbing-up campaign is part of a set of campaigns that followed the 2004 worldwide overproduction crisis and its intent was clearly to regu- late supply by diminishing it. Our 2007/2008 campaign immediately precedes the three 2008/2011 grubbing-up campaigns (2008 wine CMO) that were introduced by the European commission and Commissioner Mrs. Mar- iann Fischer-Boel in order to improve the competitive- ness of European grape growers by grubbing-up 170,000 ha. This improvement was deemed necessary before the liberalization of the market through the disappearance of planting rights in 2016. In our work, on a given population and in a limited area, we aim to do an in-depth analysis of the grubbing- up policy at the dawn of the new EU policy promoted by Mrs. Fischer Boel. Our article’s first ambition is to ana- lyze the 2007/2008 Hérault grubbing-up campaign by looking in detail at what was grubbed up. Our second ambition is to study the motivations that directed the 1 For a historic and long-term vision of French viticulture, interventions and regulations, see Chevet et al. (2018) [1] and Meloni and Swinnen (2013) [2]. grape growers’ decision. To do so we conducted 51 quali- tative interviews with grape growers contained within our initial sample (341 application files). Furthermore, we use these analyses as an exploratory tool in the event of a future reflection on the evaluation of the 2008/2011 EU grubbing-up policy. By doing so, it appears that the reasons put forward in European texts’ recitals were focused on eliminating “old and inefficient” small grape growers and did not take into account, at least in Hérault, all of the grape grower’s microeconomic and technical motivations. 2. HISTORY OF EUROPEAN WINE CMOS FOR THE PRODUCTION POTENTIAL MANAGEMENT It has now been more than eighty years since France and Spain implemented rules commonly known as planting rights to control the planting of vines [1,2]. Following King’s Law’s logic [3], their aim is to pre- vent anarchic plantings of vines that would come to weigh on the wine supply within the next three years2 and perhaps cause the collapse of prices on the wine market. Starting on January 1, 2016, planting rights became planting authorization3 and still remain a pil- lar of the wine CMO as they manage the capacity of wine production [4]. However, this was not always the case in the European Union (UE): originally in 1970 the UE recuperated the French market organization except for planting rights meaning that from the 1970 to 1976 planting rights did not exist in the EU except in France. In 1976, the UE decided to activate plant- ing rights in order to face a table wine overproduction crisis induced by “wine wars” between France and Italy that caused riots [5]. As winemakers rioted in 1976 in Montredon-Corbrières (Languedoc-Roussillon, France), they faced the CRS4: during the clashes both a CRS captain and a winemaker died [6]. Planting rights/ authorizations have gone on to become the hallmark of the UE wine policy. 2 In general, it takes three years for planted vines to mature and produce grapes that will come to the market. 3 With the 2013 CMO, planting rights have been transformed into planting authorizations but have retained the same impact on control- ling production. Also, the new rules forbid to transfer the title to other producers. This constraint highly affects the evolution and the capacity to control the evolution of vineyards. 4 Compagnies Républicaines de Sécurité: an elite French police force spe- cialized in facing riots. 83Analysis of the 2007-2008 Hérault premiumized grubbing-up campaign 2.1 1976 wine CMO: adoption of “(Re)planting5 rights and grubbing premiums In 1976, facing social tension, the European Com- mission decided to manage the capacity of wine pro- duction by prohibiting the planting of any new vines and by doing so recreated de facto “(re)planting rights.” In other words, a grape grower could only plant an area of vines if he had previously grubbed up an equivalent area. Simultaneously, the European Commission created premiums for grape growers grubbing up their vines to compensate the suspension of their rights to plant for six years (Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1163/76) [7]. Later, premiums for permanent grub-ups, result- ing in the permanent disappearance of planting rights, appeared and were maintained through the follow- ing wine CMOs [8]. Economically, this policy had an impact on the wine market: until the middle of the ’90s grubbed-up areas brought the European wine market to a general quantitative equilibrium [9]. Other meas- ures concerning restructuring, favoring the transition to PGI and PDO have participated in a better adapta- tion to the market. From the 1988/1989 campaign to the 2004/2005 one, premiumized grub-ups resulted in the permanent disappearance of roughly 500,000 ha of vines in all of the EU [10]. Figure 1 gives the share of the grubbing-up budget in the wine CMO budget from 1993 to 2005 (light green). In regard to the dimensions of the EU vineyards, on a period going from 1990 to 2007, the French ones grew on average from 4 ha to 9 ha, 5 In 1999, this first category of planting rights will be renamed replant- ing right in order to differentiate it from the two newly created catego- ries. Hence the parentheses. the Spanish ones from 3.5 ha to 5.5 ha, the German ones from 2 to 3.5 ha and the Italian ones from 1 ha to 1.5 ha. However, there is still a large number of small vineyards left and some were even created during the 2007/2012 grubbing campaigns as a result of splitting the vineyards in order to be able to receive the premiums. From 2010 to 2020 changes appear as restructuring financed by the CAP becomes the principal policy tool affecting Langue- doc vineyards instead of CMO ones such as planting rights and grubbing-up campaign [11]. 2.2 1999 wine CMO: creation of the reserve for rights, reserve rights and “new” planting rights The introduction of the 1999 wine CMO6 refined the management of planting vines in the EU7. This reform arrived in the midst of fears of an insufficient wine sup- ply, at least in certain markets, due to: (1) the systemati- zation of premiumized grub-ups from 1976 to 1997, (2) three consecutive small harvests (1995/1996; 1996/1997; 1997/1998) [13] and (3) flawed diagnostics made during the 1993/1994 amendment of the previous wine CMO [14,15]. In refining its management, the 1999 wine CMO created a reserve system to save forsaken or unused planting rights and clearly distinguished three categories of planting rights: (1) replanting rights (previous grub- 6 Council Regulation (EC) No. 1493/1999 of May 17, 1999. 7 “This suppleness is comforted by the level of the community’s produc- tion of wine. The 1996, 1997 and 1998 harvests were situated at levels clearly below the previous years. This was the background for the dis- cussions that took place and that resulted in the new 1999 basic rules, which decided to create the new planting right quotas for the member States.” [13] Figure 1. Evolution of the wine CMO’s budget allocated to grubbing up. Source: Challenges and opportunities for European wines – 16.02.2006 – slide 42 [12]. 84 Étienne Montaigne et al. up required), (2) new planting rights (a new right created ex-nihilo) and (3) planting rights from the reserve. As we’ve seen replanting rights already existed in the former wine CMOs: planting an area of vines was only possible if an equivalent area of vines was grubbed up elsewhere. In 2000/2001, replanting rights remain- ing in grape growers’ portfolios represented an area of 193,016 ha. By 2005/2006 this area had increased to 216,0048 ha [16]. Table 1 illustrates the evolution of the area of replanting rights held by grape growers from 2000/2001 to 2005/2006 in major EU wine-producing countries. The 1999 wine CMO created ex-nihilo an overall 51,000 ha quota (Art. 6(1) of R. 1493/1999)9 of new plant- ing rights (Art. 3(2) of R. 1493/1999) which was distrib- uted to 8 countries as Table 2 indicates. This table also shows that only 68% of the quota equaling to 34,783 ha of rights to plant new vines were allocated and the rest were directed towards the newly created rights’ reserve [16]. 8 This number rises to 231,809 ha if we include the 10 wine producing Member States that joined the European Union on May 1st, 2004 after the Athens treaty: Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia. 9 This handing out did not have major impact on determining the pro- duction capacity. The decrease in wine consumption has led to premi- umless grub ups and reconversions in many wine-producing countries. The 1999 wine CMO created national and regional “reserves” to recuperate unused new planting rights and replanting rights that were set to expire. On three cam- paigns from 2000/2001 to 2003/2004, the reserves held 68,000 ha [16]. Members States or their regions could access these reserve rights if an inventory of their wine production showed that their wine supply was below Table 1. Replanting rights held by the grape growers (ha, EU-15, 2000/2006). In ha 2000/2001 2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 Czech Republic NR NR NR 0 154 192 Germany 3900 4235 4184 4366 4436 4285 Greece 2376 2376 560 1682 1206 987 Spain 74,189 83,315 80,949 82,814 88,475 88,412 France 45,094 47,611 51,942 44,823 43,749 43,702 Italy 42,056 44,448 41,103 47,748 46,502 52,465 Cyprus NR NR NR 467 596 596 Luxembourg 0 0 0 12 0 0 Hungary NR NR NR 12,509 13,525 14,266 Malta NR NR NR 0 0 0 Austria 12,592 12,695 5313 5501 8897 9030 Portugal 12,809 10,737 12,045 13,541 17,124 17,124 Slovenia NR NR NR 0 276 251 Slovakia NR NR NR 0 500 500 Subtotal EU 15 193,016 205,417 196,097 200,488 210,390 216,004 Subtotal EU 10 NR NR NR 12,976 15,051 15,805 Total 193,016 205,417 196,097 213,463 225,441 231,809 Source: Communications of the Member States according to table 7.2 and, where applicable, table 7.1 of the Annex to Regulation (EC) n. 1227/2000, cited by Commission of the European Communities. Commission report to the European Parliament and the Council on man- agement of planting rights pursuant to chapter I of Title II of Council Regulation (EC) n. 1493/1999. