The Comon Agricultural Policy (CAP) and agroforestry systems in the European Union

T ESE DE D OUTORAMENTO The Comon Agricultural Policy (CAP) and agroforestry systems in the European Union José Javier Santiago Freijanes ESCOLA DE DOUTORAMENTO INTERNACIONAL PROGRAMA DE DOUTORAMENTO EN HISTORIA, XEOGRAFÍA E HISTORIA DA ARTE SANTIAGO DE COMPOSTELA / LUGO 2020 DECLARACIÓN DO AUTOR/A DA TESE La Política Agrícola Común (PAC) y los sistemas agrofestales en la Unión Europea D./Dna. José Javier Santiago Freijanes. Presento a miña tese, seguindo o procedemento axeitado ao Regulamento, e declaro que: 1) A tese abarca os resultados da elaboración do meu traballo. 2) De selo caso, na tese faise referencia ás colaboracións que tivo este traballo. 3) A tese é a versión definitiva presentada para a súa defensa e coincide coa versión enviada en formato electrónico. 4) Confirmo que a tese non incorre en ningún tipo de plaxio doutros autores nin de traballos presentados por min para a obtención doutros títulos. En Lugo, maio de 2020 Asdo José Javier Santiago Freijanes  AUTORIZACIÓN DO DIRECTOR / TITORDATESE La Política Agrícola Común (PAC) y los sistemas agrofestales en la Unión Europea D.JoséAntonioAldreyVázquez D.AntonioRigueiroRodríguez  INFORMAN:  Queapresentetese,correspóndesecotraballorealizadoporD .J oséJavierSantiagoFreijanes, baixoanosadirección,ea utorizamos asúa presentación ,considerando quereúne os r equisitos esixidosnoR egulamento de Estudosde DoutoramentodaUSC, e que comodirectordesta  nonincorrenascausas de abstenciónestablecidas naLei 40/2015.  Deacordocoartigo41doRegulamentodeEstudosdeDoutoramento,declarataménquea presente tese de doutoramento é idónea para ser defendida en base á modalidade de COMPENDIODEPUBLICACIÓNS ,nosqueaparticipacióndo/adoutorando/afoidecisiva paraasúaelaboración. A utilización destes artigos nesta memoria, está en coñecemento dos coautores, tantodoutorescomonondoutores.Ademais,estesúltimosteñencoñecementode queningúndostraballosaquíreunidospoderáserpresentadoenningunhaoutra tesededoutoramento.  EnSantiagodemaiode2020      Asdo.D.JoséAntonioAldreyVázquez EnLugo,maiode2020       Asdo. D. AntonioRigueiroRodríguez    Memoria realizada na Escola de Doutoramento Internacional (EDIUS) dentro do Programa de Doutoramento en Historia, Xeografía e Historia da Arte e como parte dos proxectos AGFORWARD e AFINET (financiados pola UE cos contratos N°613520 do 7º programa marco e 727872 do H2020, respectivamente) , baixo a dirección dos profesores Dr. José Antonio Aldrey Vázquez e o Dr. Antonio Rigueiro Rodríguez, para obter o Grao de Doutor pola Universidade de Santiago de Compostela. A ELENA E CARMEN Contan que había un libro cuxa dedicatoria dicía “Aos meus queridos fillos cuxa contribución evitou que este libro teña saído antes”. Eu non podo dicir o mesmo. Grazas. xvii Abstract This doctoral thesis studies agroforestry systems (SAF), a deliberate join of woody vegetation with annual and/or grassy crops. First, it assesses the main global policies that indicate that SAFs should be promoted and then addresses the characterization of different agroforestry practices at European level both in general and in the characterization of the use of linear woody structures. Finally, the thesis focuses on the study through maps of how the main Rural Development Regulations promote SAFs in Europe. The importance of agroforestry systems in the management of the territory can be analysed from a productive point of view by assessing the contributions of woody vegetation in fertilization. Woody vegetation also helps to temper the microclimate of its habitat and protects the soil from erosion. From an environmental point of view, SAFs improve the use of solar radiation and increase organic matter in the soil, resulting in greater biodiversity and the amenity of the landscape. The latter interacts with the social importance of the SAF, being a source of mobilization of rural tourism, on the other hand, the diversity of products obtained and the reduced dependence on external inputs (fertilizers and feed) contributes to the fixation of the population in the rural environment. SAFs have a higher extent in tropical areas than in temperate areas. The intensification of agriculture over the past century led to its drastic reduction. His political promotion is hampered by a lack of knowledge of its actual extent. At European level we have two data sources, the Corine Land Cover, which has a clearly undervalued extension, concentrated in southern Europe and especially in the Iberian Peninsula and LUCAS, exclusively from the European Union which provides two coverages and two uses, together with other data, for each point visited. Keywords Climate; Eco-intensify; Common Agrarian Policy (CAP); Agroforestry Systems; Land Use xix CONTENTS Introduction .......................................................................................... 1 1 Agroforestry systems .................................................................. 1 1.1 Definition................................................................................ 1 1.2 Practices and systems ............................................................. 3 2 Importance of agroforestry systems in the management of the territory ................................................................................................. 6 2.1 Productive importance of agroforestry systems ..................... 6 2.2 Environmental importance of agroforestry systems .............. 9 2.3 Social importance of agroforestry systems .......................... 11 3 Promotion of agroforestry systems through politics ................. 11 4 Agroforestry systems promote using geography ...................... 14 4.1 Policy geography .................................................................. 15 4.2 Agroforestry and geography ................................................. 16 4.3 Corine Land Cover ............................................................... 17 4.4 LUCAS ................................................................................. 18 5 Methodological considerations ................................................. 19 JOSÉ JAVIER SANTIAGO FREIJANES xx Objectives............................................................................................ 23 Results: publications assembled in this PhD ....................................... 25 General discussion .............................................................................. 81 Conclusions ......................................................................................... 97 Bibliography...................................................................................... 100 Index.................................................................................................. 120 General index ................................................................................. 120 Tables ............................................................................................. 120 Figures............................................................................................ 120 ANEXO: RESUMEN EN CASTELLANO ................................................. 121 La Política Agrícola Común (PAC) y los sistemas agrofestales en la Unión Europea ..................................................................... 121 1 Introducción ............................................................................. 122 2 Objetivos ............................................................................... 122 3 Métodos y resultados .......................................................... 123 3.1 Políticas mundiales y europeas para fomentar la sostenibilidad agrícola: agroforestería .................................... 123 3.2 La agroforestería como instrumento de ordenación política de la tierra para combatir el cambio climático y la promoción de algunas de sus prácticas políticas como características del paisaje ........................................................... 126 3.3 La política y el desarrollo agroforestal en Europa . 133 4 Conclusiones ......................................................................... 135 1 INTRODUCTION 1 Agroforestry systems 1.1 Definition Agroforestry (AF) is defined as the deliberate integration of a woody component with agricultural production in the understory in the same unit of land, being one of the most worldwide powerful tools to mitigate and adapt agricultural and forestry systems to climate change and comply directly or indirectly with the Sustainable Development Goals indicated by FAO (2013) (Figure 1). Figure 1. Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations 2018). Although there is a generalized recognition that agroforestry practices are types of sustainable land management that must be promoted at the political level (FAO, 2013), the main problem for the promotion of AFS is their identification at a territorial scale, because they are a type of use in different types of land cover. JOSÉ JAVIER SANTIAGO FREIJANES 2 CAP objectives Agroforestry Contribution Contribution to climate change mitigation and adaptation, and sustainable energy development. Agroforestry is a powerful tool for mitigating and adapting farms to climate change while providing biomass as renewable energy source. Promotion sustainable development and efficient use of natural resources such as water soil and air. Agroforestry increases the biomass production per unit of land due to the better use of radiation and the increase of nutrient recycling through the uptake, of the excess of nutrients applied with fertilizers, from the below to the upper strata of the soil, improving water quality and soil health. Contribution to biodiversity protection, promoting ecosystem services and preserving habitats and landscape. Agroforestry is able to protect and increase biodiversity thanks to the heterogeneity it creates, but it also promotes provision, ecological and cultural ecosystem services thanks, for example, to the use of indigenous breeds and the corridors it generates among habitats and landscapes. Promotion of the farm economic viability and resilience and food security. Optimizing the use of farm resources and promoting multiple product delivery increasing the profitability of farms and promoting food security. Promotion of agriculture orientation towards markets, increase competitiveness including a greater focus on research, technology, and digitization. Digitization promotion linked to research promoted by farmers through innovation to implement AFS, which encourages the competitiveness of farms through the provision of multiple products from the same territorial unit associated with new market opportunities at the local level. Improvement farmers' position in the value chain. Increasing farm-provided products allows farmers to have a better position along the value chain and be more resilient to market and climate changes. Attracting young farmers and facilitating business development in rural areas AFS are complex requiring highly educated young people able to have business opportunity and develop rural areas. Table 1. Agroforestry Contribution to the objectives of the CAP From a policy and European point of view, the main uses of AF practices must be linked to the territorial units receiving Common Introduction 3 Agricultural Policy (CAP) payments: arable, permanent grassland and permanent crops areas as agricultural linked to direct payments in the CAP (Pillar I) and forest areas linked to rural development payments (Pilar II). How agroforestry practices meet the recent objectives of the CAP (Table 1) linked to the Global Sustainability Goals can be seen in Figure 1. That is why this PhD these is primarily focused on evaluation of the main global policies that indicate that AFS should be promoted (Santiago-Freijanes et al. 2018) and then addresses the characterization of different agroforestry practices at European level both in general (Mosquera-Losada et al. 2018) and in the characterization of the use of linear woody structures (Santiago-Freijanes, et al. 2018). Finally, the thesis focuses on the study through the mapping of how the main Rural Development Regulations promote AFSs in Europe (Santiago-Freijanes et al. 2018). 