Country profile on rural characteristics Spain - RuDI

<strong>Country</strong> <strong>profile</strong> on rural characteristicsSpainAssessing the impact of rural development policies (incl. LEADER)Deliverable D 1.1INEA (National Institute of Agricultural Economics,Rome, Italy)Patrizia Fagiani, Serena Tarangioli, Franco Mantino1FP 7 Project no. 213034Funded by the 7 th Framework Programme for Research and Technology Developmentof the European Commission

Assessing the Impact of RuralDevelopment Policies (RuDI)Work package 1Priorities in rural development policies<strong>Country</strong> <strong>profile</strong>s on rural characteristicsSpainPatrizia FagianiSerena TarangioliFranco MantinoINEA (Italy)20082

We are grateful to prof. Lourdes Viladomiu (Universitat Autonòma De Barcelona) forcomments and integrations on an earlier version of this document3

Table of contents1 <strong>Country</strong> <strong>profile</strong>s on rural characteristics ............................................................. 52.1 Overall structure and rationale................................................................... 52.2 Methodology and data sources ................................................................... 52 Typologies of rural areas.................................................................................. 72.3 Fourth Cohesion Report rural typology at the national level ........................... 72.4 National definitions of ‘rural’ and typologies of rural areas ............................. 93 Specific rural circumstances ............................................................................123.1 Improving the competitiveness of the agricultural and forestry sector............153.2 Improving the environment and the countryside .........................................173.3 The quality of life in rural areas and diversification of the rural economy ........184 Policy principles and delivery structures of rural development policy.....................224.1 The approach and structures of rural development policy .............................224.2 National Rural Development Programme (Pillar II) ......................................244.3 Nationally funded rural development programmes.......................................275 Consistency of member state policy priorities and territorial characteristics ...........29References ..........................................................................................................304

The primary focus of RuDI is upon rural policy as manifest by the implementation of Reg1688/2005. This is a complex policy instrument, combining both sectoral and territorialapproaches. The former, since it addresses the needs of the primary sector, requires nospatial definition of its arena for activity. Axis 3, however, is at least in part “territorial”,and necessitates a definition of its “constituency”. Whilst accepting the principle thatrural areas should ideally be defined at a relatively detailed spatial scale, there are boththeoretical and practical reasons for structuring the analysis in this paper in terms oflarger statistical regions.In theoretical terms it must be acknowledged that no local “rural economies” are selfcontained,they are inseparably linked to adjacent small towns and to larger cities andconurbations on a global scale. It is therefore arguable that the appropriate context forterritorial rural policy analysis is best defined in terms of larger functional areas,characterised by varying combinations of rural and urban components. From a practicalperspective, there is no avoiding the simple fact that the availability of “harmonised”statistics across the EU27 points to an analysis based on NUTS 2/3 region data.Bearing these considerations in mind the description of the rural situation which occupiessections 2 and 3 of this paper will be developed on the basis of the following sources:(a) The rural-urban typology presented in the Fourth Cohesion Report (EC 2007a).This has been selected (in preference to the OECD typology from which it wasdeveloped) because it is considered that the additional differentiation betweenurban-adjacent and more remote regions is helpful in terms of M.S. comparativeanalysis. In section 2.1 the distribution of three basic indicators, (area, populationand GDP) according to the above urban-rural typology, will be used to convey thegeneral urban-rural character or <strong>profile</strong> of the M.S. in a way which allowscomparisons across the EU27.(b) National definitions and typologies will be used in section 2.2 to convey theconcept of rurality which underlies the national policy tradition.(c) In section 3 the principal source for statistical data will be the most recent “RuralDevelopment in the European Union” report (EC 2007b). The <strong>profile</strong> will bebroadly structured according to the first three axes of EU Rural Developmentpolicy. Axes 1 and 2, being mainly sectoral, are associated with national averagesof indicators relating to the primary sector. Rural conditions relating to Axis 3 aredescribed within the (territorial) framework of the OECD rural-urban typology ofNUTS 2/3 regions.(d) The discussion of the M.S. implementation of EU rural development policy (section4.2) will rely heavily upon the national (or regional) programme document.(e) In section 4.1 and 4.3 a range of national policy documents will be used as abasis for the discussion of national rural policy approaches.6

2 Typologies of rural areas2.3 Fourth Cohesion Report rural typology at the nationallevelFigure 1 shows the typology of Spanish rural areas (at NUTS 3 level) on the basis of theOECD classification criteria, based on population density.Spain is a country with a prevalence of rural areas, which amount to 86% of the wholeterritory, slightly below the EU25 average (90%). Population is distributed to a greatextent on the coast: these areas are classified as intermediate rural areas with a highdegree of accessibility (less than 45 minutes drive from a city of at least 50000inhabitants). Four regions, which amount for the 14% of Spanish territory, arepredominantly urban: the region of Madrid (whose territory is 100% urban), País Vasco(whose territory is 58% urban), Comunidad Valenciana (whose territory is 46.5% urban)and Cataluña (whose territory is 24.1% urban). Despite the reduced land consumption,in urban areas is concentrated about the half of the overall population and GDP(respectively 48% and 54%).Predominantly rural areas, on the other side, occupy a considerable share of land (46%),but have a low weight on the overall population balance (14%) and growth (11% ofnational GDP).The Spanish National Strategic Plan, however, maintains that the OECD methodologydoes not correctly reflect the degree of rurality, especially in those areas with a very highpopulation density. For this reason, a more refined classification has been carried out inaddition, by applying the OECD criteria to municipalities (término municipal). On thebasis of this classification, rural areas have been detected with more detail even in thoseareas which were previously classified as entirely urban (for instance, the AutonomousCommunity of Madrid results from this reclassification as being for the 57% rural and43% as urban), resulting in a significant increase of the territory classified as rural.7

