CHALLENGES FOR THE VITICULTURAL LANDSCAPE –
THE CASE OF VIP AV A HILLS IN SLOVENIA
IZZIVI VINOGRADNIŠKE POKRAJINE – PRIMER
VIP AVSKEGA GRIČEVJA V SLOVENIJI
AUTHORS/A VTORJI
dr. Maja Topole
Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Anton Melik Geographical Institute, Novi
trg 2, SI – 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
maja.topole@zrc-sazu.si, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1007-2289
dr. Mateja Šmid Hribar
Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Anton Melik Geographical Institute, Novi
trg 2, SI – 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
mateja.smid@zrc-sazu.si, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5445-0865
dr. Žiga Kokalj
Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Institute of Anthropological and Spatial
Studies, Novi trg 2, SI – 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
ziga.kokalj@zrc-sazu.si, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1712-0351
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/GV95102
UDC/UDK: 711.3:634.8(497.47)
COBISS: 1.01
ABSTRACT
Challenges for the viticultural landscape – The case of Vipava Hills in Slovenia
The article deals with the Vipava Hills, one of the oldest and still promising Slovenian wine-growing regions.
Despite the favourable natural conditions, especially for organic viticulture, a comparison of land use in
the last two decades shows the abandonment and overgrowth of vineyards in the higher, so-called vine-
yard sites and, on the other hand, their relocation to the bottom of the Vipava Valley, where grape production
is intensified. The article discusses the obstacles leading to the unfavourable development trends in the land-
scape and demography, and proposes measures that could, on the one hand, prevent further abandonment
of agricultural land, especially vineyard land, population out-migration and biodiversity decline and, on
the other hand, make better use of the advantages of the ideal combination of climatic, lithological and
pedological features, the mosaic-like structure of the landscape, the high degree of naturalness, the exten-
sive protected areas of Natura 2000 and, last but not least, the rich cultural heritage of the region.
KEY WORDS
rural geography, sub-Mediterranean viticulture, cultural landscape, demographic perspective, sustainable
land use, Slovenia
29
Geografski vestnik 95-1, 2023, 29–75 Papers/Razprave
P APERS/RAZPRAVE
vestnik 95_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd  3.4.2024  10:54  Page 29

IZVLEČEK
Izzivi vinogradniške pokrajine – primer Vipavskega gričevja v Sloveniji
Prispevek obravnava Vipavsko gričevje, eno najstarejših in tudi danes obetavnih slovenskih vinogradni-
ških pokrajin. Kljub ugodnim naravnim razmeram, posebej za ekološko vinogradništvo, primerjava rabe
zemljišč v zadnjih dveh desetletjih kaže opuščanje in zaraščanje vinogradov v višjih, t. i. vinogradniških
legah, po drugi strani pa njihovo selitev proti dnu Vipavske doline, kjer prihaja do intenzifikacije pride-
lave grozdja. Članek govori o ovirah, ki povzročajo neugodne razvojne trende v pokrajini in demografiji
ter predlaga ukrepe, s katerimi bi lahko na eni strani preprečili nadaljnje opuščanje kmetijskih, posebej
vinogradniških zemljišč, izseljevanje prebivalcev in upadanje biodiverzitete, po drugi pa bolje izkoristili
prednosti idealne kombinacije podnebnih, kamninskih in pedoloških lastnosti, mozaične strukture pokra-
jine, visoke stopnje naravnosti, obsežnih zavarovanih območij Nature 2000 in nenazadnje bogate kulturne
dediščine regije.
KLJUČNE BESEDE
geografija podeželja, submediteransko vinogradništvo, kulturna pokrajina, demografska perspektiva,
trajnostna raba zemljišč, Slovenija
Editorial Board received this article on October 26, 2023.
Uredništvo je prispevek prejelo 26. oktobra 2023.
30
Maja Topole, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Žiga Kokalj Challenges for the viticultural landscape – The case …
vestnik 95_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd  3.4.2024  10:54  Page 30

1 Introduction
Slovenia has only 1% of vineyards among all types of land use, but is nevertheless a traditional wine-
growing country. Of the three wine-growing regions, the Primorska wine-growing region has the highest
proportion of vineyards. Within this region, the Mediterranean hills are the most important, with an aver-
age vineyard land use of 6.4% (Gabrovec et al. 2020, 280). This includes the Vipava Hills, which are part of
the Vipava V alley wine-growing area, which boasts 13.6% of the vineyards and one of the oldest wine-grow-
ing traditions in Slovenia. In some sources, especially on maps, the Vipava Hills are also referred to as Vipavska
brda (brda is another name for hills), which has even been standardised, but this geographical name is not
common among the locals. The first Slovenian expert manual for viticulture also originated in the Vipava
region and was published in the mid-19
th
century (1844) as a supplement to Kmetijske in rokodelske novice
(Agricultural and Craft News) by Matija V ertovec (1784–1851), a local man, priest and expert in various
fields (V ertovec 2015). A facsimile edition was published in 1994 and a transcription of the original was
published again in 2015 as a »professional, linguistic and national gem« (Korošec-Koruza 2015).
Despite the favourable conditions for agriculture, especially for viticulture, a progressive process
of overgrowth and abandonment of agricultural land can be observed in the Vipava Hills. Vineyards
are being abandoned and moved from higher to lower areas or to the plain. The transformation of the
viticultural landscape in Slovenia could be partly due to the modernisation of land cultivation (Pipan
and Kokalj 2017). There are two opposing trends in land use in Slovenian agricultural landscapes: aban-
donment and intensification (Ribeiro and Šmid Hribar 2019). Both trends lead to a loss of landscape-
and biodiversity, which means a degradation of the agricultural landscape and a decline in the attrac-
tiveness of the region for settlement, tourism and recreation.
The aim of this study was to investigate the land use change in the Vipava Hills between 2002 and
2020 and to determine the current situation and trends in this viticultural landscape. The following
research questions were asked:
1) How did the landscape and land use change in the period 2002–2020?
2) How can the Vipava Hills viticultural landscape be preserved?
The results of the research will contribute to the formulation of landscape policy, in particular mea-
sures and strategies for the management of cultural landscapes (e.g., Urbanc 2002; Šmid Hribar 2017;
Penko Seidl and Golobič 2020; Topole and Pipan 2022), as well as to the implementation of the European
Landscape Convention (2000), which emphasises that landscape is a fundamental component of Europe’s
natural and cultural heritage, contributing to people’s well-being and enhancing of European visibility.
The results will also be useful for in the efforts of the European Commission and the Republic of Slovenia.
Both have recently adopted a  roadmap for the transition to organic farming (Action … 2022;
Akcijski … 2022). This is intended to contribute to the implementation of the European Green Deal
(European … 2019), with the objective of converting 25% of all agricultural land in the European Union
to organic farming by 2030 and gradually achieving climate neutrality by 2050. After 2023, the EU and
Slovenia will implement specific measures and create incentives, including the incentive to establish ecore-
gions (Charter … 2021). Organic vineyards, which should continue to expand, are also the most rational
form of land use in the Vipava Hills in the areas that are becoming overgrown. The areas that are becom-
ing overgrown are those that are suitable only for vineyards, or at best for olive groves and fruit trees.
2 Methods
2.1 GIS analysis
In order to calculate the statistics for the landscape analysis, we used our own code, which calcu-
lates statistical indicators such as minimum and maximum values, average, area and percentile from
31
Geografski vestnik 95-1, 2023 Papers/Razprave
vestnik 95_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd  3.4.2024  10:54  Page 31

the raster data due to the large number of layers, class combinations and administrative units. We per-
formed the calculations for selected administrative units, such as settlements, and according to selected
criteria, such as slope classes, by individual land use categories (Maroh and Kokalj 2021).
In addition, mathematical and statistical data processing was carried out to show the significance
of individual phenomena or land use types using concentration indices. The importance of the geo-
factors influencing land use was highlighted using the Hirschman concentration coefficient.
We used the Airborne Laser Scanning Data of Slovenia (Podatki … 2015), the organic vineyards
layer was obtained through personal correspondence with the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and
Food (Frelih 2021), and the layer of Natura 2000 areas was obtained from the Institute of the Republic
of Slovenia for Nature Conservation, also through personal correspondence (Natura … 2021).
2.2 Field visits and participatory focus groups
Between October 2020 and May 2022, we conducted 10 field visits to explore landscape and meet
farmers and residents in the area. We held informal short interviews with them. We were interested in
the structure of the landscape, the attitudes of local people towards their own region and their views
on its strengths and weaknesses.
Equipped with the results of the GIS landscape analysis, the thematic map analysis and the statis-
tical data analysis (Topole 2021; Šmid Hribar 2021a; 2021b) as well as the findings from the field research,
we presented the landscape topics to the stakeholders in three participatory focus groups in October
and December 2021 and in April 2022. The invited participants included conventional and organic wine-
growers, farmers, representatives of the municipalities, the Forest Service, the regional development
agency, educational and research institutions, heritage institutions, tourism and information centres,
associations and NGOs, as well as providers of tourism, gastronomy, crafts and trade. Based on the dis-
cussions with them, we have formulated measures for the preservation and further development of the
Vipava Hills viticultural landscape.
3 Results
3.1. Vipava Hills
The Vipava Hills are the rugged southern part of the Vipava Valley, nestled between the high karst
plateaus of the Trnovo Forest Plateau (Trnovski gozd) (1,495 m) and Nanos (1,313 m) in the north and
north-east, respectively, and the lower karst Kras Plateau in the south-west (average 334 m). In the west,
where the Vipava Valley merges into the Friuli Plain, the influence of the sea is most pronounced. The
average air distance to the Adriatic Sea in the Gulf of Trieste is only 15 km.
The climate in the Vipava Hills is inland sub-Mediterranean or temperate Mediterranean. It differs
from the typical Mediterranean climate in having slightly lower average temperatures and a different
distribution of precipitation. The meteorological station Slap recorded an average annual temperature
of 12°C, an average July temperature of 21.2°C and an average January temperature of 3.1°C in the peri-
od 1967–2006. Winter temperatures are strongly influenced by the penetration of cold continental air
masses. The Vipava Valley receives an average annual rainfall of around 1,500 mm, with the first peak
in the autumn months and the second peak at the transition from spring to summer. The lowest rain-
fall occurs in winter and in July and August. The growing season, with an average daily temperature
of over 5°C lasts 289 days (February 22 – December 7), while the tillage or cultivation season with an
32
Maja Topole, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Žiga Kokalj Challenges for the viticultural landscape – The case …
Figure 1: The position of the Vipava Hills in Slovenia (source for administrative boundaries of municipalities
and settlements: Register of Spatial Units 2021).p
vestnik 95_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd  3.4.2024  10:54  Page 32

33
Geografski vestnik 95-1, 2023 Papers/Razprave
0 4
Cartography / Kartograf: Žiga Kokalj
Contents / Vsebina: Mateja Šmid Hribar, Maja Topole
Data source / Viri podatkov: GURS, MKGP , ZRC SAZU
© 2023, ZRC SAZU
settlement boundaries / meje naselij
highway / hitra cesta
Vipava
Nova Gorica
Komen
Ajdovščina
municipality parts / deli občin
±
wine–growing regions /
vinorodne dežele
Podravje
Posavje
Primorska
HU
AT
IT
SI
HR
km
vestnik 95_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd  3.4.2024  10:54  Page 33

34
Maja Topole, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Žiga Kokalj Challenges for the viticultural landscape – The case …
average daily temperature above 10°C lasts 208 days (April 8 – November 1). Spring frost can still occur
in March and in colder areas in April (Hrvatin 2021). On April 6, 2021, for example, polar air swept
over Slovenia within a few hours. It even snowed by the sea, but most heavily along the Dinaric moun-
tain barrier. The coldest April morning in more than 60 years of observations was April 7, 2021. The
Bilje station near Nova Gorica recorded a minimum temperature of –4.1°C, while Podnanos in the Vipava
Valley recorded a minimum temperature of –3.2°C (Mraz … 2021).
In 2020, the population of the 23 settlements of the Vipava Hills, which cover an area of 68.6 km
2
and belong to four municipalities (Ajdovščina, Komen, Nova Gorica and Vipava), was 5,511. Almost
half of the population (47%) was employed, of which 5.7% worked in agriculture (SiSTAT 2021). The
Vipava Hills have a favourable traffic position along the Razdrto-Nova Gorica highway, but the con-
nections within the hills are mostly poor, with the exception of a few cross-connections.
3.2 Geomorphological and pedological analysis of the landscape and land use 2020
The average height of the Vipava Hills is 206 m, with a difference of 497 m between the highest point
in the south-east (Stanibreg, 556 m) and the lowest point in the north-west at the mouth of the Branica
river (59 m). Almost two thirds of the Vipava Hills are between 100 and 250 m, less than a tenth are
below 100 m and only 6% of the hills are above 350 m (Figure 2). The highest point is the watershed
ridge between the Vipava and Branica rivers, which runs NWW-SEE in the west and almost north-
south in the east. The Vipava Hills are an area with considerable slopes. The average slope is 31%, which
is why much of the land is terraced.
Figure 2: The varied viticultural landscape of the Vipava Hills. View over Our Lady of the Snows above
Goče to the south-east, into the upper Vipava Valley below Nanos.
MAJA TOPOLE, 2020
Figure 3: Vipava Hills: land use in 2020 (Dejanska … 2021).p
vestnik 95_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd  3.4.2024  10:54  Page 34

35
Geografski vestnik 95-1, 2023 Papers/Razprave
settlement boundaries / meje naselij
highway / hitra cesta
built up / pozidano
arable / njiva
vineyard / vinograd
orchard / sadovnjak
olive grove / oljčnik
forest / gozd
grassland / travnik
overgrown / v zaraščanju
water / voda
other / drugo
0 4
k m
Cartography / Kartograf: Žiga Kokalj
Contents / Vsebina: Mateja Šmid Hribar, Maja Topole
Data source / Viri podatkov: GURS, MKGP , ZRC SAZU
© 2023, ZRC SAZU
±
vestnik 95_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd  3.4.2024  10:54  Page 35

36
Maja Topole, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Žiga Kokalj Challenges for the viticultural landscape – The case …
4,6
6,8
2,5
4,4
2,8
10,1
4,7
4,2
3,1
3,6
3,9
8,0
6,8
4,6
5,0
2,3
2,3
7,1
5,1
6,9
12,6
2,7
5,1
4,4
1,5
11,6
4,4
2,9
3,0
2,2
18,6
1,7
1,7
2,2
1,3
6,0
2,5
3,8
2,1
1,5
21,4
6,2
4,2
12,4
7,7
13,9
5,7
13,0
11,5
10,7
10,7
9,8
7,3
10,6
6,0
21,1
15,8
25,0
7,0
4,6
19,7
9,4
10,9
21,4
26,1
14,4
5,5
8,3
33,3
13,6
2,5
4,0
2,7
4,6
1,4
6,9
7,2
4,7
1,0
3,0
2,9
3,5
4,5
1,2
2,9
1,1
2,0
4,6
3,5
2,3
2,1
2,1
3,3
3,0
59,4
41,3
56,6
41,6
58,2
26,5
44,1
54,4
55,1
47,8
75,0
35,8
58,5
67,0
52,0
67,5
65,4
9,9
31,3
47,9
19,4
53,6
21,9
49,0
9,8
14,7
16,0
26,7
20,0
43,3
7,3
23,5
9,3
17,7
11,7
10,7
9,5
10,9
7,7
11,7
12,1
24,8
20,0
18,6
44,8
22,8
16,3
16,9
3,0
2,0
2,1
1,8
1,6
1,0
1,2
0,9
1,7
2,5
1,3
4,0
3,5
3,2
4,4
2,2
2,6
3,6
2,8
2,3
0,5
0,7
1,8
2,1
2,4
5,2
5,9
4,4
7,1
2,9
2,7
4,3
4,6
6,3
5,5
2,4
5,5
5,3
3,7
3,7
5,0
3,0
6,6
4,6
3,3
2,3
1,8
4,2
4,4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Brje
Dolenje
Gaberje
Planina
Šmarje
Tevče
Velike Žablje
Vrtovče
Zavino
Dolanci
Kodreti
Branik (part/del)
Preserje
Spodnja Branica
Steske (part/del)
Erzelj
Goče
Lože
Manče
Orehovica
Podnanos
Podraga
Slap
Vipava Hills /
Vipavsko gričevje
built up / pozidano arable njiva / vineyard vinograd /
orchard / sadovnjak olive grove oljčnik / forest gozd /
grassland / travnik overgrown v zaraščanju / water voda /
drugo / other
share / elež (%) d
Figure 4: Vipava Hills: land use structure by settlement in 2020 (in %).
vestnik 95_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd  3.4.2024  10:54  Page 36

