After its establishment in July 2015, the new Government of Navarra announced that it would review the Canal de Navarra project. The Second Part of the Canal is designed for the south of the Bank and by the end of the year the Government will have a detailed analysis of the costs and needs. The public company INTIA, dedicated to irrigation and the agricultural industry, is carrying out this work. Once the data are known, the Government of Navarre will open a broad participation process and then will have to decide what to do with the second tranche of the Navarre canal: to start, modify or permanently bury the project.

You'll be curious to see the test. INTIA has so far taken care of everything concerning the irrigation phase and has carried out a continuous apology of the Itoiz reservoir and the Canal de Navarra, taking into account the needs and statistics of its superior. With the new Government there was also a change in the main positions in INTIA, as is usual in this type of change. They have come to where they were criteria, very different, at least to senior officials, as it is to be assumed that the opinions of intermediate technical posts will until then and probably vary. Resistance to change is not limited in these cases.

This is a very old demand, and not only of the irrigation demands, but also of the whole Urtegia-Canal project from Navarre - Canal de Itoiz. What was promised with these gigantic projects? What forecasts were made? What has been done? What not? What economic, social and environmental effects has it had? There are many questions and without your answer you cannot follow constructional works n.Quiere to
put the meaning and data on the table from the Government’s Department of Rural Development. The opposition has already said that this government does not want to do the Second Part of the Channel of Navarra. And everything seems to indicate that the initial draft of the Second Part will not be done as planned. That is quite clear. What is going to be done then? Data first, then the participatory process of 2017 and, finally, the decision.

Itoiz Reservoir - Canal de Navarra

Pantanos and channels have been a couple since the 80s of the last century, but at the end of Franco the screams in favor of the project were already heard. In 1993 the construction of the Itoiz swamp began, being president of the Government of Navarra Gabriel Urralburu of the PSN.

The Itoiz dam project represented a great social and political confrontation for Navarre society. Itoiz's coordinator pioneered the work of opposition, bringing together mobilization, research and legal work. Also popular in the opposition was the cutting action of the cables used by the Solidarity Groups with Itoiz for the transportation of material for the lifting of the aljibe. This sabotage stopped construction works for a long time.

The work was completed in 2004, when Miguel Sanz, president of UPN, was appointed President of the Government. The reservoir was prepared to collect 418 cubic hectometers of water and supply the Canal de Navarra. It is intended for irrigation of 240 cubic hectometers of reservoir, 60 cubic hectometers for local use (drinking water, industry…) and 117 cubic hectometers for future needs (e.g. for the Second Tranche of the Canal of Navarra).

The Navarre canal was 198 kilometres long and had to be driven from the Itoiz reservoir to the last lands of southern Navarre. It was planned to be built in two sections. The First Party started in 2004 and ended in 2011: From the Itoiz reservoir to the municipality of Pitillas, which is 98 kilometres in length, it has a irrigation capacity of 22,363 hectares. Aoiz, Urroz, the Commonwealth of the Region of Pamplona and the Commonwealth of Mairaga have the possibility of collecting water from the area.

Part II

The second section runs from Pitillas to Ablitas, which is 71 kilometres and is expected to run at 21,522 hectares. It has not started. This work is much more complex than the first, as, among other things, it should cross the basins of Aragon and Ebro through complex and expensive siphons.

This complexity is not a joke and this same year the Foundation for the New Culture of Water (FNCA) has reminded the Foral Parliament that former foral advisor Antonio Aragón had doubts in that distant year of 1991, when he was appointed president of the che: “With a view to the future, I believe that making a siphon for the Navarre canal to exceed the Ebro can be disproportionate” (Diario de Navarra, 17 November 1991). Subsequently, Aragon and Gabriel Urralburu were imprisoned for corruption, among other reasons for receiving tips from companies for the award of the canal.

The logical thing would have been that at the end of the first tranche of the channel in 2011 the second one started, but no, as CANASA announced, the economic crisis prevented the second step from being taken because of lack of money. The rabbit was taken out of the hat and the Government of Navarra then showed the expansion phase of the first tranche: It would spread in the triangle formed by Mendigorría, Sesma and Funes, with a irrigation capacity of 21 kilometres and 15,275 hectares. There was no money for the Second Part, but there was money for this new project. This enlargement is taking place, is expected to be completed by the end of 2016, but the work is being delayed and is expected to end by September 2019.

Political use of the second part

In Navarre society there has been talk up to the boredom of politicizing and not politicizing the project, but from its roots the project is absolutely political. UPN-PP and PSN sold Navarra as a tool to turn half into a paradise: water, the future and development were at hand; the desert and destruction without channels. A message that, before and now, is kindly introduced into the brains of the population aware of the importance of water.