Figure 1: Urban-Rural Typology of NUTS 3 Regions (Fourth Cohesion Report)8

6050UrbanSRAESSRRPRAPRR40% 3054482037 36341021143 2 1 8 70Area Population GDP (PPS)AREA POP GDPNote: Data is missing for the Balearic and Canary Islands256 4Figure 2: Percentage Distribution of Area, Population and GDP (PPS) by urbanruralregion type (Fourth Cohesion Report Typology)2.4 National definitions of ‘rural’ and typologies of ruralareasThe traditional Spanish definition of rural areas was based on the number of inhabitantsper municipality. Rural municipalities were those with less than 2000 inhabitants,although in some documents the definition of a category of intermediate municipalitieswith a population between 2000 and 10000 inhabitants can be found. Currently somedocuments and academic studies use other thresholds such as 5000 or 10000inhabitants.Most of the 17 Rural Development Programs 2007-2013 agree that the OECD definitionat regional or NUTS2 level is not appropriated to define Spanish rural areas. However,each region has different approaches in defining rurality. Most of the regions definedrural areas at the municipality level (NUTS 5), or even lower. Among the approachesadopted by the Spanish Autonomous Communities:- application of the OECD criteria as such;- application of the OECD criteria at the municipal level;- adoption of other criteria at the municipal level (e.g. number of inhabitants,population density, structure of ages, land uses, economic structure and others);- adoption of other criteria at sub-municipal level (typology of terrain, totalpopulation, productive specialization).Another typology commonly used refers to Less Favoured Areas (mountain areas, areasunder risk of depopulation and other specific areas). Figure 3 shows the classification ofrural areas for the 17 regional Spanish RDP (2006-13) based on this latter criteria.9

Figure 3 Classification of rural areas for the 17 regional Spanish RDP10

The recent Law for Sustainable Development in the Rural Environment (Law 45/2007issued in December 2007) aimed at providing the legislative framework to theestablishment of a national rural policy complementing the interventions co-funded bythe EU, includes some new definitions which are reported below 1 :- Rural environment (medio rural): the geographic space defined by the competentadministration and formed by the aggregation of municipalities or minor localentities with less than 30000 inhabitants and a density lower than 100inhabitants per km 2 .- Rural area (zona rural): the target area of the measures of the Sustainable RuralDevelopment Programme, refers to a region (comarca) or a part of it with a subprovincialextension, as qualified by the competent Autonomous Community(Comunidad Autónoma).- Small size rural municipality (municipio rural de pequeño tamaño): a settlementwith less than 5000 inhabitants integrated in the rural environment.The classification of rural areas is based on population density, the economic structure,the level of income, the geographic position and the relation rural-urban. On the basis ofthese criteria, the following typology of rural areas is proposed:a) rural areas to be re-vitalised are characterised by scarce population density,significant agricultural activity, low level of income and a significant geographicisolation or difficulties of territorial structuring;b) intermediate rural areas are characterised by low or medium population density, adiversified economic structure encompassing activities in the primary, secondaryand tertiary sectors, low or medium level of income and a geographic positiondistant from the area of direct influence of big urban areas;c) peri-urban rural areas are characterised by increasing population, an economicstructure with a predominant weight of the tertiary sector, medium or high levelof income and situated in the proximity of urban areas or densely populatedareas.The Law specifies that the Council for Rural Environment (Consejo para el Medio Rural)will adopt common criteria for the classification of rural areas.1 It is worth remarking that this law has not yet been made operational by regulations and norms, also becauseof some contrasts between Autonomous Communities and the government concerning the sharing ofcompetences at the central and regional level.11

3 Specific rural circumstancesIn Spain rural areas cover the 86% of the territory (either at predominant orintermediate rurality) and about 55% of the population live in these areas. theimportance of intermediate rural areas has increased all around Europe and this trend iseven more marked in Spain, where the share of population, gross value added andemployment is even higher than in the average EU25 (see table 1).Table 1: Area, population, Gross Value Added (GVA) and employment in NUTS 3rural regions 2004 in Spain.Predominantlyrural %Intermediaterural %Predominantlyurban %Total area 44,7 41,6 13,7EU 25 53,5 36,8 9,6Population 13,0 42,3 44,7EU 25 17,5 36,7 45,8GVA 10,5 39,2 50,3EU 25 12,2 30,6 57,2Employment 11,7 40,1 48,2EU 25 19,4 35,2 45,4(Source: Rural Development in the European Union - Statistical and Economic Information -Report 2007)Spanish rural territories are affected by a depopulation problem, due among otherreasons to the nature of the terrain, climate, water scarcity.Population density varies greatly among type of regions, as Table 2 shows. Population isgenerally concentrated on the coast, with a typically higher density in urban areas. thepopulation density is however constantly lower than the EU25 average, irrespective ofthe type of region.Intermediate rural areas, however, showed a significantly dynamic trend in populationdensity between 1995 and 2004. This is a trend common to other EU countries, whichhowever appeared to be more marked in Spain, where the pace of increase of populationdensity was 7,7% with respect to the 2,8% in the average of EU countries.Table 2: Population density and change of population density in NUTS 3 ruralregions 2004 in Spain (inhab/km2).PredominantlyruralPopulation densityIntermediateruralPredominantlyurbanES/EU25ES 24,6 85,7 275,1 84,4EU25 37,9 115,9 552,4 116,3Change of population density 1995 to 2004ES 0,4 7,7 22,8 6,5EU25 0,4 2,8 18,2 3,0(Source: Rural Development in the European Union - Statistical and EconomicInformation - Report 2007)12