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities; 2007. Table 2. Use of the newly created planting rights for planting vine- yards to produce quality wines and table wines with geographical indication. Quota distributed (ha) New planting rights used (ha) Percentage of use (%) Germany 1534 471 31 Greece 1098 1098 100 Spain 17,355 17,107 99 France 13,565 9377 69 Italy 12,933 3688 29 Luxembourg 18 0 0 Austria 737 0 0 Portugal 3760 3041 81 Total 51,000 34,783 68 Source: Communications of the Member States according to Table 2.2 of the Annex to the Regulation (EC) n. 1227/2000 and article 6 of Regulation (EC) n. 1493/1999. 85Analysis of the 2007-2008 Hérault premiumized grubbing-up campaign their demand. When applying, young and recently set- tled grape growers were given priority. All in all, the three categories of planting rights rep- resented 275,797 ha or 8.3% of the European vineyards consisting of 3,326,542 ha [16]. From the 2000/2001 campaign to the 2007/2008 one, grubbing-up was carried out with the help of limit- less community (European) funding. Each Member State specified the regions where the intervention would be applied. In France, small regions and small surfaces were first concerned for the initial four campaigns and the average grubbing rate was 1,200 ha/year. Then, due to the 2004 global overproduction crisis, this measure became more widely solicited and over the next three campaigns, from 2005 to 2008, the average national grubbing rate rose to 14,000 ha/year. 70% of all grub-ups happened in Languedoc-Roussillon with 9,740 ha/year. These three grubbing-up campaigns were far superior to the follow- ing three from the 2008/2011 “Fischer Boel” Operation. 2.3 2008 wine CMO: a thirst for competitiveness In 2006, a procedure that would profoundly modify the 1999 wine CMO appeared. It was initiated by discus- sions between the different European bodies—the Euro- pean Commission, the COPA-COGECA and the Euro- pean Parliament—and based on two documents provid- ed by the European Commission [17,18] and three by the Commission of the European Communities [12,19,20] and completed by studies ordered by the European Commission and the European Parliament [14,21–23]. The European Commission’s proposal took into account the hardships of the European wine sector, which were linked to a never before witnessed worldwide overproduction of 50 to 60  million extra hectoliters10 [24,25]. This crisis impacted to a certain degree all wine actors, including Australia and other countries from the New World and the southern hemisphere. The economic situation worsened in the EU due to an internal decrease of wine consumption in the traditional wine producing countries and a significant increase in imports of New World wine entering northern European markets, espe- cially the United Kingdom. The European Commission concluded that this situation existed due to a lack of competitiveness from the European producers because their farm sizes were too small [26]. In its communication “Towards a sustainable Euro- pean wine sector,”  the European Commission retained the scenario “Profound Reform of the CMO—Variant B—Two-step” and justified its choice by stating: “The first 10 Each year the OIV publishes data in regards to wine production. phase is restoring market balance and the second phase is building improved competitiveness, including the aboli- tion of planting rights. The principal feature of variant B would be a structural adjustment, i.e., temporarily reac- tivating the grubbing-up scheme. The system of restric- tions on planting rights would be extended until 2013, when it would expire. The least competitive wine produc- ers would have a strong incentive to sell their planting rights or to grub up with subsidies. Rapidly, competitive producers can be expected to focus more on the competi- tiveness of their enterprise, as the cost of planting rights will no longer hamper expansion. In the medium to long term this would represent a reduction in their fixed pro- duction costs” [19]. This scenario would span 5 years, aim to grub up 400,000  ha and allocate 2.4  billion euros towards premiums. Incentives were also given to grape growers to act quickly as the value of the premiums received would decrease in the second and third years of the policy. Promoting competitiveness and fighting over- supply were truly at the heart of this policy project. However, this scenario was not validated and a sec- ond proposal was negotiated in 2007. After many debates and a parliamentary text putting forward more than 500 amendments [27], the Council of ministers approved the 2008 wine CMO11 reform (Council Regulation (EC) No. 479/2008 of April 29, 2008), which included a new grubbing policy. In it, the original target of 400,000 ha was first reduced to 200,000 ha spanning 5 years and then, furthermore, to 175,000 ha on a 3-year peri- od—2008/2009, 2009/2010 and 2010/2011—with premi- ums also decreasing in the second and third years. This three-year grubbing policy is defined in the 2008 wine CMO under TITLE V, PRODUCTION POTEN- TIAL, CHAPTER  III Grubbing-up scheme. Arguments for such a scheme are stated in recitals  3, 58 and 68: “Moreover, some of the existing regulatory measures12 have unduly constrained the activities of competitive pro- ducers.”—recital  3; “While the transitional prohibition on new plantings has had some effect on the balance between supply and demand in the wine market, it has at the same time created an obstacle for competitive producers who wish to respond flexibly to increased demand.”—recital 58 and finally “Where producers consider that the conditions in certain areas are not conducive to viable production, they should be given the option of cutting their costs and permanently withdrawing these areas from wine produc- tion and should be enabled either to pursue alternative 11 The new wine CMO dealt with the organization of the wine common market. It modified rules (EC) No. 1493/1999, (EC)  No.  1782/2003, (EC) No.  1290/2005 and (EC) No. 3/2008, and repealed rules (CEE) No. 2392/86 and (EC) No. 1493/1999. 12 Commonly understood as planting rights, as confirmed by recital 58. 86 Étienne Montaigne et al. activities on the relevant area or to retire from agricultur- al production altogether.”—recital 68. Through these recitals the grubbing-up policy appears to intervene simultaneously on supply and efficiency with objectives to respectively eliminate planting rights13 and foster economies of scale in grape farms. It is also put for- ward as a way to eliminate the least productive producers, by enticing then with a premium. Article  102 “procedure and budget” defines how to target the least productive grape grower through a set of rules prioritizing the access to the premium. Priority is given to those (1) grubbing up the entirety of their vineyard or completely ceasing their wine-related activity and (2) to applicants aged 55 or higher. Furthermore, premiums increase with the yield and decrease in the second and third years as shown in Table 3 This gradualness is part of the European Com- mission’s tradition, as it believes that it should compensate the loss in revenue in proportion to the yield14. This grubbing-up policy was successful as EU coun- tries used a 100% of the available budget and seamless- ly reached the 175,000 ha target and 160,550 once the application files were treated15. 13 Planned next was the liberalization of vine planting by making disap- pear all planting bans (i.e. planting rights). The start of this plan ranged from 2015 to 2018 and many reasons in the text supported and moti- vated their definitive disappearance. But as the deadline approached, many European professionals and many locally elected representatives questioned the soundness of this deregulation as they feared disastrous consequences. 14 Delord and al. (2016) have questioned the relationship between yield, size and profitability in viticulture [18]. 15 Upon further notice FranceAgriMer determined that 160,550 ha resulted in premiumized grub-ups [28]. Dacian Ciolos confirmed the 160,000 ha of grubbed up vines in the April 19, 2012 speech [29]. Simultaneously to the implementation of three grubbing-up campaigns, the 2008 wine OCM (CE n° 479-2008) reorganized the management of viticul- ture by means of the NSPs, “the national support pro- grams”. These programs provided a fixed budget for each country and gave each Member State (MS) the possibility to choose its objectives “à la carte within a menu”, and with the possibility of doing so at the regional level. By doing so, Europe was thus giving itself other means of continuing to improve its viti- cultural performance, in particular by three preferred means in France: restructuring and reconversion (37.8%), investment (32.3%) and promotion (14.3%) ((CE) n° 479-2008, art. 10-11-15 confirmed by (CE) n° 32013R1308 art 43-52) [30]. 