text:
J-M Touzard

DRAFT Case Study: multidimensional comparison of a local and global wine supply chain (France) (Task 3.5)

Montpellier, Languedoc-Roussillon region. In the first case of LC wine is sold on farm, directly to consumers, who can be local inhabitants or tourists. In the second LC case, bottles of wine are sold to an intermediary (restaurant, wine shops), whose commercial activity is located in Montpellier. For the global chains (GC), the first case corresponds to basic wine without PDO (protected designation of origin) label, sold in bulk from a wine cooperative to a wholesaler, bottled far from the production area, branded as "J.P Chenet" trade mark, and distributed in Switzerland through supermarkets. The second GC case is a "specific «wine, guaranteed by PDO and/or organic label, bottled on farm and exported through many intermediaries to Switzerland. For our analysis we consider all stages from the grape grower to the consumers.

The report is organised according to the GLAMUR research questions (i.e. the five dimensions of performance) applied to both French and Swiss wine chains. We specify these questions for the wine sector by using literature review, interviews of experts and primary data already collected by the team. We took into account the national (French and Swiss) challenges on food chain performances, as they have been reported in WP2, specifically territoriality and global competition. Discourse on food in Switzerland is more oriented to biodiversity, land use planning, landscape protection and traditional ways to manage land (Comparative report, 2014). France mostly faces the challenge of maintaining its leading position in the global wine market by increasing productivity and quality and adapting the wines to the evolution of consumer's preferences.... without losing the reference to patrimonial style of food, local know-how and local resources, embodied in the notion of "terroir"1 (Comparative Report, 2014).

Research objectives and relevant attributes have been defined with FIBL team, taking into account similarities and differences of our two countries. Following the GLAMUR systemic and analytic perspective, indicators have then been selected and adapted from reference grids (f.i. SAFA) or from works on the wine sector, in order to respond to the research questions and to assess and compare wine chains performances regarding specific attributes.

In the first section, we briefly present the French wine sector embedded in both national and international markets ; in the second section we describe the background of our case studies focusing on the distinction between "local" and "global" wine chains, the scope of the value chains and general characteristics of the case studies. In the third section,

we present the research framework with specific questions and objectives, the selection of attributes from the GLAMUR list, and the definition and contextualization of the selected indicators. In the fourth section we develop our method of data selection and analysis. In the last section we present the results of our work, reviewing and discussing the selected attributes. This report reflects the work in progress.

Introduction to the French wine sector

Wine is a strategic and emblematic product for France, combining in different ways the local and global dimensions of markets. Indeed the segmentation of the French wine market is based on specific links to local areas, and France still plays a leading role in the global wine market.

Since 2005, French wine production has varied between 50 and 40 million hectolitres per year, from which between 15 and 12 million hectolitres have been exported. As far as the volume is concerned France shares with Spain and

Italy the first ranking position worldwide for both wine production and wine export. However, France remains the leading country in terms of value for both production and export (17% of the world production, 15% of exports), benefiting from higher prices for its wine (OIV, 2013)

Source: own elaboration on data provided by FranceAgriMer, 2013

The strategic role played by wine in the French society reflects many aspects: -Wine provides jobs through 87 400 farms cultivating vine (Agricultural Census 2010). The number of grape growers is declining, but wine production keeps on generating 250 000 direct employments, i.e. 23 % of agricultural labour (AWU). Different studies also suggest that more than 500 000 jobs are linked to the whole wine industry in France (FranceAgriMer 2012). The wine sector is thus work intensive and gives opportunity to maintain employment;

-Wine is also linked to local and regional identities. Vineyards are located in specific areas where producers have defined "specific wine quality" linked to "specific local conditions", both natural (soil, climate) and human (local knowledge…). Wine is thus considered as part of local cultures, leading to develop the French notion of "terroir", recognized by PDO labels. Patrimonial and symbolic dimensions of wine have strong impacts on its value (price).

The quantitative decline of the wine national consumption, a strong competition in the global wine market with "New

World" countries (Australia, USA, Chile, South Africa…) and specific CAP policy (f.i. subsidies for uprooting) led to the decrease of vine area and wine production in volume (but less than in Italy and Spain). Nevertheless the French wine industry remains competitive and creates value through quality strategies. These strategies rely on different production systems and quality signs recognized by consumers:

-French wines are mainly differentiated by Geographical Indications, involving 90% of the vine growers and covering around 80% of the national wine purchases. PDO labels (AOP/AOC) are predominant (50% of purchase), strictly referring to "terroirs", when PGIs reach 28 % of the market, mainly referring to varieties and regions. The production of wines without GI has decreased since 1970 but these wines are finding new markets by taking advantages from their new right to sale variety wine;

-The market segmentation is also based on complementary signs, such as producer's names and trademarks.

References to environmentally friendly practices are also promoted. Different grape production systems are coexisting in each region: conventional (high use of pesticide), reasoned or integrated (reduction of pesticide use according to "observations and needs"), organic (label AB) and biodynamic. Organic viticulture has a growing influence, but remains limited (6% of the area in 2012), when "reasoned viticulture" has extended to a large part of the French Vineyard, but has shown limited impact in terms of pesticide use reduction (Touzard, Pull, 2013).

Wine technical and marketing chains are organized into different steps: i) production of grapes; ii) wine making process which can be developed on farms ("domains", estates), in cooperative cellars (around 50% of the processed www.glamur.eu

The great transformation of the Languedoc-Roussillon vineyard

The French local and global wine chains will be assessed by starting from grape-growers located in the Languedoc-Roussillon vineyard, in the South of France. Until the late 1980s, Languedoc-Roussillon was the first vineyard in Europe, where grape was collected from about 100,000 farms, and processed into basic wine by a large number of local cooperative cellars. 80% of the Languedoc wine production was sold in bulk as "table wine". During the last 30 years, this region has been converting to the production of higher quality wines with two different strategies: French 'Appelation d'Origine Contrôlée' (AOC/PDO) certified wines coming from the upland vineyards, and varietal wines (mainly certified as IGP/PGI) from the flatlands. This radical transition from table wines to quality wines production has been pulled by the decrease of the table wine demand and price, but it has also been accompanied by two EU structural measures, in order to better adapt supply to demand: "up-rooting premium" (PAD) matching the highest yield vines, and "vineyard restructuring premium supporting the plantation of new aromatic varieties. As consequence of this great transformation the Languedoc-Roussillon vineyard reduced by almost 45%from 400 000 ha to about 230,000 ha currently (FranceAgriMer, 2012). www.glamur.eu

Background: case studies

This section presents the four key criteria selected according to their capacity to differentiate local and global chains.

We first explain each criterion in the context of Languedoc wine sector, and then identify specific characteristics of each criterion that could differentiate local and global chains.

Distinction of a "local" and "global" wine chain

In summary, our criteria that distinguish local from global are mentioned in the table below:

1. Physical / geographical distance between producers and consumers The local chain is characterized by a limited number of intermediary stakeholders while the final product presents a defined and recognizable bottle which is sold in cellar or specific wine shops or restaurants. The global chain is characterized by a more intricate and long supply chain where wine is exported in bulk and bottled. The final product can be found principally at retailers' stores.

Physical, geographical distance between producers and consumers

Distance between wine producers and wine consumers are key criteria for GLAMUR. Two objective dimensions of this distance have been chosen: the number of intermediaries and the geographical distance between production and consumption. A wide range of situations can be noted as presented below:

The general structure of the Languedoc wine supply chain has been described by [START_REF] Domergue | La filière vitivinicole en Languedoc-Roussillon. Etat des lieux et évolutions[END_REF] Various categories of actors and transactions have been pointed out in the marketing chains. They noted that the frontiers between production and marketing are often confused because of the development of both "downstream" activities by cooperatives (f.i. investing in selling points) and "upstream" activities by traders (f.i. buying vineyards).

Nevertheless the mass-market remains the major distribution chain for Languedoc wine at national level (around 40% are sold in French supermarkets) and international level (20% exported through long chains). About 20% of the turnover is made through regional sales and around 20% are supplying quality specialized long chains, at national and international scales.

Source :INRA

Governance of the supply chain 1. Organizational model of wine production

Languedoc wines proceed from two main organisational models, divided in two sub-models: a) Private domains: the same economic unit is cultivating grape, making wine and selling wine

• Large scale domains with employees; more than 40 hectares, manager and permanent employees, strategy of asset valorisation, production of quality wines through labels and own trade mark….

• Family domains; mainly between 10 and 40 hectares, strategy of income increasing, innovations carried out by the farmers, helped by professional adviser (chamber of agriculture), production of personified quality wines…. b) Cooperative system: There are different types of cooperatives, according to their size, specialization, quality orientation, business model, management... Cooperatives can also join "federated cooperatives" mainly for marketing issues. Two kinds of cooperative members (grape growers) are noted:

• Full-time grape growers (from 8 to 25 hectares), often directly involved in the cooperative board, aiming at increasing family income, helped by cooperative technicians and professional advisers.

• Small grape growers (less than 8 hectares, generally less than 4 hectares) that are part-timers or retired people, combining social and economic goals, often representing the majority of the cooperative members

Marketing Chain management

Different governance models and flow managements are coexisting in the wine supply chains. We can identify the main actors or structures that control flows of information and value, and capture added-value. The study conducted in 2003 by Jerome Chandes and Dominique Estampe suggests several models of wine marketing chains. Four models can be found in Languedoc:

1. Supply chains driven by the producer who mastered most of the operations, from the grape production to the wine final marketing. This is the case of many reputed wine estates (Domaines or Chateaux) but also of some wine cooperatives managing their own network of sellers in different niche markets.