37
Geografski vestnik 95-1, 2023 Papers/Razprave
Slap
0
Brje
Dolenje
Gaberje
Planina
Šmarje
Tevče
Velike Žablje
Vrtovče
Zavino
Dolanci
Kodreti
Branik (part/del)
Preserje
Spodnja Branica
Steske (part/del)
Erzelj
Goče
Lože
Manče
Orehovica
Podnanos
Podraga
Vipava Hills /
Vipavsko gričevje
built up pozidano / arable njiva / vineyard vinograd /
orchard sadovnjak / olive grove oljčnik / forest gozd /
grassland travnik / overgrown v zaraščanju / water voda /
drugo other /
100 200 300 400 500 600 700
24,4 11,7
29,0
16,0 14,7
34,6
23,3
8,7 10,5 11,6 10,9 6,7
17,1 19,0
26,0
7,8
13,2
20,0
18,9
17,7
58,2
25,9
8,3
7,0 35,1
13,3 16,9
53,7
70,8
69,3
13,2
49,1
69,5
56,8
33,1
10,9 44,3
14,8
107,6
23,8
9,6
36,0
49,5
35,0
55,8
14,1
57,7
169,8
13,4
12,2
30,2
7,9
22,6
8,6
15,1
15,2 9,1
14,3
16,7
317,7
47,2
260,2
271,7
337,8
11,1
137,7
98,5
115,8
44,6
77,4
154,0
199,0
71,8
25,4
259,3
295,6
16,2
66,9
46,9
26,4
372,5
111,6
52,3
16,9
73,6
174,2
116,2
18,1
22,7
42,4
19,6
16,5
12,1
46,1
32,5
11,7
45,0
54,9
40,5
42,9
18,2
60,9
158,5
82,9
15,8
9,7
11,8
9,4
17,2
11,9
8,3
11,6
6,0
6,0
5,1
9,1
5,4
4,1
5,2
27,7
20,4
46,3
16,9
13,3
13,3
23,8
18,0
19,3
13,7
10,9
9,8
12,6
21,2
Figure 5: Vipava Hills: land use structure by settlement in 2020 (in ha).
vestnik 95_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd  3.4.2024  10:54  Page 37

38
Maja Topole, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Žiga Kokalj Challenges for the viticultural landscape – The case …
The bedrock throughout the hills is Eocene flysch, alternating with marls, sandstones, argillites and
alevrolites, with interbeds of breccias, conglomerates and calcarenites (Buser 1973, 23–25). Various
eutric brown soils have developed on this bedrock, covering 71.2% of the Vipava Hills. They differ
in the proportion of sandstones and marls, in the proportion of admixtures and their thickness, which
is related to the slope of the surface. 38.8% of the soils are heavily anthropogenised, i.e. ameliorat-
ed or modified by human influence. The second group consists of gleyic and pseudo-gleyic soils of
various depths, which may be alluvial or on colluvium and together cover a good fifth of the Vipava
Hills (21.2%) (Pedološka … 2016). In addition to rock composition and slope inclination, pedological
conditions are also influenced by exposure, insolation and water conditions.
There are almost no flat areas in the Vipava Hills, with the western and northern exposures below
average and the north-eastern, south-eastern and southern exposures above average. The Vipava Hills
receive a large amount of solar irradiation energy, on average 4276 MJ or 1188 Kwh/m
2
per year, which
is 6.6% above the national average (Gabrovec 1998; Hrvatin 2021). Due to the topography, local vari-
ations are considerable. As much as three quarters of the Vipava Hills belong to the three highest classes
of insolation, which receive over 900 Kwh/m
2
.
The land use analysis confirmed that the Vipava Hills are a viticultural landscape (Figure 3). In
2020, vineyards occupied 936.4 ha or 13.6% of the total area of 6862.5 ha, or 29.6% of the 3166.3 ha of
agricultural land. According to the Institute of Agriculture and Forestry Nova Gorica, 587 (70%) of the
total of 839 farms in the Vipava Hills were classified as vineyard farms. On average, there were 1.6 ha
of vineyards per vineyard farm, and the average size of each vineyard was 0.5 ha.
The settlements with the highest relative share of vineyards of all land uses are Slap (33.3%), Manče
(26.1%), Branik (25%), Lože (21.4%) and Zavino (21.1%) (Figure 4), while the areas with the largest
absolute area under vines are Slap (169. 8 ha), Branik (107.6 ha), Planina (69.5 ha), Brje (69.3 ha), Podraga
(57.7 ha), Šmarje (56.8 ha) and Manče (55.8 ha) (Figure 5).
The average altitude of the vineyards is 187 m. Most of the vineyards are at an altitude of
100–250 m, where two thirds of them are located. The average slope of the vineyards is 20.3%, and one
third of all vineyards are located on areas with a slope of more than 21%. 572.9 ha, or 61,2% of all vine-
yards, are therefore on terraces. Viticulture is the most extensive of all land uses on terraced land. T erraces
not only facilitate cultivation, but also provide better sunlight and breathability for the vines.
The eastern, south-eastern and southern exposures (concentration indices 125, 124, 122) are most
used for viticulture, as it is important for the vines to be exposed to the rising sun as early as possi-
ble in the morning, which dries out the dewy leaves and thus prevents the development of diseases.
The organic vineyards are even more concentrated in the eastern sites (concentration index 129),
followed by the north-eastern and south-eastern sites – before the southern ones. The Hirschman con-
centration coefficient, which indicates the relationship between vineyard area and exposure, is much
higher for organic vineyards (0.1777) than for vineyards in general (0.1156). 37.5% of the area receives
between 1000 and 1100 Kwh/m
2 
of solar energy per year, and almost half (49.1%) of all vineyards are
located in these areas. The concentration indices for the two highest classes of insolation (1000–1100
and over 1100 Kwh/m
2
) are 115 and 176 for organic vineyards and 131 and 127 for conventional vine-
yards.
There are 12 different soil types in the Vipava Hills, but 96% of all vineyards are planted on only
six types and 68% on only three types of eutric brown soil. The relatively most important soils are deeply
cultivated vineyard soils (vitisol), eutric, and the pseudo-gleyic colluvial eutric brown soils on Eocene
flysch (concentration indices of 228 and 130). The organic vineyards are even more limited. 75% of
them are linked to eutric brown soils with up to 20% interbeds of rendzina soils or up to 40% interbeds
of anthropogenic (ameliorated) soils and vitisol. The concentration index is 416 on vitisol and 169 on
Figure 6: Vipava Hills: organic and conventional vineyards in 2020 and their location in relation to
Natura 2000 protected areas.p
vestnik 95_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd  3.4.2024  10:54  Page 38

39
Geografski vestnik 95-1, 2023 Papers/Razprave
organic vineyard /
ekološki vinograd
conventional vineyard /
konvencionalni vinograd
Natura 2000
highway / hitra cesta
settlement boundaries / meje naselij
Cartography / Kartograf: Žiga Kokalj
Contents / Vsebina: Mateja Šmid Hribar, Maja Topole
Data source / Viri podatkov: GURS, MKGP , ZRC SAZU
© 2023, ZRC SAZU
0 4
k m ±
vestnik 95_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd  3.4.2024  10:54  Page 39

40
Maja Topole, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Žiga Kokalj Challenges for the viticultural landscape – The case …
eutric brown soils with interbeds of rendzinas. It is important to remember that choosing the right
grape variety for each vineyard micro-location is essential, as the different varieties have different
sensitivities to drought, humidity, frost, etc. Many wine-growers have very good experience with old
autochthonous or local grape varieties, which, according to estimates by the Institute of Agriculture
and Forestry Nova Gorica, account for 35% of the vines in the Vipava Valley (Škvarč 2023, 6).
The Vipava Hills thus have a number of advantages in terms of natural conditions: a rugged
surface, a favourable climate, numerous elevated, sun-facing slopes, a windswept landscape with a high
degree of mosaic-like landscape. It is characterised by a high degree of naturalness and a rich bio-
diversity. It alternates between patches of forest, extensively used grassland and farmland, with 49%
forest, 17% extensively used grassland and pasture and 2.1% overgrown land. There are no disturb-
ing factors such as intensive monocultures, industry, traffic and other pollutants, which makes the area
very favourable for the introduction of organic viticulture. In 2020, 84.6 ha or 9% of all vineyards in
the Vipava Hills were already organically farmed (Figure 6), which is above the national average (5.1%)
(Akcijski … 2022, 17).
By 2020, only 623.2 ha or 57.2% of the 1089.7 ha of vineyards that existed in 2002 had been pre-
served. These are considered permanent vineyards (Table 1).
Between 2002 and 2020, 313.2 ha of vineyards were newly planted (Figure 8). The new vineyards
therefore accounted for one third of the 936.4 ha recorded in 2020. The new vineyards were created
on former grassland (38.8%), arable land (27.4%), forest (21.4%) and orchards (8.8%) (Figure 9, line 1).
However, by 2020, 466.5ha of vineyards from 2002 were abandoned and converted as follows (Figures 9,
line 2, and 10): 38.7% were converted to grassland, 12.3% were in the process of overgrowing, 6.2%
had already become forest, 10.8% were ploughed into arable land, 10.4% were converted to orchards,
4.9% of the 466.5 ha were built on, 2.3% were converted to olive groves, and 14.5% were converted to
various other uses. Half of all abandoned vineyards were located at an altitude of 150–250 m. The main
reason for this is their relocation to the foothills, where cultivation on slopes of less than 6%, and espe-
cially less than 2% is much easier.
Despite the establishment of new vineyards, the total area under vines decreased from 1089.7 ha
in 2002 to 936.4 ha in 2020, i.e., by 153.3 ha or 14.1% (see Figure 11 and the indices in Table 1).
Figure 7: Vipava Hills: land use structure in 2002 and 2020.
3,5
4,4
9,5
5,7
15,9
13,6
1,7
3,0
48,0
49,0
19,0
16,9 2,1
1,6
4,4
2002
2020
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
built up pozidano / arable njiva / vineyard vinograd /
orchard sadovnjak / olive grove oljčnik / forest gozd /
grassland travnik / overgrown v zaraščanju / water voda /
drugo other /
share elež (%) d /
Figure 8: Vipava Hills: new vineyards registered in 2020 (313.2 ha in total); the different colours indicate
the type of land use in 2002; the dotted areas show the Natura 2000 protected areas that were designated
in 2004.p
vestnik 95_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd  3.4.2024  10:54  Page 40

41
Geografski vestnik 95-1, 2023 Papers/Razprave
Natura 2000
highway / hitra cesta
settlement boundaries / meje naselij
built up / pozidano
arable / njiva
vineyard / vinograd
orchard / sadovnjak
olive grove / oljčnik
forest / gozd
grassland / travnik
overgrown / v zaraščanju
water / voda
other / drugo
0 4
k m
Cartography / Kartograf: Žiga Kokalj
Contents / Vsebina: Mateja Šmid Hribar, Maja Topole
Data source / Viri podatkov: GURS, MKGP , ZRC SAZU
© 2023, ZRC SAZU
±
vestnik 95_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd  3.4.2024  10:54  Page 41

42
Maja Topole, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Žiga Kokalj Challenges for the viticultural landscape – The case …
Table 1: Comparison of land use in the Vipava Hills in 2002 and 2020 (yellow: permanent land use in the period 2002–2020, pink: comparison
of vineyards in 2002 and 2020, red: areas that have decreased significantly).
Land use (ha) 2020
Built up Arable Vineyards Orchards Olive Forest Grassland Overgrown Water Other Vipava
groves Hills
Built up 203.2 3.3 2.3 9.0 0.1 4.1 10.5 0.8 0.4 3.7 237.3
Arable 13.7 252.1 85.7 25.8 0.3 6.9 241.4 4.3 0.4 22.1 652.8
Vineyards 22.6 50.5 623.2 48.3 10.6 28.9 180.6 57.2 0.2 67.5 1,089.7
Orchard 4.9 14.8 30.6 29.2 1.0 4.1 19.6 2.6 0.3 8.7 115.8
Olive grove 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4
Forest 19.0 4.4 67.1 22.2 4.6 3053.3 49.8 18.0 2.3 52.8 3,293.6
Grassland 35.1 61.4 121.5 65.2 3.9 190.6 640.1 57.7 0.9 129.7 1,306.2
Overgrown 1.2 0.4 1.0 1.3 0.2 29.0 1.3 1.4 0.1 3.6 39.4
Water 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.6 0.4 16.0 0.5 19.6
Other 5.4 2.2 4.9 6.2 0.5 46.3 18.6 3.5 5.2 14.7 107.5
Vipava Hills 305.2 389.2 936.4 207.6 21.2 3,365.2 1,162.5 146.0 25.7 303.3 6,862.3
Newly developed land 102.1 137.1 313.2 178.4 21.2 311.9 522.4 144.5 9.8 288.5 2,029.1
Abandoned land 34.2 400.6 466.5 86.5 0.4 240.4 666.1 38.0 3.6 92.7 2,029.1
Difference in 67.9 –263.5 –153.3 91.9 20.8 71.5 –143.7 106.5 6.2 195.8 0.0
ha 2020:2002
Index 2020/2002 129 60 86 179 2608 102 89 370 132 282 100
2002
vestnik 95_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd  3.4.2024  10:54  Page 42

In terms of exposure, the smallest decline in vineyard area over the period 2002–2020 is observed
in the eastern and north-eastern positions. In terms of soils, by far the largest increase in the area under
vines, 25-fold, was observed on eutric brown soils on older clayey alluvial land, where arable land used
to be.
The changes in the other land uses are shown in the indices for 2020/2002 (Table 1). Arable land
decreased the most. In 2020, the share of arable land was only 5.7%, i.e., 263.6 ha or 40% less than in
2002. In addition to the abandonment of arable land, this is mainly due to the migration of vineyards
to the bottom of the Vipava Valley, where they have displaced arable land. The area of grassland also
decreased, by 143.7 ha (11%). The land for other uses increased, with orchards increasing relatively the
most (by 91.8 ha or 80%), and olive groves in particular. These were almost non-existent in 2002 and
covered 21.2 ha in 2020.
49% of the Vipava Hills are covered with forest. It dominates in shady and steep areas. The aver-
age slope of the forest area is 43.8%. Since 2002, the forest area has increased by 71.5 ha (2%). Even before
the observation period, the forest had already grown over extensive terraced areas. Many terraces have
thus lost their original function, and 4.1% of the terraces were still in the process of becoming over-
grown in 2020. Although the forest is not of great economic importance here, it provides ecosystem
services such as forest fruits, wood biomass (firewood) and vineyard stakes as well as recreation. In
very steep areas, it plays an erosion-preventing, protective role, but otherwise it provides shelter for
animals and contributes to the mosaic structure of the landscape.
In 2020, 146 ha (2.1%) of land was overgrown, which is 3.7 times more than in 2002 (39,4 ha) in
the entire region. Overgrowth was concentrated in areas further away from settlements, at higher alti-
tudes, less accessible, steeper, drier or with shallow soils, as well as in areas with problematic ownership
(age, unregulated ownership, multiple owners).
A comparison of land use between 2002 and 2020 shows a significant decrease in vineyards, espe-
cially in the extreme north-western and south-eastern parts of the Vipava Hills. Most of the abandoned
vineyards are located in the settlements of Spodnja Branica, Preserje, Branik, Brje and Podraga, where
43
Geografski vestnik 95-1, 2023 Papers/Razprave
Figure 9: Vipava Hills: changes in vineyards 2002–2020: 1. newly established vineyards (313.2 ha)
by 2020 and their land use in 2002; 2. abandoned vineyards (466.5 ha) in the period 2002–2020
and their land use in 2020 (Dejanska … 2021).
2
1
4,9
0,7
10,8
27,4
10,4
9,8
2,3
6,2
21,4
38,7
38,8
12,3 14,5
1,6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
built up pozidano / arable njiva / orchard sadovnjak /
olive grove oljčnik / forest gozd / grassland travnik /
overgrown v zaraščanju / drugo other /
share elež (%) d /
Figure 10: Vipava Hills: land use types in 2020 where there were still vineyards in 2002 (land use
of abandoned vineyards, 466.5 ha in total) and Natura 2000 protected areas.p str. 44
Figure 11: Vipava Hills – changes in vineyards 2002–2020 (abandoned: 466.5ha, new: 313.2ha, permanent
or preserved: 623.2 ha) and their location in relation to Natura 2000 protected areas.p str. 45
vestnik 95_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd  3.4.2024  10:54  Page 43