2.4 2013 CMO: abolition of planting rights and the end of premiumized of grubbing-up campaigns The 2008 wine CMO introduced the abolition of planting rights by 2015, a decision that led to debates and controversies within the wine industry. Respond- ing to the uproar, the 2013 CMO transformed plant- ing rights into planting authorizations and introduced a yearly growth limitation corresponding to 1% of the area planted in vines. Authorizations are free, they can- not be sold on a market like planting rights could. Eco- nomically argued limits were also introduced at the PGI and PDO level. Grape growers can plant as many vines as they want as long as national and local limits are not attained. In the south of France [11], with the excep- tion of Charentes exposed to strong growth in demand for cognac, local limits have not been very much used. Hérault area planted in vines has stabilized around 80,500 ha since 2011, after having lost 40,931 ha from 1988 to 2010 with the permanent abandonment premi- um [31]. Grape growers use today CAP tools, such as restruc- turing instruments, that let them get financial help in order to plant improving varietals, change the distance between rows, changing the canopy management, intro- duce irrigation, improve environmental aspect such as planting hedges. But it appears that the CAP’s tools are not sufficient to replace the effects of a grubbing-up campaign in regard to bringing the market back to equi- librium, particularly in on a regional market. Recently, in 2022, Bordeaux has been pleading for a grubbing-up campaign, but under the 2013 CMO there is no legal basis to fund it [32,33]. Table 3. Level of the premium provided for in Article 98 of Regula- tion (EC) n. 479/2008 ANNEX XV. Historical yield per hectare (hl) Premium (EUR/ha) requests approved in 2008/2009 requests approved in 2009/2010 requests approved in 2010/2011 (1) (2) (3) (4) ≤20 1740 1595 1450 >20 and ≤30 4080 3740 3400 >30 and ≤40 5040 4620 4200 >40 and ≤50 5520 5060 4600 >50 and ≤90 7560 6930 6300 >90 and ≤130 10,320 9460 8600 >130 and 160 13,320 12,210 11,100 >160 14,760 13,530 12,300 Source: Commission Regulation (EC) n. 555/2008 of 27 June 2008. 87Analysis of the 2007-2008 Hérault premiumized grubbing-up campaign 3. HÉRAULT 2007/2008 CAMPAIGN: A CASE STUDY TO SHED LIGHT ON THE 2008/2011 EU GRUBBING POLICY AND THE QUESTION OF THE REINTRODUCTION OF LOCALIZED PREMIUMIZED GRUB-UPS IN 2022 3.1 The importance of Hérault and past studies in Langue- doc-Roussillon Historically16 the Languedoc-Roussillon region, where Hérault is situated, has been very prone to grub- bing up: from 1977 to 2010, this policy resulted in the disappearance of 40% of the vineyard (166,000  ha) [35]. According to the Cour des comptes, the grub-up of high- yield vines and vineyards being qualitatively restruc- tured led Languedoc-Roussillon’s mean yield to drop from 80  hl/ha in 1980 to a bit more than 50  hl/ha in 2009 [35]. This court adds: “The focus of the grubbing- up subsidy policy on a region traditionally prone to overproduction, added to the restructuration policy has profoundly modified this region’s landscape and the wine supply. It has favored the going out of business of many small polyvalent producers and has led to an upgrade of the product range” [35, p.  24–25]. In France, the 2008 wine CMO grubbing campaign resulted in more than 58,000  ha of vines removed and not sur- prisingly most came from Languedoc-Roussillon and Hérault [35]. From 2005 to 2010, 69% of all grubbed-up areas in France and receiving premiums happened in Languedoc-Roussillon [35]. Past research has already been conducted in Hérault on grub-up motivation, particularly the study done by Pierre Bartoli and Marc Meunier in 1982 [36]. In “La politique de reconversion viticole  : résultats de la prime d’arrachage en Languedoc-Roussillon  1976-79”17 [37] the goal was to examine the consequences of the distribution of sizes on production systems. They wanted to under- stand the farmers’ governing motivations, their adequa- cy with the wine policy and analyze the socio-economic situation. This study showed the importance of the gap between the objectives set forth for reconversion premi- ums and the actual results. This gap appeared not only at the level of zones and farm structures, but also at the one dealing with the types of grubbing-up implemented and their reasons. The Observatoire viticole de l’Hérault’s (2005) [38] study “Étude d’ impact des arrachages définitifs dans 16 For a general view of French viticulture see Alonso et al. (2019) in The Palgrave Handbook of Wine Industry Economics [34]. 17 The wine conversion policy: results of the grubbing-up premium in Languedoc-Roussillon 1976-79. l’Hérault”18 updated the 1997 works of Aigrain et al. [39] by undertaking a very precise statistical analysis, tak- ing into account quantities and geographical areas, on a period ranging from 1988 to 2003. It showed that grub- ups were mostly located in the coastal plain, in urban and peri-urban areas. It also took note of the regression of the number of small size farms, the grub-ups within areas of appellation, the acceleration in the loss of the traditional varietals and the grub-ups of improving vari- etals. The study also showed “that from 1988 to 1991, the reasons for grubbing up gathered from the analysis are diffuse. Their results show that premium value arrived in first place (83% of grub-ups received a premium). A need for diversification is also very present (80%) and it is hard to dissociate decision-making elements, such as retirement (30%), family reasons (24%) from a need for cash (10%)” [38]. However, they did not precisely state their survey’s sources and methodology. Nevertheless, this study cites through “experts’ statements” the possible motivations for primed grub- ups: “(1) some grape growers that are dealing with hard- ships, take advantage of this chance to improve finances (grubbing  up small surfaces), (2) small farms (<5  ha), farmers that will retire soon and have nobody to takeo- ver, will be the first concerned, (3) for certain farms the whole area may be grubbed up” [38, p.  16]. We find the same reasoning that had been expressed by the Europe- an Commission as the study cites their arguments and explicitly leans on them. Our analysis also aims to complete and further advance these previous works by pinpointing the real motivations (economic and social) that push grape grow- ers to permanently grub up, partially or totally, their vines. This leads to a finer analysis of the adequacy between the actual grub-ups and the future objectives set forth by the policy within the 2008 wine CMO. 3.2 Our analysis of the 2007/2008 grubbing-up campaign Any economic policy decision taken at a level as aggregated as viticulture in Europe cannot take into account all the situations of grape growers and all their motivations for grubbing up their vines. Few data have been published on either the age of grape growers or on their economic performance to justify the a priori choic- es made. Being considered as common knowledge was enough to make these facts relevant. Furthermore, the success of this policy according to selected criteria has substantiated the merits of the common knowledge. To us, it seemed interesting to deepen the thought process 18 Impact study of final grubbing up in the Hérault. 88 Étienne Montaigne et al. on the EU 2008/2011 grubbing-up policy by analyzing the technical and microeconomic data originating from a genuine database capturing the grape growers’ motiva- tions and behaviors adopted during the last subsidized grubbing-up campaign (2007/2008) using the previous 1999 wine CMO rules. It should be noted that this is France’s second larg- est grubbing-up campaign during the entire 1999/2011 period with 6,278 ha grubbed up and of which 4,040 ha happened in Languedoc-Roussillon. Also, the 2007/2008 campaign gave the possibility to introduce specific rules locally. This was authorized by the 1999 wine CMO, adopted at the French national level and defined region- ally by the “interprofessions” (inter-professionnal organ- isations) as they had the possibility to exclude any appel- lation or any varietals within an appellation from being grubbed up19. There are several reasons for doing so (1) because precise data on the 2008 wine CMO grubbing-up scheme is extremely hard to encounter due to privacy rules and (2) according to experts (INAO and FranceA- griMer) this data may not be representative as rumor is that some grape growers split-up their grape farms and made their elderly grandparents owners of the areas to be grubbed up in order to maximize their chances of receiving their premium. Therefore, the 2008/2009 data may be skewed and therefore the previous 2007/2008 campaign may be more representative of grape growers’ natural motivation as it does not incite them to change their behavior. Our analysis acknowledges the 2004 world oversup- ply crisis that impacted all wine-producing countries in the world. Falling prices created financial hardships for farms and cooperative cellars [41, 4220, 4321, 4422]. Our 19 “Geographical areas that can benefit from the premium for definitive abandonment of area of vineyard under the 2007/2008 campaign for the Languedoc-Roussillon region: […] for the department of Hérault, all areas under vines, excluding areas planted with Clairette (white) grape variety in the PDO ‘Clairette du Languedoc’ and areas planted with Cinsault grape variety (red) in Vin de Pays des ‘Côtes de Thongue’” [40]. 