Enough is enough of all our political representatives telling us that the primary sector occupies a prominent and strategic place in the scale of priorities of public policies.
Enough is enough of being told that caring for the territory through agriculture is the best way to leave a lasting legacy to future generations of Canarians.
Enough is enough of talking about kilometer 0, the gastronomic promotion of our wonderful products from the primary sector, potatoes, sweet potatoes, tomatoes, grapes...
We should be grateful for so much concern and delighted with all of this, if it weren't because when public policies are articulated, from promises to deeds, there is almost always a good stretch. As an example, regarding the promotion policies through subsidies to the vine, the argument for not granting aid to farmers who request it, presenting all the required documentation, is that the administration, not having updated the wine registry, cannot contrast the cultivation areas, the ownership of the same, or other statistical data, and that's it.
The procedure for consultation, modification of data, and inclusion of vineyard plots in the Wine Registry is regulated by the order of March 19, 2002 (b.o.c.a. 38 of March 25, 2002). It states in its explanatory memorandum that it is useful as an administrative management instrument. That said registry is subject to continuous changes as a result of the actions of winegrowers who seek a renewal of their vineyards, with the aim of maintaining the profitability of their farms and increasing the quality of their wines. It also points out that there are transfers of ownership or ownership of the plots, and that this should be reflected in the Wine Registry. So far, so good.
Said order regulates the documentation to be provided to request changes of data in the wine registry or inclusions of plots in it, referring to the following supporting documents, as stated in its articles 2, 3 and 4:
- In the event of modification of data affecting the ownership of the wine farm or the ownership of the property of the plots with vineyards, deeds of ownership, lease agreement, transfer document, donation, inheritance, or any other that proves the requested modification.
- In the case of other modifications affecting the area occupied by the vineyard, the variety of the crop, etc., these must be sufficiently accredited.
- If what is intended is the inclusion of one or more plots from another existing wine farm, the deed of sale, lease agreement or document that proves the new situation.
- Finally, in the case that you want the inclusion of new vineyard plots, deed of ownership, will or document that sufficiently proves the ownership of the plot, liquidated lease agreement, in case the operator is different from the owner. So far, so good.
However, the regional administration has been demanding only duly liquidated public deeds, without any protection in the aforementioned regulations. And here, obviously, there can be no agreement.
And in case the literal wording of the aforementioned order was not sufficiently clear, Law 39/2015, of October 1, on the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations, in its article 77.1, states the following:
“The relevant facts for the decision of a procedure may be accredited by any means of evidence admissible in Law (…)
On the other hand, the aforementioned order states in its article 7 that the administration, once the inclusion or modification of data has been requested by the winegrower, has a period of six months to resolve the file, and that if it does not, the silence is positive. That is, the plot would be included or the data modified in the way that the farmer had requested. At this point, also agreed.
However, the regional administration does not feel bound by this precept, and simply understands that as long as there is no express resolution, there is no inclusion or modification of the registry data. The argument is simple... we don't have enough staff, they don't provide us with registered and liquidated deeds... and the conclusion ends up being that we don't update the registry. For them, enough! And again we are without agreement.
And all this problem becomes apparent when applying for aid to maintain the cultivation of the vineyard, agro-environmental aid (for the maintenance of shelter walls and holes), and aid to organic farming, mainly.
They are denied because the data in the wine registry does not coincide with those collected in the application, or because the plots are not registered in it, or because liquidated public deeds are not provided. And despite the fact that the farmer has requested their inclusion or modification more than six months in advance, despite the fact that they have provided the required documentation, this does not seem to move the administration the slightest bit from its initial position.
Of course, in theory the subsidy is intended to help the farmer to maintain the cultivation of vines destined for the production of wines with a protected designation of origin... well, thank goodness!!! As they say around here... “save me a baby!”
And given the critical situation, there are many winegrowers, at least from Lanzarote and La Palma, who have chosen to go to court, so that justice can speak and say whether we continue with the “sostenella y no enmendalla” of the administration, or if it is imposed, in addition to the law, common sense, although as they told me in my student days, this is not always the most common of the senses. Justice is said to be slow, but also sure. We'll see...
Signed by José González García
PALCA- LA UNION