44
Maja Topole, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Žiga Kokalj Challenges for the viticultural landscape – The case …
Natura 2000
highway / hitra cesta
settlement boundaries / meje naselij
built up / pozidano
arable / njiva
orchard / sadovnjak
olive grove / oljčnik
forest / gozd
grassland / travnik
overgrown / v zaraščanju
water / voda
other / drugo
0 4
k m
Cartography / Kartograf: Žiga Kokalj
Contents / Vsebina: Mateja Šmid Hribar, Maja Topole
Data source / Viri podatkov: GURS, MKGP , ZRC SAZU
© 2023, ZRC SAZU
±
vestnik 95_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd  3.4.2024  10:54  Page 44

45
Geografski vestnik 95-1, 2023 Papers/Razprave
abandoned vineyards /
opuščeni vinogradi
newly established vineyards /
novo urejeni vinogradi
Natura 2000
highway / hitra cesta
settlement boundaries / meje naselij
Cartography / Kartograf: Žiga Kokalj
Contents / Vsebina: Mateja Šmid Hribar, Maja Topole
Data source / Viri podatkov: GURS, MKGP , ZRC SAZU
© 2023, ZRC SAZU
0 4
k m ±
permanent vineyards /
stalni vinograd
vestnik 95_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd  3.4.2024  10:54  Page 45

almost no new vineyards are being established. There are also abandoned vineyards in Lože, on Slap,
Planina, in Šmarje and Gabrje, where, unlike the above-mentioned settlements, new vineyards are also
recorded, and in some cases there may be a migration of vineyards from higher and steeper areas to
lower ones where cultivation is easier.
Converting to grassland or even overgrowth of vineyards are very common in the Vipava Hills. In
the period 2002–2020, 14% of vineyards were abandoned, 40% of arable land was lost and 11% of grass-
land was lost (Table 1: Index 2020/2002). More detailed data on the individual settlement in the Vipava
Hills can be found in Topole, Šmid Hribar and Pipan (2022, 26–27).
In this context, the village of Šmarje in the municipality of Ajdovščina is interesting, where new
vineyards are being planted despite a drastic decline in agricultural activity. After a field visit, we learned
that new vineyards are being planted in Šmarje by foreigners (two Italians and a Slovene from central
Slovenia) who, according to a local, are buying land in the most favourable agricultural locations in
the settlement. One of them has planted a large vineyard where all the machine work is done by a local
and the harvested grapes are transported to Italy by the owner. This is a worrying development, as the
land is a natural resource that needs to be managed carefully. This is particularly problematic when
vineyards are developed on former low-lying grasslands. This results in a shortage of grassland for live-
stock farming, while at the same time the higher areas, which are best suited to viticulture, are being
overgrown.
3.3. Vineyards and Natura 2000
The Vipava Hills are included in two Natura 2000 sites due to their well-preserved nature:
Natura 2000 – Fauna Flora Habitat and Natura 2000 – Habitat Types (Illyrian oak-hornbeam forests
(Erythronio-carpinion), juniper stands in dry grasslands on carbonate substrate (Juniperus communis),
rocky grasslands on alkaline substrate (Alysso-Sedion albi) and western sub-Mediterranean dry grass-
lands (Scorzoneratalia villosae)). Together, Natura 2000 covers almost half (46.1%) of the Vipava Hills.
A detailed GIS analysis shows that one third of all vineyards (32.8%) overlap with Natura 2000 sites.
In 2004, when Natura 2000 was declared, there were 280.5 ha of vineyards in the different types of Natura
2000 (the number of organic vineyards is not yet known for that year), while in 2020 there were 275 ha
of conventional and 30.9 ha of organic vineyards within the Natura 2000 area (Figure 6). The vineyard
areas and the development of vineyard areas in the period 2002–2020 in relation to Natura 2000 are
shown in Figures 6, 8, 10 and 11. Natura 2000 is not evenly distributed across the settlements; there
are more protected areas in the central part of the hills, south of the watershed between the Vipava and
Branica rivers and in the east.
3.4 Measures to preserve the viticultural landscape
Based on the landscape analysis, the analysis of land use change in the period 2002–2020, three
participatory focus groups and desk work, we have formulated five short-term (1–2 years), five medi-
um-term (3–5 years) and four long-term (6–10 years) measures to contribute to the conservation and
development of the Vipava Hills viticultural landscape. The measures are shown in Table 2. In addi-
tion to a brief description of the measures, the key stakeholders involved in their implementation are
also listed. The feasibility of the measures is also considered. As can be seen, the key stakeholders for
the preservation of the Vipava Hills viticultural landscape are the wine-growers, the landowners, the
municipalities, which have to provide the appropriate legal framework, the agricultural and forestry
institute, which is to help with the establishment of new vineyards, and last but not least, the
researchers and experts who compile the relevant data.
46
Maja Topole, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Žiga Kokalj Challenges for the viticultural landscape – The case …
vestnik 95_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd  3.4.2024  10:54  Page 46

47
Geografski vestnik 95-1, 2023 Papers/Razprave
Table 2: Measures for the conservation and development of the Vipava Hills viticultural landscape.
Measure Period of Action Stakeholders Obstacles/risks
implementation
Measure 1
Revitalisation of the exist-
ing Vipava Wine Museum
The Wine Museum can contribute to
strengthening the visibility and competitive
advantage of the Vipava Valley viticultural
area, which has a rich history and tradition
based on exceptional natural conditions.
To revitalise the museum, we propose to:
• improve the museum’s accessibility to visi-
tors (daily, several hours a day),
• increase the promotion of the museum
(through wine shops, tourist agencies, etc.)
• offer presentations or guided tours in
different languages,
• include the museum in the wine route.
The Regional Museum
Goriški muzej Nova Gorica
Securing funding Short-term
Measure 2
Up-to-date overview of
the state of overgrowth of
vineyard land:
• list of interested parties
for the lease/purchase
of vineyard land and 
• monitoring the
situation
GIS data preparation and record keeping:
• former vineyards registered as land in overgrowth
in 2020,
• vineyards from 2002 converted to new land use
by 2020,
• field verification of identified land, recording
of current use, owner’s details,
• informing the owner about the condition
of the land and possible measures (agricultural
cultivation, renting, higher taxation in event
of overgrowth),
• at the same time, the municipality keeps a list
of wine-growers, those looking for a vineyard or
those who want to buy or lease an area suitable
for viticulture.
• Researchers/Experts to
provide GIS data on
vineyards,
• Municipalities where land
is in overgrowth (Vipava,
Ajdovščina, Komen and
Nova Gorica),
• Wine-growers interested
in renting/purchasing
vineyard land,
• Wine-growers interested
in renting/selling vineyard
land
• Securing funding;
• Engage the relevant institutions
to carry out field visits and
communicate with owners of
vineyard land in overgrowth
and potential tenants
Short-term
vestnik 95_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd  3.4.2024  10:54  Page 47

48
Maja Topole, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Žiga Kokalj Challenges for the viticultural landscape – The case …
Measure Period of Action Stakeholders Obstacles/risks
implementation
Measure 3
Training stakeholders
in sustainable farm
management and
agroecological practices
To make society and ecosystems more resilient to
climate change and more resilient to erosion, to
make farming and food systems more sustainable
and economically viable, farms need to:
• increase knowledge of agroecological practices,
• strengthen and disseminate traditional practices
that are still alive in many places, such as: mixed
planting, hand harvesting, mechanical weed
control, weed control by burning, partial and
complete greening of inter-row spaces, screening
with different materials, intermittent irrigation,
inter-row crops, mulching of pruning waste,
green manuring with different plants, organic
manure application, preparation and use of com-
post, including composting of grape skins,
presence of beehives and bird nesting boxes
(Best … 2020).
• Wine-growers or farmers,
• Institute of Agriculture
and Forestry Nova Gorica,
• School for of Viticulture
and Enology, University
of Nova Gorica
Lack of interest from wine
growers/farmers
Short-term
Measure 4
Eco-region formation
and branding
Given the exceptional natural conditions in the
hills, which are favourable for the introduction
of organic farming, and the promised incentives
from the EU and Slovenia, it makes sense to
initiate the process of introducing an eco-region
and creating a brand (Logar 2022a; 2022b).
The International Network of Eco Regions
(IN.N.E.R.), founded in 2014, issued guidelines
or a Charter in support of new eco-regions
(Charter … 2021).
• The economy departments
of the municipalities
of Vipava, Ajdovščina,
Komen and Nova Gorica,
• Regional Development
Agency ROD Ajdovščina
and Regional Development
Agency of Northern
Primorska ltd. Nova Gorica,
• Tourist organisations,
• Wine-growers, fruit-
growers, olive-growers,
• Research institutions
Lack of interest from wine
growers/farmers
Short-term
vestnik 95_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd  3.4.2024  10:54  Page 48

49
Geografski vestnik 95-1, 2023 Papers/Razprave
Measure Period of Action Stakeholders Obstacles/risks
implementation
Measure 5
Short lectures and discus-
sions on specific Nature
2000 cases in the Vipava
Hills several times a year
Short events with a presentation of Natura 2000 in
the Vipava Hills, where local people would learn
more about Natura 2000, the status (conservation)
of local habitat types and species, best practices in
Natura 2000 conservation of and viticulture, and
the challenges they face. The activity should be
carried out jointly by agricultural advisors, who
monitor and know the situation from an agricul-
tural and environmental point of view, and nature
conservationists, who are able to present topics
related to nature conservation and Natura 2000.
A better knowledge of Natura 2000 should have
an impact on the maintenance of agricultural
practices in these areas and on the reduction
of the overgrowth of Natura 2000 areas.
• Institute for Nature
Conservation, Nova
Gorica regional unit,
• Institute of Agriculture
and Forestry Nova Gorica,
• municipalities with land
in the Vipava Hills (Vipava,
Ajdovščina, Komen and
Nova Gorica)
• Coordination of dates for
events by Institute for Nature
Conservation, Nova Gorica
regional unit, Chamber of
Agriculture and Forestry
of Slovenia – Institute Nova
Gorica and participating
municipalities,
• Ensuring that local people
attend and that events are
moderated
Short-term
Measure 6
Revitalisation of the Wine
road
The wine roads that were built in the Vipava Hills
at the end of the 20th century to promote the sale
of wine and support viticulture connected the wine
and gastronomy providers and the natural and cul-
tural attractions of the hills. It would be necessary to:
• rehabilitate individual sections of the road and
better connect the villages or create connecting
roads,
• create a map of the wine road (marking the loca-
tions of wine-growing farms, farms with other
facilities, natural and cultural heritage, protected
areas, viewpoints, drinking water sources, basic
supply centres and accommodation),
• review the conditions for the participation of
interested wine-growers and wine merchants,
• include the previously excluded areas,
• strengthen the promotion of the wine road,
• properly maintain the infrastructure.
• The economy departments
of the municipalities of
Vipava, Ajdovščina, Komen
and Nova Gorica,
• Regional Development
Agency ROD Ajdovščina
and Regional Development
Agency of Northern
Primorska ltd. Nova Gorica,
• Tourist organisations,
• Wine-growers/farmers
Lack of interest from munici-
palities and other stakeholders
Medium-term
vestnik 95_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd  3.4.2024  10:54  Page 49

50
Maja Topole, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Žiga Kokalj Challenges for the viticultural landscape – The case …
Measure Period of Action Stakeholders Obstacles/risks
implementation
Measure 7
Strengthening the role
of the wine cooperative
or the participation of
farmers
The Vipava Agricultural Cooperative was founded
in 1894 to help farmers sell their produce (grapes,
fruit, milk and meat).
Following the forced sale of a majority share
in Agroind Vipava in 2014, the cooperative has
become less effective. This is also reflected in
the abandonment of the fragmented vineyards
in the north-western part of the hills, which is
the furthest from the Vipava 1894 wine cellar,
which is now owned by a foreigner.
The situation could be improved by strengthening
the role of the cooperative, cooperation between
wine-growers or farmers and building a common
network, focusing on sustainable farming and
joint promotion.
Wine-growers/farmers • Lack of interest from farmers,
• Problems with the organisa-
tion or management
Medium-term
Measure 8
Setting up a specialised
service to assist in the
rental/sale of land,
especially in the case
of multiple owners
Legal and organisational support for municipal
or inter-municipal services in the renting/sale
of suitable land to interested wine-growers.
Some vineyard land is becoming overgrown
because it is co-owned by several heirs who
cannot agree on a sale/lease or are abroad and
no longer have any interest in their property.
Municipalities and adminis-
trative units where land
is in overgrowth (Vipava,
Ajdovščina, Komen and
Nova Gorica administrative
units)
Lack of interest from munici-
palities to set up such a service
Medium-term
vestnik 95_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd  3.4.2024  10:54  Page 50

51
Geografski vestnik 95-1, 2023 Papers/Razprave
Measure Period of Action Stakeholders Obstacles/risks
implementation
Measure 9
Programme for the
marketing of the Vipava
Hills as a Natura 2000 site
The high proportion of the area protected by
Natura 2000 gives the Vipava Hills an important
character. It should not be seen as an obstacle but
as an advantage and emphasized in the tourist
offer and in the promotion of products from
this area. To this end, a programme should be
developed in the medium term to integrate
Natura 2000 into the marketing programme,
from wine sales to destination marketing for
the Vipava Hills.
• Institute for Nature
Conservation, Nova
Gorica regional unit,
• Municipalities with land in
the Vipava Hills (Vipava,
Ajdovščina, Komen and
Nova Gorica),
• Owners of wine cellars
and accommodation,
• Regional Development
Agency ROD Ajdovščina
and Regional Development
Agency of Northern
Primorska ltd. Nova Gorica,
• Institute of Agriculture and
Forestry Nova Gorica
• Lack of interest from
landowners and muni-
cipalities.
• Another risk may be the fear
of over-promotion of Natura
2000 by Institute for Nature
Conservation, Nova Gorica
regional unit. It will probably
be necessary to consider
which areas should be more
open and which should
remain hidden.
Medium-term
Measure 10
Amendment of the
Municipal Spatial Plan
(MSP) and granting of
permits for the gradual
establishment of new
vineyards on the areas
of former vineyards
If there is interest in establishing new vineyards,
these activities should also be encouraged at
a formal level by clearly indicating in the MSP
which former vineyard land, now overgrown
with forest, is eligible for replanting.
To this end, the land should be assessed in terms
of its suitability for viticulture (for an example
of the methodology, see Topole 1998, 122–126).
• Municipalities with land in
the Vipava Hills (Vipava,
Ajdovščina, Komen and
Nova Gorica),
• The Slovenia Forest Service,
• Vineyard owners,
• Cartographer (preparation
of a map of land use
changes 1825–2022 with
former vineyards marked),
• Research institution
Lack of interest in imple -
menting the measure from
municipalities and the Slovenia
Forest Service
Medium-term
vestnik 95_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd  3.4.2024  10:54  Page 51

52
Maja Topole, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Žiga Kokalj Challenges for the viticultural landscape – The case …
Measure Period of Action Stakeholders Obstacles/risks
implementation
Measure 11
Establishment of new
vineyards on the land
of previously abandoned
vineyards
Restoration of vineyards on the land of abandoned
vineyards or on vineyard land in overgrowth or
under forest.
• Owners of abandoned
vineyards or vineyard
land in overgrowth or
under forest,
• Wine-growers interested
in renting/purchasing land
with abandoned vineyards
or land in overgrowth or
under forest and in restoring
former vineyards or estab-
lishing new vineyards,
• Institute of Agriculture
and Forestry Nova Gorica;
(assistance in planning
new vineyards)
Failure to implement the
Municipality spatial plan or
inadequate implementation
of the Municipality spatial plan
that would allow wine growers
to establish new vineyards
on former vineyard land in
overgrowth or under forest
Long-term
Measure 12
Introduction of
direct agricultural
incentives/subsidies
for terrace cultivation
As in the case of Less Favoured Areas, payments
should also be introduced for the cultivation of
vineyards on terraces and slopes with a greater
gradient. Such areas require a higher financial
input than the cultivation of vineyards on flat land.
On the other hand, it is this type of farmland that
is most suitable for viticulture (including orchards
and olive groves) as they are located at higher alti-
tudes, which are less suitable for cereals and garden
vegetables. Flat land at the bottom of the valley
should be preserved as arable land.
• Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry and Food,
• Institute of Agriculture
and Forestry Nova Gorica,
• Wine-growers
Lack of interest from the
Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry and Food
Long-term
vestnik 95_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd  3.4.2024  10:54  Page 52

