the spain national report...implementation in spain is spread across a total of 21 programmes....

EUROPE’S LIVING COUNTRYSIDEpromoting policies for sustainable rural development

The Spain National Report

Beaufoy, G.; Jennings, S.; Hernandez, E.;Peiteado, C. & Fuentelsaz, F. October 2005

Report commissioned by WWF, SNM & LUPG

Guy Beaufoy, IDRiSi. 19/12/2005 2

EUROPE’S LIVING COUNTRYSIDE

SPAIN

NATIONAL REPORT

Beaufoy, G.; Jennings, S.; Hernandez, E.; Peiteado, C. & Fuentelsaz, F.

CONTENTS

0. PREFACE ...............................................................................................................................................4

1. NATIONAL CONTEXT........................................................................................................................6

1.1 SPANISH PROGRAMME STRUCTURE AND ELCO FOCUS........................................................................61.2 OVERVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES .............................................................................................61.3 NATIONAL PROGRAMME OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................81.4 ALLOCATION OF NATIONAL RDR BUDGET BETWEEN MEASURES........................................................91.5 GOOD AGRICULTURAL PRACTICE (GAP) AND MINIMUM ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS (MES) ASAPPLIED TO RDR MEASURES IN SPAIN....................................................................................................11

2. REGIONAL PROGRAMMING - EXTREMADURA......................................................................12

2.1 INTEGRATED OPERATIONAL PROGRAMME (IOP) - EXTREMADURA .................................................122.1.1 ERDF measures .......................................................................................................................122.1.2 FEOGA measures (RDR) .........................................................................................................14

2.2 ACCOMPANYING MEASURES ............................................................................................................162.2.1 Agri-environment .....................................................................................................................172.2.2 Accompanying measures in Extremadura................................................................................192.2.3 Farmland afforestation (Article 31).........................................................................................212.2.4 LFA ..........................................................................................................................................22

3. ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION - EXTREMADURA............................................................23

3.1 MAIN RURAL LAND USES ..................................................................................................................233.2 BIODIVERSITY AND LANDSCAPE .......................................................................................................23

3.2.1 Habitats and species (Natura 2000 and other priorities) ........................................................233.2.2 Data / trends for habitats and species......................................................................................253.2.3 Progress with Natura 2000 implementation ............................................................................26

3.3 HNV LANDUSES...............................................................................................................................29

4. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES IN RURAL AREAS - EXTREMADURA.......................................34

4.1 REVIEW OF THE MAIN ISSUES............................................................................................................344.2 SELECTION OF ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED IN ELC .............................................................................34

5. EVALUATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION AND OBJECTIVES IN THERDR PROGRAMMES – EXTREMADURA.........................................................................................41

5.1 DOES THE DESCRIPTION COVER ALL THE MAIN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES?........................................415.2 IF NOT, WHICH ISSUES DOES IT COVER AND WHICH ISSUES ARE NOT COVERED? ...............................415.3 DOES THE DESCRIPTION PROVIDE QUANTIFIED DATA ON EACH ISSUE? .............................................415.4 DOES IT IDENTIFY GEOGRAPHIC AREAS AND FARMING SECTORS OR SYSTEMS THAT ARE ESPECIALLYLINKED TO EACH ISSUE? .........................................................................................................................425.5 DOES IT IDENTIFY PRIORITY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES TO BE TACKLED BY THE PROGRAMME?.........425.6 ARE SOLUTIONS DESCRIBED? ...........................................................................................................42


5.7 GAPS IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION....................................................................................435.7.1 Water........................................................................................................................................435.7.2 Soil pollution and erosion........................................................................................................435.7.3 Biodiversity ..............................................................................................................................43

5.8 OBJECTIVES AND TARGETS ...............................................................................................................445.8.1 What quantified environmental targets do the programmes include? .....................................44

6. PROPOSED OBJECTIVES AND TARGETS IN RESPONSE TO SELECTED ISSUES -EXTREMADURA....................................................................................................................................44

7. PROPOSED USE OF RDR MEASURES TO ADDRESS SELECTED ISSUES ...........................46

7.1 HNV AREAS (STEPPE, DEHESA, UPLAND/MOUNTAIN).......................................................................467.1.1 Planning...................................................................................................................................467.1.2 Measures..................................................................................................................................46

7.2 NATURA 2000 AREAS .......................................................................................................................477.3 GENERAL PRINCIPLES FOR MEASURES ..............................................................................................47

8. DELIVERY MECHANISMS..............................................................................................................50

8.1 EXISTING MECHANISMS ....................................................................................................................508.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING CURRENT DELIVERY SYSTEMS ...............................................51

9. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION................................................................................................................52

10. MONITORING AND EVALUATION.............................................................................................53

11. CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................................54

12. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................55

12.1 PROGRAMMING PROCESS................................................................................................................5512.2 USE OF MEASURES..........................................................................................................................55

CASE STUDY ON EVERGREEN-OAK FOREST AND DEHESA IN EXTREMADURA ANDANDALUCÍA ...........................................................................................................................................57

CASE STUDY ON SUSTAINABLE WATER USE IN THE DOÑANA PROTECTED AREAS,ANDALUCÍA ...........................................................................................................................................65


0. PrefaceThe second pillar of the CAP has been developed to contribute towards sustainable ruraldevelopment and to help rural areas to adapt to changes in Pillar 1 support and to ruralrestructuring, particularly in the agricultural sector. The EU-15 Member States and thecandidate countries developed and implemented a first generation of rural developmentprogrammes following the 1999 Rural Development Regulation and SAPARD. In 2005,the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) package of measureswas agreed. This provides the basis for the second generation of rural developmentprogrammes in the enlarged EU-25. EC strategic guidelines for rural development willbe published and will place a stronger emphasis on the need to achieve sustainabledevelopment and on EU policy priorities, which include environmental priorities.Overall the new Regulation requires Member States to take a more strategic, focussedand participative approach to rural development as they develop their plans in 2005-6for the new programmes to be implemented for the 2007-13 period.

This study is part of Europe’s Living Countryside, a pan-European research projectsponsored by WWF Europe, the Land Use Policy Group (LUPG) of GB’s conservation,countryside and environment agencies and Stichting Natuur en Milieu (SNM) in theNetherlands. National studies were undertaken in seven countries (Spain, Poland, theNetherlands, the UK, Germany, Hungary and Bulgaria – see map below). The aim wasto review progress with developing and implementing rural development programmesand to explore in detail how environmental priorities and objectives might better beidentified and addressed in the new rural development programmes.

Our research builds on Europe’s Rural Futures, an earlier LUPG and WWF Europepan-European project which analysed MSs’ initial progress with developing andimplementing the 2000-6 plans. Areas highlighted where improvements could be madeincluded the need for a more strategic, coherent and integrated approaches to addressingenvironmental issues.

The Europe’s Living Countryside national research was carried out using an agreedcommon framework. This included analysing the evidence on environmental data andtrends, using the results of mid-term evaluations and holding discussions and/orseminars with key stakeholders to help identify environmental priorities and to considerhow the tools in the new regulation might be used to address environmental prioritiesand improve integration of environmental issues. Each national study includes at leastone local case study to illustrate how this could be achieved.

National experts from the LUPG, WWF and SNM partnership coordinated the in-depthnational research, supported in some countries (Germany, the UK and Poland) byconsultants commissioned to undertake the detailed work.


For further information about the Europe’s Living Countryside project please seewww.lupg.org.uk or http://www.panda.org/europe/agriculture or contact:

Rosie Simpson, Senior European Policy Adviser (Sustainable Land Management),Countryside Agency: Tel: 00 44 1242 521381 [email protected]

Elizabeth Guttenstein, Head of European Agriculture and Rural Development, WWFEuropean Policy Office: Tel: 00 322 740 [email protected]

Arjan Berkhuysen, EU Nature and Agricultural Policies, Stichting Natuur en Milieu:Tel: 00 31 30 234 8218 [email protected]

http://www.lupg.org.uk/

http://www.panda.org/europe/agriculture

mailto:[email protected]




1. National context

1.1 Spanish programme structure and ELCo focusThe implementation of the Rural Development Regulation 1257/99 (RDR) in Spain ishighly complex, due to a combination of factors:

The federal structure of Spain, with 17 autonomous regions, including twovariations (Basque Country and Navarra).

The presence of Objective 1 and non-Objective 1 regions, and the fact thatEU arrangements for the RDR differ between them (overlap with StructuralFund programming in Objective 1 regions – see Extremadura example insection 2.).

Given the limited resources available, the ELCo project in Spain focuses on thefollowing examples, taken at different geographic levels:

National level: programming and processes

Regional level: programming and implementation in Extremadura

Local level: case studies in Extremadura and Andalucía

» Maintaining biodiversity values in evergreen-oak forests and dehesas

» Harmonising irrigated agriculture and nature conservation in the DoñanaNatura 2000 sites

Except for the Basque Country, each region has a combination of two or three RDRprogrammes: one regional and two or three horizontal/State programmes. Overall, RDRimplementation in Spain is spread across a total of 21 programmes.

Extremadura and Andalucía are both Objective 1 regions, thus receiving large amountsof RD funding via FEOGA Guidance (Structural Funds) as well as the FEOGAGuarantee measures. These two regions are probably, with Galicia, the only Spanishregions that will continue as Objective 1 in the next programming period (2007-2013).

1.2 Overview of environmental issuesThe Spanish farm and forest land area is characterised by four main environmentalissues (below), although with important regional and local variations, and with somenotable overlaps between issues. The first two of these issues were selected as the focusof ELCO in Spain.

1. Biodiversity decline2. Degradation of water resources (extraction and pollution)3. Soil erosion4. Forest fires

Spanish rural areas are characterised by extremes: large areas of land are under verylow-intensity land uses that produce varying degrees of environmental benefits


(especially biodiversity, landscape, and fire prevention); while many other areas areunder extremely intensive agriculture, often using irrigation and with varying degrees ofnegative environmental impacts. These contrasting situations sometimes exist side byside within one municipality.

Land use in Spain in recent decades has been highly unstable. Change is often rapid,dramatic and on a large scale. The most widespread changes involve intensification andrestructuring of the farming and forest landscape, farmland afforestation, and thedecline/abandonment of traditional land uses. These changes are often accompanied byenvironmental impacts, including the loss of biodiversity and landscape values, andincreased fire risk.

Spain harbours exceptional natural values. Some 30% of the territory is beingdesignated as Natura 2000. Much of this land is under forestry or farming uses, and isthus directly affected by RD policy and other parts of the CAP. There are widespreadproblems of environmental degradation within and around Natura 2000 sites. Many ofthese impacts are caused by agricultural intensification, expansion and restructuring,and by inappropriate forestry practices. Some Natura 2000 rivers are affected by over-extraction and/or pollution. Building and infrastructure developments also causewidespread impacts.

Numerous species of Community importance are classified officially as in danger ofextinction; in some cases, the danger is considered critical (e.g. Iberian lynx). Reversingthis situation, as required by the EU Habitats Directive and the EU’s commitment toreverse biodiversity decline by 2010, is linked inextricably with tendencies in farmingand forestry. At present, these tendencies are clearly working against biodiversityobjectives. A fundamental change in agricultural and rural development policies isneeded in order to change these tendencies.

Irrigated agriculture is particularly problematic in environmental terms, as a result ofdirect impacts on natural values (water extraction, pollution, habitat destruction) andbecause it drives (alongside other sectors) an increasing demand for water that isaddressed by the authorities through programmes of hydrological works (dams andinter-basin transfers). The main RD measure in Spain is for new irrigation and forincreasing the efficiency of water use in existing irrigation. Several of the new irrigationprojects have negative impacts on Natura 2000 values.

Diffuse pollution from intensive agriculture is believed to be severe in most of themajor river basins, although data is not readily available and the issue has not yet beenaddressed by policy makers.

Soil erosion is one of the most serious and widespread environmental problems inSpain, especially in the southern half of the country. Agriculture is the main cause ofsoil erosion, especially arable and permanent crops. Official reports have estimated thataround 40% of olive plantations in Andalucía suffer from severe soil erosion, and thattop-soil loss from olive plantations in the region averages 80 tonnes/ha/year. Measuresto address this problem are notably insufficient.

Wild fires on forest and scrub land damage thousands of hectares of habitat each yearand can lead to severe soil erosion. Forestry is an important element in Spanish


programmes, with measures for afforestation and management of existing forests takingup almost 20% of the total budget. Although supposedly environmental in their purpose,expenditure under these measures is of very questionable environmental benefit, and themost common actions (e.g. afforestation, forest roads, scrub clearance) are widelycriticised by NGOs for their environmental impacts.

1.3 National programme objectivesThe objectives of the RDR in Spain are dispersed across the different programmesreferred to in section 1.1 above. There is no single document which sets out overallobjectives. The Accompanying Measures, funded by FEOGA Guarantee throughoutSpain, are notably separated from the measures funded in Objective 1 regions byFEOGA Guidance through the Structural Funds Integrated Operational Programmes(IOPs).

A major theme of the programmes is the modernisation of agriculture and its associatedinfrastructure and processing industries. This reflects a broad political consensus thatmuch of Spanish agriculture still needs considerable modernisation if it is to becompetitive. This remains the priority of agricultural authorities for rural areas,alongside the development of infrastructure, such as roads and irrigation. Lessimportance is given to objectives such as diversification of the rural economy,environmental protection and improvement, or the maintenance of land managementand populations in the most marginal areas.

The programming documents put considerable emphasis on sustainability, integration,compatibility and environmental improvement, but this is mostly window-dressing,without the necessary mechanisms for practical delivery. There is a tendency to justifyobjectives with environmental arguments of limited credence, without undertaking ananalysis of the problems, or the causes of problems.

Box 1: Contradictions between stated aims and the design of measures.

Although the programme documents highlight the concern to prevent abandonment of marginalareas, in practice the way measures are designed goes directly against this aim. New irrigationin olive plantations is funded by the Water Management measure, for example in lowland areasof Extremadura. These plantations thus become more competitive, at the expense of the viabilityof marginal upland olives. Overall production is increased, and product prices fall, thus furtherincreasing the threat of abandonment of olive production in marginal areas.

To compound the problem, LFA support is set at a very low level, and can be received byirrigated as well as non-irrigated plantations (although irrigated land is eligible only up to thefirst 5 ha). There is no agri-environment support system for traditional olive farming, as there isin Portugal, and Spain has chosen to make minimal use of the CAP olive regime “nationalenvelope” for olive areas of environmental value.

Overall, this combination of policies is working in the opposite direction from the concernexpressed in the programme documents about maintaining farming for social and environmentalreasons in marginal areas.


1.4 Allocation of national RDR budget between measuresTable 1 groups the Spanish RDR budget 2000-2007 according to three broad categories,devised by the author of the NORD report as an approximate guide (actual expenditureis likely to vary from these estimates). The categories coincide quite well with the threeAxes proposed for the new EAFRD. A large proportion of the total budget (over 56%)is allocated to the modernisation of agriculture and agri-food industries, and toassociated infrastructure.

The future for marginal holdings and the extensive areas which cannot respond tomodernisation measures depends on schemes such as Less Favoured Areas (LFA),diversification and agri-environment payments. However, these schemes continue toreceive relatively limited budget allocations (less than 5%, 8% and 10% of the totalRDR funds respectively), especially considering the very large territories and numbersof holdings which cannot expect to become competitive through modernisation.

Table 1: Budgetary allocations by groups of measuresMEASURES FOR MODERNISATION OF FARMING AND FOOD INDUSTRIES

% of budget1

Article 33 Water management in agriculture (irrigation) 14.20Article 25-28 Processing and marketing 12.52Article 4-7 Farm investments 8.84Article 33, p.3 Farm services 5.89Article 33, p.9 Farm infrastructure 5.88Article 8 Young farmers 4.63Article 10-12 Early retirement 3.66Article 33, p.2 Reparcelling 0.93Article 33, p.1 Land improvement 0.16TOTAL 56.71

MEASURES FOR OTHER FORMS OF LAND MANAGEMENTArticle 29-32b Forest planting and management 9.79Article 22-24 Agri-environment 9.73Article 29-32ª Farmland afforestation 7.17Article 13-21 Less Favoured Areas 4.87Article 33, p.11 Environmental protection 3.71TOTAL 35.27

MEASURES FOR DIVERSIFYING THE RURAL ECONOMYArticle 9Article 25-28Article 33

PRODER 4.61

Article 33, p.10 Tourism and crafts 1.11Article 33, p.5 Basic services for rural population and economy 0.90Article 33, p.6 Village renovation and heritage conservation 0.42Article 33, p.4 Quality products 0.38Article 9 Training 0.29TOTAL 7.71[LEADER + equivalent percentage – not included in total 5.87]

1 % of total allocated budget (EU + Spain)


Farmland afforestation, although much reduced from the previous period, continues toabsorb well over a third of the Accompanying Measures budget, even though the socio-economic and environmental benefits of the measure to-date are questioned. Thismeasure could similarly take up a large part of Axis 2 spending under the EAFRD.

Water Management – the biggest single RDR measure in Spain

The Water Management measure (provided for in Article 33 of the EU Regulation) hasthe biggest budget allocation of all measures in Spain, at €261.81 million per year ofpublic funds. This equates to 14.2% of the RDR total. Its direct objective is toimplement the new National Irrigation Plan (NIP).

The NIP is linked closely to the National Hydrological Plan (NHP), which aims toincrease the water supply in many areas through the construction of new dams. Aproportion of the NHP is to be funded through Structural and Cohesion Funds, as water-supply measures.

The Water Management measure covers two broad areas of action: new irrigation andmodernisation of existing irrigation, the latter with the aim of improving water-efficiency and competitiveness.

New irrigation is to cover 112,000 hectares over the seven year programme,representing a significant acceleration (almost double) in the creation of new irrigationin Spain. Amongst the irrigation projects proposed under the Water Management inAgriculture measure, five are singled out by WWF for their potentially high impact onNatura 2000 sites:

Irrigation project Natura 2000 values most affectedZújar Iberian lynxAmbroz Iberian lynx, riverine woodlandsCalanda-Alcañiz Steppeland birdsRiaño Steppeland birdsPáramo Bajo Steppeland birdsMargen Izquierdo Tera Freshwater fish

These possible impacts are not mentioned in the programme document. There are fivesmall paragraphs dedicated to Natura 2000, but these are purely descriptive, concludingwith a simple commitment to avoid any damaging effects.

