GiESCO 2019 banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 GiESCO 9 Application of GiESCO “bio-metaethics” charter in practice: the “direct” involvement of vine grower, winemaker, society

Application of GiESCO “bio-metaethics” charter in practice: the “direct” involvement of vine grower, winemaker, society

Abstract

On the basis of a direct agreement between the GiESCO and the vine grower, the winemaker and the consumers (individual; company; public or private organizations), the communication on the content of the charter can be done as follows:

• Commitment to respect the basic rules of the GiESCO “BIO – MetaEthics” charter.

1/ Put Mankind in the depth of all concerns in a universal context: (grower, consumer, citizen, work valuing, education, security)

2/ Insure minimum impact on environment by optimizing cultivation technics: (maximum of natural biodegradable products, friendly practices, short channels, renewable energies, terroir sustainability)

3/ Warrant transparency and evaluation of all operations: (traceability of the production line, complete analyses of the products, use of secure scientific methods, wide communication)

• Specific choices made by the vine grower, the winemaker and the consumer (individual; company; public or private organizations) respecting the basic rules.

A precise example is taken in North – East of Italy where activities were conducted in a farm located both in the hillside in the well-known ‘terroir’ of Prosecco area, and in the flat area, and differently managed according to the location.

It has been verified with successful application, that this ” Charter of Direct Sustainability BIO – MetaEthics” can be used anywhere, in conventional or otherwise certified companies (for example: “Organic”, “VIVA”, …), in which the producers want to “certify” their particular characteristics such as:

1-the use of original, innovative, sustainable technics referring to 4.1C guide:

1.1-training systems and winter pruning systems such as: “Prosecco of Prosecco 4.1 C”, “Prosecco of Cartizze

4.1C”, “Prosecco-Latnik 4.1C”, which, among other things, allow not to be damaged by wild boar, roe deer, deer, birds, … and this without altering natural life;

1.2-management of the soil, of the grass, of the plant for example: 1.2.1-completely replacing chemical weeding with perennial grasses without mowing or mowing the grass, but only when and where objectively

“4.1C” this cannot be avoided, 1.2-2-eliminating or drastically reducing interventions on the ground and on the plant such as shoot positioning, topping and edging, for example in companies certified by known Italian certifications that do not include these aspects, 1.2.3-setting a phytosanitary defense applicable anywhere, also, in populated areas;

2-valuing and further personalizing the existing certifications, for example by certifying “GiESCO BIO -MetaEthics” insisting on the use of resistant varieties and the absence of copper residues in companies already certified “Organic”.

Obviously, the “Charter of Direct Sustainability BIO – MetaEthics” of the GiESCO fits the “Direct 4.1C Certification” and also the relative “Direct Guarantee 4.1C”: technical, economic, environmental, social, existential, ethical.

DOI:

Publication date: September 28, 2023

Issue: GiESCO 2019

Type: Poster

Authors

Giovanni CARGNELLO1, Alain CARBONNEAU2

1 Conegliano Campus 5.1C
2 Montpellier SupAgro, IHEV, Montpellier (France)

Contact the author

Keywords

sustainability 4.1CC, new direct certification 4.1CC

Tags

GiESCO | GiESCO 2019 | IVES Conference Series

Citation

Related articles…

Climate ethnography and wine environmental futures

Globalisation and climate change have radically transformed world wine production upsetting the established order of wine ecologies. Ecological risks and the future of traditional agricultural systems are widely debated in anthropology, but very little is understood of the particular challenges posed by climate change to viticulture which is seen by many as the canary in the coalmine of global agriculture. Moreover, wine as a globalised embedded commodity provides a particularly telling example for the study of climate change having already attracted early scientific attention. Studies of climate change in viticulture have focused primarily on the production of systematic models of adaptation and vulnerability, while the human and cultural factors, which are key to adaptation and sustainable futures, are largely missing. Climate experts have been unanimous in recognising the urgent need for a better understanding of the complex dynamics that shape how climate change is experienced and responded to by human systems. Yet this call has not yet been addressed. Climate ethnography, coined by the anthropologist Susan Crate (2011), aims to bridge this growing disjuncture between climate science and everyday life through the exploration of the social meaning of climate change. It seeks to investigate the confrontation of its social salience in different locations and under different environmental guises (Goodman 2018: 340). By understanding how wine producers make sense of the world (and the environment) and act in it, it proposes to focus on the co-production of interdisciplinary knowledge by identifying and foreshadowing problems (Goodman 2018: 342; Goodman & Marshall 2018). It seeks to offer an original, transformative and contrasted perspective to climate change scenarios by investigating human agency -individual or collective- in all its social, political and cultural diversity. An anthropological approach founded on detailed ethnographies of wine production is ideally placed to address economic, social and cultural disruptions caused by the emergence of these new environmental challenges. Indeed, the community of experts in environmental change have recently called for research that will encompass the human dimension and for more broad-based, integrated through interdisciplinarity, useful knowledge (Castree & al 2014). My paper seeks to engage with climate ethnography and discuss what it brings to the study of wine environmental futures while exploring the limitations of the anthropological environmental approach.