Now these parties denounce from the opposition that the government of Uxue Barkos wants to leave La Ribera without water. The message has its strength, but less and less, also among the peasants. Farmers see the advantage of water, the benefits of moving from rainland to irrigation land, but they also see how expensive it is for them. In Navarre there has been no lack of water, but its proper management and use, but the Navarre canal has hidden the rest of the alternatives and opportunities in the last two decades.

One thing, however, is that the second phase should be used as a political motto and the other should be carried out. If the UPN Government had found some form of financing, it would probably have taken this Part Two forward. It cannot yet be said that it would not do so if it came to the Government. What happens is that it has not been done, because of lack of money and because its promoters have not seen the project entirely clear. The most obvious proof is that no concrete draft on the Second Part has been written so far.

As you have done with the money, the Spanish Government has little to do with delaying it. In August 2013, the Spanish PP Minister for the Environment, Arias Cañete, and the foral president, Yolanda Barcina, renewed the Convention on the Expansion of the First Stretch, defending the four winds the benefits of the reservoir. As for the Second Part, they said nothing.

Subsequently, and in spite of the small mouth, the Government of Navarra has consulted the Spanish Government on the Second Part on several occasions, but the Ministers of Rajoy have so far turned a deaf ear. Arias Cañete launched it clearly in 2012: “It is worth betting on the Canal de Navarra (…), when we have more possibilities and have a clear approach with the community, we are ready to review it.” At least until May 2015, when its Navarros partners lost government, the Spanish Government did not take any further steps. Now, not giving is more understandable.

Opposing views on valuations

After so many years and so much controversy, the fact is that the citizens have not seen a clear assessment of the benefits that these two major projects have brought to Navarre society. A section of Navarre society has long been calling for a thorough and clear debate on water management, which is what the Itoiz Coordinator did in her day and which the Ura FNCA Foundation in Parliament has just done this year. That great and extensive reflection has not yet been done, but the debate in the Second Part of the channel has brought the issue to the forefront with great force.

The main assessments and studies on the pair of reservoirs so far offer contradictory data. The public company INTIA has been responsible for some of the works, but critics have accused UPN of "smelling political theses" in practice. There are two other studies carried out by organizations or autonomous people. One by Rosario Brinquis as a Master at the University of Zaragoza (“Itoiz 2012. An economic analysis”; and the other, published in 2015 by the Chamber of Comptes of Navarra (“Report on the control of the irrigation area of the Canal of Navarra”).

Chamber of Comptos and Brinquis Report

The Chamber of Comptes is responsible for the registration and control of public funds, giving reliability to its work. The work of Brinquis was awarded by the Aquae Chair of the Economics Faculty of UNED (Universidad Española de Educación a Distancia). These are works of different types, carried out with different objectives, forms and data, but it is noteworthy that both studies offer such contradictory approaches.

The work of Brinquis ensures that the Itoiz reservoir and the results of the first phase are not profitable for society, as far fewer jobs have been created than was thought and, among other things, it will be difficult to recover the investment made. In their opinion, only the First Part of the channel makes it possible to recover 27% of the invested. If the Second Part were to be made, it would only give 28% to recover it, as this part would be very expensive.

With their 2012 data, and after analysing a 30-year period, the Itoiz swamp and the First Part of the Channel would cost EUR 1,751 million and gross production of both would cost EUR 1,296 million. It would therefore be deficient, when the Water Framework Decree, adopted by the European Union at the beginning of the century, clearly states that public institutions must recover – through users – investments in water infrastructure.

Differences in investment

The first inequities start out of expenditure. Brinquis is dedicated to infrastructure costs and 30 years of operation, with a cost of EUR 1,751 million. The Comptos House brings out some EUR 1.050 million, but taking into account the investments made alone.

According to Brinquis in an interview given to Berria in November 2015, if the canal project has advanced it is because the public company INTIA has committed itself to it. He complained that the Chamber of Comptos carried out its analysis mainly with data from INTIA and that this surprised him: “On the one hand, because there is a lack of data, for example, on costs; and on the other, because they have not done the analysis of the data received.”

There are a number of facts and conclusions from the Chamber of Comptes. It would take a long time to mention it precisely and risk being lost in the maze of data. But, in essence, they serve to get closer to the melody of the report. Ubidea’s advocates often cite it to reinforce their arguments, for example, in the 2015 foreign elections. This is what the UPN website said: “A report by the Chamber of Comptes indicates that the Navarre canal has had an undisputed impact on the richness of the irritable areas and has multiplied agricultural production by four compared to land-based crops.”

