The first task group (TG) of the project, which has included various activities of different kinds, has as its main objective to know the state of the art of vineyard landscapes both from the point of view of their assessment and landscape characterisation and of the green infrastructure (GI) -present or not- in these agricultural systems, to identify the legal aspects, barriers and existing limitations for the implementation, by winegrowers and wineries, of Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) that generate GI, and to design a methodology to assess the ecosystem services (ESS) in two comparative models of vineyard landscapes (traditional and green), in order to determine the best practices for their management, and to design a methodology to assess the ecosystem services (Ecosystem Services (ESS) in two compared wine-growing landscape models (traditional and green), in order to determine best practices for their management.
The work has been developed along three main lines, ranging from the review and analysis of IV and ecological management projects in vineyards (activity 1.1), through the characterisation of vineyard landscapes in the experimental areas of ECOSPHEREWINES and evaluation of their values (activity 1.2) and, finally, a study of accelerators and constraints to the implementation of SBN and IV (activity 1.3).
Firstly, research projects funded between 2014 and 2023 in the SUDOE Space were analysed, aligned with the themes of the ECOSPHEREWINES project, the results of which can be found in the report of activity A1.1. Complete information was obtained on 53 research projects, most of which focused on biodiversity, climate change and vineyard management, and funded mainly by European calls such as HORIZON and LIFE. An analysis of the distribution of these projects among the participating countries was also carried out (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Map of the number of projects by nation since 2014.
The projects grouped under these characteristics had an average duration of 40 months and an average funding of 1.6 million euros. The studies include vineyards and, to a lesser extent, olive groves and natural areas, considering areas of high ecological value in their analyses (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Example of analysis of the most repeated words in the analysis of the main crop in research projects.
Most address agricultural competitiveness and environmental protection, with a focus on sustainability, climate change resilience and ecological connectivity. Practices such as vineyard strips and buffer zones, cover crops and inter-plot copses are highlighted. It also reflects barriers to the implementation of green infrastructure (GI) and nature-based solutions (NBS), mainly social, technical and economic. Overall, the report provides a basis for orienting and discussing future actions of ECOSPHEREWINES in its pilot areas.
In a second step, a comprehensive analysis of vineyard landscapes was carried out in four ECOSPHEREWINES pilot areas: Mariñas-Betanzos (ES), Arribes del Duero (ES), Alto Douro (PT) and Gaillac-Tarn (FR). Using a systematic methodology and the Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) approach, we sought to understand the distinctive character of these landscapes, considering natural, historical and social factors.
The process included:
1.Definition of study areas, scale of analysis and assessment of necessary resources (action surfaces, agents and population involved), together with the geolocation of the experimental areas. For each experimental area, landscape units (LUs) were created by means of a geomorphological analysis using geographic information systems.
2.Characterisation of the UPs where the experimental vineyard is located, analysing natural and socio-cultural elements using GIS sources and specific bibliography. Standardised cards were elaborated to facilitate comparison between the four areas.
3.Field work and public participation in perception workshops, allowing the identification of landscape values and the collection of opinions from the local population on the character of each UP (Photos 1).
Photos of the landscape perception workshops in Mariñas-Betanzos (Spain), Galliac-Tarn (France), Arribes del Duero (Spain) and Douro (Portugal).
The result of this second step was a standard cartographic base and a detailed understanding of the vineyard landscapes in each experimental area (see Figure 3, example of the results of the landscape units detected in each experimental area).
Figure 3. Example of mapping resulting from the landscape identification analysis of the landscape units defined for each experimental area.
Finally, after characterising the landscapes and green infrastructure in vineyards, barriers and opportunities for their implementation were identified (activity 1.3). In general, all regions highlight common barriers such as social barriers like competition for resources and depopulation, as well as technical limitations due to lack of knowledge and communication. However, the promotion of environmental values and an improved brand image were highlighted as key accelerators.
In addition, through the results of project reviews, interviews and surveys, area-specific challenges and opportunities were also highlighted:
Gaillac-Tarn (France): recognises the potential of green infrastructure for biodiversity, yet faces legislative challenges.
Arribes del Duero (Spain): Climate change and high costs are obstacles, despite partial implementation of green infrastructure.
Douro (Portugal): Familiar with green infrastructure, but constrained by limited government support, with optimism for the future.
Mariñas-Betanzos (Spain): Factors such as wine tourism and demand for sustainability could boost green infrastructure, promoting the local economy.
From these workshops, solutions are also proposed to strengthen the drivers of green infrastructure in each area, considering productive, economic, social and environmental aspects. These proposals are the starting point for a Strategy and Action Plan to foster a network of green infrastructure in ecologically valuable vineyards, encompassing their ecological, productive, economic and cultural functions in the project. Although the proposed solutions are specific to each particular area, many of them are transversal to common problems that encompass both cultural and environmental ecosystem services such as the simplification of bureaucracy, the promotion of sustainable wine tourism and vineyard promotion or the recovery and diversification of vineyards.
Currently, work continues within this work package on the definition of a methodology for the calculation and mapping of ecosystem services after the different IV actions in the pilots.