20 “The study clearly illustrates the crisis. The majority of winemaking farms from Languedoc Roussillon cannot survive with the actual wine prices. We add to this the deficiency of the yields. Sacrifices have been made to ‘hold on’ (few private withdrawals) but we note strong restric- tions on investments (on average €10,000 per farm in 2007, €6,000 in 2008)” [42]. 21 “The Languedoc-Roussillon economy: 90% of the grape-growing farms appears to be in financial hardship. The CER (Center of rural economy) of Languedoc-Roussillon presented this week an alarming report on the financial situation of the region’s grape growing farms. According to this study conducted within the scope of the regional wine production observatory, the financial situation of the wine-growing farms has strongly deteriorated within the last three years” [43]. 22 “In reality it’s mostly Languedoc-Roussillon that is going to grub up its vineyards. The crisis is here, worst and more profound than any- where else and the winemakers’ cash reserves are totally depleted” [44]. complementary hypothesis is that numerous grub-ups were motivated by the consequences of the economic crisis due to falling prices and that grubbing-up premi- ums were also a means of survival for many grape grow- ers, as they could use these premiums to reimburse bank loans contracted to purchase land or to plant vines in order to meet the ’90s new qualitative orientation. The 2004 supply crisis was followed by a strong demand cri- sis in 2008 due to the subprime mortgage crisis, which extended hardships for grape growers and increased their resort to grubbing up. 3.3 Hypotheses Using a typology of grape growers, we state the fol- lowing hypotheses on their use of premiums resulting from permanently grubbing up their vines: - Freshly installed young grape growers facing a budg- et and indebtedness crisis: for them, premiums will be of great help in facing current farm expenses and to pay back loans and debt. - Grape growers near retirement: grub-up premiums guarantee them a decent retirement. - Grape growers that can no longer face the crisis: their belief is that grape-growing has no future in the region and has become a rewardless enterprise. Therefore, they decide to grub up their vines and with the help of the premiums, they invest in oth- er crops (wheat, fruits, vegetables, etc.). They may reorient themselves towards other sectors they deem more rewarding. - Grape growers owning land near urban centers: their vineyards are grubbed to transform their land lots into building plots. 4. MATERIALS AND METHOD 4.1 The sources of information: 341 Viniflohr application files Vinif lhor23 manages premiumized grub-ups in France and grape-growers must submit to them an application file. In addition to its administrative task, Viniflhor analyzes the information in the files to com- pile grubbing-up statistics at the levels of the city, the department, the region and the country that are pub- lished on the site of the Observatoire viticole (Dyopta)24. Spatialized data is highly interesting especially at a 23 Now FranceAgriMer. 24 Today this privately owned company is defunct. 89Analysis of the 2007-2008 Hérault premiumized grubbing-up campaign fine scale, but it only allows us to randomly approach and survey grape growers that have decided to grub as Viniflhor’s management of grubbing-up premiums anonymizes all application files to ensure confidentiality meaning that individual grape growers are theoretically inaccessible. An exception was made for the 2007/2008 grub- bing-up campaign as professional wine organizations demanded Viniflhor to insert in the application files an optional consent form for grape growers allowing their application files to be forwarded to a development agen- cy. France directly funded 2007/2008 campaign and it was the last one before the implementation of the new EU grubbing-up policy (2008/2011). The idea was to allow an ongoing thought process to improve future tar- geted interventions in order to better follow up on grape growers and their grubbed-up lots. The main points were economic monitoring and managing landscapes. In the case of our study, consenting grape growers accepted that their contact information and the content of their accomplished grub-ups be transmitted to the Hérault Chamber of Agriculture (local extension service). 341 files representing about 20% of all Hérault applications for the 2007/2008 premiums were transmitted. However, on certain files, certain information was missing as some questions remained unanswered. As the application files were handed over to us by the Hérault Chamber of Agriculture, we did not con- struct the survey sample. Furthermore, in regard to the French laws concerning privacy (CNIL), we do not have any information on the entirety of the population that grubbed up their vines. Therefore, we are unable to see if our 20% sample represents or not and if it is biased or not in regard to the Hérault population grubbing up their vines during the 2007/2008 campaign. It could therefore appear, a priori, as a sample created by conven- ience since it is true that, within the grubbing-up appli- cation files, the choice “is favorable to the transmission of the file to a development organization” is not subject to any known statistical references. However, a posteriori, once we look closer, this is not the case of our survey sample. In fact, we can do the hypothesis that the population grubbing up their vines is representative of the total population of grape grow- ers in Hérault. To do so, we use the criterion “size of the vineyard”. When characterized by this criterion, our sample survey comes very close to one created by quota sampling using data contained in a survey conducted in 2007 by the Hérault Department on the size of grape farms in Hérault. [45]. Our sample’s variable concerning the size of grape farms when regressed against the one contained in the 2007 Hérault survey results in a coef- ficient of determination equal to 0.78 (R2 using Pearson’s method). The transmitted information was limited and con- tained: identification of the farmer and his farm, direct or indirect farming, owner-farmer or tenant-farmer leasing land, farm’s total area in vines and grubbed-up areas, winemaking location, list of lots being grubbed up including age of vines, their classification and if appella- tion wine was being produced, and the area grubbed up. Quite surprisingly, the farmer’s age and yield were miss- ing. These elements are essential in calculating the pre- mium amount and should have normally been included. We assume their absence was due to the fact that Vini- flhor directly gathered this data on site during the field evaluation prior to the grub-ups and immediately evalu- ated premiums, according to Table 4, as it completed the processing of the files. Table 4. Premium for the permanent abandonment (2007/2008 grb-up campaign, amount in euros by yield and by hectares. Total area to be grubbed up Vineyard area within the farm Yield (hl/ha) Premium amount (€/ha) Less than 10 ares Any area Any value of yield 0 From 10 ares to 25 ares Lower or equal to 25 ares Any value of yield 4,300 Higher than 25 ares More than 25 ares Higher than 25 ares Yield lower or equal to 20 1,450 Yield higher from 20 to 30 3,400 Yield higher from 30 to 40 4,200 Yield higher from 40 to 50 4,600 Yield higher from 50 to 90 6,300 Yield higher from 90 to 130 8,600 Yield higher from 130 to 160 11,100 Yield higher than 160 12,300 Source: Viniflhor [40] 90 Étienne Montaigne et al. 4.2 Sources of information: a survey of 51 grape growers After waiting 9 months, from September 2009 to March 2010, we completed our study by individually sur- veying 51 grape growers. Indeed, as the 341 files were not anonymized we constituted a sub-sample containing 51 grape growers selected by size strata [46] and using tel- ephone interviews, we were able to complete the informa- tion contained in the application files. Our survey included detailed questions on farm structure and grub-up moti- vations. Questions included the sex and age of the grape growers, the legal entity of their farm, how they acquired it, the size of their farm, the planted area of each varietal, the area of the varietals being grubbed up, the motivations for grubbing up, questions on the financial situation of the grape grower, questions of past grub ups, the presence of other crops on the farm, questions on grants received, questions on the possibility of an heir taking over. Includ- ed was also a non-directive qualitative commentary from grape growers on their economic situation. The goal was to have access to a sample that best represented the concerned population. Many questions were not fully answered, but a certain number of them enabled us to confirm certain qualitative results. 