The GDP per capita in Spain has shown in the period 1996-2003 a considerably moredynamic growth than in EU25. Although urban areas lead this growth trend, also in ruralareas GDP per capita increased at a significantly quicker pace and was in 2003 above theEU25 average (Table 3). Although urban GDP per capita remains below EU25 average,the annual percentage changes show how rapidly Spain is converging to EU standards.The composition of GDP in rural areas has varied and the primary sector is no longer theengine of the development of rural areas, accounting for only the 12,3% inpredominantly rural areas and 4,6% in intermediate rural areas. Although these figuresshow that Spanish averages are still higher than EU25 ones (see Table 4) 2 , the EU-widetrend of a progressive decrease of the importance of the role of primary sector in ruralareas is confirmed in Spain. In addition, and in countertrend with the rest of the EU,secondary and tertiary GVA is increasing in rural areas, because economic activities areincreasingly relocated out of urban areas. For the industrial sector, for instance, this isalso related to the fact that rural areas are more and more endowed with adequateinfrastructure (transport, information and communication technologies), which increasesaccessibility and offers the opportunity to access to reduced production cost areas (alsobecause of lower salaries) 3 . The same happens for the tertiary sector: a growing numberof small-medium enterprises relocated in rural areas, especially related to tourism,leisure and health activities.The tertiary sector is also the one which underwent a more dynamic employment trend inthe period 2000-2004 and was, in general, the sector employing the most of labour forcein 2004 (65%).Table 3: Gross Domestic Product per capita in 2003 and change of GrossDomestic Product from 1996 to 2003 NUTS 3 rural regions (EU 27 = 100).PredominantlyruralIntermediateruralPredominantlyurbanES/EU25GDP/Capita 81 94 114 101EU 25 77 90 130 106Change of GDP/Capita 5 7 10 8EU 25 1 0 2 1(Source: Rural Development in the European Union - Statistical and Economic Information - Report2007)2 Partly because of the considerable weight of systems based on irrigation, early agricultural products anddelicacies.3 Industrial sectors which have seen a relocation in rural areas include agro-food industry, textile, furnitures,other industrial sectors supporting construction or other industrial branches.13

Table 8: Primary sector GVA 2004 and average annual growth rate VA 2000 to2004.M€ % GVA % annualgrowth*ES 26 838,0 3,6 0,02EU25 190 666 2,0 1,26*The average annual growth rate is calculated on the basis of GVA at constant price, whereas the '2004'value provided is at current price.(Source: Rural Development in the European Union - Statistical and Economic Information -Report 2007)Farm structure in primary productionThe Utilised Agricultural Area (UAA) in Spain exceeded 25 millions of hectares in 2005. Anoticeable feature is the high percentage of UAA devoted to permanent crops (17,1%),which more than doubles the EU25 average. About the half of UAA consists of arableland, while the rest is permanent pasture.The number of farms in Spain has continued to decrease in the last years, and iscurrently slightly above 1 million. More than a half of existing farms has a small size,below 5 ha. Big farms (size bigger than 50 ha) are slightly more than 9%, which is aboveEU25 average, and are generally located in the centre and south of the country. Thetrend in the last 10 years is the increase of smaller and bigger agricultural holdings, witha dramatic reduction of those of medium size.Table 9: Utilised Agricultural Area (UAA) in different categories of land use2005.arable land%permanentpasture %permanentcrops %ES 48,0 34,8 17,1EU25 60,1 33,1 6,7(Source: Eurostat, Farm Structure Survey 2005)Table 10: Farm structure 2005: Number of farms, average size of farms andfarm size distribution.size %no of farms ha < 5 ha ≥ 5 - < 50 ha ≥ 50 haES 1 079 420 23,0 53,5 37,3 9,2EU25 9 687 840 16,0 61,6 31,5 6,9(Source: Eurostat, Farm Structure Survey 2005)The productivity of the forestry sector is in general lower than for agriculture, althoughvery few mountains are devoted to production activities. The forest area available forwood supply is around 40%, the most of which is privately owned (81,6%). Forest areasare interested by depopulation phenomena, with the related negative effects on itsenvironmental and social functions and threatening its existence, especially in relation tothe risk of fires. Although forests are not much profitable in terms of direct production,16

they have a marked multifunctional vocation, with a clear prevalence of preservationobjectives in the Mediterranean area, where the productivity is very low. In addition,forests environmental importance in terms of biodiversity, hydrological protection,climate change, etc. is very high.Table 11: Forestry structure: Area of forest available for wood supply and forestownership 2000.ownership %forest availablefor wood supply % public privateES 40,3 18,1 81,6EU25 72,9 9,6 64,8(Source: TBFRA 2000 Database, UNECE/FAO)3.2 Improving the environment and the countrysideThe wide territorial extension offers to Spain a great variety of landscapes andenvironmental richness. The consolidation of environmental concerns into policies andadministrations’ practices has boosted the extension of protected areas: in 2006 the areaintegrated under the Natura 2000 network was slightly less than the double of theaverage EU25 (respectively 40,9% against 22,1%). A significant percentage of the UUAand of forest areas falls within the Natura 2000 network, thus highlighting the greatrelevance that biodiversity protection and environmental concerns must have in thedevelopment of rural strategies.A high proportion of UAA (81,3%) occupies territories classified as LFA, respectively31,8% in mountain areas, 3,1% in areas with specific handicaps and 46,4% in otherareas. This proportion is sensibly higher than the EU25 average, which stands at 55,4%.In compliance with Directive 91/676/CEE, establishing measures against water pollutionfrom nitrates deriving from agricultural activities, the Autonomous Communities carriedout a survey and individuated nitrate vulnerable zones. The extension of these areas issensibly lower than the average EU25 (respectively 12,6% against 41,4%), and for themspecific programmes have been drawn, including good practices, action plans andcontrols in order to evaluate effectiveness.Table 12. Land cover in different categories 2000.agriculturalarea %forestarea %naturalarea %artificialarea %ES 50,3 18,4 29,0 1,6EU25 46,7 31,0 16,0 4,0(Source: CORINE Land Cover 2000)Table 13: Utilised agricultural area in different categories of LFA 2000.UAA nonLFA %UAA in LFAmountain %UAA in LFAother %UAA inLFAspecific %ES 18,7 31,8 46,4 3,117

