Terroir 1996 banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 Les terroirs : variae causarum figurae

Les terroirs : variae causarum figurae

Abstract

Le juriste se sent intrus pour parler des terroirs. Il regarde la presse et essaye de comprendre. On peut y lire à propos de la fête de la cuisine du 30 mai 1996 qui “..met en valeur des produits dont la qualité dépend d’un terroir”, que le Camembert du pays d’Auge est le seul à être protégé, je pensais au camembert de Normandie, que 80 % de la feta grecque est fabriquée aux Pays Bas, je croyais que c’était au Danemark, et que la Communauté européenne protège les indications géographiques de provenance IGP, sans doute une catégorie nouvelle remplaçant les indications géographiques protégées (1). J’ai appris aussi que les distributeurs redemandent des produits du terroir car “ils viennent brouiller les cartes dans la partie engagée avec les grandes marques”. Carrefour a ses “Terroirs et tiroirs”, Prisunic son “Vent d’Ouest”, Intermarché “Les bouquets du terroir”, Monoprix “Les terroirs de France” (2), Promodés et sa marque “Reflets de France” pour les hypermarchés “Continent” (3). Dans le même temps on affirme que “Le terme est un simple nom commun. Improtégeable et donc improtégé” (4).

Certes le vin et le terroir restent encore très majoritairement liés pour les consommateurs, mais au rythme actuel, le terroir non viticole risque la dépréciation rapide et le terroir viticole la banalisation par osmose. La publicité n’est pas en reste. Un dépliant décrit un produit comme un “grand cru” issu d’un “terroir exceptionnel”, l’un des “cent sites remarquables du goût”, auquel s’ajoute le “savoir faire de l’homme”, et continue encore “Les différents cépages sont pour nous les nombreuses plantes et épices que nous utilisons..”. Il s’agit d’une boisson spiritueuse anisée(5). Pour brouiller encore les cartes citons la campagne publicitaire estivale d’un vin sur “un positionnement original” grâce au slogan “Son terroir, c’est la mer” (6). Opérant un repli stratégique consécutif à l’effroi le juriste regarde avec attention l’objet habituel de ses réflexions: les textes. Les textes français et naturellement les textes communautaires et aussi quelques sources internationales. A quelques exceptions près, d’importance très modeste, les textes n’emploient jamais ou presque le vocable terroir. Terroir est un vocable utilisé, éventuellement, par les juristes, mais ce n’est pas un vocable à signification juridique (7). On se tourne alors vers les études scientifiques consacrées au(x) terroir(s). Aux yeux d’un juriste le contenu de la notion scientifique de terroir est évolutif mais avec un objectif de caractérisation pratiquement unique qui est la délimitation d’une “..aire de production..” pour le droit français (8), une “..région déterminée..” ou une “..aire géographique..” dans le droit communautaire (9). Il s’agit d’optimiser les caractéristiques d’une production en effectuant un zonage, en l’occurrence un mésozonage. Le lien terroir-appellation d’origine apparaît : “Constitue une appellation d’origine, la dénomination d’un pays, d’une région ou d’une localité servant à désigner un produit qui en est originaire et dont la qualité ou les caractères sont dus au milieu géographique, comprenant des facteurs naturels et des facteurs humains” (10). Est-ce à dire que le terroir se moule sur l’appellation d’origine etomporte dans son étude les facteurs naturels et les facteurs humains? L’équivalence terroir-appellation d’origine a pu être pratiquée par les scientifiques. De même la distinction des facteurs naturels et des facteurs humains a pu être variable dans sa signification (11). Aujourd’hui la notion scientifique de terroir parait devoir être comprise comme incluant seulement les éléments naturels du milieu, les facteurs naturels de l’appellation d’origine. Le terroir est l’ensemble des facteurs naturels d’une appellation d’origine, c’est à dire d’une aire de production déterminée produisant des vins “..aux caractéristiques qualitatives particulières..” (12). Mais en quelques années les réglementations nationales et communautaires, les conventions internationales, ont beaucoup changé. Le lien au terroir a fait recette et les noms géographiques sont devenus de plus en plus attractifs. Il faut vendre ce que l’on produit.

Le terroir reste toujours consubstantiel pour l’appellation d’origine, mais il a fallu tenir compte de produits autres que les vins. Il a fallu tenir compte de situations différentes de celles qui correspondent au moule de l’appellation d’origine à la française, typiquement et essentiellement vinicole. On a vu apparaître d’autres définitions depuis 1992: celles de l’indication géographique protégée – IGP dans la Communauté européenne et de l’indication géographique reconnue – IGR à l’O.I.V.. On a vu apparaître aussi les indications géographiques en 1994 dans l’un des accords résultant du cycle de l’Uruguay, l’Accord sur les Droits de Propriété Intellectuelle qui touchent au Commerce – ADPIC (Agreement on Trade related aspects of intellectual property rights – TRIPS).

