logo
France's cognac producers weather climate change, tariffs – DW – 05/19/2025

France's cognac producers weather climate change, tariffs – DW – 05/19/2025

DW19-05-2025

Cognac is considered by many to be the best brandy in the world. But those who make it are under pressure from Chinese and US duties, as well as global warming — all of which are forcing them to rethink their approach.
Vines for as far as the eye can see. Some 24 hectares (59 acres) belong to Alain Reboul, a 62-year-old, seventh-generation winemaker. His Earl du Bois Noble winery is one of the smaller ones in the Cognac region of France and is located around 100 kilometers (about 62 miles) north of the city of Bordeaux.
Wine production is strictly regulated in the region, which is the biggest white wine region in France and home to at least 4,350 winemakers. Only grapes from the six areas, or crus, of the Cognac geographical indication can be used to make the brandy that is produced in the region and bears the same name.
The largest market for cognac is the United States, whose President Donald Trump recently threatened to impose 200% tariffs on European spirits. The second-largest market is China, where President Xi Jinping already imposed temporary anti-dumping measures on imports of brandy in the fall of 2024 in retaliation to the European Union's approval of duties on electric vehicles made in China. The alcohol can no longer be sold in Chinese duty-free stores.
Alain Reboul said there have always been crises, and that he will weather this one as well Image: M. Jordanova-Duda/DW
According to the French trade association, the Bureau National Interprofessionnel du Cognac (BNIC), exports to China have decreased by half, resulting in a loss of over €50 million (about $56 million) per month. The BNIC has appealed to the French government not to forget the approximately 70,000 jobs that depend directly and indirectly on cognac.
'Plant, plant, plant!'
Along with a local winegrowers' union, the BNIC has recommended to winemakers that they get rid of some of their vines in order to save costs for machinery, fertilizers and pesticides. That's out of the question for Reboul, who has spent a large part of his career buying more land and planting more vines.
"You have to plant them for 30 years, at least," said the tall, weather-beaten man. "For generations!"
Shorter-term thinking has not paid off for his family in the past, Reboul said, adding that his father switched to red wine during the oil crisis and that it wasn't worth it.
Just a few years ago, he said, the motto was "Plant, plant, plant!" The thirst for cognac seemed unquenchable. Despite the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine, almost 213 million bottles were sold in 2022, a record year, according to the BNIC.
Cognac is considered one of the best brandies in the world by connoisseurs Image: Dreamstime/IMAGO
Reboul said the current slump has been the greatest shock since the oil crisis. He has colleagues who have uprooted several hectares of vines, replacing them with olive trees or truffle plantations, but he said he will not do the same.
"My philosophy won't change," he said, adding that there have always been crises.
Apart from Chinese and US duties, the Cognac region has also been affected by the loss of the important Russian market in the wake of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Climate change is also putting a strain on winemakers because grapes are becoming sweeter; for good cognac, they need a certain acidity. The grapes are also ripening earlier, increasing the risk of a harvest failure because of hail, frost or disease.
Family-run businesses carry on tradition
Reboul sells his entire yield to Hennessy, one of the oldest and best-known cognac producers. He manages his estate with the help of relatives and seasonal workers, and said he loves his job.