EU25 44,6 16,3 35,6 3,2(Source: Eurostat, Farm Structure Survey 2005)Table 14: Area and utilised agricultural area (UAA) under NATURA 2000 2006.area underNATURA2000 SpecialProtection %area underNATURA 2000Sites ofImportance %UAAunderNATURA2000 %forestareaunderNATURA2000 %ES 18,3 22,6 24,03 9,13EU25 9,9 12,2 10,47 7,11(Source: European Environment Agency, Natura 2000 Barometer)Table 15: Area designated as a risk zone for water quality 2006.ES 12,6EU25 41,4%(Source: Rural Development in the European Union - Statistical and EconomicInformation - Report 2007)3.3 The quality of life in rural areas and diversification of therural economyThe employment in non-agricultural sectors is quite high in rural areas (84,67% inpredominantly rural and 93,46% in intermediate rural areas), thus confirming the factthat economic diversification in rural areas is a matter of fact. The tendency todiversification within agricultural holdings, measured through the share of nonagriculturalactivities carried out on the holding itself (camping sites, accommodation fortourists, etc.) or on another agricultural holding as well as activity in a non-agriculturalenterprise, appears to be moderately high irrespective of type of region, although with aslight prevalence of predominantly rural on intermediate rural areas (Table 20).The employment rate in Spain has rapidly increased from 2000 to 2005, convergingtowards EU25 averages (Table 17). Only in predominantly rural areas unemployment isrising, although moderately (+0,2%). The importance of long-term unemployment (morethan 12 months) is also decreasing, in countertendency with EU25 where it undergoes aslight increase in intermediate rural and in urban areas (Table 19).Spain present a slightly better situation than the EU25 in terms of entrepreneurship,measured as the degree of self-employment (referred to persons working on their ownbusiness farm or professional practice for the purpose of earning a profit). In thisrespect, predominantly rural areas present the highest percentage of self-employees(20,12%).The agricultural sector is characterised by a low level of training of operators: despite thevery rapid pace of growth from 2000 to 2005, sensibly higher than in the rest of theEU25, in 2005 still only 48,77% of operators had reached a medium or high educationlevel, against the 70,82% for EU25 (Table 22). The same rapid growth rate affected thedegree of participation of adults in education and training programmes, which between18

2000 and 2005 was in average around 6%. The levels of participation, however, keptbeing rather low in 2005 (around 10%, Table 23), although in line with the rest of theEU. Efforts should therefore be put into improving the low level of training of operatos inthe primary sector, in order to overcome the numerous negative consequences such asthe lack of knowledge on how to improve commercialisation and how to add value toproducts or as the low use of information and communication technologies for a bettermanagement.Table 16: Employment in non-agricultural sectors by OECD region type: Share ofemployment in secondary and tertiary sectors 2004 and average annual growthrate of employment 2000 to 2004.predominantlyrural %Share of employmentintermediaterural %predominantlyurban %ES/EU25ES 84,67 93,46 97,95 94,59EU25 86,15 93,62 98,75 94,96Average annual growth 2000 to 2004ES 2,97 3,47 3,22 3,29EU25 0,57 0,89 0,49 0,63(Source: Rural Development in the European Union - Statistical and EconomicInformation - Report 2007)Table 17: Employment rate by OECD region type: Employed persons as a shareof total population of the same age class 2005 and change in employment rate2000 to 2005.predominantlyrural %intermediaterural %predominantlyurban %ES/EU25Employed personsES 58,9 58,2 66,7 63,3EU25 61 62,8 65,2 63,7Average annual growth 2000 to 2005ES 5,95 7,52 6,77 7,04EU25 1,08 1,57 1,55 1,51(Source: Rural Development in the European Union - Statistical and EconomicInformation - Report 2007)19

Table 18: Unemployment rate 2005 by OECD region type.predominantlyrural %intermediaterural %predominantlyurban %ES/EU25Unemployment rate 2005ES 11,5 12,0 7,4 9,2EU25 10,2 9,7 8,2 9,0Change of the rate 2000 to 2005ES 0,2 -2,7 -0,8 -1,4EU25 -0,2 -0,6 0,2 -0,2(Source: Rural Development in the European Union - Statistical and EconomicInformation - Report 2007)Table 19: Long-term unemployment rate 2005 by OECD region type.predominantlyrural %intermediaterural %predominantlyurban %ES/EU25Long-term unemployment rate 2005ES 3,07 3,16 1,68 2,25EU25 4,55 4,54 3,57 4,10Change of the rate 2000 to 2005ES -2,69 -4,73 -2,97 -3,56EU25 -0,22 0,12 0,25 0,14(Source: Rural Development in the European Union - Statistical and EconomicInformation - Report 2007)Table 20: Farmers with other gainful activities 2005 by OECD region type.predominantlyrural %intermediaterural %predominantlyurban %ES/EU25ES 30,0 28,3 39,0 N/AEU25 35,1 34,1 37,3 34,4(Source: Rural Development in the European Union - Statistical and Economic Information -Report 2007)20