Au travers de ces définitions y-a-t-il migration, influence, ou abandon de la notion de terroir ? peut-on penser qu’il existe désormais une gamme de terroirs ? (I). Par ailleurs les produits issus d’un lieu déterminé sont désignés par un nom géographique, parfois par une dénomination traditionnelle. La solution habituelle pour les appellations d’origine est-elle transmissible aux nouvelles situations d’indication géographique? Les noms des terroirs méritent aussi notre attention (II).

DOI:

Publication date: March 25, 2022

Issue: Terroir 1996

Type : Poster

Authors

J. AUDIER

Faculté de droit et de science politique d’Aix-Marseille
3, avenue R. Schuman 13628 Aix en Provence cedex 1

Tags

IVES Conference Series | Terroir 1996

Citation

Related articles…

Modelling vine water stress during a critical period and potential yield reduction rate in European wine regions: a retrospective analysis

Most European vineyards are managed under rainfed conditions, where seasonal water deficit has become increasingly important. The flowering-veraison phenophase represents an important period for vine response to water stress, which is seldomly thoroughly evaluated. Therefore, we aim to quantify the flowering-veraison water stress levels using Crop Water Stress Indicator (CWSI) over 1986–2015 for important European wine regions, and to assess the respective potential Yield Lose Rate (YLR). Additionally, we also investigate whether an advanced flowering-veraison phase may help alleviating the water stress with improved yield. A process-based grapevine model STICS is employed, which has been extensively calibrated for flowering and veraison stages using observed data at 38 locations with 10 different grapevine varieties. Subsequently, the model is being implemented at the regional level, considering site-specific calibration results and gridded climate and soil datasets. The findings suggest wine regions with stronger flowering-veraison CWSI tend to have higher potential YLR. However, contrasting patterns are found between wine regions in France-Germany-Luxembourg and Italy-Portugal-Spain. The former tends to have slight-to-moderate drought conditions (CWSI<0.5) and a negligible-to-moderate YLR (<30%), whereas the latter possesses severe-to-extreme CWSI (>0.5) and substantial YLR (>40%). Wine regions prone to a high drought risk (CWSI>0.75) are also identified, which are concentrated in southern Mediterranean Europe. An advanced flowering-veraison phase may have benefited from cooler temperatures and a higher fraction of spring precipitation in wine regions of Italy-Portugal-Spain, resulting in alleviated CWSI and moderate reductions of YLR. For those of France-Germany-Luxembourg, this can have reduced flowering-veraison precipitation, but prevalent alleviations of YLR are also found, possibly because of shifted phase towards a cooler growing season with reduced evaporative demands. Overall, such a retrospective analysis might provide new insights towards better management of seasonal water deficit for conventionally vulnerable Mediterranean wine regions, but also for relatively cooler and wetter Central European regions.

Frost risk projections in a changing climate are highly sensitive in time and space to frost modelling approaches

Late spring frost is a major challenge for various winegrowing regions across the world, its occurrence often leading to important yield losses and/or plant failure. Despite a significant increase in minimum temperatures worldwide, the spatial and temporal evolution of spring frost risk under a warmer climate remains largely uncertain. Recent projections of spring frost risk for viticulture in Europe throughout the 21st century show that its evolution strongly depends on the model approach used to simulate budburst. Furthermore, the frost damage modelling methods used in these projections are usually not assessed through comparison to field observations and/or frost damage reports.
The present study aims at comparing frost risk projections simulated using six spring frost models based on two approaches: a) models considering a fixed damage threshold after the predicted budburst date (e.g BRIN, Smoothed-Utah, Growing Degree Days, Fenovitis) and b) models considering a dynamic frost sensitivity threshold based on the predicted grapevine winter/spring dehardening process (e.g. Ferguson model). The capability of each model to simulate an actual frost event for the Vitis vinifera cv. Chadonnay B was previously assessed by comparing simulated cold thermal stress to reports of events with frost damage in Chablis, the northernmost winegrowing region of Burgundy. Models exhibited scores of κ > 0.65 when reproducing the frost/non-frost damage years and an accuracy ranging from 0.82 to 0.90.
Spring frost risk projections throughout the 21st century were performed for all winegrowing subregions of Bourgogne-Franche-Comté under two CMIP5 concentration pathways (4.5 and 8.5) using statistically downscaled 8×8 km daily air temperature and humidity of 13 climate models. Contrasting results with region-specific spring frost risk trends were observed. Three out of five models show a decrease in the frequency of frost years across the whole study area while the other two show an increase that is more or less pronounced depending on winegrowing subregion. Our findings indicate that the lack of accuracy in grapevine budburst and dehardening models makes climate projections of spring frost risk highly uncertain for grapevine cultivation regions.

