An Investigation Into Whether the Tasmanian GI Should Be Sub-Divided
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
An Investigation Into Whether The Tasmanian GI Should Be Subdivided Candidate Number: 15035 Word Count: 9797 Date: June 25, 2020 INDEX 1 Summary ....................................................................................... 4 2 Introduction ................................................................................... 5 3 Background and Context ............................................................. 7 3.1 Establishment of the Australian Geographical Indications ....... 7 3.2 Tasmanian Wine History.......................................................... 7 3.3 Tasmania’s Single Geographical Indication ............................. 9 4 Methodology................................................................................ 11 4.1 Introduction ............................................................................ 11 4.2 Physical Criteria Data Modelling ............................................ 12 4.3 Survey Design ....................................................................... 13 4.4 Interview Context and Design ................................................ 15 4.5 Purpose of the Case Studies ................................................. 15 5 Results and Analysis .................................................................. 16 5.1 Physical Criteria..................................................................... 16 5.1.1 Physical Criteria - Boundaries .......................................... 16 5.1.2 New Sub–Regional Boundary Creation............................ 18 5.1.3 Physical Criteria - Soils .................................................... 27 5.1.4 Physical Criteria – Weather.............................................. 31 5.1.4.1 Rainfall ...................................................................... 32 5.1.4.2 Temperature ............................................................. 37 5.2 Survey Insights and Analysis ................................................. 40 5.2.1 Labelling - Sales Analysis ................................................ 41 5.2.2 Probability of Sub-Regional Division ................................ 42 5.2.3 Producer Opinion of the Current Tasmanian GI ............... 43 5.2.4 Sub-Regional Division Scenarios ..................................... 45 5.2.5 The Importance of Sub-Regional Labelling ...................... 46 5.3 Interview Summary and Insights ............................................ 47 5.4 Case Studies ......................................................................... 49 5.4.1 Great Southern Case Study ............................................. 49 5.4.2 Coonawarra Case Study .................................................. 54 5.4.3 Case Study Relevance to Tasmania ................................ 59 6 Conclusions ................................................................................ 62 7 References .................................................................................. 66 8 Appendices.................................................................................. 70 8.1 Research Paper Proposal...................................................... 70 8.2 List of Subjects Interviewed ................................................... 78 8.3 Copy of the Survey ................................................................ 79 8.4 Wine Australia Regulations 2018 (F2018l00286) - Reg 57 .... 84 8.5 Tasmanian Vineyard Locations Map...................................... 88 8.6 Maximum Rainfall .................................................................. 89 8.7 Correlations of Maximum Rainfall Between Regions (excluding zero rainfall days) ...................................................................................... 89 8.8 Growing Degree Days (Non-Cumulative) .............................. 89 1 SUMMARY The single Geographical Indication (GI) of Tasmania was created in 1994. It currently has just under 2000 hectares of vineyards planted with an annual production of 16,000 tonnes (Wine Tasmania, accessed November 2019). Tasmania’s progressive increase in vineyard plantings and annual output with several distinct, but unofficial geographical regions prompts the question: Is Tasmania ready for further sub-division? This paper examines this question from several different perspectives. Firstly, as an investigation into the creation of new sub-regional boundaries based on physical criteria as outlined in the GI framework.1 The physical data of climate, topography and geology was collected and analysed, highlighting distinct physical differences across seven locations in Tasmania, thus supporting the proposition of sub-regional division. Next, a survey and interviews were conducted with the Tasmanian wine trade. The results of these investigations suggest that further GI division will not benefit Tasmania at present. Whilst not all respondents agree, most do believe that sub- division is inevitable in the future. Lastly, an exploration into the establishment of the Great Southern and Coonawarra GIs was conducted, to gain insight into the challenges faced. Personal interviews of key industry stakeholders suggested that lessons can be learned from the experiences of both regions. 1 Wine Australia Regulations 2018, see Appendix 8.4. 4 2 INTRODUCTION Tasmania is both a state and a single GI located at the southern-most extremity of Australia, separated from the mainland by Bass Strait at latitude 41˚ South. Currently there are 160 licenced producers and 230 vineyards in Tasmania, contributing to a mere 1% of the annual Australian crush by volume but 4.2% by value (Wine Tasmania, accessed November 2019). To date there is minimal published research around the topic of a potential division of Tasmania’s single GI into official sub-regions. “There has been plenty of consideration and discussion around single and multiple formal GIs (…). Wine Tasmania’s formal policy is to maintain a single GI for now, whilst continuing to explore, promote and discuss individual growing areas – [and] perhaps more importantly (…) individual vineyard sites” (Davies 2019, interview Appendix 8.2). This lack of formal subdivision yet everyday use and referencing of these sub-regions by the greater wine community has prompted this research into whether the Tasmanian GI should be subdivided. The paper consists of three sections, representing the questions below, in an exploration of whether subdivision should (or will) occur: 1. A review of the physical criteria for GI creation to see whether this is a relevant basis for the subdivision of the Tasmanian GI. 2. A survey of current Tasmanian wine industry stakeholders to see whether there is support for subdividing the GI. 3. Case studies on the Great Southern and Coonawarra GIs to see if their creation offers a way forward for Tasmania. The validity of such research can be seen by the fact that many Tasmanian wines currently use sub-regional labelling to promote their region, highlighting the 5 importance of the sub-region to the producers. This is further evidenced in marketing materials, investor guides and tourism brochures (Tasmania Delivers, 2016) which also reference sub-regions. In addition, the physical and environmental data collated and analysed for this paper creates a strong case for establishing seven distinct growing regions. Potential research weaknesses could lie within the very success of Wine Tasmania, and how this organisation has promoted the single GI of Tasmania. Wine Tasmania has marketed a single GI to the Tasmanian winemaking industry and consumers so successfully that many stakeholders may be resistant to future change. This is especially relevant given the observation made by Professor Larry Lockshin on the brand strength of a single cohesive region. “From a marketing point of view, promoting the whole area will have a greater chance of success” (Lockshin, 2012), which also affirms the direction taken by Wine Tasmania, proving to be an effective marketing strategy for the region. If success can be measured by price point, then Tasmania has succeeded with an average bottle price above $AU15 (Wine Tasmania, 2019), which is almost triple the average price of wines from the mainland, at $AU 5.31 per bottle (Wine Australia, accessed January 2020). 6 3 BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT 3.1 Establishment of the Australian Geographical Indications In the late 1980’s the Australian wine industry was seeking to grow volume and value through increased exports.2 However, exports to Europe were hampered by use of traditional European wine terms such as “Champagne” and “Port.” The European Union (EU) directed Australia to establish their own appellation system to provide a guarantee of region of origin. Thereafter, the establishment of Australia’s GIs began. The newly created Australian GIs lacked the viticultural and vinification constraints of Europe, providing growers with the latitude to experiment. A treaty, named the EC- Australia Wine Agreement, became effective from March 1994.3 The treaty was well received by the Australian wine industry, as it contained few regulations, yet provided access to the highly desirable EU markets by removing or lowering non-tariff barriers to entry (Gangjee, 2016). Australian GIs are divided into zones, regions and sub-regions. Today there are 28 zones, 65 regions and 14 sub-regions, regulated by the Wine Australia Regulations 2018.4 3.2 Tasmanian Wine History The beginning of the modern Tasmanian wine industry began in 1956 with the plantings of La Provence (now called Providence) in Pipers River and Moorilla