Cassandre Allary runs her family business, the Tonnellerie Allary, with her brother. They have 26 employees and produce oak barrels and casks of all sizes for both wine and spirits. There are some 50 barrelmakers located between the cities of Cognac and Bordeaux, and their craft is recognized as part of the country's winemaking traditions.
It takes a lot of knowledge and craft to make a barrel, Allary said. The wood, which is always oak, is first dried outdoors for many months so that the wind and rain bring out the tannins. Then the barrels are toasted and fitted with heads and hoops before being polished and deburred, or smoothed out.
"The temperature [for toasting the wood] depends on the aromas that we want to tease out of the wood," she said. "We do this according to the client's wishes."
Cassandre Allary runs her barrelmaking company with her brother Image: M. Jordanova-Duda/DW
Allary explained that if the wood is toasted at low heat, it releases coconut aromas, whereas a medium heat reveals notes of vanilla, mocha or cocoa.
Regarding the current business climate, she said the small company, which used to supply only cognac distillers but diversified its portfolio in the 1990s, is running at full capacity this year, but orders are dwindling.
Cognac houses founded by immigrants
Almost all the 20,000 inhabitants in Cognac produce or market wine, cognac, barrels, glasses, bottles or labels. The brandy has enriched the region and particularly the town, which gives it its name.
Cognac owes its global success largely to trade. The fact that it is distilled made it possible to export it to other countries. Several famous cognac houses, many of which now belong to larger corporations, were founded by immigrants, including Bache-Gabrielsen, Hennessy and Martell. The the latter two, along with Courvoisier and Remy Martin, dominate about 90% of the market.
Tapping into new markets
A gallery of portraits hangs above drawers full of historic bottle labels in the lobby of the Maison Bache-Gabrielsen, which was founded in 1905 and is still owned by the family. The company produces around 1 million bottles a year, which is not much compared to more famous brands, but a lot considering there are only 23 employees.
The wine is supplied by winegrowers like Reboul and is then turned into a high-proof "eau de vie" through double distillation. The brandy must then mature for at least two years in oak barrels so that it can absorb aromas from the wood. The different wines are then blended to produce the amber-colored end product.
Jean-Philippe Bergier has been making cognac for 35 years Image: M. Jordanova-Duda/DW
Jean-Philippe Bergier is the cellar master, blender and "nose" of Bache-Gabrielsen. He has worked there for 35 years, blending up to 15 distillates from all of the region's areas. He said certain grape varieties, which bring more acidity and once were only added in small proportions to a blend, are now in demand because of climate change.
He said he has seen a number of trends come and go. Recently, Bache-Gabrielsen bottled a small batch of organic cognac in recycled bottles to test a new market segment. The company also wants to tap into new markets by producing cocktails, liqueurs and aperitifs.
He said there is a lot of interest from young people about how cognac is made. Though they drink less alcohol than older generations, they are more interested in quality. And that's why he believes firmly in the future of cognac.
This article was originally written in German.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The Risks of Foreign Investment in U.S. Life Sciences Companies — Why Founders Should Take Heed
The Risks of Foreign Investment in U.S. Life Sciences Companies — Why Founders Should Take Heed

