field work report in the upper guadiana basin (spain)

FIELD WORK REPORT IN THE UPPER
GUADIANA BASIN (SPAIN)
Report of the NeWater project New Approaches to Adaptive Water Management under Uncertainty
www.newater.info
Title
Field work report in the Upper Guadiana Basin (Spain)
Purpose
This report is a part of the deliverable 1.7.5 b “Agro-economic
model for analysing policy scenarios and cost-effectiveness of
policy measures linking water and agricultural policy” for
Work Package 1.7 “Methods for transition to adaptive
management”. It focuses on the field word carried out in the
Upper Guadiana Basin by UPM team.
Filename
NW_D1.7.5b(II).doc
Authors
Consuelo Varela-Ortega, Irene Blanco, Gema Carmona,
Paloma Esteve
Document history
Current version.
Changes to previous version.
Date
1 Dec. 06
Status
Final
Target readership
General readership
Correct reference
Consuelo Varela Ortega, editor
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
December 2006
Prepared under contract from the European Commission
Contract no 511179 (GOCE)
Integrated Project in
PRIORITY 6.3 Global Change and Ecosystems
in the 6th EU framework programme
Deliverable title:
Deliverable no. :
Due date of deliverable:
Actual submission date:
Start of the project:
Duration:
Field work report in the Upper Guadiana Basin (Spain)
D 1.7.5 b. Additional report (two of four)
Month 20
01.12.06
01.01.2005
4 years
Table of contents
1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1
2
Methodology................................................................................................................................... 2
3
Distribution of the irrigation communities under study.................................................................. 3
4
3.1
General distribution of land in Castilla La Mancha (CLM) vs Spain .................................... 3
3.2
Agricultural structure in the selected irrigation communities................................................ 4
3.3
Agricultural structure in the Daimiel Irrigation Community ................................................. 8
Representative farms in the irrigation communities under study ................................................. 10
4.1
Farm typology...................................................................................................................... 11
4.2
Farm typology in the Daimiel Irrigation Community .......................................................... 18
5
Outcomes of the field work .......................................................................................................... 20
6
List of references .......................................................................................................................... 23
7
Annex I: Survey to the Guadiana Basin Authority and the General Irrigation Community......... 24
8
Annex II: Surveys to irrigation communities ............................................................................... 26
9
Annex III: Surveys to farmers ...................................................................................................... 30
10
Annex III: Pictures form the field work........................................................................................ 37
iii
Introduction
1
Introduction
The Newater project conceived as ‘New Approaches to Adaptive Water Management under
Uncertainty’ constitutes a strong step forward for an integrated analysis of water resources
management. Based on a fully integrated and comprehensive case-study approach, Newater
aims to address the analytical and the theoretical dimensions of IWR as well as its sitespecific policy-oriented practical implications.
The Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM, Polytechnic University of Madrid) is
involved in the WP 1.7 “methods for transition and adaptive capacity”. Its task is to develop
an agro-economic model in order to analyze policy scenarios and cost-effectiveness of policy
measures, and to define several scenarios on adaptive capacity of different policy options,
linking agricultural and water policies and management options. In this context, we have
developed a farm-based mathematical programming model of constrained optimization that
simulates farmers’ behavior confronted to various agricultural and water policy scenarios.
On this purpose, we have conducted an ample field work, consisting on surveys to irrigation
communities, to regional and central government officials, to river basin authority
representatives, to farmers’ unions, to environmental NGO’s and to private farmers.
This report is one part of the UPM main report (D 1.7.5 b). It provides a summary of the
field work carried out in the Upper Guadiana basin during the last year. The report includes 3
sections: section 1 shows the methodology developed, sections 2 and 3 present the
characteristics of the farms and crops in the area as well as the representative farms in each
of the irrigation communities. Annexes A, B and C include the questionnaires used for the
surveys and Annex D shows pictures from the field work.
1
Methodology
2
Methodology
Figure 1: Methodological scheme
INTERVIEWS
TO
TECHNICAL
EXPERTS
Farm level
data
Agronomic
Production
techniques
Management
INTERVIEWS TO
IRRIGATION
COMMUNITIES
INTERVIEWS TO
FARMERS
Farming
operations
Input
use
(Labor)
Policy
Constraints
Economic
Parameters
Costs
Water source
and volume
concession
Investments
-Operation &
maintenance
costs
-Investment
costs
Irrigation
technique
&
organizati
on
Financial
Constraints
MATHEMATICAL PROGRAMMING MODEL
SCENARIOS SIMULATION
STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS
Hydrology Data
INTERVIEW TO THE
GUADIANA BASIN
AUTHORITY
Environmental
Indicators
Wetlands perception
INTERVIEW TO THE REGIONAL
DEPTARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT & EnvNGOs
Subsidies, Prices
INTERVIEW TO THE
REGIONAL DEPTARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
The field work consists on surveys to the different stakeholder groups involved: technical
experts, farmers, irrigation communities, Guadiana Basin Authority, the Regional
Department of Environment, environmental NGOs, and the Regional Department of
Agriculture.
The object of this field work is to characterize all the stakeholder groups (interests and
expectations, potential and deficiencies, etc), as well as to obtain the technical coefficients
for the mathematical programming model that is going to be used for policy scenarios
simulation. The field work and the stakeholder analysis carried out afterwards also contribute
to the design of these policy scenarios.
2
Distribution of the irrigation communities under study
3
3.1
Distribution of the irrigation communities under study
General distribution of land in Castilla La Mancha (CLM) vs Spain
Table 1: Land distribution in CLM vs Spain
Castilla La Mancha
Spain
% CLM/Spain
197.668
1.790.162
11,0
Total Area (TA)
6.869.606
42.180.950
16,3
Used Agricultural Area (UAA)
4.581.592
26.316.787
17,4
Total Cultivated Lands (ha)
3.763.479
16.920.360
22,2
818.113
9.396.427
8,7
92.535
890.094
10,4
2.864.902
12.399.723
23,1
31,0
13,9
223,0
14.439
274.077
5,3
34.975,2
288.843,0
12,1
2,4
1,1
218,2
Farms
22.711
565.018
4,0
Area (ha)
58.158
1.151.968
5,0
2,6
2,0
130,0
Farms
111.010
602.249
18,4
Area (ha)
312.971
2.273.589
13,8
2,8
3,8
73,7
81.452
342.096
23,8
526.727
1.035.347
50,9
6,5
3,0
216,7
Farms
396
40.155
1,0
Area (ha)
721
59.733
1,2
ha/Farm
1,8
1,5
120,0
Number of farms
Permanent pasture (ha)
Category of crops
Annual species
Farms
Area (ha)
ha/Farm
Vegetables
Farms
Area (ha)
ha/Farm
Fruit trees
ha/Farm
Olive groves
ha/Farm
Vineyards
Farms
Area (ha)
ha/Farm
Others
Source: Junta de Castilla la Mancha, 2004
3
Distribution of the irrigation communities under study
Castilla La Mancha represents 11% of Spanish agricultural farms and 17,4% of the Used
Agricultural Area. Herbaceous crops occupy the largest area of Castilla La Mancha, that is
2.864.902 ha, which represent 23,1% from the whole Spanish crop surface. Horticultural
crops represent 5,3% of Spanish farms, and 12,1% of total surface, which indicates the large
size of the farms.