The area intended to be affected by modernisation measures is 615,000 hectares,representing a six-fold increase on the previous funding period.

The budgets for the Accompanying Measures have proven inadequate, with demandoutstripping available resources since 2000. The response of the Spanish Authorities hasbeen to introduce mechanisms for limiting expenditure (e.g. modulation and prioritycriteria).

The measure for environmental protection receives only 4% of the total budget. Theobjectives stated in the programming documents for this measure tend to be extremelyvague. In practice, in most regions the actions are concerned largely with nature


conservation, particularly related to Natura 2000 (management plans, habitatmanagement, species conservation).

The limited allocations to measures for environmental protection, economicdiversification and LFAs are explained partly by the budgetary burden of the traditionalmeasures for irrigation and modernisation of farm holdings and food industries. Theseare the political priorities, and little money was left over for other actions.

However, another significant budgetary burden is the long-term expenditure committedduring the previous period under the Farmland Afforestation measure (and, to a lesserextent, the Agri-environment scheme). These existing commitments, over twenty yearsin the case of Afforestation (itself much criticised by NGOs), absorb an important partof the 2000-2006 budgets allocated to these measures.

1.5 Good Agricultural Practice (GAP) and Minimum EnvironmentalStandards (MES) as applied to RDR measures in SpainLFA, Agri-environment and farm investment measures include the obligation to complywith GAP and MES. GAP measures at national level include:

Soil conservation and erosion control Optimizing the use of fossil fuels Efficient use of water Biodiversity Conservation, specifically

» avoid damaging birds nests during harvesting operations» no stubble burning, except with permission of local authorities

Rationalization of fertilizer use; Rational use of herbicides and pesticides Reduction of agricultural pollution Compliance with the basic national legislation on nature conservation (=

Minimum Environmental Standards) Broad limitations on animal stocking densities

» districts with annual rainfall less than 400 mm – 0.5LU/ha/year» districts with annual rainfall less than 600 mm – 1LU/ha/year» districts with annual rainfall equal to or greater than 600 mm and less

than 800 mm – 1.5LU/ha/year» districts with annual rainfall equal or greater to 800 mm – 2LU/ha/year

These conditions may be considered a first step towards eco-conditionality for LFApayments, but in themselves they are extremely undemanding and unlikely to deliversignificant nature conservation benefits. For example, the stocking limits are extremelyhigh and therefore not relevant for most semi-natural grazing in Spain.

Regional authorities have the option to introduce more detailed conditions under theRDR. Potentially, they could require more finely tuned stocking densities, orcompliance with land-use planning laws (enforcement of these is very weak in Spain).Some regions have introduced variations on the national conditions, such as differentstocking limits. However, these seem to be of minor relevance as monitoring andenforcement are extremely weak (see section 10.).


2. Regional programming - ExtremaduraExtremadura is an Objective 1 region, and as such the programming of RDR measuresoverlaps with Structural Fund programming. The RDR measures for Extremadura arethus distributed across three different Programmes:

Regional Integrated Operational Programme. Includes measures fundedby FEOGA - Guidance, ERDF and ESF, and follows the frameworkprovided by the National Regional Development Plan for Objective 1Regions.

National Horizontal Rural Development Programme for AccompanyingMeasures. Funding from FEOGA – Guarantee.

National Operational Programme for Improving AgriculturalStructures and production Systems in Objective I regions. Funding fromFEOGA – Guidance.

There is no overall rural development strategy for the region. There are also nosustainable development or biodiversity strategies. The RDR is thus implemented as acollection of disparate measures, providing EU funding for conventional governmentspending on things like rural roads and tracks, irrigation projects and investment aid forfarm intensification and producer co-operatives.

More innovative is the PRODER scheme for local rural development, with an approachsimilar to LEADER. A small amount of funding is used by the Environment Directorateof the regional Agriculture Ministry for nature conservation actions, but these do notform part of any clear strategy for conservation in the region.

2.1 Integrated Operational Programme (IOP) - ExtremaduraThe IOP’s themes and budget allocations are set out in Table 2 below (details ofmeasures are shown only for those funded through FEOGA or directly related to theenvironment). The table shows that the Programme is dominated by ERDF measures;RDR measures are of secondary importance.

2.1.1 ERDF measuresMeasures funded by ERDF (e.g. road building which receives the largest amount offunding) have a strong influence on rural development patterns in the region andpotentially large environmental impacts, especially the fragmentation of habitatsthrough road and dam building.

The ERDF measure 3.6 receives the second largest budget within the IOP after roadbuilding. Both the title and the stated objectives of the measure appear to indicate thatthis measure is aimed at protection of the natural environment. Objectives are:

Restore and improve fluvial ecosystems. Improve the exploitation of natural resources and fluvial ecosystems. Prepare forests for recreational use Conservation of ecosystems

In practice this measure finances many actions which have a negative impact on thenatural environment e.g. river engineering works (dams and canalization) and increasing


the exploitation of water resources. The main action connected to Protected Areas is theconstruction of interpretation centres.

Table 2. Budget for IOP measures in ExtremaduraMeasures Fund EurosAxis 1: Improvement of competitiveness and development of theproductive fabric

ERDFESFFEOGA

232,435,083 10.91%

Measure 1.2: Processing and marketing of agricultural products (Art.25-28, R1257/99)

FEOGA 47,295,000 20.35%

Axis 2: Communications and Knowledge Society ERDFESF

94,277,763 4.4.2%

Axis 3: Environment, natural surroundings and water resources ERDFFEOGA

496,911,978 23.32%

Measure 3.1: Water supply for the population and economic activities ERDF 70,681,798 14.22%

Measure 3.2: Improvement of the efficiency of existinginfrastructures and of water use

ERDF 81,024,170 16.31%

Measure 3.3: Cleaning and filtering of sewage ERDF 24,228,000 4.88%

Measure 3.4: Integral management of treated industrial and urbanwaste

ERDF 10,433,570 2.10%

Measure 3.6: Protection and regeneration of the environment ERDF 229,204,506 46.13%

Measure 3.7: Monitoring, control and reduction of environmentalcontamination

ERDF 2,253,795 0.45%

Measure 3.8: Regeneration of soils and sites ERDF 676,139 0.14%

Measure 3.9: Forestry (Art. 33.12 and 30, (EC) Regulation 1257/99) FEOGA 54,521,000 10.97%

Measure 3.10: Environmental actions derived from landscapeconservation and agrarian economy (Mainly Art. 33.11 but also33.10, 33.7 and 33.6 (EC) Regulation 1257/99)

FEOGA 23,889,000 4.81%

Axis 4: Development of human resources, employability andequality of opportunities

ESF 321,282,916 15.07%

Axis 5: Local and urban development ERDFESF

185,083,041 8.68%

Axis 6: Transport and energy networks ERDF 649,644,818 30.48%

Axis 7: Agriculture and rural development FEOGA 145,926,796 6.85%Measure 7.2: Development and improvement of support ofinfrastructure for agricultural production (Art. 33, point 2 and 9,(EC) Regulation 1257/99)

FEOGA 67,945,000 46.56%

Measure 7.5: Endogenous development of rural areas (Art. 33, point7, (EC) Regulation 1257/99) -

FEOGA 35,830,000 24.55%

Measure 7.8: Provision of services for agricultural holdings,marketing of quality agricultural products and financial engineering(Art. 33, points 3 and 11, R1257/99)

FEOGA 39,898,000 27.34%

Axis 9: Administration ERDFESFFEOGA

5,669,605 0.27%

Measure 9.3: Technical advice FEOGA 1,181,000 20.83%TOTAL 2,131,232,000 100%


2.1.2 FEOGA measures (RDR)RDR measures come under Axis 1: improvement of competitiveness; Axis 3:environment; Axis 7: agriculture and rural development; and Axis 9: administration.Within these Axes, only seven measures are funded through FEOGA, and these take uponly 12.7% of total IOP funds. These figures illustrate the relatively small role ofEuropean RD policy in the region, compared with the weight of Regional Policy(ERDF).

As shown in Table 3, 25% of FEOGA funding is spent on roads and municipal farmimprovement (measure 7.2) whilst only 9% is spent directly on environmental actions(measure 3.10). Table 3: RDR measures included in the IOP, showing percentage of FEOGA budgetallocated to each measureFEOGA Measures % of budgetMeasure 1.2 Processing & Marketing of Agricultural Products 17.5%Measure 3.9: Forestry 20%Measure 3.10:Environmental actions 9%Measure 7.2: Development and improvement of infrastructure 25%Measure 7.5: Endogenous development of rural areas 13%Measure 7.8: Provision of services for agricultural holdings 15%Measure 9.3: Administration 0.5%

The measures of most environmental relevance are described in more detail below.

Forestry measures

Measure 3.9 of the IOP relates to forestry management and is funded under RDRArticles 33.12 (Restoring agricultural production potentially damaged by naturaldisasters) and 30 (note that Article 32, for maintaining ecologically valuable forests, isnot implemented). Objectives include to:

Guarantee the sustainable management of the public forests. Control erosion and reduce the total burnt area. Conservation of the natural heritage in areas of high ecological value which

can be exploited in order to avoid emigration.

This measure finances a set of forest management actions, such as scrub clearance,pruning, fencing, forest roads and planting up forest land with little tree cover. It alsofinances the restoration of areas burnt in forest fires.

In 2004 a new Decree of the regional government for the sustainable management ofwoodlands was introduced. This gives priority to natural regeneration as a means ofrestoring tree cover. It is not clear whether this will carry though into practice on theground, as artificial planting is an easier option for claiming grant aid.

The issues surrounding these measures are discussed in detail in the case study onevergreen-oak forests and dehesas (see below).

Nature conservation measures


Measure 3.10 of the IOP relates to conservation of the countryside and is largely fundedunder RDR Article 33.11 (protection of the environment), with a few measures under33.10, 33.7 and 33.6. Objectives include to:

Increase the quality and area of the habitats listed in the Habitats Directiveand increase the populations of protected species.

Reduce the deaths of protected species from collisions and electrocutionscaused by electricity cables.

Reduce the damage caused by protected species in crops. Restore, conserve and improve traditional livestock tracks (drovers’ roads).

Actions under these measures say little more than the objectives, e.g.:

Action (5): To establish management, planning and sustainable developmentcriteria in areas included with the Natura 2000 network includingpreliminary evaluation and other work.

Action (12): Carry out environmental management aimed at improving thequality of habitat and the conservation status of threatened species.

Specific species are only mentioned in the following action:

Action (19): Supplementary feeding programme for protected species(Imperial eagle, Bonelli’s eagle, Black vulture, Black stork and Iberian lynx)in critical areas.

Specific sites are only mentioned in the following action:

Action (2): improve the wildlife hospital in Llanos de Cáceres and Sierra deFuentes SPA and the process for retrieving injured animals.

Conservation grants

Under Measure 3.10 the Conservation Service of the regional government providesgrants for landowners who are either in Protected Areas or who manage protectedspecies’ (see below) habitats. The objective of this grant scheme is to:

“favour the conservation of natural habitats and protected species in Extremaduraand to ensure that nature conservation is compatible with appropriate socioeconomic

development”.

Grants are available for infrastructure (changing barbed wire fences, creating pools,modifying electricity cables), habitat improvement (planting hedges with indigenousspecies and improving river banks and copses), and compensation for having nests ofprotected species and for loss of livestock to predators.

Protected species for which grants are available are: Iberian lynx, Spanish ImperialEagle, Black Stork, Wolf, Golden eagle, Bonelli’s eagle, Black vulture, Egyptianvulture, Great Bustard, Little Bustard, Montague’s harrier and Common crane.


Although environmentally positive in themselves, it is clear that these measures operateon a very small scale. Only certain very local sites are affected (the exception is theplanning process for Natura 2000). Some RD measures with far greater fundingmeanwhile appear to be working against the same nature conservation aims, forexample in the case of forest management and the Black Stork (see the Evergreen OakCase Study, below).

Axis 7 - Agriculture and rural development

Axis 7 includes measures funded through the PRODER scheme which works in asimilar way to LEADER. Measure 7.5 relates to endogenous rural development. One ofthe five objectives of this measure (funded under A33.3, farm relief and management)is:

“To promote extensive agricultural systems as a means of optimizing the exploitationof natural resources, conservation of these systems and promoting and improving

livestock breeds and quality natural products.”

Grants for this objective are targeted to extensive livestock systems in the dehesa.However, funding seems to be aimed solely at improving the quality of livestockbreeds. The absence of any other measures is a major incoherence with theenvironmental description in the regional IOP, which highlights overstocking oflivestock as the main environmental problem associated with farming in the dehesas.No measures are implemented for addressing this problem.

2.2 Accompanying MeasuresAt the national level, these measures are covered by a separate programming document.The national objectives are extremely vague: ‘…to adapt production systems and farmstructures with the aim of complying with the principles of sustainable developmentwhich should govern productive processes’.

Although some slightly more concrete aims are included (below), these are all verybroad and no targets for specific species, habitats, types of land or agricultural sectorsare included. This gives the regions great flexibility and allows them, in theory, todevelop their own specific objectives within a broad national framework. However,there is no requirement for them to do this.

Priority aims at national level are to:

1. Rationalize the use of inputs (relates mainly to agri-environment measures 3, 7and 9).

2. Improve farm structures and encourage young farmers (relates to LFA, agri-environment and afforestation).

3. Restructuring of the agricultural sector (agri-environment measures 1,3 and 9 +afforestation).

4. Improve the quality of life and protection of the environment (LFA, all agri-environment measures, and afforestation).

More concrete objectives stated in the programming document are to:


Maintain and improve the competitiveness of extensive traditionalagricultural systems.

Maintain extensive livestock systems. Rationalize the use of agrochemicals. Reduce pollution. Increase the forested area. Conserve the environment. Guarantee the viability of competitive agricultural systems. Maintain the agricultural population in LFAs. Maintain the biodiversity of flora and fauna, natural and agricultural. Maintain abandoned land. Promote and increase sources of employment and income linked to the

environment.

The programming document does not make any links between the different measures(afforestation, agri-environment, etc.) even though there are clear tensions betweenthem on the ground (e.g. afforestation is made far more attractive to farmers throughhigher payments).

2.2.1 Agri-environmentNationally, the agri-environment measures for 2000-2007 were given only a smallincrease in budget compared with the previous funding period. The scheme can beconsidered to have stagnated, at 9.7% of the total RDR budget.

Table 4: Total allocations of public funds to the Accompanying Measures ProgrammeObjective 1 regions Non-Objective 1 regionsNew com-mitments

Priorcom-mitments

TOTAL New com-mitments

Priorcom-mitments

TOTAL NationalTOTAL

EarlyRetirement 288.561 126.977 415.538 27.398 10.636 38.034 453.572LFApayments 516.009 - 516.009 70.330 - 70.330 586.339Agri-environment 543.342 350.484 893.827 249.103 64.156 313.258 1,207.085Farmlandafforestation 382.252 419.367 801.889 58.286 20.101 78.387 880.276

TOTAL 1,730.164 897.098 2,627.262 409.926 94.893 504.819 2,222.856Source: MAPA (2000a). Figures in € millions; includes national and Community financing(FEOGA-Guarantee)

The overall target for the agri-environment measure is to include 2.86 million hectaresin the scheme by 2006, which would represent around 13% of the agricultural area.However, there are fears that the lack of budgetary resources may lead to a situation inwhich the ambitious list of measures programmes is only partially applied by manyRegions.

In fact, demand from farmers for the Agri-environment scheme in 2000 and 2001 waswell above the funds available from the allocated budget, making it necessary to


introduce changes in the scheme. Two changes were introduced to limit expenditure: onthe one hand, modulation is now applied to agri-environment payments. This creates anunusual situation in which agri-environment payments are modulated, but mainstreamCAP payments are not.

On the other hand, when the budgetary limit is reached, contracts will be allocated on apriority basis. The following holdings are given priority:

Organic producers. Holdings in LFA, especially those designated for environmental limitations. Farmers for whom agriculture and complementary activities represent at

least 50% of income (agriculture must produce at least 25% of income).

The national agri-environment measures aim to contribute to five priority action themes:water, soil, natural risks, biodiversity and landscapes. The measures are shown below.

An important change from the previous period is the elimination of “zonal measures”,that were intended for SPAs and other protected areas. All measures in the currentprogramme are intended to be horizontal in application, although the national regulationstates that regional authorities will “take into account the specific characteristics ofregional agro-ecosystems” when implementing the national programme. On the onehand, this gives the regions the freedom to choose which measures to implement; itcould also be taken as allowing them to target measures on certain systems and areas,although this is by no means clear.

The national programme document claims benefits for Natura 2000 from certain agri-environment measures, especially those concerning extensive livestock andbiodiversity. The benefits are referred to in very general terms, with no reference toparticular areas, habitats or species, and with no attempt at quantification or setting oftargets. The assessment of environmental effects of the set of Accompanying Measuresis limited to six very general bullet points.

Quantified objectives are established for broad groups of agri-environment measures,but these are extremely general (numbers of expected beneficiaries and hectares,expenditure) and apparently based on a Star Committee document. The expectedcoverage of new contracts in the period 2000-2006 is:

Measures for natural resources 2,341,082 ha Measures for biodiversity 95,337 ha Measures for landscape 420,764 ha TOTAL 2,857,185 ha

Measure 1: Extensification of agricultureAimed at improving soils in cereal cultivation, as well as conservation of steppelandbird species and long-term set-aside for restoring biodiversity/habitats. Apart fromsteppeland birds, these measures are of potential benefit for habitats, includingMediterranean wetlands in arable landscapes. A key element is the environmentalmanagement of fallow land; in most Spanish regions, a proportion of arable land mustbe left fallow each year under the CAP arable regime. A controversial scheme formaintaining the incomes of sunflower producers is also included under this measure.


Measure 2: Varieties of indigeous plants at risk of genetic erosionObjective is the maintenance of biodiversity and genetic richness.

Measure 3: Environmental techniques for rationalizing the use of chemical productsAim is to introduce cultivation practices which reduce contamination of soil and waterthrough reducing use of chemicals.

