Spain

• General country description
• A. First pillar: implementation of CAP reforms (2003)
• B. Second pillar: implementation of RDP measures during 2007-2013
• C. Vision for the CAP beyond 2013: a short overview of the debate (at Member State level) on future CAP reform
• D. Literature, sources, references
• The comparative analysis provides a compact overview of CAP implementation across all 27 Member States and their visions of the future of the CAP

General country discription

Spain
Comparison with EU-25

Population, 2005 (*1,000,000): 43.0

9.4% of population in EU-25

Population density, 2003 (inh./km2): 83

118 in EU-25

GDP/capita, 2005 (PPS): 22,900

98% of GDP/capita in EU-25

Share agriculture in total employment, 2002 (%): 6

5% in EU-25

Share Utilized Agricultural Area in total land area, 2003 (%): 50

46% in EU-25 in 1998

Average farm size, 2005 (ha): 25

19 in EU-15

Number of farms, 2005 (*1000): 959.0

15.0% of farms in EU-25

Source: own calculations based on Eurostat

Distribution of farming types, 2005 (% of total)

Source: own calculations based on Eurostat

EU funding for the Single Payment Scheme (SPS)
and the second pillar, 2007-2013

Funding according to CAP budget including Bulgaria and Romania.
Sources: Agra Europe (2007); CEU (2006); EC (2007a)

 

A. First pillar: implementation CAP reform (2003)

A.1 Single Payment Scheme

Model

SPS historical (EC, 2007b)

Coupling measures

Complete decoupling, except for seeds (100% coupled), arable crops (25% coupled), sheep and goat premiums (50% coupled), suckler cow premium (100% coupled), slaughter premium calves (100% coupled), slaughter premium bovine adults (40% coupled). Article 69 application: 7% of the ceiling for the bovine sector, 10% of the ceiling for dairy payments, outermost regions 100%, dairy premium in 2006.

Reason for selection

No information

A.2 EU budget for Single Payment Scheme (SPS) per year (National ceiling) 2005-2013

Source: 2005: EC (2006); 2006-2013: CEU (2006) and Agra Europe (2007)

Share of the farms that receive SPS of the total number of farms (% of total)

No information

Tradability of SPS

No information

A.3 Cross-compliance: Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC)

(source IEEP, 2005; )

Selected standards of the GAEC

Issue
Standards
Summary of farmers’ obligations

Soil erosion

management of slopes

tillage prohibited on slopes > 10-15 % (depended on land cover), exceptions for traditional farming practices.

 

minimum soil cover

ban on ploughing, period depends on region

 

retain terraces

drainage capacity should not be affected, forbidden to alter the structure of the land

soil organic matter

arable stubble management

all burning is banned, elimination of crop and pruning residues according to locally established rules.

soil structure

appropriate machinery use

No tillage or passing of machinery when soil is saturated or flooded. Machinery tracks should not be greater than 20 cm

protection of permanent pastures

 

Re-establishment of pp in the regions which have experienced a decline. Protection against burning and ploughing.

minimum level of maintenance

minimum livestock stocking rates or/and appropriate regimes

A minimum stocking density of 0.1 livestock units per hectare will also be applied to further maintain permanent pasture. Originally six different stocking rates were established for the 6 agro-pasture systems identified. However it will be difficult to check real grazing and figures will be an annual average as the pasture capacity varies with season and climate

 

retention of landscape features

including wildlife and biodiversity

 

avoiding the encroachment of unwanted vegetation on agricultural land

Control of unwanted spontaneous vegetation is compulsory

 

EXTRA: agricultural and animal waste

Watertight storage tanks will be required for manure and all spillages must be treated immediately.

 

EXTRA: Olive grooves

Maintenance of olive grooves in working vegetative order

 

EXTRA: irrigation management

The management of the country's water resources is seen as a vital environmental consideration by the Spanish ministry. Farmers will need an authorised activity record in order to be able to exploit subterranean aquifers. Farmers will also need to maintain their irrigation equipment in good order, so as to avoid the unnecessary loss of water.

Reason for selection of cross compliance standards

No information

A.4 Further reform of market regulations

Decoupling of other products, like tobacco, hop etc.:

Simplification into one market regulation:

 

B. Second pillar: implementation of RDP measures 2007-2013

B.1 Programme level and approval

There is one national strategy and there will be 19 regional RDPs. The Rural Development Committee (consisting of representatives of the 27 Member States) has approved one regional RDP on 21 November 2007, four on 20 December 2007 and five on 22 February 2008. This means that as of March 2008 9 regional RDPs still need to be approved.