1.2 Practices and systems There are several categories of agroforestry practices identified around the world and Europe (den Herder et al. 2015, 2016; MosqueraLosada et al.,2009, 2016c,), these include silvopasture, silvoarable, riparian buffer strips, homegardens with woody components and forest farming linked to the production of non-wood forest products (Table 2). Many of these practices can be combined into the same farm and may even have their importance at landscape level such as the use of wooded pastures and the trashumance or trastermintance of livestock from lowlands to highlands, with the aim of feeding the livestock during different period of the year. The main characteristic of these systems is the incorporation of a woody component on those farms exclusively agricultural or the agricultural use of areas dominated by a forest or fruit (perennial crops) trees or shrubs, either for maintenance or to increase income through the diversification of production. That is why we can talk about agro-silvo-pastoral systems, where woody perennials are JOSÉ JAVIER SANTIAGO FREIJANES 4 combined with the cultivation of cereals or pastures. Sometimes the woody perennials can be "multipurpose trees" such as oaklands, which allow owners to overcome the lack of forage to feed their herds during the shortage periods such as autumn and which are linked to obtaining high quality products (ex. Acorns in the the dehesa system). All AF practices are able to provide benefits from the interactive combination of trees and/or shrubs with crops and/or livestock and offer landowners and land managers the opportunity to create an integrated system of use of the territory (Lundgren et al. 1983; Leakey, 1996). The characterization of this land use becomes essential to, first, have a level of reference when implementing policies and, secondly, to assess the policy impact to increase AF use at land level financed by the CAP in arable, permanent pastures and permanent crops areas. Table 3 shows how the different agroforestry practices are based on the different types of land use defined for the payment of the CAP by the European Commission. Introduction 5 Agroforestry practice Description Silvopasture Combining woody with forage and animal production. It comprises forest or woodland grazing and pastoral land with hedgerows, isolated/scattered trees or trees in lines or belts Homegardens or kitchen gardens Combining trees/shrubs with vegetable production in periurban and urban areas, also known as part of “trees outside the forest” Riparian buffer strips Strips of perennial vegetation (trees/shrubs) natural or planted between croplands/pastures and water sources such as streams, lakes, wetlands, and ponds to protect water quality. They can be recognized as silvoarable) or silvopasture but are signified by its role in preserving water streams Silvoarable Widely spaced woody vegetation intercropped with annual or perennial crops. Also known as alley cropping. Trees/shrubs can be distributed following an alley cropping, isolated/scattered trees, hedges and line belts design Forest farming Forested areas used for harvesting of natural standing speciality crops for medicinal, ornamental or culinary uses. Table 2. Glossary of terms most linked to AFSs in Europe (Adapted from Nair, 1994; AFTA, 1997; Alavalapati et al. 2001, 2004; Eichhorn et al.,2006; MosqueraLosada et al. 2009). JOSÉ JAVIER SANTIAGO FREIJANES 12 consequence of the intensification of agricultural systems in the last century, which also promoted the lack of integration of forest and agricultural land, based on policies that were not appropriate to promote agroforestry practices. Only recently, this type of land use has been recognized in developed countries aiming at to Eco-inten in the context of the production of the land allowing agricultural systems to optimize the use of resources and the delivery of more ecosystem services (Haines Young et al. 2012). The United States has established an agroforestry strategy establishing clear agroforestry practices (USDA 2011; 2013) while the European Union has included measure 222 in the 2007-2013 CAP, which has been extended in the current CAP period through the sub-measure 8.2 (Mosquera-Losada and Nair, 2016). AF has been one of the most common land-use practices worldwide (den Herder et al. 2017), as these integrated systems have characterized European rural landscapes until the introduction and adoption in recent decades of modern agricultural practices on a large scale. Previously, woody vegetation was deliberately retained or included in land cultivated or grazed by European farmers, as it traditionally served various purposes in the agricultural economy through its multiple productions and environmental benefits (Nair, 1994; Eichhorn et al. 2006; Rigueiro-Rodríguez et al. 2009; Mosquera-Losada et al. 2016). The intensive agricultural systems promotion, which in recent decades of the last century spread throughout the developed world is, today, the cause of many environmental problems, as well as the degradation of agricultural ecosystems linked to the loss of some ecological traits, such as the presence of the woody component (Mosquera-Losada et al.2009; FAO 2010; 2013). Intensive agricultural systems are mainly based on the use of external inputs into the systems that generally come from out of the farm (e.g. fertilizers such as phosphorus) or are artificially created (nitrogen).). These external inputs cause a huge carbon footprint, because of the energy consumption which is necessary for their industrial synthesis and for Introduction 13 the needed transport from their point of origin to the plots where they are applied. Agricultural and forestry systems are currently intended to provide as many ecosystem services as possible, including those linked to ecosystem provision, regulation and cultural services declared by the Common Nomenclature of Ecosystem Services called CICES (HainesYoung, 2016). The provision of ecosystem services relates to the provision of peer food to growing global population, considering sustainability to enable future human generations to meet their needs (FAO 1989; 2014). In addition, for many years the role of ecological processes in agricultural sustainability (Swift et al. 1994), has been studied, and its importance for the future of world agriculture is well recognized (Tscharntke et al. 2012). Therefore, cultivation systems should cease to be intensive and become extensive or rather ecointensive, i.e. the use of external inputs must be reduced and the efficient use of available resources should be achieved based on existing biodiversity (Rois-Díaz et al., 2006; Rigueiro-Rodríguez et al. 2010; Leakey, 2014; Gross, 2016). Recently many of these intensive systems are declining, showing a great vulnerability to changes in disturbance regimes, such as fires and droughts (Acácio et al. 2009; Guiomar et al. 2015; Paulo, Pereira and Tomé, 2017) and pests and diseases (Gibbons et al. 2008; Hansen, 2015; Tiberi et al. 2016), noting that the progressive loss of trees in agricultural landscapes is being a global negative pattern. All this ensures that agroforestry practices can improve the sustainability of agricultural systems and can, for example, mitigate emissions from the agricultural sector (Paolotti et al. 2016). That is why the forthcoming EU commitments expressed in the Second Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol and the commitments at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris in 2015 include agroforestry practices within the framework of carbon land and land use accounting (LULUCF) (Mosquera-Losada et al. 2016). JOSÉ JAVIER SANTIAGO FREIJANES 14 4 Agroforestry systems promote using geography The conclusions of a recent study under the AFINET project, involving more than 900 farmers from 9 European countries, highlight that the implementation of agroforestry requires four major challenges to be overcome: Technological: Technological knowledge must be a reality, which on the one hand, indicate which are the best combinations (agricultural crops, grassland, tree or shrub woody species, animal kinds..) in the agroforestry practices establishment framework, and at what point these changes should change considering the alteration of the habitat generated by the development of woody species, trees especially (shadow) and adaptation to specific local conditions. Economic: Farmers point out that it is very important to develop business plans allowing them to compare the current conventional management models with the agroforestry management model, assess advantages and disadvantages and, above all, improve the possibilities offered by the market through the bioeconomy. Education and Communication: Participants noted that it is very important that farmers are trained for agroforestry techniques use, but that it is also important for society as a whole to understand that sustainable and environmentally friendly agriculture is created with such systems. The awareness of society in relation to these systems should be based on their presence in the programs at all levels of education, from kinder gardens to university, and the dissemination and communication in relation to them must reach society in general. Policies: Through the design of appropriate policies that promote the AF use in Europe. The Spanish academy “Real Academia Española de la Lengua” defines geography as a science dealing with the description of the land, and policy geography, understood as the part of geography that deals with the distribution and organization of the Earth as a dwelling of the humanity, two are the main aspects to which these branches of Introduction 15 knowledge and science can contribute to promote the use of AF in the European territory: Firstly, the physical and up-to-date description of the different AFS in Europe and secondly the evaluation of the different international, European and national policies that promote the use of different primer agroforestry practices in the European territory, aspect fully addressed within the geopolitical discipline (López Trigal, 2015). 4.1 Policy geography The promotion of agroforestry policy is not easy for several reasons (Rois-Díaz et al.,2006; FAO, 2013), such as the lack of knowledge about the combinations of woody and agricultural components adapted to the specific conditions of a particular place, but also due to the inertia of the intensification of most agricultural practices carried out by farmers. This is why different NGOs and international organizations, in which farmers and researchers work together, initiated movements around the world trying to highlight the important role that AF must play as a form of multipurpose system based on ecointensification (i.e. optimizing the use of resources to provide more products). These NGOs are the ICRAF or World Agroforestry Centre (http://www.worldagroforestry.org/), operating mainly in tropical countries, the AFTA (Association for Temperate Agroforestry) (http://www.aftaweb.org/) that associates the countries of North America (Mexico, USA and Canada), or EURAF (European Agroforestry Federation) http://www.eurafagroforestry.eu/), involving 17 European countries. AF is also part of an excellent Tool for lessintensive agricultural systems (EIP-AGRI, 2016), such as ecological agriculture, the agroecology (Leakey 2014) and permaculture (Ferguson et al. 2014), or in those who the use of the tree canopy can increase fertility or extend the grazing season for livestock feeding in order to reduce the need external inputs (concentrates), between other aspects. These movements are the origin of the recent National AF strategies trying to promote AF in different countries. This has happened on several continents of the world, and in countries as United States (USDA, 2011, 2013, 2019), India (India government, 2014), Mexico (CONAFOR, 2012) and France (Ministère de l'Agriculture, 2015). These Strategies are based on global policies which, in the case JOSÉ JAVIER SANTIAGO FREIJANES 16 of Europe, are subsequently integrated into pan-European strategies based on which is built the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). It is because the European Commission has also included AF as a practice in the CAP, as a main tool to support farmers in the 28 countries of the European Union. Some policy funds are focussed focuses on the agriculture activity itself while other are more focussed on the environment, forestry or the sustainable development. The CAP is the main driver of the agricultural farming in Europe. CAP payments were based in the past to produce more (coupled measures), while today they are mostly associated to land use (decoupled measures). The CAP is Structured in two Axes Main: the Pillar I linked to direct payments to different types of land use (arable area, permanent grasslands and permanent crops) and the Pillar II currently associated with the 118 Rural development programmes of the CAP, in which the different Regions Europe establish concrete measures to management of the territory linked to practices such as agroforestry, which in many cases are not recognized as such, but there is a clear promotion of them. It is because it is necessary to carry out an evaluation of all the Europeans rural Development Programs (RDP) who have had territorial payment base and that Include 2007-2013 CAP (88 RDP) and current CAP 2014-2020 (118 RDP). 4.2 Agroforestry and geography The New CAP aims to foster sustainability in Europe. The farming practices payments will be linked to compliance of a series of economic, environment and social objectives to which agroforestry practices can contribute. The knowledge of the current distribution and the evolution of agroforestry practices and policies in the last CAPs is essential to associate the benefits of the agroforestry practices to CAP payments based on results. Therefore, it is needed an objective estimation of geographical scope and distribution of these types of agroforestry practices in Europe, which, at the end, is crucial for the development of policy support and also for the evaluation of their impact. Policies must base their implementation on an analysis DAFO to establish the current situation (area included) and the situation aiming at being achieved. Despite AF is present in the most part of the EU Introduction 17 territory, it is difficult to find reliable data on their global extent (Zomer et al. 2009) as also happens in Europe. The estimates on the extension of AF depend a lot on the AF definition, the scale, the spatial resolution of available data and the kind of analysis. Zomer et al. (2014) tried to estimate the overall area of Agroforestry and designates that AF occupies approximately 48% of the all agricultural land in Europe (it is say, around 113.5 million ha) considering lands that have at least a 10% of tree cover, but their estimates are vague because the land agricultural use is not clearly established. The lack of European data, together with a restricted definition of agroforestry systems, has led in the past to the mistaken consideration that agroforestry systems are not important in the European context and, in turn, that they are not taken into consideration in political decisions on land use and the environment (Rigueiro-Rodríguez et al. 2009).This issue can be better addressed if an estimate of the objective extension agroforestry Europe is provided, which is especially important in the current context, where AF have been recently highlighted as a sustainable practice, not only in research, but also in agricultural and political circles. This grew up interest comes from the increasing tests that highlights the the benefits AF provides from an environmental (Palma, Graves, Bunce, et al. 2007; Reisner et al. 2007; Palma, Graves, Burgess, et al. 2007; Rigueiro-Rodríguez et al. 2009; Cardinael et al. 2015; Andrianarisoa et al. 2016), social and economic (Graves) et al. 2007; Glover et al. 2013; Mercer et al. 2014; Rancane et al. 2014). Therefore, this PhD aims at carrying out an analysis of the main sources data (Corine Land Cover and LUCAS) that may allow us quantify the extent of AF in Europe. In this PhD, it is interesting to show two main aspects, firstly the agroforestry use categorization linked to arable land, permanent pasture and permanent crop and secondly the land features identification because their importance in Pillar I conditionality and greening, and in relation with Pillar II rural development regulation within the 2014-2020 CAP but also in the former CAP (2007-2013). 