Influence of agronomic practices in soil water content in mid-mountain vineyards

In the context of LIFE project MIDMACC (LIFE18 CCA/ES/001099), several pilots have been installed in vineyards in mid mountain areas of Catalonia (NE Spain) to test well stablished agronomic practices to increase the adaptation of Mediterranean mid mountain to climate change. Soil water content (SWC) at three different depths (15, 30 and 45cm) was measured in continuum from August 2020. One pilot (WC) included a well-established green cover (GC), a new GC (NC) and a conventional soil management (CM, tilling+herbicides). NC presented an intermediate state between WC and CM, responding similarly to CM in autumn but quickly reaching similar SWC to WC, then following the same evolution till next spring, with CM presenting lower values along autumn and winter. Then vegetation activation decreased SWC in all plots, (much slower in CM, lacking GC). Sensibility to spring rains is again intermediate for NC, which joins SWC evolution of CM by the end of spring till next autumn. It is expected that NC will resemble WC more and more as its GC develops. In the pilot combining vine training (VSP vs Gobelet) and hillside management (slope vs terrace), no clear pattern could be related with these conditions. However, both terraces seem to be more sensitive to spring rains. A third pilot included new vineyards (7 and 1 year old). In the new vineyard (N), higher canopy development, a spontaneous green cover and row straw resulted in a slower SWC dynamic, not so sensitive to rains but conserving more soil water in spring and most of summer, even with presumably a higher water extraction by vines. In the newest vineyard (VN) the deepest sensor is still sensitive to rain events all over the year and SWC is always highest at this depth, revealing small water capture by vines.

Extreme canopy management for vineyard adaptation to climate change: is it a good idea?

Climate change constitutes an enormous challenge for humankind and for all human activities, viticulture not being an exception. Long-term strategic changes are probably needed the most, but growers also need to deal with short-term changes: summers that are getting progressively warmer, earlier harvest dates and higher pH in musts and wines. In the last 10-15 years, a relevant corpus of research is being developed worldwide in order to evaluate to which extent extreme canopy management operations, aimed at reducing leaf area and, thus, limiting the source to sink ratio, could be useful to delay ripening. Although extreme canopy management can result in relevant delays in harvest dates, longer term studies, as well as detailed analysis of their implications on carbohydrate reserves, bud fertility and future yield are desirable before these practices can be recommended.

Effects of organic mulches on the soil environment and yield of grapevine

Farming management practices aiming at conserving soil moisture have been developed in arid and semiarid-areas facing water scarcity problems. Organic mulching is an effective method to manipulate the crop-growing microclimate increasing crop yield by controlling soil temperature, and retaining soil moisture by reducing soil evaporation. In this sense, the effectiveness of different organic mulching materials (straw mulch and grapevine pruning debris) applied within the row of a vineyard was evaluated on the soil and on the vine in a Tempranillo vineyard located in La Rioja (Spain). Organic mulches were compared with a traditional bare soil management technique (based on the use of herbicides to avoid weed incidence). Mulching coverages favourably influenced the soil water retention throughout all the grapevine vegetative cycle. However, the soil-moisture variation was not the same under different mulching materials, being the straw mulch (SM) the one that retained more water in comparison with grapevine pruning debris (GPD) based-cover. The changes of soil moisture in the upper surface layer (0–10 cm) were highly dynamic, probably due to water vapour fluxes across the soil-atmospheric interface. However, both, SM and GPD reduced these fluctuations as compared with bare soils. A similar trend occurred with soil temperature. Both organic mulches altered soil temperature in comparison with bare soil by reducing soil temperature in summer and raising it in winter. Moreover, the same buffering effect for the temperature on the covered soil also remains in the deeper layers. To conclude, we could see that organic mulching had a positive impact on soil-moisture storage and soil temperature and the extent of this effect depends on the type of mulching materials. These changes led to higher rates of photosynthesis and stomatal conductivity compared to bare soils, also favouring crop growth and grape yields.

Sustaining wine identity through intra-varietal diversification

With contemporary climate change, cultivated Vitis vinifera L. is at risk as climate is a critical component in defining ecologically fitted plant materiel. While winegrowers can draw on the rich diversity among grapevine varieties to limit expected impacts (Morales-Castilla et al., 2020), replacing a signature variety that has created a sense of local distinctiveness may lead to several challenges. In order to sustain wine identity in uncertain climate outcomes, the study of intra-varietal diversity is important to reflect the adaptive and evolutionary potential of current cultivated varieties. The aim of this ongoing study is to understand to what extent can intra-varietal diversity be a climate change adaptation solution. With a focus on early (Sauvignon blanc, Riesling, Grolleau, Pinot noir) to moderate late (Chenin, Petit Verdot, Cabernet franc) ripening varieties, data was collected for flowering and veraison for the various studied accessions (from conservatory plots) and clones. For these phenological growing stages, heat requirements were established using nearby weather stations (adapted from the GFV model, Parker et al., 2013) and model performances were verified. Climate change projections were then integrated to predict the future behaviour of the intra-varietal diversity. Study findings highlight the strong phenotypic diversity of studied varieties and the importance of diversification to enhance climate change resilience. While model performances may require improvements, this study is the first step towards quantifying heat requirements of different clones and how they can provide adaptation solutions for winegrowers to sustain local wine identity in a global changing climate. As genetic diversity is an ongoing process through point mutations and epigenetic adaptations, perspective work is to explore clonal data from a wide variety of geographic locations.