Fruit trees in this area represent only a 4% and a 5% of the total farms and surface of this
crop in Spain. Vineyard farms in Castilla La Mancha represent 23,2%. Vineyard makes up
the biggest percentage of crops in Castilla-La Mancha in relation to the rest of Spain,
representing 23,8% of the vineyard farms in the country and 50,9% of the land dedicated to
this crop.
The following graph represents the land distribution in Castilla La Mancha over the total of
farmland in this region.
Figure 2: Land distribution of Castilla La Mancha in relation to farm land
Olive grove
0,01%
Vineyard
39,78%
Fruit trees
0,16%
Other cultivated
species 0,01%
Annual species
54,32%
Source: Own elaboration from INE (1999)
3.2
Agricultural structure in the selected irrigation communities
Aquifer 23 comprises 19 different municipalities which belong to Ciudad Real, Cuenca and
Albacete provinces.
In the following table, all municipalities that form part of the Aquifer are indicated, focusing
on the municipalities selected for our study: Alcázar de San Juan, Daimiel, Herencia,
Manzanares and Tomelloso, all of them within Ciudad Real.
4
Distribution of the irrigation communities under study
Figure 3: Irrigation communities selected
MUNICIPALITIES IN THE
AQUIFER
Alcázar de San Juan
Alcázar de San Juan
Arenas de San Juan
Daimiel
Argamasilla de Alba
Bolaños de Calatrava
Campo de Criptana
Herencia
Daimiel
Herencia
Manzanares
Manzanares
Membrilla
Socuéllamos
Tomelloso
Tomelloso
Torralba de Calatrava
Villarrubia de los Ojos
Villarta de San Juan
Mesas (Las)
Pedroñeras (Las)
Provencio (El)
San Clemente
Province of Ciudad Real
Province of Albacete
Villarrobledo
Province of Cuenca
The municipalities selected for the study are representative of the area (see table 2).
Chart number 3 shows the extension (ha) and the representative percentage in the aquifer
according to the crop and region. Crop distribution in the five selected regions is detailed; these
make up altogether 61,51% of the COP crops of the Aquifer, 93,76% of sugar beet, 51,59% of
pulse grain, 76,24% of potato, 86,66% of melon and 35,08% of the rest of vegetables, as well as
47,99% of vineyard.
5
Distribution of the irrigation communities under study
Table 2: Characteristic of the Irrigation communities in the aquifer 23
PROVINCE
TOWN
Surface
Area (ha)
Ciudad Real
Alcázar de San Juan
Number
% in aquifer
% in aquifer
Number of hectares
per well
ha/well
Wells registered
Number
22,2
912
10,8
32,2
1805
10,88
16,28
Arenas de San Juan
2136
1,6
120
1,4
17,8
258
1,56
8,28
Argamasilla de Alba
5000
3,8
189
2,2
26,5
339
2,04
14,75
Bolaños de Calatrava
2323,3
1,8
342
4,1
6,8
635
3,83
3,66
8314
6,3
579
6,9
14,4
1170
7,05
7,11
Daimiel
19920
15,0
1445
17,1
13,8
2859
17,24
6,97
Herencia
3725
2,8
130
1,5
28,7
270
1,63
13,80
17896
13,5
850
10,1
21,1
1786
10,77
10,02
386
0,3
240
2,8
1,6
345
2,08
1,12
Socuéllamos
8830
6,7
608
7,2
14,5
1480
8,92
5,97
Tomelloso
4739
3,6
403
4,8
11,8
645
3,89
7,35
Torralba de Calatrava
4598
3,5
292
3,5
15,7
759
4,58
6,06
Villarrubia de los Ojos
2956
2,2
336
4,0
8,8
1037
6,25
2,85
Villarta de San Juan
3070
2,3
97
1,1
31,6
216
1,30
14,21
Mesas (Las)
2500
1,9
238
2,8
10,5
100
0,60
25,00
Pedroñeras (Las)
2162
1,6
127
1,5
17,0
501
3,02
4,32
Provencio (El)
3200
2,4
300
3,6
10,7
600
3,62
5,33
San Clemente
2500,54
1,9
150
1,8
16,7
570
3,44
4,39
Villarrobledo
8903
6,7
1078
12,8
8,3
1210
7,30
7,36
TOTAL PROVINCES AND
COUNTIES *
75660
57,1
3740
44,3
20,2
7365
44,41
10,27
TOTAL
PROV.