4.3 Corine Land Cover In Europe, there is a land cover classification system that is the Corine Land Cover (CLC) (EEA, 1985), which includes the class "agroforestry". According to this database (CLC), AF represents about JOSÉ JAVIER SANTIAGO FREIJANES 18 3.3 million hectares in Europe, mainly located in Spain, Portugal, and Italy, with some much smaller areas in France and Austria. However, previous studies, based on literature review, have documented a greater extension of agroforestry practices in Europe (Herzog, 1998; Eichhorn et al. 2006; Bergmeier et al. 2010; Plieninger et al. 2015) and make clear that the “agroforestry class” of the CLC database underestimates the agroforestry area. AF was recorded by CLC only in regions where AF is the predominant land use. 4.4 LUCAS Agroforestry systems can be classified in different ways, for example based on components, products, agroecological zones and socio-economic groupings (Nair, 1993; Sinclair, 1999; MosqueraLosada et al. 2009). For any attempt to map agroforestry, clear boundaries are first needed to clearly define the boundaries about what is and what not agroforestry is. In this PhD assessment, the AF linked to agriculture and landscape has been stratified according to the main agricultural component (annual crop, permanent pasture, and livestock) and the woody component (forest trees and fruit trees and permanent crops). Based on this initial classification, den Herder et al. (2017) classify agroforestry systems into three main categories: arable agroforestry, livestock agroforestry and high value tree agroforestry, all with subcategories (Burgess et al. 2015). The aim was to provide a systematic estimate of the current extent and geographical distribution of these types of agroforestry in the European Union at country level, based on land use statistics and land cover data (EUROSTAT, 2015). However, these authors do not include the woody shrub component, which is recognised by FAO as a key component of agroforestry in the same way than trees in the definition of agroforestry (FAO, 2015a). Agroforestry practices, defined as the combination of a woody component (forest tree, shrub, fruit tree) with an agricultural use of the understory, are difficult to identify based on geographic identification systems, since most categories are based on land cover, but not on land use. LUCAS (den Herder et al. 2017) solves this problem by integrating two covers and two uses in the data collection, along with other aspects such as the presence or absence of evidence of grazing (Land Management field). This allows, for example, the recognition of Introduction 19 agroforestry practices such as the combination of trees (or shrubs) with agricultural crops (both annuals -Silvoarableand non-annuals, combination of olive trees with vineyards, for example). The LUCAS survey approach facilitates the development of an inventory of agroforestry practices linked to the presence of perennial woody trees combined with an agricultural activity in the undergrowth, which will help policy makers to understand and establish the baseline situation of agroforestry practices (e.g. isolated trees and live hedges) associated with agricultural activities across Europe. This methodology is essential to understand how to set up policies and how to develop appropriate policies, as well as to assess their impacts. Den Herder et al. (2017) made the first serious attempt to categorize the scope of agroforestry systems by country in Europe, based on the use of LUCAS (Land Use and Cover Statistical Survey), and considering the previous definition of agroforestry under the CAP 2007-2013 (land use systems where trees are grown in combination with agriculture on the same land), but not the new definition derived from the development of Measure 8.2 of Regulation 1305/2013(EU, 2013c), which defines agroforestry systems as a land use systems and practices where perennial woody plants are deliberately integrated with crops and/or animals on the same plot of land management units. 5 Methodological considerations As this PhD is done by “publications compendium” we present the concrete methodology followed up in each paper that can be found in each of the four chapters of section 3 (Results) where the current publication is presented. For that reason, we do not include a specific section dedicated to methodology, but we describe here a general overview about what has been done. This PhD is structured in four big sections, dealing with the main results found when (i) global policies are described, (ii) current extent of agroforestry and (iii) linear agroforestry practices and finally the analysis of the promotion of AF in the previous (2007-2013) and current CAP (2014-2020) Chapter 1 of the result section of the PhD is a study of the different strategies that international organizations such as the UN, PanEuropean institutions as well as the Council of Europe and also the JOSÉ JAVIER SANTIAGO FREIJANES 20 European Union affecting the development of agroforestry practices and systems in Europe with the specific aim of analysing the definitions of AF, the policy promotion through strategies in order to identify the main reasons behind for AF promotion and provide insights for the future development of European regulations. In addition, chapters 2 and 3 will be discussing the extent of agroforestry by using data from LUCAS (Eurostat, 2012), together with QGIS and LibreOffice Calc. LUCAS stands for Land Use and Occupancy Survey is carried out in several steps every three years on the territory of the EU (with the exception of the overseas regions and the Macaronesian archipelagos). In a first step, more than one million points are selected throughout Europe, with a regular grid of 2 km on each side. Each point is classified attending to one out of the seven defined LUCAS covers. In a second step, several points are selected, which were 330,000 in 2018 but only 270,000 in the 2012, being the main difference among the two surveys the incorporation of Croatia into the EU. In a third and final step, a team of surveyors go to these last points to take data on uses and coverage, among others, and also to take five photographs of the point (point itself and pictures following the four cardinal points). The result is a database based on covers (LC1 and LC2) and uses (LU1 and LU2) but also on land management (LAND_MNGT). As it turns out that LC1 refers to the highest cover, we have verified that woody vegetation, whether permanent crops, forest trees or shrubs, in LC1 combined with annual crops or with vineyards in LC2 indicates that a silvoarable practice is carried out. Combined with grasses in LC2 or with evidence of grazing in the field of land management indicates that silvopasture agroforestry practice is taking place. This is also indicated by the coverage in LC1 or LC2 with the code for grasses with trees or shrubs scattered (E10) regardless of the combination they may have. With regard to “use” database columns, they indicate the presence of homegardens (U113) in both LU1 and LU2. In addition to the observations made at each point visited, in order to be able to map linear elements associated to linear AF practices, the interviewers carry out a 250 m transect from the point in the east, in Introduction 21 which changes in coverage are noted. To the alphanumeric codes of LC1 and LC2 they add others, exclusively numerical, to refer to linear elements such as herbaceous bands, roads, electrical lines, channels and of course those referring to isolated trees and rows of trees, which are the ones used in the third chapter of the results section of this PhD. These observations are recorded in a set of 80 columns. At each point we have counted the repetitions of the elements object of our study, which are 10 isolated trees, 11 rows of trees, 12 coniferous hedges, 13 hedges with some evidence of management such as pruning and 14 hedges without evidence of management. In addition to listing the covers, few points throughout Europe (1283 out of 270,000) where analysed by measuring their length linked to the before mentioned transect, which allows us to estimate an average dimension for each of the elements and from this give it a dimension in each NUT linked to each RDP and throughout the EU. To analyse the riparian strips linked to AF practices, we established them automatically by developing a set of algorithms created to locate the lines of trees that were in contact with the bodies and watercourses, to later count and dimension them in the same way as we mentioned before for the linear AF practices. On the other hand, we have to note that there are no data available to identify or map the amount of land dedicated to cultivated forests, this fact makes it difficult to assess the impact of policies on these practices. In summary, the global structure of this PhD is primarily focused on the evaluation of the main global policies that indicate that AF should be promoted (Santiago-Freijanes et al. 2018), secondly on the characterization of different agroforestry practices at European level both in general (Mosquera-Losada et al. 2018) and in the characterization of the use of linear woody structures (SantiagoFreijanes, et al. 2018) as part of AF practices. Finally, the PhD focuses on the study through the mapping of how the main Rural Development Programmes promote AF in Europe (Santiago-Freijanes et al. 2018). JOSÉ JAVIER SANTIAGO FREIJANES 82 cases differentiates Eastern and Western Europe. It is worth commenting on these differences between Western and Eastern European countries, since, on the one hand, their history is differentiated with a strong influence of collective work in agriculture in Eastern countries that did not affect most of Western European countries, and, on the other hand, the late entry of Eastern countries as members of the European Union means that they do not base CAP payments on historical payments and are therefore currently more equitable. In Europe, there has been a clear historical differentiation in the evolution of policies associated with agroforestry practices between the countries of the East and the West, although in both areas there has been a deterioration and reduction in the presence of agroforestry systems. However, the great environmental and productive problems in the countries of the East have led to their reestablishment in the last century (the wooded belts of Hungary are an example) through policies that facilitate their implementation. Western and Eastern European policies related to the introduction of trees were very different until they were integrated into the common European space and this affects the impact of current and future policies related to land use in different countries. For example, more than 50% of the forests in the Eastern European Union countries are publicly owned, except for Slovenia (29.8%) (European Commission, 2003). In contrast, in Western countries, forest land is mostly privately owned, apart from Germany (53.6 per cent public ownership) and Greece (81.9 per cent). These realities affect the impact of the implementation of the CAP in Western and Eastern European countries since the maintenance of the implementation of forestry or agroforestry measures is not applied on public lands. Agricultural land in Eastern countries was traditionally managed through silvopastoralism in areas of fruit trees and forests. But collective farming and social reform after 1945 destroyed most of the agroforestry systems. However, agriculture in some areas of the Eastern countries was less resistant to the negative impacts of modernization on land management and faced the problems caused by the strong winds that often hit these regions. This justifies that the emergence of national programs of agroforestry practices such as live hedges to ensure better General discussion 83 productivity of their land was earlier in Eastern Europe than in its western part, as was the case in Hungary, Bulgaria, Slovakia and the Czech Republic (Georgiev G, 1960; Takáczs et al. 2009; Krčmářová et al. 2017; Kachova et al. 2018). In the western part of Europe, CAP (1962) aimed at food selfsufficiency for