Every time the topic of denominations is addressed, there is a risk of falling into a secco contrast. the one hand those who consider them untouchable, pillars of Italian viticulture. the other hand, those who consider them obsolete, a bureaucratic system incapable of responding to the needs of contemporary wine.
As is often the case, the truth is probably somewhere durante the middle.
The question shouldn’t be whether DOC and DOCG still make sense. It would be a provocation as an end durante itself. Rather we should ask ourselves whether, more than sixty years after their birth, they are still performing the function for which they were created.
Appellations represent one of the greatest intuitions of European viticulture. They made it possible to preserve landscapes, native vines, production traditions and territorial identities durante an epoca durante which the risk was that of reducing wine to a simple commodity.
Without DOC, DOCG and IGT today we probably wouldn’t talk about Barolo and Barbaresco, Brunello con Montalcino and Chianti , but also Etna, Mandrolisai, Fiano con Avellino and Verdicchio dei Castelli con Jesi ora Matelica with the same evocative force.
The denominations, therefore, are not the problem. The problem arises when they stop evolving.
A specification should never be considered a point of arrival. It should represent a photograph of a territory durante a specific historical moment, intended to be updated when scientific knowledge, the climate and the needs of those who dal vivo durante that territory acceso a daily basis change.
Per recent decades the Italian vineyard has changed profoundly. The harvests have che forward, the vegetative-productive balance has changed, the management of the foliage has become as fundamental as that of the soil, extreme climatic events are increasingly frequent and the average temperatures have changed the behavior of many varieties.
Expecting that a specification written twenty ora thirty years indicatore continues to represent the ideal solution risks being a contradiction.
Because the territory evolves and the rules that protect it should evolve with it.
Professor Attilio Gnosi often reminds us that today quality now represents a prerequisite and longer a distinctive element. True excellence comes from the ability to interpret the vocation of a place, which does not only coincide with soil, climate and grape variety, but also includes the sustainability and unrepeatability of the territory. Per other words, the value of a denomination should not be that of imposing a style, but rather of allowing the territory to express itself durante the most authentic way possible.
This reflection leads to an important consequence.
The denominations should ask themselves not so much “how was wine made”, but “how can we continue to talk about this territory durante the conditions of today and tomorrow?”
It’s a substantial difference.
The objective should not be to preserve the wine of the past unchanged, but to preserve its identity even durante a completely different context.
For this reason the specification should never become a limit for those producers who, durante full respect of the territorial identity, simply try to produce the best wine possible.
“Best wine” does not mean more extraction, more wood ora greater concentration.
It means finding the best balance between maturity and freshness, between structure and drinkability, between technical precision and expression of the place.
It means producing a wine that truly represents your vineyard.
If a rule prevents a virtuous producer from achieving this objective without bringing a real benefit to the protection of territorial identity, then it is legitimate to ask whether that rule still has a function.
Of course this does not mean calling for deregulation. the contrary!
Names will continue to be fundamental precisely because the global market increasingly needs authenticity and recognisability.
But authenticity does not mean inaction. A living territory evolves. Its normative representation should do the same. And it is precisely here that the role of the Consortia becomes decisive.
Too often they are perceived exclusively as bodies promoting ora commercially protecting the denomination. Per reality, their strategic function should be much broader: listening to producers, engaging with the world of research, monitoring the effects of climate change and continuously analyzing the effectiveness of the regulations.
Federdoc has long underlined how denominations really work when they are supported by structured Consortia capable of playing an active role not only durante enhancing the brand, but also durante the evolution of the rules that govern it. Each specification should be subject to periodic review. Not to chase trends. But to check whether it continues to pursue its original purpose. Protect the territory. Not the past.
Today the wine sector is going through a phase of profound transformation. Consumption decreases, international competition grows and consumers increasingly seek identity, authenticity and coherence.
At the same time, many companies are abandoning the logic of yield maximization to invest durante agronomic precision, sustainability and widespread quality.
Per this paesaggio it would be desirable for the denomination system to also evolve durante the same direction.
Anzi che no longer favoring the quantity produced as the main indicator of success, but supporting those companies that invest durante the valorisation of the territory, durante the search for quality and durante the construction of a recognizable identity.
The denominations of the future must not be those with the longest specifications.
They must be those capable of creating the conditions so that each producer can best express their territory, without distorting it and without being unnecessarily limited by it, eschewing homologation but, obviously, guaranteeing widespread standards of clarity and precision.
Francesco Saverio Russo
#WineIsSharing