AND
COUNT. IN THE AQUIFER
132.538,84
100,00
8.436
100,0
15,7
16.585
100,00
7,99
Manzanares
Membrilla
Albacete
% in aquifer
Medium
farm size
Area (ha)
29380
Campo de Criptana
Cuenca
Number of irrigants
Source: Own elaboration from Junta de Castilla-La Mancha, 2004
6
Distribution of the irrigation communities under study
Table 3: Crop distribution in the aquifer 23 by province and municipality
PROVINCE
TOWN
Supported crops COP
A(ha)
Ciudad Real
Alcázar de San Juan
%in aquifer
A(ha)
Potato
%in aquifer
A(ha)
Melon
%in aquifer
A(ha)
Other vegetables
%in aquifer
A(ha)
%in aquifer
Vineyard
A(ha)
%in aquifer
23,44
478
6,40
389
20,25
66
8,00
5.020
52,29
666
13,12
5.332
14,18
680
0,98
0
0,00
0
0,00
2
0,24
18
0,19
28
0,55
565
1,50
Argamasilla de Alba
4.980
7,15
83
1,11
179
9,32
4
0,48
850
8,85
145
2,86
1.867
4,97
Bolaños de Calatrava
971
1,39
7
0,09
7
0,36
68
8,24
0
0,00
253
4,98
269
0,72
2.968
4,26
58
0,78
99
5,15
37
4,48
196
2,04
74
1,46
2.350
6,25
Daimiel
12.418
17,82
6.216
83,27
177
9,21
438
53,09
1.205
12,55
331
6,52
6.340
16,87
Herencia
2.781
3,99
114
1,53
22
1,15
119
14,42
570
5,94
545
10,73
691
1,84
10.533
15,11
173
2,32
376
19,57
3
0,36
675
7,03
56
1,10
3.102
8,25
Membrilla
1.148
1,65
0
0,00
16
0,83
3
0,36
142
1,48
22
0,43
363
0,97
Socuéllamos
2.573
3,69
8
0,11
115
5,99
47
5,70
389
4,05
97
1,91
129
0,34
800
1,15
18
0,24
27
1,41
3
0,36
370
3,85
183
3,60
2.576
6,85
1.624
2,33
181
2,42
43
2,24
25
3,03
52
0,54
13
0,26
732
1,95
693
0,99
6
0,08
0
0,00
4
0,48
0
0,00
6
0,12
1.350
3,59
1.611
2,31
88
1,18
19
0,99
0
0,00
65
0,68
31
0,61
521
1,39
603
0,87
0
0,00
33
1,72
0
0,00
9
0,09
275
5,42
0
0,00
1.391
2,00
0
0,00
51
2,65
0
0,00
0
0,00
934
18,40
0
0,00
Provencio (El)
851
1,22
0
0,00
34
1,77
0
0,00
0
0,00
384
7,56
0
0,00
San Clemente
1.549
2,22
0
0,00
22
1,15
0
0,00
0
0,00
806
15,88
0
0,00
Villarrobledo
5.185
7,44
35
0,47
312
16,24
6
0,73
40
0,42
228
4,49
11.405
30,34
TOTAL PROVINCES
AND COUNTIES *
42.866
61,51
6.999
93,76
991
51,59
629
76,24
7.840
81,66
1.781
35,08
18.041
47,99
TOTAL PROV. AND
COUNT. IN THE
AQUIFER
69.693
100,00
7.465
100,00
1.921
100,00
825
100,00
9.601
100,00
5.077
100,00
37.592
100,00
Campo de Criptana
Manzanares
Tomelloso
Torralba de Calatrava
Villarrubia de los Ojos
Villarta de San Juan
Mesas (Las)
Pedroñeras (Las)
Albacete
A(ha)
Grain Pulses
16.334
Arenas de San Juan
Cuenca
%in aquifer
Sugarbeet
(A = Area)
Source: Own elaboration from Junta de Castilla-La Mancha, 2004
7
Distribution of the irrigation communities under study
3.3
Agricultural structure in the Daimiel Irrigation Community
The study focuses on the Daimiel Irrigation Community, the most representative Water User
Association.
The next chart shows the more relevant characteristics and specifications of this selected
irrigation community.
Table 4: Characteristics of the Daimiel Irrigation Community
Irrigation Community
Daimiel
Since Year
1987
Surface (ha)
19.000
Nº of users
1445
Nº of wells
2859
Floor (m3/ha)
Depends on farm size
Irrigation Technique
Drip, Sprinkler
Institution
Centralize
Water scarcity Level
High
Price rate
Variable (pts/m3)
Water cost (€/ha)
210,35
Use/save of water
Good
Water market charge
NC
Organisation management and control
Not enough, bad control
Source: Own elaboration from different surveys.
8
Distribution of the irrigation communities under study
Table 5: Crop distribution in the Daimiel Irrigation Community
Irrigated
area (Has)
Rain-fed
area (Has)
Spring Cereals
831,0
4,0
Winter Cereals
10.711,0
2.949,0
Oilseed crops
8,0
0,0
Protein crops
868,0
205,0
Total Supported crops
12.418,0
3.158,0
Set-aside
6.216,0
3.218,0
Sugar beet
520,0
0,0
Grain pulses
177,0
128,0
Vineyard
6.340,0
2.615,0
Olive grove
823,0
2.227,0
Total CAP crop
26.494,0
11.346,0
Other cereals
4,00
0,00
Fodder crops
120,00
75,00
Potato
438,00
0,00
Melon
1.205,00
13,00
Other vegetables
331,00
0,00
Fruit trees
29,00
0,00
Total Other Crops
2.127,00
88,00
TOTAL
28.621,00
11.434,00
Land distribution
CAP crops
Other crops
Source: Junta de Castilla La Mancha, 2004
9
Farm typology
4
Representative farms in the irrigation communities under study
After studying the crop distribution and irrigation communities’ features, the characteristics
of the representative farms have been determined.
Two or three representative farms for each water user association have been built from the
statistical data itemised by size strata (INE-Instituto Nacional de Estadística). These farms
are statistically representative of the area in terms of crop distribution, area, number of farms
and percentage of irrigated land and they are the ones simulated in the mathematical
programming model.
The production system defined by the representative farms reproduces the current crop
distribution in the different study areas. Crop distribution by farm size conveys the importance
of particular strata.
The analysis in the Castilla-La Mancha region shows that most farms have a small size, but
most of the area on this community is represented by large surface farms. This means that
there are many small farms which do not occupy much area and a few large farms which
cover most part of the land.
Table 6: Total area (TA), usable Agricultural Area (UAA) and number of farms in the
Region of Castilla La Mancha
No.
farms
Farms
(%)
TA
(ha)
TA
(%)
UAA (ha)
UAA
(%)
197.668
100
6.869.606
100
4.581.592
100
2.826
1,43
0
0
0
0
Farms with land
194.842
98,57
6.869.606
100
4.581.592
100
0,1 ≤ X < 1
27.087
13,7
14.745
0,21
12.326
0,26
1≤X<5
69.512
35,16
176.881
2,58
147.605
3,22
5 ≤ X < 10
30.316
15,34
215.043
3,13
181.513
3,96
10 ≤ X< 20
24.464
12,38
345.141
5,02
296.790
6,48
20 ≤ X < 50
21.894
11,07
684.548
9,96
601.970
13,14
50 ≤ X < 100
10.135
5,13
707.536
10,3
635.147
13,86
100 ≤ X < 200
5.944
3
826.271
12,02
718.904
15,69
200 ≤ X
5.490
2,77
3.899.443
56,76
1.987.337
43,38
Farm size (ha) = X
All farms
Farms without land
Source: Own elaboration from INE (Instituto Nacional de Estadísitica), 1999
10
Farm typology
4.1
Farm typology
For each selected irrigation community, a graph is going to be presented representing the
farm percentage and Used Agricultural Surface for each rank of size defined.