After analysing the 2013 harvest, the assessment of agricultural production is fully satisfactory in the report of the Chamber of Comptes, as shown in the following data.

Type of harvest: It has increased from 3 to 48 products for irrigation. Value of production: From EUR 17.8 million to EUR 68.1 million While the productivity of dry land grows by 13 per cent, the productivity of irrigated land increases by 821 per cent. In terms of yield, if the profit was 3 million, after irrigation it is 18 million. Jobs: According to a study carried out by the Government in the period 2009-2012 in 22 operating areas, 12 of which have increased the irrigated area, jobs have generally been lost, but the number of jobs has increased in those that have increased irrigation. At this LARRUN we asked Ignacio Gil, Director-General for Rural Development, about the following facts and the answer has been forceful: “INTIA has been selling this product for years and the Chamber of Comptes has carried out the analysis with the data provided by this company.”

The Brinquis study on agricultural production is made from another perspective and uses different years and parameters explaining why it has hecho.La Chamber of Comptos responds to the commission made by the Foral Parliament and performs mainly the audit of the accounts. These are not works in the same pamphlet, but both study the same topic and its consequences are different.

Concerning jobs, for example: Brinquis said that 227 work units have been created per year of irrigation (the report is 2012), which in his view is very little with the 8,000 jobs promised by the Government of Navarra. Another significant fact is the gross production of the 2011 harvest (production + subsidies): when it came to land it was worth EUR 14 million and after watering EUR 46 million, which is 32 million more. The price of land has also gained 120% after becoming irrigated.

Water The FNCA Foundation published in February of this year the report Alternatives of habits and irrigation in the southern bank of Navarra. It strongly criticised the report of the Chamber of Comptes: “It cannot be taken as a reference to the social and economic analysis of the First Part (…) we regret that we say that the report contains a number of inaccurate aspects, and it is because the data it uses are those provided by INTIA, and until recently this institution has been the author of the project.”

Forecasts on the costs of the Second Part are also different according to the FNCA (EUR 1.070 million, construction operation and maintenance and 30 years) and the Chamber of Comptes, which maintains the data of the 1998 forecast (EUR 340 million, construction only). According to the forecasts of the Government of Barkos, the Second Parties would amount to EUR 713 million in works.

For the Foundation, the cost data of the Chamber of Comptes are underestimated because the 1991 money has not been updated, because it has not taken into account the financial expenses of the loans and also the shaded fees.

Severe CANASA

There is no doubt that, with the figures so far, the Government of Navarra is making a huge deficit with the Canal de Navarra project. In December 2015, Manu Ayerdi and Isabel Elizalde, Vice-President of the Government of Navarra and Councillor for Rural Development, attended the meeting to report on the CANASA entity, in charge of managing the channel in the Foral Parliament: In 2014 it lost EUR 8.6 million, while in 2015 it lost EUR 10.4 million in revenue. In addition, in 2015, there are a further EUR 8.5 million of a loan requested by the previous government for EUR 77 million, which is theoretically focused on the works of the Second Part.

As he explained, the public institutions had to finance half of the project, taking into account the ownership of CANASA 60% of the government of Spain and 40% of the government of Navarra; the other half would be financed from the benefits of the project. So far EUR 442 million has been spent, while public administrations have contributed EUR 330 million and CANASA has invested EUR 125 million in loans. It was a question of recovering the latter, but the project’s profit forecasts are not being met for three main reasons. Firstly, 6,000 cubic metres of water per hectare were planned, but it does not reach 5,000, thus reducing the amount of water collected by users. Secondly, in 2013 the Government of Madrid lowered the prices of renewables and the money raised from the sale of electricity fell from EUR 10.7 million to 5.4 million. And thirdly, EUR 5 million a year and 1 of the water supplies – drinking water and industry – expected from the municipalities are being billed (the example of the County of Pamplona will be explained below to better understand the latter). Consequently, CANASA is running a deficit in its usual activity and is unable to pay a loan of EUR
125 million, so that the public entities must pay both the loan.

Faced with these losses, at the request of the incumbent government of Yolanda Barcina, CANASA raised the price of water by 60% in June 2015, causing the irritation of the irrigation. In this decision you can see how a party can act with the money and dignity of the citizenship: If in CANASA in June 2015 UPN asked for a 60% rise, in June 2016, during the general election campaign, it asked the government of the change for a drop in the water price in the Ribera, claiming that the Barkos Government wanted to remove La Ribera.