2. Supply chain driven by supermarkets, final wholesalers or network of wine shops (i.e. Nicolas), through their own brands. This downstream governance is limited to specific market segments or supermarket companies (i.e. Intermarché, Auchan) but has relevant impact on Languedoc vineyard (vertical integration to many cooperatives).

3. Supply chains driven by wholesalers or traders who purchase wine in bulk and develop their own trademark in the international markets, distributing bottled wine in different final chains (supermarkets, wine shops, collective restaurant, hotel chains…)"Grand Chais de France" illustrates this case, in particular by selling variety wine through "JP Chenet" trade mark.

4. Supply chains co-driven by producers and traders at regional scale through "marketing boards". Champagne illustrates this case, which is not really developed in Languedoc (weakness of the "wine interprofessions")

Category of wine quality

Languedoc vineyard has a specific profile. In contrast to the national level, Languedoc IGP/PGI vines cover a larger area (61%) than PDO/AOC vines (31%). It results a diversified market structure (in volume) offering 56% of IGP/PGI wines (including 45% IGP Pays d'Oc), 21% of PDO / AOC wines, and 23% of wines without GIs (STG).

We consider the three main categories of wines in our study: Pays d'Oc PGI, Languedoc PDO, and wine without GI. Pays d'Oc is the most important category of wine in Languedoc, and the main French PGI label. The label is used in order to guarantee the regional origin of "variety wines" (32 authorized varieties proceeding from different French regions or recently created by research). Pays d'Oc wines are mainly distributed in global chains. About 60% are exported and Switzerland is its 7th importer country (29 113 hl in bottle and 71 386 hl in bulk in 2011). The national PGI market is driven by a few retailers (Grand Chais de France…) and supermarkets. Small stores, cafes and restaurants are supplied by non-specialized retailers (such as distriboisson or C10) or in few cases by direct marketing chains. PDO wines are produced by about 30% of the Languedoc wine-growers and grape-growers (in many cases in addition to Pays d'Oc). PDO label indicates that the wine comes from traditional varieties and that all stages of process are located in the same delimited area (the "terroir") giving specific characteristics to the wine (INAO, 2012). About 40% of Languedoc PDO wines are directly exported, 30% are providing French supermarkets and 30% are sold in traditional or short chains (direct sale, restaurants, specialized stores…). (table wine) in France, correspond to basic wines, blended, sold in bulk and paid according to its alcohol degree. The production is decreasing but remains relevant for some cooperatives located in plains (high yields). Small volumes are locally sold to local consumers (members of coop).

Mode of handling: Packaging

As far as the first sale is concerned (from domains or cooperatives), three kinds of packaging may be distinguished: wines sold in bulk, wine sold in bottle, wine sold in Bag in Box (BIB). These types of packaging are coexisting in the global market.

The market in bulk is mainly supplied by cooperatives, collected by traders (French or foreign firms) and bottled near the main consumers centres (north, west or east of France, other countries). There are at least two intermediaries. All labels are sold in bulk, but TSG (99%) and PGI (85%) wines are first concerned (about half part for PDO volume).

Direct market in bulk is less developed in Languedoc than in other regions (f.i. in Loire valley) and is limited to a few direct selling from cooperatives.

Wines locally bottled and sold in the global market are supplying "specialized markets", with higher qualities and prices. Bottling "on farm", "on cooperative cellar" or "in Languedoc" is seem as a complementary guarantee of origin and quality (vintage) and as a potential source of additional benefit. Bottling in the wine production area is imposed by some PDO code of practices. In fact bottles are necessary tools to conserve wines for long period, including at home. They provide local markets for all kinds of labels, especially local restaurant where "opening a bottle of wine" is a strong tradition. BIB (Bag in Box) is a more recent packaging used for basic and intermediary wines, labelled as TSG, PGI or PDO.

Scope of the value chains under study

Our preliminary analysis of the wine sector leads to choose a pair of chains in the Languedoc-Roussillon region. This region includes a wide range of wines (according to their quality, packaging, price), distributed through both "local" chains (sales on farm or to local restaurants and stores), and "global" chains (export and national market, supermarkets). Languedoc remains the first French vineyard in terms of volume and surface (236500 ha in 2010) and the third in value (after Champagne and Bordeaux). Languedoc vineyard includes 2700 private domains processing their grape and selling their wine, and 211 wine cooperatives (70% of the regional production of wine) supplied by 18 000 grape growers [START_REF] Agreste | Languedoc-Roussillon 2013 : Caves particulières[END_REF].

As in the GLAMUR DoW it is required that some global case studies are conducted in common, and that the volumes of Swiss wine sold abroad are really low, both countries decided to analyse a common global supply chain of French wine exported to Switzerland. Moreover, specific local supply chains have been identified in both countries and described. Therefore, concerning the definition of both chains it is important to highlight the following characteristics:

Presentation of the case study

Global wine chain: Wine from Languedoc-Roussillon to Switzerland

For the global chain we will take the case of export market, in bulk and bottle. We focus on export from Languedoc to Switzerland, after having checked that these flows were important. More than 100 000 hectolitres per year have been exported to Switzerland (during the last 5 years) and this country belongs to the top ten importer countries of Languedoc wines. The first quick analysis (expert interview)2 confirm that many actors are involved in these (long) chains and that two subcategories of global wine chains can be identified:

-Wine sold in bulk by cooperatives and unions of cooperatives and imported by wholesalers and distributors from Switzerland. These wines are produced by grape grower members of the cooperative. The wine is sold in bulks to French and Swiss traders, wholesalers and bottlers (e.g. LGCF group, Schenk, Bataillard, Scherer&Bühler or HaeckyGruppe). These importers provide other wholesalers non-specialized in wine, like retailers and supermarket.

The wine is sold under the retailer's brand combined with a geographical indication (PDO/IGP) or the label "Vin de France" mentioned on the bottle.

-The export market specialized in bottled wine mobilizes other operators within the global chain. Bottled wine is thus sold on the global market by wine estates and cooperatives. Production strategy enhances the quality image and the link with the "terroir" is identified by the labels DOP or PGI or suggested by the name of the producer. Swiss operators provide specialized stores and restaurants.

French local wine chain

In Languedoc, local chains apparently have a weak position in the whole wine market (less than 20% of the volume).

However, direct sales at the cellar are traditional practices and are increasing in terms of volume, according to the last agricultural census. Local chains are characterized by i) a limited number of intermediaries, ii) geographical proximity between production and consumption (in the same region), iii) recognition of the local identity/origin of the wine, through relevant label (on the bottle) or reliable information given by the wine growers.

Wine tourism could be considered part of these local chains, even if the bottles of wine are not always drunk in the region. Wine tourism is defined by all the services provided to tourists in the vineyards (winery visits, tastings, accommodations, catering and secondary activities connected to the wine and to regional traditions) (Bussereau, 2007).

In our study, we identify wine "local chains" as chains located in the Hérault department, one of the four wine departments of the administrative Languedoc-Roussillon region. We will focus on the wine produced in "family domain", even if small cooperatives also sell wine to local consumers. We will give priority to PDO wines, proceeding from "local" varieties like Syrah, Carignan, Grenache, and Mourvèdre...but we will also take into account other signs of local identity, including direct acknowledgment of the producer by the consumers. The head city of Herault department is Montpellier agglomeration (400 000 inhabitants). We will focus on two local chains: direct selling on the domain (to local people or tourists); and short chains providing wine to stores and restaurants in Montpellier.

Quality guarantees implied in the PDO and PGI labels are substituted with interpersonal relations between consumers and producers, allowing them to judge and know the quality of the wine sold. Vine growers are interested in value the link to the place, "territory" and "terroir", local resources and know-how (traditional grape varieties, landscapes, networks, customers).

Main critical issues of the local and global chains

The main issues3 related to the wine supply chains reflect for both countries the current situation of the sector as well as the future challenges to overcome. These issues are listed below and they were used to select the indicators listed in the next section.

• Pesticides and fertilizers used to obtain high yields

• Impact on human health from pesticides and fertilizers

• Soil quality and preservation

• Management of water resources

• Biodiversity of grapes and surrounding plants

Research Design: research questions and indicators

Research Questions, Specific objectives

Due to the high number of research questions listed by each country, we transformed them into research objectives which will be easier to analyse for our case study. These are listed below: 1. To analyse the main structures, interrelationships and complementarities between the global and local supply chains for both countries taking into account nature of upstream and downstream relations.

2. To examine along the whole supply chain the main performance issues related to diversified attributes and topics such as : Creation and distribution of added value, Governance, Information and communication, Biodiversity, Pollution, Resource use, Food safety, Territoriality

Attributes and Indicators selection and contextualizing

Attributes and indicators are considered as the most relevant and available to be declined into indicators. These attributes have been defined by first using the common GRID of indicators of GLAMUR and the guidelines of SAFA.

After a first comprehensive analysis we completed them through a literature review and some inputs from others references 4 to bring all consistent and significant regarding the GLAMUR objectives and our specific research questions.

The exchanges between the French team and the Swiss team allowed achieving a final list of 8 attributes and 20 indicators. Different sources have been used to define the indicators and develop a measurement strategy adapted to available data and to the specificities of wine chains actors.

Three indicators were created specifically for the case study.

Indicator

Source Definition

Market management

Global value chain analysis (Gereffi et al., 2005) Assessed through the level of difficulty to enter the chain, according to actors and formally (guidelines...). Proxy to assess the exclusion/inclusion capacity of the chain.