Once the structural characteristics of the selected area are defined, representative farms will
be obtained. These farms represent a significant percentage of the area in terms of crop
distribution, surface, number of farms and irrigated areas.
•
Farm typology in the Alcázar de San Juan Irrigation Community
In this irrigation community (IC) there are three representative farms. Each model belongs to
one of the following categories of size: between 0 and 20 ha; between 50 and 200 ha, and
bigger than 200ha. Percentage of land covered by representative farms is quite large
(77,29%), as well as the percentage of farms (82,01%).
Table 7: Representative Farms in Alcázar de San Juan (Ciudad Real)
Size (ha) = X
% Farms
% Area
0 < X < 20
71,55
19,36
20 ≤ X < 50
17,99
22,71
50 ≤ X < 200
8,94
32,48
200 ≤ X
1,52
25,46
82,01
77,29
Repr. Farms
Source: Own elaboration from INE (1999)
Figure 4: Farm typology in Alcázar de San Juan (Ciudad Real)
30
40
35
25
25
15
20
15
10
% Farms
% Area
30
20
10
5
5
0
0
>= 0
.0 - <
5
>= 1
0-<
20
>= 5
0-<
100
>= 2
00
Farm size (ha)
Superficie
Agraria Util
(%)
Número
Explotaciones
(%)
Usable Agricultural
Area
(%)
Number de
of farms
(%)
Source: Own elaboration from INE (1999)
11
Farm typology
Representative crops in the Alcázar de San Juan IC are: barley (in irrigated and non irrigated
land), peas, melon, pepper, onion and garlic.
-
Farm F-1 has an extension of 15ha, in medium quality soil. Five hectares are used for
peppers, with a drip irrigation system; 7ha are dedicated to barley in dry land. The rest of
the land in the farm is not used.
-
Farm F-2, has an extension of 115ha, 95ha of which are placed in medium quality soil
and 20ha in bad quality soil. Crop distribution in this farm is as follows: 40 ha dedicated
to barley in irrigated area, 8 ha are cultivated with melon, 16 ha of garlic, 11 ha of rainfed barley and 40 ha are not used. The Irrigation techniques used in this farm are drip
and sprinkler.
-
Farm F-3 has an area of 500ha: 20 ha are situated in good quality soil, 450 ha in medium
quality soil and 30 ha in bad quality soil. Crop distribution is: 100 ha of barley in
irrigated area, 25 ha dedicated to peas, 20 ha to melon, 35 ha to garlic, 40 ha to onion,
230 ha of barley in dry land and 50 ha not in use. The drip irrigation technique is used
for melon, onion and garlic, and sprinklers for the rest of the crops.
12
Farm typology
Table 8: Farm typology characteristics in Alcázar de San Juan (Ciudad Real)
Alcázar de San Juan IC Typology
F-1
F-2
F-3
15
115
500
17,6
0
0
0
20
30
15
95
450
0
0
20
Drip
5
15
24
Sprinkler
0
45
20
Irrigated barley
0
35
20
Pea
0
0
5
Melon
0
7
4
Pepper
33
0
0
Garlic
0
14
7
Onion
0
0
8
Rain-fed barley
47
9
46
Set-aside
20
35
10
20
50
30
Size (ha)
Land Lease (%)
Type of soil (ha)
Bad
Medium
Good
Irrigated Technique (%)
Crop distribution (%)
Representativeness (%)
Source: Own elaboration from INE (1999) farmer surveys.
•
Farm typology in the Herencia Irrigation Community
In this Irrigation Community, three representative farms have been defined. Each one
belongs to one of these size categories: between 0 and 20 ha; between 50 and 200 ha, and
more than 200 ha.
The percentage of farms in the Irrigation Community of Herencia included in the farm types
established corresponds to 91,68%. This is a high percentage, as well as the surface
represented by these farms (80,73%).
13
Farm typology
Table 9: Representative Farms in Herencia (Ciudad Real)
Size (ha) = X
0 < X < 20
% Farms
% Area
86,86
31,71
20 ≤ X < 50
8,32
19,27
50≤ X < 200
4,12
27,46
200≤ X
0,70
21,56
91,68
80,73
Repr. Farms
Source: Own elaboration from INE (1999)
25
60
20
50
40
15
30
10
20
5
10
0
0
>= 0
.0
-<5
>= 1
0-<
20
>= 5
0
-<1
00
>= 2
0
% Farms
% Area
Figure 5: Farm typology in Herencia (Ciudad Real)
0
Farm size (ha)
Usable
Agricultural
Superficie
AgrariaArea
Util (%)
Number
(%)
Númeroofdefarms
Explotaciones
(%)
Source: Own elaboration from INE (1999)
This area is much more vegetables cultivated than the rest of the municipalities
under study.
-
Farm F-1 has an extension of 10 ha with medium quality soil. The crop distribution is:
5ha of irrigated potato (by sprinklers) and 5ha of rain-fed barley.
-
Farm F-2 with an extension of 120 ha, 70 ha of which have medium quality soil, 30ha
good quality and 20 ha bad quality. The crop distribution is the following: 5ha are
cultivated with pepper, drip irrigation system is used; 15 ha of carrots, in which sprinkler
technique is used; 15 ha of melon under drip irrigation technique; 35 ha of rain-fed
barley and the remaining 40 ha are not used.
14
Farm typology
-
Farm F-3 has 300 ha of extension. Two thirds of the farm land have medium quality soil,
50 ha are good quality soil and 50 ha bad quality soil. The crop distribution is the
following: 100ha where irrigated barley is cultivated with sprinkler technique; 20 ha
with tomato, drip irrigation technique is used, 60 ha of potato with sprinkler technique
and 120 ha are not used.
•
Farm typology in the Manzanares Irrigation Community
In this community 3 representative farms have been determined, belonging to the
following categories of size: between 0 and 10 ha; between 10 and 20 ha; more than 200 ha.
These representative farms represent the 78,64% of farms in this community and 51,7% of
the area.