Measure 4: Fight against erosion in fragile areasAimed at the protection and conservation of soil, avoiding loss due to erosion on slopes.

Measure 5: Flora and fauna in wetlandsIncludes measures aimed at environmental integration in rice and sugar cane production,as well as “over-seeding” in cereal systems adjacent to wetlands, for feeding birds.

Measure 6: Specialised production systems with high environmental interest

Measure 7: Water saving and extensification of productionThis measure is aimed primarily at the Tablas de Daimiel wetlands. A reduction inwater use of least 50% is required from beneficiaries. The reduction must be measuredfrom the level permitted by the Water Authority. Beneficiaries cannot receive CAP areapayments for irrigated land on same land as the agri-environment payment, and musthave a water meter installed and keep a record of consumption. This measure is animportant component of the agri-environment programme. Although controversial, itseems to have been tightened up since the previous period. The key objective is therestoration of an important Natura 2000 site. However, it is only one of over 800 sites inSpain, and studies have shown that similar benefits potentially could be achievedthrough the application of cross-compliance to CAP arable payments, thus freeing-upagri-environment funds for other schemes.

Measure 8: Landscape protection and fire preventionIncludes aid for farms with high threat of attack by wolves and bears, substituting thecurrent system of compensation for livestock killed in attacks. This is the approachproposed by the Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe, and may be a positive steptowards increasing farmer tolerance of these predators.

Measure 9: Integrated farm managementMainly livestock measures, including rational grazing management for conservation,reducing densities, rare breeds, organic production, and a special transhumance measurewhich claims to be aimed specifically at Natura 2000 (removing stock for 4 months).However, there is no mention of which areas the measure is intended for, or whichhabitats and species should benefit.

2.2.2 Accompanying measures in ExtremaduraThere is no document which sets out the context and overall objectives for thesemeasures in the region. In general they have been given little priority by the regionalgovernment. The table above shows that the budget for Accompanying Measures in theregion decreased between 2000 and 2002.


Table 4: Expenditure on accompanying measures in Extremadura, 2000-20022000 2001 2002€ 000s % € 000s % € 000s %

AccompanyingMeasures

38,559.55 7.33 26,989.33 4.67 24,110.11 4.08

Afforestation 27,579.68 17,839.04 9,528.94Agri-environment

8,176.36 8,152.90 6,118.31

LFAs 2,442.37 435.39 7,696.11Earlyretirement

361.14 562.00 766.75

Source: La Agricultura y la Ganaderia Extremeñas, 2002, Caja de Badajoz

Agri-environment measures were first made available in the region in 1996 throughRegulation 2078/92. The region followed the national framework and introduced bothzonal and horizontal measures. The zonal measures were aimed at the managementNatura 2000 sites (bird Special Protection Areas), including the main steppe and dehesaareas. This appeared to be a sound approach, but very poorly executed. Farmers had noinvolvement in the design of the measures, and they were very weakly promoted.Farmers were put off by the poor image of the scheme and by excessive bureaucracy.Up-take was consequently very low.

Under the RDR, these zonal measures have been replaced by a limited range ofhorizontal measures taken from the national list. Rather than measures designed forparticular areas, the new scheme focuses on specific production sectors and methodsacross the region. Basically these are organic and integrated production in olive, fruitand rice production. From a national list of nine measures and over 21 actions, theregion has applied only three actions (3.3, 3.4 and 9.2) which relate to two measures:“Environmental techniques for rationalizing the use of chemical products” and“Integrated farm management”).

Agri-environment measures in Extremadura1. Integrated rice production

2. Integrated fruit production (fruit with pips)

3. Integrated fruit production (fruit with stones)

4. Production of organic olives

5. Support for indigenous breeds

6. Production of organic dried fruit

Of the five national measures that appear most relevant for HNV farming and Natura2000 (measures 1,5,7,8, and 9), only minor parts (payments for rare breeds and organiccrop production) of one measure (9) are implemented in Extremadura. Nationalmeasures that are highly appropriate for the region but NOT implemented include ascheme for steppelands and measures for extensive and transhumant livestock.


The absence of agri-environment schemes for the vast areas of HNV landuses is afundamental problem and suggests an important lack of environmental commitment onthe part of the regional government.

2.2.3 Farmland afforestation (Article 31)In Extremadura the stated objectives of this scheme are:

To support predicted changes in the context of CAP reform To contribute, in the long-term, to the forestry resource. To contribute to a land management which is more compatible with the

environment To fight against the greenhouse effect and absorb carbon dioxide.

These objectives are copied almost directly from the wording of the old EU Regulation2080/92; they are not adapted to Spanish or regional considerations.

The objectives of the scheme are extremely vague and not remotely adapted to thecircumstances of the region. Yet the measure has a major territorial impact in the region,and has totally overshadowed the agri-environmental scheme since the 1980s. It ties upa considerable proportion of funds for twenty years, with no evident socio-economic orenvironmental benefits.

It is widely criticised by environmental groups. The view of WWF Spain is that bettermanagement of existing forests should have priority over new planting.

In a region with 30% forest cover there is no apparent justification for putting so muchfunding into new afforestation. The land afforested is of very low productivity, mostlypermanent grassland, so the effects on agricultural production are negligible.

The scheme appears to continue because it is strongly supported by the afforestationcompanies that emerged in the 1990s to take advantage of the scheme, and by largelandowners.

There is no clear justification for the afforestation of farmland to be an objective initself; it can be a means of pursuing objectives, but these need to be made clear.Afforestation should only be funded as an action with specific objectives in identifiedareas, and within agreed territorial aims, for example:

Recreation of forest habitats (especially Natura 2000 habitats) that havebeen reduced to small areas in the region. These were clearly identifiedin the ELC seminar in Extremadura by forestry experts from theUniversity of Extremadura. In need of special attention are riverinewoodlands. The land areas involved should not be large, but theenvironmental gains would be considerable – focus on quality notquantity.

Marginal farmland that would benefit from afforestation should beidentified on maps using a mix of criteria, including biodiversity andlandscape values, erosion control, fire prevention. However, mostmarginal land would be excluded from afforestation on these criteria.


Similarly, marginal land that would benefit from continued managementthrough HNV practices should be identified, and measures implementedto promote this objective.

Farmland that would benefit from afforestation for economic objectives(forest production) should be identified on maps, using a mix of criteria,including soil type and environmental impacts.

2.2.4 LFA The regional objective of the LFA scheme is stated in regional government Order no. 27(Diario Oficial de Extremadura No 12, 31 January 2004):

“to contribute to securing the continued use of agricultural land, the maintenance ofa viable rural community and to encourage sustainable agricultural systems with respect

to the environment”.

Payments are available throughout most of the region. Applicants must obtain over 50%of their income from agriculture and dedicate over 50% of their time to agriculture. Thenational GAP measures (see above) have not been adapted to fit regional circumstances.Annual payments per holding have a lower limit of €300 and an upper limit of €2000.The 2004 budget is €12,584,000.

All farmland in Extremadura outside the irrigated river valleys is classified as LFA,mostly on population criteria. The funds are spread so thinly that the payments are oflimited relevance to the maintenance of farm viability.

Part-time farmers and farmers receiving a pension, who between them are often themajority in the more marginal areas, are excluded from the scheme. On the other hand,considerable areas of highly intensive, irrigated farmland (e.g. tobacco plantations) areincluded in the scheme. In some areas, such farmers are the main recipients of thepayments, although only the first 5 hectares of irrigated land on a holding are eligiblefor payments.

The Mid-Term Evaluation (MTE) of the Spanish RD programmes concludes that theLFA scheme as it is currently implemented makes a minimal contribution, at best,towards maintaing farming activity and rural populations. The scheme therefore appearsto be an example of “deadweight” support: it probably achieves nothing that would nothave happened anyway. The GFP conditions are simplistic and of little environmentalrelevance, although the MTE report states that this mechanism has helped to makefarmers more aware of the need to comply with environmental protection.

Possible ways to improve the scheme would include:

Excluding all irrigated land from receiving LFA payments.

Redrawing the LFA boundaries to focus on the most marginal land.

Increasing the minimum payment per holding.


Drawing up a set of broad farming and landscape objectives for eachLFA district.

Applying basic environmental conditions adapted to the objectives ofeach LFA district, including appropriate minimum and maximumstocking densities, non-removal of certain landscape features, etc.

3. Environmental description - ExtremaduraThis summary description of main land uses is followed by a more detailed review ofthe main environmental themes of biodiversity, high-nature-value land uses, water, soiland air.

3.1 Main rural land usesThe region can be divided into five zones, according to topography and broadlycharacteristic combinations of land-use, ranging from irrigated lowlands to highmountains.

Zone Land usesIrrigated areas, principally river valleys. Horticulture, maize, tobacco, fruit, rice.Better soils on non-irrigated plains. More intensive arable cultivation, vineyards

and olives.Rolling plains and low hills on poorersoils.

Extensive arable cultivation and grazing, withor without dehesa tree cover; often witholives on higher land.

Intermediate altitude uplands Forest, scrub, olives and other fruit-treecrops, grazing, some hay meadows.

High mountains Forests, scrub, grazing.

3.2 Biodiversity and landscapeIn spite of the considerable pressures discussed below, the region continues to harbour avery high level of biodiversity, based largely on extensive land uses, rivers and wetlands(see Table 8 for examples of habitats and species related to main categories of land use).Data availability generally is poor. Distribution maps of some habitats and species havebeen developed, but there is very little time-series data. Conservation plans for protectedareas and priority species have started to be developed only in the past few years.

3.2.1 Habitats and species (Natura 2000 and other priorities)Extremadura has 35 Annex 1 (Habitats Directive) habitats. According to the nationalcriteria for categorizing habitats, 16 are very rare (< 500 ha), 8 are rare (< 6,000 ha) and11 are not rare. 7 are priority Annex 1 habitats.

The region supports 60 species listed in Annex 1 of the Birds Directive and 41 specieslisted in Annex II of the Habitats Directive. The regional government has also produceda list of threatened species (Decreto 37/2001 – D.O.E, No. 30, 13 March 2001) whichhighlights 22 species as being in danger of extinction in the region. Table 5 shows thesespecies, distinguishing those that are identified as of European importance (i.e. onAnnex II Habitats Directive or Annex I Birds Directive), and those that are not.


Table 5: Species designated as “threatened” by the regional governmentKey:

Regionalstatus

A=in danger of extinction B=sensitive to land-use change C =vulnerable D =of special interestAnnex II (Habitats Directive) or Annex 1 (Birds Directive) and in dangerof extinction in the region

* Priority Annex II and Annex 1 species with European species action planNatura 2000

annexesRegional

statusRelevant landcover types

FISH

Sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus Annex II A Rivers

Spanish minnowcarp(endemic to Guadiana& Guadalquivir rivers)

Anaecypris hispanica Annex II A Rivers

Three spinedstickleback

Gasterosteus aculeatus - A Rivers

Freshwater blenny Blennius (salaria?)fluviatilis

- A Rivers

INVERTEBRATESWhite clawed (Atlanticstream) crayfish

Austropotamobiuspallipes

Annex II A Rivers

BIRDS

Bittern Botaurus stellaris - A Wetlands

Squacco heron Ardea ralloides Annex I A Wetlands, rivers

Black stork Ciconia nigra Annex I A Forest, rivers,marshes

Spanish imperial eagle Aquila adalberto *Annex I A Dehesa, steppe,uplands

MAMMALS

Otter Lutra lutra Annex II D Rivers

Pyrenean desman Galemys pyrenaicus Annex II A Upland riverss

Wolf Canis lupus signatus *Annex II A Dehesa, uplands

Iberian lynx Lynx pardinus *Annex II A Dehesa, uplands

Mehely's horseshoe bat Rhinolophus mehelyi Annex II A

Mediterraneanhorseshoe bat

Rhinolophus euryale Annex II A

Bechstein’s bat Myotis bechsteini Annex II A

PLANTS

Taxus baccata L. - A

Aritolochia pallidaSubs. castellana Nardo

- A

Centaurea toletanaSubs. Tentudaica

- A

Adenocarpusdesertorum

- A


Astragalus nitidilorus - A

Armeria genesianaSubs. Belmonteae

- A

Serapias perez-chiscanoi

- A

3.2.2 Data / trends for habitats and speciesAccording to national law (4/1989), species action plans (SAPs) should be produced forall species on the region’s list of threatened species. Fifteen years since this law cameinto force, there is only one SAP in Extremadura at the time of writing (Iberian lynx).SAPs have been drafted for Spanish Imperial eagle, Black vulture and Bonelli’s eagle.

Table 6: Trends in bird populations in Extremadura Species EU/Regional

statusTrend Available data

Black stork (Ciconianigra)

Annex 1/A Stable Less than 200 pairs (Junta)

Egyptian vulture(Neophronpercnopterus)

Annex 1/C Slightincrease

166 pp in 2000 – 176 pp in 2002 (SEO)

Black vulture(Aegypius monachus)

Annex 1/B Slightincrease

604 pp in 2001; 640 pp in 2002 (SEO). 663pairs in 2003 (Junta). Extremadura has 47% ofthe Spanish population, Spain has 90% of theEuropean population. Increases could be due tobetter surveying.

Montague’s harrier(Circus pygargus)

Annex 1/B Decrease 1090 pp in 1990 – 645 pp in 2001 (SEO)

Bonelli’s eagle(Hieraetus fasciatus)

Annex 1/B Decrease 92 pp in 2000 – 84 pp in 2002 (SEO)

Lesser kestrel (Falconaumanni)

Annex 1/B Decrease 5000 pp in 2000; 4000 in 2001; 3800 in 2002(SEO)

Little Bustard (Tetraxtetrax)

Annex 1/B Decrease 50,000 breeding males in 1994 - ?15,000 –25,000 in 2002 (SEO)

Great Bustard (Otistarda)

Annex 1/B Unstable. 6 900 indiv. in 2003. Data lacking, although adecline detected in areas of Aragon, Andaluciaand Extremadura (Llanos de Brozas and Llanosde Olivenza-La Albuera) (SEO). Increases sincehunting banned in 1980s, but overall situationunfavourable.

Pin-tailed sandgrouse(Pterocles alchata)

Annex 1/B Decrease 1400 – 4600 individuals (SEO)

Imperial eagle(Aquila adelberto)

Annex 1/A Stable Extremadura supports ~ 30% of total population

Source: SEO/Birdlife

However, there are no detailed habitat management measures in the draft plans, andlinks between species issues and agricultural and rural policy are not made. Thepotential for using the RDR for managing threatened species is not discussed in theplans. Actions will be funded through grants made available through regionalgovernment Decree 11/99.


No management plans have yet been signed off for any of the region’s protected areasalthough a number exist in draft form (Monfragüe, Llanos de Caceres, Villuercas etc).Again it seems that few links have been made between these plans and agricultural andrural policy, even though the areas are predominantly under farming.

3.2.3 Progress with Natura 2000 implementationThe declaration and management of Natura 2000 sites are the responsibility of theConservation Service within the regional Ministry of Agriculture and Environment.The Natura 2000 network is composed of Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and SpecialAreas of Conservation (SACs).

SPAs are designated under the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC). Member States mustidentify areas (SPAs) to be given special protection for the rare or vulnerable specieslisted in Annex I, for regularly occurring migratory species and for the protection ofwetlands. The designation of these sites is a continual process with no imposedtimetable.

Table 7: Progress with Natura 2000 site proposals in ExtremaduraDesignated to date Put forward to the EC Further proposals by

NGOs

SPAs 31 38 new sites to a total of69

7 priority sites + 10extensions (SEO, 2003)

Total area (accumulated) 874,317 ha >1,087,930 ha 1,269,413 ha

% of land area 21% 26.1% 30.5%

% of IBA area

(total IBA area = 3m has)

>28% >30% ~41%

pSCIs 92

Area 828,943 ha

% of land area 20%

Total Natura 2000 sites(many SCIs and SPAsoverlap)

1, 083,719.07 ha (includes SPAs and pSCIs)

26% of the area

SEO/Birdlife has identified 41 Important Bird Areas (IBAs) in Extremadura, coveringover 70% of the land area (~ 3,080,036 ha). See Map 1. IBAs are considered by the ECto be scientifically eligible for designation as SPAs. The organisation has also identifieda set of priority IBAs which they have asked the regional government to presenturgently to the EC (see Table 7).

Guy Beaufoy, IDRiSi. 19/12/2005

Extremadura

Map 2: Presence of High Nature Value farmland, based on CORINE laSource: EEA

IBAsSEO/BirdlifeInternational
SPAs designatedunder the EU BirdsDirective.
Map 1: Bird areas of European importance cover over 3 million hectares inExtremadura, over 70% of the region’s territory.

27

nd cove


Map 3: Proportion of UAA under low-intensity farming systems, using FADN dataSource: EEA, unpublished

Extremadura


SACs are designated under the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC). Each Member State isrequired to propose a list of Sites of Community Importance (pSCIs) to the EC. Whenthe list has been agreed Member States must then designate SCIs as SACs. According tothe Habitats Directive, this should be completed by 2004 at the latest.

The current situation regarding designation of Natura 2000 sites in Extremadura isoutlined in Table 7. This situation is changing currently, as new SPAs are beingdesignated up to a total of 69 sites covering over 1 million hectares.

The regional conservation law provides for the protection and management of a networkof statutory ‘Protected Areas’, through restricting activities, providing grants andcompensation payments, production of management plans etc. This legislation onlyapplies to designated Natura 2000 sites which have been included within the ProtectedArea network.

Given the demands and restrictions of this law, there are concerns that it is not a suitableinstrument for the protection and management of a Natura 2000 network which maypotentially cover over 30% of the region. The Junta is in the process of writingmanagement plans for the network of Protected Areas. None has yet been signed off.Several NGOs in the region have expressed concerns regarding the quality of theseplans and the lack of effective consultation carried out.

3.3 HNV landusesExtremadura is notable for its vast areas of low-intensity land uses, of high nature value(HNV landuses). A recent study undertaken for the European Environment Agency(EEA) showed it to have one of the highest proportions of these land uses in the EU (seeMaps 2 and 3).

HNV landuses in Extremadura include extensive grazing, extensive arable cropping,and forests. Olive groves were, until recently, a low-intensity land use, but anincreasingly widespread use of agro-chemicals has reduced their value for wildlife.Rivers and other wetlands add an important further element of natural value, especiallywhere they coincide with HNV land uses.