Table 21: Share of self-employment in total employment 2005 by OECD regiontype.predominantlyrural %intermediaterural %predominantlyurban %ES/EU25Share of self-employmentES 20,12 17,62 15,66 16,54EU25 18,33 15,26 14,01 15,00Average annual growth 2000 to 2005ES 0,24 1,22 3,41 2,40EU25 -0,37 1,00 2,05 1,26(Source: Rural Development in the European Union - Statistical and EconomicInformation - Report 2007)Table 22: Educational attainment - adults with medium or high educationalattainment 2005 by OECD region type.predominantlyrural %intermediaterural %Medium or high educationalattainmentpredominantlyurban %ES/EU25ES 36,23 43,27 53,18 48,77EU25 70,85 69,86 71,76 70,82Change in % with medium or high2000 to 2005ES 8,0 9,3 10,5 10,0EU25 5,7 3,8 4,2 4,2(Source: Rural Development in the European Union - Statistical and EconomicInformation - Report 2007)Table 23: Participation of adults in education and training 2005 by OECD regiontype.predominantlyrural %intermediaterural %predominantlyurban %ES/EU25Participation in education andtrainingES 8,90 10,33 10,81 10,53EU25 9,52 9,03 11,74 10,29Change in % 2000 to 2005ES 4,8 5,4 6,7 6,1EU25 2,7 2,6 2,7 2,6(Source: Rural Development in the European Union - Statistical and EconomicInformation - Report 2007)21

4 Policy principles and delivery structures of ruraldevelopment policy4.1 The approach and structures of rural development policySpain’s rural development strategy for the period 2007-2013 develops in line with theobjectives set out by the Lisbon and Goteborg agreements related with competitivenessimprovements and employment creation, as well as sustainable development andenvironmental protection.To add to these objectives, the rural development strategy in Spain was designed withthe aim to alleviate and possibly stop the severe depopulation faced by certain ruralareas. The strategy also sets out as an important point the goal of remediating to thepossible negative environmental effects of agriculture. The Spanish rural developmentstrategy also gives a special importance to improving the competitiveness of agricultureand livestock farming, as well as to agro-food industry. From an environmental stand,Spanish rural policy places special priority on the optimisation of water resources use, aswell as on reducing the risk of forest fires.The Spanish rural development policy is considerably decentralised, to the point thatmost of the policy making, including the management of the CAP-related measures, isadministered at regional level (NUTS 2). Spain is also one of the European countries thathas most enthusiastically taken up and implemented the LEADER initiative within its ruralterritory. The Spanish central administration plays mostly a coordinator role and acts asthe regions’ representative in front of the EU.Rural development policy in Spain is rapidly shifting from a position of extremecentralisation (existing under the dictatorial government) towards a bottom-up approach.Many voices, especially from regional administrations, argue that the pendulum has nowswung too far towards an endogenous focus.As it is clearly represented in the country’s Strategic Rural Development Plan, Spain stillhas a very sectoral approach to rural development, where agriculture represents itsdominating core. Very little horizontal or cross ministerial/sectoral coordination is beingdone in relation to policies affecting rural areas and its citizens. There is, however, withthe introduction of the new Sustainable Rural Development Law (Law 45/2007) a newattempt to bring greater horizontal governance around the country’s rural policy-making.This new law inspired from the Mexican example, goes far beyond the measures setunder the second pillar of the PAC and has a wider perception of rural policy and ruraldevelopment. The law not only establishes the required institutions to allow adequatecross-ministerial horizontal governance, but it also establishes the framework for themuch needed vertical coordination in the decentralised Spanish context. Althoughentered into force in January 2008, this law is not yet operational also because ofcontrasting views between the central government and some Autonomous Communitiesconcerning the subjects touched by the law, which in part refer to areas that aretransferred to the regional governments and thus out of the central administrationcompetences.Agriculture and livestock farming have a dominant position in rural developmentstrategies. If we consider the three main axes of Pillar 2, we can observe that theapplication of these measures in Spain has been highly biased in favour of agriculture(axis 1 and 2). More than half of the Spanish public funds dedicated to rural developmenthas been oriented towards the first axis. And as a consequence of the regionaldisaggregation of the Spanish programmes, this distribution varies from one Spanishregion to the other (see map in 4.1). All of the regional rural development plans havedevoted a part of their budgets in excess of the European average to measures limited toimproving agricultural competitiveness. Even in the case of the measures falling underthe remaining two axes, a significant sectoral character has been introduced with severalactions limited to on-farm implementations.In the two last decades, the Spanish rural development policy has included importantinfrastructural investments that have greatly improved accessibility and service provision22