Table 10: Representative Farms in Manzanares (Ciudad Real)
Size (ha) = X
% Farms
% Area
0 < X< 10
46,23
6,08
10 ≤ X < 20
19,12
8,54
20 ≤ X < 50
19,05
18,52
50 ≤ X < 200
13,03
37,08
2,30
29,77
78,64
51,70
200 ≤ X
Repr. farms
Source: Own elaboration from INE (1999)
15
Farm typology
35
30
30
25
% Area
25
20
20
15
15
% Farms
Figure 6: Farm typology in Manzanares (Ciudad Real)
10
10
5
5
0
0
>= 0
.0 - <
5
>= 1
0
-<2
>= 5
0
0
-<1
00
>= 2
00
Farm size (ha)
Superficie
Agraria Area
Util (%)
Usable
Agricultural
(%)
Número of
defarms
Explotaciones
(%)
Number
(%)
Source: Own elaboration from INE (1999)
-
Farm F-1 has an extension of 5 ha, in medium quality soil. More than a half of the
surface is dedicated to pepper and the rest is not used.
-
Farm F-2 has a surface of 15 ha with medium quality soil. Crop distribution is the
following: 6,5 ha of irrigated barley using sprinklers; 4 ha of melon, drip irrigation
technique is used, and 4,5 ha not used.
-
Farm F-3 has a surface of 250 ha, of which 25 ha have good quality soil, 150 ha medium
quality soil and 75 ha bad quality soil. 70ha are cultivated with wheat using sprinklers
for irrigation; 5 ha with pepper with drip irrigation; and 80 ha of vineyards, drip
irrigation technique is used; 95 ha are not used.
•
Farm typology in the Tomelloso Irrigation Community
Three different farms represent the Irrigation Community of Tomelloso. Each one
belongs to one of these categories: between 0 and 20 ha; between 20 and 100 ha, and more
than 200 ha.
The percentage of farms represented by the selected representative farms in the Irrigation
Community of Tomelloso is quite high: 98,84%. In addition, they represent 90,13% of the
community surface. Crops cultivated in this community are vineyard, melon and barley.
16
Farm typology
Table 11: Representative Farms in Tomelloso (Ciudad Real)
Size (ha) = X
% Farms
% Area
0 < X < 20
79,92
31,75
20 ≤ X < 100
18,22
41,00
100 ≤ X < 200
1,16
9,87
200 ≤ X
0,69
17,38
98,84
90,13
Repr. Farms
Source: Own elaboration from INE (1999)
Figure 7: Farm typology in Tomelloso (Ciudad Real)
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
50
40
30
20
% Farms
% Area
Land distribution: Tomelloso
10
0
>= 0
.0 - <
5
>= 1
0
-<2
>= 5
0
0
-<1
00
>= 2
00
Tamaño del Estrato (ha)
Usable
Agricultural
(%)
Superficie
AgrariaArea
Util (%)
Number
(%)
Número of
defarms
Explotaciones
(%)
Source: Own elaboration from INE (1999)
-
Farm F-1 has an extension of 15 ha of medium quality soil and it is dedicated to
vineyard crop by using drip irrigation technique.
-
Farm F-2 has an extension of 70 ha; it is dedicated to vineyard with drip irrigation
technique. The quality of the soil is bad in 15 ha of the farm and 45 ha have medium
quality soil.
-
Farm F-3 has an extension of 300 ha, 80 of which have bad quality soil, 200 ha medium
quality and 20 ha good quality soils. In this farm 120 ha are dedicated to vineyards, 15
ha are cultivated with melon and 75 ha with rain-fed barley; 90 ha are not used.
17
Farm typology
4.2
Farm typology in the Daimiel Irrigation Community
This community has four representative farms, one of them belongs to the rank of size:
between 0 and 10 ha; two to the rank of size between 10 and 50 ha and the last one to the
rank of size between 50 and 100 ha.
In this case the model farms represent a high percentage (96,67%) of the farms in the
irrigation community and in area (64,17%). Characteristic crops in this community are
barley, wheat, melon, onion and vineyards.
Table 12: Representative Farms in Daimiel (Ciudad Real)
Size (ha) = X
% Farms
% Area
0 < X < 10
58,93
11,16
10 ≤ X < 50
33,22
36,85
50 ≤ X < 100
4,82
16,17
100 ≤ X < 200
1,89
12,90
200 ≤ X
1,14
22,93
96,97
64,17
Repr. Farms
Source: Own elaboration from INE (1999)
30
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
% Area
25
20
15
10
5
0
>= 0
.0 - <
5
>= 1
0-<
20
>= 5
0-<
100
% Farms
Figure 8: Farm typology in Daimiel (Ciudad Real)
>= 2
00
Farm size (ha)
Superficie
AgrariaArea
Util (%)
Usable
Agricultural
(%)
Número
Explotaciones
(%)
Number de
of farms
(%)
Source: Own elaboration from INE (1999)
18
Farm typology
-
Farm F-1 has an extension of 8 ha, all of them placed in bad quality soil and dedicated to
vineyard with drip irrigation.
-
Farm F-2, with 24 ha of extension, has a good quality soil. Crop distribution in this farm
is: 7,2 ha of wheat, 1,2 ha of maize, 4,8 ha dedicated to melon, 7,2 ha of other vegetables
and 3,6 ha are not used.
-
Farm F-3 has 30 ha, all of them placed in medium quality soil. 7,9 ha are dedicated to
wheat and 5 ha to maize; there are 8 ha of melon where drip irrigation technique is used;
9 ha are destined to vineyards also with drip irrigation system, and the remaining 3,6 ha
not used.
-
Farm F-4 occupies an area of 70 ha, half of them are in bad quality soil and the other half
in medium quality soil. Crop distribution is as follows: 40,6 ha dedicated to irrigated
wheat with sprinklers, 1,4 ha to maize also with sprinklers, 10,5 ha of melon with drip
irrigation system, 10,5 ha of others vegetables, and 7 ha not used.
Table 13: Farm typology characteristics in Daimiel (Ciudad Real)
Daimiel IC Typology
F-1
F-2
F-3
F-4
8
24
30
70
Bad
8
0
0
35
Medium
0
0
30
35
Good
0
24
0
0
100
50
43,3
70
0
50
56,7
30
Irrigated barley
0
0
0
0
Wheat irrigated
0
30
26,3
58
Maize
0
5
5
2
Melon
0
20
26,7
15
Other vegetables
0
30
0
15
100
0
30
0
Rainfed Barley
0
0
0
0
Setaside
0
15
12
10
22
19
28
Source: Own elaboration from INE (1999) and farmer surveys.