The main HNV land uses are described briefly below. Table 8 shows the links betweenthese land uses and natural values (habitats and species).

Steppes

These are large lowland areas where poor soils have prevented intensification. They areunder a mosaic of extensive arable and extensive grazing (sheep and cattle). Some areashave a scattered tree cover (open dehesas, e.g. <20 trees/ha). Examples include LosLlanos de Cáceres and Las Brozas, La Serena, but also smaller areas of open landscapewith similar land use and natural values (e.g. Los Cuatro Lugares, south of Rosaritoreservoir).

Dehesas

These cover parts of the lowlands, especially on poorer soils further from populationcentres, and most hill areas. The main use is livestock grazing (sheep, cattle and free-


range Iberian pigs), although some dehesa land is cultivated for cereals on longrotations, partly as a means of scrub control. Cork harvesting is important in some areas,such as the uplands of Sierra de San Pedro, although management in this case is moreforestry-orientated. Game shooting is also important (e.g. Red deer, wild boar).

Mountains

The mountains and uplands are more varied and complex than steppe and dehesa areas.Some areas are dominated by fruit plantations (e.g. olives in parts of Las Hurdes andLos Ibores, cherries in Jerte) and some others by forestry plantations (parts of LasHurdes and Sierra de Gata). There are considerable areas of native forest. Livestockraising (goats, cattle, sheep) uses extensive areas of semi-natural vegetation (grassland,scrub and forest) and hay-meadows in the higher mountains of the north.

Rivers and wetlands

The two main lowland rivers (Guadiana and Tajo) have lost a large part of their naturalvalues through extreme fragmentation by dams, as well as pollution. Some smaller butstill significant rivers have escaped regulation, notably the Almonte and its tributaries(pSCI). Others are partly regulated and suffer impacts of agricultural pollution andextraction, but nevertheless maintain significant values, such as the Tiétar (pSCI).Numerous smaller rivers are pSCIs, especially in the uplands.

The biodiversity of extensive HNV landscapes is greatly enhanced where rivers, streamsor ponds are present. One of the most significant types of natural wetland in the regionare the seasonal ponds found throughout the dehesas and in some areas of steppe. Manyof these correspond to the Temporary Mediterranean Ponds (priority habitat 3170 onAnnex 1 of the Habitats Directive). Some have been created or “improved” for use bylivestock.


These upland hay-meadows, a rare habitat in Extremadura, receive no agri-environmentor other targeted support from the RDR programmes implemented in the region. LFApayments are extremely low compared with most EU countries. The survival of theselandscapes depends on the continuation of systems of extensive livestock raising (cattleand goats) that are increasingly marginalised by agricultural and rural developmentpolicies in the region. Decoupling and modulation will further reduce the economicattractiveness of these livelihoods.


Table 8: Links between HNV land-uses and Natura 2000 habitats and speciesSteppe Dehesa Mountains Rivers and wetlands

Brief descriptionof uses

Very extensive grazing (sheep,cattle) and arable cultivationon long rotations with fallow.

Very extensive grazing (sheep,cattle, goats, pigs) and some arablecultivation on long rotations withfallow.Cork extraction in wetter/higherareas.Deer shooting.

Forestry.Extensive seasonal grazing(transhumance).Cherry and olive plantations.Some intensive fruit growing.

Reservoirs on larger rivers, forirrigation and domestic water,hydro-power.Fishing.

Main habitattypes

Dominated by Pseudo steppewith grasses and annuals.Other habitats within steppeareas include dehesa; scrub;Mediterranean heaths; Q.ilexand Q.rotundifolia;Mediterranean temporaryponds.

Dominant habitat type is dehesawith evergreen Quercus spp.Other habitats include Quercussuber forests, European dry heathsand Mediterranean temporaryponds.

Mixture of habitats includes:heathland; woodlands (Q.pyrenaica,, Castanea sativa);mountain Cytisus purgansformations; matorral withJuniperus spp.; Festuca indigestagrasslands; Nardus grasslands; haymeadows.

Natural eutrophic lakes; hard olig-mesotrophic waters; watercourseswith Ranunculion fuitantis andCallitircho-Batrachion vegetation;riverine woodlands with Salix albaand Populus alba, Alnus glutinosaand Fraxinus excelsior andFraxinus angustifolia.

Priority speciesinclude:

Great bustardLittle bustardBlack bellied sand grousePin tailed sandgrouseLesser kestrelMontague’s harrier

Black vultureGriffon vultureEgyptian vultureSpanish Imperial eagleBonneli’s eagleBlack storkCranes (wintering)Iberian lynxStag beetleLonghorn beetle

Golden eagleShort-toed eagleBooted eagleBonneli’s eagleBlack vultureChoughIberian lynxWolf

Black storkBitternSquacco heronPyrenean desmanOtterStripe necked terrapinEuropean pond terrapinIberian barbellIberian nasePardilla roachCalandino roachSpined loach


4. Environmental issues in rural areas - Extremadura

4.1 Review of the main issuesExtremadura has a low population density and little manufacturing industry. For theregion as a whole, the main pressures on the rural environment in recent years aresummarised below. Table 9 provides a complete overview of the specific pressuresrelated to the four land-use categories described above.

Farming:

Expansion of intensive agriculture, including the expansion of large-scaleirrigation in the main river valleys; and localised expansion of horticulture,fruit and olive plantations, with clearance of habitats.

Changes affected traditional farming systems: intensification in traditionalfruit and olive plantations (use of agro-chemicals); increased stocking ratesin steppe livestock; decline of extensive arable cultivation and fallowing;decline of goats.

Diffuse pollution from intensive farmland in river valleys. Neglect and abandonment of traditional landscape features, such as dry-stone

walls, traditional farm buildings, terraces.

Forestry:

Forest fires, mainly in the uplands. Species and habitat disturbance caused by forestry management – new tracks

and fire breaks, mechanical scrub clearance, cork extraction. Lack of regeneration of dehesa tree cover, due to over-stocking of cattle.

Infrastructure and urban/industrial pressures:

New infrastructure, especially roads, motorways and dams. Uncontrolled building development on rural land (impacts on habitats and

landscape). Domestic/industrial pollution: Pollution of certain rivers from domestic sources (villages and towns with no

water treatment) and from food processing industries (e.g. olive mills).

Specific pressures contributing to species decline:

Persecution of protected species by hunters and landowners (shooting,poisoning, trapping).

Death of protected bird species from electrocution and collision on high-tension electricity wires and barbed wire fencing.

4.2 Selection of issues to be addressed in ELCMatrix 1 summarises the concerns of environmental NGOs in the region, and existingpriorities and strategies of the government, according the main themes: biodiversity,water resources, soil, climate change, landscape.


Of these five themes, biodiversity and water resources clearly encompass the greatmajority of concerns. They are also the areas in which EU, national and regionalpolicies are most advanced (although at the regional level there is a notable lack ofstrategies in all areas). As the majority of concerns under the water theme are alsobiodiversity issues, it seems evident that biodiversity is the priority theme in the region.

The concerns in these areas (biodiversity and water) are a direct result of a combinationof circumstances, in particular:

The existence of a high level of biodiversity throughout a very large part ofthe territory.

Rapid and continuing economic expansion since accession to the EU in1986, including massive infrastructure and building development, as well asagricultural intensification and expansion.

Poorly developed and weakly enforced environmental policies, includingareas such as land-use planning, pollution control, and nature and landscapeconservation.

The general development trends in recent years inevitably exert enormous pressures onnatural values, while very little is being done to limit these pressures, or to compensatefor them through positive conservation actions.

While neither NGOs nor government have established environmental priorities orstrategies, the impression from bilateral discussions is that the following issues are ofmost concern (in random order):

Impacts of dams on rivers: several new dams are planned under the NationalHydrological Plan, all with potentially severe impacts on highly valuedrivers, some of which have only recently been proposed by the governmentas Natura 2000 sites. The dams are expected to receive ERDF/Cohesionfunding. The dam building programme is accompanied by an absence ofeffective water-saving initiatives and a lack of investment in effectivesewage treatment (the latter is improving, but very slowly).

Impacts (fragmentation + disturbance effects) of infrastructure (major roadsand forest tracks) on habitats/species. Several new motorways are currentlyplanned or being built in the region. Many of these have ERDF/Cohesionfunding. Forest tracks are constantly being developed, with FEOGA/RDRfunding.

Declining values of HNV farmland: NGO attention is focused mainly onsteppes, dehesas and mountains, and on specific practices and emblematicspecies, rather than on the wider pattern of land use and biodiversity.

Forests: fires (inadequate prevention), insensitive management, conservationof valued habitats/species.

Matrix 2 shows a selection of habitats and species of European importance that clearlydo not enjoy the “favourable conservation status” required by the Habitats Directive. Aconsiderable policy effort is needed to rectify this situation.


Table 9: Summary of environmental issues according to land-use categoriesSteppe Dehesas / forests Mountains Rivers and wetlands- Loss of habitat mosaic due to decline inarable cultivation- Disturbance of nesting birds due tohigh stocking rates- Birds (e.g. Great Bustard) crash againstbarbed wire fencing- Harvesting damage to ground nestingbirds e.g. Monague’s harrier

- Lack of regeneration of treesdue presence of excessivestock numbers all year,especially cattle (decline oftranshumance).

- Decline in goat grazing leading toloss of open habitats.- Overstocking of cattle on somegrasslands.- Fires, partly caused by graziers andmade worse by decline in grazing.- Loss of semi-natural habitats, due tonew fruit plantations and building.- Intensification of olive farming(herbicides, excessive tillage, habitatclearance for new plantations).

- Diffuse pollution- Dumping and washing ofpesticide containers- Water abstraction- Localised destruction ofwetland/riverine habitats forthe expansion of irrigation- Dam building on rivers ofhigh nature value forirrigation.

General neglect and abandonment of traditional landscape features such as dry stone walls, traditional farmbuildings, terraces.

Farming

Increased use of agro-chemicals is assumed to be affecting wildlife values in many areas.Forestry - Afforestation of open habitats, although

banned in the most important steppeareas.

- Habitat degradation andspecies disturbance due toforestry management e.g.scrub clearance for access tocork oaks, pruning trees withnests of protected species- Fire

- Disturbance due to forestry practicese.g. new fire breaks, forest tracks,insensitive felling.- Soil erosion caused by scrubclearance on steep slopes and fires- Fire

- Clearance of riverinevegetation for new plantations(timber or fruit).

- Illegal housing e.g.Llanos de Caceres- Disturbance (e.g. to Great Bustard) dueto increased number of tracks for caraccess

- Road building projects - Road building projects - Impacts of new dams andother hydrological works- Point source pollution fromdomestic and industrialsources (e.g. olive mills)- Gravel extraction

Uncontrolled building development on rural land (impacts on habitats and landscape)

Infrastructure,urban/industrialpressures

Death of protected species due to electrocution and collision on high-tension electricity wires.Hunting /poisoning

Persecution of protected species by hunters and landowners (shooting, poisoning, trapping), such as raptors, otters. Hunting puts pressure onpopulations of species such as rabbits and partridge, an important food source for threatened species (Iberian lynx, raptors).


ELC matrix 1: Environmental themes in ExtremaduraMain problems perceived byNGOs/stakeholders under each theme

National/regional priorities orstrategies. Data availability.

Significance for EUenvironmental policy

Importance according to“objective expert opinion”

Biodiversity Steppe habitats and decline of theirspecies communities.Freshwater fish and riverine habitats.Forest habitats and species, e.g. BlackStork.Dehesa – lack of regeneration.

No regional biodiversity strategy orofficial priorities. Newconservation law. Action plansexist for some species.Basic data, but only on a fewspecies, mainly birds.

A very important region interms of Habitats Directiveand Birds Directive values.Most N2000 sites are newdesignations, so a majorchallenge. >80% of the regionis IBA.

Preventing biodiversitydecline is the mainenvironmental concern ofNGOs. It is also a major issuefor the environmentalauthorities.

Waterresources

Impacts of dam building on river habitats.Pollution from domestic and food-processing sources. Diffuse pollution fromintensive agriculture.

River basin plans. Plans for watertreatment following EU Directive.Some data on surface water quality,but no biological data. No data ondiffuse pollution.

WFD is a major challenge:many dam projects, nobiological monitoring, noevaluation of diffuse agripollution.

A key theme for the region,but data is lacking. The mainissues are also covered underBiodiversity.

Soil Some concern about erosion followingforest fires and in olive plantations,irrigated crops, overgrazed dehesas.

No regional strategy or data, exceptsome academic studies of dehesasoils. Not a main issue for theauthorities.

Not as critical as southernparts of Spain, but relevant inEU context. EU policy arealess developed than above.

Soil erosion is a problem, butdata is lacking and NGOs notactive.

Climatechange

Not a major concern, although closing thenuclear power station is. NGOs advocategreatly increased use of solar power.

No information available. Relevant as a region withenormous solar potential, andneeding to replace nuclear, butnot a significant region forreducing emissions.

The region contributes little toclimate change; power ismostly nuclear and hydro-electric.

Landscape Some concern, but NGOs give far moreimportance to wildlife.

No regional strategy or data. Highly relevant region, but EUpolicy area far less developedthan biodiversity.

Important landscape values,but not studied and littlestakeholder interest.


ELC matrix 2: Biodiversity - selected priority habitats/species, status, and pressuresHabitats/species and associated land-use category Pressures EU policy referenceDehesa – lack of regeneration Dehesa, extensive grazing and arable

cultivationOverstocking, especially cattle. Inadequatemanagement for regeneration.

Annex 1 habitat

Black stork – declining Rivers and river banks, wetlandsForests

New dams.Insensitive forest management (e.g. forextraction of cork).

Annex 1 bird with main population inExtremadura

Steppeland birds – severalspecies declining

Steppelands, extensive grazing and arablecultivation

Overstocking, changing farming practices,new fencing and tracks.

Annex 1 bird communities

Hay meadows, mountainscrub and grassland habitats

Mountain and upland grazing,transhumance

Abandonment, local overgrazing, fires. Annex 1 habitats

Iberian Lynx – criticallyendangered and declining

Uplands (scrub, grassland and mosaics),dehesas.

Lack of prey (rabbits), habitatfragmentation, shooting. Insensitive forestmanagement. Fragmentation due to roadsand tracks.

Annex 1 priority mammal, world’s mostendangered feline, only breedingpopulation is in Spain

Spanish Minnowcarp –endangered and declining

Certain rivers of Guadiana catchment. Declining river quality.New dams.

Annex 1 fish, endemic to western Spainand Portugal


ELC matrix 3: Biodiversity - issues, drivers, policy response and RD relevanceProblems + pressures =issues

Landuses/activities Non-policy drivers Policy drivers Preferred policy response –RD relevant or not?

Changing practicesreducing biodiversity ofextensive farmland

Overgrazing of cattle indehesas and some uplands.Cattle and sheep in steppes.New fencing and tracks insteppe areas.

Free-ranging stock with fencing ischeaper than shepherding.

Headage payments, highstocking limits under GFP.Grants for fencing and tracks.

Abandonment of HNVfarmland, loss of grassand scrub habitats, haymeadows.

Upland grazing, especiallyshepherded goats and sheep.Extensive cereals mosaics.

Low level of Pillar 1 and LFAsupport, with no preference overlowland, fenced systems.

Conservation plans for key HNVareas.Changes to LFA and agri-environment: target themaintenance of HNV systemsand practices. P2 very relevant overall.

River fragmentationaffecting fish species,Black Stork andriverine habitats.

Dam building, canalisation,riverbank clearance.

Cohesion fundsPNH/PNR

Strategies for water savingacross all sectors.Presumption against new damsand transfers, except as lastresort.Restrictions on new irrigation.P2 very relevant for watersaving in agriculture.

Habitat fragmentationaffecting Iberian lynx,other mammal spp.

Motorways, roads, rural roads,dams.

Demand for motorways, althoughtraffic levels very low comparedwith EU average.Domestic water supply, irrigation.

Transport networksCohesion fundsRDR

Transport policy shift to favourpublic transport, and improvingexisting roads rather thanbuilding new ones. P2 partly relevant

Diffuse pollution ofrivers and wetlands.

Intensive cropping in rivervalleys.

Economics of irrigation. Marketdemand for products.

Tobacco subsidies. Grants forintensification.

First need is to study andanalyse problem. P2 notimmediately relevant?

Insensitive forestmanagement (BlackStork, Imperial Eagle)

Scrub clearance, pruning andfelling, cork extraction, newaccess roads.

Landowners interest in improvedaccess.

Pillar 2 support for forest“improvement”

P2 support should be only forconservation management.P2 very relevant.


ELC matrix 4: Biodiversity - selected issues and potential RD responsesIssues Potential new factors for 2007-13 Potential RD policy responsesChanging practices reducingbiodiversity of extensive farmland,especially in steppelands

Partial decoupling is expected to accelerateabandonment of extensive cereals (steppes).New management plans for SACs and SPAs mayintroduce restrictions on some practices, e.g. newfencing and tracks in steppes.

Introduce agri-environment schemes.Use new N2000 measure.Etc.

Abandonment of HNV farmland,loss of grass and scrub habitats, haymeadows, especially in mountainsand uplands.

Partial decoupling is expected to accelerateabandonment of and upland goat grazing(grassland, scrub, hay meadows).

Changes to LFA scheme (payments, boundaries,GFP…).Introduce agri-environment schemes.Use new N2000 measure.New approach to forestry measures.Etc.

Insensitive forest management;especially for species such as BlackStork, Imperial Eagle.

Reference to forest-environment measures mayhelp NGOs to push for measures that promoteconservation management. However, text of draftEAFRD gives more emphasis to improvingeconomic performance of forests.

Reduce expenditure on forest roads and scrubclearance. Introduce new measures for conservationforestry, including incentives for forest owners.


5. Evaluation of the environmental description and objectives inthe RDR programmes – Extremadura

5.1 Does the description cover all the main environmental issues?There is no document in Extremadura which describes regional environmental issues inrelation to RD measures.

The national Accompanying Measures document includes sections on soil, water,forestry and agri-environment issues (erosion, forest fires, livestock etc) which verybriefly describe issues, but only at the national level.