The water in the canal was to solve the problems of the farmers, and in some cases it is going to do so, but the money allocated to other problems is also consumed by this whirlwind, and that is what the peasants complain about, both of them. The Department of Rural Development of the Basque Government, with a budget of EUR 63 million in 2015, allocated EUR 18.5 million to CANASA, which accounts for 29.36% of the budget, which represents an increase in the percentage. The most serious thing is that in the short term the issue has no solution and in the medium term the challenge is to reduce that percentage.

Example of the Commonwealth of the Region of Pamplona

When three or four decades ago the project of the Itoiz reservoir was launched, it was basically done to water the center and south of Navarra, but also to improve the water supply to the peoples, especially that of the Region of Pamplona, the Center and the Ribera. The head of the city should be thirsty if this infrastructure is not implemented in the future. Therefore, the Region of Pamplona, at the end of the canal of Navarra, reserved a significant amount of water.

In 2006 CANASA and the Community signed a contract offering an annual offer of 22.5 million cubic metres for EUR 1.2 million. The region of Pamplona did not need so much water from the canal of Navarra, it hardly uses it from this source and especially in summer, but it was signed. Consequently, the Community has since paid CANASA EUR 1 million a year.

Most of the water consumption in the Community of the Region of Pamplona is supplied by the springs of Arteta and Subiza and the reservoir of Eugi: A total of 27.5 million cubic meters (2014 data) and EUR 302,903 have been paid, resulting in a consumption of 1.9 million cubic meters (6.9%) from the Canal de Navarra and EUR 1 million. The comparison does not require any other comment, but it is clear that the water of the Navarre canal is gold. The opinion article by Koldo Amezketa (UPN, Mancomunidad y el agua de Navarra), published by EH Bildu in April of this year, explains well the contract between the Commonwealth and CANASA.

In this respect, the new leaders of the Commonwealth, EH Bildu, have called for the renewal of the convention. According to the State attorney, such a pact cannot be renewed, it should be broken and made a new one. That is what the Community of the Region of Pamplona has done, which has broken it, and UPN has denounced it harshly, saying that Pamplona can run out of water in summer.

Supply and demand

UPN has also denounced that EH Bildu does not want to understand in the Commonwealth Agreement that the construction of the Navarre canal should be included. And there is, in fact, the problem: that it was not true that the County of Pamplona needed that water and that, therefore, the inhabitants of the area are financing an infrastructure that they did not need. Between 2006 and 2014 it paid CANASA a fixed amount of EUR 8.3 million and EUR 295,255 for water consumption. Where there was no problem, they brought the problem. And the same thing throughout Navarre.

Basically, Ura, as the FNCA denounces, works with a vision of supply and not with demand. That is, “we will make a canal, we will have water and then we will offer it to the users”. The Foundation therefore demands that this model be modified and that any infrastructure built be based on existing demand. Once completed, the benefits of the Navarre canal are evident. The point is that similar objectives could be achieved with other alternatives and that the canal project has left no room or money for any other alternative.

What about the peasants?

In society as a whole, as well as in the peasants, there were a number of heads. In the trade union sphere, the agricultural union UAGN has always enthusiastically defended the Itoiz dam and the Navarra canal and EHNE have been against it. More products are produced and production has increased significantly in some products, such as maize that has become the owner and master (34% of total production in 2015). David Palacios participated in a report of the Diario de Navarra in 2012 where he clearly gathered the arguments of his supporters: “Increased security, product choice and crop change, and increased production, profitability and competitiveness. In short, more opportunities to face the future.”

In the same report, the farmer Carlos Guembe makes a similar assessment, but more adjusted to the reality: “We win economically and in production, but everything requires more attention and the work multiplies; there are also more expenses, water, depreciation, canons… A good harvest of land, that would be the final result.”

An EHNE manager had a different perspective in the 2014 interview in Berria: “Most farmers have opted for monoculture of crops. In addition, a high percentage of farmers who have installed the canal water catchment system do not use water, and many others have not made the necessary investment for its implementation, especially because of its high price”. It was Ignacio Gil, who is currently the general director of the Department of Rural Development, who was interviewed on these pages.

Gil had also spoken in that interview: “We think they want to exploit the full capacity of the Itoiz reservoir [the Barcina government]. We think they're going to use or sell up to the last drop of the swamp. They want to make a clear session of privatization of public water use.” At that time, he could not imagine that he was in the Government of Navarre among those who decided what to do with the 117 cubic hectometers that the swamp of Itoiz has reserved for the future.

