It is no secret that the demographic exodus from the Douro is widespread and will continue to plague the region, with declining birth rates and the lack of economic attractiveness for both workers and investors. It is little wonder, then, that people receive some of the lowest wages in the country. Port wine is the heart and soul of the nation’s wine sector, yet the laws regulating it end up harming, rather than benefiting, small wine producers, who are unable to compete with the large houses and estates that receive subsidies and other privileges from the central government.
The hardworking people of the Douro have a long and arduous history, selling their labor for crumbs because the state either expropriates or criminalizes business activities directly while suffocating private initiative with bureaucratic mechanisms. The truth is that the legacy of Salazarist corporatism continues to haunt the sector to this day. I have already pointed out elsewhere the prevalent similarities between the two regimes, but today the goal is to analyze one of the fundamental laws governing the production of DOC wines: Decree-Law n.º 97/2020 of November 16.
We do not possess property; it is regulated by the IVDP, established in 1933. Owners are not only prohibited from producing the wine of their choice but also from deciding the volume they produce, the price at which they can sell their products, the way they store and vinify according to protocols, and the list goes on. I invite readers to consult the law in full. In practice, the land where many humble producers’ vineyards are located is not freely used, nor can they employ capital as they see fit, being forced to obey directives from public officials who lack the qualifications and knowledge of each specific terrain.
What we have in the Douro is a cartelized system, imposed vertically by a corrupt political system that restricts competition and prevents new players from entering, leaving the region with a severe lack of innovation, brands (due to monopolistic restrictions), marketing, and, above all, production methods. The sector depends excessively on manual labor and obsolete practices, such as the absence of precision viticulture. It is no secret that port wine sales have declined by 25 percent since 2005 (from 10 million cases to 7.2 million in 2023) due to an inability to compete in global markets and poor marketing characteristic of this branch of business.
It is illegal to sell wine without labeling specifically approved by the state, while bulk exports outside the RDD and EG are prohibited. Due to overregulation, grapes are illegally blended, which has led to calls for more oversight, not less, since the root of these problems is bureaucratic intervention itself. The solution lies in private arbitration to combat these fraudulent schemes.
Those operating in black markets may be breaking laws, but it is a victimless crime, because ethically, if market exchanges are voluntary, so-called “illegal commercialization” is nothing but a contradiction. I recall a news story that broke in May in which 7,000 liters of fortified wine were seized. No individual was harmed during the production of this wine; the producer was simply meeting market demand and, rightly, avoiding the state! What an absurdity. No payment (in this case, €6,200) is made to the state, yet the producer is marked like Cain—condemned to roam the land as an unjustly accused outlaw. Nothing criminal occurred.
There is nothing rational about the excise tax and expropriation of fortified wine, as if Soviet commissars were spreading fear and violence, regardless of whether the product meets the standards—standards the poor man knew well and knew would prevent him from remaining active. He was robbed of a value of €42,000, but he is the public face of small farmers and producers expelled from the market by large interest groups, who can comply with production and storage rules.
To put it plainly, we have Soviet-style planning in the Douro, as seen in Articles 34-37 of the law—where trades between merchants cannot exceed 20 percent—changes to the formula determine the quantity that can be sold, and worse, the annual sales capacity depends entirely on the existing inventory.
What I write may be unpleasant, but these are hard truths that need to be acknowledged. I do not doubt that some take pride in their origins, but in the face of the current economic crisis, many care little about wine quality; they simply want a wage to put food on the table for their families and pay their bills. Only by correcting and abolishing this cartelized system can the Douro prosper without state intervention.
Subsidies discourage production and waste valuable resources. Otherwise, we will continue to reward inefficient producers and punish the efficient ones who help maintain the region’s image. Wealthier trading houses with political connections keep competition away, excluding smaller but more efficient rivals that threaten their oligopoly.
Due to this overly restrictive oligopolistic structure, wages are artificially kept low, as the abundance of labor and lack of a competitive market mean manual and low-skilled workers receive only minimum legal wages. The artificial scarcity of opportunities leads many to emigrate in search of better conditions. Similarly, small producers struggle to find labor, have limited bargaining power, and little incentive to work long hours in the fields for low pay.
We must also remember that the IVDP limits the amount of wine that can be produced and sold on the market through the “benefit” system, creating dependence of small producers on subsidies, while large houses maintain high margins because they receive more quotas due to vineyard classifications—measured in hectares according to a points system that gives them competitive advantages and diversifies their wines. For example, Class A—with over 1,200 points—would receive about 1,900 liters per hectare, whereas Class F—with points between 201 and 400—receives 586 liters per hectare.
Two months ago, a new law by the Social Democrats, with the blessing of the Socialists—Decree-Law n.º 106/2025 of September 15—came into effect, and, although it removed the 75,000-liter stock requirement, the state—to compensate itself—expanded the scope of the IVDP, which now has discretionary power to decide on labeling, traditional mentions, aging, vinification conditions, and analytical methodology. Worse still, it now also decides the alcohol levels of each wine. By controlling alcohol content, the IVDP also controls the category and classification, price setting, exports, and the wines’ reputation, causing producers to lose even more autonomy and increasing compliance costs, disproportionately harming small producers. This is not decentralization but an empowerment of the state.
The solution is simple: the labor market must become less rigid, as competition would increase demand, which in turn would dramatically raise wages, and grape prices should be determined not by quota systems but by the free market, exclusively by consumer sovereignty. By removing the feudal-like rights that large trading houses exert, there would be more innovation, diversification, and investment in technological advances.
Only then can the Douro free itself from the chains of “Sovietism” and embrace prosperity. And call for the end of the IVDP!