53
Geografski vestnik 95-1, 2023 Papers/Razprave
Measure Period of Action Stakeholders Obstacles/risks
implementation
Measure 13
Payments for vineyard
cultivation at higher and
steeper altitudes (between
100 and 350 m) and in
Natura 2000 sites
Higher, windswept, sunny and sloping positions
are more favourable for organic viticulture and
healthy ripening of the grapes. Although low-lying
areas are easily accessible by machinery and easier
to work, they require a higher use of plant protec-
tion products due to gleization, higher humidity
and the risk of diseases, pests and frost. On the
other hand, these areas are lost for the cultivation
of cereals and garden vegetables.
We propose subsidies to help preserve the
traditional viticultural landscape for:
• vineyards in Natura 2000 areas and
• vineyards at higher altitudes and on slopes that
require terracing, the preservation and mainte-
nance of terraces, more manual labour because
they are more difficult to access with machinery,
but are more sustainable and have less harmful
effects on the environment (Šmid Hribar et al.
2017; Topole 2020).
This is the only way to bring out the characteristic
rock substrate that enables the production of
autochthonous quality wines.
• Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry and Food,
• Institute for Nature
Conservation, Nova Gorica
regional unit,
• Institute of Agriculture and
Forestry Nova Gorica,
• Wine-growers
Lack of interest from the
Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry and Food
Long-term
Measure 14:
Increase the representation
of local grape varieties
As local grape varieties are less susceptible to climate
change, efforts should be made to increase their
share (currently estimated at more than 35% in
Vipava Valley) (Škvarč 2023).
• Institute of Agriculture
and Forestry Nova Gorica,
• The Grapevine Nursery
Cooperative Trsnica
Vrhpolje
Lack of interest from
wine-growers
Long-term
vestnik 95_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd  3.4.2024  10:54  Page 53

4 Discussion
The results of the survey show a typical process of relocation of vineyards to the flatland and inten-
sification of viticulture over the last two decades, while the problem of abandonment and overgrowth
of vineyards is more pronounced in the higher altitudes of the hills.
The European Union set itself the target to convert 25% of its agricultural land to organic farming
by 2030. In some countries (Austria, Estonia and Sweden), more than 20% of cultivated land has already
been organically farmed in 2021 (Agricultural … 2023), but there is still considerable room for progress
in Slovenia. The Vipava Hills are among its most promising areas, where 9% of vineyards are already
organically farmed. Organic viticulture is also the most rational form of land use in the Vipava Hills
in the areas that are becoming overgrown. This is because areas that are becoming overgrown are pri-
marily suitable for viticulture, or potentially for olive groves and fruit trees.
The reasons for the abandonment of vineyards are not only the less favourable natural conditions,
the poorer accessibility and the difficulty of cultivation, but also the ageing population, the unregu-
lated ownership of vineyards and the large number of vineyard owners. Older people are reluctant to
convert to organic farming because it requires more manual labour and new skills in which they are
no longer willing to invest much. They find it difficult to sell their land or leave their vineyards to a younger
generation. The advanced age of those taking over the business means less flexibility and an obstacle
to the introduction and implementation of important innovations. More incentives should therefore
be created to hand over the farms to a younger generation that is more flexible, more teachable and
more willing to introduce innovations and grow grapes organically. Y oung people are also migrating
because work in agriculture is undervalued and they can earn money more easily in other sectors of
the economy.
The problems of the hills are also related to the former Vipava Agricultural Cooperative, or Agroind,
the largest winery in Vipava, whose ownership has changed, the closure of its purchasing office or branch
in Branik and the low purchase prices for grapes. The grapes now have to be delivered to Vipava. In
the autumn of 2021, the average purchase price was 30 to 40 cents, and even as low as 25 cents per kilo-
gram for machine harvesting. Added to this are the costs of transportation from the north-western Vipava
Hills to Vipava, and for many it is not economically viable to produce grapes. Farmers’ lack of aware-
ness of the importance of high-quality grape production is also often to blame, and this is linked to
the low purchase prices.
Viticulture is mainly practiced by larger wine-growers who produce and sell their own wine.
The vineyards are fragmented (the average size is only 0.5 ha), and apart from the difficulty of rent-
ing or buying suitable and sufficiently large contiguous land, it is also difficult and time-consuming
to obtain a consensus for the change of use. Within three years of abandoning cultivation, the vine-
yard starts to overgrow, which is followed by a reclassification of the land from overgrown to forest.
Such land is usually lost forever for agricultural use. The restitution or restoration of former vineyards
involves enormous costs and time losses. It requires extreme perseverance to obtain permits, as there
are many obstacles that are difficult to overcome: municipal spatial plans are rarely renewed; foresters
only allow the clearing of up to 0.5 ha of large contiguous areas at a time, even if there was once a vine-
yard at a particular location.
The loss of fertile land is not only detrimental, but also increases the habitat for wild animals. Unbridled
overgrowth that does not lead to a quality forest brings game ever closer to the remaining vineyards
and causes damage to wine-growers.
Restrictions are also imposed by the EU through annual quotas for newly authorised vineyards per
country and by Natura 2000 or nature conservationists. In addition, the disorganisation and discon-
nection of wine-growers and even the municipalities of the Vipava Valley make development more
difficult.
In line with these findings, the abandonment of cultural landscapes will continue in the future.
54
Maja Topole, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Žiga Kokalj Challenges for the viticultural landscape – The case …
vestnik 95_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd  3.4.2024  10:54  Page 54

It is not only the abandonment of vineyards that is problematic, but also their relocation to the
bottom of the Vipava Valley and the intensification of viticulture. These two developments took place
in the period under review from 2002 to 2020. In 2020, 85.7 ha or 9.2% of the vineyards were locat-
ed on land that was still used as arable land in 2002. While new vineyards on less sloping soils are
more accessible to machinery and easier to cultivate, the soils there require a much higher use of plant
protection products due to the gleization of the soil. The more frequent fog, less sunshine and greater
risk of frost also make the vineyards at the valley bottom more susceptible to diseases and pests, so
that much higher use of plant protection products is required. The area is therefore suitable for inten-
sive cultivation, but not for the introduction of organic viticulture. On the other hand, this land is being
lost as arable land or for the cultivation of cereals and vegetables, as Vertovec warned against in his man-
ual from 1844 (Vertovec 2015). At the same time, this leads to overgrowth on the higher slopes, where
it is difficult or even impossible to grow crops other than vines, fruit trees and olives. While this may
be desirable from a nature conservation perspective, it is not always positive as it tends to lead to a loss
of biodiversity. Therefore, measures to prevent overgrowth, which we have outlined in section 3.4, are
essential.
The inclusion of the Vipava Hills in the Natura 2000 network brings with it certain restrictions in
terms of management, but also benefits, as it highlights the high degree of naturalness of the area.
Discussions with stakeholders revealed that the Natura 2000 sites in the Vipava Hills are little known.
Many wine growers do not know whether their vineyards are in Natura 2000 areas or not. As part of
this study, we have produced maps of the vineyards and Natura 2000 sites and organised a lecture on
the Natura 2000 sites in the Vipava Hills, but more events of this kind are needed to improve knowl-
edge about Natura 2000. Stakeholders, especially landowners, would like to see more discussion and
an attempt to find synergies with the management of Natura 2000 sites. Of particular importance here
is the restoration of former vineyards and the establishment of new vineyards on overgrown land, which
is also protected by Natura 2000. Overgrowth, which usually leads to biodiversity depletion, must be
stopped. In any case, great attention will have to be paid to raising awareness and fruitful dialogue between
farmers, wine-growers and nature conservationists in order to preserve nature and vineyards at the same
time. The worst-case scenario for the Natura 2000 area and the viticultural landscape would be the loss
of vineyards, which would become overgrown and turn into low-quality forests.
There is an urgent need to raise awareness of Natura 2000 among the local population and other
stakeholders and to include it as an environmental brand in the marketing programme. Not every wine
comes from an area as natural as the Vipava Hills. It should be emphasised that the Vipava Hills have
the advantage of having a number of high-altitude vineyard sites with an ideal combination of micro-
climatic, lithological and pedological features that enable the production of top quality (single vineyard)
wines (Klemenčič 2020). The promotion of the Vipava Hills viticultural landscape should be based on
this. The ideal conditions in the region should be utilised and the creation of an ecoregion and a brand
should be launched as soon as possible, which both the European Union and Slovenia have been advo-
cating for since this year. The focus groups have shown that many wine-growers in Vipava want to use
the natural advantages of their area and maintain or reorient themselves towards organic farming, thus
contributing to the provision of public goods, the preservation of the agricultural cultural landscape
and the protection of the environment as a whole (Ekološka … 2023).
5 Conclusion
Based on a landscape analysis, a land use change analysis and three participatory focus groups, we
have proposed 14 short-, medium- and long-term actions to contribute to the conservation of the Vipava
Hills viticultural landscape and Natura 2000 over the next 10 years. Most of the efforts and activities
will have to focus on preventing overgrowth as the proportion of vineyards decreases, even if new ones
55
Geografski vestnik 95-1, 2023 Papers/Razprave
vestnik 95_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd  3.4.2024  10:54  Page 55

56
Maja Topole, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Žiga Kokalj Challenges for the viticultural landscape – The case …
are planted. Although we have not included specific actions to deal with wildlife issues (i.e., game), we
would like to emphasise that it will also be necessary to start effective management of the increasing
wildlife population. The viticultural landscape of the Vipava Hills has a high degree of naturalness and
provides a habitat for a variety of animal species, including game, which often causes damage to the
vineyards. This is closely linked to the aforementioned overgrowth. The overgrowth leads to an increase
in the number of wild animals, and the damage caused by the wild animals in turn leads to the aban-
donment of the vineyards near the overgrown land. Finding this delicate balance will require the cooperation
of various stakeholders. A key role will have to be played by the district hunting ground managers, foresters
and the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food.
Considerable attention will have to be paid to raising awareness and recognising the value of Natura
2000 sites. Through a series of public debates and presentations, protected areas need to be recognised
and treated as an asset rather than a constraint. Last but not least, the mosaic-like viticultural land-
scape with its high degree of naturalness is attractive to visitors, and part of the activities should also
focus on linking viticulture, tourism and gastronomy.
Acknowledgments: We would like to thank the Interreg project ECOVINEGOALS - Management and
Activities in Organic Vineyards as a Basis for the Preparation of Landscape Strategies, the Slovenian Research
and Innovation Agency for the financial support for the research programmes Geography of Slovenia (P6-
0101), Heritage on the Margins: New Perspectives on Heritage and Identity Within and Beyond National
(P5-0408) and Earth Observation and Geoinformatics (P2-0406). Finally, we would like to thank Saša Požek
for the English translation.
6 References
Agricultural Area Under Organic Farming in Europe. European Environmental Agency, 2023. Internet:
https:/ /www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/indicators/agricultural-area-used-for-organic (20. 11. 2023)
Action Plan for the Development of Organic Production in the EU. European Commission, 2022. Internet:
https://eu-cap-network.ec.europa.eu/news/action-plan-development-organic-production-eu_en
(12. 10. 2023).
Akcijski načrt za razvoj ekološkega kmetijstva do leta 2027. Ministrstvo za kmetijstvo, gozdarstvo in
prehrano. Ljubljana, 2022. Internet: https://www.gov.si/assets/ministrstva/MKGP/PODROCJA/
KMETIJSTVO/Ekolosko_kmetovanje/Akcijski-nacrt-za-ekolosko-kmetovanje/ANEK_slovenski.pdf
(12. 10. 2023).
Best Agro-ecological Practices: Deliverable T1.1.1.: Document with definitions, criteria, and methods
for selection of demonstrative viticulture areas and agro-ecological vineyards. ECOVINEGOALS,
2020. Internet: https:/ /ecovineroads.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/DT1.1.1_Annex_AgroEcological_
Practices_list_final.pdf (3. 4. 2023).
Charter to Support the Development of New Organic Districts: Organic Districts Guidelines.
EducEcoRegions Project, 2021. Internet: https:/ /www.ecoregion.info/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/
O1-A2_Organic_Districts_Guidelines.pdf (1. 10, 2023). 
Buser, S. 1973: Osnovna geološka karta SFRJ 1 : 100.000, tolmač lista Gorica. Zvezni geološki zavod.
Beograd.
Dejanska raba zemljišč: Register kmetijskih gospodarstev. Ministrstvo za kmetijstvo, gozdarstvo in
prehrano. Ljubljana, 2021. Internet: https://rkg.gov.si/vstop/ (8. 12. 2021).
Ekološka pridelava: Struktura in obseg zemljišč v sistemu nadzora ekološke pridelave od leta 2012 do
leta 2022 (zadnja sprememba 27. 9. 2023). Internet: https://www.gov.si/teme/ekoloska-pridelava/
(5. 10. 2023).
European Landscape Convention. Florence, 2000. Internet: https:/ /rm.coe.int/1680080621 (5. 10. 2023).
vestnik 95_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd  3.4.2024  10:54  Page 56

57
Geografski vestnik 95-1, 2023 Papers/Razprave
European Green Deal. European Commission, 2019. Internet: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/sl/
policies/green-deal/ and https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/
european-green-deal_en (13.10. 2023).
Frelih, S. 2021: Ekološki vinogradi. Ministrstvo za kmetijstvo, gozdarstvo in prehrano. Ljubljana (osebna
korespondenca).
Gabrovec, M. 1998: Sončno obsevanje. Geografski atlas Slovenije. Ljubljana.
Gabrovec, M., Kumer, P ., Ribeiro, D., Šmid Hribar, M. 2020: Land use in Slovenia. The Geography of
Slovenia: Small But Diverse. Cham. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14066-3_18
Hrvatin, M. 2021: Podnebje Vipavskega gričevja. Elaborat, Geografski inštitut Antona Melika ZRC SAZU.
Ljubljana.
Klemenčič, I. 2020: Vinogradništvo: Poudarjanje lege ni zgolj marketinški trik. Dnevnik, 1. 12. 2020.
Internet: https://www.dnevnik.si/1042944453 (16. 10. 2023).
Korošec-Koruza, Z. 2015: Knjigi na pot: Zakaj in kako prebirati »Vinorejo«. Uvod v Vinorejo za Slovence
Matije Vertovca, priloge Kmetijskih in rokodelskih novic leta 1844. Ljubljana.
Logar, E. 2022a: Place branding as an approach to the development of rural areas: A case study of the
brand »Babica in Dedek« from the Škofja Loka Hills, Slovenia. Acta geographica Slovenica 62-2.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.10883
Logar, E. 2022b: Place branding as an approach to development of rural tourist area: The case study of
the Bohinjsko - from Bohinj brand, Slovenia. International Place Branding Association: 6th Annual
Conference. Aix-en-Provence.
Maroh, Ž., Kokalj, Ž. 2021: Raster statistics. Internet: https://github.com/EarthObservation/raster_
statistics (21. 4. 2023).
Mraz in sneg med 5. in 9. aprilom 2021. Agencija Republike Slovenije za okolje. Ljubljana, 2021. Internet:
https://meteo.arso.gov.si/uploads/probase/www/climate/text/sl/weather_events/mraz-sneg_
5-9apr2021.pdf (18. 9. 2023).
Natura 2000: Naravovarstveni atlas. Zavod Republike Slovenije za varstvo narave. Ljubljana, 2021. Internet:
https://www.naravovarstveni-atlas.si/web/profile.aspx?id=N2K@ZRSVNJ (8. 12. 2021).
Pedološka karta Slovenije. Ministrstvo za kmetijstvo, gozdarstvo in prehrano. Ljubljana, 2016. Internet:
https://rkg.gov.si/razno/portal_analysis/PedoloskaKarta.zip (18. 9. 2023).
Penko Seidl, N., Golobič, M. 2020: Quantitative assessment of agricultural landscape heterogeneity.
Ecological Indicators 112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106115
Pipan, P ., Kokalj, Ž. 2017: Transformation of the Jeruzalem hills cultural landscape with modern vineyard
terraces. Acta geographica Slovenica 57-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.4629
Podatki aerolaserskega skeniranja Slovenije. Agencija Republike Slovenije za okolje. Ljubljana, 2015.
Internet: http://gis.arso.gov.si/evode/profile.aspx?id=atlas_voda_Lidar@Arso (13. 1. 2022).
Ribeiro, D., Šmid Hribar, M. 2019: Assessment of land-use changes and their impacts on ecosystem
services in two Slovenian rural landscapes. Acta geographica Slovenica 59-2. DOI: https://doi.org/
10.3986/AGS.6636
SiSTAT: Prebivalstvo. Statistični urad Republike Slovenije. Ljubljana, 2021.
Škvarč, A. 2023: Lokalne sorte vinske trte, Vipavska dolina. Nova Gorica.
Šmid Hribar, M. 2017: Varovanje in trajnostni razvoj kulturne pokrajine na primeru Ljubljanskega barja.
Georitem 27. Ljubljana. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/9789612549121
Šmid Hribar, M., Geršič, M., Pipan, P ., Repolusk P ., Tiran, J., Topole, M., Ciglič, R. 2017: Cultivated
terraces in Slovenian landscapes. Acta geographica Slovenica 59-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/
AGS.4597.
Šmid Hribar, M. 2021a: Prebivalstvo Vipavskega gričevja. Elaborat, Geografski inštitut Antona Melika
ZRC SAZU. Ljubljana.
Šmid Hribar, M. 2021b: Natura 2000 in vinogradi Vipavskega gričevja. Elaborat, Geografski inštitut
Antona Melika ZRC SAZU. Ljubljana.
vestnik 95_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd  3.4.2024  10:54  Page 57