31
Size (ha)
Renting (ha)
Type of soil (ha)
Irrigated Technique (%)
Drip
Sprinkler
Crop distribution (%)
Vineyard
Representativeness (%)
19
Outcomes from the field work
5
Outcomes of the field work
One of the outcomes of this fieldwork is the determination of the technical coefficients for
the agro-economic model developed by the UPM. These technical coefficients have been
determined for the different possible combinations of crops, soil qualities, and irrigation
techniques, showed in table 14 below.
For each of these crop/soil/technique combinations, the following variables have been
defined on the basis of the field work:
-
Yield (kg/ha)
-
Price (€/kg)
-
Subsidy (€/ha)
-
Water (€/ha)
-
Seed (€/ha)
-
Fertilizer (€/ha)
-
Pesticides (€/ha)
-
Tilling (€/ha)
-
Sowing (€/ha)
-
Pruning (€/ha)
-
Harvest (€/ha)
-
Total Cost (€/ha), calculated as a sum of seed + fertilizer + pesticides + tilling +
sowing + pruning + harvest costs
-
Revenue (€/ha)
-
Gross margin (€/ha), calculated as the difference Revenue – Total Costs
20
Outcomes from the field work
Table 14: Outcomes from the field work: definition of crops, soils and irrigation techniques
CROP (i)
Crop
Soils (k)
Irrigation technique (r)
Code
BA_k1_rf
k1
rf
BA_k2_rf
k2
rf
BA_k1_sp1
k1
sp1
BA_k2_sp1
k2
sp1
BA_k2_sp2
k2
sp2
WH_k1_rf
k1
rf
WH_k2_rf
k2
rf
WH_k1_sp1
k1
sp1
WH_k2_sp1
k2
sp1
WH_k2_sp2
k2
sp2
MA_k1_sp1
k1
sp1
MA_k2_sp1
k2
sp1
MA_k2_sp2
k2
sp2
SU_k1_rf
k1
rf
SU_k2_rf
k2
rf
SU_k1_sp1
k1
sp1
SU_k2_sp1
k2
sp1
SU_k2_sp2
k2
sp2
SG_k1_sp1
k1
sp1
SG_k2_sp1
k2
sp1
SG_k2_sp2
k2
sp2
PE_k1_rf
k1
rf
PE_K2_rf
k2
rf
POTATO
PO_k2_sp2
k2
sp2
MELON
ME_k2_dr
k2
dr
PEPPER
PP_k2_dr
k2
dr
GARLIC
GA_k2_sp2
k2
sp2
VI_k1_rf
k1
rf
VI_k2_rf
k2
rf
VI_k1_dr
k1
dr
VI_k2_dr
k2
dr
SR_k1_rf
k1
rf
SR_k2_rf
k2
rf
SI_k1_sp1
k1
sp1
SI_k2_sp1
k2
sp1
BARLEY
WHEAT
MAIZE
SUNFLOWER
SUGAR BEET
PEAS
VINEYARD
SET-ASIDE, RAIN-FED
SET-ASIDE, IRRIGATED
Source: Own elaboration from the field work
21
Outcomes from the field work
Codes Legend:
Soils
Bad soil
k1
Good soil
k2
Techniques
Rain fed
rf
Sprinkler extensive
sp1
Sprinkler intensive
sp2
Drip
dr
22
List of references
6
List of references
Bolea, J.A. (1998), Las Comunidades de Regantes, Comunidad General de Usuarios del
Canal Imperial de Aragón, Zaragoza.
Coleto, C., L. Martínez Cortina and M.R. Llamas (eds) (2003), Conflictos entre el desarrollo
de las aguas subterráneas y la conservación de los humedales: la cuenca alta del
Guadiana, Fundación Marcelino Botín, Ediciones Mundi-Prensa, Madrid.
INE (Instituto Nacional de Estadística) (1999), Censo Agrario.
Junta de Castilla la Mancha (2004), Anuario estadístico de Castilla-La Mancha.
Junta de Castilla la Mancha (2004), Cifras del sector agrario, Consejería de agricultura .
Avalaible on line: http://www.jccm.es/agricul/prog.htm
Junta de Castilla la Mancha (2006), Aguas de Casilla-La Mancha. Avalaible on-line:
http://www.aclm.es/
MAPA (Ministerio de Agricultura Pesca y Alimentación) (2004), Anuario de estadística
agraria.
MAPA (Ministerio De Agricultura, Pesca Y Alimentación) (2003), Libro blanco de la
agricultura y desarrollo rural, MAPA, Madrid.
Mejías, P., C. Varela-Ortega and G. Flichman (2004), “Integrating Agricultural Policies and
Water Policies under water supply and climate Uncertainty”, paper presented at the
XXV Conference of the IAAE (International Association of Agricultural Economists),
Durban, South Africa, 16-22 August, and published in Water Resources Research,
Vol. 40, No. 7 (2004) (W07S03, doi:10.1029/2003WR002877).
MIMAM (Ministerio de Medio Ambiente) (2000), Libro Blanco del Agua en España.
Madrid.
Sumpsi, J.M., A. Garrido, M. Blanco, C. Varela-Ortega and E. Iglesias (1998), Economía y
política de gestión del agua en la agricultura, Ed. Mundi-Prensa-MAPA, Madrid.
23
AnnexI: Survey to the Guadiana Basin Authority and the General Irrigation Community
7
Annex I: Survey to the Guadiana Basin Authority and the
General Irrigation Community
NEW APPROACHES TO ADAPTIVE WATER MANAGEMENT UNDER
UNCERTAINTY
DATOS E INFORMACIÓN SOLICITADA PARA EL PROYECTO NEWATER
ENCUESTA A LA COMUNIDAD GENERAL DE REGANTES DEL ACUÍFERO 23
Datos de las Comunidades de Regantes que forman parte de la Comunidad General:
Nombre
Provincia
1
Alcázar de San
Juan
Ciudad
Real
2
Argamasilla de
Alba
Ciudad
Real
3
Bolaños
Ciudad
Real
4
Criptana
Ciudad
Real
5
Daimiel
Ciudad
Real
6
El Provencio
Cuenca
7
Herencia
Ciudad
Real
8
Las Mesas
Cuenca
9
Las
Pedroñeras
Cuenca
10
Manzanares
Ciudad
Real
11
Membrilla
Ciudad
Municipios
Nº
Miembros
Nº Explot.