The regional IOP and national RDP both include a basic description of water resourcesand biodiversity and discuss a limited number of issues. Very little is included in theIOP relating to soil, air, landscape and high nature value farming, although theimportance of the dehesa as a sustainable agricultural system is discussed. Concreteenvironmental data are lacking in all documents. There is no discussion of priorities orsolutions.

5.2 If not, which issues does it cover and which issues are not covered?The IOP focuses on the need to improve water quality through sewage treatment and toreduce forest fires and associated soil erosion. In relation to forestry it also mentions alack of regeneration and degradation of vegetation cover in the dehesas due toovergrazing.

The RDP includes issues relating to management of the dehesa (increase in grazingpressure, lack of tree management and a decrease in arable) as well as a list of changeswhich have led to degradation of the environment:

the decrease in livestock farming leading to changes in vegetation structure eucalyptus (replaced natural ecosystems) and pine plantations (burn easily) water pollution from industry and settlements degradation of riverbanks with eucalyptus and elm out-compteting

indigenous species such as willow, poplar and ash.

However, the majority of the issues identified in Table 9 are not discussed in theprogramming documents (e.g. changing land use patterns in the steppe areas, diffusepollution, overgrazing, disturbance from increased infrastructure and impacts of forestrymanagement).

5.3 Does the description provide quantified data on each issue?The RDP provides some data on water supply and quality, and on the area and length ofdrovers’ roads and the area of IBAs. According to the RDP the only water qualityproblem in the region is high ground water nitrate concentrations in agricultural areas ofthe Guadiana catchment. The RDP and IOP provide numbers of priority species andsize of Protected Areas. No other quantified data are provided.


5.4 Does it identify geographic areas and farming sectors or systems thatare especially linked to each issue?The Guadiana catchment is identified in the RDP as having high groundwater nitrateconcentrations and is identified in the national AMP as having serious soil erosionproblems. The dehesa is quoted as one of the best examples of a sustainable agriculturalsystem and the areas of San Pedro and SW of Badajoz as especially important for corkproduction. Forest areas are discussed in terms of soil erosion problems. No othergeographical areas or farming sectors are discussed in relation to the environment.

5.5 Does it identify priority environmental issues to be tackled by theProgramme?No document sets out a clear list of specific priority environmental issues related to acomprehensive environmental description. The IOP states that public spending will befocused on reducing the environmental impacts resulting from consumption andproduction systems and application of the ‘polluter pays’ principle. The focus seems tobe on reducing pollution and “controlling” river systems.

Priority issues can also be guessed at through looking at objectives and actions forscheme measures. However, many of these objectives are extremely broad e.g ‘restoreand improve fluvial ecosystems’ and ‘Increase the quality and area of the habitats listedin the Habitats Directive’.

The regional agri-environment measures aim to control the use of chemicalsand to promote indigenous livestock.

Afforestation measures aim to ‘contribute to a land management which ismore compatible with the environment; and to ‘fight against the greenhouseeffect and absorb carbon dioxide’.

Conservation Measures funded through Measure 3.10 in the IOP givepriority to the conservation of the Protected Area network and to a list ofpriority species: Iberian lynx, Spanish Imperial Eagle, Black Stork, Wolf,Golden eagle, Bonelli’s eagle, Black vulture, Egyptian vulture, GreatBustard, Little Bustard, Montague’s harrier and Common crane.

Forestry measures funded under Measure 3.9 give priority to Natura 2000sites although the measures themselves aim to fund conventional forestryactions, rather than to promote actions necessary to achieving or maintaininga favourable condition of the sites.

5.6 Are solutions described?The IOP proposes afforestation and a reduction in forest fires as solutions to soil erosionin upland areas. In relation to water pollution the IOP discusses plans to carry outsewage treatment and highlights villages situated in Monfragüe, Cornalvo, La Gargantade los Infiernos and Barruecos National Parks. No specific solutions are discussed in theRDP relating to dehesa management issues and the RDP states that more research isneeded. No solutions are discussed in the IOP relating to high nitrate levels.


5.7 Gaps in the environmental description

5.7.1 Water Neither document discusses the links between water quality and quantity andbiodiversity. Updates of the RDP in the region should consider how measures can beused to help implement the Water Framework Directive and should include thefollowing issues:

the ‘ecological status’ of surface water, defined in terms of the biologicalcommunity, chemical and hydromorphological standards.

the ‘chemical status’ of surface water the chemical and quantitative status of groundwater links between river basin management plans and the regional RDP

Related issues:

diffuse pollution (nutrients, pesticides, siltation) point source pollution e.g. from olive oil mills the impact of wetland pollution on wildlife e.g. Black Stork populations.

5.7.2 Soil pollution and erosionGiven that the national AMP states that soil erosion is one of six agri-environmentproblems in Spain and that over 50% of land (22 million has) suffers from unacceptablelevels of erosion (including the Guadiana basin) greater consideration should be givento these issues in the regional RDP. Soil erosion is an issue which should be included inthe river basin management plans. The causes and possible responses should beanalysed, including improved agricultural practices, rather than assuming that theafforestation measure is a sufficient response to the problem of soil erosion (clearly it isnot as there is no mechanism for targeting afforestation on land suffering from thisproblem).

5.7.3 BiodiversityGiven the high wildlife value of the region and the need to comply with EuropeanHabitats and Birds Directives, consideration of biodiversity issues in the RDPdocuments is very weak. The proposed Natura 2000 network covers over 26% of theregion and > 1 million hectares and yet there is little discussion of the links between thisnetwork and agriculture/forestry issues or of how the RDP can be used to fundmanagement measures.

Links need to be made to regional biodiversity strategies and plans in order to ensurethat RDP funds are strategically targeted to priority habitats and species, and thatEuropean biodiversity obligations are met. The region is currently drafting SpeciesAction Plans, Site Management Plans and a regional Forestry Strategy. Unfortunatelythese plans currently make no reference to the potential use of the RDP to fund positivemanagement actions, while the existing RDP makes no reference to these plans andstrategies.


5.8 Objectives and targets

5.8.1 What quantified environmental targets do the programmes include?A list of quantified targets is given for Theme 3 of the IOP. These are very broad. Forexample, the only quantified targets relating to biodiversity conservation are:

Increase the quality and quantity of the infrastructure in protected areas and theNatura 2000 network through the construction of 8 visitors’ centres, 70 wildlifeobservatories, the restoration or improvement of 100,000 has of ground andsign-posting a length of 250 km of routes.

Increase the populations of protected species and the area and quality of theirhabitats through the production of 20 recuperation plans for threatened species,identifying and surveying 50 protected species, cataloguing 20,000ha asprotected habitats and creating 3000 has of reserves for habitats and protectedspecies.

No detail is given regarding priority species and habitats or how effective evaluation ofactions such as ‘restoration’ will be carried out.

6. Proposed objectives and targets in response to selectedissues - ExtremaduraAlthough environmental data for the region are quite sparse, there is enormous scope forimproving the design of objectives and targets in the RD programmes. As strategies andaction plans are developed for biodiversity in the region, the targets set out in theseplans should be linked to RDR measures.

For example, the species action plan for Black vulture has a target to increase the blackvulture population to at least 2,000 mature individuals distributed throughout the region.The species action plan for Bonnelli’s eagle aims to increase the population to at least500 mature individuals. The regional authorities should work out RDR schemes that canhelp to achieve such targets, and inform the EC and the public of these links.

ELC Matrix 5 shows proposed objectives and targets for steppe areas.


ELC Matrix 5: Steppes - objectives and targetsIssues Objectives TargetsChanging agricultural practicesreducing biodiversity of steppefarmland.

- Define appropriate patterns of landuse and farming for steppe areas, thatwill contribute to the conservation of habitats and species of Europeaninterest.- Ensure that agriculture and RD policies work towards achieving thesepatterns.- Apply Pillar 2 (Agri-environment, Article33, LFA) and Pillar 1 in anintegrated way to promote this objective.- Ensure that measures have direct links to Species Action Plans and N2000site management plans.- Develop measures jointly between the agriculture and conservationdepartments, and in partnership with farmers and NGOs.

- RD measures contribute to achieving favourableconservation status of N2000 steppes areas (habitats andspecies) within 10 years.- 80% of steppe farmland involved in Pillar 2 conservationmeasures by 2013.- Within 3 years initiate and develop at least 2 long termpartnership projects in steppe areas (building on LIFEprojects) to increase awareness, help farmers with RDRgrant applications, provide local information for effectivereviews of RDR measures and policy, etc.

Decrease in arable cropping leads todecrease in fallow areas = loss ofhabitat mosaic needed by steppelandbirds.

Define an appropriate pattern of landuse (mix of pasture, arable, fallow, etc.) forsteppe areas. Design policies to work towards this pattern. Monitor and adjust asnecessary.

Favourable pattern of landuse exists in 80% of steppe areas by2013.

Disturbance and overgrazing, due toincreases in stocking rates,encouraged by headage payments.

Define appropriate stocking densities and stocking mix (sheep, goats, cattle) forsteppe areas. Design policies to work towards this pattern. Monitor and adjust asnecessary.

Favourable pattern of stocking exists in 80% of steppe areasby 2013.

Spread of barbed wire fences asshepherding is abandoned. Partlyconnected to a shift from sheep tocattle.

Develop alternatives to barbed wire, e.g. solar-electric fencing. Grant-aid theconversion to alternatives.Provide incentives for shepherding of stock in preference to fencing.

- Reduce total length of barbed wire fencing by e.g. 25% by2013.- X% of stock shepherded by 2013.

Harvesting damage to ground-nestingbirds.

Prevent destruction of ground-nesting birds by leaving unharvested areas aroundnests, spotting and moving nests, harvesting from centre of field outwards, etc.

- All landowners with regular nesting of priority bird speciesare involved in protecting and monitoring the nests, withappropriate payments, within 5 years. - Reproductive success of ground-nesting birds increased byx% by 2013.

Developments (housing, electricitycables, tracks) reducingbiodiversity and landscape value ofsteppes.

Ensure that new activities do not have an adverse environmental impact (orminimal where overriding public interest) – EIA etc.

No adverse impacts funded through RDR in the period2007-2013.


7. Proposed use of RDR measures to address selected issuesMatrix 6 shows detailed proposals for measures in steppe areas. The following text aimsto summarise a set of broad proposals for HNV areas and Natura 2000 areas, and somegeneral principles that should be followed in designing measures for these areas.

7.1 HNV areas (steppe, dehesa, upland/mountain)

7.1.1 PlanningAs a first step, the large areas of extensive, predominantly HNV land use that are foundin the region need a planned and strategic approach to their management, in order toensure the future maintenance of the “public goods” they currently deliver.

These plans should be developed through a partnership of authorities and stakeholders,and should include:

Delineation of zones (e.g. steppes, dehesas, mountain), and definition of themain land uses and the public goods they produce. The definitions should use abasic typology to distinguish systems that maintain natural values (and othergoods), and those that do not. For example, intensive fruit plantations inmountain areas would be in the latter category.

Development of an indicative land-use strategy for each zone, setting out thebroad landscape pattern that is valued, and how it should evolve in future (e.g.how much new forest, and where; which areas should be kept under certaincrops or uses; maintenance (or not?) of small-scale, diverse agriculture; etc.)

Identification of the needs of specific land uses, in order to achieve the vision forthe area. For example, if maintaining goat grazing or olive cultivation is part ofthe vision, are these uses viable? What do they need to be socio-economicallysustainable?

Planning of how to use the range of CAP (and other) measures to respond tothese needs and promote the agreed vision.

7.1.2 MeasuresThe use and design of measures for each zone should be based on a planning process asdescribed above. In the absence of any such process in the region, the following ideasare a provisional proposal for HNV areas in general:

To prevent widespread abandonment and change of use

» LFA support targeted exclusively on these areas, with GFP aiming toprevent shifts to less HNV practices (e.g. by setting appropriate stockingdensities), and weighted to favour the poorest land and smaller holdings. Parttime farmers and foresters should be eligible, as they also contribute topublic goods. Payments should be received by tenants, in preference tolandowners. Calculate payments on the basis of disadvantage and needs, inorder to maintain the general activity. May need to supplement with National


Envelope payments in relevant sectors (possibly headage payments in thecase of livestock systems).

» Targeted grant aid to address specific needs, with high rates of aid forenvironmental investments (stone walling, sensitive fencing, sensitivereplanting of wooded areas, integrated buildings, environmental businessplans, grazing plans).

» Targeted advisory services to help farmers adapt and diversify, whilemaintaining natural values.

To support generally beneficial practices

» Horizontal (broad and shallow) agri-environment and forest-environmentmeasures paying for generally beneficial practices (all-day shepherding ofsheep and goats, hay making, transhumance, thinning and scrub clearance byhand, fire vigilance…). Calculate payments as a proportion of the cost of theactivity, as with grant aid (the current RDR implementing regulationprovides the option of calculating payments according to the “cost ofabandonment”).

7.2 Natura 2000 areasWith very limited exceptions, terrestrial Natura 2000 sites (as opposed to rivers andwetlands) are found within HNV farming and forestry zones. The above proposalstherefore apply automatically. The following suggestions are additional to the HNVmeasures.

Establish concrete targets (orientated to achieving Favourable ConservationStatus for a suite of habitats and species) within management plans, and designmeasures to support them: e.g. agri-environment zonal programmes; Natura2000 compensation payments for very specific restrictions, such as:

» leaving areas around nests in forests undisturbed (e.g. Black stork in corkoaks)

» leaving unharvested areas of crops around ground nests» actions to favour rabbits in lynx/raptor areas» grants for changing to electric fencing in steppes

Action-specific Local Action Groups (PRODER/LEADER) charged with

» establishing monitoring projects with farmers and other local experts» providing information to landowners» providing targeted conservation advice

7.3 General principles for measures

Design jointly with farmers and other local experts Ensure links between conservation plans and RDR measures Set quantitative targets in terms of area to be covered


Set qualitative targets in terms of environmental improvements (e.g. FCS forparticular habitats/species)

Allocate sufficient resources to achieve the targets Ensure that all farmers in the target area are informed directly of the scheme and

that advice is readily available to support participation


ELC Matrix 6: Steppes - identification of appropriate measuresIssues Existing measures (RDR and others) Relevant/Proposed Pillar 2 measures Other relevant measures (Pillar 1,

LIFE, etc.)Changing agricultural practicesreducing biodiversity of steppefarmland.

Agri-environment schemes 1996-1999,but these were abandoned. Some minoractions funded by the DG for natureconservation.

LFAAgri-environmentArticle 20Article 16Article 33Advice to farmers

Pillar 1 payments currently help tomaintain arable cropping.LIFE projects may provide usefulexperiences and lessons.

Decrease in arable cropping leads todecrease in fallow areas = loss ofhabitat mosaic needed by steppelandbirds.

None since agri-environment zonal schemeswere abolished in 2000.

Agri-environment payments to maintain fallow areas /manage unharvested plots for ground nesting birds intargeted areas. National measure 1.1 for maintenanceof traditional fallow (not applied in Extremadura).

Use of set-aside?

Disturbance and overgrazing, due toincreases in stocking rates, encouragedby headage payments.

None since agri-environment zonal schemeswere abolished in 2000.

Agri-environment payment to ensure appropriate lowstocking densities in identified sensitive breeding areas.LFA payments dependent on appropriate stockingdensities elsewhere.National agri-environment measure 1: Extensificationof agricultural production. 1.2 relates directly toimproving habitat for steppeland birds (not applied inExtremadura).

The 50% decoupling of sheepsupport to be implemented from2006 may reduce the incentive tomaintain high stocking densities.

Spread of barbed wire fences asshepherding is abandoned. Partlyconnected to a shift from sheep tocattle.

Regional government grants (A.33?) Agri-environment grants and management agreementsto change fencing to electric.Agri-environment payments for shepherded stock.

National Envelope payment forshepherded stock?

Harvesting damage to ground-nestingbirds.

Regional government grants (A.33?)Compensation payments

Targeted agri-environment payment to pilot harvestingtechniques which will not harm the nesting birds.Pro-active advice to farmers.

Learn from experience of LIFEprojects e.g. in La Serena.

Developments Controls exist in law, but application isinadequate.

Need to apply strict Environmental Standards,including planning laws, to RDR grants.

Development pressure e.g. housing,electricity cables, tracks, increaseddisturbance

EIAs are required for new activities in theprotected area, but they are simplistic andpoorly controlled.

Ensure that activities funded through RDR do not havean adverse environmental impact (or minimal whereoverriding public interest) – EIA etc.


8. Delivery mechanisms

8.1 Existing mechanismsThe existing CAP delivery mechanisms are:

Extension services run by the regional agricultural authorities. Farmers’ organisations, mainly unions and co-operatives. Banks, especially for CAP Pillar 1 subsidies. Local Action Groups (LEADER and PRODER). Rural advisors employed by local authorities.

The farm extension services have offices in all districts. Their main function isprocessing CAP bureaucracy, principally applications for subsidies and grants fromPillars 1 and 2. Farmers have to go to the district office to conduct their CAP business.Visits from an extension service advisor are extremely rare, and usually consist ofinspections as a control mechanism, rather than to give advice. The regional authoritiesoperate in a very bureaucratic manner, and seem to make farmers jump through as manyadministrative hoops as possible. Some local advisors help farmers to deal with this.

The extension services are also responsible for introducing new schemes, such as agri-environment, but the dissemination of information to farmers is extremely weak,typically consisting of a notice pinned up in the town hall. Post is not used as a means ofdissemination. The quality of service is quite variable from one office to another – insome cases it is difficult to get clear information about anything other than mainstreamCAP subsidies.

Many farmers rely on membership of a farm union or co-operative as a more effectivemeans of dealing with CAP bureaucracy. Most applications for subsidy can be handledby these organisations on behalf of their members. If a farmers’ organisation thinks it isin the interest of its members, such a body can be quite effective in encouraging up-takeof new schemes, such as agri-environment payments for Integrated Production systemsin the fruit sector.

Some co-operatives employ agronomists to give advice to members. These posts areoften funded by the regional government using EU funds (FEOGA) under schemes suchas ATRIA, which aims to promote integrated pest control techniques by providingfarmers’ organisations with advisors. However, the funding is often short term, with theresult that advisors come and go. There seems to be a lack of continuity in theseschemes.