58
Maja Topole, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Žiga Kokalj Challenges for the viticultural landscape – The case …
Topole, M. 1998: Mirnska dolina: Regionalna geografija porečja Mirne na Dolenjskem. Ljubljana. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3986/9789612544928
Topole, M. 2020: Terasirana pokrajina sredozemskih planot. Heriskop 1-1. Internet: https:/ /dediscina.zrc-
sazu.si/sl/2020/09/terasirana-pokrajina-sredozemskih-planot/#page-content (3. 10. 2023).
Topole, M. 2021: Analiza pokrajine Vipavskega gričevja. Elaborat, Geografski inštitut Antona Melika
ZRC SAZU. Ljubljana.
Topole, M., Pipan, P . 2022: Prilaščanje pokrajine Sečoveljskih solin: naravna in kulturna dediščina.
Geografski vestnik 94-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/GV94106
Topole, M., Šmid Hribar, M., Pipan, P . 2022: Vinogradništvo v Vipavskem gričevju. Ljubljana. Internet:
https://giam.zrc-sazu.si/sites/default/files/vinogradnistvo%20v%20vipavskem%20gricevju.pdf
(3. 10. 2023).
Urbanc, M. 2002: Kulturne pokrajine v Sloveniji. Geografija Slovenije 5. Ljubljana. DOI: https:/ /doi.org/
10.3986/9789612544997
Vertovec, M. 2015: Vinoreja za Slovence. Ajdovščina.
vestnik 95_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd  3.4.2024  10:54  Page 58

59
Geografski vestnik 95-1, 2023 Razprave/Papers
IZZIVI VINOGRADNIŠKE POKRAJINE – PRIMER VIP A VSKEGA
GRIČEVJA V SLOVENIJI
1 Uvod
Slovenija ima med vsemi tipi rabe zemljišč le 1 % vinogradov, a se kljub temu uvršča med tradi-
cionalne vinorodne države. Med njenimi tremi vinorodnimi deželami ima največji delež vinogradov
vinorodna dežela Primorska. Znotraj te dežele prednjačijo sredozemska gričevja, kjer je vinograd-
niške rabe zemljišč povprečno 6,4 % (Gabrovec in sod. 2020, 280). Sem spada tudi Vipavsko gričevje,
del vinorodnega okoliša Vipavske doline, ki se ponaša s 13,6 % vinogradov, in eno najstarejših vino-
gradniških tradicij v Sloveniji. V nekaterih virih, predvsem zemljevidih, se za Vipavsko gričevje uporablja
tudi ime Vipavska brda, ki je tudi standardizirano, vendar med domačini ni udomačeno. Z Vipavskega
izvira tudi prvi slovenski strokovni vinogradniški priročnik, ki ga je sredi 19. stoletja (1844) kot pri-
logo Kmetijskih in rokodelskih novic izdal domačin, duhovnik in strokovnjak na različnih področjih,
Matija Vertovec (1784–1851) (Vertovec 2015). Leta 1994 je izšla njegova faksimilirana izdaja, pre-
pis originala pa kot »strokovni, jezikovni in narodnostni biser« ponovno leta 2015 (Korošec-Koruza
2015).
Kljub ugodnim razmeram za kmetijstvo, zlasti za vinogradništvo, pa tudi v Vipavskem gričevju opa-
žamo napredujoče procese zaraščanja in opuščanja kmetijskih zemljišč. Vinogradi se opuščajo in selijo
iz višje ležečih na nižje ležeča območja oziroma v ravnine. Do preobrazbe vinogradniške pokrajine
v Sloveniji med drugim prihaja zaradi modernizacije obdelovanja zemljišč (Pipan in Kokalj 2017). V slo-
venskih kmetijskih pokrajinah sta pri rabi zemljišč prisotna dva nasprotujoča si trenda: opuščanje in
intenzifikacija (Ribeiro in Šmid Hribar 2019). Oba trenda vodita v izgubo pokrajinske in biotske pestro-
sti, kar pomeni razvrednotenje kmetijske pokrajine in upadanje privlačnosti regije za poselitev, turizem
in rekreacijo.
Namen te študije je bil preučiti spremembo rabe zemljišč v Vipavskem gričevju v obdobju 2002–2020
ter ugotoviti trenutno stanje in trende v tej vinogradniški pokrajini. Zastavili smo si naslednji raziskovalni
vprašanji:
1) Kakšne so bile spremembe v pokrajini oziroma rabi zemljišč v obdobju 2002–2020?
2) Kako ohranjati vinogradniško pokrajino Vipavskega gričevja?
Rezultati raziskave bodo prispevali k oblikovanju pokrajinske politike, posebej ukrepov in strate-
gij pri upravljanju kulturnih pokrajin (na primer Urbanc 2002; Šmid Hribar 2017; Penko Seidl in Golobič
2020; Topole in Pipan 2022) in k uresničevanju Evropske konvencije o krajini (European landscape…
2000). Ta izpostavlja, da je pokrajina temeljna sestavina evropske naravne in kulturne dediščine, ki pri-
speva k človekovi blaginji in utrjevanju evropske prepoznavnosti. 
Rezultati bodo dobrodošli tudi v prizadevanju Evropske komisije in Republike Slovenije. Obe sta
nedavno sprejeli načrt prehoda v ekološki način kmetovanja (Action … 2022; Akcijski … 2022). S tem
naj bi pripomogli k uresničitvi Evropskega zelenega dogovora (European … 2019) s ciljem, do leta
2030 vključiti 25 % vseh kmetijskih zemljišč Evropske unije v ekološki način obdelave, do leta 2050
pa postopno doseči podnebno nevtralnost. EU in Slovenija bosta po letu 2023 izvajali posebne ukre-
pe in dajali spodbude, med drugimi za ustanavljanje ekoregij (Charter … 2021). Ekološki vinogradi,
ki naj bi se širili, pa so v Vipavskem gričevju tudi najbolj racionalni način rabe zemljišč v območjih,
ki se zaraščajo. Zaraščajo se namreč lege, ki so primerne le za vinograde, kvečjemu še za oljčnike in
sadno drevje.
vestnik 95_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd  3.4.2024  10:54  Page 59

60
Maja Topole, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Žiga Kokalj Izzivi vinogradniške pokrajine – primer Vipavskega …
2 Metode
2.1 GIS analiza
Pri izračunu statistik za potrebe pokrajinske analize smo si zaradi velikega števila slojev, kombi-
nacij razredov in administrativnih enot pomagali z lastno kodo, ki iz rastrskih podatkov izračuna statistične
kazalce, kot so na primer najmanjša in največja vrednost, povprečje, površina in percentil. Izvedli smo
izračune za izbrane administrativne enote, na primer naselja, in glede na izbrane kriterije, kot na pri-
mer naklonske razrede, in sicer po posameznih kategorijah rabe zemljišč (Maroh in Kokalj 2021).
Dodatno smo izvedli matematično-statistične obdelave podatkov in prikazali pomen posameznih
pojavov oziroma tipov rabe zemljišč s pomočjo indeksov koncentracije. Pomen geofaktorjev, ki vpli-
vajo nanje, smo osvetlili s pomočjo Hirschmanovega koeficienta koncentracije.
Pomagali smo si s Podatki aerolaserskega skeniranja Slovenije (2015), sloj ekoloških vinogradov
smo dobili prek osebne korespondence z Ministrstvom za kmetijstvo, gozdarstvo in prehrano (Frelih 2021),
sloj območij Nature 2000 pa iz Zavoda Republike Slovenije za varstvo narave, prav tako prek osebne kore-
spondence (Natura … 2021).
2.2 Terenski ogledi in participativne fokusne skupine
Med oktobrom 2020 in majem 2022 smo opravili 10 terenskih ogledov, na katerih smo se sezna-
nili s pokrajino ter srečali s kmeti in drugimi prebivalci območja. Z njimi smo opravili neformalne kratke
pogovore. Zanimali so nas struktura pokrajine, odnos domačinov do lastne regije ter njihov pogled na
njene prednosti in slabosti.
Opremljeni z rezultati GIS pokrajinske analize, analize tematskih zemljevidov in analize statističnih
podatkov (Topole 2021; Šmid Hribar 2021a; 2021b) ter ugotovitev na terenu smo pokrajinsko proble-
matiko predstavili deležnikom na treh participativnih fokusnih skupinah, in sicer oktobra in decembra
2021 ter aprila 2022. V abljeni so bili konvencionalni in ekološki vinogradniki, kmetje, predstavniki občin,
zavoda za gozdove, regionalne razvojne agencije, izobraževalnih in raziskovalnih ustanov, predstav-
niki dediščinskih ustanov, turističnih in informacijskih središč, društev in nevladnih organizacij ter
ponudniki s področij turizma, gostinstva, obrti in trgovine. Na podlagi razgovorov smo oblikovali ukre-
pe za ohranjanje in nadaljnji razvoj vinogradniške pokrajine Vipavskega gričevja.
3 Rezultati 
3.1. Vipavsko gričevje
Vipavsko gričevje je razgiban južni del Vipavske doline, stisnjen med visoki kraški planoti Trnovski
gozd (1495 m) in Nanos (1313 m) na severu oziroma severovzhodu in nižjo kraško Tržaško-Komensko
planoto oziroma Kras na jugozahodu (povprečno 334 m). Na zahodu, kjer Vipavska dolina prehaja
v Furlansko nižino, je vpliv morja najbolj občuten. Zračna razdalja do Jadranskega morja v Tržaškem
zalivu znaša povprečno le 15 km.
Slika 1: Položaj Vipavskega gričevja v Sloveniji (vir za administrativne meje občin in naselij: Register
prostorskih enot 2021).
Glej angleški del prispevka.
Podnebje Vipavskega gričevja je submediteransko oziroma zmerno sredozemsko. Od pravega sre-
dozemskega podnebja se razlikuje po nekoliko nižjih povprečnih temperaturah in drugačni razporeditvi
vestnik 95_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd  3.4.2024  10:54  Page 60

61
Geografski vestnik 95-1, 2023 Razprave/Papers
padavin. Meteorološka postaja Slap je imela v obdobju 1967–2006 povprečno letno temperaturo 12 °C,
povprečno julijsko 21,2 °C in januarsko 3,1 °C. Na zimske temperature močno vplivajo vdori hladnih
celinskih zračnih mas. Vipavska dolina prejme letno povprečno okrog 1500 mm padavin; prvi višek je
v jesenskih mesecih, drugi pa na prehodu pomladi v poletje. Najmanj padavin pade pozimi ter julija
in avgusta. Rastna sezona s povprečno dnevno temperaturo nad 5 °C traja 289 dni (22. februar–7. decem-
ber), poljedelska sezona s povprečno dnevno temperaturo nad 10 °C, pa 208 dni (8. april–1. november).
Pomladanska pozeba se lahko pojavi še marca, v hladnejših legah tudi aprila (Hrvatin 2021). 6. apri-
la 2021, na primer, je polarni zrak v nekaj urah preplavil Slovenijo. Snežilo je celo ob morju, najmočneje
pa vzdolž dinarske gorske pregrade. Najbolj mrzlo aprilsko jutro v več kot 60 letih opazovanja pa je
bilo 7. aprila 2021. Postaja Bilje pri Novi Gorici je takrat zabeležila minimalno temperaturo –4,1 °C,
Podnanos v Vipavski dolini pa –3,2 °C (Mraz … 2021).
Leta 2020 je v  23 naseljih Vipavskega gričevja, ki obsega 68,6 km
2 
in pripada štirim občinam
(Ajdovščina, Komen, Nova Gorica in Vipava), živelo 5511 prebivalcev. Delovno aktivna je bila slaba
polovica prebivalcev (47 %). Med temi se jih je s kmetijsko dejavnostjo ukvarjalo 5,7 % (SiSTAT 2021).
Vipavsko gričevje ima ugoden prometni položaj vzdolž hitre ceste Razdrto–Nova Gorica, medseboj-
ne prometne povezave znotraj gričevja pa so z izjemo redkih prečnih smeri večinoma slabe.
3.2 Geomorfološka in pedološka analiza pokrajine in raba zemljišč 2020
Povprečna višina Vipavskega gričevja je 206 m, razlika med najvišjo točko na jugovzhodu
(Stanibreg, 556 m) in najnižjo točko na severozahodu ob izlivu Branice v Vipavo (59 m) je 497 m. Skoraj
dve tretjini Vipavskega gričevja pripada višinam 100 do 250 m, slaba desetina je nižja od 100 m in le
6% gričevja sega više kot 350m (slika 2). Najvišji je razvodni greben med vodotokoma Vipavo in Branico,
ki poteka na zahodu v smeri SZZ–JVV , na vzhodu pa skoraj od severa proti jugu. Vipavsko gričevje je
območje precejšnjih strmin. Povprečni naklon je 31 %, zato je tu velik del zemljišč terasiranih.
Kamninsko podlago v celotnem območju gričevja tvori eocenski fliš, kjer se menjavajo laporji, peš-
čenjaki, argiliti in alevroliti, vmes pa se pojavljajo vložki breč, konglomeratov in kalkarenitov (Buser 1973,
23–25). Na tej podlagi so se razvile različne evtrične rjave prsti, ki zavzemajo 71,2 % Vipavskega gri-
čevja. Med seboj se razlikujejo po deležu peščenjakov in laporjev, po deležu primesi ter po debelini, ki je
povezana z naklonom površja. 38,8 % prsti je močno antropogeniziranih, spremenjenih pod vplivom člo-
veka. V drugo skupino spadajo različno globoko oglejene in psevdooglejene prsti, ki so lahko obrečne ali
na koluviju, in skupaj zavzemajo dobro petino Vipavskega gričevja (21,2%) (Pedološka…2016). Na pedo-
loške razmere poleg kamninske sestave in naklonov vplivajo ekspozicija, osončenost in vodne razmere.
V Vipavskem gričevju skoraj ni ravnih površin, podpovprečno so zastopane zahodne in severne
ekspozicije, nadpovprečno pa severovzhodne, jugovzhodne in južne ekspozicije. Vipavsko gričevje pre-
jema veliko količino energije sončnega obsevanja, letno v povprečju 4276 MJ oziroma 1188 Kwh/m
2
,
kar je za 6,6 % več od slovenskega povprečja (Gabrovec 1998; Hrvatin 2021). Zaradi reliefne razčle-
njenosti so lokalne razlike velike. Kar tri četrtine Vipavskega gričevja spada v  najvišje tri razrede
osončenosti, ki prejmejo nad 900 Kwh/m
2
.
Z analizo rabe zemljišč smo potrdili, da je Vipavsko gričevje vinogradniška pokrajina (slika 3).
Leta 2020 so vinogradi zavzemali 936,4 ha ali 13,6 % od skupno 6862,5 ha vseh zemljišč oziroma 29,6 %
od 3166,3 ha kmetijskih zemljišč. Med vinogradniške kmetije je po podatkih Kmetijsko gozdarskega
zavoda Nova Gorica v Vipavskem gričevju štelo 587 (70 %) od skupno 839 kmetij. Na eno vinograd-
niško kmetijo je odpadlo povprečno 1,6 ha vinogradov, povprečna velikost posameznega vinograda pa
je bila 0,5 ha.
Slika 2: Razgibana vinogradniška pokrajina Vipavskega gričevja. Pogled prek Marije Snežne nad Gočami
proti jugovzhodu, v zgornjo Vipavsko dolino pod Nanosom.
Glej angleški del prispevka.
vestnik 95_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd  3.4.2024  10:54  Page 61

