These last few weeks I have been thinking quite a bit about the advantages and disadvantages of the champagne appellation system, and more specifically the way the appellation system is structured. These ponderings have undoubtedly been stimulated by the research for and writing of my BioInnovation book. The cross referencing of data has clearly exposed the hurdle of what is allowed or not by the cahier des charges. (appellation rule book)
While many people believe – and this includes most Champenois – that the one appellation system greatly benefits the region, in my opinion it also stifles innovation and thus prevents the region from reinventing itself - something is desperately needs to thrive again.
Change, at least in my opinion, is often stubbornly eked out on the fringe of society’s norms and regulations. I see it as a rebellion against what IS, born out of the believe of what CAN BE – a promise of something better. It generally implies replacing the ‘normal’ methodology and logic with alternatives from another toolbox. However, for this to be possible, there are two basic requirements: access to alternative knowledge, and the freedom to experiment. The current champagne appellation system too often prevents growers the necessary laboratory space to test alternative practices.
For instance, about a decade ago, Alexandre Chartogne, a star grower from Merfy, decided to replant a vineyard in the untrained crowed vine system (vignes en foule), the system all Champagne vineyards were planted in before the massive phylloxera vine pulling and trellised replanting scheme. Rationally, one could argue that replanting in a ‘historic’ system should be allowed in Champagne, especially in the context of Bollinger’s Veilles Vignes Francaises vineyards (which are planted the same way). Nevertheless, Alexandre’s vineyard was disqualified and thus excluded from the appellation by the AIDAC – a decision which was later upheld by the INAO. The reason for the disqualification was that the extreme dense planting and pruning system was not authorized in the cahier des charges at that time, except for vineyards who had been planted this way before 1976. The current cahier des charges, which was changed to include the much disputed Vignes Semi Larges (VSL) system – a lower density planting system which is similar to the way vineyards are planted all around the world – has decreased the minimum distance between the plants which could potentially legalize the crowded vine system. (I have not checked this with the INAO so this remains a hypothesis).
Nonetheless, the fact remained that Chartogne had no choice but to uproot his vineyard, because a vineyard which is disqualified from the appellation cannot produce any authorized Champagne wine (still, sparkling or fortified) or even spirit – as the planting regulations for the different cahier des charges are all aligned to the cahier des charges of the AOC ‘champagne’. Moreover, today the Syndicat Général des
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Terroir Champagne to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.