Most banks offer a “subsidy administration” service to farming customers. So long asthe subsidies are paid into an account at the bank, the local branch will administer thewhole process on behalf of the farmer.

LEADER and PRODER projects (a copy of the LEADER approach, using FEOGA andERDF) are operated by Local Action Groups (LAGs). The LAG is responsible fordisseminating information about the project, its objectives and the funds available topotential applicants. Typically this process begins with the organisation of a publicmeeting in the town hall. In some cases, the process also seems to end with this


meeting, and the LAG subsequently becomes a little-understood office managing grantsof which many local people have little understanding, and considerable suspicion.It is apparent that some Leader projects in Spain have made a significant contribution toenvironmental progress at the local level, including Natura 2000 objectives. This seemsto occur particularly when environmental NGOs are key players in the Local ActionGroups, so that environmental integration is part of the raison d’être of the wholeproject, rather than an add-on.

Clealry, the effectiveness of the Leader approach depends on the organisations andindividuals that make up the Local Action Groups, and on the guidelines and objectivesthat are set out for them at national and regional levels. More emphasis could be put onpursuing environmental goals through the involvement of farmers, as this is not acommon element of Leader projects. Finally, some local authorities employ rural develop advisors who are available to giveadvice on available grant schemes. This does not normally include schemes directedspecifically at farmers, such as agri-environment schemes. The people employed inthese posts generally have little experience. They thus act as a basic information point,rather than a pro-active “animateur” for local rural development.

Overall, the above system has a number of weaknesses from the point of view ofpromoting sustainable rural development. Above all, none of the delivery mechanismscan be described as pro-active. Rather, they are passive systems, that wait for localpeople to come looking for information. They are also passive in the sense that theytend to offer standard, conventional solutions, rather than looking for new approaches oropportunities.

In particular, there is no mechanism or service that is working specifically to improvethe environmental effects of agriculture. There are certain controlling mechanisms, suchas environmental wardens looking out for illegal clearance of habitats, but there is nosystem for working with farmers in a collaborative and positive way.

The existing systems are entirely separate from one another – there is no “one-stop-shop” where any local person can go for a full range of advice and information.

8.2 Recommendations for improving current delivery systemsAlthough existing mechanisms potentially could be improved, there seems to be astrong case for establishing a new, non-government advice and delivery service, asenvisaged in EAFRD.

It is particularly necessary to set up a group of advisers with the remit to disseminateinformation widely (using innovative techniques, not just posters) and to visit farmerswith the aim of building connections between the farm level and the various RDmeasures that exist but are little understood by land managers. A priority should be toseek out the farms and farmers that are currently most beneficial for the environment,and to find ways of ensuring their future.

Some of advice given by this service should be paid for by farmers. However, the newEAFRD instrument should be used to subsidise certain services to farmers and otherland managers (e.g. advising on environmental schemes).


The LEADER approach should be used for pursuing particular objectives, not only for ageneral aim of local rural development. In other words, funding could be made availablespecifically for setting up LAGs with the remit to deliver zonal agri-environmentschemes. Farmers and NGOs should be involved in these LAGs.

9. Public participationThe CAP and RD policy are largely in the hands of the Ministry of Agriculture and theregional agricultural authorities, in discussion with the representatives of the farmingand forestry sectors. The EU regulation is generally seen as a menu of measures thatSpain is expected to implement, in return for an injection of EU funds to Spanish ruralareas. The purpose and rationale of the EU menu of measures seem often to be unclearto Spanish policy makers, and the concept of public benefit is generally absent: fundsare for distributing between economic sectors and between regions. These are theconcerns that dominate discussions on CAP implementation.

Public consultation on the design of programmes is limited to occasional meetings ofthe agricultural authorities with farmer and food industry representatives. However, theMinistry of Agriculture under the previous government organised an extensiveconsultation process on the future of agriculture and the rural world more generally,undertaken largely by internet.

In the programming process for the current period 2000-2006, environmental authoritieswere consulted at times and in some regions, but the relationship between agriculturaland environmental authorities tends to be antagonistic rather than constructive (there areregional exceptions however). The main outcome of these contacts was thatenvironmental authorities were allocated a part of the RD budget, used mainly underArticle 33 for actions such as habitat restoration and site management plans. In certainregions, the environmental authorities are responsible for specific measures, such asforestry and agri-environment.

With very limited exceptions, environmental NGOs have not been active in the processof RD policy programming, partly because they have not been invited, but also becausethe organisations themselves have severe limitations of resources and information, anddo not seek involvement.

The recent CAP reforms, the implementation of Natura 2000 (which is starting tobecome a reality) and of the WFD (still largely unknown) all raise new concerns amongrural stakeholders. These major policy issues need to be discussed alongside thequestion of rural development, and the design of RD policies.

The standards and processes of public participation in Spain and in Extremadura need tobe raised to the level existing in other Member States, particularly those where it is mostdeveloped. All farming, forestry, nature conservation, hunting and other stakeholdersshould be involved in identifying priority issues, needs and best responses. Such anapproach is more challenging for the authorities, but in the long run it should result inmore public support, better adaptation of measures to needs on the ground, and greaterefficiency in implementation.

Above all, a more systematic process of participation is needed, with:


A clear and transparent timetable for involving environmental bodies (bothofficial & NGOs) from the first stages of programme design.

Well organised mechanisms, such as timely distribution of draft texts, regularmeetings, publishing results of meetings.

Financial support for NGOs to develop their capacity and to participateeffectively.

10. Monitoring and evaluationThe Mid-Term Evaluation (MTE) of the Spanish RD programmes runs to severalthousand pages. However, as an evaluation this work is handicapped by a fundamentalproblem: the absence of clear objectives and targets for the individual measures at theoutset.

There can be no effective evaluation of the success of a measure for preventing soilerosion, or for maintaining the biodiversity of farming systems, if there is no previousanalysis of the extent and the specifics of the problem, and on what scale and in whichlocations it needs to be addressed.

The MTE reports thus allow themselves to be cautiously optimistic about the effects ofagri-environment measures, for example, on the basis of a simplistic logic: if a certainmeasure is designed to maintain biodiversity, and there has been up-take of this measureamong farmers, the effects on biodiversity have probably been positive.

Similarly, it is assumed that afforestation is automatically beneficial for biodiversity,soil conservation and combatting the greenhouse effect, so that the afforestation scheme(which has a high level of take up) is considered to be a success. The real effects ofafforestation on the ground (environmental and socio-economic) are not analysed.

The existing evaluations do not ask more challenging questions such as: is the nationalproblem of soil erosion, or biodiversity loss in agriculture, being adequately addressedby the package of measures?

The MTE is more critical of the LFA scheme, and the way it is implemented in Spain. Itis considered to have practically no effect in maintaining farming in marginal areas, orin maintaining rural populations. This is because the payment levels are very low,several categories of farmer are excluded (part time, those receiving a pension) and vastareas with enormous differences in their degree of marginality are treated in the sameway by the measure. On a more positive note, the report suggests that farmers havebecome more aware of the need to protect the environment as a result of the GoodFarming Practice requirements.

A fundamental change in approach is needed. Rather than “these are our measures, wewill evaluate how the implementation is going”, the approach should be “these are ourenvironmental (and social and economic) problems, we will evaluate whether ourmeasures are proving effective in addressing them”.


11. ConclusionsThe following broad environmental issues were identified at the start of this report asmost characteristic of Spanish rural areas and intimately relating to farming activities:

Biodiversity decline Degradation of water resources (extraction and pollution) Soil erosion Forest fires

Tackling these issues represents an enormous challenge for policy makers, given theextent and intensity of the problems in many areas of the country. The current RDprogrammes, although making references to these issues, do not analyse their scale,location or causes, and do not make an assessment of how they could best be addressedthrough RD policy. They do not propose concrete objectives or targets (outcomes) to beachieved.

In practice, the environmental component of the current RD programmes can besummarised as:

A menu of disparate measures available at the national level, some of which arequite vague and some quite specific, and from which regional authorities select asmaller menu for implementation.

A set of Good Agricultural Practices that do not serve to raise environmentalstandards, with the possible exception of encouraging contour tillage.

A very small percentage of funds that are allocated to environmental authoritiesunder Article 33 and that are used mainly for nature conservation actions relatedto Natura 2000.

The lack of an organised consultation process and of a genuine ex-ante evaluation ofenvironmental problems and solutions means that there is no objective basis forassessing whether these components are effective or sufficient.

However, from the cases examined in this study (High Nature Value farming systems inExtremadura and water use in Doñana) it is apparent that the current programmes fallvery far short of environmental needs, at least in these areas.

At the same time, this study illustrates that putting together a set of proposals forradically improving the current approach to environmental issues is relativelypraticable. Through a simple process of literature research, interviews and work-shops,it has been possible to draw up proposals for steppe farming in Extremadura (seeabove), for dehesas and cork forests and for rice and strawberry farming in Doñana (seefollowing case studies). It would be the responsibility of agricultural and environmentalauthorities to converting these proposals into more concrete measures, with specificpayment levels, conditions and administrative procedures,


12. Main recommendations

12.1 Programming process

The very closed and non-transparent system needs to be opened up to moreactors, to encourage an honest debate about the aims of RD policy and thepublic benefits that are expected.

The policy discussion and design of programmes needs to be informed by acomprehensive, independent analysis of environmental issues in rural areas,making full use of existing national data, strategies, plans and maps.

A more systematic process of participation is required, involvingenvironmental bodies (official and NGO) and an established time-table andprocedures. NGOs need assistance to develop their capacity and toparticipate effectively.

The design of programmes should be lead by concrete objectives, includingenvironmental objectives relating to the conservation of biodiversity(especially Natura 2000), water and soil, and fire prevention.

Programmes should be integrated with plans for implementing Natura 2000(timescale, measures and funding for setting up and implementingmanagement plans) and HNV commitments (identification of main systemsand areas, values, needs, measures for their support).

There should be one unified programme per region, with one set ofintegrated objectives, within a national framework. The latter should includea set of priority issues to be addressed in all regions through a common set ofmeasures, adapted to regional characteristics (e.g. soil erosion, HNV landuses, water use).

12.2 Use of measures

The usefulness and effectiveness of existing measures should be analysed interms of the public benefits they produce. Candidates for reconsiderationinclude farmland afforestation and setting-up of young farmers.

Regions should establish strategies for addressing environmental priorities,especially:

» for maintaining the values and viability of HNV farming and forestrysystems (including Natura 2000 sites)

» for soil conservation

» for reducing water use in the most sensitive areas.

A package of measures should be designed to implement each of thesestrategies, combining adaptation of Pillar 1 regimes and cross-compliance(GAEC), agri/silvo-environment incentives, investment aid targeted onspecific objectives and new advisory services.

Indicative land-use strategies should be prepared for each district (comarca)as a basis for targeting measures in the most effective way.


Whole farm plans should be the basis for receiving RD support, with grantaid for preparing these plans, allowing farmers/foresters to draw on a menuof measures in one application.

Farmland afforestation should be eliminated as a separate measure. Forestestablishment should become an option under a package of agri-silvo-environment measures designed to deliver specific environmental objectives,and targeted on types of land where environmental benefits will be greatest.A priority aim requiring tree planting should be the restoration of naturalwoodland on river margins. However, for an objective such as erosioncontrol, other options should be available alongside afforestation, such asmanaging existing vegetation, or the conversion of highly erodible arableland to extensive grazing.

The LFA scheme should be more targeted on environmental and socialobjectives, by excluding all irrigated/intensified farmland, increasingpayment levels and defining environmental requirements adapted to localconditions (e.g. minimum and maximum stocking levels).

Independent advisory services should be set up with the remit to promoteintegrated land-management schemes for addressing priority environmentalissues at district level.


Case study on evergreen-oak forest and dehesa

in Extremadura and Andalucía

Guy Beaufoy, IDRiSi

This case study is based on a WWF Spain workshop held in the Sierra Norte NaturalPark (Andalusia) and the ELCo seminar held in Jarandilla de la Vera (Extremadura).

1. Describe the problems to be addressed, and relate them to the environmentalissues identified in the project, indicating the scale and extent of the problems, themain areas and land uses concerned, etc.

Evergreen-oak forest and dehesa covers approximately x hectares in Spain, a very largeproportion of which is in the regions of Extremadura and Andalucía. The main treespecies are cork oak and Holm oak.

This group of land uses ranges from closed Mediterranean forest with a natural shrublayer, to grazed and cultivated farmland with sparse tree cover, a mix of habitat typesthat harbours exceptional biodiversity and landscape values.

Human intervention is present in almost all cases, particularly in the dehesas in the formof extensive grazing of sheep, cattle, goats and pigs. Occasional cereal cropping ispractised in some dehesas, partly for forage and partly as a means of scrub control. Insome cases, cork forest is managed only for cork production, but usually some form ofgrazing is present, and scrub is usually cleared to improve access for cork harvesting.Some holdings are managed primarily for red deer, for shooting.

Cork and holm-oak forests and dehesas are designated as habitats of Europeanimportance in Annex 1 of the EU Habitats Directive, and large areas of these habitatsare included in Natura 2000 sites (e.g. approximately 60% of the cork forest area inSpain).

In terms of the ELC priority themes, biodiversity decline is the main issue. Several ofthe emblematic species associated with these habitats are endangered, and in some casestheir populations are at a critical level. Examples include Iberian lynx, Spanish Imperialeagle, Black vulture and Black stork.

One of the main issues affecting dehesa habitats in particular is the lack of natural treeregeneration, as evidenced by the even and advanced age of many tree stands. Thissituation indicates that the habitat in many cases is in a process of degradation andtherefore does not enjoy a Favourable Conservation Status (the aim of the HabitatsDirective). The problem also puts into question the sustainability of the currentmanagement system.

The factors contributing to these environmental problems are many and quite complex.The main issues are summarised below.


Although stocking densities are extremely low by European standards, excessivegrazing pressure is a key factor in limiting regeneration, and also reduces the quality ofthe grassland habitat:.

- Stock are present all the year round, whereas previously they practisedtranshumance and were absent for several months of the year.

- Fencing has replaced shepherding on most holdings, allowing the stock to grazefreely throughout the area.

- In recent years there has been a strong tendency for cattle to replace sheep andgoats in the dehesas. Cattle are more damaging to young trees.

Occasional ploughing of the land under the trees for cropping and/or scrub controllimits the regeneration of the tree cover:

- Ploughing close to existing trees can damage the roots and may be a factorcontributing to die-off.

- But cropping adds to habitat diversity and is beneficial to certain species (e.g.Black-winged kite).

A tendency to manage dehesas for red deer rather than domestic stock leads to changesin the habitat:

- Deer fencing is a barrier to wild fauna, such as the Iberian lynx.- Some shooting estates are managed with excessive deer stocking levels, which

degrades the habitat quality.

Forest management practices are necessary in order to maintain the farming/forestrysystem, but can be damaging to wildlife values:

- Mechanical scrub clearance of large areas is especially disturbing to speciessuch as the Black stork and Iberian lynx.

- Pruning is also disturbing to nesting Black storks and if carried out excessively itcan also damage the tree and shorten its life.

- Cork harvesting also disturbs nesting Black storks.

The environmental issues described above are driven by many influences. Some ofthese are not policy related. For example, greatly rising labour costs since the 1980s area major factor in driving farmers away from shepherding systems (includingtranshumance) and towards fenced cattle. However, certain policy drivers are significantand are summarised below.

CAP livestock regimes:

CAP livestock subsidies have encouraged farmers to keep more stock than wouldotherwise be economically rational. The coupled subsidies applied in Spain under therecent CAP reform require farmers to keep the same number of stock as in referenceyears, thus blocking a reduction in stock numbers. CAP subsidies have always beenmuch higher for cattle than for sheep (per LU), thus adding to the tendency to keepcattle.


RD forestry measures:

In both Extremadura and Andalucía the main forest-related measures are for farmlandafforestation and for forest management. The latter includes aids for scrub clearance,pruning, fencing and other standard management practices, and also for replantingdehesas with thin tree cover. Managing natural regeneration is an option. The tworegions have a very similar Decree on sustainable forest management that defines theforest management aids available under the RDR.

Agri-environment and other RD measures:

The RD programming documents for Extremadura highlight the problem of dehesaregeneration related to grazing pressure, but no measures are implemented to addressthis problem. In Andalucía there is an agri-environment scheme for the dehesas, thatincludes the use of tree protectors to encourage existing regeneration.

Natura 2000

Management plans and objectives have not yet been defined for the majority ofevergreen-oak forest and dehesa sites.

2. Define the targets/objectives that you want to be delivered.

Environmental and sustainability objectives:

- To restore the evergreen-oak habitats and their associated species to aFavourable Conservation Status (FCS) in the terms defined by the HabitatsDirective. Initial targets should be established for priority species, such asIberian lynx and Black stork, with a time scale, e.g. of 10 years.

- To adapt existing systems of management (farming, forestry and hunting) so thatthey become sustainable in socio-economic and environmental terms, and inharmony with the FCS objective. An initial target could be to achieve thisobjective in Natura 2000 sites and surrounding areas.

Institutional objective:

- To establish an official plan (by a co-ordinated set of central and regionalauthorities) for achieving FCS in evergreen-oak habitats, with a common set ofmeasures designed to deliver this aim in all regions containing these habitats.

3. Say why existing measures/approaches are not sufficient.

The current system of RD policy design in Spain consists, in simple terms, ofestablishing lines of grant aid for particular actions in particular sectors (e.g. irrigation,afforestation, farm modernisation, processing). These grants are administered accordingto demand, with administrative mechanisms that try to limit negative impacts on theenvironment. Measures with environmental aims are poorly developed and notintegrated with the rest of RD policy.


This approach also applies in the case of forests and dehesas. The objectives of theforestry measures, in terms of public benefits, are not clear. They mostly finance a set ofstandard management activities. Calls for applications for grant aid for particular actionsare opened in an ad hoc manner, largely depending on the budgetary situation of theregional authorities. The window of opportunity for applying is usually extremely short.There is thus a lack of continuity and of apparent purpose on the part of the authorities.

Positive measures exist now, especially for managing natural regeneration, but grantsfor artificial afforestation are more attractive. The use of the available money isunbalanced in that it goes largely to actions such as afforestation and scrub clearance,while failing to give due weight to measures with concrete environmental objectivesrelating to forest management.