62
Maja Topole, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Žiga Kokalj Izzivi vinogradniške pokrajine – primer Vipavskega …
Slika 3: Vipavsko gričevje – raba zemljišč leta 2020 (Dejanska … 2021).
Glej angleški del prispevka.
Relativno največji delež vinogradov med vsemi rabami imajo naselja: Slap (33,3 %), Manče
(26,1 %), Branik (25 %), Lože (21,4 %) in Zavino (21,1 %) (slika 4), z absolutno največjimi površinami
s trto pa razpolagajo Slap (169,8ha), Branik (107,6ha), Planina (69,5ha), Brje (69,3ha), Podraga (57,7ha),
Šmarje (56,8 ha) in Manče (55,8 ha) (slika 5).
Slika 4: Vipavsko gričevje – struktura rabe zemljišč po naseljih leta 2020 (v %).
Glej angleški del prispevka.
Slika 5: Vipavsko gričevje – struktura rabe zemljišč po naseljih leta 2020 (v ha).
Glej angleški del prispevka.
Povprečna nadmorska višina vinogradov je 187 m. Najbolj so zgoščeni v višinah 100 do 250 m,
kjer jih je dve tretjini. Povprečni naklon vinogradov je 20,3 %, tretjina vseh pa je na zemljiščih, kate-
rih naklon presega 21 %. 572,9 ha ali 61,2 % vseh vinogradov je zato na terasah. Vinski trti je med vsemi
rabami namenjenih največ terasiranih zemljišč. Terase ne omogočajo le lažje obdelave, temveč tudi bolj-
šo osončenost in zračnost trt. 
Sicer so za vinograde najbolj izkoriščene vzhodne, jugovzhodne in južne ekspozicije (indek-
si koncentracije 125, 124, 122), saj je za trto pomembno, da jo zjutraj čim prej obsije vzhajajoče
sonce, ki osuši rosne trtne liste ter tako prepreči razvoj bolezni. Ekološki vinogradi so še bolj zgoš-
čeni v vzhodnih legah (indeks koncentracije 129). Sledijo severovzhodne in jugovzhodne lege, pred
južnimi. Hirschmanov koeficient koncentracije, ki kaže povezavo vinogradov z ekspozicijo, je pre-
cej višji pri ekoloških vinogradih (0,1777) kot pri vinogradih nasploh (0,1156). 37,5 % površja prejme
med 1000 in 1100 Kwh/m
2
sončne energije letno in na takšna območja odpade skoraj polovica
(49,1 %) vseh vinogradov. Indeksi koncentracije so pri ekoloških vinogradih pri najvišjih dveh razre-
dih osončenosti (1000–1100 in nad 1100 Kwh/m
2
) 115 in 176, pri konvencionalnih vinogradih pa
131 in 127.
V Vipavskem gričevju ločimo 12 različnih tipov prsti, a 96 % vseh vinogradov je urejenih na le
šestih tipih, 68 % pa celo samo na treh tipih evtričnih rjavih prsti. Relativno največji pomen za vino-
grade imata rigolana, vinogradniška prst, t. i. vitisol, in psevdooglejena koluvialna evtrična rjava prst
na eocenskem flišu (indeksa koncentracije 228 in 130). Še bolj so omejeni ekološki vinogradi. 75 % jih
je vezanih na rjave evtrične prsti z do 20 % vmesnih rendzin ali do 40 % vmesnih antropogeniziranih
prsti ter na vitisol. Indeks koncentracije na vitisolu je 416, na evtričnih rjavih prsteh z vmesnimi rend-
zinami pa 169. Ob tem je treba upoštevati, da je za posamezne mikrolokacije vinogradov zelo pomemben
izbor prave trtne sorte, saj so različne sorte različno občutljive na sušnost, vlažnost, zmrzal … Šte-
vilni vinogradniki imajo zelo dobre izkušnje s starimi domačimi oziroma lokalnimi sortami vinske
trte, ki po ocenah Kmetijsko gozdarskega zavoda Nova Gorica zavzemajo v Vipavski dolini 35-odsto-
tni delež (Škvarč 2023, 6).
Vipavsko gričevje ima torej z vidika naravnih razmer številne prednosti: razgibano površje, ugod-
no podnebje, obilico dvignjenih, k soncu usmerjenih pobočij, dobro prevetrenost, visoko stopnjo
pokrajinske mozaičnosti. Odlikujeta ga visoka stopnja naravnosti in bogata biotska raznovrstnost.
Menjajo se zaplate gozda, ekstenzivnih travnikov in kmetijskih zemljišč. Delež gozda je 49 %, eksten-
zivnih travnikov in pašnikov 17 % in zaraščajočih se zemljišč 2,1 %. Tu ni motečih dejavnikov kot so
intenzivne monokulture, industrija, promet in drugi onesnaževalci, zato ima območje zelo ugodne
razmere za uvajanje ekološkega vinogradništva. Med vsemi vinogradi jih je bilo leta 2020 v Vipavskem
gričevju v ekološki obdelavi že 84,6 ha ali 9 % (slika 6), kar je za slovenske razmere (5,1 %) nadpov-
prečno (Akcijski … 2022, 17).
vestnik 95_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd  3.4.2024  10:54  Page 62

63
Geografski vestnik 95-1, 2023 Razprave/Papers
Preglednica 1: Primerjava rabe zemljišč v Vipavskem gričevju leta 2002 in 2020 (rumeno: zemljišča, ki so v obdobju 2002–2020 ohranila rabo,
rožnato: primerjava vinogradov 2002 in 2020, rdeče: zemljišča, ki so se močno skrčila).
raba zemljišč (ha) 2020
pozidano njive vinogradi sadovnjak oljčnik gozd travnik zaraščanje vode drugo Vipavsko 
gričevje
pozidano 203,2 3,3 2,3 9,0 0,1 4,1 10,5 0,8 0,4 3,7 237,3
njive 13,7 252,1 85,7 25,8 0,3 6,9 241,4 4,3 0,4 22,1 652,8
vinogradi 22,6 50,5 623,2 48,3 10,6 28,9 180,6 57,2 0,2 67,5 1089,7
sadovnjak 4,9 14,8 30,6 29,2 1,0 4,1 19,6 2,6 0,3 8,7 115,8
oljčnik 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,4 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,4
gozd 19,0 4,4 67,1 22,2 4,6 3053,3 49,8 18,0 2,3 52,8 3293,6
travnik 35,1 61,4 121,5 65,2 3,9 190,6 640,1 57,7 0,9 129,7 1306,2
zaraščanje 1,2 0,4 1,0 1,3 0,2 29,0 1,3 1,4 0,1 3,6 39,4
vode 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 2,0 0,6 0,4 16,0 0,5 19,6
drugo 5,4 2,2 4,9 6,2 0,5 46,3 18,6 3,5 5,2 14,7 107,5
Vipavsko gričevje 305,2 389,2 936,4 207,6 21,2 3365,2 1162,5 146,0 25,7 303,3 6862,3
na novo urejena 102,1 137,1 313,2 178,4 21,2 311,9 522,4 144,5 9,8 288,5 2029,1
zemljišča
opuščena zemljišča 34,2 400,6 466,5 86,5 0,4 240,4 666,1 38,0 3,6 92,7 2029,1
razlika v ha 2020:2002 67,9 –263,5 –153,3 91,9 20,8 71,5 –143,7 106,5 6,2 195,8 0,0
indeks 2020/2002 129 60 86 179 2608 102 89 370 132 282 100
2002
vestnik 95_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd  3.4.2024  10:54  Page 63

Slika 6: Vipavsko gričevje – ekološki in konvencionalni vinogradi leta 2020 ter njihova lega glede na
zavarovana območja Nature 2000.
Glej angleški del prispevka.
Slika 7: Vipavsko gričevje – struktura rabe zemljišč leta 2002 in 2020.
Glej angleški del prispevka.
Do leta 2020 se je od 1089,7 ha vinogradov, ki so obstajali leta 2002, ohranilo le 623,2 ha oziroma
57,2 %. Te štejemo med stalne vinograde (preglednica 1, slika 7).
Popolnoma na novo so v obdobju 2002–2020 uredili 313,2 ha vinogradov (slika 8). Med nove je
torej spadala tretjina od vseh 936,4 ha, kolikor smo jih evidentirali leta 2020. Novi vinogradi so nasta-
li na nekdanjih traviščih (38,8%), njivah (27,4%), gozdu (21,4%) ter sadovnjakih (8,8%) (slika 9, vrstica 1).
Slika 8: Vipavsko gričevje – novi vinogradi, evidentirani leta 2020 (skupaj 313,2ha). Različne barve označujejo
tipe rabe teh zemljišč leta 2002. Pikčasto so prikazana zavarovana območja Nature 2000, razglašena leta 2004.
Glej angleški del prispevka.
466,5 ha vinogradov iz leta 2002 pa je bilo do leta 2020 opuščenih in spremenjenih (sliki 9 (vrstica
2) in 10): 38,7 % je bilo ozelenjenih oziroma spremenjenih v travnike, 12,3 % jih je bilo v procesu zaraš-
čanja, 6,2 % jih je že prerasel gozd, 10,8 % so jih preorali v njive, na 10,4 % so uredili sadovnjake, 4,9 %
od 466,5 ha so pozidali, 2,3 % preuredili v oljčnike, 14,5 % pa je dobilo razne druge rabe. Polovica vseh
opuščenih vinogradov je bila v višinah 150 do 250 m. Poglavitni vzrok je njihova selitev v vznožje gri-
čevja, kjer je na naklonih pod 6 %, še posebej pa pod 2 %, njihova strojna obdelava bistveno lažja.
Slika 9: Vipavsko gričevje – spremembe vinogradov 2002–2020: 1. do 2020 novo urejeni vinogradi
(313,2 ha) in raba teh zemljišč 2002; 2. v obdobju 2002–2020 opuščeni vinogradi (466,5 ha) in raba
teh zemljišč leta 2020 (Dejanska … 2021).
Glej angleški del prispevka.
Kljub ureditvi novih vinogradov se je skupna površina pod vinsko trto s 1089,7 ha leta 2002 zmanj-
šala na 936,4 ha leta 2020, torej za 153,3 ha ali za 14,1 % (glej sliko 11 in indekse v preglednici 1).
Slika 10: Vipavsko gričevje – tipi rabe zemljišč leta 2020, kjer so bili še leta 2002 vinogradi (raba zem-
ljišč opuščenih vinogradov, skupaj 466,5 ha) in zavarovana območja Nature 2000.
Glej angleški del prispevka.
Slika 11: Vipavsko gričevje – spremembe vinogradov 2002–2020 (opuščeni: 466,5 ha, novi: 313,2 ha,
stalni oziroma ohranjeni: 623,2 ha) in njihov položaj glede na zavarovana območja Nature 2000.
Glej angleški del prispevka.
Glede na ekspozicijo opažamo v obdobju 2002−2020 najmanjši upad zemljišč z vinogradi v vzhod-
nih in severovzhodnih legah. Glede na prst so se zemljišča vinogradov daleč najbolj, kar 25-krat, povečala
na evtričnih rjavih prsteh na starejšem ilovnatem aluviju, kjer so bile v preteklosti njive.
Spremembe ostalih rab zemljišč kažejo indeksi 2020/2002 (preglednica 1). Najbolj so upadla orna
zemljišča. Njiv je bilo leta 2020 le 5,7 %, tj. 263,6 ha ali 40 % manj kot leta 2002. Poleg opuščanja ornih
zemljišč je vzrok predvsem selitev vinogradov proti dnu Vipavske doline, kjer so izpodrinili njive.
Zmanjšala so se tudi zemljišča s travišči, in sicer za 143,7 ha (11 %). Zemljišča z ostalimi rabami so se
povečala – relativno najbolj sadovnjaki (za 91,8 ha ali 80 %), še posebej pa oljčniki. Teh leta 2002 sko-
raj še ni bilo, v letu 2020 pa so prekrivali 21,2 ha.
64
Maja Topole, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Žiga Kokalj Izzivi vinogradniške pokrajine – primer Vipavskega …
vestnik 95_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd  3.4.2024  10:54  Page 64

Gozd porašča 49 % Vipavskega gričevja. Prevladuje v osojnih in strmih legah. Povprečni naklon
gozdnih zemljišč je 43,8 %. Od leta 2002 so se gozdna zemljišča povečala za 71,5 ha (2 %). Gozd je že
pred opazovanim obdobjem prerasel obsežna terasirana zemljišča. Številne terase so tako izgubile prvot-
no funkcijo, v procesu zaraščanja pa je bilo leta 2020 še 4,1 % teras. Tukajšnji gozd sicer nima večjega
gospodarskega pomena, a nudi ekosistemske storitve, na primer oskrbo z gozdnimi sadeži, lesno bio-
maso (drvmi) in vinogradniškimi koli ter omogoča rekreacijo. Na zelo strmih območjih ima protierozijsko,
varovalno vlogo, sicer pa daje zavetje živalim in prispeva k mozaični strukturi pokrajine.
Zemljišč v zaraščanju je bilo leta 2020 146 ha (2,1 %), kar je v celotni regiji 3,7-krat več kot leta
2002 (39,4 ha). Zaraščala so se predvsem od naselij bolj oddaljena, višja, slabo dostopna, bolj strma
in sušna območja oziroma območja s plitvimi prstmi, pa tudi zemljišča s problematičnim lastništvom
(starost, neurejeno lastništvo, številni lastniki).
Primerjava rabe zemljišč v letih 2002 in 2020 kaže velik upad vinogradov predvsem na skrajnih seve-
rozahodnem in jugovzhodnem delu Vipavskega gričevja. Največ opuščenih vinogradov je v naseljih
Spodnja Branica, Preserje, Branik, Brje in Podraga, kjer skoraj ne opažamo urejanja novih vinogradov.
Poleg tega so opuščeni vinogradi tudi v Ložah, na Slapu, Planini, v Šmarjah in Gabrjah, kjer v naspro-
tju s prej omenjenimi naselji beležimo tudi nove vinograde ter gre ponekod morda za selitev vinogradov
iz višje ležečih in bolj strmih v nižje ležeča območja, kjer je obdelava lažja.
V Vipavskem gričevju sta močno prisotna ozelenjevanje in celo zaraščanje vinogradov. V obdobju
2002–2020 je bilo opuščenih 14% vinogradov, izgubljenih 40% ornih zemljišč in 11% travišč (preglednica 1:
indeks 2020/2002). Podrobnejše podatke po naseljih Vipavskega gričevja smo prikazali v: Topole, Šmid
Hribar in Pipan (2022, 26–27).
V povezavi s tem je zanimivo naselje Šmarje v ajdovski občini, kjer kljub drastičnemu upadu kme-
tijske dejavnosti nastajajo novi vinogradi. Po terenskem ogledu smo ugotovili, da v Šmarjah nove vinograde
urejajo tujci (dva Italijana in Slovenec iz osrednje Slovenije). Po pripovedovanju domačina kupujejo
zemljišča, ki imajo v naselju najugodnejše lege za kmetijstvo. Med njimi je eden zasadil večji vinograd,
na katerem vsa strojna dela opravi domačin, obrano grozdje pa lastnik odpelje v Italijo. Takšen razvoj
je zaskrbljujoč, saj zemljišča spadajo med naravne vire, s katerimi je treba skrbno ravnati. To je še pose-
bej sporno, če vinograde urejajo na nekdanjih nižje ležečih travnikih. Tako zmanjkuje travnikov za
živinorejo, hkrati pa se višje, za vinograde najprimernejše lege zaraščajo.
3.3. Vinogradi in Natura 2000
Zaradi dobro ohranjene narave je Vipavsko gričevje vključeno v dve območji Natura 2000:
Natura 2000 – habitat živalskih vrst in Natura 2000 – habitatni tipi (ilirski hrastovo-belogabrovi goz-
dovi (Erythronio-carpinion), sestoji navadnega brina na suhih traviščih na karbonatni podlagi (Juniperus
communis), skalna travišča na bazični podlagi (Alysso-Sedion albi) in zahodna submediteranska suha
travišča (Scorzoneratalia villosae)). Natura 2000 skupaj zavzema skoraj polovico (46,1 %) Vipavskega
gričevja. Podrobna GIS analiza je pokazala, da se tretjina vseh vinogradov (32,8 %) prekriva z območji
Natura 2000. Leta 2004, ko je bila ta razglašena, je bilo pod njenimi različnimi tipi 280,5 ha vinogradov
(podatek o ekoloških za to leto še ni znan), leta 2020 pa je bilo znotraj območja Nature 2000 275 ha
konvencionalnih in 30,9 ha ekoloških vinogradov (slika 6). Vinograde oziroma spremembe vinogra-
dov v obdobju 2002–2020 v odnosu do Nature 2000 kažejo slike 6, 8, 10 in 11. Natura 2000 po naseljih
ni razporejena enakomerno; več zavarovanih zemljišč je v osrednjem delu gričevja, južno od razvod-
nice med Vipavo in Branico in na vzhodu.
3.4 Ukrepi za ohranjanje vinogradniške pokrajine
Na podlagi pokrajinske analize, analize spremembe rabe zemljišč v obdobju 2002–2020, organiza-
cije treh participativnih fokusnih skupin in kabinetnega dela smo oblikovali pet kratkoročnih (1–2 leti),
65
Geografski vestnik 95-1, 2023 Razprave/Papers
vestnik 95_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd  3.4.2024  10:54  Page 65

