Abstract
This chapter analyzes the main international wine organization—the International Organisation of Vine and Wine (OIV)—versus the main wine plurilateral agreement, the World Wine Trade Group (WWTG). Although the OIV is the oldest, biggest, and most influential organization in the world of wine, it is useful to analyze it in the face of the WWTG, as they represent a different way to design regulation and international policies. Even if both aim to facilitate trade and exchanges, one does so through harmonization and the other, the less ambitious, through the goal of mutual recognition of standards. There are no formal relations between WWTG and OIV, although many WWTG participants participate in the OIV. They don’t compete but its philosophy is very different. Through a detailed analysis, this section highlights the different philosophies and goals of action between the two.
The author thanks the comments made by Tony Battaglene
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
WTO is the main influence in national—both internal and trade—policies. Some of the WTO agreements have direct influence over wine policies. It is a case of horizontal agreement for the Agriculture, SPS, and TBT and also for the TRIPS, who have specific provisions for protecting geographical indication of wines.
- 2.
From the emergence of “new” non-European producers after the Wine Tasting of 1976, also called the Judgement of Paris (Taber 2006), it is usual to divide wines into the new and the old worlds (Anderson 2003). This taxonomy is currently employed (Schirmer 2007), even if differences between the two are becoming weaker (Banks and Overton 2010), due to the bilateral and reciprocal influences in policies and management models.
- 3.
Republic of Algeria, Federal Republic of Germany, Republic of Argentina, Australia, Republic of Austria, Republic of Bolivia, Federal Republic of Brazil, Republic of Chile, Republic of Cyprus, Kingdom of Denmark, Kingdom of Spain, Republic of Finland, Republic of France, Republic of Georgia, United Kingdom, Hellenic Republic, Republic of Hungary, State of Israel, Republic of Italy, Republic of Lebanon, Grand Duchy of Luxemburg, United Mexican States, Republic of Moldavia, Kingdom of Norway, New Zealand, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Republic of Portugal, Romania, Republic of Slovakia, Kingdom of Sweden, Swiss Confederation, Czech Republic, Republic of Tunisia, Republic of Turkey, Eastern Republic of Uruguay.
- 4.
AIDV (International Wine Law Association), Amorim Academy, AREV (Assembly of Wine-Producing European Regions), AUIV (International University Association of Wine), CERVIM (Centre for Research, Environmental Sustainability and Advancement of Mountain Viticulture), FIVS (International Federation of Wines and Spirits), OENOPPIA (Oenological Products and Practices International Association), UIOE (Union Internationale des Œnologues), VINOFED (World Federation of Major International Wine and Spirits Competitions), ASI (Association de la Sommellerie Internationale), WIM (Wine in Moderation), Yantaï (China), prefecture-level municipality and Ningxia Hui autonomous region, China.
- 5.
More information about this issue can be found in http://www.senat.fr/rap/l03-095/l03-0951.html
- 6.
The four commissions are Viticulture, Oenology, Economy and Law, Safety and Health; and the two sub-commissions Methods of Analysis and Table Grapes, Raisins and Unfermented Vine Products; with the expert groups to support their tasks.
- 7.
For instance, the International Oenological Codex, the Compendium of International Methods of Analysis of Wine and Must, the Compendium of international methods of analysis of spirited beverages, international standards for wine and spirit competitions, and the international standard for labeling wines and spirit drinks.
- 8.
The WWTG welcomes participation in the group as observers of any national governments or members of the World Trade Organization interested in furthering these goals. Other countries that have participated in the meetings are China, Mexico, Paraguay, Uruguay, Brazil, and Moldova. In 2006, it set down principles derived from the WWTG agreements that could be applied in other international contexts. The most important extension initiative has been the development of the APEC Wine Regulators Forum (WRF).
- 9.
Four WWTG members (Chile, Argentina, New Zealand, and South Africa) plus California formed the New World Wines Alliance. On March 10, 2010, they joined forces and put on an unprecedented combined show named “Down to Earth” at ProWein in Germany. ProWein is one of the leading trade fairs for the international wine and spirits industry (Source: The World Wine Trade Group And The Need To Promote Cooperation Among Wine Producers Of The New World, Marcela B. Knaup; This article was first published by the International Trade Committee Newsletter of the American Bar Association, Section of International Law, Volume IV, No 3, 8-2010).
- 10.
The decision to change the name of the group to World Wine Trade Group was to reflect the focus of the group on facilitating trade in wine.
- 11.
Since 1951, is the International Alcoholic Beverage Federation, siege in Paris.
- 12.
A copy of the Mutual Acceptance Agreement is available on the US Department of Commerce website at:www.ita.doc.gov/td/ocg/eng_agreement.htm
- 13.
Any countries require certification of compositional requirements for wine, which can act as an unnecessary barrier to trade, particularly when they do not relate to a health or safety issue in relation to wine or when the exporting country already has adequate systems in place to address such issues. Noting that the MAA already provided that routine certification should not be required between parties for oenological practices.
References
Anderson, K. 2003. Wine’s new world. Foreign Policy 136: 47–54.
Banks, G., and J. Overton. 2010. Old world, new world, third world? Reconceptualising the worlds of wine. Journal of Wine Research 21 (1): 57–75.
Battaglene, T., and J. Barker. 2008. Reconciling diverse approaches to regulation in the wine sector: Harmonisation, equivalence and mutual recognition. Bulletin de l’OIV 80 (920–922): 625–637.
Bingen, J., and L. Busch. 2006. Agricultural standards. Vol. 6. Amsterdam: Springer.
Castillo, S., R. Compés, and J.M. García. 2014. La regulaciónvitivinícola. Evolución en la UE y España y situación en el panorama internacional. In Economía del vino en España y en elmundo, coord. S. Castillo and R. Compés. CajamarCaja Rural.
Dai, X. 2007. International institutions and national policies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dubois, S. 2013. Lecture géopolitique d’un produitalimentairemondialisé: le vin. Revue internationale et stratégique 1 (89): 18–29.
Hannin, H., J.M. Codron, and S. Thoyer. 2006. The International Office of Vine and Wine (OIV) and the World Trade Organization (WTO): Standardization issues in the wine sector. In Agricultural standards, 73–92. Dordrecht: Springer.
Juban, Y. 1994. Harmonization, standardization carried out by the OIV in the perspective of the World Trade Organisation. Bulletin de l’OIV (France).
Meloni, G., and J.F.M. Swinnen. 2013. The political economy of European wine regulations. Journal of Wine Economics 8 (3): 244–284.
Peaslee, A.J. 1974. International governmental organizations. Vol. 1. Leiden: Brill.
Randelli, F., and F. Dini. 2013. Oltre la globalizzazione: le proposte della Geografia economica.
Schirmer, R. 2007. Les vins du Nouveau Monde sont-ils a-géographiques. Bulletin de l’association des géographesfrançais 1: 65–80.
Taber, G.M. 2006. Judgment of Paris. New York: Scribner.
Tinlot, R. 2000. The risks of globalization and the necessary international harmonization carried out by the OIV. Bulletin de l’OIV 73 (827/828): 67–77.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Compés López, R. (2019). International Wine Organizations and Plurilateral Agreements: Harmonization Versus Mutual Recognition of Standards. In: Alonso Ugaglia, A., Cardebat, JM., Corsi, A. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Wine Industry Economics. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98633-3_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98633-3_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-98632-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-98633-3
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)