RD measures for the dehesas are more developed in Andalucía than in Extremadura. Inthe former, a specific agri-environment scheme for the dehesa has existed since 2000.This includes the aim of adjusting livestock densities and protecting naturalregeneration where it occurs. In Extremadura there is no such scheme, due to a lack offunds, according to the Regional authorities.

The payment system for forestry grants does not allow for a management-contractapproach. For example, forestry grants can be claimed only on presentation of aninvoice showing that the work has been undertaken, a system that is designed tosubsidise certain management actions carried out by contractors.

There is a mechanism in Extremadura that gives priority to landowners in Natura 2000sites for forestry receiving grants. This can lead to a paradoxical situation in whichactions that are inherently damaging for natural values (scrub clearance, roads) areconcentrated in sites with important natural values. Although there are also mechanismsthat aim to prevent environmental damage from such actions, it would be better to givepriority in Natura 2000 sites to grants for actions that favour the conservation of habitatsand species, rather than to general forestry actions.

The Black stork is highlighted as a priority species in the Extremadura Forest Plan, andyet there are no forestry measures designed for its conservation: on the contrary, actionssuch as scrub clearance (financed by the forestry measures) are one of the main causesof breeding failure.

In practical terms of land management and environmental values, this situation can besummed up as follows:

- The evergreen-oak forests and dehesas harbour exceptional natural values, butthese are declining as a result of current management practices.

- The changes in management (forest and hunting management, grazing practices)that are needed to reverse this situation are realistically achievable.

- The existing use of RD forestry and agri-environment measures in Extremaduraand Andalucía is not lead by the objective of promoting these changes in anintegrated way.

- Some of the measures that are implemented exacerbate the conservationproblems, for example, by promoting an excessive use of mechanical scrubclearance.


- The key issue of natural tree regeneration is not addressed effectively, as theincentives for artificial planting are higher and natural regeneration conflictswith present day livestock grazing systems and the CAP subsidies that supportit.

4. Describe appropriate processes for designing measures.

Policy design should begin by establishing concrete objectives for the evergreen-oakhabitats and the farming and forestry systems that manage them (see above). Themeasures and mechanisms that could achieve these objectives effectively should then bedesigned.

Land users, such as farmers, foresters and environmentalists, should be involved fromthe beginning in the design of objectives and measures. In this way the measures are farmore likely to be successful. Environmental aims are best achieved through workingwith these groups, through dialogue, information and incentives, rather than byimposing top-down regulations and limitations which then have to be financiallycompensated.

Integration between RD policy and other areas, such as Natura 2000, should be ensuredfrom the start of the planning process.

Objectives also need to be defined at a territorial level, probably for each district(Comarca). Socio-economic and environmental objectives should be defined, alongsidea basic vision of how land use should evolve in future in order to meet these objectives.This requires some basic zoning of land in order to target measures to the areas wherethey will produce most benefit.

5. Describe the measure(s), or combination of measures, targeting mechanisms etc.,that you are proposing to achieve your objectives.

Payments from the RDR forestry measures should not be primarily for individualmanagement actions, such as afforestation, roads and scrub clearance. The mainmeasure should consist of payments for maintaining forests and dehesas of high naturalvalue in a favourable condition, under a management contract. For dehesas, such anapproach can be applied already using the agri-environment measure, as in the exampleof the scheme in Andalucía. For forests, this approach is envisaged in the new draftEAFRD regulation, and can also be done under the existing Regulation 1257/99 (Article32), but currently is not applied in Andalucía or Extremadura.

An integrated approach is proposed (see diagram below), whereby an agri-forest-environment scheme (management contracts) is applied to all forest and dehesa land,and is combined with other payments where these are justified in an integrated packagefor sustainable management of these land uses. To participate in the scheme, landmanagers are required to present a five year management plan that contributes to theobjectives of national or regional plans for the habitat types and farming/forestrysystems that are present on their land. The holding plan should integrate the differentactivities that are present, such as grazing, forestry, shooting and conservation.


All grants and payments from the RDR would be programmed within this managementplan. Necessary permits and conditions attached to these permits and to RD paymentswould all be agreed at the time of approving the plan, thus giving the recipient a periodof continuity and security, without the need to continuously apply for differentpayments and permits.

The main payments under this system would be annual forest-agri-environmentpayments on the basis of a management contract. Compensation payments for Natura2000 restrictions, or grants for specific actions or investments, would only be given inexceptional cases of additional costs. The overall package would include:

• 100% grant for the cost of the obligatory management plan, up to a maximumlimit per holding. The land owner normally would use this grant to pay aqualified person(s) to prepare the plan according to a standard format.

• Annual forest-environment payments (Article 34b(v) of the EAFRD proposalsi)and/or agri-environment payments (Article 34a(iva)) in return for a managementcontract designed to maintain the environmental values of the forest/dehesa. Thecontract should include:

o Management for natural regeneration, by fencing off selected areas toexclude grazing for a number of years or by only allowing shepherdedgrazing at certain times of the year.

o Good grazing practices, with appropriate stocking densities. Reductionsin stocking therefore must be permitted without loss of SFP (this requiresa change to existing CAP regulations, or to the implementation of theCAP reform in Spain).

o Maintenance of valued habitat types and non-disturbance of priorityspecies.

o Maintenance of landscape features, such as stone walls and buildings.

• If the holding is subject to specific restrictions (e.g. laid down in themanagement plan for Natura 2000 site) that imply a significant cost above thebasic maintenance of the habitats, compensation payments would be paid underArticle 34a(iii) and b(iv).

• Aid for productive and/or non-productive investments (Article 19b(i) andb(ii)/Article 34a(v) and b(vii)) would be available where these investments arenecessary to achieve the holding plan, and imply an exceptional extra cost, e.g.manual scrub clearance, restoring (rather than merely maintaining) stone walls.

The package of measures should be targeted on priority areas and holdings in order tomaximise the public benefits of the expenditure, for example:

- Natura 2000 sites and a surrounding buffer area- Areas with significant natural values that are not included in Natura 2000.- Holdings with the presence of endangered species.- Areas functioning as ecological corridors.


A competitive system could be used to prioritise the allocation of aid. Applicationswould accumulate points depending on criteria such as the location of the holding,presence of habitats and species, landscape values, and on the quality of the proposedmanagement plan.

As some holdings are extremely large and owned by absentee landlords, a mechanismshould be included to weight the payments in favour of smaller holdings, e.g. nopayments above the first 200 ha of land, or a payment rate that declines for each 50 hawithin a single holding.

RD policy planning:

1) Define environmental objectives for the evergreen-oak habitat types.

2) Define socio-economic and management objectives for the relevantfarming/forestry/hunting systems that use these habitats.

Territorial plan at the Comarca level:

1) Defining a vision for land use in the Comarca, and how it should evolve in order tocontribute to the RD policy plan.

2) Identifying territorial priorities in the Comarca, and areas or issues that needparticular attention to deliver the RD objectives.

Holding plan:

1) Defining integrated management objectives (forest, livestock, conservation, hunting),including specific ways in which the management will contribute to the RD policy and

Comarca plans.

2) Planning the management actions for a five year period.

3) Requesting the necessary permits and RD support payments, which may includethose listed above.


6. Proposed delivery mechanisms.

RD programmes should include a section on delivery, as part of the planning andallocation of resources within the programmes.

Delivery mechanisms in Spain currently are very weak, poorly organised and over-bureaucratic. Farm advisory services do not have a pro-active function, rather theyadministrate aid schemes from their offices.

Rather than trying to improve the existing bureaucracy, it is probably more effective toestablishing new, independent advisory services with RD funding, as foreseen in thedraft EAFRD. Private organisations, including NGOs and Local Action Groups (LAG),could bid for a five year contract to deliver these services within a Comarca.

The service should have the function of delivering land-management schemes to end-users. For the present example, this would be one integrated scheme for all holdingswith a large proportion under tree cover (dehesa, cork forest, etc.) in a pre-determinedarea. The service would be pro-active, and would have targets for the number ofholdings to be visited and holdings to be included in the scheme.

7. Indicate the monitoring and evaluation criteria, and how this should work.

Monitoring should be of two types:- Against pre-determined and quantified targets.- Tendencies that are not appropriate for quantified targets but that need to be

monitored in order to know how the area is evolving against non-quantifiedobjectives.

Quantified targets:

- Numbers of holdings and surface area of land participating in the scheme (e.g.target might be 50% participation within 5 years, 75% in priority areas).

- Proportion of breeding area of a species (e.g. Black stork) that is under holdingmanagement plans designed to favour the species (target might be 75% within 5years).

- Proportion of participating area that shows satisfactory regeneration of treecover (target might be 75% within 5 years)

Monitoring of tendencies:

- For a set of representative holdings, what are the socio-economic andmanagement tendencies (measure against a set of criteria, such as net farmincome, employment, use of particular management practices, etc.)

- For a set of priority and non-priority areas, what are the land-managementtendencies, tendencies in species populations, in regeneration, etc.

- Cost of the scheme per hectare of participating land.

Monitoring of attitudes:


- Of participants and non-participants in the scheme (opinions on the measures,delivery services, etc.)

- Of delivery services and administration.- Of other rural stakeholders.

8. Assess whether the approach you are proposing is covered by existingEAFRD/EU

The basic measures and advisory services proposed in this case study are provided forin the draft EAFRD. However, there are several elements in this proposal that are notexplicit in the EAFRD, or that are not clear:

• The different levels of planning (RD policy level, Comarca level and holdinglevel) are not required in EAFRD. These are essential in order to produce achange in the current approach to RD policy (plans and objectives, rather thanad hoc measures).

• The current monitoring system is not set against targets and objectives, asproposed by ELC. The system for EAFRD has not yet been proposed by theCommission.

• The basis for agri-environment and forest-environment payments (incomeforegone and additional costs) is not appropriate for a management-contractapproach that aims to maintain existing land uses of high nature value.

• The draft EAFRD regulation does not include such detailed environmentalrequirements for forestry payments as it does for agri-environment payments.Forestry actions can be as damaging as agricultural actions, and theenvironmental requirements should be at the same level of detail. Thepresentation on the Black stork at the ELC Jarandilla seminar made very clearthe type of requirements that should be applied in the case of forestry actions incork forests and dehesas, from the point of view of this one species.

• A basic requirement for agricultural and forestry holdings should be thepresentation of an integrated holding plan, as the basis for receiving RD aid.

9. Strategy documents, EU implementing regulations, nationalstrategy/programmes etc. If not, what needs to be changed, and how?

As one of Spain’s most important and extensive High Nature Value land uses, theevergreen-oak systems should be given particular attention in the national RD strategyand in national and regional programmes.

10. Summarise what would be the public benefit of the ELC proposals in this case.

The evergreen-oak farming and forestry systems represent a land use of great publicimportance, for their biodiversity and landscape values, their quality products (food andforest products), for the employment they provide in depopulated regions with limitedalternative activities, as a fire-resistant land use in regions with high risk of wild fires,for soil conservation and carbon sequestration. With relatively small and realistically


achievable changes in management practices, these systems would become outstandingmodels of sustainable land use.

11. Estimate how much budget should be allocated in order to deliver theobjectives.

This cannot be calculated without more detailed study into the management costs ofindividual holdings.


More life for rural land

WWF/Adena’s proposal of RuralDevelopment measures for Doñana

July 2005



More life for the rural landWWF/Adena’s proposal of Rural Development measures for Doñana

© WWF/AdenaGran Vía de San Francisco, 8-D28005 MadridTel.: 91 354 05 78Fax: 91 365 63 [email protected]

Text: Eva Hernández Herrero and Celsa Peiteado MoralesContributions: Alberto Fernández, Felipe Fuentelsaz, Cristóbal García, Guido Schmidt andGuy BeaufoyPicture on the front page: Strawberry fields in Doñana. WWF/Adena- Eva Hernández, 2004Translation: María José Fuentelsaz July 2005

WWF/Adena is grateful for the reproduction of the contents of this report as long as the source is mentioned


1. CURRENT SITUATION

1.1. Water and Agriculture in Doñana

Taking into account the importance of water consumption in Spanish agriculture, whichreaches 85% of the available resources in the case of the Guadalquivir basin, one ofWWF/Adena’s priorities is to work with farmers to find solutions that could reduce thedemand for water in the area and contribute to the preservation of biodiversity at thesame time.

WWF/Adena has been working in Doñana for more than forty years, where it has cometo know the different stakeholders and their problems. After analysing the use of waterin the agriculture of the surroundings of the protected areas in Doñana, this organizationdecided to focus its work on finding solutions to environmental challenges for rice andstrawberries, two very important crops in the area both for the surface they occupy aswell as for the water consumption they have and for their social implications.

Rice cultivation covers a surface of more than 36,000 hectares, which is the 6 per centof the irrigated area in the Guadalquivir basin, and uses more than 400 million m3,nearly 14% of the basin’s reserves. Strawberries, with 5,400 hectares, area the secondlargest irrigated crop in the Doñana area, with an annual water consumption estimated at30 million m3.


MAP: RICE AND STRAWBERRIES IN DOÑANASOURCE: Own elaboration (based on “Plan de Ordenación del Territorio del Ámbito de Doñana,Junta de Andalucía, 2004”)


1.2. WWF/Adena’s objectives

By working with these two crops, WWF/Adena aims to contribute to the three axes ofsustainable development: environmental, social and economical. On the environmentalside, by reducing water consumption and by improving the integration of crops in theirnatural environment. On the socio-economical side, by enhancing the public funding ofmeasures with environmental benefits and by favouring the privileged marketing ofproducts with more respect for nature, in order to improve rural incomes in the Doñanaarea.

The CAP measures for Rural Development have a great potential to contribute to thesustainability of agriculture in general, and, concretely, to WWF/Adenas’s proposals forDoñana.

1.3. Current measures for Rural Development in Andalusia

The application of the Rural Development measures in Andalusia has not achievedsignificant environmental effects, for three main reasons: first, these measures areaimed, in general,at improving farming competitiveness (irrigation improvement,marketing of agricultural products) rather than to the preservation of the environment;second, there are no clear and well defined objectives to direct these measures; and,finally, the fact that the Rural Development measures have been distributed in threedifferent programmes makes their application difficult and prevents their synergiceffect.

Regarding Agri-environment measures, those with the greatest potential to improve theenvironment, their application has been restricted in this region due to the high budgetitems assigned to “Reforestation of Rural Lands”. Within the Spanish Agri-environmentProgramme, there are available measures that have not been applied in Andalusia andthat, according to WWF/Adena, would have been suitable: extensification for theprotection of Flora and Fauna, Removal of Lands from Production, Protection of theLandscape and Alternative Crops in Perimeters of Priority Protection.

For WWF/Adena, the fact that the measure of the National Programme aimed explicitlyat saving water has not been designed to be applicable in Andalusia is worrying, giventhe existence of more than 800,000 hectares of irrigation in this region.


2. WWF/ADENA’s PROPOSALS FOR A NEW RURALDEVELOPMENT

Taking into account the current situation of Rural Development actions and rice andstrawberry markets, WWF/Adena proposes a series of specific and general measures tobe applied to these two crops in Doñana. In these proposals, both the existing measuresin the current Rural Development Regulation, as well as their relation with the newEAFRD Regulation, are mentioned.

2.1. Environmental integration of strawberry cultivation in Doñana

The strawberry sector in Doñana is going through a crisis for not having replied to thedemands of the European market. These demands do not only refer to the quality of thefruit but also to the social and environmental conditions in which it has been produced.According to WWF/Adena, only the strawberry farms around Doñana that do notoccupy the land illegally, which have the permission of legal water and whichrationalize the use of water and agrochemical products will succeed in the free market,in competition with other producer countries such as Morocco and China.

In order to make strawberry farming compatible with the high valued surroundings inwhich it is placed, WWF/Adena considers indispensable the re-organizing of theagricultural land. The areas that could be irrigable should be defined, with their servicesand infrastructures, liberating the areas of public forests, the surroundings of thestreams, and other areas with natural value and great interest as biological corridors thatcan connect Doñana to other sites of the Natura 2000 Network.

Another aspect to be improved refers to the consumption of water. To work out thearising conflicts on the use of water in the Region, the first step is to assure the access tothe resource in equal conditions. The first step is to solve and control the currentsituation of illegality of many fields in the area, due to not having the necessary permitsto abstract water or to occupy the land. Afterwards, the priorities to use the availablewater in the area should be defined and agreed among all water stakeholders,considering the natural environment as a legitimate user of water, whose preservation isessential for the sustainable future of the Region.

On the other hand, strawberry farming should incorporate the most modern techniquesof irrigation in order to reduce water wastage to a minimum. That, together with anirrigable surface defined according to the available hydrological resources, willcontribute to the sustainability of the crop and to the preservation of the environmentwhere it is located.

2.1.1. POSIBLE MECHANISMSWWF/Adena thinks that the following mechanisms could be very useful to contribute tothe sustainability of strawberry farming:


• Irrigation modernisation and optimisation, installing efficient and sustainableirrigation systems, which should facilitate the reduction of production costs andallow the use of saved water for environmental purposes. If this iscomplemented with the use of flow meters, the management of the aquifer watercan be much better, in such a way that overexploitation can be avoided, and theresource will thus be available in the future.

• Defining a Water Pact between users and managers of the resource, whichshould determine the priorities for using the available water in the area once theenvironmental needs are covered. To reach an agreement it is necessary to createa forum for the stakeholders interested in the resource. This forum shouldinclude not only the stakeholders that consume water but also those that enjoy itin a ‘non-consuming’ way.

• Re-locating strawberry farms in areas less environmentally sensitive than thosethey occupy now, liberating areas of public forests and making the legalizationof the farms on new agricultural land easier.

• Ecological integration of agriculture in its natural surroundings by means of theplantation of field margins and riverbanks, in order to reduce the visual andenvironmental impact. This would have clear agronomic benefits, acting as windbreaks and habitat of useful species of fauna while creating a valuable ecologicalinfrastructure

• Improving the protocols of integrated production so that they include aspectssuch as the efficient use of water and reduce the applications of agro-chemicalseven more, which would mean less costs of production. The principles ofintegrated production should be applied to all strawberry production in thesurroundings of Doñana, taking into account the natural value of the area.