pet srednjeročnih (3–5 let) in štiri dolgoročne (6–10 let) ukrepe, katerih namen je prispevati k ohra-
njanju in razvoju vinogradniške pokrajine Vipavskega gričevja. Ukrepi so predstavljeni v preglednici 2.
Poleg kratkega opisa ukrepov so navedeni deležniki, ključni za njihovo izvedbo. Dodan je tudi pomi-
slek o izvedljivosti ukrepa. Kot je razvidno, so ključni deležniki za ohranjanje vinogradniške pokrajine
Vipavskega gričevja vinogradniki, lastniki zemljišč, občine, ki morajo poskrbeti za ustrezen pravni okvir,
kmetijsko-gozdarski zavod za pomoč pri vzpostavitvi novih vinogradov ter nenazadnje raziskovalci in
strokovnjaki za pripravo ustreznih podatkov.
4 Razprava
Rezultati raziskave so za zadnji dve desetletji pokazali značilen proces selitve vinogradov v ravnino
in intenzifikacijo vinogradništva, medtem ko v višjih legah gričevja izstopa problem opuščanja vino-
gradov in njihovo zaraščanje.
Evropska unija ima cilj do leta 2030 v ekološki način obdelave vključiti 25 % vseh svojih kmetij-
skih zemljišč. Nekatere države (Avstrija, Estonija in Švedska) so imele leta 2021 že več kot 20 % takšnih
zemljišč (Agricultural … 2023), Slovenija pa ima v tem pogledu še precej priložnosti za napredovanje.
V ekološki obdelavi je tedaj imela nekaj več kot 10 % kmetijskih zemljišč, v primeru vinogradov le 5 %.
Vipavsko gričevje je med njenimi obetavnejšimi območji, saj je bilo v ekološko pridelavo grozdja vklju-
čenih že 9 % vinogradov. Ekološki vinogradi so v Vipavskem gričevju tudi najbolj racionalni način rabe
zemljišč v območjih, ki se zaraščajo. Zaraščajo se namreč lege, ki so primerne predvsem za vinograde,
kvečjemu še za oljčnike in sadno drevje.
Vzroki za opuščanje vinogradov pa niso le v manj ugodnih naravnih razmerah, slabši dostopno-
sti, težavni obdelavi, temveč tudi v staranju prebivalstva, neurejenem lastništvu vinogradov in v velikem
številu lastnikov. Starejši se neradi odločajo za prehod v ekološko kmetovanje, saj zahteva več ročne-
ga dela in nova znanja, v kar pa ti niso več pripravljeni veliko vlagati. T ežko se odločajo za prodajo zemljišč
ali prepustitev vinogradov mlajši generaciji. Visoka starost prevzemnikov kmetij pomeni manjšo pri-
lagodljivost ter oviro za uvajanje in izvedbo ključnih inovacij. Zato bi bilo treba krepiti spodbude za
prenos kmetij na mlajšo generacijo, ki je bolj fleksibilna, učljiva in naklonjena inovacijam in ekološkemu
načinu pridelave grozdja. Mladi odhajajo tudi zaradi podcenjenosti delovne sile v kmetijstvu in ker naj-
dejo lažji zaslužek v drugih gospodarskih panogah.
Problemi gričevja so povezani tudi z nekdanjo Kmetijsko zadrugo Vipava oziroma največjo vipav-
sko vinsko kletjo Agroind, s spreminjanjem njenega lastništva, ukinitvijo odkupnega mesta oziroma
njene izpostave v Braniku in nizkimi odkupnimi cenami grozdja. Grozdje je zdaj treba dostaviti v Vipavo.
Odkupne cene so bile jeseni 2021 v povprečju 30 do 40 centov, v primeru strojnega obiranja celo le
25 centov za kilogram. Če dodamo še stroške prevoza iz severozahodnega dela Vipavskega gričevja
do Vipave, se marsikomu pridelava grozdja ekonomsko ne izplača. Pogosto je kriva tudi premajhna
ozaveščenost kmetov o pomenu kakovostne pridelave grozdja, s čimer so povezane tudi prenizke
odkupne cene.
S pridelavo grozdja se ukvarjajo predvsem večji vinogradniki, ki vino pridelujejo in prodajajo sami.
Vinogradi so razdrobljeni (povprečna velikost je le 0,5 ha), poleg težav z najemom in nakupom pri-
mernih in dovolj obsežnih, strnjenih zemljišč, je težavno in dolgotrajno tudi pridobivanje soglasij za
spremembo namembnosti. Že v treh letih po opustitvi obdelave se vinograd začne zaraščati, sledi pre-
kategorizacija zemljišča iz zaraščajočega v gozdno. Táko zemljišče je za kmetijsko rabo najpogosteje
za vedno izgubljeno. Pot nazaj oziroma obnavljanje nekdanjih vinogradov je povezano z izjemnimi stro-
ški in časovnimi izgubami. Potrebna je izredna vztrajnost pri pridobivanju dovoljenj, saj obstajajo številne
težko premostljive ovire: občinski prostorski načrti se redko prenavljajo, gozdarji dovoljujejo naenkrat
le krčenje do 0,5 ha velikih sklenjenih zemljišč, četudi je na določenem mestu v preteklosti vinograd
že obstajal.
66
Maja Topole, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Žiga Kokalj Izzivi vinogradniške pokrajine – primer Vipavskega …
vestnik 95_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd  3.4.2024  10:54  Page 66

67
Geografski vestnik 95-1, 2023 Razprave/Papers
Preglednica 2: Ukrepi za ohranjanje in razvoj vinogradniške pokrajine Vipavskega gričevja.
ukrep čas izvedbe dejavnost deležniki ovire / tveganja
ukrep 1
oživitev že obstoječega
Vinarskega muzeja
Vipava
Vinarski muzej lahko prispeva h krepitvi
prepoznavnosti in konkurenčne prednosti
vinskega okoliša Vipavske doline v Sloveniji,
ki ima bogato zgodovino in tradicijo, temelje-
či na izjemnih naravnih danostih. Za oživitev
muzeja predlagamo:
• povečati dostopnost muzeja za obiskovalce
(vsak dan več ur dnevno),
• okrepiti promocijo muzeja (na primer prek
vinotek, turističnih agencij),
• ponuditi predstavitve oziroma vodenja
v različnih jezikih,
• vključiti muzej v vinsko cesto.
Goriški muzej Nova Gorica zagotovitev sredstev kratkoročno
ukrep 2
ažuren pregled nad
stanjem zaraščanja
vinogradniških zemljišč:
• seznam interesentov
za najem/nakup vino-
gradniških zemljišč in 
• spremljanje stanja
Priprava GIS podatkov in vodenje evidenc:
• nekdanji vinogradi, leta 2020 evidentirani kot
zemljišča v zaraščanju,
• vinogradi iz leta 2002, ki so se do leta 2020
preobrazili v novo rabo zemljišča,
• preverjanje identificiranih zemljišč na terenu,
evidentiranje njihove trenutne rabe, podatek
o lastniku,
• obvestilo lastniku o stanju zemljišča in seznanitev
z možnimi ukrepi (kmetijska obdelava, oddaja
v najem, višja obdavčitev v primeru zaraščanja),
• vzporedno občina vodi seznam vinogradnikov,
iskalcev vinogradov oziroma za vinograde
primernih zemljišč za nakup ali najem.
• raziskovalci/strokovnjaki
za pripravo GIS podatkov
o vinogradnih,
• občine, na katerih so
zemljišča v zaraščanju
(Vipava, Ajdovščina,
Komen in Nova Gorica),
• vinogradniki, zainteresirani
za najem/nakup
vinogradniških zemljišč,
• vinogradniki, zainteresirani
za oddajo/prodajo
vinogradniških zemljišč
• zagotovitev sredstev,
• angažiranje ustreznih
institucij za izvedbo
terenskega ogleda in
komunikacijo z lastniki
vinogradniških zemljišč
v zaraščanju in potencialnimi
najemniki
kratkoročno
vestnik 95_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd  3.4.2024  10:54  Page 67

68
Maja Topole, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Žiga Kokalj Izzivi vinogradniške pokrajine – primer Vipavskega …
ukrep čas izvedbe dejavnost deležniki ovire / tveganja
ukrep 3
usposabljanje deležnikov
za trajnostno upravljanje
kmetij in izvajanje
agroekoloških praks
Za večjo prilagodljivost družbe in ekosistemov
na podnebne spremembe, večjo odpornost proti
eroziji, za trajnostne kmetijske in prehranske
sisteme ter ekonomsko preživetje kmetij je
potrebno:
• poglabljanje znanja o agroekoloških praksah,
• krepitev in širjenje marsikje še živih tradicionalnih
praks, kot so: mešane zasaditve, ročna žetev,
mehansko zatiranje plevelov, zatiranje plevelov
s sežiganjem, delna in popolna ozelenjenost
medvrstnih prostorov, zastiranje z različnimi
materiali, občasno namakanje, medvrstni posevki,
mulčenje rožja, zeleno gnojenje z različnimi
rastlinami, vnos organskega gnoja, priprava in
uporaba komposta, tudi kompostiranje tropin,
prisotnost čebelnjakov in ptičjih gnezdilnic
(Best … 2020).
• vinogradniki oziroma
kmetje,
• Kmetijsko gozdarski zavod
Nova Gorica,
• Fakulteta za vinogradništvo
in vinarstvo, Univerza
v Novi Gorici
premalo interesa med
vinogradniki/kmeti
kratkoročno
ukrep 4
oblikovanje ekoregije in
znamčenje
Glede na izjemne naravne razmere v gričevju, ki
so ugodne za uvajanje ekološkega kmetovanja in
glede na obljubljene spodbude s strani Evropske
unije in Slovenije, je smiselno začeti postopek
zagona ekološke regije in oblikovanje blagovne
znamke (Logar 2022a; 2022b). Leta 2014
ustanovljena Mednarodna mreža ekoregij
IN.N.E.R. (International Network of Eco Regions)
je izdala smernice oziroma Listino v podporo
novim ekološkim območjem (Charter … 2021).
• oddelki za gospodarstvo
občin Vipava, Ajdovščina,
Komen in Nova Gorica,
• Regijska razvojna agencija
ROD Ajdovščina in Regijska
razvojna agencija Severne
Primorske d.o.o. Nova
Gorica,
• Turistične organizacije,
• vinogradniki, sadjarji,
oljkarji,
• raziskovalne ustanove
premalo interesa med
vinogradniki/kmeti
kratkoročno
vestnik 95_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd  3.4.2024  10:54  Page 68

69
Geografski vestnik 95-1, 2023 Razprave/Papers
ukrep čas izvedbe dejavnost deležniki ovire / tveganja
ukrep 5
krajša predavanja in
pogovori nekajkrat letno
o konkretnih primerih
Nature 2000 v Vipavskem
gričevju
Krajši dogodki s predstavitvijo Nature 2000
v Vipavskem gričevju, na katerih bi se prebivalci
podrobneje seznanili z Naturo 2000, stanjem
(ohranjenostjo) tamkajšnjih habitatnih tipov in
vrst, z dobrimi praksami s področja ohranjanja
Nature 2000 in vinogradništva ter z izzivi,
s katerimi se soočajo. Aktivnost naj skupaj izvajajo
kmetijski svetovalci, ki spremljajo in poznajo stanje
s kmetijskega in z okoljevarstvenega vidika, in
naravovarstveniki (Zavod Republike Slovenije za
varstvo narave), ki kompetentno predstavljajo vse-
bine s področja varovanja narave in Nature 2000.
Boljše poznavanje Nature 2000 naj bi vplivalo na
ohranjanje kmetijskih praks na teh območjih in na
upadanje zaraščanja zemljišč pod Naturo 2000.
• Zavod Republike Slovenije
za varstvo narave, OE Nova
Gorica,
• Kmetijsko gozdarski zavod
Nova Gorica,
• občine z zemljišči
v Vipavskem gričevju
(Vipava, Ajdovščina,
Komen in Nova Gorica)
• uskladitev terminov za
dogodke s strani Zavoda
Republike Slovenije za
varstvo narave, Kmetijsko
gozdarskega zavoda Nova
Gorica in udeleženih občin,
• zagotovitev obiska domačinov
na dogodkih in moderiranje
dogodkov
kratkoročno
ukrep 6
revitalizacija vinske ceste
Vinske ceste, speljane prek Vipavskega gričevja
konec 20. stoletja za namene promocije prodaje
vina in spodbujanje dejavnosti, povezanih
z vinogradništvom, so poleg ponudnikov vina
in kulinarike povezale naravne in kulturne
znamenitosti gričevja. Treba bi bilo:
• očistiti posamezne odseke poti in bolje povezati
kraje med seboj oziroma urediti povezovalne poti,
• izdelati zemljevid vinske ceste (označiti lokacije
vinogradniških kmetij, kmetij z drugo ponudbo,
lokacije naravnih in kulturnih vrednot, zaščite-
nih območij, razgledišč, virov pitne vode, središč
osnovne oskrbe in prenočišč),
• prevetriti pogoje za vključitev zainteresiranih
vinogradnikov in ponudnikov vina,
• vključiti doslej izvzeta območja,
• okrepiti promocijo vinske ceste,
• ustrezno vzdrževati infrastrukturo.
• oddelki za gospodarstvo
občin Vipava, Ajdovščina,
Komen in Nova Gorica,
• Regijska razvojna agencija
ROD Ajdovščina in Regijska
razvojna agencija Severne
Primorske d.o.o. Nova
Gorica,
• turistične organizacije,
• vinogradniki/kmetje
premalo interesa na strani
občin in drugih deležnikov
srednjeročno
vestnik 95_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd  3.4.2024  10:54  Page 69

70
Maja Topole, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Žiga Kokalj Izzivi vinogradniške pokrajine – primer Vipavskega …
ukrep čas izvedbe dejavnost deležniki ovire / tveganja
ukrep 7
okrepitev vloge vinske
zadruge oziroma
sodelovanja kmetov
Kmetijska zadruga Vipava je bila ustanovljena že
leta 1894, in sicer z namenom pomagati kmetom
pri prodaji pridelka (grozdja, sadja, mleka in
mesa).
Po prisilni prodaji večinskega deleža v podjetju
Agroind Vipava leta 2014 je zadruga manj
učinkovita. T o se kaže tudi v opuščanju razdrobljenih
vinogradov v severozahodnem delu gričevja, ki je
najbolj oddaljen od odkupne postaje Vinske kleti
Vipava 1894, ki je zdaj v lasti tujca.
Položaj bi se izboljšal ob krepitvi vloge zadruge,
sodelovanja vinogradnikov oziroma kmetov
in izgradnjo skupne mreže, z usmerjanjem
v trajnostno kmetovanje in s skupno promocijo.
vinogradniki/kmetje • premalo interesa med kmeti,
• problem organizacije oziroma
vodenja
srednjeročno
ukrep 8
ustanovitev specializirane
službe za pomoč pri
oddaji/prodaji zemljišč,
zlasti v primeru številnih
lastnikov
Pravna in organizacijska pomoč občinskih ali
medobčinskih služb pri oddaji/prodaji ustreznih
zemljišč zainteresiranim vinogradnikom.
Nekatera vinogradniška zemljišča se namreč
zaraščajo, ker so v solastništvu številnih dedičev,
ki se ne uspejo dogovoriti o prodaji/oddaji
v najem, ali pa so v tujini in se ne zanimajo
več za svojo lastnino.
občine in upravne enote,
na katerih so zemljišča
v zaraščanju (UE Vipava,
Ajdovščina, Komen 
in Nova Gorica)
premalo interesa na strani
občin za vzpostavitev takšne
službe.
srednjeročno
vestnik 95_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd  3.4.2024  10:54  Page 70