5. RESULTS 5.1 The grubbing-up rates The grubbing-up rate is an excellent indicator to measure the application of the grubbing-up policy. As shown in Figure 2, we can define four groups of applica- tion files. The first group includes the smaller sized grape growers that grubbed up all or almost all their vines. The total area of their vineyard is 10  ha or less. The second group is similar to the first in vineyard size. Its specific- ity is that the grubbing-up rate is lower, between 50 and 80%. They often conserve a small land lot to grow vines to keep a link with the cooperative cellar. This guaran- tees grapes for family consumption and a family rev- enue. They are trimming down on their size. The Euro- pean Commission specifically targeted these models. The third model englobes small and medium-sized farms that only grubbed up a smaller part of their vineyard: 1 to 30%. These grub-ups are limited. Many farmers justify their decision of “selling a lot with vines” because of the opportunity to sell in a land market depressed by the cri- sis [47] and to find cash to reimburse loans. The fourth group gathers all the large farms. The areas grubbed up are high in absolute values, but much lower in relative values. Grubbing-ups represent a sort of “option value” on the future, as it enables to balance the accounting books while they await the market’s evolution and the impact of the European grubbing-up campaign on the prices. The decision to quit, maintain oneself or again, increase in size will depend on the future sectorial situa- tion. Figure 3 gives another illustration of this data. 5.2 The varietals We analyzed the grub-ups of 27325 grape grow- ing farms based in Hérault and their corresponding 25 Varietal data was missing from 68 wine estates. Figure 2. Grubbing-up rates according to total areas of vines (341 farms) 2007/2008 Hérault. Source: 341 Viniflhor application files submit- ted with authorization to development agencies [4]. 1 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Grubbing rate (%) Farm Area (ha) 91Analysis of the 2007-2008 Hérault premiumized grubbing-up campaign 1,029 land lots, for the year  2007 – representing 484 ha of grubbed-up vines. Th e grubbed-up varietals can be categorized into two principal categories: traditional varietals and improving varietals as shown in Figure 4. Among the latter, some are considered as southern qualitative varietals such as Syrah or Grenache, and are found in the PDO specifi cations (cahier des charges). Others, such as Cabernet Sauvignon and Merlot, are excluded from the Languedoc PDO specifi cations. Th ese were principally developed for the Pays  d’Oc wine cat- egory [48,49]. Th e traditional varietals (Carignan, Ara- mon, Alicante, Cinsault, Terret-Bouret, white Ugni) are considered as either too abundant or too productive when planted in the plain. Th e Ministry of Agriculture’s policy and subsidies for restructuration have favored the reduction in share of these varietals in the Hérault vineyards. Th e eight most grubbed-up varietals repre- sent three quarters of all the grub-ups (361 ha/484  ha). Among those 83% are traditional varietals and 17% improving varietals. More than a third of grubbed-up vines are Carig- nan: 184 ha (38%). Other major traditional varietals from the Languedoc vineyard are Cinsault (53.3 ha or 11%), Grenache (47.6 ha or 10%), Aramon (21.6  ha or 4%) and Alicante (46.6 ha or 10%). Added to these tra- ditional varietals are improving varietals such as Syrah (38 ha or 8%), Cabernet Sauvignon (25  ha or 5%) or Merlot (19  ha or 4%). Th e remaining grubbed-up hec- tares are either made up of traditional varietals from Languedoc (Mourvèdre) or other improving varietals (Viognier). We even found some table grapes (Danlas or Dabovki), but their proportions remain minimal and stay below the 1% mark. To refi ne our analysis, we looked at the age of the grubbed-up vines (Figure 5) and in doing so we retained 4 age categories with a 25-year interval (0 to 24 years, 25 to 49 years, 50 to 74 years and 75 to 100 years). Th e major fact observed is that most of the improving vari- etals are grubbed up before they reach 25 years. 92% of grubbed-up Cabernet Sauvignon (22.9 ha/24.9  ha) and Merlot (12.4  ha/13.5  ha) were less than 25 years old. In regard to Syrah,  85% of grubbed-up vines were under the age of 25. Oppositely, the age at which tradi- tional varietals are grubbed up was much older: almost 2/3 of Carignan vines (108.5 ha/165.9  ha) were grubbed up between ages  25 and 49. About a 1/4 of grubbed-up 70 – 99 % 50 – 70 % 20 – 50 % 0- 20 % 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 <= 5 ha 5 – 10 ha 10-20ha 20-50 ha > 50 Farm Area (ha) Grubbing rate (%) Farm Count Figure 3. Headcount of surveyed farms according to their area and grubbing-up rate (341 farms) 2007/2008 Hérault. Source: 341 Vinifl hor application fi les submitted with authorization to development agencies [4]. 92 Étienne Montaigne et al. Carignan vines were between ages  50 and 100 (46.7  ha). We find similar age ranges for other traditional varietals as the age of 93% of grubbed-up Alicante is between 25 and 49 years. 42.5% of grubbed-up Aramon is located within the same range and 53% within the range of 50 to 100 years. Only in the varietals Grenache and Syr- ah did we see vines under the age of 25 having been grubbed up: 46% and 28% respectively. However, when we look at the varietals between the ages  25 and 49, the grub-ups represent respectively 46.5% and 64%. When looking at the grubbed-up varietals and their ages as illustrated in Figure 5, we can state that the main goal of eliminating the oldest vines and the least adapted to the market demand constituted the main part of the intervention. However, an important part of “improving varietals,” about a sixth were removed. This sends us to other explanations that are of a microeconomic nature that we will now study. 5.3 The motivations The reasons why each grape grower grubs up his vines are unique, that is, if we take into account the his- tory of his farm, the specificities of his vineyard, his out- look on the future, his financial situation, if his farming business is full time or part-time, the existence of side revenues, etc. We conducted a survey in order to pur- sue our idea of testing the relevance of the “reaction” induced by the European Commission’s economic policy. Our goal is (1) to shed light on the impact of the premiums on the behavior of grape growers during the 2007/2008 campaign (the grubbing-up policy preced- ing the three-year campaign of the 2008 CMO), (2) but also use these finding to reflect on the new grubbing policy born from 2008 CMO and see which of our find- ings appear, or not, in Fischer Boel’s decision to grub-up 175,000 ha. We sur veyed grape growers that grubbed up their vines. We recorded word for word their reasons, expressed directly from the grape growers, for their grub-ups. Twenty reasons were noted (Table 5). We have been very thorough in recording these motivations. Oftentimes we recorded two or three, near or comple- mentary reasons coming from the same grape grower (on average two and a half). These motivations can be placed in five large catego- ries: - Economic reasons are dominant: a lack of profitabil- ity and a need for cash. Almost half of the answers dealt with economic reasons. Our hypothesis of the impact of the economic crisis on the situation of farms has been confirmed. The goal can be to leave the business or simply to have access to more dis- 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Ca ri gn an Ci ns au lt G re na ch e A lic an te Sy ra h Ca be rn et -S au vi gn on A ra m on M er lo t G re na ch e bl an c Te rr et Te m pr an ill o Sa uv ig no n Bl an c Ch ar do nn ay Ca ri gn an b la nc M ou vè rd re Te rr et B la nc Bo ur bo ul en c U gn i B la nc G re na ch e gr is M au za c Bl an c Pe tit V er do t M ar sa nn e Ch en an so n Te rr et G ri s Bo rb et D an la s Cl ai re tt e D ab ov ki M ac ab eu Ch as se la s Vi og ni er Figure 4. Grubbed-up areas (ha) according to varietals (2007/2008 Hérault). Source: Viniflhor application files submitted with authorization to development agencies (273 estates as some data was missing in the files) [4]. 93Analysis of the 2007-2008 Hérault premiumized grubbing-up campaign posable cash. Th e additional cash may be used to change businesses—linked to farming or not—or reduce debt. Th e premium enables to transform land capital into fi nancial capital in a period when the market for vineyard land is limited [47]. Th e land prices adjust themselves to the value of the premium added to the value of bare land. - Th en come the reasons associated to the farmer’s “life cycle.” Th ese reasons are almost cited as much as the economic reasons. Th ey are similar to the wine CMO whereas: Th e premiums allow grape growers to retire with additional capital. It is a type of retire- ment annuity26. Old age oft en goes hand in hand with retirement and the absence of a buyer or a succes- sor. Th is happens with the departure of land leasing farmers and sharecroppers. Th e owner due to his old age cannot himself take over the work needed for the vines. Lack of time and a second activity are motiva- tions that are slightly diff erent. Low profi tability is the reason that leads to reevaluate the opportunity cost linked to the time committed to grape growing. Death and health problems speak for themselves. 26 In French this is called: “indemnité viagère de départ”. - Farm reorganization is less frequently cited. Reduc- ing the size can be linked to a reduction of payroll taxes, particularly by laying off a farm worker. It can free up additional time for a family member that can then take on another business. Grubbing up vines from land lot situated far away from the farm’s cent- er will reduce the distances within the farm. Th is can be analyzed as a cost reduction (distance) or as a waiting strategy to purchase, at a later date, bet- ter situated land or vines. Th e goal is to increase the rationality of farming. Here, we are also looking at a deal that in a time of crisis is impossible to go for- ward with because of a lack of buyers. Th e nature of the investment made with the premiums is not clear- ly stated. But it is also linked to a strategy of future farm enlargement or reorientation of the estate. Th e possibility of transforming a freed-up land lot into a building lot is only cited once. Th e intent here to perform a double dividend: turn the estate into cash and cash in on the real estate profi ts. Bartoli and Meunier’s [36] study had shown that this double div- idend was meaningful in the suburbs of the Langue- doc plains and in many villages. For our survey, this dimension seems statistically too limited. 