Forest policy and land planning policy in Spain: a regional approach

Forest Policy and Economics 7 (2005) 131 – 142 www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol

Forest policy and land planning policy in Spain: a regional approach Cristina Montiel a,*, Luis Galiana b,1 a

Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Departamento de Ana´lisis Geogra´fico Regional y Geografı´a Fı´sica, Facultad de Geografı´a e Historia, Ciudad Universitaria, s/n. 28040 Madrid, Spain b Universidad Auto´noma de Madrid, Departamento de Geografı´a, 28049 Madrid, Spain Received 26 April 2002; received in revised form 18 March 2003; accepted 13 May 2003

Abstract The present Spanish model of political and institutional organisation as a federal state has been developed since the Constitution of 1978. Until this time, the extremely centralised forest policy has been one of the policies which has induced most relevant territorial consequences. Due to the constitution, the regions received a large number of political and administrative competences, land planning policy and forest management amongst them. Coinciding with the emergence of the new land planning policy, the forest policy suffered an identity crisis due to a lack of renovation of its basis. The processes followed by the Comunidades Auto´nomas (Autonomous Communities) for the definition of Regional Forest Programmes (RFPs), within the context of European policies set within the framework provided by international agreements, have provided an opportunity to reform the Spanish forest policy into a new de-centralised administrative system. This paper aims to provide a typology of the Spanish RFPs and to analyse their integration in the regional land planning systems. The issue of Spanish RFPs substantiveness is then examined throughout the consideration of the territorial factor in the RFPs and the relationships between forest policies and land planning policies in Spanish regions. In short, the study tries to highlight the co-ordination difficulties found between RFPs, of a sectoral nature, and land planning programmes, of territorial nature, despite the fact that the responsibility of both programmes falls upon the same governmental level. In Spanish Autonomous Communities, the regional environmental authority is responsible for RFPs while the regional civil engineering authority is responsible for the land planning programmes. The present research study evidences that this administrative structure implies a co-ordination handicap between both policy processes which has a remarkable influence on the substantiveness of Spanish RFPs. D 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Regional Forest Programmes; Land use planning; Decentralisation; Mediterranean forests; Multifunctionality; Spain; Comunidades Auto´nomas

Abbreviations: RFP, Regional Forest Programme; N/RFP, National/Regional Forest Programme; GIS, Geographical Information System; CCAA, Comunidad Auto´noma (region); SFM, sustainable forest management; PORN, Planes de Ordenacio´n de Recursos Naturales (Natural Resources Planning Programmes); PMS, protected mountain sites; LPD, land planning directives; PTP, partial territorial plans; SLP, sectoral land plans; s/i factor, supporting/impeding factor. * Corresponding author. Tel.: +34-913945972; fax: +34-913945963. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (C. Montiel), [email protected] (L. Galiana). 1 Tel.: +34-913975502; fax: +34-913974042. 1389-9341/$ - see front matter D 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S1389-9341(03)00026-1

132

C. Montiel, L. Galiana / Forest Policy and Economics 7 (2005) 131–142

1. Introduction The Spanish forest policy has traditionally had a sound territorial impact and a heavily centralised administrative structure. Approximately 15% of Spanish territory (7 655 148 ha) has come under the Forestry Administration, which developed a policy based on the conservation of forests and reforestation. The total reforested area for the period 1940– 1984 was 3 383 291 ha (Go´mez and Mata, 1993). Nonetheless, the political and territorial configuration in force since the 1978 Constitution has meant a transition from a centralised state system to a federal one. This has led to the assignment of new political and administrative competences to new federal bodies: the Autonomous Communities (herein after referred to as Comunidades Auto´nomas or CCAA). Land planning has been one of the policies defined at the regional-administrative level since the 1980s. In fact, the development of land planning policies by regional governments is one of the elements that has contributed most efficiently to the political consolidation of the Comunidades Auto´nomas (CCAA). In this sense, the definition, management and development of regional land use plans, including medium and long term development phases, is an expression of political will in terms of a balanced government planning for such region. Although a Spanish National Forest Programme has just been formulated (Domı´nguez et al., in press), it is not possible to talk about a single Spanish forest policy model since the establishment of the new political and territorial order into CCAA. One should rather refer to different regional forest policy models, based on their own Regional Forest Programmes (RFPs). The decentralisation process, together with the transfer of competences in forestry matters to the CCAA, has led to forest policy reform, starting from regional governments by means of RFPs. The federal state has retained only the functions of co-ordination and mediation between the regional governments and the European institutions, as well as representation of and decision making for Spain in international fora. Besides, the federal state holds the political role of corresponsability and co-finance given by the principle