Sup. Total
(Ha)
Nº Pozos
registrados
24
AnnexI: Survey to the Guadiana Basin Authority and the General Irrigation Community
Real
12
San Clemente
Cuenca
13
Socuéllamos
Ciudad
Real
14
Tomelloso
Ciudad
Real
15
Torralba
Calatrava
16
Villarrobledo
Albacete
17
Villarrubia de
los Ojos
Ciudad
Real
18
Villarta de San
Juan
Ciudad
Real
de
Ciudad
Real
25
Annex II: Surveys to irrigation communities
8
Annex II: Surveys to irrigation communities
NEW APPROACHES TO ADAPTIVE WATER MANAGEMENT UNDER
UNCERTAINTY
DATOS E INFORMACIÓN SOLICITADA PARA EL PROYECTO NEWATER
ENCUESTA COMUNIDADES DE REGANTES DEL ACUÍFERO 23
1. Información general sobre la Comunidad de Regantes X
1.1. Nombre de la Comunidad de Regantes:
1.2. Año de creación:
1.3. Número de comuneros:
1.4. Municipios comprendidos:
MUNICIPIOS
SUPERFICIE DENTRO DE LA C.R.
(Ha)*
MUNICIPIO MÁS
CARACTERÍSTICO
(marcar con una cruz)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
TOTAL C.R.
(*) Se refiere al número de Has de regadío legales
1.5. Estimación de la superficie en secano en la C.R. y en el municipio señalado
anteriormente como el más característico (Has):
26
Annex II: Surveys to irrigation communities
2. Datos agronómicos y de las explotaciones agrarias
2.1. Distribución de cultivos (Has): Especificar en el caso de la viña la variedad y el
sistema de conducción (espaldera, vaso, etc.)
CULTIVOS
SUPERFICIE DE REGADÍO (Has)
Aspersión
Goteo
Gravedad
Otros
TOTAL
TOTAL
2.2. Tipos y clases de suelo:
2.3. Régimen de tenencia de las explotaciones (propiedad, arrendamiento,
aparcería):
2.4. Mano de obra en las explotaciones (familiar, asalariada fija, asalariada
eventual):
2.5. Precio aproximado de la mano de obra contratada
Fija (€/hora):
Eventual (€/hora):
2.6. Precio aproximado del arrendamiento de la tierra
Regadío (€/ha):
Secano (€/ha):
2.7. Plan Agroambiental
Número de Has y número de explotaciones acogidos al Plan Agroambiental
7.1 en la C.R.:
* Horquilla del 50%
* Horquilla del 100%
¿Cómo son las explotaciones acogidas al Plan Agroambiental 7.1? (tamaño,
tipos de cultivos, etc.)
27
Annex II: Surveys to irrigation communities
2.8. Escogiendo tres explotaciones representativas de su Comunidad de Regantes,
especificar:
EXPLOTACIÓN EXPLOTACIÓN EXPLOTACIÓN
2
1
3
Explotaciones (%) *
SAU (Ha)
Has de regadío
Distribución de
cultivos (%)**
Otras observaciones: número de
pozos, explotación acogida al Plan
Agroambiental 7.1, etc.
(*) Porcentaje de explotaciones del total de la C.R. que contienen las características
seleccionadas como explotación 1, 2 y 3 respectivamente.
(**) Especificar las rotaciones más frecuentes
3. Sistema tarifario aplicado a las explotaciones agrarias
Euros/pozo
Euros/ha acogida al Plan de Humedales
Euros/ha de regadío
Otras (especificar)
28
Annex II: Surveys to irrigation communities
4. Personal utilizado en la C.R.
Se debe incluir como personal ocupado al personal de vacaciones, permiso,
enfermedad y a tiempo parcial y excluir al personal facilitado por agencias de trabajo
temporal. Las horas anuales trabajadas corresponden a la totalidad de las personas
ocupadas.
Personal remunerado
Personas ocupadas
Horas anuales
trabajadas
Remunerados fijos
Remunerados eventuales
Total
5. Agua distribuida en el total de la C.R.
CULTIVOS
AGUA DISTRIBUÍDA (metros cúbicos/año)
Aspersión
Goteo
Gravedad
Otros
TOTAL
TOTAL
¿Cómo y quién controla el consumo? ¿Existen caudalímetros?
6. Caracterización de los pozos
6.1. Número de pozos en la C.R. y en el municipio más característico:
6.2. Características comunes de los pozos de la C.R.: profundidad (m), tipo de
bomba, diámetros, distancias entre pozos, superficie máxima regada, etc.
6.3. Costos de extracción del agua (€/m3):
6.4. Coste de construcción y puesta en funcionamiento del pozo:
7. Opinión de los implicados en la resolución del conflicto del acuífero 23
-
¿Qué cree usted que falló en el antiguo PEAG 2004?
¿Cuáles son las soluciones que usted propone para el PEAG 2005?
¿Qué cree usted que sería necesario cambiar para llevar a cabo la solución
propuesta?
OBSERVACIONES
29
Annex III: Surveys to farmers
9
Annex III: Surveys to farmers
NEW APPROACHES TO ADAPTIVE WATER MANAGEMENT UNDER
UNCERTAINTY
DATOS E INFORMACIÓN SOLICITADA PARA EL PROYECTO NEWATER
ENCUESTA A LAS EXPLOTACIONES
1. Información general sobre la explotación
1.6. Localización de la explotación: provincia, comarca, municipio
2. Datos agronómicos y de las explotaciones agrarias
2.1.Superficie de la explotación (sin contar caminos, etc.):
2.2.¿Usted tiene la tierra en propiedad, en renta o la usa en aparcería?
2.3.¿Está usted acogido al Plan Agroambiental 7.1? ¿Al 50% o al 100%? ¿Cuánto
recibe de ayudas? ¿Cuántas Has tiene acogidas? ¿Se acoge con toda la
explotación…cultivos perennes no, etc.?
2.4.¿Qué tipos suelos tiene usted en la explotación? ¿Cultiva más unos cultivos en un
tipo de suelo que en otro distinguiendo entre suelo bueno, malo y regular?
2.3. Especificación de la superficie cultivada por tipo de cultivos, método de riego
(lluvia, gravedad, aspersión, goteo), y técnica de riego (lluvia, algo de riego, riego
intensivo):
Proporción de cultivos en secano:
TIPO DE CULTIVO
SECANO (ha)
SUELO
30
Annex III: Surveys to farmers
Proporción de cultivos en regadío:
TIPO DE CULTIVO
REGADÍO
(ha)
Técnica de
riego
SUELO
2.5 Rendimientos diferenciados por cultivos y por secano/regadío y por tipo de
suelos (bueno, malo y regular) (kg por hectárea):
SECANO
REGADÍO
1.Cultivo:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Rendimiento por tipo de suelos.