the European Union, so most payments were focused on increasing production and not linked to land use, which clearly favoured intensified land use in this part of Europe. As important environmental problems related to biodiversity losses were observed at the level of the plots (losses of woody vegetation and its associated habitats and ecosystem services such as pollination) and the landscape (loss of woody vegetation such as hedges, woodlands or forests), some policy solutions to preserve the environment were provided, such as the establishment of payments linked to Less Favoured Areas (in 1975) and to fallow areas (in 1988), which favoured to some extent the preservation of woody vegetation. Finally, the European Commission especially recognized the lack of long-term sustainability of intensive agricultural practices, often based on monocultures, following international (FAO, UN, Millennium Development Goals, Global Research Alliance, Global Alliance for Climate-Smart Agriculture) and Pan-European policies. Set-aside was a pioneering scheme introduced by the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1988 (EEC, 1988) with the aim of (i) reducing the surpluses produced in Europe due to the implementation of the CAP and (ii) achieving environmental benefits through the promotion of measures such as the basic payment, in particular landscape features such as live hedges which can be linked to agroforestry practices. These measures allowed the growth of woody vegetation within these fallow plots and were seen as an effective way of improving the soil and increasing biodiversity, especially if set-aside on the land was allowed for a period longer than 5 years, promoting AF on a temporary scale. Subsequently, Regulation 2078/1992 (EEC, 1992a) sought to promote ecologically beneficial agricultural activities such as the conservation of isolated trees, the establishment of live hedges and the conservation of wild forest areas, which can be linked to agroforestry. JOSÉ JAVIER SANTIAGO FREIJANES 84 However, the establishment of agroforestry schemes was not specifically encouraged. The lack of an adequate inventory of these elements linked to the political promotion of the woody component led to little real recognition at farm and landscape scale, which is necessary for the promotion of agroforestry systems. Furthermore, the objective of a maximum density of 50 trees per hectare on arable land to be eligible for the direct payment associated with Pillar I of the CAP led to the destruction of many of these important landscape features. EEC Regulation 2080/92 (EEC, 1992b) provided support to partially finance the costs of afforestation of agricultural land, to maintain such areas, to improve existing forests and to compensate for income losses resulting from the change of use from agricultural to forest land use. The objectives of this Regulation were as follows: (i) accompany changes in the new rules of market organization, including the diversification of the agricultural activity and the promotion of afforestation as an alternative source of income. (ii) implement forms of rural management more compatible with environmental balance at the landscape level. (iii) promote afforestation as an alternative use of agricultural land. (iv) combat the "greenhouse effect" by the absorption of carbon dioxide by woody vegetation. (v) promote soil and water conservation. 1) The measure of afforestation of agricultural land, which can be considered as a first step for the implementation of agroforestry systems on arable land, made a significant contribution to rural development and was claimed to have a beneficial effect on the environment, controlling soil erosion, preventing desertification, conserving biodiversity, regulating the water regime and sequestering carbon. This conservation program was carried out mainly in agricultural areas associated with permanent pasture, and the species planted were mainly hardwoods to achieve quality wood growth and long-term yield. General discussion 85 Measures on Axis 2 of 36 (b) article of the Council Regulation (European Commission) 1698/2005 (EU, 2005) were 221, 222 and 223 which promoted tree planting and sustainable use of forest land, its expansion into agricultural and non-agricultural areas and the combination of extensive systems (agricultural and forestry). These three measures had different rules and the expected impact on biodiversity, climate change, soil preservation, water protection and landscape were also different. Measures 221 and 223 were differentiated by the type of land on which afforestation or reforestation of agriculture or forestry would take place, and also by the commitment of payments made by administrations under previous CAPs to compensate for the loss of income resulting from the cessation of agricultural activity. However, the maintenance of the activity after planting was not promoted, which meant that improvements such as thinning or pruning were not generally practiced. In the CAP 2014-2020 these two measures are combined under sub-measure 8.1 "Support for afforestation/forest creation". Measure 222 combined arable land with trees in Western countries, which was considered a way to promote agroforestry practices on agricultural lands, due to the high ecological and social value they have in these already intensified areas and with the aim of producing high quality wood and agricultural products. Agroforestry practices were also improved with measure 8.3 by considering forest grazing as a preventive tool against forest fires. Most beneficiaries established agroforestry practices in pastures and the most used tree species were the broadleaves. In the CAP 2014-2020, agroforestry is promoted with the sub-measure 8.2 (establishment and maintenance of agroforestry systems). If measure 222 (CAP 2007-2013) considered agroforestry as the combination of trees and crops on the same land, now measure 8.2 considers that it is the deliberate integration of woody plants with crops and/or animals on the same plot of land in the management unit, an important change to integrate those agroforestry systems associated to shrublands. The comparison between the RDPs of the two periods is difficult because the increase in the number of regions in which they apply from JOSÉ JAVIER SANTIAGO FREIJANES 86 the period 2007-2013 up to 2014-2020. Even though Hamburg is now considered to be fully urban, the incorporation of Croatia and the regionalization of France have resulted in an increase from 88 to 118 RDPs between 2007-2013 and 2014-2020 periods. This change in the number of RDPs is not new; the EU went from 15 states in the CAP in 1995 to 25 in 2004 and 27 in 2007. With regard to the implementation of agroforestry as part of forestry measures in the period 2007-2020, we noticed that while measures 221 and 223 were widely adopted, measure 222 had a rather limited application throughout the EU. Measure 221 was budgeted in 63 RDPs (out of a total of 88) and measure 223 in 33 RDPs, while measure 222 was only programmed in 11 RDPs (which would be 20 if France would have been already regionalized in the period 2007-2013). However, not all the administrations that programmed the measures implemented them: the 63 regions that programmed measure 221 implemented it, but measure 223 was implemented in only 30 regions instead in the budgeted 33, and measure 222 was implemented in only 5 regions out of the 11 RDP, which budgeted it. The comparison between the two periods depends on whether France is considered as one (RDP 2007-2013) or 30 (RDP 2014-2020) different RDP. Thus measure 8.1 is scheduled in 50 regions, which would be 46 if we considered France as one, while measure 8.2 appears in 33 RDPs, which would be 12 if there were only one French RDP. This means that measures related to afforestation and reforestation decreased (from 63 to 50), while those related to agroforestry increased (from 10 to 12, in the case of a single French region and from 11 to 33 with the regionalization of France), highlighting the importance of agroforestry for France. However, in the current RDP 2014-2020 a high number of regions have been found to implement sub-measure 8.2, mainly due to the administrative reasons mentioned above, but also due to the inclusion of woody species in general, not only trees, and the maintenance, which probably increased the adoption of agroforestry measure 8.2 in southern Europe, where the existence of agroforestry is really important (den Herder et al. 2015). General discussion 87 Politically defined agroforestry practices in Europe include silvopasture, silvoarable, hedgerows and riparian buffer strips, forest farming and homegardens (Mosquera-Losada, et al. 2016). Silvopasture practice can be also associated with forest grazing and permanent grasslands, while isolated trees can be linked to silvoarable AF practice. Hedges, including riparian protection strips, can be associated with silvopasture or silvoarable, as was the case with isolated trees and small stands. Most of the agroforestry practices of cultivated forests, riparian strips and small stands and hedges were also promoted by measures 221 and 222, while only Toscana promoted them with measure 223. Forest grazing was not promoted by any of the measures 221, 222 and 223 within the RDP 2007-2013. Sicilia and Marche used measures 221 and 222 to promote forest strips, hedges and isolated trees, the regions that used these measures to promote agroforestry. Finally, mainland France activated measures 221, 222 and 223, but the activities linked to them were not readily available during the period 2007-2013. The evaluation of the first year of CAP 2014-2020 shows that, out of the 16 administrations that have decided to activate sub-measure 8.2, only five have implemented it in the first year of RDP development (2016). It seems that there will be a clear increase to 33 in 2017. Silvopasture combined with fruit trees (so-called permanent crops), as well as mountain grazing, were mainly linked to activities 214 and 10.1 in the Rural Development Programmes for the period 2007-2013 and the first year 2014-2020, indicating that the ecosystem services they provide are more relevant for policy makers than the agroforestry activity itself. Half of the Rural Development programmes that applied the agroforestry measure 8.2 did so on agricultural land, which gives us an idea of the intention to link woody vegetation with agricultural lands, although agroforestry is a land use practice that can be implemented on agricultural or forest land. All the programs are directed to private owners, but they can also be directed to public organizations and municipalities. All rural development programmes provide funds to carry out activities, with the exception of the Valencia region, which allocated the budget to fulfil previous commitments. All programmes JOSÉ JAVIER SANTIAGO FREIJANES 88 support tree planting, while 75% support tree protection, and very few supported tasks of improvement and maintenance of the forestry component (pruning, clearing, mycorrhization, creation/maintenance of infrastructure, regeneration and diversification or densification). Sixty percent of the Rural Development Programmes declared five years as the period for maintenance payments (the maximum allowed by the European Commission). Seventy percent of the Programmes require a minimum tree density (around 50 trees per hectare), while 75% indicate the maximum tree density allowed (just over 450 trees per hectare). The range of the minimum tree density is between 30 and 200 trees per hectare, with the minimum values of the range being applied in all the French RDPs, which are more related to silvicultural practices, and the highest in Hungary, Scotland, Wales and Portugal, countries where silvicultural grazing is confirmed as the most important agroforestry practice. Arable crops are generally associated with higher radiation input requirements than grasslands (Pardini et al. 2010). Regarding the maximum allowed tree density, only two regions declare the maximum tree density allowed by the European Commission of 450 trees per hectare (Scotland and Asturias), while only seven Rural Development Programmes (all from France) ensure Pillar I payments (100 trees per hectare) with the tree planting density (90-100 trees per hectare). This means that in France they have to use highly productive species and genetically selected trees to guarantee the final production by cutting high quality trees (Dawson et al. 2014), since the low initial density decreases the selection capacity at the time of felling (Mosquera-Losada et al. 2006), but the rest of the countries have more trees to select those that will be cut at the end. With respect to the selected woody species, 11 (34%) RDPs propose combinations of trees and shrubs, creating a multi-species system, since it improves the delivery of ecosystem services, such as pollination, necessary for the successful production of arable and fruit crops (Potts et al. 2015). The three types of woody components (forest trees, fruit trees and shrubs) are mainly promoted in France. All of them allow conifers and hardwoods to be planted. Most conifers should be associated with marginal lands, due to their pioneering nature and the lower potential they have to improve soil fertility, so on arable land General discussion 89 indigenous hardwoods should be promoted if more ecosystem services are to be achieved (Howlett et al. 2011). Finally, 53% of the RDP that implement agroforestry link it to Natura 2000 sites, valuing the provision of ecosystem services that AF practices have. Finally, most of the RDP finance 80% of