for the Spanish rural population. Together with infrastructure investment, many publicand heritage sites have been refurbished and renewed, thus bringing additionalattractiveness to many rural towns and communities. This has not only increased thepride and living standards of the rural population, but it has also given to rural areasgreat resources with which to attract tourism.In fact, tourism has also been within the focus of the Spanish rural development policy,offering support to local organisations and helping in adding value to local heritage andtouristic assets. There has also been a deliberate effort aimed at assisting rural tourismindustry operators to build networks and a collaboration in their efforts to develop andpromote Spanish rural tourism as an alternative or complement to the traditionallydominant sun and beach tourism. Furthermore, the different editions of the LEADERprogram have all played an important role in developing and supporting local tourismentrepreneurial projects in rural areas.Rural society in Spain has traditionally been considered as disadvantaged with respect tothe urban society, and therefore in need of ad hoc development policies to overcome itsbackwardness. In various moments of Spanish history, public and private initiatives havebeen undertaken to remedy this situation. Their origins go back to the end of the 18 thcentury in the framework of the policies oriented to educate rural population. Later on,rural development (understood then basically as improvement of agricultural production)became more formalised with irrigation plans, regional initiatives or crop-specificinitiatives and the creation of the Service of Agricultural Extension at the middle of the20 th century. From that period four stages can be considered:1. The transition and incorporation to the European Community (1976-1986)1975 started a new period that culminated with the accession of Spain to the EEC in1986. This stage was characterized by profound changes originated by the politicaltransition to democracy together with a difficult economic situation. These events hadimportant impacts in rural areas. From the economic point of view, there was the rise ofinput prices as a consequence of higher oil prices. From the social perspective, certainrural areas experienced higher agricultural unemployment and scarcity of services. Themost important changes with respect to the rural context came from the political front.On the one hand, the competencies over agricultural legislation were transferred fromthe central administration to the Autonomous Communities. On the other hand, theadoption of EU rules following the entrance into the European Community implied aneven greater reduction of the Spanish central administration’s decision power in theareas of agricultural and rural development policy. These changes significantly affectedthe governance structure over rural policy.2. Rural development after accession to the ECGiven the relative delay of Spain with respect to the EU12 countries, a large proportion ofthe Spanish territory was classified as Objective 1 (10 regions from a total of 17 regions).Therefore Spain has been a net recipient of funds since its access to the EU.In this period most of the funds oriented to rural development came from theDevelopment Plans for regions Objective 1, and to a lesser extent from Objective 2 andObjective 5b. Although these are programmes of a wider regional development, theyhave always included an axis specifically devoted to agriculture and rural development.Community initiatives such as LEADER that are based on engagement of local actors intheir rural development strategies were also introduced over this period.The programming period 2000-2006 introduced new changes resulting from the approvalof the Agenda 2000 in March 1999 which included reforms to the CAP. The most relevantchanges with respect to rural development policies were: the recognition of ruraldevelopment as the second pillar of the CAP and the approval of the Regulation 1257/99on rural development measures, which established the basis for a common ruraldevelopment policy in Europe.3. The current programming period 2007-2013 and the Law on Sustainable RuralDevelopment2007 marks the start of a new programming period of the EU (2007-2013) whichintroduced some changes with respect to the previous ones and it is a transitional periodtowards a reduction of EU resources envisaged for 2013. The new Law 45/200723

epresents the attempt to design a national framework for rural policies, complementingthe EU approach.4.2 National Rural Development Programme (Pillar II)The Spanish National Strategic Plan (NSP) defines objectives and priorities of ruraldevelopment policy for the programming period 2007-2013.The application of the NSP is carried out through three instruments:- a National Framework (Marco Nacional);- 17 regional Rural Development Programmes (Programas de Desarrollo Ruralde las Comunidades Autónomas);- 1 programme for the National Rural Network.The National Framework includes six horizontal measures, whose implementation ismandatory in all regional Rural Development Programmes. The National Framework setsthe general basic elements for each measure (rationale, objectives and actions, eligibilityconditions, target beneficiaries, environmental aspects while Autonomous Communitiesare allowed to set additional requirements and criteria related to these measures in theirregional Programmes. The Autonomous Communities are in charge of the administrativeand financial management of the whole regional Programme, including the horizontalmeasures.The horizontal measures refer to Axes 1 and 2 and are listed below:Axis 1Axis 2- Management of water resources/other rural infrastructures- Increase in the added value of agricultural and forest products- Start-up of advice services to the farms- Installation of young farmers- Mitigation of desertification - Prevention of forest fires- Natura 2000 in the forest environment.In addition to the horizontal measures, the National Framework identifies some elementsrelated to the implementation of measures, which must be common to all RDPs. Thesecommon elements include common requirements, criteria and management tools(specifically for the measures of Axes 1 and 2) 5 . The Monitoring Committee is entrustedto monitor the implementation of the horizontal measures and the common elements andguarantee the consistency of the Rural Development Programmes with the NSP and theNational Framework.The NSP lists the main objectives of the rural policy at a national level, which have beenset in consideration of the analysis of the economic, social and environmental situation ofthe country. These objectives are the following:1. counterbalance the severe depopulation phenomenon affecting rural areas;2. mitigate the possible adverse environmental effects of the agriculturalactivity;3. increase competitiveness of Spanish agricultural and livestock activities;4. improve the performance of the agro-food industry;5. increase opportunities of diversification in rural areas;6. optimise water management;7. reduce the risk of fires;8. preservation of Natura 2000 sites.5 The common elements are listed hereafter: i) the Farming Territorial Contract (Contrato territorial deexplotación), a contract which can be signed between the farmers (or associations) and the administration tothe purpose of managing the measures of Axes 1 and 2, ii) the establishment of minimum requirements foragri-environment payments and animal welfare payments in compliance with national legislation, iii) aids toecological production, iv) the inclusion of Natura 2000-related criteria within agri-environment payments in thecase that Measure 224 is not implemented, v) regional prioritisation criteria based on physical and/or socioeconomicfeatures aimed at increasing the effectiveness of LFA payments, and vi) establishment of commoncriteria for the selection of Local Action Groups in the implementation of Leader.24

These overall objectives are declined in a list of aims and strategies per Axis, which aredescribed in Table 3 in the Annexes.In Axis 1, the strategies suggested by the NSP include:- prioritise the agro-industrial sector and support the process of adding value toagro-industrial products (giving a big role to cooperatives);- implementation of farm advisory services aimed at supporting compliance withconditionality requirements and improve the productivity of the farm;- prioritise measures supporting farms in adopting practices oriented to improveanimal well being, hygiene and health of animals and products, environmentalprotection, traceability of productions, security and hygiene of workingconditions, etc.;- sustainable use of water;- promote the setting up of young farmers;- put in place actions to improve human capital to resolve the problem of thelow training levels of professionals in agriculture and the often insufficienttechnological development of the sector;- support to agro-energy crops to allow the development of renewable energysources.In Axis 2, in addition to the two horizontal measures mandatory for all RDPs (preventionof forest fires and conservation of Natura 2000 sites in the forest environment), thestrategies are oriented to:- promote agricultural and livestock practices compatible with the environmentand the conservation of nature, especially in Natura 2000 sites in agriculturaland forestry areas;- promote conservation of woods, grassland, natural meadows and wetlands;- promote the search of alternatives for the valorisation of agro-industry,forestry and wood transformation wastes and by-products.In Axis 3, the aim of fighting depopulation and improving quality of life is pursued on thebasis of:- modernization and improvement of the agricultural activity;- promotion of economic diversification in rural areas.Resources devoted to Axis 4 offer the opportunity to combine the objectives ofcompetitiveness, environment and quality of life/diversification into a strategy targetinglocal communities and based on their needs and peculiar features.The financial balance among Axes in Spanish regions is considerably unbalanced towardsAxis 1. A significant weight in fact is given in all regional RDPs to improvingcompetitiveness in the agricultural and forestry sector: in average, 48% of the availableresources are devoted to Axis 1 measures, with the highest shares (over 60%) in theBasque Countries and in Navarra and the lowest in Cantabria (37%). These figures areamong the highest in Europe and sensibly higher than the average EU27. Anotherpeculiar characteristic is the amount of resources devoted to the implementation ofLeader-type local strategies (10% in Spain).25