B.2 Distribution of public budget over the axes (%) 1)

 

axis 1: competitiveness

axis 2: environment and land management

axis 3: rural economy

Axis 4: Leader

Andalucía

43

45

2

11

Aragón

53

29

7

11

Canarias

64

18

12

6

Cantabria

p.m.

p.m.

p.m.

p.m.

Castilla-La Mancha

p.m.

p.m.

p.m.

p.m.

Castilla y León

47

41

2

10

Cataluña

53

30

6

11

Ciudad de Ceuta

p.m.

p.m.

p.m.

p.m.

Ciudad de Melilla

p.m.

p.m.

p.m.

p.m.

Comunidad de Madrid

p.m.

p.m.

p.m.

p.m.

Comunidad Foral de Navarra

68

20

5

7

Comunidad Valenciana

54

34

10

13

Extremadura

p.m.

p.m.

p.m.

p.m.

Galicia

46

33

10

10

Iles Balears

60

31

8

1

La Rioja

54

33

4

9

País Vasco

63

19

6

12

Principado de Asturias

55

33

10

11

Región de Murcia

63

29

0

8

1) Figures excluding Technical Assistance
Source: Own calculations based on Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación (2006) and regional RDPs (for references see part D)

B.3 Integration of Leader in axes 1, 2 and 3

It is anticipated that Leader will contribute largely (80%) to axis 3. The remaining 20% will be used in axes 1 and 2 (Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación, 2006).

B.4 Local Action Groups (LAGs)

In the previous programming period (2000-2006) there were 145 LAGs in Spain. No information about the number of LAGs in 2007-2013.

B.5 RDP budget 2007-2013 (million euros)

 

Total public budget (*)

% co-financing EAFRD 1)

EAFRD budget

Contribution private sector

Total costs

National top-ups

Andalucía

2564.8

73

1881.7

1866.4

4431.3

1199.3

Aragón

1094.4

37

402.4

1272.5

2366.9

0

Canarias

330.6

46

153.3

p.m.

p.m.

p.m.

Cantabria

242.0

p.m.

75.7

p.m.

p.m.

p.m.

Castilla-La Mancha

1591.3

p.m.

924.5

p.m.

p.m.

p.m.

Castilla y León

1838.1

39

722.9

1078.2

2916.2

317.4

Cataluña

1016.7

27

272.6

838.4

1855.1

0

Ciudad de Ceuta

p.m.

p.m.

0.2

p.m.

p.m.

p.m.

Ciudad de Melilla

p.m.

p.m.

0.2

p.m.

p.m.

p.m.

Comunidad de Madrid

p.m.

p.m.

69.6

p.m.

p.m.

p.m.

Comunidad Foral de Navarra

325.4

35

112.3

428.7

751.1

176.9 (650.2 incl. priv. fund.)

Comunidad Valenciana

486.4

33

161.7

540.3

1026.7

0

Extremadura

1185.6

p.m.

779.8

p.m.

p.m.

p.m.

Galicia

1488.0

58

856.5

776.8

2264.8

5.9

Iles Balears

126.4

36

44.9

52.0

178.3

48.1

La Rioja

201.0

25

51.1

225.9

426.9

26.6

País Vasco

206.3

38

78.1

492.9

699.3

73.9

Principado de Asturias

413.6

71

295.1

192.6

606.2

271.4

Región de Murcia

388.4

53

206.0

377.4

765.8

0

Total Spain

 

 

7213.9

 

 

 

*) These figures are provisional
1) % of co-financing may vary per axis; larger co-financing rates in some federal states are due to the presence of convergence regions Source: Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación (2006) and regional RDPs (for references see part D)

B.6 Less Favoured Areas

In 2005 21,389,000 ha was designed as LFA (81% of UAA) (CEU, 2005). According to another source, about 79% of the UAA is designed as LFA, of which 29.7% mountain areas, 46.7% areas with other handicaps and 2.5% areas with specific handicaps and environmental restrictions.

B.7 Drivers of RDP strategy

No information

 

C. Vision on the CAP beyond 2013*

C.1 Stages in the development of the CAP debate

Is there a debate about the CAP beyond 2013?

Although the debate is not yet actual, it is likely that due to the compromise culture in Spain many public and private organizations will be involved in future decisions in the field of agricultural policy.

C2 Key issues in the debate

Components and role of the CAP

CAP should contribute to the continuation of farming in rural areas, and thereby providing reasonable incomes for farmers, safeguarding land use and protecting the environment.

Organisation of the CAP (first and second pillar)

No information

Financing of the CAP

* Information provided by Dutch Agricultural Attaché in Spain

D. Literature, sources, references

Printversion
Please send us your reaction