71
Geografski vestnik 95-1, 2023 Razprave/Papers
ukrep čas izvedbe dejavnost deležniki ovire / tveganja
ukrep 9
program trženja
Vipavskega gričevja kot
območja Natura 2000
Visok delež območja, zavarovanega z Naturo 2000,
daje Vipavskemu gričevju pomemben pečat. Bolj
kot oviro ga je treba razumeti kot prednost ter
poudariti v turistični ponudbi in promociji
proizvodov s tega območja. V ta namen je
srednjeročno treba pripraviti program, kako
Naturo 2000 vključiti v program trženja vse
od prodaje vin do trženja destinacije Vipavskega
gričevja.
• Zavod Republike Slovenije
za varstvo narave, OE Nova
Gorica,
• občine, z zemljišči na
Vipavskem gričevju
(Vipava, Ajdovščina,
Komen in Nova Gorica),
• lastniki vinskih kleti in
prenočitvenih zmogljivosti,
• Regijska razvojna agencija
ROD Ajdovščina in Regijska
razvojna agencija Severne
Primorske d.o.o. Nova
Gorica,
• Kmetijsko gozdarski zavod
Nova Gorica
Premalo interesa na strani
lastnikov zemljišč in občin.
Tveganje je lahko tudi bojazen
s strani Zavoda Republike
Slovenije za varstvo narave
pred preveliko promocijo
Nature 2000. Verjetno bo treba
pretehtati, katera območja je
smiselno bolj odkriti, katera
pustiti bolj zakrita.
srednjeročno
ukrep 10
sprememba občinskega
prostorskega načrta in
podelitev dovoljenj za
postopno vzpostavitev
novih vinogradov na
območju nekdanjih
vinogradov
V primeru interesa za ureditev novih vinogradov
je treba tovrstne aktivnosti spodbujati tudi na for-
malni ravni, tako da se v občinskem prostorskem
načrtu jasno označi, na katerih nekdanjih
vinogradniških zemljiščih, ki jih zdaj prerašča
gozd, se dovoli obnovitev vinogradov.
Za ta namen bi bilo treba ovrednotiti zemljišča
z vidika primernosti za vinograde (primer
metodologije v: Topole 1998, 122–126).
• občine, z zemljišči
v Vipavskem gričevju
(Vipava, Ajdovščina,
Komen in Nova Gorica),
• Zavod za gozdove Slovenije,
• lastniki vinogradov;
• kartograf (priprava
zemljevida Spremembe
rabe zemljišč 1825–2022
z označenimi nekdanjimi
vinogradi),
• raziskovalna ustanova
premalo interesa za izvedbo
ukrepa na strani občin in
Zavoda za gozdove Slovenije
srednjeročno
vestnik 95_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd  3.4.2024  10:54  Page 71

72
Maja Topole, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Žiga Kokalj Izzivi vinogradniške pokrajine – primer Vipavskega …
ukrep čas izvedbe dejavnost deležniki ovire / tveganja
ukrep 11
vzpostavitev novih
vinogradov na zemljiščih
nekdanjih opuščenih
vinogradov
Obnovitev vinogradov na zemljiščih opuščenih
vinogradov oziroma vinogradniških zemljiščih
v zaraščanju ali pod gozdom.
• lastniki opuščenih vinogra-
dov oziroma vinogradniških
zemljišč v zaraščanju ali pod
gozdom,
• vinogradniki, zainteresirani
za najem/nakup zemljišč
z opuščenimi vinogradi
oziroma zemljišči
v zaraščanju ali pod
gozdom ter za obnovo
nekdanjih ali vzpostavitev
novih vinogradov,
• Kmetijsko gozdarski zavod
Nova Gorica (pomoč
pri načrtovanju novih
vinogradov)
Neizveden oziroma neustrezno
izveden občinski prostorski
načrt, ki vinogradnikom ne
dovoljuje ureditve novih
vinogradov na nekdanjih
vinogradniških zemljiščih
v zaraščanju ali pod gozdom.
dolgoročno
ukrep 12
uvedba neposrednih
kmetijskih spodbud/plačil
za obdelavo na terasah
Kot v primerih območij z omejenimi možnostmi
(OMD) bi bilo treba uvesti tudi plačila za obdelavo
vinogradov na terasah in na pobočjih z večjimi
nakloni. Takšna območja zahtevajo večje finančne
vložke kot obdelava vinogradov na ravnini. Po
drugi strani so prav tovrstna kmetijska zemljišča
najprimernejša za vinograde (tudi za sadovnjake
in oljčnike), saj so na višjih legah, ki so manj
primerne za pridelavo povrtnin. Ravna zemljišča
v dnu doline bi bilo smiselno ohraniti za njive.
• Ministrstvo za kmetijstvo,
gozdarstvo in prehrano,
• Kmetijsko gozdarski zavod
Nova Gorica,
• vinogradniki
premalo interesa na strani
Ministrstva za kmetijstvo,
gozdarstvo in prehrano
dolgoročno
vestnik 95_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd  3.4.2024  10:54  Page 72

73
Geografski vestnik 95-1, 2023 Razprave/Papers
ukrep čas izvedbe dejavnost deležniki ovire / tveganja
ukrep 13
plačila za obdelavo
vinogradov v višjih in
strmih legah (med 100
in 350 m) in na območjih
Nature 2000
Za ekološke vinograde in zdravo dozorevanje
grozdja so ugodnejše višje, prevetrene, osončene
in nagnjene lege. Nižinske lege so sicer lahko
dostopne za mehanizacijo in lažje za obdelavo,
vendar zaradi oglejenosti, večje vlažnosti in
nevarnosti zaradi bolezni, škodljivcev in pozebe
zahtevajo večji vnos gnojil in zaščitnih fitofarma-
cevtskih sredstev. Po drugi strani so ta zemljišča
izgubljena za gojenje žit in povrtnine.
Predlagamo subvencije, ki bodo pripomogle
k ohranjanju tradicionalne vinogradniške
pokrajine, in sicer za:
• vinograde v območjih Nature 2000 in
• vinograde z večjimi nadmorskimi višinami in
nakloni, ki zahtevajo terasiranje, ohranjanje in
vzdrževanje teras, več ročnega dela, ker so težje
dostopni z mehanizacijo, a so bolj trajnostno
naravnani in imajo manj škodljivih učinkov na
okolje (Šmid Hribar in sod. 2017; Topole 2020).
Le tako prihaja do izraza svojstvena kamninska
podlaga, ki omogoča pridelavo kakovostnih
avtohtonih vin.
• Ministrstvo za kmetijstvo,
gozdarstvo in prehrano,
• Zavod Republike Slovenije
za varstvo narave, OE Nova
Gorica,
• Kmetijsko gozdarski zavod
Nova Gorica,
• vinogradniki
premalo interesa na strani
Ministrstva za kmetijstvo,
gozdarstvo in prehrano
dolgoročno
ukrep 14
povečati zastopanost
lokalnih sort vinske trte
Ker so lokalne sorte vinske trte manj občutljive
v razmerah spreminjanja podnebja, je treba
stremeti k povečanju deleža njihove prisotnosti
(danes je njihov delež v Vipavski dolini ocenjen
na več kot 35 %) (Škvarč 2023).
• Kmetijsko gozdarski zavod
Nova Gorica,
• Trsnica Vrhpolje
premalo interesa s strani
vinogradnikov
dolgoročno
vestnik 95_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd  3.4.2024  10:54  Page 73

Zaraščanje ni neugodno le zaradi izgube rodovitnih zemljišč, temveč se tako povečuje tudi življenj-
ski prostor divjadi. S širjenjem stihijskega zaraščanja, ki ne vodi v kakovostni gozd, divjad prihaja vse
bližje še ohranjenim vinogradom in povzroča škodo vinogradnikom.
Omejitve določa tudi Evropska unija s predpisovanjem letnih kvot dovoljenih novih vinogradov
za posamezno državo, obstajajo pa tudi omejitve s strani Nature 2000 oziroma naravovarstvenikov.
Poleg naštetega otežuje razvoj neorganiziranost in nepovezanost vinogradnikov ter celo občin Vipavske
doline.
Skladno s temi ugotovitvami se bo opuščanje kulturne pokrajine v prihodnje še nadaljevalo.
Problematično pa ni le opuščanje vinogradov, temveč tudi njihova selitev proti dnu Vipavske doli-
ne in intenzifikacija vinogradništva. Zgodili sta se prav v preučevanem obdobju 2002–2020. 85,7 ha
ali 9,2 % vinogradov je leta 2020 zasedalo zemljišča, kjer so bile še leta 2002 njive. Novi vinogradi na
manj nagnjenih tleh so sicer lahko dostopni za mehanizacijo in lažji za obdelavo, vendar tam prsti zara-
di oglejenosti potrebujejo veliko večji vnos mineralnih in drugih gnojil. Zaradi pogostejše megle, manjše
osončenosti in večje izpostavljenosti zmrzali pa so vinogradi v dnu doline tudi bolj izpostavljeni bolez-
nim in škodljivcem, kar zahteva veliko večji vnos fitofarmacevtskih sredstev. To pomeni, da je območje
primerno za intenzivno obdelavo, ne pa za uvajanje ekološkega vinogradništva. Po drugi strani so ta
zemljišča izgubljena kot orna zemljišča oziroma za pridelavo žit in povrtnin, pred čimer je svaril že
V ertovec v svojem priročniku iz leta 1844 (V ertovec 2015). Hkrati to vodi v zaraščanje višje ležečih nagnje-
nih območij, na katerih je težko ali celo nemogoče gojiti druge kulturne rastline, razen vinske trte, sadnega
drevja in oljk. To je z vidika naravovarstva sicer lahko zaželeno, a ni vedno pozitivno, ker tako običaj-
no izgubljamo biotsko raznovrstnost. Zato so nujni ukrepi za preprečevanje zaraščanja, ki smo jih nanizali
v poglavju 3.4.
Vključenost Vipavskega gričevja v Naturo 2000 sicer prinaša določene omejitve v gospodarjenju, po
drugi strani pa tudi prednosti, saj kaže na visoko stopnjo naravnosti območja. V pogovorih z deležni-
ki se je izkazalo, da so območja Nature 2000 v Vipavskem gričevju slabo poznana. Mnogi vinogradniki
ne vedo, ali so njihovi vinogradi na območjih Natura 2000 ali ne. V okviru te študije smo pripravili
zemljevide vinogradov in območij Nature 2000 ter organizirali predavanje o območjih Nature 2000
v Vipavskem gričevju, vendar bo za boljše poznavanje Nature 2000 potrebno še več takšnih dogodkov.
Deležniki, predvsem lastniki zemljišč, si želijo več pogovorov in iskanja sinergij z gospodarjenjem na
območjih Nature 2000. Tu je še zlasti pomembno obnavljanje nekdanjih in urejanje novih vinogradov
na zaraščajočih zemljiščih, ki so hkrati zavarovani v sklopu Nature 2000. Treba je ustaviti zaraščanje,
ki praviloma vodi v siromašenje biotske raznovrstnosti. Vsekakor bo treba veliko pozornosti nameniti
ozaveščanju in plodnemu dialogu med kmeti, vinogradniki in naravovarstveniki, da bi hkrati ohrani-
li naravo in vinograde. Najslabši scenarij za območje Nature 2000 in vinogradniško kulturno pokrajino
bi bila izguba vinogradov, ki bi se zarasli in prešli v gozdove slabše kakovosti.
Med domačini in drugimi deležniki bi morali nujno krepiti prepoznavnost Nature 2000 in jo kot
naravovarstveno znamko vključiti v program trženja. Ne prihaja vsako vino s tako naravnega območ-
ja, kot je Vipavsko gričevje. Poudariti je treba, da je prednost Vipavskega gričevja prav v obsegu dvignjenih
vinogradniških leg z idealno kombinacijo mikroklimatskih, kamninskih in pedoloških lastnosti, ki omo-
gočajo pridelavo vrhunskih (single vineyard) vin (Klemenčič 2020). Na tem bi morala temeljiti promocija
vinogradniške pokrajine Vipavskega gričevja. Izkoristiti bi bilo treba idealne razmere v regiji in se poda-
ti v čimprejšnje oblikovanje ekoregije in blagovne znamke, kar prav od tega leta dalje spodbujata tako
Evropska unija kot Slovenija. Na fokusnih skupinah se je izkazalo, da želijo številni vipavski vinogradniki
izkoristiti naravne prednosti svojega območja in vztrajati oziroma se na novo usmeriti v ekološki način
obdelave ter tako prispevati k zagotavljanju javnih dobrin, ohranjanju kulturne kmetijske pokrajine in
varovanju celotnega okolja (Ekološka … 2023).
74
Maja Topole, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Žiga Kokalj Izzivi vinogradniške pokrajine – primer Vipavskega …
vestnik 95_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd  3.4.2024  10:54  Page 74

5 Sklep
Na podlagi pokrajinske analize, analize sprememb rabe zemljišč in treh participativnih fokusnih
skupin smo predlagali 14 kratkoročnih, srednjeročnih in dolgoročnih dejavnosti (ukrepov), ki naj bi
v  naslednjih 10 letih prispevale k  ohranjanju vinogradniške kulturne pokrajine in Nature 2000
v Vipavskem gričevju. Največ truda in aktivnosti bo treba usmeriti v preprečevanje zaraščanja, saj delež
vinogradov, četudi se urejajo novi, upada. Čeprav za urejanje problematike, povezane z divjadjo, nismo
posebej oblikovali aktivnosti, izpostavljamo, da bo treba začeti učinkovito upravljati tudi s povečano
populacijo divjadi. Vinogradniška pokrajina Vipavskega gričevja izkazuje visoko stopnjo naravnosti
in nudi habitate različnim živalskim vrstam, med drugim tudi divjadi, ki pa pogosto povzroča škodo
v vinogradih. To je tesno povezno z že omenjenim zaraščanjem. Zaradi zaraščanja se povečuje število
divjadi, škoda, ki jo povzroča divjad, pa še dodatno vodi v opuščanje vinogradov v bližini zaraščajo-
čih zemljišč. Pri iskanju krhkega ravnovesja bo potrebno sodelovanje različnih deležnikov. Ključno vlogo
bodo morali zavzeti upravljavci lovišč, gozdarji in Ministrstvo za kmetijstvo, gozdarstvo in prehrano.
Precej pozornosti bo treba posvetiti ozaveščanju in prepoznavanju vrednosti območij Nature 2000.
S številnimi javnimi razpravami in predstavitvami je treba zavarovana območja prepoznati in obrav-
navati kot prednost in ne kot oviro. Nenazadnje je mozaična vinogradniška pokrajina z visoko stopnjo
naravnosti privlačna za obiskovalce, zato bi del aktivnosti morali usmeriti tudi v povezovanje vino-
gradništva, turizma in gostinstva.
Zahvala: Zahvaljujemo se Interreg projektu ECOVINEGOALS – Upravljanje in dejavnosti v ekolo-
ških vinogradih kot podlaga za pripravo pokrajinskih strategij, Javni agenciji za znanstvenoraziskovalno
in inovacijsko dejavnost Republike Slovenije za finančno podporo raziskovalnim programom Geografija
Slovenije (P6-0101), Dediščina na obrobjih: novi pogledi na dediščino in identiteto znotraj in onkraj nacio-
nalnega (P5-0408) in Opazovanje Zemlje in geoinformatika (P2-0406). Za angleški prevod se zahvaljujemo
Saši Požek.
6 Viri in literatura
Glej angleški del prispevka.
75
Geografski vestnik 95-1, 2023 Razprave/Papers
vestnik 95_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd  3.4.2024  10:54  Page 75