the activities of the agroforestry practices, which is sufficiently attractive to guarantee the participation of the farmer, who in some cases can even justify the co-financing with the payment of the time they spend in carrying out the activities. At the European level, the importance given to the ecosystem services that can be provided by agroforestry practices is now considerably highlighted. This is indicated by the prominence of woody vegetation in the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity, the European Climate Change Programme, the Bioeconomy Strategy, the European Forestry Strategy, and the Cork 2.0 declaration. However, and despite the recognition of agroforestry practices as forms of sustainable land management in the different policies and strategies, these are not implemented by farmers on a massive scale. This can be explained by the lack of knowledge of the systems and the current degree of implementation of the different forms of agroforestry in Europe. The promotion of agroforestry systems with adequate policies must be based on the knowledge of the existing surface of these practices in order to be able to develop governance mechanisms associated with CAP measures adapted to the different regions and also to be able to evaluate the impact of these mechanisms. Direct payments to farmers promoted by Pillar I of the CAP consist of a fixed amount for each unit of land that meets certain conditions (Mosquera-Losada, Santiago-Freijanes, Pisanelli, Rois-Díaz, et al. 2016), one of which establishes a limit of non-fruit trees, which went from 50 feet per hectare in the previous CAP (2007-2013) to 100 in 2014-2020. The definition of a forest tree only considers those with a crown diameter of more than four metres, i.e. adults, so it could be interpreted that the plantation may have a higher density than that admitted by Member states, with a view to making a selection of trees before they reach that size. However, the most common practice among the JOSÉ JAVIER SANTIAGO FREIJANES 90 Member States is not to make direct payments on agroforestry land with densities of more than 100 trees per hectare, regardless of their age, and therefore regardless of whether or not the tree exceeds that 4-metre crown diameter. This, in practice, is a brake on measures 222 and 8.2 where up to 400 trees per hectare are allowed. Based on the data from the Eurostat land use and coverage survey (LUCAS) we have designed a methodology that allows us to develp the inventory the different types of agroforestry practices, consisting of the combination of the two fields of coverage of these practices, identifying the agroforestry plots with a first layer of woody cover (trees or bushes) and a second layer associated with crops (silvoarable AF practice) or pastures (silvopasture AF practice), which is complemented by the use of the specific field of LUCAS that allows to verify evidence of grazing (den Herder et al. 2017). From the methodology used we have been able to verify that in Europe the total area occupied by agroforestry practices is around 19.77 million hectares, including some 2.66 million hectares of grazing associated to woody perennials and 1.8 million hectares of agroforestry homegardens (den Herder et al. 2017 and MosqueraLosada et al. 2018). Researchers from Herder et al. (2017) reviewed estimates of the extent of agroforestry practices in Europe which indicated the existence of 10.6 million hectares, while our estimate using LUCAS and following the definition of agroforestry from Herder et al. (2017) and ours is 15.4 million hectares, not including shrub grazing and homegardens, and 19.77 million hectares. The difference in these figures is partly due to the inclusion of new countries, such as Bulgaria (which contributes 0.9 million hectares) and others much smaller in the case of the use of LUCAS. But these inclusions only explain a small part of the difference. Thus in Spain the estimates using LUCAS account for a difference of 1.7 million hectares, while in France the difference is 1 million, in Romania 0.7 million and in Italy 0.4 million hectares, compared to the literature review (den Herder et al. 2017). One reason to explain these differences is the existence in these countries of a large amount of published information of an agroforestry nature focused on widespread traditional practices, such as the dehesas in Spain and the montados in Portugal, while other practices are included in the estimates from the LUCAS. In other cases, the limited General discussion 91 extension of traditional agroforestry practices means that few studies have been carried out and, consequently, the extension has been underestimated. It should be borne in mind that it was not possible to make a uniform calculation based on a single definition for the whole of the EU before the LUCAS database was compiled. All these aspects may justify the differences between the results found in the publications of this PhD and the bibliographic estimates (den Herder et al. 2017). The different definition of agroforestry practices has also contributed to these differences in the estimates of the quantitative data of the area dedicated to agroforestry practices in Europe between the data provided by den Herder et al. (2017) and those of this thesis, since den Herder et al. (2017) only took into account the integration of trees with crops and/or animals, while we started from the FAO definition, which includes all woody vegetation (i.e. trees and shrubs). We consider that the methodology used in this thesis, which allows determining the coverage of agroforestry practices in Europe, is of great relevance, since the database used has been updated frequently every three years, thus providing a very useful tool for monitoring and evaluating, on the one hand, the impact of the CAP, and on the other hand, for mapping the provision of ecosystem services and detecting vulnerable areas on which to act as a priority. About 90% of the 19.77 million hectares are linked to the silvopasture practice, traditional in Southern Europe, where livestock (goats, sheep, cows, pigs, in many cases of native species that can be raised in environments with summer drought and that constitute a genetic heritage that must be conserved) is able to feed itself based on the woody vegetation that provides these animals with food during the summer drought period (also reducing the danger of fire and the use of concentrates and associated costs) and also on fruits and herbaceous vegetation associated with the temporary extension of the grazing season thanks to the shade with which the trees reduce the negative effect of the drought during the periods of extreme heat under their canopy (Étienne, 1996; Papanastasis et al. 1999; Castro, 2009). Silvopasture associated to permanent crops (mainly fruit trees) has a huge potential, since it only accounts for about 10% of European permanent grasslands, ten times more than what is declared as JOSÉ JAVIER SANTIAGO FREIJANES 98 currently used and would be perfectly implemented favouring the transition towards more sustainable agricultural systems in Europe. Although they are found throughout Europe, agroforestry systems are mainly associated with Southern countries. Therefore, efforts should be made to promote the establishment of agroforestry practices in Northern countries and to promote their conservation and maintenance in the South. Landscape features are widely promoted by different measures in the RDP by the regional and state administrations of Europe. However, the lack of a clear categorization of these elements and their promotion in different parts of the CAP (Pillar I and Pillar II), as well as the lack of data on the expenditure of the different policy actions and promoting measures in these elements make difficult to assess the impact of them in the rural areas. This suggests the need for a European-wide standardized register of member states expenditure on each type of landscape, probably associated with the LPIS. Agroforestry promotion in the CAP is complex, as it is fostered in 25 different measures designed to promote five agroforestry practices. A simplification of the measures would facilitate the payment-related bureaucracy and its follow-up by the European Commission. 99 JOSÉ JAVIER SANTIAGO FREIJANES 100 BIBLIOGRAPHY Acácio, Vanda, Holmgren, Milena, Rego, Francisco, Moreira, Francisco y Mohren, Godefridus M. J. (2009), Are drought and wildfires turning Mediterranean cork oak forests into persistent shrublands? Agroforestry Systems, 76(2): 389-400. available at http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10457-008-9165-y [16 diciembre 2017]. AFTA (1997), The Status, Opportunities and Needs for Agroforestry in the United States - Google Books (M. L. Merwin, Ed.). AGFE (2018), Zonas con productos forestales no madereros | Agfe Agroforestry. available at http://agfeagroforestry.eu/que-es-unsistema-agroforestal/zonas-con-productos-forestales-no-madereros Alavalapati, Janaki, Nair, P.K. Ramachandran y Barkin, David (2001), Socioeconomic and Institutional Perspectives of Agroforestry, 71-83, en: Springer, Dordrecht. available at http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-94-010-0664-4_5 [13 junio 2018]. Alavalapati, Janaki R.R. y Mercer, Evan (Eds.) (2004), Valuing Agroforestry Systems. Advances in Agroforestry, vol 2. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. available at http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.464.9716&r ep=rep1&type=pdf [13 junio 2018]. Andrianarisoa, Kasaina Sitraka, Dufour, Lydie, Bienaimé, Séverine, Zeller, Bernd y Dupraz, Christian (2016), The introduction of hybrid walnut trees (Juglans nigra × regia cv. NG23) into cropland reduces soil mineral N content in autumn in southern France. Agroforestry Systems, 90(2): 193-205. available at http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10457-015-9845-3 [16 diciembre 2017]. Bergmeier, Erwin, Petermann, Jörg y Schröder, Eckhard (2010), Geobotanical survey of wood-pasture habitats in Europe: diversity, threats and conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19(11): 29953014. available at http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10531-010-9872-3 [16 diciembre 2017]. Brewbaker, James L. B (1987), Leucaena a multipurpose tree gunus for tropical agroforestry, 289-323, en: Steppler, H. A. y Nair, P. Bibliografía 101 K. R. (Eds.), Agroforestry a decade of development. Nairobi, Kenya: ICRAF. International Council for Research in Agroforestry. available at http://www.worldagroforestry.org/Units/Library/Books/Book 07/agroforestry a decade of development/html/5_leucaena.htm?n=27 [19 febrero 2019]. Bugalho, Miguel N., Caldeira, Maria C., Pereira, João S., Aronson, James y Pausas, Juli G. (2011), Mediterranean cork oak savannas require human use to sustain biodiversity and ecosystem services. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 9(5): 278-286. available at http://doi.wiley.com/10.1890/100084 [16 diciembre 2017]. Burgess, Paul J., Crous-Durán, Josep, den Herder, Michael, Dupraz, Christian, Fagerholm, Nora, Freese, D., Garnett, K., Graves, Anil R., Hermansen, J.E., Liagre, Fabien, Mirck, J., Moreno-Marcos, Gerardo, Mosquera-Losada, María Rosa, Palma, João Henrique Nunes, Pantera, Anastasia, Plieninger, Tobias y Upson, M. (2015), AGFORWARD Project Periodic Report: January to December 2014. available at http://www.agforward.eu/index.php/en/news-reader/id-27february-2015.html [16 diciembre 2017]. Cardinael, Rémi, Mao, Zhun, Prieto, Iván, Stokes, Alexia, Dupraz, Christian, Kim, John H. y Jourdan, Christophe (2015), Competition with winter crops induces deeper rooting of walnut trees in a Mediterranean alley cropping agroforestry system. Plant and Soil, 391(1-2): 219-235. available at http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11104-015-2422-8 [16 diciembre 2017]. Castro, M. (2009), Silvopastoral Systems in Portugal: Current Status and Future Prospects, 111-126, en: Agroforestry in Europe. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. available at http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-4020-8272-6_6 [14 junio 2019]. CEE (1988), REGLAMENTO (CEE) N° 1272/88 DE LA COMISIÓN de 29 de abril de 1988 por el que se establecen las normas de aplicación del régimen de ayudas desti nado a fomentar el abandono de tierras arables. COMISIÓN DE LAS COMUNIDADES EUROPEAS. available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- JOSÉ JAVIER SANTIAGO FREIJANES 102 content/ES/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31988R1272&from=EN [17 junio 2019]. CEE (1992a), REGLAMENTO (CEE) N° 2078 / 92 DEL CONSEJO de 30 de junio de 1992 sobre métodos de producción agraria compatibles con las exigencias de la protección del medio ambiente y la conservación del espacio natural. EL CONSEJO DE LAS COMUNIDADES EUROPEAS. available at https://eurlex.europa.eu/legalcontent/ES/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31992R2078&qid=15608428788 65&from=PT [18 junio 2019]. CEE (1992b), REGLAMENTO (CEE) N° 2080 / 92 DEL CONSEJO de 30 de junio de 1992 por el que se establece un régimen comunitario de ayudas a las medidas forestales en la agricultura. EL CONSEJO DE LAS COMUNIDADES EUROPEAS. available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/ES/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31992R2080&qid=15608482044 50&from=PT [18 junio 2019]. Comission european (2003), Sustainable forestry and the European Union — Initiatives of the European Commission. Luxembourg. available at http://europa.eu.int [14 junio 2019]. CONAFOR (2012), Estrategia Nacional de Agrosilvicultura (Versión preliminar). Zapopan, Jalisco. available at http://www.conafor.gob.mx:8080/documentos/docs/5/4151Estrategia Nacional de Agrosilvicultura.pdf [18 junio 2018]. Dawson, Ian K., Leakey, Roger, Clement, Charles R., Weber, John C., Cornelius, Jonathan P., Roshetko, James M., Vinceti, Barbara, Kalinganire, Antoine, Tchoundjeu, Zac, Masters, Eliot y Jamnadass, Ramni (2014), The management of tree genetic resources and the livelihoods of rural communities in the tropics: Non-timber forest products, smallholder agroforestry practices and tree commodity crops. Forest Ecology and Management, 333: 9-21. available at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037811271400023 1 [4 noviembre 2019]. Dawson, Ian K, Place, Frank, Torquebiau, Emmanuel, Malézieux, Eric, Iiyama, Miyuki, Sileshi, Gudeta W, Kehlenbeck, Katja, Masters, Eliot, Mcmullin, Stepha y Jamnadass, Ramni (2013), Agroforestry, Bibliografía 103 food and nutritional security. Background paper for the International Conference on Forests for Food Security and Nutrition. available at www.worldagroforestrycentre.org [19 febrero 2019]. DEFRA (1997), Hedgerow Regulation. available at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/1160/made Dupraz, Christian y Liagre, Fabien (2008), Agroforesterie, des arbres et des cultures. Editions France-Agricole. available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230675935_Agroforesterie_ des_arbres_et_des_cultures EEA (1985), CORINE Land Cover. available at https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/COR0-landcover [17 diciembre 2017]. Eichhorn, M. P., Paris, P., Herzog, Felix, Incoll, L. D., Liagre, Fabien, Mantzanas, Konstantinos, Mayus, M., Moreno-Marcos, Gerardo, Papanastasis, Vasilios P., Pilbeam, D. J., Pisanelli, Andrea y Dupraz, Christian (2006), Silvoarable systems in Europe - Past, present and future prospects. Agroforestry Systems, 67(1): 29-50. available at http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10457-005-1111-7 [13 junio 2018]. EIP-AGRI (2016), Profitability of permanent grassland. available at https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/sites/agrieip/files/eipagri_fg_permanent_grassland_final_report_2016_en.pdf [18 junio 2018]. Étienne, M (1996), Western European Silvopastoral Systems. Institut national de la recherche agronomique. available at https://books.google.es/books?id=A_l0QgAACAAJ EU (2005), REGLAMENTO (CE) n o 1698/2005 DEL CONSEJO de 20 de septiembre de 2005 relativo a la ayuda al desarrollo rural a través del Fondo Europeo Agrícola de Desarrollo Rural (FEADER. available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/ES/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32005R1698&from=ES [4 noviembre 2019]. EUROSTAT (2015), LUCAS - Land use and land cover survey - Statistics Explained. available at http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statisticsexplained/index.php/LUCAS_-_Land_use_and_land_cover_survey [16 diciembre 2017]. JOSÉ JAVIER SANTIAGO FREIJANES 104 FAO (1989), Sustainable development and natural resources managementle, , en: Twenty-Fifth Conference, Paper C 89/2 - Sup. 2. Roma: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAO (2010), «Climate-Smart» Agriculture. Policies, Practices and Financing for Food Security, Adaptation and Mitigation. Roma. available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1881e/i1881e00.pdf [19 junio 2018]. FAO (2013), Advancing Agroforestry on the Policy Agenda: A Guide for Decision-Makers (G. Buttoud, Ed.). Rome: FAO. available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3182e.pdf [17 diciembre 2017]. FAO (2014), Building acommom vision for sustainable food and agriculture. Principles and approaches. Roma: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3940e.pdf [19 junio 2018]. FAO (2015a), Agroforestry. Definition. available at http://www.fao.org/forestry/agroforestry/80338/en/ [11 junio 2019]. FAO (2015b), Construyendo una visión común para la agricultura y alimentación sostenibles. Principios y enfoques. Roma: FAO. available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3940s.pdf [12 noviembre 2019]. Ferguson, Rafter y Lovell, Sarah (2014), Permaculture for agroecology: design, movement, practice, and worldview. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 34(2): 251-274. available at https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01234801/document [18 junio 2018]. Fernández-Núñez, Esther, Rigueiro-Rodríguez, Antonio y Mosquera-Losada, María Rosa (2010), Carbon allocation dynamics one decade after afforestation with Pinus radiata D. Don and Betula alba L. under two stand densities in NW Spain. Ecological Engineering, 36(7): 876-890. available at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092585741000067 4 [15 junio 2018]. Georgiev G (1960), Field-protective forest belts in our country. Varnar: Hungarian Government. Gibbons, P., Lindenmayer, D. B., Fischer, J., Manning, A. D., Weinberg, A., Seddon, J., Ryan, P. y Barrett, G. (2008), The Future of Scattered Trees in Agricultural Landscapes. Conservation Biology, Bibliografía 105 22(5): 1309-1319. available at http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.15231739.2008.00997.x [16 diciembre 2017]. Glover, Edinam K., Ahmed, Hassan B. y Glover, Mawutor K. (2013), Analysis of Socio-Economic Conditions Influencing Adoption of Agroforestry Practices. International Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 3(4): 178-184. available at http://article.sapub.org/10.5923.j.ijaf.20130304.09.html GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (2014), NATIONAL AGROFORESTRY POLICY. New Delhi. available at http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/Agroforestry policy 2014.pdf [18 junio 2018]. Graves, Anil R., Burgess, Paul J., Palma, João Henrique Nunes, Herzog, Felix, Moreno-Marcos, Gerardo, Bertomeu, M., Dupraz, Christian, Liagre, Fabien, Keesman, K.J., van der Werf, W., de Nooy, A. Koeffeman y van den Briel, J. P. (2007), Development and application of bio-economic modelling to compare silvoarable, arable, and forestry systems in three European countries. Ecological Engineering, 29(4): 434-449. available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925857406002333 ?via%3Dihub [16 diciembre 2017]. Graves, Anil R., Burgess, Paul J., Palma, João Henrique Nunes, Keesman, K.J. J., van der Werf, W., Dupraz, C., van Keulen, H., Herzog, F. y Mayus, M. (2010), Implementation and calibration of the parameter-sparse Yield-SAFE model to predict production and land equivalent ratio in mixed tree and crop systems under two contrasting production situations in Europe. Ecological Modelling, 221(13-14): 1744-1756. available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2010.03.008 [8 abril 2016]. Gross, Kevin (2016), Ecology: Biodiversity and productivity entwined. Nature, 529(7586): 293-294. available at http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nature16867 [18 diciembre 2017]. Guiomar, N., Godinho, S., Fernandes, P.M., Machado, R., Neves, N. y Fernandes, J.P. (2015), Wildfire patterns and landscape changes in Mediterranean oak woodlands. Science of The Total Environment, 536: 338-352. available at JOSÉ JAVIER SANTIAGO FREIJANES 106 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004896971530422 8?via%3Dihub [16 diciembre 2017]. Haines-Young, Roy (2016), Report of Results of a Survey to Assess the Use of CICES, 2016. Support to EEA tasks under the EU MAES Process. available at https://cices.eu/content/uploads/sites/8/2016/07/Report-on-SurveyResults_19072016_Upload.pdf [19 junio 2018]. Haines-Young, Roy y Potschin, Marion (2012), Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES). available at http://test.matth.eu/content/uploads/sites/8/2012/07/CICESV43_Revised-Final_Report_29012013.pdf [17 diciembre 2017]. Hansen, Everett M. (2015), Phytophthora Species Emerging as Pathogens of Forest Trees. Current Forestry Reports, 1(1): 16-24. available at http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40725-015-0007-7 [16 diciembre 2017]. den Herder, Michael, Burgess, Paul J., Mosquera-Losada, María Rosa, Herzog, Felix, Hartel, Tibor, Upson, M., Viholainen, I. y Rosati, Adolfo (2015), Preliminary stratification and quantification of agroforestry in Europe. available at http://agforward.eu/index.php/en/preliminary-stratification-andquantification-of-agroforestry-in-europe.html [16 diciembre 2017]. den Herder, Michael, Moreno-Marcos, Gerardo, MosqueraLosada, María Rosa, Palma, João Henrique Nunes, Sidiropoulou, Anna, Santiago-Freijanes, José Javier, Crous-Durán, Josep, Paulo, Joana Amaral, Tomé, Margarida, Pantera, Anastasia, Papanastasis, Vasilios P., Mantzanas, Konstantinos, Pachana, Przemko, Papadopoulos, Andreas, Plieninger, Tobias y Burgess, Paul J. (2017), Current extent and stratification of agroforestry in the European Union. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 241: 121-132. available at http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0167880917301159 [23 marzo 2017]. den Herder, Michael, Moreno-Marcos, Gerardo, MosqueraLosada, María Rosa, Palma, João Henrique Nunes, Sidiropoulou, Anna, Santiago-Freijanes, José Javier, Crous-Durán, Josep, Paulo, Joana Amaral, Tomé, Margarida, Pantera, Anastasia, Papanastasis, Vasilios P., Mantzanas, Konstantinos, Pachana, Przemko, Plieninger, Tobias, Bibliografía 107 Burgess, Paul J. y Papadopoulos, Andreas (2016), Current extent and trends of agroforestry in the EU27. available at https://www.agforward.eu/index.php/en/current-extent-and-trends-ofagroforestry-in-the-eu27.html [16 diciembre 2017]. Herzog, Felix (1998), Streuobst: A traditional agroforestry system as a model for agroforestry development in temperate Europe. Agroforestry Systems, 42(1): 61-80. Howlett, David S., Mosquera-Losada, María Rosa, Nair, P.K. Ramachandran, Nair, Vimala D. y Rigueiro-Rodríguez, Antonio (2011), Soil Carbon Storage in Silvopastoral Systems and a Treeless Pasture in Northwestern Spain. Journal of Environment Quality, 40(3): 825. available at https://www.agronomy.org/publications/jeq/abstracts/40/3/825 [15 junio 2018]. IPCC (2014), CAMBIO CLIMÁTICO 2014. Impactos, adaptación y vulnerabilidad. Resumen para responsables de políticas. Genève. available at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessmentreport/ar5/wg2/ar5_wgII_spm_es.pdf [15 junio 2018]. Jose, Shibu (2009), Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits: an overview. Agroforestry Systems, 76(1): 110. available at http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10457-009-9229-7 [16 diciembre 2017]. Kachova, Vania, Hinkov, Georgi, Popov, Emil, Trichkov, Lyubcho y Mosquera-Losada, María Rosa (2018), Agroforestry in Bulgaria: history, presence status and prospects. Agroforestry Systems, 92(3): 655-665. available at http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10457-0160029-6 [14 junio 2019]. Karsenty, Alain, Blanco, Cécile y Dufour, Thomas (2003), Instruments related to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and their potential for sustainable forest management in Africa Forest and climate change. available at http://www.fao.org/tempref/docrep/fao/011/ac836e/ac836e00.pdf [18 diciembre 2017]. Krčmářová, Jana y Jeleček, Leoš (2017), Czech traditional agroforestry: historic accounts and current status. Agroforestry Systems, JOSÉ JAVIER SANTIAGO FREIJANES 114 Rodríguez, A., McAdam, J. H., y Mosquera-Losada, M. R. (Eds.), Agroforestry in Europe: Current Status and Future Prospects. Springer. Rigueiro-Rodríguez, Antonio, López López, Yolanda, SantiagoFreijanes, José Javier y Mosquera-Losada, María Rosa (2009), Efecto de la fertilización con lodos de depuradora urbana sobre el pasto y el arbolado en un sistema silvopastoral establecido con Quercus rubra, , en: V Congreso Forestal Español. SECF/ Junta de Castilla y León. available at http://www.congresoforestal.es/ Rigueiro-Rodríguez, Antonio, McAdam, Jim H. y MosqueraLosada, María Rosa (Eds.) (2009a), Agroforestry in Europe. Current Status and Future Prospects. Advances in Agroforestry. Volume 6. Springer. available at http://library.uniteddiversity.coop/Permaculture/Agroforestry/Agrofor estry_in_Europe-Current_Status_and_Future_Prospects.pdf [18 diciembre 2017]. Rigueiro-Rodríguez, Antonio, McAdam, Jim H. y MosqueraLosada, María Rosa (Eds.) (2009b), Agroforestry in Europe. Current Status and Future Prospects. Springer Science Business Media B.V. available at http://www.springer.com/gp/book/9781402082719 [18 diciembre 2017]. Rigueiro-Rodríguez, Antonio, Rois-Díaz, M. y Mosquera-Losada, María Rosa (2010), Integrating Silvopastoralism and Biodiversity Conservation, 359-373, en: Springer, Dordrecht. available at http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-90-481-9513-8_12 [18 junio 2018]. Rois-Díaz, Mercedes, Mosquera-Losada, María Rosa y RigueiroRodríguez, Antonio (2006), Biodiversity Indicators on Silvopastoralism across Europe (Risto Paivinen, Ed.). Joensuu: European Forest Institute. available at http://www.efi.fi/ [14 junio 2018]. Santiago-Freijanes, José Javier, Mosquera-Losada, María Rosa, Rois-Díaz, Mercedes, Ferreiro-Domínguez, Nuria, Pantera, Anastasia, Aldrey-Vázquez, José Antonio y Rigueiro-Rodríguez, Antonio (2018), Global and European policies to foster agricultural sustainability: Bibliografía 115 agroforestry. Agroforestry Systems: 1-16. available at http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10457-018-0215-9 [3 marzo 2018]. Santiago-Freijanes, José Javier, Pisanelli, Andrea, Rois-Díaz, Mercedes, Aldrey-Vázquez, José Antonio, Rigueiro-Rodríguez, Antonio, Pantera, Anastasia, Vityi, A., Lojka, B., Ferreiro-Domínguez, Nuria y Mosquera-Losada, María Rosa (2018), Agroforestry development in Europe: Policy issues. Land Use Policy, 76(March): 144-156. available at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026483771731067 0 [8 mayo 2018]. Santiago-Freijanes, José Javier, Rigueiro-Rodríguez, Antonio, Aldrey-Vázquez, José Antonio, Moreno-Marcos, Gerardo, den Herder, Michael, Burgess, Paul J. y Mosquera-Losada, María Rosa (2018), Understanding agroforestry practices in Europe through landscape features policy promotion. Agroforestry Systems, 92(4): 1105–1115. available at http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10457-018-0212-z [19 febrero 2018]. Sinclair, Fergus L. (1999), A general classification of agroforestry practice. Agroforestry Systems, 46(2): 161-180. available at http://link.springer.com/10.1023/A:1006278928088 [16 diciembre 2017]. Swift, M. J. y Anderson, J. M. (1994), Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function in Agricultural Systems, 15-41, en: Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. available at http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-642-58001-7_2 [18 junio 2018]. Takáczs, V. y Frank, N. (2009), The Traditions, Resources and Potential of Forest Growing and Multipurpose Shelterbelts in Hungary, 415-433, en: Agroforestry in Europe. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. available at http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-4020-8272-6_21 [10 abril 2018]. Tiberi, Riziero, Branco, Manuela, Bracalini, Matteo, Croci, Francesco y Panzavolta, Tiziana (2016), Cork oak pests: a review of insect damage and management. Annals of Forest Science, 73(2): 219232. available at http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13595-015-0534-1 [16 diciembre 2017]. JOSÉ JAVIER SANTIAGO FREIJANES 116 Torralba, Mario, Fagerholm, Nora, Burgess, Paul J., MorenoMarcos, Gerardo y Plieninger, Tobias (2016), Do European agroforestry systems enhance biodiversity and ecosystem services? A meta-analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 230: 150-161. available at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016788091630309 7?via%3Dihub [16 diciembre 2017]. Tscharntke, Teja, Clough, Yann, Wanger, Thomas C., Jackson, Louise, Motzke, Iris, Perfecto, Ivette, Vandermeer, John y Whitbread, Anthony (2012), Global food security, biodiversity conservation and the future of agricultural intensification. Biological Conservation, 151(1): 53-59. available at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000632071200082 1 [18 junio 2018]. UE (2013a), Estrategia de adaptación al cambio climático de la UE. Brussels. available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/ES/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52013DC0216&from=EN [15 junio 2018]. UE (2013b), Una nueva estrategia de la UE en favor de los bosques y del sector forestal. Brussels. available at https://eurlex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:2c1c71af-8384-11e3-9b7d01aa75ed71a1.0010.04/DOC_2&format=PDF [15 junio 2018]. UE (2013c), Reglamento (UE) no 1305/2013 del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo de 17 de diciembre de 2013 relativo a la ayuda al desarrollo rural a través del Fondo Europeo Agrícola de Desarrollo Rural (Feader) y por el que se deroga el Reglamento (CE) n o 1698/2005 d. Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea. Serie L, (347, 17 de diciembre). USDA (2011), Agroforestry Strategic Framework, Fiscal Year 2011–2016. available at https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/AFStratFrame_FI NAL-lr_6-3-11.pdf [17 diciembre 2017]. USDA (2013), Agroforestry: USDA Reports to America, Fiscal Years 2011-2012 - Comprehensive Version. available at https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/usda-reports-toamerica-comprehensive.pdf [18 diciembre 2017]. Bibliografía 117 USDA (2019), Agroforestry Strategic Framework. Fiscal Years 2019–2024. available at https://www.usda.gov/topics/forestry/agroforestry [3 noviembre 2019]. Vidrih, M., Vidrih, T. y Kotar, M. (2009), In Slovenia: Management of Intensive Land Use Systems, 397-414, en: RigueiroRodríguez, A., McAdam, J. H., y Mosquera-Losada, M. R. (Eds.), Agroforestry in Europe. Current Status and Future Prospects. Springer Science Business Media B.V. available at http://www.springer.com/gp/book/9781402082719 Zomer, Robert J., Trabucco, Antonio, Coe, Richard y Place, Frank (2009), Trees on Farm: Analysis of Global Extent and Geographical Patterns of Agroforestry. Nairobi, Kenya. available at http://www.worldagroforestry.org/downloads/Publications/PDFS/WP 16263.pdf [1 marzo 2018]. Zomer, Robert J., Trabucco, Antonio, Coe, Richard, Place, Frank, van Noordwijk, Meine y Xu, Jianchu (2014), Trees on farms: an update and reanalysis of agroforestry’s global extent and socio-ecological characteristics. Bogor. World Agroforestry Centre. available at http://www.worldagroforestry.org/ [12 noviembre 2019]. AFTA (Association for Temperate Agroforestry). available at https://www.aftaweb.org/ [12 noviembre 2019]. EURAF (European Agroforestry Federation). available at http://www.eurafagroforestry.eu/ [12 noviembre 2019]. KM0 Slow Food. available at https://www.km0slowfood.com/?lang=es [12 noviembre 2019]. Ciudades climáticamente inteligentes. available at https://www.climatelinks.org/content/climate-smart-cities [12 noviembre 2019]. Pacto Global de los Alcaldes por el Clima y la Energía. available at http://pactodealcaldes-la.eu/ [12 noviembre 2019]. Bibliografía 119 120 INDEX General index Agroforestry Systems, 5, 100, 103, 107, 108, 109, 113, 114, 115 CAP, 5, 10, 11, 12, 20, 24, 27, 31, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 89, 92, 93, 94, 97, 98, 110 Climate, 5, 18, 21, 79, 81, 87, 92, 104, 107, 113 Common Agrarian Policy, 5 Eco-intensify, 5 erosion, 5, 15, 82 fire, 18, 89 homegardens, 11, 28, 85, 88, 92 Land Use, 5, 27, 28, 111, 115, 117 nutrient cycling, 15 PAC, 110 riparian strips, 29, 31, 85 Silvoarable, 27, 90, 103 Silvopasture, 85, 90 sistemas agroforestales, 109 trees, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 100, 101, 113 Tables Table 1. Agroforestry Contribution to the objectives of the CAP ........ 2 Table 2. Glossary of terms most linked to AFSs in Europe (Adapted from Nair, 1994; AFTA, 1997; Alavalapati et al. 2001, 2004; Eichhorn et al.,2006; Mosquera-Losada et al. 2009). ...................... 5 Table 3. Agroforestry practices linked to the main types of holdings and use of the territory (agriculture, forest or urban/periurban)). .... 6 Figures Figure 1. Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations 2018). ...... 1 121 ANEXO: RESUMEN EN CASTELLANO LA POLÍTICA AGRÍCOLA COMÚN (PAC) Y LOS SISTEMAS AGROFESTALES EN LA UNIÓN EUROPEA José Javier Santiago Freijanes ESCOLA DE DOUTORAMENTO INTERNACIONAL PROGRAMA DE DOUTORAMENTO EN HISTORIA, XEOGRAFÍA E HISTORIA DA ARTE SANTIAGO DE COMPOSTELA / LUGO 2020 JOSÉ JAVIER SANTIAGO FREIJANES 122 1 Introducción Los sistemas agroforestales son sistemas tradicionales de uso del territorio que consisten en la integración deliberada de una producción agrícola en el estrato inferior de un componente leñoso en la misma unidad territorial, siendo una de las herramientas más poderosas para mitigar y adaptar los sistemas agrícolas y forestales al cambio climático en todo el mundo y cumplir directa o indirectamente con los Objetivos de Desarrollo sostenible indicados por la ONU en 2013. Sin embargo, en la actualidad no son prácticas ampliamente utilizadas en la zona templada debido a la revolución tecnológica que implicó una intensificación de los sistemas agrarios y que se asocia a políticas que no promocionan las prácticas agroforestales Como se constata en que: •No hay acuerdo de lo que es una práctica agroforestal, por ejemplo, los pastos arbustivos, tan necesarios en el sur, no son reconocidos como práctica agroforestal en el norte de Europa (y es una diferencia de 2,6 millones hectáreas). •Falta de reconocimiento de las prácticas agroforestales cuando se implementan (es el caso de los llamados elementos del paisaje…) • El diseño separado de las políticas forestales y agrícolas afecta negativamente a unas prácticas que participan de los dos sectores. • El desconocimiento de la extensión inicial e incluso la definición de las prácticas agroforestales es otro de las trabas para su promoción política. Para intentar solucionar esta problemática la UE ha promovido los proyectos AGFORWARD dentro del 7 Programa Marco y AFINET desde el programa de investigación europea H2020, que financiaron esta tesis doctoral 2 Objetivos El objetivo fundamental de esta tesis es proporcionar una categorización y extensión de las prácticas agroforestales vinculadas a tierras agrícolas y forestales, a nivel de región, que es la escala geográfica empleada por los programas de Desarrollo Rural (PDR) Bibliografía 123 en Europa, y evaluar cómo estas prácticas son promovidas por la PAC previa (2007-2013) y actual (2014-2020), con un enfoque especial en su potencial de mitigación y adaptación que tienen al cambio climático. Este objetivo general se concreta en los siguientes objetivos específicos: 1) Evaluar el marco político histórico de políticas que afectan a los sistemas agroforestales, como forma de entendimiento de las políticas agroforestales actuales. 2) Evaluar la extensión actual de las prácticas agroforestales en Europa mediante el empleo de herramientas de sistemas de información geográfica, como indicador base de su importancia como técnicas de mitigación del cambio climático. 3) Caracterizar la extensión actual de los elementos del paisaje en toda Europa que incluyen sistemas agroforestales de difícil identificación y analizar las medidas de PDR que los promueven en el territorio europeo, dentro de las PAC 2007-2013 y 2014-2020. 4) Evaluar el grado de implementación actual de políticas relacionadas con la introducción de vegetación leñosa en áreas rurales europeas, como primer paso para establecer los sistemas agroforestales, tras la revisión de políticas relacionadas con la promoción de la vegetación leñosa en distintas zonas de Europa durante el siglo XX. 3 Métodos y resultados 3.1 Políticas mundiales y europeas para fomentar la sostenibilidad agrícola: agroforestería Santiago-Freijanes JJ, Mosquera-Losada MR, Rois-Díaz M,.FerreiroDomínguez N, Pantera A, Aldrey JA, Rigueiro-Rodríguez A 2018. Global and European policies to foster agricultural sustainability: agroforestry Agroforestry systems. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10457-018-0215-9. Se trata de un estudio de gabinete de las principales políticas internacionales, paneuropeas, europeas y nacionales en relación con las prácticas agroforestales con el objetivo de: analizar sus definiciones, los documentos que los promueven a través de estrategias para identificar los principales motivos de su promoción y servir de base de la elaboración futura de normativa europea JOSÉ JAVIER SANTIAGO FREIJANES 130 El dilvopastoreo está presente en casi el 10% de las zonas de pastos permanentes de Europa, es decir, tiene su gran expansión potencial. La práctica silvoarable ocupa cerca de 360.000 hectáreas en Europa, es decir un 0,08% del territorio, un 4% de las tierras de labor, con lo que su expansión potencial también es enorme. Se nota la tendencia hacia el sur, especialmente Ibérica e Itálica. Aunque la región con mayor presencia de prácticas es Baleares con apenas un 2,5% por ciento de su territorio. Los huertos domésticos comprenden la vegetación de varios estratos verticales que rodea a los hogares, suministran frutas y hortalizas para autoconsumo. La proporción de tierra asignada a huertos domésticos es más alta en Europa del Este, como consecuencia de las políticas realizadas en esos países en la 2ª mitad del siglo pasado (por ejemplo, República Checa, Eslovaquia, Rumania) y más baja en países ubicados en Europa Central y del Norte. Algunas regiones atlánticas como Asturias y Galicia tienen una cierta proporción de huertos domésticos. Las Franjas riparias suponen 1,78 millones hectáreas representando un 0,42% del territorio de la UE. Se presencia es menor en la mayor parte de España y en las regiones del centro y norte de Europa. Los elementos puntuales y lineales (árboles aislados y setos vivos) tienen una importancia muy grande al promocionarse su conservación y recuperación como elementos del paisaje. Los árboles aislados se distribuyen por toda Europa. Su ocupación es de alrededor de 300 000 hectáreas en la UE-27, con el mayor número de hectáreas por región (Nivel NUTS2) correspondientes a España, Francia y Lituania. Mientras que porcentualmente destacan las regiones de Francia, Portugal, Italia y Reino Unido. Aunque la proporción máxima de árboles aislados en Europa es realmente baja, con un máximo del 0,48% de la superficie total en Irlanda del Norte. Se estimó una extensión de los setos vivos de 1,8 millones de hectáreas para la UE-27. Las regiones españolas más extensas presentan una gran cantidad de terreno ocupado por este tipo de setos, junto con las de Francia, Irlanda y el Reino Unido. En el norte de Europa, destaca la gran cantidad de Bibliografía 131 hectáreas por región de Finlandia. El mayor porcentaje de setos se encuentra principalmente en Francia, Irlanda y el Reino Unido, pero también en Portugal e Italia, Países Bajos y Bélgica. Aunque los setos nunca llegan al 2,5% del territorio. En cuanto a la extensión de los cuatros tipos de formaciones lineales de vegetación leñosa definidos por LUCAS las avenidas de árboles de son el tipo de seto más ampliamente representado en toda Europa con alrededor de 826 000 hectáreas. A su vez, los setos de coníferas son del tipo de seto con la presencia