Int'l Business Times

time2 hours ago

  • Int'l Business Times

The Risks of Foreign Investment in U.S. Life Sciences Companies — Why Founders Should Take Heed

In recent years, Chinese investment in U.S. and global biotech and medtech has increased significantly. These partnerships can serve as strategic footholds, raising complex questions around security, sovereignty, and long-term strategy. Consider Grand Pharmaceutical Group, also known as Yuanda Pharmaceutical and Grand Pharma, which jointly acquired Australian firm Sirtex Medical, forged a nuclear medicine collaboration with Sirtex Medical U.S., and took an 87.5% stake in BlackSwan Vascular, a U.S.-based developer of vascular embolization technologies. On the surface, Grand Pharma looks like a modern success story. Hu Kaijun, a Chinese billionaire, holds a majority stake in Grand Pharma, positioning him as a key figure in the company's global expansion in the life sciences sector. Under his leadership, Grand Pharma has diversified its portfolio through strategic acquisitions and collaborations, enhancing its presence in the international market. But for U.S. life sciences stakeholders, don't be misled: Grand Pharma's rise isn't just a story of business savvy—it's a case study in how state-backed capital can reshape a company. And for founders, it's a reminder that funding sources can carry strategic baggage. Grand Pharma's aggressive expansion may reflect a broader trend of Chinese firms investing in advanced markets to access Western R&D and expand China's presence more deeply in the future of global biomedical innovation—a trend that raises serious concerns for U.S. interests. From State-Owned Roots to Global Reach Through strategic investments and collaborations, Kaijun and Grand Pharma continue to expand their footprint, resulting in the transfer of cutting-edge medical technologies from European and U.S. startups to China. Behind Grand Pharma's rapid rise lies a more complex history—one that raises questions about influence, oversight, and strategic intent. Before Grand Pharma was a global healthcare investor, it was a modest state-owned enterprise (SOE) in China under the purview of the Poverty Alleviation Office. Its mission: deliver pharmaceutical products as a public good, not a profit engine. But in the late 1990s and early 2000s, that began to change. A 2013 investigation by China Finance (CNFINA) suggested that Kaijun played a significant role in transforming the SOE into China Grand Enterprises through a series of complex transactions that have raised questions about corporate governance and asset valuation. One notable transaction highlighted in the CNFINA report involves Yanhuang Real Estate, a private firm not previously affiliated with the company. The firm purchased 50% of China Grand Enterprises from two state-owned shareholders for 50 million yuan. This transaction was justified using China Grand's initial registered capital of 100 million yuan. However, estimates based on the net assets held by China Grand at the time suggested that those shares were worth at least 145 million yuan, indicating a potential undervaluation of approximately 95 million yuan. The CNFINA report details that two additional state-owned entities transferred their 50% stake to four private investment firms, including Beijing Taihua Yongchang Investment and Beijing Dongfang Weichuang, for similarly underpriced amounts based on outdated registered capital. CNFINA's analysis estimated the value of these two transfers combined to have resulted in a total undervaluation of over 218 million yuan. This suspicious restructuring is significant because it offers a window into how power and capital were initially consolidated, and under what terms. Transactions that undervalue assets and move them out of public hands raise fundamental concerns about transparency, governance, and intent. When such origins lead to foreign acquisitions in sensitive sectors like biotechnology, it becomes even more important to scrutinize the business culture and strategic motivations behind the capital. In short, where the wealth comes from and how it was made offer important clues into how business leaders operate their companies. The Fine Print of Chinese Capital For U.S. life sciences startups, the lesson is clear: capital isn't neutral. The wrong investor can bring not just regulatory headaches but long-term strategic consequences. A growing list of cases tells a cautionary tale. Sirtex Medical When Grand Pharma and CDH Investments outbid Varian by a reported 20% to acquire Sirtex Medical, observers raised questions about the surprisingly high acquisition price. Through its subsidiary Chengdu Shetai, Grand Pharma has since leveraged Sirtex's platform to accelerate its development of nuclear medicine therapies. In cases of majority foreign ownership, especially by companies with potential state affiliations, it invites questions about data governance, manufacturing control, and regulatory visibility. More Lessons from BGI, WuXi, and Others Grand Pharma isn't the only example. Chinese biotech giants like BGI Group and WuXi AppTec have drawn attention in recent years over concerns related to data use, military ties, and participation in U.S. research networks. These cases underscore a growing sensitivity: capital flows from companies with strategic state interests may pose challenges in sensitive sectors like life sciences. A recent TechTimes article breaks down the core risks facing U.S. life sciences companies in the face of growing Chinese investment, from academic partnerships enabling access to sensitive research to financial ties that quietly shift control, and nefarious enterprises evading regulatory scrutiny. The piece argues that while the proposed BIOSECURE Act legislation is a step in the right direction, it lacks the enforcement teeth needed to truly safeguard American innovation in the life sciences sector. Ultimately, U.S. biotech and medtech startups must take proactive responsibility for who they partner with because policy alone won't protect what's not carefully guarded from the start. A Critical Reminder for Founders and CEOs: Capital Comes with Consequences U.S. life sciences startups face an increasingly complex landscape. Fast, global capital may seem like an obvious win, but it can introduce long-term complications. These include heightened regulatory oversight, potential deal restrictions, and reputational considerations. As geopolitical tensions evolve, particularly between the U.S. and China, biotech and medtech are emerging as points of scrutiny. In an interview on Chinese firms facing U.S. Commerce Department action related to AI, Gordon Chang, a senior fellow at the Gatestone Institute and a specialist on U.S.-China relations, stated, "all Chinese companies are a threat." While his comment was made in the context of national security and advanced technologies, it reflects a broader concern among some policymakers and analysts: that Chinese firms, regardless of sector, may operate with implicit state alignment, especially when national strategic interests are involved. For biotech and medtech companies, choosing the right partner now depends as much on who they are as what they offer. For the foreseeable future, U.S. startups should approach foreign investment, especially from state-influenced entities, with caution and care. This isn't just about one company or one country. It's about building resilient innovation ecosystems that can withstand geopolitical shifts while preserving trust, competitiveness, and scientific integrity.

NATO likely to hike defense spending despite economic woes – DW – 06/05/2025
NATO likely to hike defense spending despite economic woes – DW – 06/05/2025