BUENO
MALO
REGULAR
1.Cultivo:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
31
Annex III: Surveys to farmers
-
Ordene de mayor a menor los cultivos en función del riesgo por los factores
climáticos. ¿Cuánto puede variar el rendimiento en año bueno y año malo, en
regadío y en secano?
2.6. Necesidades de agua diferenciadas por cultivos y por secano/regadío (metros
cúbicos):
SECANO
REGADÍO
1.Cultivo:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
2.7. Necesidades de mano de obra diferenciadas por cultivo, secano/regadío e
invierno/verano (horas/ha): preparación, abonado, siembra, fitosanitarios…
Cultivo1:
Otoño
Invierno
Primavera
Verano
Otoño
Invierno
Primavera
Verano
Secano
Regadío
intensivo
poco
Regadío intensivo
Cultivo2:
Secano
Regadío
intensivo
poco
Regadío intensivo
……………………………
32
Annex III: Surveys to farmers
2.8.Entrantes y labores de cada cultivo
Cultivo 1
Cantidad
(kg/ha; l/ha)
Periodo
Precio Unitario (€/Tn)
Cantidad
(kg/ha; l/ha)
Periodo
Precio Unitario (€/Tn)
Semillas
Fertilizantes
Insecticidas
Funguicidas
Herbicidas
Preparación
Abonado
Siembra
Poda
Recolección
Mantenimiento
Venta
(especificar el
mes)
Cultivo 2
Semillas
Fertilizantes
Insecticidas
Funguicidas
Herbicidas
Preparación
Abonado
Siembra
Poda
Recolección
Mantenimiento
Venta
33
Annex III: Surveys to farmers
3. Datos económicos
3.1 Aunque la tenga en propiedad, ¿A cuánto está en €/Ha el alquiler en la zona
(secano y regadío)? Igualmente, ¿a cuánto está la venta (secano y regadío)?
3.2 Precios de los cultivos (euros/kg):
Precio
1.Cultivo:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
-
Ordene de mayor a menor los cultivos en función de la variación de los
precios en el mercado. ¿Variará más en secano que en regadío, no?
3.3.Primas o subvenciones recibidas y diferenciadas por cultivos (euros/ha):
Primas (euro/ha)
1.Cultivo:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
3.4. Ayudas recibidas con el nuevo Pago Único. ¿Ha visto usted reducida su ayuda?
¿Cuánto?
3.5. ¿Y cuánto cree usted que debería ganar para subsistir una familia media (renta
mínima)?
3.6. Costes variables especificados por cultivos y por secano/regadío (euros/ha):
34
Annex III: Surveys to farmers
En este apartado se consideran todos los costes variables menos los asociados a la
mano de obra (Seguridad Social, personas contratado…) y a lo que se paga por el
riego, ambos los considero separadamente.
SECANO
REGADÍO
1.Cultivo:
2.
3.
4.
5.
3.7 Costes fijos:
- ¿Cuánto cuesta poner en marcha una Ha en aspersión? ¿En goteo? ¿Qué
vida útil tienen estos equipos? ¿En cuál de estos sistemas se pierde menos
agua?
- ¿Cuánto cuesta construir un pozo? ¿Qué vida útil media tiene un pozo?
¿Cuánto cuesta extraer el agua (gasolina, electricidad) en €/m3? ¿Cuántos
Kw cuesta subir un m3 de agua? ¿Cuánto cuesta un Kw?
3.8. Financiación
- A corto plazo: Por ejemplo, financiación de las semillas, fertilizantes…, etc.
Es decir, todo lo que se utilice en la misma campaña. ¿Quién financia esto? ¿Las
casas de fertilizantes, semillas…, o piden un crédito bancario? ¿Qué garantía:
hipotecaria, la de la PAC, etc.? Especificar el tipo de interés, la anualidad…, etc.
- A largo plazo: Por ejemplo, construcción de los pozos, puesta en práctica de
los sistemas de aspersión, goteo.... ¿Quién financia esto? ¿Se pide un crédito?
Especificar el tipo de interés, la anualidad…, etc.
4. Mano de Obra:
4.1 Mano de obra familiar. ¿Qué labores hace: gestión, laboreo, supervisión, etc.?
¿Cuántas horas trabaja usted al día en Otoño-Invierno-Primavera-Verano?
4.2 ¿Se utiliza mano de obra contratada fija o/y eventual? ¿Cuántas horas trabajan
respectivamente al día en Otoño-Invierno-Primavera-Verano? ¿Para qué funciones
y/o cultivos la contrata?
4.3 ¿Cuánto cuesta en (€/h) la mano de obra contratada fija? ¿Y la eventual?
35
Annex III: Surveys to farmers
5. Agua
5.1 ¿De cuánto agua dispone en total (m3) por “resolución administrativa”? ¿Cuánto
le permite regar el régimen de extracciones?
5.2 ¿Tiene usted caudalímetros? ¿Cuál es la cantidad de agua bruta que usted
utiliza? ¿Qué pasa si su pozo se queda obsoleto? ¿Tienen derecho a hacer otro, a
reprofundizar? ¿Cuántos pozos tiene y qué características tienen esos pozos?
Profundidad (m), diámetro (cm), tipo de bomba, superficie máxima regada, etc.
5.3. ¿Qué tarifas paga por el agua?
- A la C.R.: ¿Cuántos €/pozo? ¿Cuántos €/Ha regadío? ¿Cuántos €/Ha
acogida al Plan de Humedales?
- A la Confederación: por limpieza de pozos, etc.
- ¿Otras tarifas relacionadas con el agua?
36
Annex IV: Pictures from the field work
10 Annex III: Pictures form the field work
Figure 1: UPM team interviewing the president of the Users General Association of
Aquifer 23
Figure 2: UPM visiting one farm in Daimiel.
37
Annex IV: Pictures from the field work
Figure 3: Well, watermeter and distribution pipes in a cereal farm.
Figure 4: Watermeter measurement
38
Annex IV: Pictures from the field work
Figure 5: Typical shed covering a well in the Upper Guadiana basin
Figure 6: Pivot irrigation in the Alcázar de San Juan irrigation community
39
Annex IV: Pictures from the field work
Figure 7: Vineyard production in Tomelloso irrigation community
Figure 8: Vegetable crops in greenhouse
40
Annex IV: Pictures from the field work
Figure 9: Visit to the National Park Tablas de Daimiel (July 2005)
Figure 10: Visit to the National Park Tablas de Daimiel (July 2005)
41