0-25 25-50 50-75 75 et + 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Ca rig na n Ali ca nt e Gr en ac he Cin sa ult Sy ra h Ca be rn et -Sa uv . M er lot Area (ha) Age (years) Varietals Figure 5. Grubbed-up areas according to varietals and age of the lots (2007/2008 Hérault). Source: Vinifl hor application fi les submitted with authorization to development agencies (273 estates as some data was missing in the fi les) [4] 94 Étienne Montaigne et al. - The age of the vines or their poor state is a techni- cal reason that is very rational. The remaining ques- tion would be to know if it was appropriate to subsi- dize these grub-ups. Sooner or later these lots would have been eliminated and their contribution to the excessive supply was low. The premiums, however, were the right answer to Brussels targets. Lots that are in bad state have a low profitability and therefore coincide with the elimination of the least produc- tive grape growers. However, we must state that this motivation is rather rare in our sample. - A new orientation for farm activities also constitutes an answer to the objectives of the commission, but in a more indirect way. Developing a more profit- able business, changing business models, develop- ing another crop, selling directly to customers, and organizing oenotourism, all these goals meet the target of improving competitiveness and support the need for extra cash. 5.4 Econometric model: ordinary least square regression In order to further explain the reasons for grubbing up within the data gathered from our 51 grape growers, we have used an ordinary least square (OLS) regression where Xi are the k explanatory variables and Y is the dependent variable. The model is linear and for each sample n the value yn is: The coefficient ß are found by minimizing the error of prediction. In our model Y is the grubbing rate and the k Xi explanatory variables are: grape grower’s sex and age, his need for cash and profitability, his agricultural activ- ity, belonging to a cave coop, having an heir to take over the vineyard, if the grape grower had already previ- ously been in a grubbing-up campaign. Other variables included are the age of the vines being grubbed up and several important varietals: Carignan, Syrah, Aramon, Grenache, Merlot, Cinsault and Sauvignon. Our OLS model has led to interesting results that are shown in Table 6. It seems that there is an average correlation between having a tendency to grub up less and the fact of being a man (-0.172*) or of planning an agricultural activity after the grub-ups (-0.199*). This tendency to grub up less seems to be strongly correlated to being optimistic (-0.291**) and having an heir wishing to take over the family vineyard (-0.374**). These cor- relations are rational. The fact that a correlation exists between grubbing up and being a man is linked to the fact the low number of women (12 women, 23.5%). The other strong correlations in our OLS regression are linked to varietals. It appears to that a strong cor- relation exists between a high percentage of grubbed-up vines and the grubbing-up of varietals Aramon (0.316**) and Merlot (0.369**). Conversely, it seems that the more grape growers own Cinsault (-0.259**), the less they tend to grub it up. This data on varietals should be put into perspective with the historical evolution of Languedoc grape varietals. The grubbing-up of Aramon is logical as it is one of the old Languedoc varietals planted in the plains and linked to mass production of table wine. Today the area planted in Aramon is still deemed excessive mean- ing that more should be grubbed up. The explanation of grubbing up Merlot is more counterintuitive as Merlot is one of the first improving grape varietals introduced into the Languedoc vineyards. Several interpretations Table 5. Reasons for grub-ups. Economic 57 45% Absence of profitability 38 30% Need for cash 19 15% Life cycle 44 35% Retirement 4 3% Old age 3 2% Lack of workforce to hire 4 3% Lack of time due to second activity 11 9% Death 1 1% Departure or absence of the land leasing farmer or sharecropper 7 6% No buyer/successor to take over business 7 6% Health problems 7 6% Farm Reorganization 7 6% Size reduction 1 1% Recentering the farm 3 2% Investment 1 1% Land purchase 1 1% Building plots 1 1% Technical 10 8% Old vines or in bad state 10 8% Activity reorientation 9 7% Direct sales 1 1% Oenotourism 2 2% Development of another crop 5 4% Change of business 1 1% Total 127 100% 127 100% Source: Data from the 51 grape growers surveyed [4]. 95Analysis of the 2007-2008 Hérault premiumized grubbing-up campaign may be put forward explaining why they have a higher tendency to be grubbed up. Firstly, these may be the first generation of Languedoc Merlots introduced in the 80’s probably planted in poor ecological condition (soil, microclimate, canopy management). In such a case, their grubbing-up and potential replacement are justified. Another interpretation is that the grape growers’ situa- tion is too dire to take into account the quality of this varietal. Yet another possibility is that the grubbing-up is linked to the impossibility of selling the plot planted in Merlot. Finally, it must be noted that all three inter- pretations may be combined. Cinsault is a dual-purpose varietal (it is also a used to produce table grapes) traditionally found in Langue- doc. Recently it has been revisited by many Languedoc PDOs, particularly in Corbières, Pic Saint-Loup and Saint-Chinian and currently benefits by the high demand for rosé wines. Furthermore, special rules in Hérault banned its grubbing-up in certain appellations [40]. It is interesting to note that our model does not show any strong correlation between the grubbing-up rate and the age of the grape grower, the financial situa- tion of the grape grower, a participation in a cooperative, the age of the vines, the existence of the previous grub- ups. Furthermore, in regard to the varietals there appear no strong correlation between the grubbing-up rate and Carignan, Syrah, Grenache and Sauvignon. 6. CONCLUSION Can the grubbing campaigns that followed the peri- od we studied, i.e. after 2007/2008, be clarified or, con- versely, can it enlighten the micro-economic analysis of our survey on the permanent grubbing-up awarded in Hérault? The three campaigns that followed, 2008/2009, 2009/2010 and 2010/2011, were the implementation of Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel’s project of massive grubbing-up schemes oriented first on the equilibrium of the market, then on the improvement of the productivity of European viticulture. This orientation was formalized in the criteria required for allocating aid: the grubbing- up of an entire vineyard or the grape grower’s age need- ed to be higher than 55 years. As such, this grubbing-up policy allowed elderly people without heirs or any eco- nomic prospects to exit their business and at the same benefit from the cashing out of their capital. Simple criteria were needed to implement Fischer Boel’s policy, however, these criteria could not take into account qualitative aspect such as the choice of grape varietals to be grubbed up (see improving grape vari- etals of the 2007/2008 survey), nor the financial needs of grape growers under pressure from banks due to debt stemming from the crisis of overproduction in 2004 (Cf. motivations). In fact, it is also known that the selected criteria have caused families to divide their vineyards to meet the threshold and benefit from this funding (see the partial uprooting observed in 2007/2008). The realization of this operation was a success as it reduced the EU’s vineyard production potential and allowed the early retirement of many operators. In the Table 6. Econometric analysis using the OLS. (1) (2) (3) male -0.187* -0.158 -0.172* [-1.95] [-1.62] [-1.81] grape_grower_age 0.00803** 0.00891* 0.00621 [2.08] [1.93] [1.31] need_for_finance 0.0230 0.130 [0.22] [1.25] other_agri_activity -0.105 -0.199* [-0.92] [-1.89] coop -0.0678 -0.118 [-0.53] [-0.87] heir -0.400** -0.374** [-2.62] [-2.49] optimistic -0.264** -0.291** [-2.06] [-2.31] previous_grub_up -0.0891 -0.128 [-0.71] [-1.07] age_of_vines -0.00322 -0.00298 [-1.12] [-1.09] carignan 0.103 [1.00] syrah 0.0858 [0.68] aramon 0.316** [2,39] grenache 0.0349 [0,33] merlot 0.369** [2.73] cinsault -0.259** [-2.07] sauvignon -0.198 [-1,23] _cons 0.0835 0.330 0.391 [0.37] [0.88] [0.94] N 49 49 49 R2 0.152 0.348 0.573 Source: Zadmehran (2016) [50]. 