Social cohesion and

Conviviality

Rural sociology

World Food programme [START_REF] Fonte | Symbolic and social aspects in the working of food systems[END_REF] Socio-cultural relations and externalities linked with food chains, contributing to create social cohesion Assessed through the number and type of socio-cultural events favoured by the chain Association of product with territory [START_REF] Degenne | Introducing social network[END_REF] And FAO (Vandecandelaere et al., 2009) It refers to the capability of a supply chain to strengthen links between product, local actors and the territory. Two aspects of this indicator: (i) Measures the ability of the chain to connect producers, consumers and local actors and, (ii) identify specific characteristics of the product which make it linked to the territory (natural resources, tradition, competencies and know-how).

Table 5 presents indicators selected to assess the performance of local and global wine chains in Languedoc-Roussillon. .glamur.eu

Contextualizing and benchmarking of the indicators

First, we identified with the Swiss team, a set of indicators to answer the research questions and illustrate the performance levels for each dimensions defined by the GLAMUR framework.

In a second step we searched in the scientific and technical literature, criteria related to performance indicators for our study area. These criteria are either practices or outcomes, or impacts. Indicators provided by FAO in the SAFA guide are difficult to evaluate because non-adapted to the wine sector and the French context. We redefined a way to evaluate indicators using existing references and field observations. The key question for assessing indicators was:

What kind of data must we collect to measure each indicator?

In a third step we defined the benchmarks for each indicator. We conducted research on "best practices" and benchmark data to compare results and get a performance score in percentage.

Performance evaluation approach

For understanding the "final performance matrix" (ANNEX 1), we would provide details on the construction of the indicators and the selection of benchmarks.

For qualitative indicators

As we specified previously, qualitative indicators are evaluated according to several criteria. Criteria are mainly practices that impact the performance we are evaluating. Criteria we asses are not actor's perceptions, they represent how actors manage theirs activities and how practices impact on supply chain performances. The benchmarks' construction is based on a rating system of the performance criteria. Criteria are selected if they influence directly, positively or negatively indicators trend. Low effect practices and not significant effects not appear in the indicator performance ranking.

For quantitative indicators

The primary data collected is compared to the reference value recognized as relevant to the context and the type of product.

Two different quantitative benchmarks are mobilized in this study:

-an absolute value reference: a fixed value determined by a standard or scientific recommendations (e.g. amount of sulphites in 1 litter of wine)

-A relative value reference: a regional average, a trend Remarks on benchmarks method: benchmarks construction should avoid certain situations to remain representative of the observed situations: It is important to base the performance evaluation on a representative number of criteria. In this study, we consider between 2 and 10 performance criteria per indicator.

The approach we developed was presented and discussed with a panel of stakeholders/experts involved in local and global wine chains in Languedoc-Roussillon during a workshop session.

Expert Workshop : Methodology feedback

As suggested by the guidelines for the Participatory Checklist Method (PCM), other methodological tools have been used to build a strong methodology of performance assessment:

As far as feedback mechanisms are concerned, both teams suggest organizing a workshop or "focus group" including representative actors from the chain. This workshop was prepared jointly by the two teams. Participants were informed in advance of the objectives and topics to be discussed during the focus group, by sending a working document (focus group guide). The aim was to encourage participants to think about the research questions, the attributes/topics and the related indicators. It is a condition to ensure the quality of the group discussions and the data collection.

We asked them to :

1. Assess the relevance of attributes and indicators selected for wine case study 2. Identify among the final indicator list, those relevant to distinguish local from global chains performances.

3. Assess relevance of benchmark sources we selected and the method to rank performances.

The table below shows the list of experts we consulted in order to validate indicators and benchmarks process.

Table 6: List of expert for the benchmarks of indicators and critical review of preliminary results

NAME OF THE EXPERT ORGANIZATION AREA OF EXPERTISE

Final methodological matrix

The final performance matrix (Annex 1), shows the indicators and benchmarks construction process. We thus calculate indicators performances, presenting in the part 5. Results.

The collection of secondary data was an important iterative process in order to define and describe the wine chains, and to choose benchmarks or references. The benchmarks were selected according to criteria of data quality and correspondence with the indicators we assess. Nevertheless, it remains difficult to mobilize all secondary data due to i)a lack of control and reliability on all sources, and ii) the difficulty to clearly distinguish local aspects from global aspects. In many cases the categorization of information reflects other dimensions than local and global, such as the wine quality model (f.i. PGI vs PDO), crop systems (organic vs conventional), the location or size of firms

List of main documents used to complete data collection

Expert interviews

We supported the collection of primary and secondary material by interviewing experts on Languedoc-Roussillon wine industry. They helped usto specify the factors on which our team had not enough information, and to develop a critical analysis on the factors that can differentiate local and global chains.

Main

Data analysis and ranking

Based on the final matrix (ANNEX 1), the scores are calculated for each indicator, and converted into a performance percentage between 0% and 100%. Performances highly dependent on selected benchmarks. We conducted an inventory of practices which impact on biodiversity at the level of the vineyard. It appeared that the relevant scale of observation was the farm. Including cropping systems of vines and other plant and animal species. Among all the possible criteria, we selected those for which data was available. For the indicator "Species conservation practices", 10 "good practices" were selected result of the construction process.  Benchmarks method: Each criterion is associated with a value, a score. We applied different scoring depending on the criteria describing the indicator: 1) Boolean notation (0 or 1 point) for presence of absence of the practice or other criteria. 2) Rating on a scale ranging from 0 to n, n is the degree of impact on the indicator. and global chains. The regional rate of direct subsidies is about 20% of the farms turnover (FranceAgrimer, 2013).  Performance ranking : For this indicator, the target performance is a compromise between reduction of direct subsidies and ability to finance investments. 100% of performance is considering when actors not require subsidies. For performance calculation, we compare the average value of direct subsidies for actors of the chain to the regional average (20%). The Chain performance Rate correspond to : 100% -(Rate of subsidies / benchmarks). 100% of performance = 0% of direct subsidies We followed the SAFA approach and translated all quantitative and qualitative scores in percentage scores of performance.

Source : WP3 Case study Guideline-GLAMUR project, 2014

Data quality check for primary and secondary data

The criteria for data quality control are representativeness, reliability and pertinence. In order to check the quality of data stability, equivalence and homogeneity, we use the pedigree matrix approach (Ciroth, 2012;Lewandowska, 2004).The data quality score (DQD) is calculated for each data, allowing to estimate a global data quality. We had also to consider an "adequate period" for the data collection. In order to ensure temporal correlation between our result and the situation observed, we verified and adjusted some of the oldest information, helped by the experts, and a specific workshop we organized with them at INRA Montpellier. The data quality remains heterogeneous according to the sources, but we reached to provide a globally good representation of many indicators of the wine chains. See in Annex 2 the Data Quality check matrix.

Results

•

In 2012 Languedoc wine producers income was € 18,000 per year per worker. This is lower than the national average income in the wine industry, about 40 000 €. Current economic context is more favourable to the PGI bulk market. Red wine PGI price reach € 100 / hl and can be produced through a yield, between 80 and 100 hectolitres per hectare that means an income between € 19,000 and € 24,000 per worker.

•

The global bottled wine market generates higher variability in farm incomes, than in the case of global bulk chain. Costs are higher and yield lower (up to 50 hectolitres per hectare in the case of PDO wine). Average income can be estimated between € 15,000 and € 22,000 € per year per worker. Nevertheless some successful wine domains exceed 30 000 €.

•

Income proceeding from the local chains are close to the preceding case, i.e. between € 15 000 and € 20 000. The cost and time induced by direct marketing is often higher than the gain provided by the better prices, which are proven for on farm selling, but not for purchase to restaurants.

• Incomes are impacted by high indebtedness due to recent investment in equipment for production and marketing.

Sensitivity to subsidies

No Local chain>Global

•

Average subsidy in Languedoc wine sector is about 20% of the farms turnover, that is low in the French agriculture context (FranceAgriMer, 2013) • Different kinds of subsidies are mentioned. Pillar 1 (wine CMO), 2nd pillar and specific national or regional subsidies mainly for export marketing, equipment and recently irrigation. Wine tourism projects or Cooperative cellars benefit from specific aids;

• Some wine growers have chosen not to benefit from subsidies in order to keep autonomy (financial, energy, decision).

Distribution of added value across the chain

Yes

Local chain>Global chains

•

In both local and global chains the final price includes material and immaterial inputs (costs) and the sum of added values captured by the direct actors of the chain (workers, state and owner of production factors). The distribution of value between costs and added value (at each step), and then between direct actors according to their location is not always easy. We evaluated the main points, following experts and case study references.

•

In the local chains the added value is captured i) by the wine producer family (about 40% of final price, low investment in logistics, labour intensive), and ii) by local and national government (22% of final price).

•

In the global bulk chain, the strategy "cost / volume" is developed by stakeholders. The added value is mainly captured by actors controlling logistics, marketing and retailing (about 30%) and by taxes (22%). Grape growers (10%) and cooperative (5%) have lowest parts (referring to final wine volume). Operational margins of traders are also low comparing to other companies (5%).

•

In the global bottled wine chain, the variability of added value distribution is high, according to price negotiation process. Reputation results from a long process of investment, networking, communication and can provide market opportunities and improve product value.

• The location of bottling has impact on the distribution of added value.

Contribution to employment

Yes Local>Global

•

The local chain is labour-intensive, including family labour and permanent or temporary employees. High Indirect impact on employment in service providers (production, winemaking, bottling) and tourism.

•

Cooperatives and wine growers mainly work with local traders and mobile bottling chains.