of subsidiarity adopted by the European Union. In the current Spanish federal structure, each Comunidad Auto´noma has chosen a given strategic model of forest management in the very definition of its own RFP. Spain is a country whose regions share the ecological, cultural and socio-economic insights of Mediterranean forests, with the exception of the northern Cantabric fringe. The main feature of the socio-economic evolution of Mediterranean forests throughout the 20th century is the transition from an exploitation related to the primary industry during the first half of the century to a tertiary orientation of the forest uses and functions. The appreciation of Mediterranean forests over the last two decades is basically related to its landscape meaning, to the conservation of bio-diversity and to the demand for open-air recreational areas (Montiel, 2001a). Nowadays there is a growing social demand for nature services that have not yet been subject to new forest management models and approaches (Bonnier, 2000). And this lack of new forest management models entails a serious risk in the sense that the interrelationship between forest policy and socioeconomic dynamics might be lost progressively. If the forest areas were abandoned in the 1960s due to their lack of profitability, their recovery implies necessarily an economic justification. So if this recovery is to be achieved, the positive externalities (related to both the society and the landscape) that forests create, should be internalised (Merlo and Rojas, 2000). Considering the essential role the territorial compound has in Mediterranean forests (Montiel, 2001b), the need to evaluate the relationships and interactions between the forest policy and the land planning policy becomes quite obvious. The substantiveness (COST Action E19, 2001) of the RFPs in the Mediterranean European context depends on the co-ordination between both policies, as well as on the new managerial models adjusted to the specific Mediterranean ecological conditions and to new social demands (Piussi and Farrell, 2000). We mean by significant or substantive National/Regional Forest Programmes (N/RFPs) those which make a sound difference in forest policies vs. the symbolic N/RFPs, which do not make substantial differences in forest policies.

C. Montiel, L. Galiana / Forest Policy and Economics 7 (2005) 131–142

2. Methodology and theoretical approach The theoretical starting point chosen has been the regional geographical analysis, based both on systemic frameworks and on the relations between structures and territorial systems. For the purpose of analysing the relationships between two territorial policies (forest policy and land planning policy) the methodological process has been designed as follows: (1) To analyse and provide a typology of RFPs, three different issues are considered: a. The adjustment level of RFPs standards to (i) the international commitments assumed by a given country, and to (ii) the regional forestry context. b. The core elements, as well as supporting and impeding (s/i) factors found in policy outputs or throughout RFP policy processes. c. The criteria applied in the actual designation of financial resources. (2) To identify the territorial repercussions that the application of RFPs has generated or might generate. The methodology used for these two first stages has been a critical textual analysis of planning documents, legal texts and international literature. This process has allowed an in-context approach to the definition and development of the various forest policies, both in their conceptual and technical sides. (3) To classify the various regional sample-cases of development and instrument creation processes related to the forest policy and to the land planning policy. The definition of a regional typology will be based on two main criteria: a. The integration or set aside of forest resources found in land use regional plans. b. The creation of land intervention techniques upon forests. (4) To value RFPs substantiveness. The consideration of the territorial compound as an essential element of RFPs allows us to differentiate between substantive and symbolic (non-substantive) RFPs, depending on the degree to which forestry/sustainable

133

forest management (SFM) is integrated into broader land planning policies.

3. Development of regional forest policies: forest laws and forest programmes of the Comunidades Auto´nomas The early development of regional forest policies took place in years conditioned by sectoral restlessness and conflicts related to the position of the forest administration within the new federal structure. In most cases, the new forest administration was based upon the former federal administration and it was re-arranged as part of the new regional governmental subdivisions (Consejerı´as) of the Ministry for the Environment. The new political relationships were thus established stressing the territorial and environmental nature of the forest policies; such relations, however, opened up a transition period characterised by the adaptation process to the new federal structure and the lack of political guidelines to lead forest managerial resolutions. The Regional Forest Administrations went through a first period of crisis up to the late 1980s characterised by a lack of objectives for forest policy guidelines. Various CCAA have formulated their own forest legislation as a result of (i) the performance of the assigned competences in forest matters (ii) and as a reaction against the lack of legislation renewal at national level. 2 The promulgation of the first regional forest laws together with the RFPs definition processes ended this transitory political parenthesis. The regions adopted the international agreements and processes derived from the 1992 Rio ‘Earth Summit’ as key guidelines of their forest policy. Thus, the regional forest laws recognised the obligation to formulate a forest programme which would constitute a fair social and political framework for the conservation, management and sustainable development of regional forests. 2

The elaboration of a Basic Law for Forest Lands remains pending while the preconstitutional 1957 Forest Lands Law remains in force. The elaboration process of the Spanish Forest Strategy begun in 1997, which was approved by the Environmental Sector Conference on the 17th March 1999.