Modulation of berry composition by different vineyard management practices

High concentration of sugars in grapes and alcohol in wines is one of the consequences of climate change on viticulture production in several wine-growing regions. In order to investigate the possibilities of adaptation of vineyard management practices aimed to reduce the accumulation of sugar during the maturation phase without reducing the accumulation of anthocyanins in grapes, a study with severe shoot trimming, shoot thinning, cluster thinning and date of harvest was conducted on Merlot variety in Istria region (Croatia), under the Mediterranean climate. Four factors which may affect grape maturation and its composition at harvest were investigated in a two-years experiment; severe shoot trimming applied at veraison when >80% of berries changed colour (in comparison to untreated control), shoot thinning (0 and 30%), cluster thinning (0 and 30%), and the date of harvest (early and standard harvest dates). Shoot thinning had no significant impact on berry composition, despite the obtained reduction in yield per vine. Lower Brix in grapes were obtained with earlier harvest date and if no cluster thinning was applied, although at the same time a reduction in the concentration of anthocyanins in berries was observed in these treatments. On the other hand, if severe shoot trimming was applied when >80% of berries changed colour, a reduction of Brix was obtained without a negative impact on berry anthocyanins concentration. We conclude that in cases when undesirably high sugar concentrations at harvest are expected, severe shoot trimming at 80% veraison may effectively be used in order to obtain moderate sugar concentration in berries together with the adequate phenolic composition.

Amino nitrogen content in grapes: the impact of crop limitation

As an essential element for grapevine development and yield, nitrogen is also involved in the winemaking process and largely affects wine composition. Grape must amino nitrogen deficiency affects the alcoholic fermentation kinetics and alters the development of wine aroma precursors. It is therefore essential to control and optimize nitrogen use efficiency by the plant to guarantee suitable grape nitrogen composition at harvest. Understanding the impact of environmental conditions and cultural practices on the plant nitrogen metabolism would allow us to better orientate our technical choices with the objective of quality and sustainability (less inputs, higher efficiency). This trial focuses on the impact of crop limitation – that is a common practice in European viticulture – on nitrogen distribution in the plant and particularly on grape nitrogen composition. A wide gradient of crop load was set up in a homogeneous plot of Chasselas (Vitis vinifera) in the experimental vineyard of Agroscope, Switzerland. Dry weight and nitrogen dynamics were monitored in the roots, trunk, canopy and grapes, during two consecutive years, using a 15N-labeling method. Grape amino nitrogen content was assessed in both years, at veraison and at harvest. The close relationship between fruits and roots in the maintenance of plant nitrogen balance was highlighted. Interestingly, grape nitrogen concentration remained unchanged regardless of crop load to the detriment of the growth and nitrogen content of the roots. Meanwhile, the size and the nitrogen concentration of the canopy were not affected. Leaf gas exchange rates were reduced in response to lower yield conditions, reducing carbon and nitrogen assimilation and increasing intrinsic water use efficiency. The must amino nitrogen profiles could be discriminated as a function of crop load. These findings demonstrate the impact of plant balance on grape nitrogen composition and contribute to the improvement of predictive models and sustainable cultural practices in perennial crops.

δ13C : A still underused indicator in precision viticulture  

The first demonstration of the interest of carbon isotope composition of sugars in grapevine, as an integrated indicator of vineyard water status, dates back to 2000 (Gaudillère et al., 1999; Van Leeuwen et al., 2001). Thanks to the isotopic discrimination of Carbon that takes place during plant photosynthesis, under hydric stress conditions, it is possible to accurately estimate the photosynthetic activity. Ever since, δ13C has been widely applied with success to zonation, terroir studies and vine physiology research, but is still not widely used by viticulturists. This is quite astonishing by considering the impact of global warming on viticulture and the need to improve water management, that would justify a widespread use of δ13C.
The lack of private laboratories proposing the analysis, the cost of the technology, as well as the long analytical delays, have been detrimental to its development. Some laboratories tried to overcome the analytical difficulties of isotopic analysis by using fourier transformed infrared spectroscopy, as a fast and cheap alternative to the official OIV method (IRMS). These claimed FTIR models have never been published or peer reviewed and cannot be considered robust. In this work, thanks to the recent acquisition of IRMS technology, new modern and robust applications of δ13C for viticulture are proposed. This includes the use of the analysis to make parcel separations at harvesting, the possibility to increase the precision of hydric stress cartography and the potential cost reduction when compared with Scholander pressure bomb analysis.