•

In the global chain wine in is sale in bulk from cooperatives: Half of the volume of bulk wine production is based on a significant level of mechanization, in production (mechanized harvesting), pruning and irrigation. One man and one tractor, are expected for 25 hectares, leading to increase the labour productivity in volume;

• Indirect jobs (related to mechanization, maintenance, service providers…) have been created, but in a more extensive way of production

•

The global bottled wine chain is driven by the local wine producer, who progressively built his portfolio of buyers. ) 80-90% of the wine production is bottled. Diversity marketing strategies are observed, combining contracts with importers, participation to international fairs, e-marketing… In fact we observe in these domains different ratios local / national / international distribution channels (diversification of chains)

•
The global bulk wine chain: is dominated by 3 large buyers in Languedoc (Castel, LGCDF and Val d'Orbieu). "These biggest buyers make the price" and wine cooperatives face difficulty to manage their own chain in the bulk market.

•

To reach the international mass market the wine supply must be regular and offering sufficient volume (basic and premium wine).

•

About 50% of the wine cellars (mainly coops, but also some private) specialized in bulk wine Traders can be independent or salaried of one the biggest buyers. Their efficiency relies on their capacity to build network and trust. Trading takes 5-10% of the wine price. traders / buyers need volume, anticipation in March / April and discussion with coop on wine quantity and quality; • Negotiation with the buyers is complicated, but the rules are respected".

Fraud management within the chain

No

Local equivalent to Global

•

Fraud on the origin and the quality are very rare, because of strong controls, and collective interest in building local reputation of wines (long term strategies). 4 kinds of controls are coexisting: i) internal (coop), ii) collective by the wine producer's organisations (PDO or PGI association), iii) by a third (private) part that allows the official guaranties for the labels, iv) by the States (specific agency working on fraud control). Some fraud cases have been discovered, less than one per year for the large frauds (fi importing wine from Spain and selling it as Languedoc wine, one case 4 years ago)

Market management

Yes

Global bottled chain>Local chain=Global bulk chain

• Languedoc wine domains combine at least two different distribution channels. The higher profitability is observed in the domains that sell about 25-30% of their production at the cellar, and more than 30-40% in export markets. That means a more complex market management •

The evolution of exchange rate and the price volatility affect the competitiveness of global chains (better situation for one year).

•

Local chains are also innovating in their differentiation strategy, combining different ways of communication, often supported by local community (fi wine routes).

•

Competition on local (regional) market is strong: referencing building a regular clientele, selling off the stock, and negotiations with restaurant… are very difficult and time consuming. The Languedoc local market covers about 2 million hectolitres (including tourists) over 12-14 million....

•

The peri-urban producers benefit from the proximity of the city in accessing to local markets. Local government also support export of wines. In global bottled chain, we found limited differences with the local chain: wine producers (or managers) are less involved in local associations, but more involved in wine unions, /professional associations, such as the Languedoc AOC association.

•

In the global bulk chains, involvement in cooperative administration and Interprofession-PGI. (In large coop. Cooperation is not systematic)

•

We note that the highest density of interaction/cooperation can be found in small wine cooperatives oriented to both local and global quality wine chains (case of Montpeyroux). In local chains, consumers can access to various information on wine, by directly asking the winemaker. In the global bulk chains, the product is designed by few information: the brand (JP Chenet), the price, the "vin de pays d'Oc" label and some limited information on variety and contents (alcohol, sulphites…). In the global bulk chains, the AOC label can be connected with numerous information about the wine and its terroir, history, landscapes, producers…

•

Local and global bottled wine chains implement similar practices in the management of biodiversity, such as keeping the production of "traditional" vine varieties or preserving the floristic diversity.

•

Grape growers involved in bulk chain are also changing their production practices. Wine cooperatives have adopted code of practices including environmental friendly measures.

•

The three chains have seven common criteria on a total of 10.

Cultivars diversity

No Local equivalent to global bottled > global bulk chain

•

Global chains tend to reduce the number of cultivated varieties in order to adapt the production to the international demand in mass market (BIG 5). The "global ideal chain could promote 5-6 varieties resistant to diseases".

•

Local chains tend to maintain traditional vine varieties. In some local wine organisations the willingness to create a wider range of ancient and recent varieties.

•

Local and global bottled wine chains are linked to the same practices, resulting from the application of PDO rules which recently include the opportunity to add "old varieties".

The degradation of biodiversity at local scale is linked to the intensification of agricultural practices, the use of high amount of pesticides, the fragmentation of habitats (Le Roux et al. 2008). Plots and surrounding areas account for up to 90% of the biodiversity in wine production areas. On the cultivated area, impact on biodiversity depends more on the adoption of integrated, organic or biodynamic practices than on the choice of local vs global chains. Discussion with producers in local and global chain indicate that a reflection on biodiversity is engaged in both cases.

LOCAL CHAIN GLOBAL BOTTLED CHAIN GLOBAL BULK CHAIN

•

In local chains, the willingness to reduce negative impacts on environment is emphasised and the use of hydrocarbons is low, resulting from limited logistic operations, even if GHG emission by consumers can be higher than in the other chains (wine tourism could be questioned on this point)..

•

In global bulk chains, transport in bulk reduces GHG emissions, but it depends on i) the location of the bottling operation (bottling in Bordeaux and then exporting to Swiss strongly reduces the mitigation), ii) the distance between production and consumption, iii) the weight/type of the bottles (lightweight bottles);

•

In the global bottled wine chains, the distance could be shorter than in the bulk chain (this is the case in our study with Switzerland), but the transport of small volume by truck is less sustainable.

GHG emissions at production stage Yes

Local>Global bottled chain>Global bulk chain

•

In local and global bottled wine chains the winemakers tend to implement organic agriculture, more concerned by mitigation, soil management.

•

The most discriminant criteria is the rate of mechanization, for production and harvest stages. Global bulk chains focus on mechanization, while local chains develop manual practices. We note that global bottled wine chains have intermediary position for the use of pesticides and the rate of mechanization.

•

All chains are using local and regional input sourcing, for instance for vine plants. Some producers, from local and global wine chains are importing input from Spain or Italy.

Environmental pollution mitigation practices

Yes

Local>Global bulk chain=Global bottled chain

•

Environmental pollution refers to the impacts of local and global chains on soil, water and air. On the 8 criteria assessed, limitation of chemicals and fertilizers use and soil's protection practices are differentiating local and global chains.

•

Organic or Biodynamic practices (and labels) have been adopted in both local and global chains, contributing to the reduction of pollution.

•

In global chains, more precisely in cooperatives cellars, the implementation of organic agriculture at a large scale is complex and less coherent with the "cost/volume" strategy.

Figure 13 : Performances of the chains for attribute Pollution

Viticulture is one of the crops which consume the highest volume of pesticides (Aubertot et al., 2005). Vaporisation of chemical products spread out in the atmosphere, loosing from 25%to 90% of applied pesticide (Bedos et al., 2002).

Nevertheless the wine industry has limited impact on GHG emission and has started to implement mitigation measures, notably in Bordeaux, Bourgogne and Champagne vineyards (CIVB, 2014). Kerner and Rochard (2007) Other discriminant criteria on food safety may be found, but the data collection on the components quantities or the non-respect of rules/norms, requires a specific research.

Attribute Territoriality (Social Dimension)

Indicators and sub-indicators

Local bottled wine chain Global bottled wine chain Global bulk wine chain

Social cohesion and Conviviality

90% 70% 80%

Association of product with territory 75% 50% 38%

Conclusion

In France, one of the main environmental policy objective is to divide a half the use of pesticides in agriculture and viticulture before 2018 (but recently revised to… 2050!), to promote organic production and to develop new environmental standards (but recently weakening of some of these proposals). Global chains may be more concerned by this measure than local ones, because of highest yields and input consumption. In all chains, actors are taken into account the climate change issue (growing water stress and need), and advocate for a "smart management" of water in viticulture

The land occupation strategy is organized between the bulk and wine for the local market and export bottle. The bulk occupies a large part of surfaces and strongly impacts on the landscape. The wine for the local market is often associated with wine tourism. Efficiency of controls on food safety is different but lead to similar performance all chains. It results from the high level of organization and control of the wine industry (historically due to alcohol issue, but also to the need of quality control and guarantee). A large number of winemakers and wine cooperatives in the Languedoc-Roussillon combine the three models of wine commercialisation presented in this study case. Diversification of market strategies could be considered as allowing, a better adaptation to market fluctuations and demand, and building links with the territory.

The market access in global chains is based on criteria of quality / price ratio, traceability, flexibility and responsiveness. The Languedoc wine supply offers different ratios of quality / price, corresponding to different segments. In the lowest price segments (at least 2/3 of the whole wine production), the price volatility is important and margins are low. In the highest quality segments, including the local and global bottled wine chains, price are more stable reflecting the impact of the territorial governance. This study case shows that chains performances are closely linked with their governance organization: following Gereffi typology of governance models (2005), the global bulk chain considered in this study case appears to be based on the 'captive' model, driven by customers. Local chains can be analysed as hybrids between the 'market' and the 'relational' models.

On local market, wine value is attached to the Terroir specificities, to proximity to consumption places. The analysis of chains contribution to local social externalities show that both local and global chains have positive and complementary impacts on territorial project, territorial identity, territorial economy, territory attractiveness.

Local and global market of PDO wines require from the producers to search visibility for their products and to invest on oenology and marketing capabilities. The development of markets opportunities mobilize organization from local to regional scale. Interprofession and producers associations play a role in the definition of a collective strategy to access to global market. In the Gereffi typology, governance of global bottled PDO wines correspond to the "modular" governance model.

