Annex 3 Summary of ms assessments

Portugal

This report is an assessment of the Portuguese mainland rural development programme (RDP) for 2007 – 2013 published in November 2007. This assessment considers only the contents of the RDP mainland. There are other two RDPs: RDP Madeira and RDP Azores which have not been considered in this assessment.

The Portuguese utilised agriculture area (UAA) counts for 41% of the total surface of mainland Portugal. The utilised agriculture area (UAA) is divided into permanent grasslands (46%), arable land (32%) and permanent crops (20%) mainly olive groves and vineyards. Rural areas represent approximately 86% of the Portuguese territory and approximately 31% (3.1 million) of the population living in rural areas . The agricultural and forestry sector employs 10% of the total active population. The number of part-time jobs linked to the agriculture and forestry sector is not specified. This sector is responsible for 3.4% of the total gross value added generated by the Portuguese economy. In 2003, the average size of agricultural holdings was 11 ha. Between 1989 and 2003, it increased of 55%,.

The strategy of previous RDPs supported the competitiveness of agriculture and forestry sectors, as the average size of agricultural holdings increased with a concomitant productivity increase of the agricultural holding and product specialisation. This trend is continued in the present RDP and there is also a planned increase of irrigation area. The organic farming area covers approximately 2.3% of the UAA (233,000ha).

Less favoured areas (LFA) cover approximately 81% of the Portuguese territory. They therefore have an important role in the mainland of Portugal. The RDP provides two measures that address different types of regions (LFA outside of Natura Network and LFA inside of the Natura Network). The level of support will be differentiated between these two different regions.

The section “Analysis of the situation” leaves the impression that agriculture has no environmental impacts in Portugal. The main environmental problems are described as the result of natural catastrophes (e.g. forest fires, droughts and soil erosion) rather than the result of anthropogenic stresses. Consequently, the RDP presents water scarcity mainly as a result of drought and not as a result of water extraction for agricultural, industrial or domestic use. This is a rather dubious statement which would require scientific support. Water quality is also hardly mentioned in the report. However, it is stated that agricultural and livestock effluent treatment fall below expectations due to the number of agricultural and livestock units in need for improvement. The report makes no reference to hydro-morphologic changes. The RDP states that there are important differences between regions, regarding the socio-economic and environmental context, with little discussion on those regional differences and how they are being taken into consideration in this RDP.

Environmental issues in the RD programme are considered a priority, but are less important in terms of budget environmental issues than in terms of competitiveness of agricultural and forestry holdings, as 47% of the total public expenditure is committed to axis 1. Axis 2 receives 40% of the total budget for the RDP. The budget allocated to axis 4 (LEADER) is comparatively high reaching 10% of the total public funding, while axis 3 receives 0.2% of the total public expenditure.

The budget allocated to axis 1 is presented as to reflect the importance of water access and scarcity as the budget is mainly allocated to the measure “Irrigated land and other collective infrastructures” (125) and modernisation of agricultural holdings (121) receiving, respectively 18% and 8% of the total public expenditure. Approximately 12% (€533,795,052) of the total public expenditure is committed to insure the collection of surface water through investments in a mega-irrigation plan in the river basin of Guadiana. For the overall territory of Portugal, the investment in more efficient irrigation infrastructure is limited to 3% of the total public expenditure.

The measures of axis 2, maintaining agriculture activity in less favoured areas (211 and 212) corresponds to 17% of the total public expenditure, while Agro-Environmental payments cover only 7% of the total public expenditure (€222,820,742 and €110,100,992).

The guidelines of the Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (CMEF) are used to monitor the impacts of RDP measures. Output, result and impact CMEF indicators are assessed for all measures. Objective and context related baseline indicators are presented in the RDP. Programme-specific indicators were also developed to complement some of the CMEF indicators e.g. increase the value of exported production (million €) to assess impact of measure 123. All measures in the RDP are divided into sub-measures but the assessment of the impact takes place only on the measure level. For future RDPs it is recommended to measure the impacts of the sub-measure level in order to better understand the effectiveness of the sub-measures.

The RDP presents two indicators to assess intensity of water use and one indicator to assess water quality. Intensity of water use is monitored through water consumption per ha (m3/ha) which is expected to decrease 5-10% as a result of more efficient irrigation systems, while the indicator “area under irrigation” is expected to increase. Water quality is measured through the gross nutrient balance and annual trends of nitrate and pesticide concentrations in ground water and surface water.

