France aims to extend Champagne region November 1, 2007
Giles Fallowfield
The French national appellations body will look to add 40 new communes to the already vast Champagne region in order to cater for increased demand.
Twenty-two villages in the Marne department, 15 in the Aube, two in the Haute-Marne and one commune in the l'Aisne have been put forward as having suitable typicity of terroir to grow grapes to make Champagne.
The list of new villages was drawn up by a panel of experts appointed by the French appellations body l'Institut national de la qualité et de l'origine (INAO). The INAO began a review of the Champagne classification two years ago at the request of the SGV (Syndicat générale des Vignerons).
The experts looked at all aspects of the local environment including soil, subsoil, slopes and aspect before producing their report.
'The object is clear, it is necessary to preserve the typicity of Champagne,' said Patrick le Brun, head of the main growers union in Champagne, the SGV.
The 40 proposed communes:
In the Marne: Basilieux-lès-Fismes, Blacy, Boissy-le-Repos, Bouvancourt, Breuil-sur-Vesle, Bussy-le-Repos, Champfleury, Courlandon, Courcy, Courdemanges, Fismes, Huiron, La Ville-sous-Orbais, Le Thoult-Trosnay, Loivre, Montmirail, Mont-sur-Courville, Péas, Romain, Saint-Loup, Soulanges, Ventelay.
In Aisne: Marchais-en-Brie.
In the Aube: Arrelles, Balnot-l"-Grange, Bosancourt, Bouilly, Etourvy, Fontvannes, Javernant, Laine-aux-Bois, Macey, Messon, Prugny, Saint-Germain-L'Epine, Souligny, Torvilliers, Villery.
In Haute-Marne: Champcourt and Harricourt
A dossier, described by local INAO representative Eric Champion as 'neutral and independent', will be presented to the governing council of the SGV and, if accepted, it will be passed to the national committee of the INAO in Paris in November.
If it is approved by the INAO, a public consultation will follow early next year.
Although new vineyards are unlikely to be planted before 2017, there are signs that demand will soon outsrip supply. Shipments of Champagne came to nearly 333m bottles in the last year, compared to an average annual production over the past decade (1997-2006) of just under 330m bottles.
In the short-term it is hoped that raising the maximum yield to 15,500kg/ha between 2007 and 2011 could raise production as high as 430m bottles.
The Champagne appellation currently has a production area of 35,208ha spread across 319 villages.
Have your say... To post your comment on this story, email us at news@decanter.com, making sure the relevant headline is in the subject field
There is no question that this move is organized completely for the benefit of the least-passionate producers, not for the benefit of the consumer, by these so-called 'independent' organizations, whose aims have always been the scientific justification for maximal profit-taking. Any consumer who has had any sense over the last twenty years already knows where to buy sparkiling wine that's not 'Champagne'.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with increasing the amount of sparkling wine that is made in the Champagne region. What is wrong is the pretense that an increased vignoble (plantation area) will provide the same style and quality as that which was historically available. The only fair way to proceed with this plan is to provide a distinctive name or names that will make it abundantly clear to the consumer that new plantations are being exploited. This need not be extremely complex--it's done very well in Burgundy, for example, for the most part. But my guess is that no effort in this direction will occur. What hypocrisy! If these same 'scientific' justifications were made for allowing the production of 'Champagne' elsewhere in the world, my oh my would the fur fly!
The French producer-organizations have proved once again by actions such as this, at the service of those whose quality aspirations are the very least, that, when the chips are down, quality will go out the window as long as the money keeps coming in the door. Other recent examples of the same can be easily cited, in France and elsewhere.. Shame on the French wine industry organizations and their 'independent' actions pretending to do us a such a great favor! If the appellation 'Champagne' means little or nothing, why should we be buying sparkling wines from this region at all? Most of what might have been gotten there can be obtained elsewhere at a lower price already. It will be interesting to see how the consumer reacts to the quality dilution of this famous wine name. I think I already have a strong suspicion what that will turn out to be. What a sad, sad day!
