Guadalentin Case Study- Policy

Transcription

1 Guadalentin Case Study- Policy SoCO Project (Sustainable Agriculture and Soil Conservation ) Seminar The Challenges Faced in the Mediterranean Region 1-2 July 2008, CEMACAM Torre Guil, Murcia (Spain) Javier Calatrava Leyva Universidad Politécnica de Cartagena, Spain

2 Agriculture in the Guadalentin Irrigated agriculture in the valley: Horticulture and greenhouses, fruit orchards Low level of EU subsidies Main soil conservation problems: soil salinization, aquifer overdraft Non - irrigated agriculture in the highlands: Lower profitability and less-favoured areas Need for strong support: Dependent on EU subsidies Almond, cereals, small rumiants Severe problem of land fragmentation (70% of farms: < 5 has) Reductions in profitability force crop abandonment and intensive pig production Main soil conservation problem: Soil erosion, decline in organic matter

3 Survey to stakeholders Actors in the delivery of policies identified are: National and Regional Governments, Agricultural organizations (Farmers unions, agricultural cooperatives, WUAs and large agricultural holdings), Town councils, Research centres and universities, Environmental NGOs 14 face-to-face semi-structured interviews have been completed between April and June administration officers at different positions 1 representative from Farmers Unions 3 Researchers/University Professors (soil conservation and agricultural economics) 1 Technical advisor of a large cooperative in the area 1 Town councillor in charge of agricultural issues 1 president of a WUA 1 representative of an environmental NGO Results from several previous studies on the area have been used

4 Relevant agricultural policies Ecological/integrated production AES Soil erosion AES RDPs subsidising investment in water saving technologies Forestation of agricultural lands Single payment/cross compliance

5 Policy design Key actors in policy design are the national and regional government and agricultural organizations New RDP has been designed by the Regional Government Agricultural organizations and experts are consulted The remaining actors identified have little influence on the whole policy process Interactions among actors: communication perceived as good but not really effective: Regional officers claim for direct communication with the EU Agricultural organizations think that communication with the Regional Administration is slow, delaying policy design and implementation, and claim for more dialogue and better access to information. There are conflicts of interest but not to the point of aborting initiatives. Knowledge: Good technical information about practices and their effects Lack of knowledge on the social and economic impact of policies, attitudes of farmers towards the adoption of practices and towards policies, Lack of integration of different knowledge (technical, environmental, economic, )

6 Policy implementation Key actors are the administration and agricultural organizations Cooperation is good. There is also some formal cooperation with town councils. Agricultural organizations help farmers with the administrative burden The implementation approaches should differ depending on the type of measure: A majority prefer a combination of compulsory/sanctions and voluntary measures Some prefer only voluntary measures based on financial incentives Most recognize the lack of funds to give priority to voluntary approaches. The most effective measure is to convince farmers (and their technical advisors) of the benefits of conservation practices, even before giving economic incentives If consumers would demand soil conservation practices in agricultural production, farmers would be more easily convinced Other important factors for a successful policy implementation Younger and more professional farmers entering the activity Easier and clearer technical and administrative requirements for farmers Regarding resources for implementation: All agree in the lack of funds Regional officers and agricultural organizations disagree regarding administrative capacity.

7 Policy monitoring Monitoring of enforcement based on on-the-spot checks The selection of controlled farmers is partially random and partially based on a risk analysis that mostly pursues economic frauds. Monitoring results do not have effect on the program, only on the farmer and the risk analysis Officers for the Local Agricultural Offices (OCAs) may suggest checks to specific farmers if they perceive non-compliance Inspections are done according to the legislation Farmers complain about strictness of inspections Farmers perceive sanctions and these are in general deterrent. The evaluation of soil conservation policies is limited to the administrative level. No proper evaluation of its environmental, social and economic impact is performed.

8 Policy effectiveness - AES Is the most relevant policy for agricultural organizations: well received by farmers, provide environmental benefits, but should be locally adapted. The most important AES for soil conservation are the soil erosion, the ecological production, and the integrated production one. The former soil erosion AES was not well designed to provide environmental benefits: its impact was reduced. New erosion AES is perceived by regional officers as better designed to provide environmental benefits. Agricultural organizations disagree with its design. Positive general evaluation of Ecological/Integrated production AES. Apart from design problems, effectiveness of measures is reduced by: Lack of funds that restricts the extent of hectares participating Agricultural organizations claim that the Regional Government lacks administrative capacity, delaying payments for most AES and loosing EU funds

9 Policy effectiveness Forestation of agricultural lands: Forestation of agricultural lands: For administration officers, it is well technically designed, effective and implemented. Their view is that farmers get a complementary income. Interviewees from agricultural organizations disagree with this measure: not at all effective, encourages abandonment and benefits are on the long run. For academic interviewees, it is not a solution for soil conservation, but helps to reduce the environmental impacts of land abandonment

10 Policy effectiveness Single payment/ cross compliance Single payment/ cross compliance Practices required can be assumed by most farmers, but transaction costs are large Program is perceived as complicated, difficult to understand for farmers and to monitor, not locally adapted, and of little environmental effectiveness It barely affects irrigated agriculture in the area Costs of compliance vary depending on farm types: Affordable for larger, profitable and professional farms Greater for part-time and small farmers: may not compensate their single payment. As in AES, requirements are easier to comply with in land where marginal social benefits of soil conservation are smaller

11 Importance of other policies Several interviewees stated that soil conservation policies are of little effectiveness in the study area without major changes in other policies. In the valley area there is a need for sustainable land planning policies: Limits to urban sprawl Limits to certain crops/agricultural activities In the highlands there is a need for: More effective Structural Policies to develop new and sustainable agricultural and rural activities and stop land abandonment and depopulation Avoid danger of residential urban sprawl Several respondents claim that AES payments should be linked to participation in other RDPs and even to the local population Most interviewees pointed out the importance of the generational relieve. Younger farmers are most prone to sustainable agricultural practices

12 Summary of positions Agricultural organizations and administration in favour of improving existing policies: More simple and locally adapted and with more economic incentives Formative actions Disagree in administrative capacity and targeting of some policies Academic/ecologists interviewees are more critical to current policies Lack of sense of governance of the problem Need also for more radical approaches (CPOs, increased sanctions, ) and less bureaucracy Academic/research and agricultural organizations interviewees think that: Existing policies not well designed to meet soil conservation objectives but administrative ones Policies are very general, far from reality, and therefore their effectiveness is limited Marginal costs of soil conservation are greater where potential benefits are greater. Requirements and payments should be different for, or even focus exclusively in, lands with a higher risk of soil degradation and completed with farm modernisation programs and other RDPs All interviewees highlighted the importance of convincing farmers of the importance of soil conservation and encouraging young population to enter farming