134

C. Montiel, L. Galiana / Forest Policy and Economics 7 (2005) 131–142

Most CCAA have begun the RFP process (with the exception of Baleares and Cantabria), due to regional forest law requirements or due to political resolutions. In each case, regions have chosen different RFP process and content models, which show their different forest policy principles and guidelines. In short, two main RFP models can be recognised, depending on their contents (Montiel, 2002): 1. The economic model, based on the definition of specific and mono-thematic programmes addressed to distinctive goals. These programmes apply the principle of assigning resources to functions. They fit regions guided by a productive approach towards forest management due to the high revenues obtained (i.e. Navarre, the Basque Country). 2. The territorial model, which is arranged from a series of vertical and cross-sectoral measures. This model meets best the goal of managerial integration and it assigns resources to the territory. Besides, it is the most appropriate model for the problems found in the Mediterranean regions (i.e. Castilla-Leo´n, Comunidad Valenciana, Murcia). The choice of the first model turns to be an obstacle to SFM in the Mediterranean CCAA. In the European Mediterranean area this concept is linked to the recovery of abandoned de-structured forest lands (Solano, 2001). A territorial strategy focussed towards forest land planning is, therefore, needed to attain SFM in these regions. Hence, in the Mediterranean region the economic model does not enable the multifunctionality and sustainability principles, which should, by all means, inspire the definition of National and Regional Forest Programmes (N/RFPs). Furthermore, these principles are essential for the co-ordination of actions between forest programmes and land use planning programmes at a regional scale. Two different categories might be established in relation to the RFP processes developed by the various CCAA: 1. RFPs defined by the Forest Authority using top – down or bottom –up models, according to the model of participation chosen.

2. RFPs created by consulting firms or experts teams, according to the technical requirements specified by the public authority. In real terms, policy outputs are rarely conditioned by the procedural system chosen, but they are so by the participatory mechanism established. Generally speaking, all Spanish RFPs have contributed to political openness since they have favoured the participation of different forest stakeholders during the programme formulation process. Nonetheless, policy outputs by themselves do not tend to guarantee high involvement levels among forestry agents during the RFP implementation stage. Such weakness is particularly serious in the Mediterranean region, where private property is extensive and where private forests are in need of urgent management actions. In any case, the development of the territorial compound turns out to be the factor which best allows evaluations of the effects of Mediterranean N/RFPs, since it is an essential element found in the very nature and in the inner dynamics of Mediterranean forests. Coming to this point, we should look into the territorial compound concept and define it more clearly. Such term relates to the socio-economic and cultural content of forest lands. In fact, the territorial compound is the material result of the relationships between people and forests at a subregional level. We could define the territorial compound of the N/ RFPs as the value of the spatial dimension and the social, environmental and protection-related functions of forest areas. The sheer presence of Mediterranean forests plays a key role in the dynamic of rural systems. Hence, the forest policy territorial compound is a key element to consider, on account of the large surface covered by the forest and other wooded land (Table 1) as well as the direct and indirect effects forests have upon all other elements linked within socio-spatial systems. Some RFPs approach this goal very closely through cross-sectoral programmes, defined from territorial objectives. Reinforcing the territorial compound in RFPs would ease the achievement of SFM in Mediterranean forests while helping to root down more deeply the principle of participation. Besides, such reinforcement would prevent and minimise many of the source conflicts found in forest fires, which is one of the main challenges in most Spanish RFPs.

C. Montiel, L. Galiana / Forest Policy and Economics 7 (2005) 131–142

135

Table 1 Spanish regional forest indicators a

Autonomous Communities

Geographical surface

Forest surface

ha

%

ha

%

Woodland hab

Annual growth m3 per year

Forest production value/GNP (%)

Andalucı´a Arago´n Canarias Cantabria Castilla-La Mancha Castilla y Leo´n Catalun˜a Comunidad Foral de Navarra Comunidad Valenciana Extremadura Galicia Islas Baleares La Rioja Madrid Paı´s Vasco Principado de Asturias Regio´n de Murcia Total

8 759 589 4 771 996 744 695 532 139 7 946 212 9 422 542 3 211 368 1 039 069 2 325 452 4 163 453 2 957 447 499 166 504 527 802 769 723 464 1 060 357 1 131 260 50 595 505

17.31 9.43 1.47 1.05 15.71 18.62 6.35 2.05 4.60 8.23 5.85 0.99 1.00 1.59 1.43 2.10 2.24 100.00

4 325 378 2 478 760 485 980 359 459 3 473 536 4 516 386 1 855 944 586 483 1 215 078 2 278 587 2 039 575 223 601 294 404 420 093 469 355 764 597 486 019 26 273 235

16.46 9.43 1.85 1.37 13.22 17.19 7.06 2.23 4.62 8.67 7.76 0.85 1.12 1.60 1.79 2.91 1.85 100.00

2 160 252 1 185 531 104 914 214 257 1 851 221 2 119 139 1 394 074 462 634 628 280 1 457 591 1 405 452 186 377 128 917 330 086 390 005 451 116 316 401 14 732 247

2 005 655 1 652 051 399 890 2 476 922 1 688 176 3 456 821 3 163 128 1 794 500 475 928 454 934 11 022 004 173 025 433 848 399 371 2 498 738 3 156 054 239 802 35 490 847

0.087 0.108 0.269 0.021 0.016 0.286 0.360 0.183 0.048 0.022 0.537 0.989 0.005 0.036 0.177 0.301 0.145 0.156

Source: Spanish Forest Plan (2002). a Includes grass and shrublands. b Tree crown coverages over 20%.

