HRS4R Seal
Mentoring for Euriclea research
Newsroom
In the 20s, Spain was presented as a map where the population was spread throughout the territory in a mosaic of crops, livestock and meadows. Today, this image has changed radically and rural areas in Spain, according to INAP data, have already lost 5,3 million inhabitants between 1960 and 2021. Given this scenario, one of the great objectives of current policy has been to reverse this situation. Still, at a time of biodiversity crisis, returning people to rural environments can be perceived as a threat to nature conservation. Is there any scenario that makes both challenges compatible? For the first time, science has analyzed this issue from the perspective of ecology and concludes that the most favorable scenario to achieve the two objectives is to make extensive use of the territory, avoiding intensive agriculture and livestock. This is the result of a study review that has recently been published in the magazine People and Nature of the British Ecological Society, led by CREAF and the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, and in which the Institute for Research in Global Change of the URJC (IICG-URJC) collaborates. along with other entities.
“We see that promoting activities that make extensive use of the territory allows people to remain in small towns, because it provides opportunities for local work and commerce. At the same time, extensive activities can also have a positive impact on the natural environment or, at least, minimize the negative ones. For example, favoring silvopasture and its ability to reduce the risk of fires or agroecology, which provides food to the population, but also reduces soil and water pollution," explains Paco Lloret, CREAF researcher, professor at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona and first author of the study.
“Environmental depopulation is one of the elements that has most transformed the landscapes of large areas in Spain. It can be said that the associated land use changes are one more element of the crisis we are experiencing linked to Global Change,” explains Adrián Escudero, director of the IICG-URJC. “In this study we suggest that policies to reverse depopulation should not be based on the intensification of uses,” continues Escudero.
Extensive use encompasses a wide range of activities with positive repercussions on the natural and social environment: taking agrotourism routes to spot birds, which enhances a local and sustainable economy; extensive livestock farming or silvopasture, which maintains meadows, species of birds and native butterflies; organic or regenerative agriculture, which reduces chemical fertilizers and reduces pollutants, revives the soil and captures more CO2 in the soil; or diversify renewable solar and wind energy throughout the territory. At the same time, initiatives are also included to recover natural processes, such as, for example, enhancing plant covers.
To reach this conclusion, the authors have created a new methodology with which they have analyzed five scenarios in different areas of the interior of Spain. The first consists of continuing as before and doing nothing, an option that means maintaining the policies that have caused abandonment and that generate different environmental impacts. The second scenario tries to implement exclusively conservationist policies to increase natural spaces. The third option is based on promoting intensive activities such as, for example, large areas of monocultures, intensive livestock farming or coal-based energy. The fourth tries to maintain the historical landscapes, so that the natural habitats of crops and pastures that are being lost due to the depopulation of the territory as we find them today are preserved. And, finally, extensive use of the territory is promoted.
Under these scenarios, the scientific team has evaluated, reviewing the scientific literature that exists on the matter, whether five ecological indicators improve or worsen: biodiversity, CO₂ storage, pollution, water reserves, soil conservation, as well as the demographic trend in the areas. rural areas, that is, whether the population grows, decreases or remains the same. “The analysis is based on a review of scientific articles in Spain and has not focused on specific localities,” says Lloret.
There is no universal solution
The results indicate that there is no solution that 'gets a good grade' in all indicators, but extensive use of the territory is the option that shows a more positive trend in both the population and ecological indicators. “However, this scenario can be combined with others, it all depends on our objective and the reality of each area. This methodology precisely helps us analyze what happens if we take one path or another,” explains Lloret. For example, if our main objective is to preserve certain species in a natural park, since the priority there is to implement conservation policies, this may involve restricting human activity. As a result of this action, biodiversity, water reserves and soil conservation indicators will increase greatly, “but it must be taken into account that in this scenario the population trend is negative,” explains Lloret.
The intensification option is the one that obtains the worst grade in all environmental indicators, since it increases pollution by increasing the amount of nitrates in the soil. This scenario also reduces the loss of biodiversity by simplifying ecosystems, causing the loss of insects and pollinators, and reduces water reserves without generating an increase in the population. “It is true that intensification in terms of population density can increase the population temporarily and there may be an improvement, but not as much as in the case of extensive activities.” Regarding the option of 'continuing as now and doing nothing', the authors point out that the problem of depopulation is not solved, because it continues at an accelerated pace.
Regarding the scenario of keeping habitats static, the authors explain that, although a positive trend is observed in several indicators, it is not the best strategy. The reason? Ecosystems are dynamic and not a fixed postcard. For example, we currently have a climate and pollution context that is very different from the 20s of the last century, where there was a lot of pressure on the territory due to overexploitation of livestock, agricultural activity, irrigation or wood extraction, which caused deforestation and soil erosion. But, on the other hand, we have elements of our biodiversity, such as certain species of birds (for example, the Montagu's harrier) and butterflies that need more open spaces and that are inherited from interaction. “Therefore, to look to the future it is key to know how our ancestors and the species linked to cultural history modified the landscape. Understanding their origin can help us preserve them, but also to know what context we currently find ourselves in," explains Lloret. "We hope that territory managers use the methodology that we have developed when making decisions aimed at reducing rural abandonment," concludes the investigator.
The research is signed by Francisco Lloret from CREAF and the Autonomous University, Adrián Escudero, researcher at the Global Change Research Institute of the Rey Juan Carlos University (IICG-URJC), Joan Lloret from the Institute of Geosciences-CSIC and the Complutense University of Madrid , and Fernando Valladares from the National Museum of Natural Sciences MNCN-CSIC.