Remuneration of actors specialized in the bulk wine production depend on their ability to produce important wine quantities and to correspond to clients specifications. The mechanization of production and harvest process are a way for grape growers/cooperatives to reduce production costs and intensify production. The creation of added value in the bulk chain is not based on wine "Terroir", but on the ability of producers organizations to organize themselves and propose a standardize offer. Market management is driven by customers, principally international firms.

Performance assessment through attributes and indicators remains a static approach even if the sub-indicators we chose are mainly qualitative and focused on practices, thus are a way to highlight strategies. Nevertheless, the final report makes little place for a more comprehensive approach of performance, in which factors, drivers of good results are detailed. The main critics at the current stage may concern the definition of benchmarks as far as those ones appear as different according to previous works or experts. For a large part of indicators, we have not been in a

Figure 1 :

 1 Figure 1 : Evolution of the total area in the Languedoc-Roussillon vineyard .......................................

Figure 2 :

 2 Figure 2 : Evolution of average yield in Hérault department ................................................................

Figure 3 :

 3 Figure 3 : Map of the Languedoc PDO and PGI vineyard .....................................................................

Figure 4 :

 4 Figure 4 : Scope of the Global Bulk Wine Chain .....................................................................................

Figure 5 :

 5 Figure 5 : Geographic scope of the global bulk wine chain ..................................................................

Figure 6 :

 6 Figure 6 : Scope of the Global Bottled Wine Chain ................................................................................

Figure 7 :

 7 Figure 7 : Geographic scope of the global bottled wine chain .............................................................

Figure 8 :

 8 Figure 8 : Summary of the chains performances assessment ..................................................................

Figure 9 :

 9 Figure 9 : Chains Performances according to the attribute creation and distribution of added value ............................................................................................................................................................................

Figure 10 :

 10 Figure 10 : Performances of the chains for Governance attribute ........................................................

Figure 11 :

 11 Figure 11 : Key information given to consumers .......................................................................................

Figure 12 :

 12 Figure 12 : Distribution of environmental practices within the chains ....................................................

Figure 13 :

 13 Figure 13 : Performances of the chains for attribute Pollution ...............................................................

Figure 14 :

 14 Figure 14 : Food safety standards and controls practices within the chains .......................................

Figure 15 :

 15 Figure 15 : Chain performances for the attribute "Territoriality" .........................................................

  and structure of the report This case study report presents the results on the performance of local and global wine chains. The case study is carried out by INRA but proceeds from a collective work with the FIBL team. Two local and two global chains are analysed in France. The two local chains (LC) consider wines produced, bottled and sold in the surroundings of

-

  In 2012, wine and spirits provided 9.5 billion euros of surplus for the French trade balance, becoming the second best item after aeronautics. Wine is thus a basic sector for the French economy, injecting value from outside. This role is strengthened by externalities on other economic activities linked to tourism, gastronomy and culture. Wine is one of the main attributes cited by foreigners to qualify the French attractiveness (Bastian, 2008); -Vine plays a specific role in land and landscape management. Vine covers 788 700 ha, among which 771 500 ha are dedicated to wines (Agricultural Census 2010). This area covers 2.6 % of the French Agricultural land and contributes to 15% of the agricultural production in value. Wine is thus an intensive production that maintains economic activity in rural areas, sometimes very far from cities and economic centres. Vineyards also have positive impacts on landscape and on reduction of fire risks in south of France;

  grapes in France) or by wineries (buying grapes, mainly in Champagne); iii) storage (on farm, in cooperative cellar or in traders cellars; iv) filling (bulk, bottle or Bag In Box); v) marketing through different ways and retailers; vi) place of purchase and/or consumption (on farms, restaurant, stores, Super Markets…). 1/3 of the French wines are bottled on the property and about 2/3 are commercialized through retailers. A wide diversity of chains are thus co-existing, from direct sales (including wine tourism) and local supply chains of restaurants, to global chains exporting both basic wine in bulk to super markets and bottles of "icon" wine sale in specialized stores.

Figure 1 :Figure 1 :

 11 Figure 1: Evolution of the vine area in Languedoc Roussillon : 1800 -2010

Figure 2 :

 2 Figure 2 : Evolution of average yield in Hérault department

2 .

 2 Governance of the supply chain 3. Category of wine quality 4. Mode of handling and packaging Year Yield (hl/Ha)

Figure 3 :

 3 Figure 3 : Map of the Languedoc PDO and PGI vineyard

Table 2 :Figure 4 :Figure 5 :Figure 6 :Figure 7 :

 24567 Figure 4 : Scope of the Global Bulk Wine Chain



  Direct sale at the cellar (private cellar) to local consumers and tourists,  Sell to one local intermediary, (restaurants, territory specialized stores, specialized events) commercializing the products in Hérault. Table 3 : Description of the two selected local chains selection criteria LOCAL CHAIN Representative study area Region of production: Hérault department (Languedoc-Roussillon) Type of product Still wine, red wine, local vine varieties Organization mode for the wine production Domains making wine on farm Domains making wine on farm, Geographic situation / wine category hillside and PDO/AOC Languedoc hillside and PDO/AOC Languedoc Packaging bottle Bottle (and bulk / BIB) Distribution chain Sale to restaurants and specialized stores in Montpellier Direct sale on farm, to local consumers

Figure 6 :Figure 7 :

 67 Figure 6: Scope of the Local Wine Chain

FarmersFarmers

  Share of commercial margin obtained by the actors at each stage of the food chain.Producers and consumersContribution to employmentNumber of jobs in equivalent full time at each production difficulty to enter the chain, according to actors. Commercial management: How the market is managed by actors of the supply chain in order to be resilient and types of waste along the chain linked with actor's practices. Checks the presence of each type of waste or wasting the product to the territory, such as an appellation of origin. Frequency and type of meeting with local actors and consumers.



  Evaluation method: We use sources and references proposed by FAO, French Ministry of Agriculture, research centres (INRA, CIRAD).

Example 2 :

 2 Quantitative indicator  Attribute: Creation and distribution of Added Value  Indicator "Reduction of direct subsidies"  Unit: Qualitative, Ordinal  Indicator measure: Regarding which data was available for each type of chain, we decide to measure the annual amount of direct subsidies for wine production actors (producers and cooperatives) divide by the turnover. This indicator show the subsidies' contribution to the economic result.  Benchmark: We use the Average subsidy in Languedoc wine sector in 2013 to compare with values of local

Figure 8

 8 Figure 8 present in a graph the rate of performance of each chain for all indicators. The performance area covered by the local chain is larger than those associated with the global chains. Strong differentiation is observed between the chains for the following attributes: pollution, information and communication, distribution of value added. Results are organized following the order of the indicators list and regrouped per attribute.

Figure 8

 8 Figure 8 : Summary of the chains performances assessment

Figure 9 :

 9 Figure 9 : Chains Performances according to the attribute creation and distribution of added value

Figure•

  Figure 10 : Performances of the chains for Governance attribute

Figure 11 :

 11 Figure 11 : Key information given to consumers

Figure 12 :

 12 Figure 12 : Distribution of environmental practices within the chains

Figure 15 :

 15 Figure 15 : Chain performances for the attribute "Territoriality"

  of strategies to enter the market (reducing device and risk sharing: Engaging consumers, producers' organization around a logistical platform, resource pooling, long winter crop cycles) of trading partner change 5. yes/no (yes = 1 point) 6. Customer relationship formalized by a contract 6. yes/no (yes = 1 point) 7. access to relevant information for pricing 7. yes/no (yes = 1 point) 8.capacity to fix or negotiate the sale price 8.yes/no (yes = 1 point) 9.long-term commitment with an agreed minimum price 9.yes/no (yes = 1 point) 10.availability of mediation systems / communication between farmers and clients 10.yes/no (yes =

Table 1 : Table of key dimensions for the distinction "local" and "global"Table 2 :

 12 Detail of the selected global chains X

Table 3 :

 3 Description of the two selected local chains

Table 4 :

 4 Description of new indicators specifically created for the case study

Table 5 :

 5 Final grid of indicators

Table 7 :

 7 List of expert for the benchmarks of indicators and critical review of preliminary results27

Table 9 :

 9 Sources and method for data collection

  . France is also the first wine consumption market (purchases of 30 million hectolitres in 2012), mainly supplied by national production, and only by 5 million hectolitres of imported wines. French average consumption per inhabitant reaches 50 litres per year in 2012, one of the highest levels in the

world (behind Vatican), but resulting from an important decrease since 1970, when French people used to drink around 120 litres per year. French wine consumption dramatically changed during last 40 years, shifting from daily cheap red table wine, to less frequent drink of quality (and more expensive) wines.