más pequeña de Europa con un total de 14.882 hectáreas. La mayoría de los setos de arbustos o árboles no se gestionan y representan alrededor de 640.000 hectáreas La mayoría de los manejados que se encuentran en el Reino Unido, Irlanda, Francia y Finlandia. En términos porcentuales, las avenidas arbóreas y los setos de coníferas están presentes principalmente en el norte de Europa, con una menor presencia de los setos, manejados o no. Los setos manejados y que no presentan signos de manejo se encuentran principalmente en el Reino Unido, Francia, Bélgica y los Países Bajos, así como en el norte de Italia..La promoción de los sistemas y prácticas agroforestales es muy parecida en los PDR de los dos periodos analizados. Con relación a las medidas políticas de promoción de las prácticas agroforestales distinguimos dos períodos asociados a la PAC: En el periodo 2007-2013, la medida que más fomenta las prácticas agroforestales en Europa es la 214, la medida agroambiental. En la zona agraria especialmente también actúa de forma significativa la medida 216 (apoyo a las inversiones no productivas), mientras que en zona forestal la medida 121 favorece los bosques cultivados, especialmente la apicultura, para modernizar las explotaciones. El elemento apoyado por más medidas de los PDR son los setos vivos, muy por encima de la instalación de bosquetes y de la práctica de pastoreo en frutales. En relación al periodo de la PAC 2014-2020, la medida agroambiental, ahora denominada 10.1 sigue siendo la que más fomenta las prácticas agroforestales en Europa. En zona agraria especialmente también actúa de forma significativa la medida 4,4 (apoyo a las inversiones no productivas relacionadas con el cambio JOSÉ JAVIER SANTIAGO FREIJANES 132 climático), mientras que en zona forestal la medida 8.6 favorece los bosques cultivados (no apícolas) para las inversiones en tecnologías. El elemento apoyado por más medidas de los PDR vuelve a ser los setos vivos, muy por encima de la instalación de bosquetes y de la práctica de pastoreo en frutales y la apicultura. En cuanto a los elementos lineales: Los árboles aislados aumentan el número de medidas habilitadas por los PDR en el periodo 2014-2020, pasando de 39 a 61, aunque, como se puede ver en los mapas de esta tesis, se debe, en una gran proporción, a la conversión del Hexágono francés en 21 regiones en el periodo 20142020. Los setos vivos por su parte son en los dos periodos la práctica agroforestal favorecida por un mayor número de medidas, pasando de 99 a 122.Por lo tanto, en ambos periodos la medida más empleada fue la agroambiental (214 en 20072013 y 10.1 en 2014-2020) y se utilizaba fundamentalmente para fomentar el mantenimiento y la conservación de estos elementos. La plantación o instalación de árboles y setos prefirió fomentarse en los dos periodos con la medida que promueve las inversiones no productivas (226 y 4.4). Gracias a la encuesta LUCAS pudimos comprobar que en el 96,4% del territorio arable y en el 90% del territorio de pastos no se dan prácticas agroforestales, por lo que su expansión potencial en Europa es enorme, especialmente en el Norte, y debería ser fomentada por la acción política y por tanto por la PAC. Dada la mayor existencia de estas prácticas en el Sur de Europa, las medidas políticas deberían también garantizar al menos su conservación y mantenimiento en esta zona. La gran promoción de los elementos del paisaje en los Programas de Desarrollo Rural no compensa la falta de una clara categorización de estos elementos y su promoción en diferentes partes de la PAC (Pilar I y Pilar II) lo que dificulta su interpretación y la evaluación del impacto de las políticas a escala territorial. Los bosques cultivados es una actividad difícil de mapear, y menos a una escala como Europa, por lo que se debería de buscar alguna fórmula para poder evaluar el impacto de su promoción política. Bibliografía 133 3.3 La política y el desarrollo agroforestal en Europa Santiago-Freijanes JJ, Pisanelli A, Rois-Díaz M, Aldrey-Vázquez JA, Rigueiro-Rodríguez A, Pantera A, Vityi A, Lojka B, Ferreiro-Domínguez N, Mosquera-Losada MR 2018. Agroforestry development in Europe: Policy issues. Land use policy 76, 144156. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02648377 17310670. La política y desarrollo agroforestal en Europa debe entenderse a través de dos situaciones recientes e históricas de partida, resultado de las diferencias políticas entre los dos bloques, en la segunda mitad del siglo XX. En la Europa Oriental había una tradición de empleo de silvopastoreo en frutales y en zona forestal, a partir de 1945 las reformas colectivistas comenzaron a destruir la mayor parte de los sistemas agroforestales. Aunque algunos países, afectados por fuertes vientos, como Chequia, Bulgaria o Hungría, se vieron obligados a recuperar prácticas agroforestales para mantener y mejorar su producción agrícola. Así Hungría comenzó a plantar setos cortavientos en los sesenta del siglo pasado, llegando a las 17 000 ha a comienzos de este siglo. En los países occidentales de la zona europea el modelo productivista llevó a la intensificación. La PAC nacida en 1962 por la búsqueda de la autosuficiencia alimentaria dio paso a la detección de problemas ambientales y paisajísticos derivados de este modelo (pérdida de biodiversidad, falta de polinización, desaparición de elementos paisajísticos…) que precisan de soluciones políticas. Así, en 1975 comienzan los pagos relacionados con las zonas menos favorecidas y en 1988 comienzan a pagar por dejar tierras en barbecho, lo que favorece la presencia de vegetación leñosa y finalmente en 1992 se comienza a pagar para realizar plantaciones en tierras agrarias. En los PDR del periodo 2007-2013, regulados por el Reglamento (Comisión Europea) 1698/2005) las Medidas 221, 222 y 223 promovieron la plantación de árboles para incrementar el uso del territorio forestal, sea con la expansión de los recursos forestales en tierras agrícolas (221) o forestales (223) o con la promoción de la combinación de sistemas agrícolas y forestales extensivos (222). JOSÉ JAVIER SANTIAGO FREIJANES 134 Estas medidas tienen impactos diferentes. En particular, las Medidas 221 y 223, que se centraron en el aumento de las tierras forestales en la Unión Europea, con el objetivo de mitigar el cambio climático, cumpliendo del compromiso del protocolo de Kioto, consiguieron llegar al 43,7 y 42,7% respectivamente de las medidas previstas mientras que la 222, que promovía la implantación de sistemas agroforestales, se quedó en el 4.1%, partiendo de un objetivo mucho menos ambicioso. El principal motivo de este fracaso parece estar en que la medida no iba acompaña de coste de mantenimiento, como las otras dos y menos aún de la compensación por lucro cesante que tiene la 221. En el segundo periodo estudiado (2014-2020) estas medidas se repiten con algunos cambios: 221 y 223 se unifican en la submedida 8.1, mientras que 222, ahora como 8.2, admite costes de mantenimiento, además con la reforma que se introdujo con el Reglamento Ómnibus en medio del periodo de ejecución la medida no sólo cubre la implantación, sino también su regeneración y renovación, por lo que se puede aplicar en sistemas agroforestales ya existentes. En el periodo 2007-13 de la PAC, la primera reforestación de tierras agrícolas (221) fue presupuestada por casi todas las regiones, mientras que la implantación de sistemas agroforestales (222) sólo se presupuestó en los PDR de 9 Regiones PDR, quedando la 223 (primera aforestación de tierras NO agrícolas) en un punto intermedio. La diferencia se acentúa al ver como fue la ejecución de los programas, pues mientras la 221 y la 223 fueron llevadas a la práctica por la casi totalidad de los programas que la presupuestaron, la 222 sólo ejecutaron la mitad de las regiones. Si hacemos una comparación entre los dos periodos vemos que la medida 8.1 tiene una acogida menor que la 221, aunque más que la medida 223, mientras que la 8.2 triplica el número de programas de la medida 222, y no sólo porque el hexágono francés se regionalizase. Como ya mencionamos, las medidas del periodo 2007.2013 que promueven la primera implantación forestal en tierra agrícola (medida 221) y no agrícola (medida 223) se continúan en 2014 -2020 por una única submedida, la 8.1. Bibliografía 135 En el primer periodo la reforestación de tierras agrarias (221) promueven las prácticas agroforestales de bosques cultivados, las franjas forestales y bosquetes y los setos vivos. La reforestación en terrenos no agrarios sólo promueve las prácticas agroforestales de s bosques cultivados así como las las franjas forestales y bosquetes. En el segundo periodo, la 8.1, aunque promueve en Aragón el pastoreo forestal, que no se promovía en la PAC 2007-2013, sólo promueve una práctica agrícola más: los Bosques cultivados. Por lo que se refiere a la medida y submedida agroforestales, recordemos la 222 promovía la implantación de estos sistemas y la 8.2 promovía su implantación y mantenimiento. La 222 se programada por Sicilia y Las Marcas para promover Franjas forestales y bosquetes, Setos vivos y también Árboles aislados. Mientras que el PDR Portugal continental usa la medida 8.2 para promover franjas forestales y bosquetes, y unto con Azores, setos vivos y con Veneto y Umbría el pastoreo forestal en el periodo de la PAC 2014–2000. En conclusión, con la introducción del mantenimiento en la medida 8.2 aumenta el número de PDR que fomentan la implementación de las prácticas agroforestales, sobre todo, hay más prácticas promovidas desde la 8.2 y disminuyen su promoción desde la 8.1. 4 Conclusiones 1. Hay un reconocimiento, tanto a nivel mundial como europeo del rol de la agroforestería para producir bienes tangibles al tiempo que presta servicios medioambientales. Sin embargo, la promoción de la agroforestería no está aún bien orientada en la PAC. Se necesita una clara identificación de las prácticas agroforestales que conecte con los planes de fomento agroforestal y que establezca una densidad arbórea final elegible para los pagos del Pilar I. 2. Los sistemas agroforestales son un tipo de gestión sostenible el territorio capaz de mejorar la productividad por unidad de superficie gracias a la ecointensificación, entendida como la mejora u optimización en el uso de los recursos tanto aéreos (por ejemplo, luz) como edáficos (como los nutrientes). Esto hace que, en un mundo cada vez más necesitado de productos del sector primario, los sistemas agroforestales se estén valorizando y se consideren prácticas a JOSÉ JAVIER SANTIAGO FREIJANES 136 promover para producir más por unidad de superficie y mejorar la biodiversidad y la calidad del agua, así como para combatir el cambio climático a través de su capacidad para mitigar y adaptar los sistemas agrícolas al mismo. 3. Con relación a las políticas actuales que fomentan el uso de las prácticas agroforestales consideramos que no están bien diseñadas. En primer lugar, porque el agricultor precisa del pago directo para poder subsistir en el actual nivel de vida, por lo que si las medidas agroforestales reducen la posibilidad de pago directo como ocurre en la actualidad, entonces no resultan atractivas para el agricultor y no se están fomentando adecuadamente. Por otra parte, la medida agroforestal 222 no se diseñó acertadamente, ya que no preveía el abono pecuniario vinculado al mantenimiento ni al lucro cesante, lo que sí tenían en cuenta las medidas forestales, por lo que los agricultores optaban por éstas últimas. 4. El fomento agroforestal debe realizarse mediante el establecimiento de una única medida que reconozca un uso del territorio en diversas coberturas, garantizando el pago directo y ayudas que contemplen el mantenimiento y el lucro cesante, como las medidas de forestación. 5. La metodología fundamentada en la encuesta LUCAS es muy adecuada para estimar la evolución de las prácticas agroforestales a nivel europeo, pero insuficiente para caracterizar la práctica agroforestal de “bosques cultivados”. 6. Los sistemas agroforestales destacan, sobre todo, en zonas tropicales, presentando en el caso de la zona europea un gran potencial de implementación ya que nuestros estudios señalan que en el 96,4% del territorio arable y en el 90% del territorio de pastos de la zona europea no se emplea este tipo de técnicas de gestión del territorio y sería perfectamente aplicable. 7. Aunque se encuentran en toda Europa, los sistemas agroforestales se asocian, sobre todo, con los países del sur. Por eso se debe acentuar el esfuerzo en fomentar el establecimiento de prácticas agroforestales en los países del norte y en favorecer su conservación y mantenimiento en el sur. Bibliografía 137 8. Los elementos del paisaje están ampliamente promovidos por diferentes medidas en los Programas de Desarrollo Rural de las administraciones regionales y estatales de Europa. Sin embargo, la falta de una clara categorización de estos elementos y su promoción por las diferentes partes de la PAC (Pilar I y Pilar II), así como la falta de datos sobre el gasto de las diferentes acciones políticas y medidas promotoras en estos elementos, dificultan la evaluación del impacto de estas en el medio rural. Esto sugiere la necesidad de un registro estandarizado a escala europea del gasto de estado miembro o región en la promoción de cada elemento del paisaje, probablemente asociado al SIG-PAC. 9. La promoción agroforestal en la PAC es compleja, pues pone en práctica unas 25 medidas para promover cinco prácticas agroforestales. Una simplificación de las medidas facilitaría la burocracia relacionada con los pagos y su seguimiento por la Comisión europea de la implementación de las prácticas agroforestales.