Conflict resolution is one of the core elements in N/RFPs which also shares the territorial compound in Mediterranean regions. Conflicts found in Mediterranean forests are more closely related to land use planning than to the harmony of forest uses and functions. For this reason, the accurate knowledge of the extent and location of forests constitutes a priority for Mediterranean N/RFPs.3 However, this highly complex goal entails problems derived from the weakly defined land tenure rights and structure in the Mediterranean region. In response to this challenge, most CCAA have included in their RFP process a built in Geographical Information System (GIS). This tool has allowed the gathering and updating of the information concerning forested lands in the various Spanish regions. These GIS also include the planning proposals considered in the various planning programmes (i.e. Comunidad Valenciana, http:// www.cma.gva.es/areas/estado/bosques/bosq/pgof/ Documento%20General/Documento%20General/ 3

Executive Summary, Technical Specification and Technical Assistance Budget for the development of the General Forest Plan of the Autonomous Community of Valencia (RFP), April 2001.

Plan%20Forestal.PDF). In general terms, the elaboration of RFPs, which have been contemporary with the update of the 2nd (1986 –1996) and 3rd (from 1997) National Forest Inventories, has meant for all CCAA an opportunity to improve the knowledge and the mapping basis of their forested lands. This has been one of the main contributions of the RFPs formulation process. Another common conflict found in forested Mediterranean regions is the open confrontation among the forest sector and radical ecologist groups over environmental policies. This typically Mediterraneanworld conflict persists, despite the fact that participative models have favoured open policies, particularly used by regional forest authorities during the RFPs definition stages. The conflict remains regardless of the effort made by the public forest sector to endow itself with an environmental content by adopting the principles of SFM. In relation to the main s/i factors for the development of substantive RFPs in Spain as a Mediterranean country, we should highlight decentralisation, land tenure and the relation with land planning policy. Decentralisation plays a supporting factor

136

C. Montiel, L. Galiana / Forest Policy and Economics 7 (2005) 131–142

role in so far as it may contribute to a coherent forest policy definition, adjusted to the region’s problems and needs. Furthermore, the regional decision making level strengthens the sub-regional management level, which is the most appropriate one for coping with the inner issues of Mediterranean forests. Land tenure is the second most important s/i factor in the Mediterranean region due to the prevalence of private forest property, side-problems derived from smallholdings and the territorial disorganisation. Besides, land tenure is not only a s/i factor throughout the policy process; the very management of this issue becomes a content of the RFPs, specially the role of private ownership in SFM in the Mediterranean (Domı´nguez et al., in press). Next, the third s/i factor will be analysed in close detail, on account of its relevance for the substantiveness of RFPs in the Spanish regions.

4. Relationship between forest programmes and land planning programmes at regional level The different laws of the CCAA have contributed to the definition of real territorial planning systems. These systems built up a series of common guidelines as a base-line, upon which certain regional specifications are based. The characteristic territorial planning scheme in any region, follows the next outline: a. The territorial planning programme is meant to be a regional integrating tool. It conforms the reference framework for the subsequent territorial actions to be carried out by lower-rank instruments. b. The territorial planning programme relies on subregional scale instruments which convey and develop the upper stage planning level to the immediate sphere of application. c. The territorial planning programme counts on sectorial instruments which regulate, lead and structure sectoral activities with a direct territorial impact (infrastructures, public service agreements, environment). The need to link the territorial planning programme and the forest policy, both having a regional extent, offers no controversy. The fact that these

policy processes may progress simultaneously, constitutes an added asset. Unfortunately, there has been neither smooth communication flows nor a clear will of co-ordination and convergence between both policies. The consequences have been twofold: (i) The definition of the forest policy has been developed independently from the territorial model presented by the land planning policy; (ii) The land planning policy has not internalised the principles of forest land management supported by the forest policy. While these principles are nominally included in the wording, they lack real substantiveness. There is a reason which explains this gap. The sole territorial substantiveness acknowledged in the environmental policy (which is a competence of the Regional Administration and includes the forest policy) is restricted to the definition, planning and management of areas which have a special environmental interest. The forest policy is integrated in the legal framework and the territorial planning system. Regional land planning policy outputs do include the forest lands in the territorial model presented. In spite of the assets just mentioned, however, forest policy guidelines become truly effective in subregional spheres only when the forest component appears mixed up with environmental issues, being the latter the real important ones (especially when protected natural sites are at stake). The resolutions derived from the forest policy can only be fully integrated in land planning policy outputs if they are framed and included as an element of the environmental plan. Such integration comes by way of: (i) the definition and protection of lands with special environmental value; (ii) the development of legally binding plans (Planes de Ordenacio´n de Recursos Naturales: Natural Resources Planning Programmes), which work as true land planning instruments in areas with a special ecological value. Some specific regional characteristics can be considered beyond the general relational model presented. The diverse insights of the regions constitute the first differing factor. Highly urbanised regions (Madrid, Catalunya), present territorial models led by a hierarchical arrangement of cities and infrastructure networks; in these regions forest land is a marginal consideration. On the other hand, the ecosystem (i.e. the forestland) has a leading role in the