Graph 1 : Volumes of wine production, import and export, France, since 2002

Table 1 : Table of key dimensions for the distinction "local" and "global" KEY-DIMENSION LOCAL GLOBAL PHYSICAL, GEOGRAPHICAL DISTANCE BETWEEN PRODUCERS AND CONSUMERS

 1

			Production, process in	Production, process,
		Production, process bottling and	L-R, bottling in	bottling in Languedoc-
		distribution in Languedoc,	Bordeaux and	Roussillon and
		Montpellier area.	distribution in bottle in	distribution in
			Switzerland	Switzerland
	ORGANIZATIONAL MODEL AND MANAGEMENT OF THE SUPPLY CHAIN	Production model: Family and large scale domains making wine on farm 1 local intermediary Direct sell at between producer the cellar and consumer	Production model: Grape-growers, cooperatives, federated marketing coop Switzerland supermarkets	Production model: Large scale domains with employees making wine on farm Specialized stores, restaurants
		(not supermarkets)
	PRODUCT QUALITY			Hillside; PDO/AOC
	LINK WITH TERRITORY	hillside and PDO Languedoc	plain ; PGI Pays d'Oc	Languedoc (& organic wine)
	MODE OF PACKAGING	Bottle	Bulk	Bottle

•

  Climate change impact, which makes the preservation of ancient varieties difficult • Energy footprint and fuel consumption • Fraudulent activities (mix of different type of wines not announced in the packaging to increase benefits) that affect traceability of the final product • The role of State government as well as GI bodies in leading multiple and strict controls • Food quality link with nutritional values (contents of polyphenols) and alcohol consumption • Working condition and producers' livelihoods

Table 4

 4 describe sources and gives a definition of these indicators

Table 4 : Description of new indicators specifically created for the case study

 4

References for secondary data

	Bockstaller C. Guichard L., Makowski D., Aveline A., Girardin P. & Plantureux S., 2008. Agri-environmental indicators
	to assess cropping and farming systems. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 28, pp 139-149.
	14 p.
	organisation	Expert names	Method of data collection	Chain concerned	Indicators concerned
	FranceAgriMer	Laurent Mayoux	semi-structured Interview	Local and Global	Descriptive indicators Rate of Subsidies
	Coop de France Languedoc	Boris Calmette	semi-structured Interview	Global bulk chain	Global Food Chain approach, economic expertise
	Coop de France Languedoc	Bernard Augé	semi-structured Interview	Global bulk chain	Global Food Chain approach, economic expert

Renaud C., Benoit M., Thiollet-Sholtus M., Jourjon F. 2011. Evaluation globale des impacts environnementaux des itinéraires techniques viticoles par l'Analyse du cycle de vie (ACV). Revue suisse Viticulture, Arboriculture, Horticulture, Vol. 43 (3), pp.184-189 Zébic O. 2011. Etude pour l'adaptation du vignoble héraultais à la commercialisation du vin en vrac. Rapport final au Conseil Général de l'Hérault. IHEV, Montpellier SupAgro & O. Zebic, , Octobre 2011. Bernaleau-Cardinel N., Lamoureux F., Delpech E., Cthelineau S., Laveau E., Michaud M-C., Montagnon R., Samie B. 2012. Référentiel Technico-Economique du Vigneron Bordelais. Edition 2012 . Chambre d'Agriculture de la Girande.

Indicators and sub- indicators Local bottled wine chain Global bottled wine chain Global bulk wine chain

	Net Income		42%	48%	73%
	Reduction of direct subsidies		88%	75%	25%
	Distribution of added value across the chain	67%	48%	16%
	Contribution to employment		73%	51%	24%
			Relevant	Comparison
	Indicators and sub-indicators	indicator to Local from differentiate	about Local and performance of	Comments
			Global?	Global
				Global
	Net Income		Yes	chains>Local
				chain

Indicators and sub- indicators Local bottled wine chain Global bottled wine chain Global bulk wine chain

		Relevant
	Indicators and sub-indicators	indicator to Local from differentiate	Comparison of performances Local vs Global	Comments
		Global?	100% Gross Income
				80%
				60%
				40%
				20%
	Contribution to employment		0%	Reduction of direct subsidies
				Global bottled
	Decision making mechanisms	Yes	chain>local chain>Global bulk
				chain
				Distribution of added value
				across the chain
	LOCAL CHAIN	GLOBAL BOTTLED CHAIN	GLOBAL BULK CHAIN
	Decision making mechanisms		67%	83%	50%
	Fraud management within the chain	100%	100%	100%
	Market management	70%	90%	70%
	Farmers cooperation	64%	64%	79%

•

  Importance of VISIBILITY: clients / consumers do not have time to search. Communication in the local press, websites, fairs…are useful for building customer loyalty.

				•	In the local chain, different ways and intensity of
					cooperation between producers. Researcher and experts
					noted the importance of exchanges between peers, ad
					hoc / specific cooperation with producers from other
					sectors (olive, cereal, livestock), involvement in collective
					projects oriented to wine promotion, innovative practices
					(i.e. new variety or organic) or local cultural events
					Involvement in local institutions. Individual strategy,
					promotion of the private domain and search of autonomy
	Farmers cooperation	No	chain>Local chain Global bulk chain >Global bottled	•	are also very present

5.4. Attribute Biodiversity (Environmental Dimension)

	LOCAL CHAIN	GLOBAL BOTTLED CHAIN	GLOBAL BULK CHAIN

Indicators and sub- indicators Local bottled wine chain Global bottled wine chain Global bulk wine chain Species Conservation practices

		64%	64%	43%
	Cultivars diversity	100%	100%	50%
		Relevant
	Indicators and sub-indicators	indicator to Local from differentiate	Comparison about Local and Global performance of	Comments
		Global?
			•	Local and global bottled wine chains are
				promoting environmental approach, with specific
				information.
	Species		Local chain>global
	Conservation	No	bottled chain>global
	practices		bulk chain

Indicators and sub- indicators Local bottled wine chain Global bottled wine chain Global bulk wine chain GHG emission at transport stage

			83%	17%	50%
	GHG emissions at production stage	88%	56%	31%
	Environmental pollution mitigation practices	88%	50%	50%
		Relevant	Comparison
	Indicators and sub-indicators	indicator to Local from differentiate	about Local and performance of	Comments
		Global?	Global
				Local>Global
	GHG emission at transport stage	Yes		bulk chain>Global
				bottled chain

. Attribute Resource Use (Environmental Dimension) Indicators and sub- indicators Local bottled wine chain Global bottled wine chain Global bulk wine chain

	5.6Water Use Practices	67%		50%	43%
	Material Use practices 86%		29%	57%
	Relevant	Comparison
	indicator to differentiate Local from Environmental pollution mitigation Indicators and sub-indicators Global? practices	about performance of Local and Global	•	88% Comments In Languedoc several big wine cooperatives selling wine 50% 50%
					in bulk for global chains are developing large project of
	GHG emissions for production		31%	56% irrigation (about 4 000 ha). This project will impact water resource. Nevertheless vine doesn't need high volume of water (complementary input in order to maintain quality 88% and yields) and the irrigation projects are promoting
	GHG emission for transportation Water Use Practices Yes	17% Global bulk 0% 20% chain<Global bottled chain<local chain	•	better water use practices (fi drip and optimization tools, 50% control by public institution and the cooperative…). PDO wines (in local and global chains) are not irrigated 83% 40% 60% 80% (but could be in the future) and PDO associations rather promote other agronomic practices in order to manage 100% water use and control water stress in the vineyard : soil
	GLOBAL BULK CHAIN	GLOBAL BOTTLED CHAIN management, adapted pruning, reduction of foliage and LOCAL CHAIN
					yield, control of grass, plantation of varieties adapted to
					dryness… These practices and issues are often presented
					and discussed with on-farm buyers (local chains).The
					vine water need depends on i) quality and volume goals,
					ii) location and soil, iii) agronomic practices and…
					evolution of climate.	highlight that
	grape production produces half part of the farm GHG emissions (44 to 53%). These emissions are mainly due to
	employees' displacements, agro-chemicals and tractor fuel. Rochat et al. (2009) implemented LCA methodology on a
	bottle of Bourgogne wine sold in Switzerland. The study shows that one bottle generate 350 g de CO2 eq, with 100
	g coming from field practices.		Local
	Material Use practices	Yes	chain>Global bulk chain>Global
			bottled chain

•

  Performances of both Local chain and global bulk chains are similar for material use. However this performance rete results from different strategies.•Global bulk chain dispose of high level technology at the cooperative level, developing the recycling of effluents, waste (stalkes, marc…) or metal stakes Grape growers also share materials and machinery.

• Farms oriented to global bottled wine chains, develop more individual strategies (according to interviews). Part of the material seems to be "under used", recycling strategies are planned and not always explicit...

•

Wine producers oriented to local markets are involved in technical and social innovations, including "circular economics", practices that are presented as new ways of differentiation and assertion in local community (but some of them are also exporting bottles in global markets…).

5.

7. Attribute Food Safety (Health, Economic and Social Dimensions) Indicators and sub- indicators Local bottled wine chain Global bottled wine chain Global bulk wine chain

	Food safety standards and controls	50%	75%	75%
	Artificial additive	81%	73%	69%
		Relevant	Comparison
	Indicators and sub-indicators	indicator to Local from differentiate	about of Local and performance		Comments
		Global?	Global
					•	Actors in global chains have to perform in the application
						of food safety standards, due to client's requirements and
						normalisation processes. Some export market, such as
						Switzerland or Japan, are asking for very precise and
						controlled sanitary conditions (fi component analysis,
						pesticide, toxins…)
	Food safety standards and controls	Yes		Global>Local	•	Local chains do not push for normative r framework for food safety management. In local chains standards are substituted by be to be interactions between consumers and producers. These interactions and discussions
						motivate producers to improve wine quality and adapt
						product characteristics to client's preferences. The balance
						between i) the efficiency of local informal interactions and
						ii) the compliance to standard is not clear, but on average
						more favourable to global chains
	Artificial additive No		Not significant

•

  We choose to estimate the quantity of sulphites in the wines sale in the different chains. Results show that wine making practices are very specific to each producer (knowhow, willingness to innovate, awareness on natural vs artificial nature of wine, risk aversion…).

