Sub-regions seem equally simple: a smaller zone within the larger ‘region’ can also be defined by geographic boundaries – rivers, roads, mountains.

And if there is a blend from two or more sub-regions, then the regional name must be used. It all looks terribly logical.

Provincial rugby managed it for decades after all. And viticulturally, the hundreds of appellations of France, the DOCs and DOCGs of Italy and other European countries are similarly defined by simple, geographically structured areas of land. 

They sometimes go further – defining which grapes can be grown, the maximum yield that can be produced, the viticultural techniques, some winemaking rules. Miss any of these points and the winemaker cannot use the name of that appellation on the label (if he is caught!)

 

New Zealand is not wishing to go that far, at least not for now (it is likely to be at least ten years or more before any formal restrictions on grape variety, yield, viticulture or oenological practices are restricted in each G.I. in this country).

 

But we do have a law, the Geographical Indications (Wines and Spirits) Act 2006. It was a big hit forward after John Buck and Ross Spence – as successive heads of the Wine Institute in the early 1990s – sorted out their system for handling such, and putting it before Government.  

At that stage it was an agricultural Bill. But there were issues; never mind defining where Marlborough finished and Nelson started, what about Ohakune carrots or Pukekohe potatoes? Or cheeses like feta and camembert?

A decade later we had the Act that applies purely to wines and spirits. Another three years on and the Act, while passed, has not had its Regulations detailed and in place. The legislation continues to sleep. What is taking so long to get a simple piece of legislation into action?

 

First there is the World Trade Organisation, Philip Gregan CEO of New Zealand Winegrowers tells us. They don’t see life as simple as defining lines on maps and applying names. What names after all? If New Zealand doesn’t call its pinot noir ‘Burgundy’ surely the French won’t call their sauvignon blanc ‘Marlborough’. 

But this takes negotiations, it seems, months interspersed with more months of legalise, dotting and crossing the ayes and the wherefores.

The cynical spectator calls it ‘non-tariff barriers’ to trade. New Zealand is doing well in sales to Europe, so let’s find ways to hinder the growth. Blame for this is placed at the feet of the French but there’s a huge bureaucracy behind horticultural and agricultural products going into (and even within) Europe, and change doesn’t seem to happen with any logical clockwork in motion.

Australia had its G.I. plan in place years ago, almost a decade, approved by Europe at the time. But it has had trip-ups and downfalls. Maybe it was a bit fast. The Aussies have in their regulations that a regional GI requires a ‘measurable’ homogeneity, and a sub-region a ‘measurable discreteness or difference in those same attributes from adjoining areas’.

 

Think of Coonawarra; let’s make it all on red soil over limestone, so the red soil over limestone may give a slightly different style of wine than black soil over the road – or fence; sometimes both occurring within the same vineyard.

But then a factor comes in called ‘grandfathering’. The Coonawarra people growing grapes on black soil had for decades sold their wine as ‘Coonawarra’ – so they didn’t plan to stop just because of a modern G.I. definition required red soil. Years passed, legal bills rose. The wines tasted the same.

 

It is not all for New Zealand to sort out such matters locally. John Barker at New Zealand Winegrowers adds that the World Trade Organisation also has an influence on such simple matters of defining regions and giving them a name. He says that in New Zealand, a region and a sub-region will probably be treated exactly the same, unlike Australia which seeks a closer terroir similarity for sub-regions.

In New Zealand of course, the quantity of wine made in specific sub-regions on their own is relatively small as a proportion, although such do exist. A grower in Marlborough, for example, is more likely to blend Brancott fruit with Waihopai, Rapaura and/or Awatere, to take examples. That’s simple, the wine gets a simple Marlborough G.I. It’s logical.

In Central Otago, once again, while there are sub-regional specialists, many winemakers have deliberately set out to draw grapes from Bannockburn, Gibbston, Lowburn and so on in order to spread vintage risks and offer blending options. Don’t blend, then use Bannockburn or whatever is appropriate. Blend sub-regions, and Central Otago would become the G.I.

 

So what’s the hold up? The regulations under the Geographical Indications (Wines & Spirits) Act are largely procedural. But included in there, John Barker tells us, are several thousand European regional names (call them G.I.s, appellations, DOCs or whatever). So the New Zealand system needs to encompass the thousands of registered names of European appellation and even those in USA (called American Viticultural Areas or AVAs).

 

There is yet another international factor at play: Trade Related aspects of Intellectual Property Systems (TRIPS). More issues, if related to the WTO. issues.

Right now, John Barker says, he would like New Zealand to be ready for the green light. He doesn’t want New Zealand to be queuing up behind other countries to fulfil the WTO’s procedures and protocols. A series of meetings proceeds, including a ‘Summit’ in December involving local and national organisations.

 

What’s agreed (but of course not formally in place) is that New Zealand wishes a hierarchical GI system which would look something like this:

(a) country: New Zealand

(b) zones: most likely North Island, South Island, East Coast

(c) regions: most likely like Marlborough, Hawkes Bay, Central Otago etc

(d) sub-regions: as per Awatere, Gimblett, Bannockburn etc

 

Consensus has already been reached for defining a lot of these regions and sub-regions as to the geographical requirements of their GI name. Some others are still under discussion at a local level.

New Zealand Winegrowers seeks to lubricate and co-ordinate the process of formalising GIs that have used a name by several winemakers for some time in several markets, have a reputation or recognised image as a defined area and do not conflict with a larger GI also seeking recognition. John Barker calls it ‘existing, standalone GIs, although not yet formal.

So what seems like a lifetime (and many people have indeed been born and become qualified winemakers over the period of this development still inching forward) is ironically an issue that the Rugby Union solved much more easily.

But the processes seem more complex than the logics of the system itself and the Gnomes of Zurich are part of the process - which seems already to have taken so long that a pending re-writing and re-establishment of the French appellation system could add another ten years.

Meanwhile in New Zealand, most of us believe our Martinborough chardonnay comes from Martinborough, our Awatere sauvignon comes from the Awatere Valley and think of the protection of the Sale of Goods Act, Fair Trading Act and the Commerce Act as they relate to labelling and advertising.

But we should not overlook the abuse of fashionable New Zealand names in other parts of the world. If it means New Zealand can’t use pinot grigio but stops the French using ‘Kiwi’ then perhaps that’s a fair trade.

This work in progress has taken decades and may take more.