C. Montiel, L. Galiana / Forest Policy and Economics 7 (2005) 131–142

definition of the territorial model chosen in highly rural regions (Andalusia, Castilla y Leo´n). One could even speak of an urban territorial planning approach vs. an environmental territorial planning approach. The different legal frameworks found in each region is another factor stressing even further those regional characteristics (Table 2). 4.1. The environmental land planning model Andalusia and the Basque Country are regions where the territorial planning processes are so well advanced to allow us to draw conclusions; in both regions policy outputs (documents of Land Planning Programmes) and policy outcomes (territorial and political consequences of policy outputs) can be easily assessed. The Andalusian Forest Programme (1989) has been a pioneer in the process of developing RFPs in Spain. This Programme originally included some strategic principles applied later to regional and national processes including ecological and productive multifunctionality, and connection between forest policy measures and socio-economic development objectives in forest counties. However, this Programme has had a very limited effect on forest land management. Most objectives and action plans have been assumed by other planning instruments (such as the Andalusian Environmental Programme). Moreover, the forest programme has been displaced by more priority environmental policy issues, namely the definition and planning of protected natural sites. To understand this situation, one must acknowledge two premises. First, the priority given by the regional government (Junta de Andalucı´a) to the generation of a regional network of protected natural sites. These have had an emblematic role in the regional political consolidation process. Second, the fact that most forest ecosystems are protected areas (Natural Parks). This is so because most Andalusian forest ecosystems are located on hilly and mountainous environments, where a lower population pressure has preserved a large part of the natural heritage and resources. Consequently, the actual management of forest lands has been carried out under planning formulas adjusted to the environmental laws (Planes de Ordenacio´n de Recursos Naturales, PORN: Natu-

137

ral Resources Planning Programmes), which have also been applied to unprotected forest lands. The strong public control over these areas has come to completion including them into various Rural Development Programmes for priority actions. Thus, by the time the land planning process actually starts it meets a firmly established administrative control over forest lands, through its territorial principles and instruments. This context is assumed by the legislation (Ley de Ordenacio´n del Territorio de 1994: 1994 Land Planning Law). The legal framework acknowledges the regional and subregional programmes as instruments, together with the other planning activities handled by the regional government (Junta), namely the Programmes with a direct impact on the land planning (i.e. PORN). Further land planning policy outputs are liable and subject to these directives. Consequently, the latter Plan de Ordenacio´n del Territorio de Andalucı´a (Andalusian Land Planning Programme) (1999) includes in its territorial model a protective compromise over those mountain forest areas, whose strategic regional role is defined by the following assets: a. Protected mountain sites (PMS) conform essential fresh water reservoirs. b. PMS are wide spaces with high touristic and leisure potential. c. PMS store basic components for high quality agricultural production. d. PMS house and preserve bio-diversity. On the other hand, the Basque Country is one of the most densely forested regions throughout Europe (54% of the territory is tree-covered), with considerable economic production based on the exploitation of this natural resource. The Basque Country Forest Programme (1994) conforms a document to manage the economic forestal revenues, in spite of the acknowledgement made of the triple strategic functions forested mountains have, i.e. a space for leisure and culture, source of incomes and natural resources conservation. Nevertheless, this Forest Programme presents clear territorial principles, expressed in the emphasis to preserve forested lands and the environmental factors that guarantee those forest lands in good shape (Ruı´z and Galdo´s, 2003).

138

Table 2 Spanish basic legislation and policy programmes in land planning policies and in forest policies at a regional scale Land planning legal framework

Land planning instruments

Forest legal framework

Forest programmes and strategies

Andalucı´a

Ley de Ordenacio´n del Territorio (1994)

Plan de Ordenacio´n del Territorio. Bases y Estrategias (1999) http://www. copt.junta-andalucia.es/docs/urbanismo/ Pota/textos/indice.pdf

Ley 2/1992, 15 June Reglamento: Decreto 208/1997, 9 September

Plan Forestal Andaluz (1989) http://www.cma.junta-andalucia.es/ planesmed/forestal/introduccion.html

Arago´n

Ley de Ordenacio´n del Territorio (1992)

Directrices Generales de Ordenacio´n Territorial (1998)

In progress

Plan de Accio´n Forestal y de Conservacio´n de la Biodiversidad en Arago´n (2001) http://portal.aragob.es/ pls/portal30/docs/31547.pdf

Asturias

Ley de Coordinacio´n y Ordenacio´n Territorial (1987)

Directrices Regionales de Ordenacio´n Twerritorial (1991)

In progress http://forestales.net/ Gestion/legislacion/archivos/ borradorleyforestal.pdf

Plan Forestal de Asturias (2001)

Baleares

Ley de Ordenacio´n Territorial (2000)

Directrices de Ordenacio´n Territorial (1999)

None

None

Canarias

Ley de Ordenacio´n del Territorio (1999)

None

None

Plan Forestal de Canarias (1999) http://www.gobcan.es/medioambiente/ biodiversidad/planforestal

Cantabria

Ley de Ordenacio´n Territorial y Re´gimen Urbanı´stico del Suelo (2001)

In progress

None

In progress

Castilla-La Mancha

Ley de Ordenacio´n del Territorio y de la Actividad Urbanı´stica (1998)