	All chains implement at least one quality referential, linked to code of practices and control mechanism. Both, local
	and global bottled wine chains have direct feedback from clients. Global chains have developed supply chain
	management tools and standards, with specific practices and norms, according to firm's strategies and requirements of
	export markets.

Food safety standards and controls practices within the chains

	7 Figure 14 : Indicators and sub-indicators	Relevant indicator to Local from differentiate	Comparison about Local and performance of	Comments
			Global?	Global
	6
			5. Control and
	5	monitoring by third-
	party organisms Social cohesion 4 score Yes and conviviality 3. Control system chain>Global Local management system 4. Quality along the chain bulk chain>Global between producers 3 bottled chain	2. Implementation of auto-control device
			and consumer
	2
			1. Application of
	1		standards
	0
			LOCAL CHAIN	GLOBAL BOTTLED CHAIN	GLOBAL BULK CHAIN

•

  Local chains better perform social relationships in local community through farmer's participation in local events, local initiative connecting consumers, cultural activity, or tourism project. "These events do not directly performed incomes and added value creation, but they are long term investment, allowing to be more visible and to reach new clients".•In many cases, cooperatives participate in local projects and events, even if their wine is mainly sale in bulk. The wine cooperative plays a specific social role by integrating small grape growers and retired people (who couldn't develop their own cellar).Cooperative generally are inclusive organisations. Bulk chain: formal association with the territory is weaker with final (Swiss) consumers, but many cooperatives are also playing a positive role in the territory, including by establishing educational tour through the vineyards, planting vines, maintaining vines and small producers, limiting the risk of fire in summer, allowing the control of a firm by local investors….Local and global chains cover a large area of territorial performances. They complement in environmental management, contribution to employment, involvement in territorial projects, partnerships and location of added value in the territory (local community).

				38%
	Association of product with territory			50%
					75%
					80%
	Social cohesion and Conviviality			70%
					90%
	Global bulk wine chain	Global bottled wine chain	Local bottled wine chain
				•	Local chain: location of wine transactions in local
					market, wine promotion by offering opportunity to
					tourists and local consumers; strong link with the local
					culture, involvement in many projects dealing with
					landscape and preservation of local resources.
				•	Global bottled wine chain: the PDO label connected
					with the domain presentation (including on website)
					contribute to shape the identity of the territory. Export
	Association of product with territory	Yes	Local chain >Global bottled chain> Global bulk chain	•	includes value from outside in the territory ("base activity" and improve the attractiveness of the territory. Contribution to creation of a territorial quality rent.

www.glamur.eu

The terroir is a delimited geographical area in which a human community, built in the course of its history collective knowledge production, based on a system of interactions between physical and biological environment, and a set of human factors. The socio-technical paths and brought into play, reveal an originality, confer typicity and lead to a reputation for a good native of this geographical area. (National Institute of Appellations of Origin, INAO) www.glamur.eu

www.glamur.eu

Refer to the Quick Scan methodology implemented for wine chains : Step 1 : identification of a pair of chains and listing of preliminary sources, Step 2 -Selection of 5-10 key respondents, representative of FSC actors, Step

-Interviews. About ten interviews were conducted with experts in the wine sector to define i) the criteria for differentiation of local and global chains and, ii) Key issues related to chain performance.

An analysis of the issues is presented in the Research Plan drafted with the Swiss team (Fibl). A review of scientific literature and interviews with expert allowed us to highlight eleven research themes. Source: "WP3 case study: Global and local wine supply chain in Switzerland and France, Research Plan, FIBL and INRA, May 2014". www.glamur.eu

El-Hage Scialabba, N. 2013. SAFA indicators. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome 2013, 281 p. Gabrielsen, P. and Bosch, P. 2003. Environmental indicators: Typology and Use in Reporting. EEA internal working paper, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, 2003, 20 p. Vilain, L., et al. 2008. La méthode IDEA, Indicateurs de durabilité des exploitations agricoles, Guide d'utilisation. Educadri éditions, Dijon, 2008. 184 p. Hohnen, P. et Blackburn, W. GRI et ISO 26000 : Pour une utilisation conjointe des lignes directrices du GRI et de l'ISO 26000, entre dans la catégorie « Outils ». Global Reporting Initiative, 2010, 20p.

position to assess all the chains and focused on the farm level, and data on touchy issues have been difficult to collect, especially in the global chain we little knew before.www.glamur.eu

Availability of

Methods of data collection and analysis

We present in this section 4 the strategy of data collection allowing us to measure and evaluate indicators, by using different methodologies and data sources. The main approaches are in-depth interviews with key informants, focus groups, participatory Checklist and documentation review.

Vine and Wine constitute one of the "model plant and product" for the national agricultural research (INRA): many data have thus been produced and many research projects have been implemented. A difficult and time-consuming job was nevertheless to gather all the available information, to look at the conditions in which data have been produced, and to select the relevant sources. In parallel, technical institutes and professional organisations also provide extensive information on wine exchanges and practices in this industry. The GLAMUR project is thus an opportunity to build a specific data base on wine supply chains: we coded all the available sources according to their relevance and to our list of indicators.

Plan for data collection

Primary data collection: Interviews and survey

In the case of France, the data collection has been completed through direct semi-structured interviews.

In both countries, some quantitative data have been collected giving key information on environmental indicators of grape and wine production steps, as well as transport stage in the chain (to be completed). The questions relating to these indicators will be formulated using LCA methods (especially input-output), in order to be able to estimate specific environmental impacts.

GHG emissions for production


Lydia Assouad
email: lydia.assouad@gmail.com

Extreme inequality: evidence from Brazil, India, the Middle East and South Africa

This paper presents new findings about inequality dynamics in Brazil, India, the Middle East and South Africa from the World Wealth and Income Database (WID.world). We combine tax data, household surveys and national accounts in a systematic manner to produce estimates of the distribution of income, using concepts coherent with macroeconomic national accounts. We document an extreme level of inequality in these regions, with top 10% income shares above 50% of national income. These societies are characterized by a dual social structure, with an extremely rich group at the top, whose income levels are broadly comparable to their counterparts in high-income countries, and a much poorer mass of the population below top groups. We discuss the diversity of regional contexts and highlight two explanations for the levels observed: the historical legacy of social segregation and modern economic institutions and policies.

Introduction

One of the concrete implications of the debates that followed the publication of Capital in the Twenty-First Century [START_REF] Piketty | Capital in the twenty-first century[END_REF] was the partial release of new administrative tax data by public authorities, particularly in emerging and developing countries. As a result, it is now possible to re-examine inequality in regions where inequality statistics were previously rare and to get a better understanding of global inequality dynamics [START_REF] Alvaredo | World Inequality Report 2018[END_REF]. This paper presents new insights into extreme inequality as observed in Brazil, India, the Middle East and South Africa. We begin by describing the methodological challenges specific to the measurement of inequality in these regions. We then present the main findings on their levels of income concentration and their common distributional features, before providing a brief discussion of their multidimensional origins.

I. Dealing with data limitations to measure inequality in emerging countries

Official income inequality measures in emerging countries mostly rely on household survey data, which are known to underestimate top income levels and are hardly comparable across time and countries. In recent years, more fiscal data have become available, enabling the construction of more consistent income inequality statistics. All the series discussed in this paper follow the same general Distributional National Accounts (DINA) guidelines [START_REF] Alvaredo | Distributional National Accounts Guidelines: Concepts and Methods used on WID[END_REF]. We combine national accounts, surveys, and fiscal data in a systematic manner in order to estimate the full distribution of pre-tax national income in Brazil, India, the Middle East and South Africa. 1 The focus on the Middle East, comprised of 15 countries, is motivated by its relatively large degree of cultural and linguistic homogeneity and by the comparability of its population size to that of other large countries.

Despite our best efforts at approximating the DINA framework, we emphasize that the series produced for these regions are far from perfect due to major data limitations. First, in all these countries, a very substantial fraction of national income as reported in national accounts is missing from self-reported household survey income. The ratio between total survey income and national income generally varies between 40%-50%, except in Brazil where it has moved closer to 60% in recent years, and in Gulf countries, where it is as low as 20%-30%. Additionally, inequality trends in surveys and DINA may differ. In Brazil, for instance, surveys indicate a clear decline in inequality whereas the DINA series depicts a more stable picture. In India, the gap between growth in national accounts and growth in household surveys remains an unresolved puzzle [START_REF] Deaton | Data and dogma: the great Indian poverty debate[END_REF]. To the extent that this missing income generally accrues to relatively small groups of the population, this implies that survey-based statistics may severely underestimate income inequality in these countries.

To tackle this gap, some studies attribute all missing income to the top 10% income recipients, or use Pareto-type imputations to distribute the missing income [START_REF] Lakner | Global Income Distribution: from the Fall of Berlin Wall to the Great Recession[END_REF][START_REF] Burkhauser | What has been happening to UK income inequality since the mid-1990s?' Answers from reconciled and combined household survey and tax return data[END_REF][START_REF] Jenkins | Pareto Models, Top Incomes and Recent Trends in UK Income Inequality[END_REF]. Our preferred strategy is to merge surveys and fiscal data using a "generalized Pareto" interpolation [START_REF] Blanchet | Generalized Pareto Curves: Theory and Applications[END_REF]. This strategy arguably leads to more realistic estimates of inequality as it relies on additional data and on better estimation techniques for the very top of the income distribution.

Figure 1 illustrates the proportion of total national income covered by each income source. Even after correcting the top of the survey distribution (first bar) with tax data (second bar), a relatively large portion of national income is still missing. When we are able to decompose this missing non-fiscal income into identifiable income sub-categories, such as undistributed corporate profits or imputed rents, and when we have information on the concentration of such income, we reallocate it to estimate a final national income distribution. In the absence of more disaggregated data, we attribute the missing portion proportionally to the entire distribution, which by construction has no impact on income shares.