Table 24: Public expenditure per Axis in the 17 Spanish RDPs 2007-2013Axis 1 Axis 2 Axis 3 Axis 4TechnicalassistanceConvergence regionsAndalucia 43,1% 44,1% 1,5% 10,5% 0,8%Castilla La Mancha 41,4% 48,0% 1,0% 9,3% 0,3%Extremadura 48,6% 39,0% 2,6% 9,6% 0,2%Galicia 46,4% 32,6% 10,4% 10,0% 0,6%Competitiveness regionsAragon 52,9% 29,0% 7,0% 10,9% 0,2%Asturias 55,0% 33,3% 0,0% 11,2% 0,5%Baleares 59,9% 30,7% 0,0% 9,4% 0,0%Canarias 63,3% 18,7% 11,3% 5,5% 1,2%Cantabria 37,4% 47,7% 1,7% 12,2% 1,0%Castilla y Leon 46,2% 40,2% 1,7% 11,7% 0,2%Cataluna 50,2% 31,6% 6,2% 10,5% 1,5%Madrid 43,1% 29,4% 17,4% 10,1% 0,0%Murcia 54,9% 37,4% 0,0% 7,2% 0,5%Navarra 67,5% 20,5% 4,7% 7,3% 0,0%Pays Basque 63,0% 18,9% 6,2% 11,8% 0,1%Rioja 54,1% 33,2% 4,1% 8,6% 0,0%Valencia 53,5% 33,6% 10,1% 2,5% 0,4%Spain 48,2% 37,3% 4,2% 9,8% 0,5%(Source: own elaboration on RDPs 2007-2013 data)26

Table 25: Distribution of EAFRD funds and total public expenditure among the17 Spanish Autonomous Communities in the RDPs 2007-2013 (in M €)EAFRDdistributionTotal publicexpenditureConvergence regionsAndalucia 1.881,7 2.564,8Castilla La Mancha 924,5 1.641,3Extremadura 779,8 1.188,3Galicia 856,5 1.488,0Total convergence 4.442,5 6.882,4Competitiveness regionsAragon 402,4 1.094,4Asturias 295,1 413,6Baleares 44,9 126,4Canarias 153,3 330,7Cantabria 75,7 151,5Castilla y Leon 722,9 1.838,1Cataluna 272,6 1.016,7Madrid 69,6 231,9Murcia 206,0 441,2Navarra 112,3 325,4Pays Basque 78,1 206,3Rioja 51,1 201,0Valencia 161,7 486,4Total competitiveness 2.645,8 6.863,5Total Spain 7.088,3 13.745,9(Source: own elaboration on RDPs 2007-2013 data)4.3 Nationally funded rural development programmesIn Spain there are several policies which have an impact on rural areas, including:- sectoral policies related to agriculture, industry, construction and services;- water policies (included the irrigation national programme);- welfare policies (education, sanitary services, special measures for old people,etc.);- transports and communication, especially the road national programme andsome specific plans for ICT (information and communication technology);- policies aimed at enhancing entrepreneurship.Most of the programmes implementing these policies are carried out at the regionalgovernments and are oriented to reduce depopulation and isolation (geographical andother communication), to diversify, to create employment, to improve the natural andcultural environment. Many programmes exist at local level for counties, municipalities,river basin, etc..Concerning the national level, Spain has recently issued the Law for SustainableDevelopment in the Rural Environment (Law 45/2007), aimed at devising a national ruralpolicy complementing the EU funded one. This policy will be based on concertation andcooperation among all those public administrations involved in rural affairs under varioushats and in the framework of established competences, and aiming at actively involvingthe private sector. The framework of the law is described here, although, as repeatedlysaid, this is not operational yet in Spain.27