In my humble opinion the very last thing passionate producer would ever be trading upon is the good name associated with their products. IF this hasn't been learned by attention to what has happened to German wine in the last thirty years it'll be learned anew in Champagne all over again.. Once this slippery slope has been descended, it takes generations of sweat and blood to get back on track. Quality winemaking is not just some romantic concept that can be crassly sold to tourists who don't know any better. In the long run, people will not buy wines that compete poorly in the market place in terms of quality. If, for example, Mosel Riesling can be legally sold which is little better than sugar water, soon sugar water will take its place in the market from vineyards in which it's cheaper to produce.. If soulless fizz becomes the standard of Champagne style and quality, soon 'better' cheap, soulless fizz will be driving these same makers out of the market--and won't they be crying out self-pitying groans! But I for one won't have much sympathy for them.
John Trombley
I cannot defend any wanton expansion of the AC Champagne (and I really don't like the idea of increasing the allowable yields every time someone feels like it; but that's another subject). But in this case, I think it's best to hold fire for a bit.
I went through the list of 40 communes that will be allowed to use the AC Champagne. With the exception of 1 way off in the boonies by Ste. Menehould, all of the communes that I could find lie within the current Champagne boundaries, nearby other towns that are currently listed. None seem to be close to riverbed land or marshland. Were these added communes formerly within the old boundaries of Champagne, were their vineyards destroyed by phylloxera and never re-planted (a la Chablis)? I think the "experts" need to explain the lay of this land a bit more.
How many hectares do these 40 communes add up to? Does they represent a 5%, 10%, 30% or what expansion of the current area of about 34,000 hectares?
I hope Mr Trombley is wrong in his implications and just simply passionate about a great product (and my favorite wine). But if he is right, there always "Champagne Classico" to fall back on......
Patrick W Fegan
Champagne has made a name for itself for centuries and will continue to be the "only thing you drink" should you wish to celebrate or enjoy a good moment. Needless to say that Champagne already produce a ridiculous amount of bottle every year and demand still grow! I think it is to early to judge and we should trust the winemakers to keep the quality of this amazing product as we know it today. And as we all know, great Champagne houses will not destroy what it took them so long to built...A good reputation with incredible wines. I very much doubt that any other sparkling wines will ever compete with the magic that Champagne fill our glasses with every day...
Quentin
Long overdue. If Champagne wants to compete in the present “consumer is the king” world they must go ahead with this proposal. The demand is definitely outstripping supply of champagne. May be with the addition of 40 more communes it is unlikely that it will become reachable to the masses and stay with in the reach of the privileged few. Champagne needs to work a lot before it can even think of becoming everyday drinking wine. May be it works for the champagne houses if that factor of luxury stays with Champagne and people drink it only during celebrations.
Audrey Hoggard
It seems to me that the extension of Champagne is not the absolute end if terroir similar to extent vineyards are found. It is probably preferable to over cropping. It might be fair however, to make all of the new land "Petite Champagne" in an attempt to recognize the historical authenticity of the original lands. After all, this extension is largely to fill negociant labels and bulk Champagne needs, not to bulster quality. We can remember when the Aube was struggling to get acceptance into the appellation last century. They do make some good champagne down there now. Extensions of 1er Cru or Grand Cru, now that might ruffle some feathers!
Patrick Anderson, The Vineyard Wine Shop
Register on decanter.com absolutely free for news alerts delivered direct to your email inbox, and our fortnightly newsletter with advance notice of what’s coming up in Decanter magazine, offers, competitions and more.
PLUS registration is a one-stop shop for the Decanter magazine Archive and Decanter Fine Wine Tracker.
There is no question that this move is organized completely for the benefit of the least-passionate producers, not for the benefit of the consumer, by these so-called 'independent' organizations, whose aims have always been the scientific justification for maximal profit-taking. Any consumer who has had any sense over the last twenty years already knows where to buy sparkiling wine that's not 'Champagne'.