Figure 1. Gap of survey income and fiscal income to national income

Notes: Survey income is the total income from raw survey data. Fiscal income is the total income from the combination of survey and income tax data. Latest years available (2012)(2013)(2014)(2015)(2016). Source: WID.world.

Second, fiscal data and national accounts also suffer from substantial limitations in these regions. Income tax records often cover a minority of the total adult population, ranging from about 1% in Lebanon 2 , over 7% in India and 15% in South Africa to 20% in Brazil. These levels are close to the ones observed in the USA or France up to the interwar period (10-15%), but much lower than the levels observed in the decades following World War II (50% or more) [START_REF] Piketty | Les hauts revenus en France au XXème siècle[END_REF][START_REF] Piketty | Income inequality in the United States, 1913-1998[END_REF]. In addition, income variables in tax statistics are often less detailed, which increases the need for additional assumptions to link them to national accounts. Similarly, national accounts tend to present varying degrees of disaggregated information, which makes it difficult to precisely identify income categories within each sector of the economy and to impute missing components to the income distribution. Given these caveats, we systematically include estimation bounds, which allow us to confirm that our conclusions are robust to a wide range of alternative assumptions. 3

II. The world inequality frontier and the structure of extreme inequality

2 The Lebanese tax data, exploited in [START_REF] Assouad | Rethinking the Lebanese economic miracle: The extreme concentration of income and wealth in Lebanon 2005-2014[END_REF] are currently the only fiscal sources available in the Middle East. See [START_REF] Alvaredo | Measuring Inequality in the Middle East, 1990-2016: The World's Most Unequal Region?[END_REF] for details about their application to other Middle-Eastern countries.

3 Each country-specific paper presents estimation bounds and justifies the choice of the benchmark series. See in particular the Indian study and its use of alternative estimation scenarios [START_REF] Chancel | Indian income inequality (1922-2014): From British Raj to Billionnaire Raj?[END_REF] Two robust findings emerge when we look at the regions analyzed in this paper. First, the top 10% income share is greater than 50% of total pre-tax national income, compared 40-50% in the United States or China, and less than 40% in Western Europe (see Figure 2). While we observe rising top income shares in India and South Africa, as in nearly all countries in recent decades, Brazil and the Middle East display relatively stable levels of extreme inequality. They nevertheless all seem to define now a "world inequality frontier", with the highest income concentrations in the world [START_REF] Alvaredo | World Inequality Report 2018[END_REF].

Second, all these societies are characterized by a dual structure. As shown in Table 1, our estimates reveal that the average income of individuals at the very top of the distribution is broadly comparable to average levels observed for similar groups. Official statistics relying on household survey data alone tend to miss this fact. At the bottom of the distribution, as expected, we find that individuals are much poorer than their counterparts in high-income regions. With the exception of the Middle East, the average income of the bottom 90% in emerging regions is below the average income of the bottom 50% in Western Europe and the USA. This dualistic structure reflects the absence of a broad "middle class" comparable in size to the one in high-income countries. Whereas the middle 40% receives more than the share accruing to the top 10% in Western Europe, and a bit less in the USA, it is left with far less income than the top 10% in Brazil, India, South Africa and the Middle East (between 20-30 percentage points less), as Figure 3 shows. The origins of extreme inequality vary across the frontier. We identify two broad sources: historical social and racial segregation and modern economic institutions and policies.

In South Africa, extreme inequality is closely related to the legacy of the Apartheid system. Until the early 1990s, only the white minority, representing about 10% of the population and roughly constituting the top 10% of the income distribution today, had full mobility and ownership rights. Admittedly, there is a small economic elite within the racial elite that has benefitted from the end of international economic sanctions. Nevertheless, South Africa stands out as a country marked by the historical persistence of racial privileges.

In Brazil, the legacy of racial inequality also plays an important role. It was the last major country to abolish slavery in 1888, at a time when slaves made up about 30% of the population. Linked to this is the persistence of large regional inequalities that stem from the colonial and slave-owning period. Inequality was also influenced by more modern factors, particularly the development of the Brazilian economy into the continent's industrial powerhouse in the 20 th century. The politics of industrialization throughout the century favored only a minority of workers (primarily in the formal sector), in a context of limited agrarian reform and weak taxation of inherited fortunes. Even during the more progressive decade of the 2000s, persistent neglect of further tax and land reform meant that top income groups continued to capture most of the renewed growth of the economy.

In India, extreme inequality derives directly from the caste system that institutionalized socio-economic, legal and political disparities among citizens. Strikingly, we document a sharp rise in income inequality over the last decades, which was concomitant to profound transformations in the Indian economy. From its independence in 1947 to the 1980s, India's economy was highly regulated and the government pursued an explicit objective to limit the power of the economic elite. From the mid 1980s onwards, Indian governments implemented gradual deregulation and opening-up reforms, such as privatization of state-owned economies, price control deregulation, the opening of markets to international trade and strong decline in tax progressivity. Such transformations led to higher national income growth rates than in the previous decades but this growth was distributed very unequally, with the top 0.1% richest capturing as much total growth as the bottom half of the population since 1980.

In the case of the Middle East, extreme inequality is due to enormous between-country inequality, stemming from the geography of oil ownership and the transformation of oil revenues into permanent financial endowments in sparsely populated countries. However, within-country inequality is also large, explained by the existence of rigid social inequalities. This is particularly true in Gulf countries, where we almost certainly underestimate domestic inequality by a large margin, given the growing share of migrant workers working under highly exploitative conditions that we do not entirely capture.

IV. Final remarks

Brazil, India, the Middle East and South Africa are characterized by extreme levels of inequality, with top 10% income shares higher than 50% of national income, and by a dual social structure, with a strikingly small share of income accruing to the middle 40% of the distribution. Interestingly, such extreme levels of income concentration have different drivers. While some are rooted in the legacies of past social hierarchies and ownership rights, others are associated to the functioning of modern capitalist economies.

The multifaceted origins of extreme inequality highlight the need for different policy responses to tackle it, including mechanisms of regional redistribution, major land and fiscal reforms, or pro-poor investments in health, education and infrastructure. We nevertheless stress a common characteristic of these regions: their tax systems rely largely on indirect taxes, with relatively few components comprising of direct progressive taxes4 . In particular, it is striking to observe the near absence of a progressive inheritance tax regime -a historically powerful tool to limit the persistence of extreme income inequality levels and to finance much-needed welfare services.

While our estimates, based on Distributional National Accounts guidelines, stand out as more robust than survey-based official inequality statistics, we reiterate that measuring inequality in such countries is fraught with methodological difficulties. We thus stress that access to more and better data is critical in these countries, where a lack of transparency raises the problem of democratic accountability, independently of the actual level of inequality observed.

  , Appendix 13).

		100%
		90%		Missing non-fiscal	Missing non-fiscal	Missing non-fiscal
				income (55%)		income (39%)		income (27%)
		80%
		70%
	% National income	30% 40% 50% 60%	Survey income	Fiscal income (survey + tax data)	income Survey	Fiscal income (survey + tax data)	income Survey	Fiscal income (survey + tax data)
		20%
		10%
		0%
			India	Middle East	Brazil

Figure 2. Top 10% income shares across the world, 1980-2016 Notes: Distribution of national income (before taxes and transfers, except pensions and unempl. insurance) among adults. Corrected estimates combining survey, fiscal, wealth and national accounts data. Equal-split series (income of married couples divided by two), except for the Middle East (household per capita). Latest years available (2012-2016). Source: WID.world.

Table 1 . Average incomes in USA, Western Europe, Brazil, India, the Middle-East and South Africa

 1 Notes: Values are expressed in 2016 PPP Euros. The unit is the adult individual (20-year-old and over; income of married couples is split into two, except for the Middle East, where we split household income equally among all adult household Income corresponds to pre-tax national income. Corrected estimates combine national accounts, surveys and fiscal data. Source: WID.world

		70%
		60%
	Share of national income (%)	20% 30% 40% 50%			South Africa	Middle-East	Brazil
					India		USA	Russia
		10%
					China		W. Europe
		0%
		1980	1985	1990	1995	2000	2005	2010	2015

, III.

The multifaceted origins of inequality at the frontier

		60%
		50%
	Share of national income (%)	10% 20% 30% 40%	50% Bot.	Mid. 40%	Top 10%	50% Bot.	Mid. 40%	Top 10%	50% Bot.	Mid. 40%	Top 10%	Bot. 50%	Mid. 40%	Top 10%	50% Bot.	Mid. 40%	Top 10%	Bot.	Mid. 40%	Top 10%
		0%	W. Europe		USA			India		Brazil		Middle East	South Africa 50%
			(pop: 420m)	(320m)	(1330m)	(210m)	(410 million)		(55m)

For methodological details, see[START_REF] Morgan | Extreme and Persistent Inequality: New Evidence for Brazil Combining National Accounts, Surveys and Fiscal Data[END_REF] for Brazil;[START_REF] Chancel | Indian income inequality (1922-2014): From British Raj to Billionnaire Raj?[END_REF] for India;[START_REF] Alvaredo | Measuring Inequality in the Middle East, 1990-2016: The World's Most Unequal Region?[END_REF] for the Middle East. For South Africa, see the online supplementary material.

South Africa is an exception to this trend given that the share of indirect taxation in total taxation is lower than the share of direct taxation.

We gratefully acknowledge funding from the Fundación Ramón Areces.