What does ‘sustainability in wine’ actually look like in the vineyard?
(4 min read)
We spend our time working on sustainability in wine: it’s our job, and there’s a clue in our organisation’s title! As a result, we know a lot about things like bottle weight, packaging and how different sustainability standards compare with each other.
However, what we – and indeed most of us in wine sustainability – knew less about was what is actually going on in vineyards and wine businesses on the ground in different parts of the world.
That is why we put forward our Sustainable Vineyard Practice Survey, which has now been live on our website for the past couple of months. It asks a fairly basic set of questions about viticultural practices and how people manage their labour and hiring needs.
We have some interesting findings in both areas. For this piece we’ll focus on what is going on in terms of viticultural practices and will share our findings on labour practices in a future article. While we cannot yet claim to have a complete global picture, we do have responses from a range of countries, spanning Australia, Italy, South Africa, France, the UK, the USA and New Zealand. We also have representation from estates ranging in size, from less than 20 hectares to over 500.
Before we look at what is going on in the vineyard, it is interesting to note what people see as their biggest commercial challenges. Unsurprisingly, rising input costs were referenced by about three-quarters of respondents. However, more than half also said that margin pressures from buyers was a major challenge. Retailers are making increased demands in relation to ‘sustainability’; yet there remains pressure to keep prices low.
On the environmental side, almost all respondents cited the effects of heat and changes in rainfall patterns as their most significant problem. Obviously, the exact nature of the problem varied from place to place. For some the problem is extreme aridity, for others excessive precipitation is causing soil loss or vine damage. And heat is leading to earlier harvests; grapes being, in effect, fried by the sun; and challenges in achieving optimal ripeness.
So, what are people doing about it?
We are seeing significant moves in terms of chemical use. On fertiliser use, more than 80% of respondents use either primarily non-chemical inputs or a targeted, variable-rate approach rather than blanket application and 75% use composts on at least part of their land. To manage pests, more than half practise Integrated Pest Management, and where chemical pesticides are still used, 45% are applied in a targeted rather than blanket fashion. On herbicides, roughly a third of growers are actively exploring non-chemical alternatives and a further third already apply them in a targeted way. Perhaps most striking, those still using a traditional, blanket approach to chemical application make up only around 5% of respondents.
Great, you might say; a wonderful victory for sustainability. And indeed it is. However, these changes in chemical use can also be seen as a victory for good old financial common sense. In an environment where chemical costs are high, using less of them saves money. One vineyard, the Barone Ricasoli estate in Tuscany, estimate that they have made 27% savings in fertiliser costs since moving to variable rate application.
Cost is likely to also be a key factor in responses to questions on energy use. Every single respondent said they had plans in place to reduce energy use over time, and more than half already had on-site renewable energy facilities.
This pragmatism is reflected also in responses we received in terms of the adoption of different viticultural techniques. Whilst only 5% of respondents describe themselves as “regenerative”, most already use regenerative techniques on at least part of their land. 80% have some cover crops, 70% maintain wildlife corridors, two-thirds regularly monitor their soils, and nearly half have animals grazing somewhere in their vineyards.
There is of course an important caveat to this data. Those responding are members of SWR, or suppliers to our members. As a sceptic would rightly point out, it is highly likely that our responses are from a self-selecting group of vineyards who are much more advanced than ‘the average’ in terms of understanding and adopting sustainable practices.
However, there is an important rejoinder to what that sceptic might think, and it comes in two parts.
Firstly, the changes which our respondents have made have had important financial, as well as environmental benefits. Monitoring energy use and practicing variable rate chemical use are desirable sustainability practices, but they also save money. In a tight market, that can make a significant difference.
Secondly, changes in rainfall patterns, increases in aridity and heat are not vague, future problems. They are present day realities in many wine-growing areas. We know from conversations with some of our retail members that this reality means that we may not be far from climate risks being used as a key factor in assessing security of supply. What is the point of placing a long-term order with a vineyard that has not adopted practices which will allow it to produce grapes in a changed climate? We also know that insurers are increasingly worried by climate risks in the wine industry.
Therefore, vineyards which are taking steps to become more climate resilient and responding proactively to change are giving themselves a significant competitive advantage in demonstrating how they can be resilient in the face of growing climate risks.
So maybe those who have responded to our survey are ahead of the proverbial curve, but it seems highly likely others will need to follow.