96 Étienne Montaigne et al. years that followed, the question of premiumized perma- nent grub-ups was settled. In fact, at first our work only serves to improve our understanding of the impact of a “dated” agricultural policy measure. Subsidized grubbing-up policies have been imple- mented since a long time in many grape-producing countries. The European Commission has finally adopt- ed this tool to achieve an identical goal: regulate the supply through the control of the production potential. Even though the question of how to improve productiv- ity has been set at the forefront as a justification for the intervention, the target is truly, in a first step, the impact of the reduction of supply potential on the market. From this point of view, the policy was highly efficient since 160,550 ha were grubbed up. In our analysis, limits we faced stemmed from the sampling method as the selection of grape growers was volunteer-based and thereby affects the representative- ness of our quantitative evaluation. Also, by using indi- rect productivity variables, age and total area grubbed up, the 2008 wine CMO rules for the 2008/2009 grubbing-up campaign gave priority to older grape growers and those grubbing up all their vines. However, it seems quite cer- tain that these tools/variables take into account all aspects of the decision-making process to grub up and the data collected renders it difficult to analyze multifactorial motivations. Furthermore, the quality policy appears to be put on the back burner since there are no criteria tak- ing into account the nature of the grape varieties. As for perspectives to improve our analysis, there is work to be completed by improving the data processing, renewing the survey after 2011 (last campaign) and con- tinuing to monitor data on the number of grape farms and their sizes, by particularly taking into account pri- vate estates and cooperatives. Our analysis of the grubbing-up rates of the 2007/2008 campaign show that some of the least effi- cient farmers were eliminated through the deletion of their farms and when varietals of the grubbed-up grape are taken into account, the results merge towards those expected by the new 2008 wine CMO as most of the grubbed-up grapes are old or not sought-after varietals. However, one sixth of the eliminated lots are young improving varietals. The analysis of the motivations encompasses a large diversity of motivation and is mainly split between eco- nomic reasons linked to the crisis and the life cycle of the grape grower. The economic crisis and the premi- ums led a certain number of grape growers that had established vineyards in the ’90s to use the subsidies to reduce their debt. The 2008 wine CMO enabled a certain proportion of windfall for grape growers offsetting the impacts of the 2004 global supply crises (overproduc- tion) and the 2008 demand crisis (subprime): premiums just as much help grape growers “get by” as improve productivity. In their 2016 article, Kim Anderson and Hans Jens- en [51] criticized how the OECD interpreted the subsi- dies paid by the European Union to the grape-growing sector. When trying to attempt to rectify the retained values, they added in the grubbing-up premiums. Would the grubbing-up premium be a social subsidy helping the aged and non-efficient grape growers to retire? Or would it be a larger subsidy helping the “wine industry”? Our study on the 2007/2008 grub-up campaign, the ultimate one before the introduction of the 2008 wine CMO, gives us the following results: half of the grub-ups are done by grape growers for reasons that will be targeted by the 2008/2011 grub-up campaigns (the rejuvena- tion of the vines and grape growers) and the other half of the grub-ups are related to a windfall effect enabling grape growers to survive the crisis and wait for better days, even by grubbing up improving varietals. We can only wonder if this windfall effect will also appear in the 2008/2011 campaigns. 7. DISCUSSION Premiumized grub-up campaigns should therefore theoretically be a policy of the past. However, news ema- nating from the wine market brings us back to reality. Indeed, as overproduction reappeared in Bordeaux, the question to grubbing up 8,000 to 10,000  ha of vines is again being brought up [32]. On May 23, 2022, during the general assembly of the Bordeaux Wine Interprofessional Council (CIVB), the CIVB president stated that “European texts do not cur- rently allow to finance through public money permanent grub-ups. Reminding this does not mean that we are against grubbing up, it means that these texts must be changed to remedy it” [32]. In its subtitle, the newspaper prints: “Faced with the abandonment of vines and the depression of winegrowers, the interprofession wants to convince other French and European regions to release community funds to grub up surplus plots”. The question to grub up a significant area of vine is again on the rise, but the mechanism for a collective financial incentive through premiums no longer exists. The possibility of reintroducing this scheme through the French NSP raises many questions such as what specific criteria to introduce (exclusion of area or grape varie- ties, minimum surfaces, age of the winegrower or the vines, etc.). More questions arise, notably economic and 97Analysis of the 2007-2008 Hérault premiumized grubbing-up campaign political ones (on what budget to take the means of this campaign, at what level to ask for the individual bonus, what contribution to ask from the interprofession or the region, how to involve and obtain the agreement of the European Commission and its funding?) At the microeconomic level, our work very mod- estly highlights a set of economic policy questions: how to take into account the economic situation of wine- growers, how not to destroy part of the quality grape varieties, and which criteria should be selected for a grubbing-up campaign and premiums should be direct- ed towards which producers. The new policy of plant- ing authorizations has had consequences on the price of land: how will this effect be taken into account in a new grubbing-up intervention? [4] Furthermore, it appears that the question of premiu- mized grubbing should no longer exclusively be seen in terms of qualitative categories of wine, i.e. table wines versus quality wines. In fact, this question should take into account both national and global markets that are increasingly respectfully segmented into regions and countries. The 2007/2008 Hérault rules of excluding grub- ups in certain appellations or certain varietals in certain appellations could be used in the case of Bordeaux. Finally, on a more general note, from a historical perspective, perhaps grub-up campaigns should just be seen as a succession of long-term stop-and-go policies essential to balancing the market? REFERENCES [1] Chevet JM, Fernández E, Giraud-Héraud E, Pin- illa V. France. In: Anderson K, Pinilla V, editors. Wine Globalization: A New Comparative History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2018. p. 55–91. DOI: 10.1017/9781108131766.005 [2] Meloni G, Swinnen J. The Political Economy of European Wine Regulations. Journal of Wine Eco- nomics. 2013 Dec;8(3):244–84. DOI: 10.1017/ jwe.2013.33 [3] Milhau J. L’avenir de la viticulture française. Revue Économique. 1953;4(5):700–38. DOI: 10.2307/3497117 [4] Zadmehran S. Des droits de plantation de la vigne aux autorisations : impact du droit foncier et des OCM-vins sur la dynamique économique viticole française [Thèse de doctorat en économie]. Univer- sité de Montpellier; 2020. Available from: https:// hal.inrae.fr/tel-03159125 [5] Bartoli P, Boulet D, Lacombe P, Laporte JP, Lifran R, Montaigne É. L’économie viticole française. Par- is: INRA; 1987. 282 p. [6] Barrère F. Aude : il y a 40 ans, Montredon, le vin et le sang. midilibre.fr [Internet]. 2016 Mar 3; Avail- able from: https://www.midilibre.fr/2016/03/03/ montredon-le-vin-et-le-sang,1294907.php [7] Commission of the European Communities. Com- mission staff working document accompaning document of the proposal for a Council Regulation on the common organisation of the market in wine and amending certain regulations: Council Regula- tion (EEC) N° 1163/76. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities; 1976. (COM 372 final). [8] Barthe R. L’Europe du vin : 25 ans d’organisation communautaire du secteur viti-vinicole, 1962-1987. Paris: Cujas; 1989. 383 p. [9] Montaigne É. L’OMC-vin : autopsie d’une réforme. In: Byé P, editor. Domestiquer le végétal : construc- tion et appropriation des techniques Une sélection des travaux du CTESI (Changement Technique et Évolution des Systèmes Industriels) réalisés dans le cadre du programme DADP 1996-1998. Montpel- lier: INRA; 1998. p. 173–203. [10] César G. Réforme de l’OCM vitivinicole : sauvons notre filière et nos viticulteurs. Vol. n° 348 (2006- 2007). Sénat; 2007. 53 p. Available from: http:// www.senat.fr/notice-rapport/2006/r06-348-notice. html [11] Agrosynergie EEIG, Directorate-General for Agri- culture and Rural Development (European Com- mission). Evaluation of the CAP measures applied to the wine sector: case study report: France – Languedoc Roussillon. Luxembourg: Publica- tions Office of the European Union; 2018. DOI: 10.2762/609285 [12] European Commission. Challenges and opportuni- ties for European wines. Brussels: European Com- mission; 2006. 44 slides. [13] Commission of the European Communities. Com- mission report to the European Parliament and the Council on management of planting rights, (Chap- ter I of Title II of Council Regulation (EC) N° 1493/1999). Brussels: Commission of the European Communities; 2004. 20 p. (COM 161 final; vol. 1493). Available from: http://www.europarl.europa. eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_ europeenne/com/2004/0161/COM_COM [14] Innova SpA, Euroquality, Fundeyct, Forschung- sanstalt Geisenheim, SPI SA, Phytowelt GMBH, et al. Ex-post evaluation of the common market organization for wine. Final report prepared for European Commission – DG Agriculture, Ten- der AGRI/Evaluation/2002/6. Roma: Innova SpA; 2004. 