DW

time11 hours ago

  • DW

NATO likely to hike defense spending despite economic woes – DW – 06/05/2025

The military alliance looks set to satisfy US President Donald Trump's demands to commit to a massive increase in defense spending. Some creative counting proposed by NATO head Mark Rutte could soften the financial blow. A NATO defense ministers' meeting in Brussels on Thursday showed "broad support" for signing off a historic hike in defense spending at a crunch summit later this month. This was their response to the growing threat from Russia and a "more dangerous world" in general, the military alliance's Secretary General Mark Rutte told reporters. "I will propose an overall investment plan that would total 5% of gross domestic product in defense investment," Rutte announced, following months of pressure from US President Donald Trump for allies to more than double the present target. Current NATO guidelines encourage states to spend 2% of their economic output on their militaries. But not all of the alliance's members meet this target, raising questions of how they will reach an even higher spending goal. Splitting the bill In response, NATO chief Rutte has specified a division of the new spending goal that could allow Trump to claim a headline figure, while giving the other 31 nations room to maneuver their national budgets. Thus, of the 5%, 3.5% of national GDP could be allotted to "core defence spending", while the remaining 1.5% could be diverted to "defense- and security-related investment like infrastructure and industry," he said. Allied defense ministers gathered at the NATO headquarters in Brussels Image: Dursun Aydemir/Anadolu/picture alliance Trump has long criticized NATO allies for relying on the US' large military might as a strategy to defend the European continent. In 2023, more than two thirds of the 32 NATO countries' collective $1.3 trillion (€1.14 trillion) military spending came from Washington, according to data compiled by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). On Thursday, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth drove home the message to the rest of the alliance once again. "Every shoulder has to be to the plough. Every country has to contribute at that level of 5% as a recognition of the nature of threat," he said. Leaders of the world's most powerful defense alliance are set to gather in three weeks in the Dutch city The Hague. Topping the agenda will be discussions on the ongoing war in Ukraine, and Russia's resulting massive rearmament drive. It seems likely that NATO members will officially commit to the 5% goal at these upcoming talks. Giving in to pressure Under US pressure, and with Europeans alarmed by Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, NATO military spending has already burgeoned in recent years. Most countries now meet the 2% threshold, which was agreed upon 11 years ago. But around one third of the alliance still doesn't, including Portugal, Italy, Canada, Belgium, and Spain. Most NATO states had indicated willingness to spend more, but the 5% goal was considered far-fetched when Trump floated the idea earlier this year. Almost half a year on, the message seems to be resonating with many in the alliance. Earlier this week, 14 NATO states, including the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and the five Nordic states, published a joint statement in which they said they were "moving towards reaching at least 5% of GDP on defense and defense-related investments." Specter of war: Are Europeans really ready to rearm? To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Last month, German Foreign Minister Johann Wadepuhl also indicated Germany could get on board with the goal. Several NATO countries, including Poland, Estonia and Lithuania, have already committed to spending 5% or more in the future. All are former Soviet states, and two of them share a border with Russia. Since taking office in January, the "America-first" president has strained the NATO alliance with threats not to help defend alliance members that didn't meet spending targets should they be attacked. His designs on the semi-autonomous Danish territory Greenland have also alienated allies, as have his attempts at bilateral talks to find an end to Russia's war in Ukraine, which sidelined European partners and left Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy largely marginalized. Questions remain There are still many open questions to be answered, one of them being the timeline. On Thursday, Estonian Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur spoke of committing to reaching 5% within five years. "We don't have time for ten years, we don't even have time for seven years, to be honest," he said. But the official focus at this week's meeting was on working out what exact capabilities NATO would need and may currently be missing to defend itself if a member of the alliance were attacked. After the talks, Rutte spoke of the need to upgrade air defense systems and long-range missiles, among other things. German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said Germany might need as many as 50,000 – 60,000 more troops in its standing forces to meet defense needs in the coming years. Increased spending amid economic downturn While consensus appears to be forming, it is also clear that increasing military spending to 5% of GDP would be an enormous strain on public finances, particularly as Europe's two major economies, Germany and France, face tough times. Paris and Berlin are touting increased defense spending as a chance to fuel economic growth in Europe, but there is a risk of public backlash. In April in Rome, the opposition Five Star Movement led a protest against an EU drive to rearm the bloc — a move supported by the government of far-right Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni — reportedly drawing tens of thousands of people. According to Cullen Hendrix, an expert from the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a US think tank, a 5% spending target would essentially put NATO countries on "war footing." US secretary of State Pete Hegseth was in Brussels for the last NATO gathering before next month's summit Image: Bob Reijnders/Middle East Images/AFP/Getty Images "In 2023, just nine countries spent 5% of GDP or more on defense: Algeria, Armenia, Israel, Lebanon, Oman, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and South Sudan," Hendrix wrote in February. "Most are, or were, at war. Five of these are authoritarian petro-states, unencumbered by competitive elections or the need to tax their populaces to fund this military largesse." There is also a risk that increased spending will make Europe less safe, Hendrix warned. "Increasing military spending to this extent would likely catalyze an arms race with those near-peer competitors." On Thursday in Brussels, Rutte argued there was little choice but to spend significantly more on defense, pointing to recent comments by the German Chief of Defense Carsten Breuer, who posited that Russia would be ready to mount an attack on NATO states by 2029. "We live in a more dangerous world," Rutte said. "We are safe today, but if we don't do this, we are not safe in the foreseeable future." Edited by: Maren Sass

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store