None

In progress

Plan de Conservacio´n del Medio Natural (1994) http://biblioteca2.uclm.es/ biblioteca/ceclm/libros/natural.pdf

Castilla y Leo´n

Ley de Ordenacio´n del Territorio (1998)

Directrices de Ordenacio´n del Territorio (2001) http://www.jcyl.es/jcyl-client/ jcyl/cf/dgvuot/tkContent? idContent = 4997&locale = es_ES &textOnly = false

Ley 5/1994, 16 May

Plan Forestal de Castilla y Leo´n (2002) http://www.jcyl.es/jcyl-client/jcyl/ cmaot/temas/bosques

C. Montiel, L. Galiana / Forest Policy and Economics 7 (2005) 131–142

Autonomous Communities

Ley de Polı´tica Territorial (1983)

Plan Territorial General (1995)

Ley 6/1988, 30 March http://www.juridicas.com/ base_datos/CCAA/ ca-l6-1988.t2.html

Plan General de Polı´tica Forestal (1994)

Extremadura

Ley del Suelo y Ordenacio´n Territorial (2001)

In progress

None

Plan Forestal de Extremadura (2002) http://www.juntaex.es/consejerias/aym/ dgm/plan_forestal/sectoriales_pfe.pdf

Galicia

Ley de Ordenacio´n del Territorio (1995)

None

None

Plan Forestal de Galicia (1992) http://www.xunta.es/conselle/ cma/cma11k/cma11ka/p11ka03.htm

Madrid

Ley de Medidas de Polı´tica Territorial, Suelo y Urbanismo (1995)

Plan Regional de Estrategia Territorial. Bases (1996)

Ley 16/1995, 4 May

Plan Forestal de la Comunidad de Madrid (1999) http://medioambiente.madrid.org/ areastematicas/biodiversidad/ planfo.html

Murcia

Ley del Suelo (2001)

None

In progress

Estrategia Forestal de la Regio´n de Murcia (2002) http://www.carm.es/cma/dgmn/ esquema/indice.htm

Navarra

Ley de Ordenacio´n del territorio y urbanismo (2002)

Estrategia Territorial Navarra (in progress) http://www.estrategianavarra.com/ menu.asp

Ley 13/1990, 31 December Reglamento: Decreto 59/1992

Plan Forestal de Navarra (1997) http://www.cfnavarra.es/Medioambiente/ planes/planforestal/home.htm

La Rioja

Ley de Ordenacio´n del Territorio y Urbanismo (1998)

In progress

Ley 2/1995, 10 February

Plan Forestal de la Rioja (2002)

Comunidad Valenciana

Ley de Ordenacio´n del Territorio (1989)

In progress

Ley 3/1993, 27 December Reglamento: Decreto 98/1995, 16 May

Plan General de Ordenacio´n Forestal de la Comunidad Valenciana (2002) http://www.cma.gva.es/areas/estado/ bosques/bosq/pgof/documento%20general/ documento%20general/plan%20forestal.pdf

Paı´s Vasco

Ley de Ordenacio´n del Territorio (1990)

Directrices de Ordenacio´n del Territorio (1997) http://www.euskadi.net/dot/ indice3_c.htm

Normas forales (Alava, 1986; Vizcaya and Guipu´zcoa, 1994)

Plan Forestal del Paı´s Vasco (1994) http://www.nekanet.net/naturaleza/forestal/ planforestal/presentacion.htm

139

Own production

C. Montiel, L. Galiana / Forest Policy and Economics 7 (2005) 131–142

Catalun˜a

140

C. Montiel, L. Galiana / Forest Policy and Economics 7 (2005) 131–142

The actual writing and development of the Basque Country Forest Programme runs parallel to the land planning consolidation policy process, understood as a regional public function (1990 Land Planning Law). Thus, the contents and instruments used in both policy programmes converge in the same direction towards a common goal. The Basque Country Land Planning Law establishes a planning system articulated upon three types of instruments: a. The Directrices de Ordenacio´n del Territorio, 1997 (Land Planning Directives, LPD), of regional extent with the territorial model proposed. Such a model insists on the strategic character of forest lands (territorial, environmental and economic) and it bounds its development to a latter agro-forestal document. b. The Planes Territoriales Parciales (Partial Territorial Plans, PTP) of subregional extent, which detail the former model to smaller territorial sections. c. The Planes Territoriales Sectoriales (Sectoral Land Plans, SLP) which develops partial components of the regional land planning directives: infrastructures, housing development, public service agreements, etc. Among the latter plans mentioned, we should single out the Environmental and Agroforestal Sector Territorial Plan (SLP), already mentioned by the LPD and which is about to be passed by the regional parliament. The objectives defined in this plan aim at the maintenance, preservation and land-use planning of forest lands; mapping of their surface and proposing a regulation of uses and activities, according with the natural values and assets attributed. At present the so-called PTPs are being developed in each functional area of the Basque Country. The relationship between the forest and the territorial plans is sketched out in the development of these PTPs. PTPs have a wider normative scope than SLPs. One of the functions of PTPs is the coordination of different sectoral land plans, according to a defined territorial model (LPD), applying their dispositions to smaller territorial units and solving problems and conflicts. As a result, lands that in the agro-forestal SLP fall under the special protection

