The extension of the First Tranche of the Canal de Navarra is expected to be completed. How is it going?

There are two branches: the river Ega and the river Arga. Ega's is the one that is lagging the most. Before we arrived at the government there were moments of tension with some municipalities, such as Lerín. The one there ended with a popular consultation and decided that they would not use the water of the Navarre canal to renew their traditional irrigation system. Cárcar has not yet officially responded to us, but it seems that it will not participate in the Canal de Navarra.Con the current forecasts, the beginning of irrigation in the Arga section would be in April 2018 and that of Ega in September 2019.

The Second Part of the Channel of Navarre is there, yet to begin. Before anything was decided, the new Government of Navarre had already commissioned a study for 2016. What are you looking at in detail?

The project we have is absolutely deficient, so it is our duty to carry out a balanced project that is acceptable to the citizens and to the pockets of the government. There has never been a concrete project of the Second Part, but in any case, the one that has been talked about, that would go outdoors, a siphon in the Ebro and another in the Aragon River… that project is already discarded. Now we have to see what can be added to everything that has been done so far to get the most out of it.

We are analyzing new irrigation communities, the water capacity of the communities, the structure of the owners, the figure of the irrigation, water costs, irrigation alternatives… Once we have that map of needs, demands and alternatives, and considering that the future user provides a lot of money, the decision must be made by consensus. The Channel of Navarre will be one of the strengths of these decisions, but it will not be the only one. By December we want to have that picture and in 2017 a participatory process is going to take place to achieve that consensus.

The Itoiz reservoir and the social part that has been against the Navarre canal for some time now calls for a general analysis of what this couple has brought. Is that also going to be done?

We are now with what we have on the table, trying to correct many of those mistakes that the old project has, but what we are going to do will take account of economic, social and environmental analysis. The shapes will also change, we don't want to do it before we put the tubes in and then ask. So far, economic studies have also been carried out, but not realistically, in keeping with the will of the previous Government. In Lerín, for example, I told them clearly that I wouldn't do profitability studies, they know about the profitability of irrigation. We will tell you what the irrigation system really costs, without selling any other sleep.

As for the plots, a 2015 report by the Chamber of Comptes states that the aggregations of plots have led to a 17% decrease in properties and have increased from 19,034 to 5,620. What did it mean?

From the point of view of the farm, the collection of land is good in the usual way, not only with the Canal de Navarra, but it is an advantage in any irrigation crop. Watering is not the same when seven or all plots of an owner are common in several locations.

Other information in that report: “From 3 to 48 products, the value of production goes from 17.8 to 68.1 million, the profitability goes from 3 to 18…”. Does this mean that with the canal you can make a big leap towards agriculture?

[Firmly Denies] It's not. The Chamber of Comptes has only had sources of INTIA and – I do not know if it is right for me to say this – this company has been a propaganda tool of the project. All this is part of the old way of selling the project. There is some reason in everything that is mentioned, but I think it is exaggerated. For example, in the last two years the value of maize has increased from EUR 230/t to EUR 180/t. Any producer knows that those EUR 180, either in the Navarre canal or elsewhere, are on the limit of profitability. The Channel of Navarre is an expensive irrigation system with barley, for example, it cannot be turned around, not even by taking 6 tonnes per hectare, which is a huge crop. No one can think that extensive agriculture prevents investment with a single product, unless it has a large number of lands. The sector needs to be given a different view, focusing on high value-added products.

There are a number of alternatives to the Second Part on the table. First you will have to look at your test data, but does the department have a previous position?

I will retain all my views, but I will quote you a few criteria. In this Second Part, water is necessary for the people and certain situations in traditional irrigated agriculture need to be corrected. The Navarre canal has been an obstacle to the repairs and alternatives needed in the Ribera in the water needs of the peoples. For years a wrong message has been sent to Navarre society asking for water for the Ribera. The Ebro crosses the Ribera, there are the channels of Tauste, El Ferial, Lodosa and Bardenas, the streams Queiles and Alhama, the reservoir of Val… well, we are surrounded by gold. In short, all this analysis that we are doing now must serve to set out the strategy that we have to carry out in Navarra on irrigation and water cultivation.

But will the Ribera use the water from the Itoiz dam or not need it?

It is the duty of the Administration to maximise the water capacity of Itoiz. In order not to be deficient, it is necessary to expand its use of water and the demands of users are not lacking. But what is done will have to be cost-effective for both the administration and the user, and it will have to be done.