The law 45/2007 allows the design of a rural policy fitting national economic, social andenvironmental conditions. The objectives of the new national rural policy are thefollowing:- widen the economic basis of rural areas by supporting competitive and multifunctionalactivities and promoting diversification including new economicactivities compatible with sustainable development;- fighting against rural population reduction and improve well-being byguaranteeing the availability of essential services so that equal opportunitiesare ensured for all citizens and discrimination is avoided (especially for whatconcerns most vulnerable persons or those risking social exclusion);- preserve and recover natural and cultural heritage and resources in the ruralareas through public and private actions directed at allowing their use in a waywhich is compatible with sustainable development.The law adopts a comprehensive perspective on rural issues at promoting the sustainabledevelopment and improving conditions of life, avoid deep disequilibria with rural areasand make easier the preservation and improvement of natural, cultural andenvironmental heritage.The law targets the rural areas (zona rural), as defined in par. 2.2. The nationalprogramming process established by law 45/2007 foresees that the central governmentissues a pluri-annual and multi-sectoral Sustainable Rural Development Programme, fruitof the collaboration between all the Ministries having a role in the development of ruralareas. In the framework of the provisions set in this Programme, AutonomousCommunities approve a “Plan for rural area” for each rural area, which will gather all theinterventions for the promotion and development of rural areas, including those cofinancedby the private sector. In addition, the Autonomous Communities will draw andapprove the Strategic Territorial Directives of Rural Planning (Directrices EstrategicasTerritoriales de Ordenacion Rural), which aim at facilitating the territorial localisation ofthe measures and the compliance of interventions with planning.The measures foreseen by the Programme include general actions to be carried out bythe state (support to territorial agriculture, promotion of rural economic activities,general interest infrastructures and environmental planning) and other measuresconcerted with the Autonomous Communities (economic diversification, employmentcreation, equipment and basic services, renewable energies, water management,information and communication technologies, education, culture, health, socialprotection, urban issues and housing).The measures implemented in the framework of the Sustainable Rural DevelopmentProgramme will be financed by the central government, as well as the AutonomousCommunities, the other administrations involved and the private sector. The Spanishgovernment foresees important financial commitments for the implementation of thenational rural policy under Law 45/2007, which amount for the period 2009-2013 to 3000M € (annual average 600 M €) and which would be additional to those committed to cofinancethe community rural policy (6939 M € from both the Central government and theAutonomous Communities).28

5 Consistency of member state policy priorities andterritorial characteristicsFrom the point of view of agricultural competitiveness, Spanish rural development policyhas been consistent with the objectives pursued in the past. Spain’s agricultureexperienced a period of transition where the administration played a significant role instimulating the diversification and internationalisation of agriculture and its agro-foodsindustry. Agriculture and agro-food products are today amongst Spain’s main exports.The role that rural policy and the administration can play to support this trend would beon three different fronts. Policy needs to support the industry’s physical capital,especially when it comes to modernisation of irrigation installations. In addition, it alsoneeds to promote the improvement of human capital by helping the industry’s actorsimprove their professional and technical qualifications. And finally, policy should continueplaying its role in stimulating the industry’s social capital by favouring potentialnetworking and collaboration opportunities amongst operators. All these aspects areincluded among the policy priorities of 2007-2013 rural programmes.Spain rural context is strongly varied. There is in fact such a multitude of rural diversitywithin its territory that implementing a centralised rural policy is almost an impossibletask. There are extreme differences in the conditions and characteristics of rural areas,from remote and mountainous regions to periurban and areas of rapid economic anddemographic growth. In fact, certain Spanish rural areas are facing severe depopulationand land abandonment problems, while at the same time other areas must cope withconflicts due to rapid population growth, urban to rural migration, housing and landavailability problems. A uniform rural policy in such a scenario is bound to be ineffective.29

ReferencesCarlos Arroyos. Desarrollo Rural Sostenible en la UE. Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca yAlimentación, Madrid 2007Dirección General de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural, Consejería de Economía y Consumo,Comunidad de Madrid. Programa de Desarrollo Rural de la Comunidad de Madrid2007-2013. 2007European Commission. Growing Regions, growing Europe. Fourth report on economic andsocial cohesion. May 2007Generalitat de Catalunya, Departament d’Agricultura, Ramaderia i Pesca. Primer Congrésdel Món Rural a Catalunya. Novembre 2006Generalitat de Catalunya. Programa de desarrollo rural de Catalunya: período deprogramación 2007-2013Gobierno de Aragón, Departamento de Agricultura y Alimentación. Programa deDesarrollo Rural de Aragón 2007-2013. Mayo 2007Gobierno de Canarias. Programa de Desarrollo Rural de Canarias, FEADER 2007-2013Gobierno de Cantabria. Programa de Desarrollo Rural de Cantabria 2007-2013. 2007Gobierno de Castilla-La Mancha. Programa de Desarrollo Rural de Castilla-La Mancha2007-2013Gobierno de Extremadura. Programa de Desarrollo Rural Extremadura 2007-2013. Marzo2008Gobierno de la Rioja, Departamento de Agricultura y Desarrollo Económico. Programa deDesarrollo Rural 2007-2013 Comunidad Autónoma de La Rioja. 2007Gobierno de Murcia. Programa Desarrollo Rural FEADER 2007-2013, Región de Murcia.Octubre 2007Gobierno de Navarra. Programa de Desarrollo Rural de la Comunidad Foral de Navarra2007-2013. Pamplona, noviembre 2007Gobierno de Valencia. Programa de Desarrollo Rural de Valencia 2007-2013. 2007Gobierno Vasco, Departamento de Agricultura Pesca y Alimentación. Programa deDesarrollo Rural del País Vasco 2007-2013. Diciembre 2007Govern de les Illes Balears, Conselleria d’Agricultura i Pesca. Programa de DesarrolloRural de las Illas Balears 2007-2013.Junta de Andalusia. Programa de Desarrollo Rural de Andalucía 2007-2013. Junio 2007Junta de Castilla y León. Programa de Desarrollo Rural de Castilla y León 2007-2013.Castilla y León, 2007Junta de Galicia. Programa de Desarrollo Rural de Galicia 2007-2013. Mayo 2007Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación. Marco nacional de desarrollo rural 2007-2013Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación. Plan estratégico nacional de desarrollorural 2007-2013Principado de Asturias, Consejería de Medio Rural y Pesca. El Programa de DesarrolloRural del Principado de Asturias 2007-2013. 2007Regidor, J. G. ed. (2008). Desarrollo rural sostenible: un nuevo desafio. Ministerio deAgricoltura, Pesca y Alimentacion. MadridUniversitat Autònoma de Barcelona, DRUAB. Evaluación ex – ante de la iniciativacomunitaria LEADER II de Catalunya (1994-1999). Barcelona, diciembre 199630