• Labelling products so that the access of the strawberry most respectful with theenvironment to the European markets would be made easier. The producers’efforts to improve the environmental integration of their crops would put themin a stronger market position.

2.1.2. PROPOSAL OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT MEASURES

MEASURE 1. Environmental integration of farming.The integration of strawberry farming in its surroundings, although complex, can beimproved with the relocation of the crops to areas less sensitive than the current ones,out of biological corridors, and with the plantations of hedges, preservation of edges andnot cultivated banks, islands of vegetation and other elements which break up thecontinuity of the crop under plastic.

Benefits: - The application of this kind of measure brings about clear benefits for the land,

biodiversity and farmers themselves (shelter of useful fauna, defence againststrong winds and torrential rains...).

Challenges: - To develop this proposal of relocation ensuring the active participation of

farmers, in a way that they feel part the process, get involved in it, and respect it.


- Achieve the implication and support of the municipalities which are involved inthis proposal of relocation.

Links with Policies of Rural Development: - Part VI of the Rule 1257/99, belonging to the Article 37 of the new Rules of

Rural Development, by means of which a series of agri-environment aids isestablished. This is found in the Royal Decree 4/2001, January 12th , of theSpanish legislation.

- Part I of the Rule 1257/99, belonging to the 25th Article of the New Rules forRural Development, which established aids to the modernization of cultivations,such as the possibility of investments by reasons of public interest in relation tothe preservation of traditional landscapes modified by agricultural activities, themoving of the buildings of the exploitations, and investments for the protectionand improvement of the Environment. It is in the Royal Decree 613/2001 ofJune 8th of the national legislation for the improvement and modernization ofthe structures of farming production, carried out through he OperativeProgramme for self-governing regions within Objective 1, in improvement ofstructures and systems of Agricultural Production.

- Part IX of the Rule 1257/99 for the Foresting of the Adaptation andDevelopment of Rural Areas. In its 33rd article, and as object of subsidies, isincluded the reconversion of the agricultural activity for the protection of theEnvironment in connection to the preservation of the landscape, and theagricultural and forest economy and the reparcelling of lands, what would favourthe replacing of the exploitations.

- Article 28 of the New Rules for Rural Development, addressed to aids for theinfrastructures related to the development and adaptation of the agriculture,relative to access, energy and water resources.

- Article 38 of the New Rules for Rural Development, addressed to non-productive investments for the more sustainable use of agricultural lands. Itcould be used to favour the interposition of hedges and field margins.

Proposal: - Creation of specific environmental aids to recover borders, banks and

conservation of hedges in strawberry areas. It could be included ascomplementary to the current Measure 8.1., in the National Programme,addressed to preserve landscape elements of the holding.

- Creation of aids of Rural Development which allow the re-location of farmingareas out of biological corridors.

MEASURE 2. Making irrigation modern and optimumMeasures like the installation of systems of control for the water needs of the strawberryplant (watermark, tensiometers,...), programmers of irrigation and fertilization orsubstitution of sprinklers by microsprinklers would reduce the use of water andagrochemicals, and, therefore, the pollution of the aquifers. In that way, an un-modernised strawberry farm could save 40 or 50 per cent of the water used forirrigation.


Benefits: - Overall, it could save up to 4.5 cubic hectometres per year in all the area with

the investment of approximately 9 million euros.

Challenges: - to verify that the saving of water is addressed to the aquifer and not to extend the

irrigation in other farms.

Link with Policies of Rural Development:

- Part I of the Rule 1257/99, belonging to the 25th of the New Rules for RuralDevelopment EAFRD, which establishes a series of aids for the modernisationof holdings. It is currently in the royal decree 613/2001 of June 8th, of thenational legislation for the improvement and modernisation of the productionstructures of agricultural holdings carried out in the Region through theOperative Programme for self-governing Regions considered Objective 1, inImprovement of structures and systems of Agricultural Production.

- 28th Article of the New Rules for Rural Development addressed to aids for theinfrastructures relates to the development and adaptation of agriculture, relativeto access, energy and water resources.

- Part IX of the Rule 1257/99, devoted to the management of water agriculturalresources.

- Andalusian Plan for Agricultural Modernisation. Irrigation Initiative.

Proposal:

Modify the Irrigation Initiative within the Andalusian Plan for AgriculturalModernisation and the connected legislation to include a main line which shouldsubsidise new efficient irrigation techniques, based on the best available technology forstrawberry farming.

2.2. Alternatives to rice paddies in Doñana

The reduction of the intervention price for rice and the introduction of decouplingsupposes both a threat and an opportunity for the rice farmers in the surroundings ofDoñana. The threat of a cheaper price for rice can be compensated for by thedifferentiation of the product by quality and by environmental respect, taking intoaccount the special backgrounds of these rice fields. The opportunity offered bydecoupling is related to the possibility of reducing the cultivation yield for the sake of abetter environmental quality, at the same time as maintaining the same level of aid.

WWF/Adena believes the environmental improvement of rice farming should involve areduction of its surface area and the conversion of released land into natural or semi-natural areas, reducing the artificial contributions of water, and even re-establishingtheir natural flooding (flood of rivers and streams, tides). These alternative uses couldbe pastures for the extensive grazing of cattle and aquaculture, combined with areas of


natural wetlands. The increase in natural values would imply a higher value forecotourism, allowing, especially, visits for bird watching in the re-converted rice fields.

To convert the current rice monoculture in a variety of uses a series of economic aidsare necessary, to support the change of use and the restoration of the naturalmorphology of streams, wetlands, channels and saline pastures.

The rest of the rice paddies should gradually improve their practices of IntegratedProduction and tend towards the Organic Farming. According to WWF/Adena, it isessential to improve the efficiency of water use, reducing slowly the crop needs, whilekeeping the environmental benefits of rice fields as an important substitute habitat formarshland birds.

On the other hand, it is indispensable to solve the pending cases of illegality, both interms of water use as well as land occupation; and to improve control in order toprevent new cases of non-compliance of the current laws. A new image for rice farmingmust be founded upon legality, compatibility with environmental protection and thenew products of the area (cattle, aquaculture).

2.2.1. POSSIBLE MECHANISM

To achieve a better environmental integration of rice paddies different mechanisms canbe applied:

• Promotion of alternative uses with lower water consumption (pastures, naturalwetlands, extensive aquiculture) and with more environmental value, whichshould allow that the rice fields in Doñana stop being a continuous monocultureof 36,000 ha.

• Labelling of products which favours the marketing of the rice which is morerespectful with the environment so that farmers can compete in quality andenvironmental matters, when the reduction of subsidies makes it more difficultfor them to compete on price. This mechanism, although not a priority forWWF/Adena, is becoming such for the producers. For them it is an efficient toolof competitiveness facing the future liberalisation of markets.

• Creation of Water Banks2 which should complement the incomes of the ricefarmers who decide to reduce the cultivation surface, as they can sell the right ofwater they save or do not consume. The environmental benefit is assured bydestining the water partly or totally to environmental purposes.

• Elimination of the rice fields irrigated with groundwater, as was recommendedby the International Committee of Experts in 1992, due to its great impact on theaquifer of Doñana National Park.

• Improvement of the commitments demanded in the Regualtions for IntegratedProduction of Rice, especially regarding the efficient use of water. To increasethe environmental commitments demanded to the recipients of agri-

2 WWF/Adena has published a proposal of Water Banks, fixing criteria to assure that the establishment ofthese banks benefits the Environment.


environmental aids for the integrated production of rice, together with anefficient control of the respect for these commitments of the beneficiaries of thisaid.

2.2.2. PROPOSAL OF MEASURES FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT

MEASURE 1. Change to extensive uses.Within this measure, different actions can be considered, such as the transformation ofrice fields into saline pastures, the creation of extensive aquaculture farming or theextensification of cultivation for biodiversity reasons.

Benefits: - Those which come derived from the extensification of every agricultural activity

(decrease of fertilizers and phytochemicals, lower water consumption...)combined with those of the diversification of the economic activity of theholding.

Link with policies of Rural Development:- The links with the policies of Rural Development will be detailed in each

proposed action. However, regardless of the measure, it should be taken intoaccount that the rice field on the right side of the Guadalquivir is a site includedin the Natura 2000 Network. The authorities should establish appropriatemanagement plans for the area and introduce the aid mentioned in the 36thArticle of EAFRD in order to promote a land use compatible with sustainabledevelopment.

Action 1.1. Extensification of cultivation.

To reduce the intensity of rice farming for the sake of aquatic birds, in a way that thecreation of isles of biodiversity as shelter for flora and fauna should be achieved.

Benefits: - It’s specially interesting in those areas that are suffering damages due to the

presence of the bird species Purple gallinule in the farms, because farmerswould be compensated by special environmental aids.

Challenges: - To facilitate the farmers’ access to other ways of incomes, such as Water

Banks. - To manage water flooding into non-cultivated rice paddies to prevent losses

in adjacent paddies.

Link with policies of Rural Development:- Part VI of the Rule 1257/99, belonging to the 37th Article of EAFRD, by

means of which agri-environmental aids are established. This is provided forin Royal Decree 4/2001, January 12th of the Spanish legislation, whichestablishes a series of aids for the use of methods of agricultural productioncompatible with the Environment.


Proposal: - To adapt the national programme of Agri-environmental Measures to rice

farming, concretely Action 1.2.: systems of extensification for the protectionof flora and fauna, designed for aquatic fauna and rice farming (dose ofseeds, tillage, etc.). Increase the surface that should be maintained withspontaneous vegetation up to 5%.

- To Action 1.4. Removal of production lands for the creation of spacesreserved for fauna and the preservation of biodiversity, within Agro-environmental Measures to adapt the commitments to rice farming (currentlyit only exists in unirrigated lands).

- To establish a specific line and prioritise subsidies within the LEADERapproach, for activities of wetlands restoration in rice lands and forcombination with ecotourism.

Action 1.2. Change of the use of the land into pasture.Change of the rice field into saline pasture to allow the grazing of cattle. The changecould be supported by means of Early Retirement aids, combined with the installationof Young Farmers and Agri-environmental Aids addressed to the new owner of theholding (change into pasture, native breeds in danger of extinction...). In no case shouldirrigation be allowed. This change would therefore allow producers to receive LFApayments on more than the maximum of 5 hectares allowed for irrigated land.

Benefits: - The ceasing of rice farming should be definitive, which would permit the

definitive recovery of lands as natural pastures.- In a future, with the transformation of rice into integrated to organic

production, organic cattle could also be carried out, taking into account thisactivity has specific agri-environmental aids at the same time.

Challenges: - To define potential areas of pastures which ensure a continuous surface of

pasture and does not interfere with the infrastructures and practices of riceflooding.

- It is important to ensure an efficient control of cattle densities on theholding, to prevent problems of soil erosion and compaction.

- It demands a change in the infrastructures of the holding (clearing of ridges,keeping of edges...) in order that the natural dynamic of water can berecovered.

- It is necessary to promote a change of mentality amongst the highlyspecialised rice farmers.

- To facilitate the farmers’ access to other ways of incomes, such as waterbanks.

Link with Policies of Rural Development:- Part IV of the Rule 1257/99, belonging to the 22th Article of EAFRD, which

establishes a series of aids designed to enhance Early Retirement. This iscovered by Royal Decree 5/2001, January 12th, as accompanying measures.


- Part II of the Rule 1257/99, belonging to the 21th Article of EAFRD, whichestablishes a series of aids addressed to Young Farmers. This is covered byRoyal Decree of June 8th for the improvement and modernization of thestructure of agricultural farming production, contained in the OperativeProgram for Self-governing Regions for Regions considered objective 1, inthe part of Improvement of Structures and Systems of AgriculturalProduction.

- Part V of the Rule 1257/99, belonging to the 35th Article of EAFRD, whichestablishes a series of aids of aids for disadvantages areas. This is covered byRoyal Decree 3482/2000 of December 29th, which regulates thecompensatory payments in those areas.

- Part VI of the Rule 1257/99, belonging to the 37th Article of EAFRD, whichestablishes a series of Agri-environmental aids. This is covered by RoyalDecree 4/2001 of January 12th, which is addressed to aids for the use ofmethods of agricultural production compatible with the environment.

Proposal: - To develop a specific proposal of agri-environmental aids, addressed to the

recovery of marshlands by means of the change of rice fields into pastures,with appropriate subsidies for the income losses the farmer would have.These aids have to be compatible with other already existing in theProgramme, such as the aid for the Encouragement of Native Breeds inDanger of Extinction, or for Organic Cattle. It would involve themodification of the Spanish Agri-environmental Program.

- To support agri-environmetnal aids with Early Retirement aids and aid forsetting up of Young Farmers, in order to facilitate the change of activity, andwith LFA aid if approriate.

- To establish a specific line and prioritise subsidies within the LEADERapproach for cattle and ecotourism activities and for the restoration ofwetlands in rice lands.

Action 1.3. Conversion from rice fields into extensive aquaculture farming.The change of rice fields into extensive aquaculture can be done in a way thatshould benefit both the farmers and the fauna and birds, which finds in the rice fieldan alternative wetland to the natural areas in dry periods. The combined exploitationof rice and aquaculture can even be considered. This is already happening in Asiancountries. However, this last option would require more complex research.

Benefits: - The combination of rice and aquaculture farming diversifies the farmers’

income at the same time it means the enrichment in habitats available for thefauna and it contributes to a higher biodiversity.

Challenges: - What must be studied is the economic viability of this proposal, what kind of

investments in infrastructures would be required, and specially theenvironmental viability, so that possible negative effects as theeutrophication should be prevented and a lower water consumption shouldbe assured.


- It requires the producer’s specialization and the establishment of suitablecommercial networks to find a market for the new production.

- It requires that the EAFRD rules consider this activity as an object ofsubsidies.

Links with Policies of Rural Development:- Part VI of the Rule 1257/99, belonging to the 37th Article of EAFRD, which

establishes a series of agri-environmetnal aids. This is covered by RoyalDecree 4/2001 of January 12th, for aids addressed to the use of methods foragricultural production compatible with the Environment.

Proposal: - to create a main line of aids addressed to the Extensification of rice farming

with high natural value by means of alternative and extensive uses of theland (aquaculture). In order to do that, this possibility must be first includedin the New Rules of Rural Development.

- LEADER approach for activities of extensive aquiculture for the restorationof wetlands.

MEASURE 2. Recovery and Preservation of edges, slopes and channels.Agro-environmental aid to recover elements with environmental value, found in thecurrent huge surface of the rice monoculture.

Benefits: - Possibility of applying the improvement in whichever type of cultivation not

only in rice cultivation.- Landscape improvement benefits for flora and fauna, as these elements act as

ecological corridors and biodiversity reservations. Benefits for the farmers, as itact as shelter for useful fauna, and it stops the action of the wind.

Challenges: - To overcome the initial farmers’ opposition it should be proved that the

advantages of these elements overcome the disadvantages.

Links with Policies of Rural Development:- Part VI of the Rule 1257/99, belonging to the 37th Article of EAFRD, by means

of which a series of agri-environmental aids is established. This is covered byRoyal Decree 4/2001 of January 12th, which establishes aids for the use ofmethods of agricultural production compatible with the Environment.

- 38th Article of EAFRD, addressed to no productive investments in theexploitation for the more sustainable use of agricultural lands. It could be usedfor the recovery and preservation of these elements: channels, slopes...

- Article 55 of EAFRD, intended for the conservation of rural heritage, whichcould include tradicional water channels.

Proposal:


- To modify the royal decree 4/2001 that includes aids available in he Spanishagri-enviromental Program to include this new aid for the restoration of fieldmargins, banks and the planting of hedges in rice fields. It could be included ascomplementary to the current Measure 8.1, already existing in the NationalProgramme, addressed to the preservation of landscapes elements on the holding(channels, slopes, edges).

- If the holding is subject to the aid for Environmental Integrated Production ofRice, it should be an obligatory requirement to maintain the borders of farmswithout cultivating. Therefore the application of this commitment should beefficiently controlled.

2.3. General Measures

The following measures are proposed to be applied in strawberry and rice farming. Theyincorporate both elements of Rural Development as well as those of the so called firstPillar of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).

MEASURE 1. Conditioning of aids to the legal uses of water and soilTo verify the legal conditions of farms and the granting of water for the payments ofany agricultural aid. In that way, only the farmers that observe the rules in force will beable to receive any type of aid.

Benefits: - Specially useful measure in the case of holdings where irrigation is carried out

illegally with underground water. The lesser profitability of the holding withillegal irrigation, because they are not beneficiaries of aids, would be anincentive for their removal.

Challenges: - To carry out necessary legal reforms to the Royal Decree 2352/2004, which

regulates the application of CAP conditionality in Spain.

Link with Policies of Rural Development:- Royal Decree 2352/2004 of December 23rd on the application of the

conditionality in relation to direct aids in the framework of the CAP.

Proposal: - To modify the current legislation on of Conditionality so that the fulfilment of

the water legislation should be an indispensable condition for the payments ofany aids, and not only for the direct payments of the CAP.

- In a second stage, to improve the control on conditionality, by the competentauthorities, and to increase its reach.

______________________________________________________________________


MEASURE 2. Training for the very best use of waterIn several occasions the irrigation techniques farmers apply are based more on traditionsthan on a solid technical base. This can be solved by providing the necessary training.Irrigation techniques can in that way be made optimum to get better results with lesswater.

Benefits: - Less waste of water with the following benefits for the environment and for the

farmers (saving of electricity, diesel oil, working hours,….)

Challenges: - To focus the measure so that it does not mean a comparative damage for the

farmers who has been trained on the matter and who is efficient, even if this is avoluntary measure with no economic incentives.

- To make the producer see that the efficient use of water will directly affect onthe profitability of the holding.

Link with Policies of Rural Development:- The training is found on Part III of Regulation 1257/99. In the case of EAFRD,

training is found on the 20th Article on Profesional Training and Information.The results can be reinforced by means of the use of the Advisory Servicesfound in the 23th Article.

Proposal: - To include courses on the efficient management of water in agriculture and on

the latest irrigation technologies in the national and regional programming.

i Council Presidency text of 27/4/05 suggesting amendments to the EAFRD proposal.

the spain national report...implementation in spain is spread across a total of 21 programmes....

Documents