category are the only ones fully respected in their boundaries and regulation of uses by the PTP. In the rest of the territory, urban developments can invade the agro-forestal land delimited in the agro-forestal SLP when development needs may advise so. In short, the agro-forestal SLP remains triumphant in its objectives only in the case of its environmental variable. Nonetheless, its role should not be undervalued since, despite partial modifications, the final land planning regulations assume in many ways its proposals. 4.2. The urban land planning model The effects of the forest policy in Catalunya and Madrid are even more limited in terms of the marginality of the policy contents. This explains the priorities assumed by the land planning policy in these regions, where the metropolitan reality (Barcelona and Madrid) conditions the very nature of the land planning outputs issued. In both cases, land planning policies pursue two related objectives: 1. To achieve a greater territorial economic efficiency and a better use of land potential. 2. To bring about a new settlement model, relative to the population and to the economic activities; the model should be more balanced and less congested while favouring a decentralisation strategy of housing settlement and economic activity. In this regional development strategy, forest lands play a marginal role. The way in which land planning policy deals with the natural environment in both regions is as though it were part of the heritage (landscape and resources reserve) with a functional vocation oriented towards leisure (second housing, open-air recreation). Both regions manage an environmental planning policy concerned with the definition and management of areas that deserve special attention (protected natural sites) where conservation prevails over territorial developments. This situation leads land planning policy outputs to reduce urban pressure over protected natural sites, relocating degrading land uses in areas of lower natural value.

C. Montiel, L. Galiana / Forest Policy and Economics 7 (2005) 131–142

5. Are Spanish RFPs substantive RFPs or symbolic RFPs? We have earlier stressed the need to determine the substantiveness of N/RFPs in Mediterranean regions examining the territorial factor, and the relationships between forest policy and land planning policy. Following Hogl and Pregernig,4 a substantive NFP is one that introduces substantial changes and makes a difference in the forest policy orientation and application. In this sense, we could point out that Spanish RFPs have made a change in some core elements, but not in the forest policy as a whole. Core elements have been defined in COST Action E19 ‘National Forest Programmes in a European context’ as the key elements or conceptual essentials of NFPs. Four core elements have been singled out in this COST Action: participatory mechanisms, conflict resolutions schemes, cross-sectoral approaches and iterative processes. In the CCAA, RFPs have become the first application instrument of regional forest policies although their territorial character and impacts have not always been substantial. The common goal of RFPs is to guarantee an ecological forest management that is economically sustainable, adopting the principles signed in international agreements, and in European and Spanish forest strategies. But there exists a remarkable heterogeneity of approaches and situations (Alcanda, 2001; Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, 2000). The eastern region of Valencia provides a good example of a substantive RFP in the European Mediterranean context on account of the territorial compound developed while the policy process remains in progress; besides, the future RFP has been included as a sectoral plan in the draft law for the regional land planning. In other regions, however, the tendency observed in the forest policy shows a bias continuity related to the former centralised forest policy period, that used to enjoy a strong power of intervention upon the territory. These latter RFPs continue to stress the wonders of reforestation and focussing on the traditional goals of protection (e.g. the region of Madrid). 4

Hogl, K., Pregernig, M.: Reflections on the approaches of Working Group 1 and Working Group 2 and their co-ordination, COST Action E19, Vienna, November 2000.

141

RFPs face the challenge of having to define a new model of SFM, adapted to current social demands and territorial changes. The weakness shown by certain core elements, especially the territorial factor, reduce them to mere symbolic RFPs in most regions. RFPs include in their theoretic discourse new concepts such as sustainability, multifunctionality and bio-diversity but do not tend to contribute with new management models. In this sense, the issues risen by the current social and territorial model of Mediterranean Europe remains unresolved. The main weakness of Spanish RFPs is the lack of adjustment between the SFM concept and the specific characteristics of Mediterranean forests, notable by their low cost-effectiveness and its great natural regeneration power in spite of the ecosystem’s inner fragility. Production is not the main function of Mediterranean forests, and is localised in only a very few sites. On the other hand, it is essential to ensure the management of forest dynamics and the landscape diversity protecting open-air spaces and preserving bio-diversity (Benoit de Coignac, 2001). In Mediterranean regions, SFM means, more than anything else, sustainable landscape management and land planning. SFM should be interpreted in Mediterranean Europe from a territorial point of view and in close relationship with local development policies, in order to provide real answers to the current social demands. Subregional work-scales allow an adjusted definition of problems and a concrete management of forest lands. This scale of intervention provides the most fitting scenario to attain the necessary convergence between contents and instruments in land planning policy and in the forest policy. The preliminary Spanish Forest Act Ministerio de Medio Ambiente (2003), just as some RFPs, such as that of the Autonomous Community of Valencia, consider the future development of this subregional planning level, although it is too early to come up with solid conclusions in this respect.