What the farmer pays

Theoretically, the investment of the Navarra channel is paid equally between the public institutions – the governments of Navarre and Spain – and the users. The FNCA summarises what farmers pay:

– Each must prepare its own ground with the irrigation system it chooses to do so. The First Part had public subsidies of 35 per cent. On average, around EUR 4,000 per hectare.
– In order for irrigation to be carried out under pressure, a network must be set up and for this infrastructure some EUR 700 per hectare must be paid in advance.
– Fixed annual quantity CHE, CANASA and Aguacanali: EUR 132,31.
– Water consumption depending on its use: EUR 0,0307 per cubic metre.
For all these reasons, the farmer who planted one hectare of maize will pay EUR 316 per year with 6,000 cubic metres of water per unit of production.

Despite the opinions, it is clear that not all farmers are complying with the water consumption of the CANASA forecasts, moreover, they are a long way away. The public company was expecting EUR 5 million from users and is only getting EUR 1 million.

And now what?

The First Tranche of the Canal de Navarra has been implemented and the Extension Tranche is advanced. We must now take care of their management as adequately as possible. But what about the Second Part? Given this situation, there is already some data available to look to the future with other eyes, in order to respond in a more orderly way possible to the questions that have to be answered.

Many variables remain around the issue. On the one hand, the economic crisis came to a standstill and the Spanish Government does not have much interest in tackling the Second Part of the Endesa League. An UPN government would put pressure on him and advance money, as he did in other infrastructures, but now there is no such government.

Moreover, the CANASA deficit in recent years has been increasing. This will be decisive for the Second Part. Not only that, but it will be decisive that so far not as much water is being used as had been planned. And it will also be crucial that there is more and more talk about alternatives.

The year 2017 will be a year to talk about all of this. The Department of Rural Development will table its analysis, which will also be key to trying to improve the water supply to the south of the Ribera de Navarra. Following the analysis, the Department wishes to give the whole year to a broad participatory process in which farmers are the main protagonists of the debate. And then we'll see.

The FNCA Foundation has already put its point of view on the table in the following document, available on the Internet: Alternatives of action and irrigation in the Southern Bank of Navarra. On the debate on the second phase of the Canal de Navarra. At the end of the study, the following options are indicated on the projects currently on the table. We left them to the end of this LARRUN, so that the reader can have an overview of possible future departures.

– Part II of the Channel of Navarra. With the many reasons set out in the report, the Foundation strongly opposes this alternative and considers it unfeasible.
– Driving Pitillas to the Ribera. There has also been talk of the submersible pipe that would be seen from the well of Pitillas to the Ribera. This road would take industrial and potable water. The cost would be much lower than that of the Second Party and would be resolved in much less time. The quality of drinking water in some areas of the Ribera is not as good as desired today, as in the case of Tudela, and this solution would fulfill the historic claim of the Ribera.
– Optimise existing resources. There are a number of resources that, in addition to improving, should improve their management: In the sources of Queiles/Val and El Ferial there is quality water. Consideration should be given to whether these waters could be used for drinking in summer. Unify the eleven present into a single community; it would also be possible for there to be a few rocks. It should be analyzed whether the quality water currently used for irrigation can be taken to the beverage. Water The FNCA bets on the latter.

Take care of the water you love

These and others will take place in the broad debate that is to be held in 2017. In any case, one thing is quite clear now and that is a great deal: the present Government of Navarre will not support the pretension of an era of the Second Part, that is, a channel that will run over the surface with characteristics similar to yours. The alternative to the pipeline is there, but in the NFCA report it is only mentioned as water from the peoples. And for irrigation? How much water does it take to drive to irrigation? The Government of Navarra, for its part, hopes that this information will help the participatory process of the TAV.

On the contrary, the draft of the Second Part, touched but not yet buried, if UPN, PSN and pp arrived at the Government of Navarra, the doors to the old project would be opened again. In Gipuzkoa, the Zubieta incinerator, for its part, was similar. The project was developed by the PNV and EH Bildu came to the Diputación just as construction works of the plant began. It paralysed the project and few thought that the incinerator project would be recovered. The PNV and the PSE resumed their mandate in the 2015 forced elections and resumed the Zubieta incinerator project.

After the citizens, and especially the farmers, speak, decisions will therefore come at the end of the legislature. There is something to be corrected in all this hard adventure of the Canal de Navarra Itoiz, because water is too valuable for it to be left in the hands of companies, as has so far happened in the Canal de Navarra. With investments of hundreds of millions of euros, the construction companies have made a good start, and after the works, the area of irrigation has been left to private companies. Here and there, when the trend of water privatization is increasing, citizens will have to take special care of the greater good of life, because without water there is no life.