Three types of control activities are described to control the implementation of the RDP. They are: administrative controls, on-spot controls and ex-post controls. The RDP does not provide more information regarding the frequency, penalty mechanisms and measure specific controls.

The mid-term review may indicate the need to review the RDP in 2010.

Main strengths and weakness of the RD program as regards to water

The report mentions the WFD from a legal perspective to justify some of the measures of the RPD and the respect for the water framework directive will be a condition for eligibility implemented some measures (e.g. measure 125). The link to article 5 of the WFD is made through the license scheme for water resources, which is already established and ensures that all supported irrigation projects have the necessary water use license, thus ensuring compliance with River Basin District Management Plans and compliance with annex III of the WFD.

Water availability is considered an environmental limitation in some areas of Portugal, and so the programme prioritises the development of efficient irrigation infrastructure and promotes the production of agricultural products with low water requirements (e.g. olive trees and grapevines). However there is no indication in the program that this may not result in an increase of the total water consumption Introducing olive trees and vineyards in a Montado system, for example, will result in an intensification of the land use, increase demand for water and reduce biodiversity, as monoculture is often favoured by farmers.

Indeed, the RDP expects irrigation area to increase. Approximately 12% of the total public expenditure is allocated to one single mega-irrigation project - the Alqueva multi-purpose project. This financial burden is being taken to stop emigration from the rural areas of Alentejo and control desertification. However, the success of this project is dependent on the future water availability in the Guadiana river basin and increased pressures on water from tourism (e.g. golf camps). According to several environmental impact assessments it also remains unclear if the project is not promoting intensification of agriculture in an area where water scarcity is already a problem. Therefore, this might result in the amplification of this problem due to increase in water demand.

The issue of water quality is not widely addressed by measures as it is not seen as a major problem. Agri-environmental Measure address indirectly water quality issues through promotion of organic and integrated protection management of production. Further, maintaining agriculture activity in less favoured areas (measures 211 and 212) may have some limited impacts in water.

To the contrary, there are several measures under the RDP which are promoting increased agriculture and forest productivity without safeguarding mechanisms to prevent an increase of water pollutants, e.g. the sub-measure enterprise modernisation and capacity building promotes modernisation and increased competitiveness of companies through financing the purchase or lease-purchase of new machinery and equipment (that could be used to buy sprayers for plant protection or fertilisation), without giving priority to projects that are environmentally sustainable.

The RDP report is poor in indicators to measure water quality (nutrient or plant protection chemicals water-loading) and it does not provide information about how they will be monitored (i.e. how many times during the programme period the assessment will be done).

Conclusions and options for further improvements of the RD as regards to water

The Portuguese mainland RDP identifies water quantity as the main water problem. The strategy to mitigate droughts therefore has its focus in particular in the mitigation of droughts. This decision resulted in an unbalanced distribution of public funding to Portuguese farmers. For instance, one very small area in the Alqueva region receives, at least, 12% of the total public funding in order to establish a new mega irrigation project. It remains unclear how this new project will be handled under the objectives of the WFD. A revision of the programme should address this in more details and should also promote safeguard mechanisms to address the potential impacts of intensification in the area surrounding the Alqueva (e.g. promoting organic farming, limiting the construction of golf camps and promoting a sustainable tourism industry).

The RDP strategy aims to reduce water consumption through prioritising a selection of agriculture activities, which are categorised as less water demanding: olive groves, fruits, flowers and vegetables. This would however put at a disadvantage extensive pig production in the Montados, which probably consists of a more water efficient product than intensive monoculture of olives, flowers or vegetable. Further funding is provided to increase irrigation efficiency, but the funds are relatively small related to the extent of problem. A revision of the RDP should include a more detailed assessment of the measures provided in effective water saving and in the allocation of funding.

There are no special references to the problem of nitrate excess regarding the impact of agriculture on water quality (nitrate directive). Nitrogen excess is considered to be below the EU Average. But there are regions e.g. Leiria and Santarem where intensification and industrialisation of rural areas have lead to exceed nitrate pollution, but the report fails to provide a consistent programme to address the issue in these areas. A revision should therefore include measures allowing to address more specifically specific regional problems.