6. Conclusions The first conclusion derived from this study of RFPs in Spain is that, decentralisation constitutes the main s/i factor for the development of substantive N/RFPs in the Mediterranean context. Understanding Spain as a fede-

142

C. Montiel, L. Galiana / Forest Policy and Economics 7 (2005) 131–142

ral state, the independence regions enjoy together with the development of their own forest competences are elements which favour the adaptation of RFPs in the Mediterranean context. Nevertheless, if decentralisation is a supportive factor in this case for Spanish RFPs, it can also be an impeding factor for the Spanish NFP (Domı´nguez et al., in press). In other words, the supportive or impeding effects of the decentralisation factor upon forest policies will depend on the administrative planning level. Secondly, RFPs in Spain reflect two planning models: the economist model, based on assigning resources to given functions; and the territorial model, which assigns resources to the territory. The former suit regions where forests have a greater productive potential, whereas the latter models are more common in lower cost-effective forests regions. On the other hand, the territorial factor should be taken as an essential element of N/RFPs in Mediterranean Europe, since it is a basic element of the nature and the inner dynamics of Mediterranean woodlands. At present, some Spanish RFPs develop this element partially, through cross-sectoral programmes. The necessary relationship between forest and land planning policies would certainly strengthen the territorial factor while also bringing along substantial benefits through the application of RFPs. This has been proved and experienced in those cases in which the Regional Land Planning Programmes have incorporated into their structures the RFPs as sectoral plans. Finally, co-ordination problems at a regional scale between the forest policy and the land planning policy are frequently reflected in the de-connection between RFPs and the Regional Land Planning Programmes, which are applied independently. The definition of a regional land planning policy with a clear will to coordinate the various policies with territorial impacts requires an accurately defined framework in which relations may attain common goals. In this sense, one should recognise that the recent territorial planning operated in the Spanish regions provides a growing protagonism to the environmental factor in the latest plans in comparison to the urban factor, ever-present in earlier plans. This evolution favours the integration of forestal elements in the regional land planning actions.

References Alcanda, P., Espan˜a. 10 an˜os de experiencia en planes forestales autono´ micos, 2001. In: Proceedings COST E19 Seminar: National Forest Programmes. Social and Political Context. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Madrid, pp. 9 – 24. Andalusian Forest Programme, 1989. Available at http://www.cma. junta-andalucia.ie/planesmed/forestal/introduccion.html. Basque Country Forest Programme, 1994. Available at http://www. nekanet.net/naturaleza/forestal/planforestal/presentacion.htm. Benoit de Coignac, G., 2001. Fonctions de la foreˆt me´diterrane´enne et inventaire forestier. Revue Forestie`re Francßaise 3 – 4, 304 – 309. Bonnier, J.P., 2000. Ame´nagement forestier en re´gions me´diterrane´ennes. Foreˆt Me´diterrane´enne XXI 4, 541 – 550. COST Action E19, 2001. Minutes of the 3rd Working Group 2 Meeting in Aberdeen (Scotland), 29 – 31 March 2001. Available at http://www.metla.fi/eu/cost/e19. Dominguez, G., Montiel, C., Nieto, in press. Spain: the reform of National Forest Policy. In: Country Reporsts, COST Action E19. Go´mez, J., Mata, R., 1993. Actuaciones forestales pu´blicas desde 1940. Objetivos, criterios y resultados. In: Gil, A., Morales, A. (Eds.), Medio siglo de cambios agrarios en Espan˜a. Instituto de Estudios Juan Gil-Albert, Alicante, pp. 151 – 190. Merlo, M., Rojas, E., 2000. Public goods and externalities linked to mediterranean forests: economic nature and policy. Land Use Policy 17, 197 – 208. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, 2000. Estrategia Forestal Espan˜ola. Organismo Auto´nomo de Parques Nacionales, Madrid available on line at http://www.mma.es. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, 2003. Preliminary Forest Act (Anteproyecto de la Ley de Montes), Direccio´n General de Conservacio´ n de la Naturaleza, Madrid. Available from http://www.mma.es. Montiel, C., Mediterranean forests: natural and cultural heritage, 2001a. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference Science and technology for the safeguard of cultural heritage in the Mediterranean Basin, Madrid. Montiel, C., 2001b. Mission report of the Short-term Scientific Mission ‘The specificities of N/RFPs in Mediterranean Europe’, CEMAGREF Aix-en-Provence, from 1 to 8 December 2001, COST Action E19. Montiel, C., 2002. Estrategia Forestal comunitaria, nacional y autono´mica. Erı´a 58, 177 – 181. Piussi, P., Farrell, E.P., 2000. Interactions between society and forest ecosystems: challenges for the near future. Forest Ecology and Management 132, 21 – 28. Ruı´z, E., Galdo´s, R., 2003. Situacio´n y estrategias pu´blicas del sector forestal en el Paı´s Vasco. In: Las relaciones entre las comunidades agrı´colas y el monte. Ediciones de la Universidat de Castilla La Mancha, Cuenca, pp. 301 – 315. Solano, J.M., Mediterranean Countries Forest Programs peculiarities, 2001. In: Proceedings COST E19 Seminar (Op.cit.). pp. 61 – 64.