Integrated Winegrape Production Scheme
Promoted internationally as “the riches of a clean green land”, New Zealand wine is claimed to be made using innovative practices in the vineyard and winery that deliver quality in a sustainable and environmental manner. To back up these claims, the industry has established the Integrated Winegrape Production scheme, a type of Environmental Management System. Irene Parminter reports.
The New Zealand wine industry is a high profile sector that has been spectacularly successful in export markets. Wine exports were worth $168.6 million (FOB) in 2000 — about nine times the value of wine exported in 1990. In addition, New Zealand wines are increasingly being sold in the higher priced segments of our international markets.
The industry identified the need for providing environmental assurances to consumers in the early 1990s, and funded early development work from grower levies, using a working group of growers and scientists. With funding support from the Sustainable Management Fund, the resulting Environmental Management System (EMS) was trialled and grower feedback was incorporated, before the scheme was formally launched in 1998/99. It comprised 145 subscribed members, covering roughly half the land area of the wine industry. Currently there are 267 members representing nearly 60 percent of the winegrape production in New Zealand. Industry support for the Integrated Winegrape Production (IWP) scheme is strong.
The IWP scheme provides guidelines to growers on management practices that are environmentally sustainable and protect vineyard workers, surrounding communities, and wine consumers. It takes a whole vineyard, continual improvement approach.
Some advantages to the grower from the IWP scheme are already being reported. Montana, for example, reports substantial savings in the cost of irrigation water and chemicals, and even an improvement in wine quality, as a result of the adoption of IWP practices (Mosaic, Summer 2000/2001). In addition, Montana reports that buyers are impressed by the environmental reports produced.
The nuts and bolts of the scheme are straightforward. The grower fills out a “scorecard” on his or her own vineyard, which covers soils and fertilisers, sward and irrigation, diseases, pests and a membership criterion. For a grower to comply, they must have no unacceptable scores. External auditors audit each grower every three years.
Growers currently pay $300 to join the scheme. Membership is voluntary, but some wine companies require their contract growers to be members. The scheme is also financially supported by the New Zealand Grape Growers’ Council.
So what is the verdict to date on the IWP scheme, from an environmental management point of view? At first glance, it looks like the answer to an environmental regulator’s prayer. Vineyard practices that impact on the environment are steadily improving. More than that, growers are making the improvements voluntarily, without the need for regulation, monitoring, enforcement or education campaigns by local government, with their attendant costs. The practices of growers who do not join the scheme are also improving, as they see the cost savings and other benefits from the IWP practices.
By comparison, factors on the negative side of the ledger are trifling. Given the market-driven approach, it could be argued that the environmental benefits that flow from the scheme are primarily those that are important to wine consumers, which may or may not coincide with those of the regional council and the community where the wine is produced. However, the scheme is not solely driven by market considerations, and many of the growers in the scheme are more focused on the benefits to themselves and their workers, than benefits to the end consumer.
A second concern arises from the voluntary nature of the scheme — because adoption is voluntary, it is also patchy, so environmental benefits are lower than would occur with full adoption. Also, since few sectors other than winegrapes have established EMS, the benefits to the environment are further diluted.
Finally, many of the items on the scorecard are currently input-based rather than effects-based, although the intention is to develop more effects-based measures and standards e.g. although currently the scorecard evaluates the amount of nitrogen applied, the proposal is to eventually use the level of ground water nitrogen.
On balance, there is little to criticise in the IWP, and much to commend it. Perceived market demands have driven the voluntary adoption of a package of practices that have yielded environmental benefits, at no cost to the wider community. Some other horticultural sectors are also well down the path of developing EMS (e.g. kiwifruit), or at least developing “green” methods of orchard management (e.g. pipfruit, avocados, summerfruit). However, in many other agricultural and horticultural sectors, “green market signals” are not yet strong enough for the development of EMS to be a priority. The winegrape industry provides a model that may well be of interest to other sectors in the future.
RM Update would like to thank Philip Manson (Science and Innovations Manager of Winegrowers of New Zealand) for his assistance in preparing this article.
 |
Irene Parminter Senior Policy Analyst, MAF Policy Information Group Hamilton Irene has worked for MAF for the past five years. Her background is in horticultural and environmental economics. Irene’s work areas include forecasting production, prices and exports for kiwifruit and other horticultural crops (excluding pipfruit), e-commerce, e-government, and digital divide policy issues. She is also involved with aspects of sustainable agriculture and forestry, particularly the role of quality assurance and environmental management systems, and economic incentives for farm management changes. |
Contact for Enquiries
Amber Duncalfe
Editor - RM Update
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
PO Box 2526
Wellington
NEW ZEALAND
Tel: +64 4 894 0710
Fax: +64 4 894 0745
Contact this person