203 p. 98 Étienne Montaigne et al. [15] Montaigne É. The common market organization for wine: autopsy of a reform. In: Tracy M, editor. CAP reform: the southern products. Genappe, Bel- gium: Agricultural policy studies; 1997. p. 41–54. [16] Commission of the European Communities. Com- mission report to the European Parliament and the Council on management of planting rights pursu- ant to Chapter I of Title II of Council Regulation (EC) N° 1493/1999. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities; 2007. 12 p. (COM 370 final). Available from: http://www.parliament.bg/ pub/ECD/69689COM_2007_370_EN_ACTE_f.pdf [17] European Commission. Wine: Common Market Organisation, working paper. Brussels: European Commission; 2006. 77 p. [18] European Commission. Wine: Economy of the sec- tor, working paper. Brussels: European Commis- sion; 2006. 154 p. [19] Commission of the European Communities. Syn- thèse de l’étude d’impact, document de travail des services de la commission joint à la communica- tion de la Commission intitulée « Vers un secteur vitivinicole européen durable ». Brussels: Commis- sion of the European Communities; 2006. (COM 319 final). Available from: http://www.europarl. europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/com/ com_com [20] Commission of the European Communities. Com- munication from the Commission to the Coun- cil and the European Parliament: Towards a sus- tainable European wine sector {SEC(2006) 770, SEC(2006) 780}. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities; 2006. 14 p. (COM 319 final). Available from: http://www.europarl.europa. eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/com/com_ com [21] Montaigne É, C oelho A. L a réforme de l’organisation commune du marché du vin. Rap- port d’étude soumis au Parlement européen, Département thématique Politiques structurelles et de cohésion IP/B/REGI/ST/2006-22. 2006. 89 p. [22] Montaigne É, Coelho A. The reform of the com- mon market organization for wine. Report pre- sented to the European Parliament, Policy Depart- ment Structural and Cohesion Policies, IP/B/REGI/ ST/2006-22. 2006. 75 p. [23] ONIVINS, CIHEAM-IAMM, Ministère de l’Agriculture, de la Pêche et de l’Alimentation. Pan- orama de la viticulture (2006). Agreste Cahiers. 2006;(1). [24] Observatoire Viticole, Conseil Général de l’Hérault, DVA Consultants, CIHEAM-IAM. Commerce international : Les échanges internationaux. Mont- pellier; 2005. 7 p. [25] Aigrain P. Éléments de conjoncture vitivinicole mondiale disponibles début octobre 2007. Paris: OIV; 2007. 8 p. [26] Delord B, Montaigne É, Coelho A. Vine planting rights, farm size and economic performance: do economies of scale matter in the French viticulture sector? Wine Economics and Policy. 2015;4(1):22– 34. DOI: 10.1016/j.wep.2015.03.001 [27] Batzeli K. Rapport sur la réforme de l’organisation commune du marché du vin (2006/2109(INI)). Strasbourg: Parlement Européen; 2007. 38 p. [28] FranceAgriMer. Prime à l’arrachage de vignes : Bilan 2008/2009 à 2010/2011, Conseil spécialisé fil- ière viticole du 21 mars 2012. Paris: FranceAgriM- er; 2012. 25 p. [29] Ciolos D. Relever les défis de la qualité et du rev- enu des producteurs. Bruxelles: Commission euro- péenne; 2012. 3 p. [30] European Commission. Wine National Support Programs: Expenditure up to 15 October 2020 (updated December 2020). Brussels: European Commission; 2020. 6 p. Available from: https:// agriculture.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-01/wine- national-support-programs-exp-15-10-2020_0.pdf [31] Soteras G. Chiffres clés de la viticulture héraultaise. Montpellier : Observatoire viticole de l’Hérault; 2020. [32] Abellan A. Bordeaux défend une sortie de crise d’arrache-pied de vigne. vitisphere.com [Internet]. 2022 May 24; Available from: https://www.viti- sphere.com//actualite-96786-bordeaux-defend-une- sortie-de-crise-darrache-pied-de-vigne.html [33] Abellan A. Le vignoble bordelais débat de l’arrachage définitif de 8 à 10 000 hectares de vignes. vitisphere. com [Internet]. 2020 Jun 22; Available from: https:// www.vitisphere.com//actualite-91923-le-vignoble- bordelais-debat-de-larrachage-definitif-de-8-a- 10-000-hectares-de-vignes.html [34] Alonso Ugaglia A, Cardebat JM, Jiao L. The French Wine Industry. In: Alonso Ugaglia A, Cardebat JM, Corsi A, editors. The Palgrave Handbook of Wine Industry Economics. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2019. p. 17–46. DOI: 10.1007/978-3- 319-98633-3_2 [35] Cour des comptes. Les aides au secteur vitivini- cole : relevé d’observations provisoires (art. R.141-8 du code des juridictions financières), Extraits, Sep- tième chambre, Troisième section. Paris; 2011. [36] Bartoli P, Meunier M. La politique de reconver- sion viticole : comportements d’exploitations et 99Analysis of the 2007-2008 Hérault premiumized grubbing-up campaign impact de la prime d’arrachage. Enquête auprès d’exploitations languedociennes. Montpellier: INRA; 1982. 160 p. (Série Etudes et Recherches). [37] Bartoli P. La politique de reconversion viticole : résultats de la prime d’arrachage en Languedoc- Roussillon 1976-79. Montpellier: INRA; 1981. 122 p. (Série Études et Recherches). [38] Observatoire viticole de l’Hérault. Étude d’impact des arrachages définitifs dans l’Hérault, décem- bre 2005, Documents graphiques issus de l’IAMM (Institut Agronomique Méditerranéen de Montpel- lier), Conseil général de l’Hérault. 2005. 47 p. [39] Aigrain P, Brugière F, Sevillia M, Seniuk A, Strohl J. Évaluation de l’impact des mesures structurelles viticoles en France. Paris: ONIVINS; 1997. 121 p. [40] Viniflhor. Note aux demandeurs de prime d’abandon définitif de superficies viticoles, cam- pagne 2007/2008. Montpellier, France: Office National Interprofessionnel des Fruits, des Légumes, des Vins et de l’Horticulture, Délégation Régionale Languedoc-Roussillon; 2007. 14 p. [41] Bouquier L, Laurent B, Perrin F, Roussignol V. Alternative et complément au revenu économique de la vigne [Mémoire d’ingénieurs]. Agro Montpel- lier; 2007. [42] Centre d’Économie Rurale (CER) France. Dossier de presse : « La crise viticole clairement illustrée par cette étude » Synthèse de la 4ème édition de l’observatoire de la production viticole en Langue- doc-Roussillon. 2009. [43] Vitisphère. Économie Languedoc-Roussillon: 90 % des exploitations viticoles seraient en difficulté financière. vitisphère.com [Internet]. 2006 Jun 16; Available from: https://www.vitisphere.com/actual- ite-76660-languedoc-roussillon-90-des-exploita- tions-viticoles-seraient-en-difficulte-financiere.html [44] Clavel J. Crise viticole. vitisphere.com [Internet]. 2005 Dec 5; Available from: http://www.vitisphere. com/actualite-76612-Crise-viticole-suite.htm [45] Autin G. Évolution du pourcentage du nombre d’exploitations professionnelles viticoles par classes de taille dans l’Hérault : 2000, 2005 et 2007. Con- seil général de l’Hérault; 2009. [46] SCEES. Principaux résultats de l’enquête sur la structure des exploitations agricoles en 2003. Agreste Cahiers. 2005;(2):1–72. [47] Observatoire foncier du Département de l’Hérault. Analyse comparée sur 3 périodes 1999-2003 / 2004-2008 / 2009-2013. Montpellier: Observatoire foncier du Département de l’Hérault; 2014. 5 p. [48] Montaigne É. Normes, qualités des vins et muta- tions de la viticulture du Languedoc. Bulletin d’information et de documentation de la DGCCRF. 2001; (9):51–8. [49] Montaigne É. Standards and quality wine in the transformation of the winegrowing sector in the Languedoc. In East Lansing, USA, 1999/10/31- 1999/11/03; 1999. p. 1–22. [50] Zadmehran S. L’impact des nouvelles autorisations de plantation sur le foncier viticole. [Thèse Master 2 Commerce des vins]. Université de Montpellier et SupAgro Montpellier; 2016. Available from: htt- ps://web.supagro.inra.fr/pmb/opac_css/doc_num. php?explnum_id=3532 [51] Anderson K, Jensen HG. How much government assistance do European wine producers receive? Journal of Wine Economics. 2016;11(2):289–305. DOI: 10.1017/jwe.2016.16 Wine Economics and Policy Volume 12, Issue 1 – 2023 Firenze University Press State of the International Wine Market in 2022: New market trends for wines require new strategies Rafael Del Rey1, Simone Loose2,* Does anyone read my papers? The gap between academic consumer research and the real (wine) world Riccardo Vecchio A certification for natural wine? A comparative analysis of consumer drivers in Italy and Spain Eva Parga Dans1,*, Riccardo Vecchio2, Azzurra Annunziata3, Pablo Alonso González4, Raimundo Otero Enríquez5 Structure and development of the Czech wine market and foreign wine trade Kamila Vesela, David Křížek*, Lucie Severova The impact of alternative packaging on the life cycle of wine on tap Stefano Massaglia1, Tibor Verduna1, Vincenzo Varchetta2, Filippo Brun1, Simone Blanc1,* The new CAP and the challenge of sustainability: a synthetic indicator for the Italian wine sector Roberta Sardone1,*, Simonetta De Leo1, Davide Longhitano2, Roberto Henke1 Analysis of the 2007-2008 Hérault premiumized grubbing-up campaign: a tool to better understand Fischer-Boel’s 2008-2011 grubbing-up campaigns and the desire in 2022 to reintroduce locally premiumized grub-ups Étienne Montaigne1, Samson Zadmehran2,*, Alfredo Coelho3, Yacine Messaoudène4 The impact of fees on customer purchasing behavior and beliefs in winery tasting rooms: A scoping review John C. Spence