Category Archives: Rural Development

The role of social capital, leadership and policy arrangements in rural regional development

Posted on by

Social capital and the role of leadership therein can play an important role in rural regional development and can be stimulated by specific policy arrangements. This conclusion was drawn from an analysis of in-depth case studies of 12 European regions. The empirical material was gathered in the context of a large European research project on regional development, ETUDE, carried out by RSO and other research groups in six European countries.

Leadership is the heart of social capital and -like a stone in the water- it creates rings of waves. Social capital is a segment of a wider circle of what is called ‘the rural web’. The rural web captures the interrelations between different domains of rural development: endogeneity, novelty, production, social capital, market governance, new institutional arrangements and sustainability Social capital and nested forms of leadership can play a role as initiator, lubricant and outcome in rural development.

Leadership helps to raise awareness, to mobilize actors, to generate innovations, and to bridge and bond public and private actors. Leaders bridge the distance between their own innovative network and the existing institutions, and constantly switch between networks and related cultures, logics and languages.

Regional competitiveness and quality of life are enhanced in those situations where there is an effective interplay between leadership, social capital and policy arrangements. Policy arrangements can play a constraining role towards social capital but also function as a lubricant. In order to play this last role under the following conditions: a) purposive local government; b) the use of European funds and programmes; c) cooperation, cohesion and coordination at the regional level (public-public as well as public-private). Factors such as ‘localism’ and lack of social capital can seriously undermine regional cooperation. An underlying shared regional storyline can foster regional coherence.

The cases show that the way to achieve sustainable development is highly context-dependant – however, this should not discourage us from developing a more robust theory of social capital and leadership, in its central and dynamic role as a motor for rural regional development. For more information the full paper can be downloaded: http://www.brass.cf.ac.uk/uploads/WP58.pdf, or send a mail to lummina.horlings@wur.nl.

Boer-burger ontmoetingen – een essay

Posted on by

In opdracht van het Trendbureau Overijssel hebben we met vijf collega’s van Rurale Sociologie een essay geschreven over boer-burger relaties. Samen met drie andere essays (door Jandirk Hoekstra van H+N+S, Tia Hermans van Alterra en Geert Boosten van Stichting DoTank) en een LEI-rapport over landbouw in Overijssel moet ons essay bijdragen aan een discussie in provinciale staten en gemeenteraden over de toekomst van de landbouw in Overijssel. De vijf bijdragen worden t.z.t. op de website van het Trendbureau geplaatst bij het onderdeel Toekomst verkenning landbouw.

Onze bijdrage ‘Palet van boer-burger ontmoetingen‘ gaat over de wisselwerking tussen boeren en burgers en hoe boer en burger elkaar op allerlei manieren ontmoeten en met elkaar verbonden zijn in een web van relaties en gedeelde praktijken. De veelzijdigheid en dynamiek in boer-burger relaties typeren we aan de hand van zeven uiteenlopende boer-burger ontmoetingen, zijnde:

  1. Goeie buren
  2. Zorg voor en met elkaar
  3. Gezamenlijk natuur- en landschapsbeheer
  4. De tegenreactie
  5. Het boerenleven beleven
  6. Streekeigen consumeren
  7. De virtuele marketing relatie

In het essay wordt e.e.a. nader toegelicht en uitgewerkt. We zien deze typering als een voorlopige schets. Een interessant vraag is in hoeverre boeren en burgers zich hier in herkennen. De vraag is ook hoe al deze ontmoetingen uitpakken voor de ontwikkeling van een gebied en of de diversiteit en dynamiek van boer-burger interacties een houvast bieden voor het (bij)sturen van ontwikkelingen.

Time Magazine about multifunctional agriculture, some thoughts about the farmers’ identity

Posted on by

While waiting for my train at Utrecht Central station – I tend to kill my time looking around in the book/magazine shop – the cover of the latest Time Magazine struck my eye, heading: “France’s Rural Revolution, traditional French farmers are dying. Can farmers make money from town dwellers’ love of the land?”. Interested about the heading – and teased by the astonishing landscape on the cover – I bought a copy for the second part of my trip to Rotterdam.

Bruce Crumley (the author) poses the question what eventually will save rural France. French farmers are hit by a shrinking agricultural sector, falling food prices (globalization) and tightening E.U. support (so called CAP reforms (Common Agricultural Policy) in 2013). These developments are not exclusive to France, farmers in many other E.U. member states are facing these problems. However, future CAP reforms are considered to be critical especially to French farmers, since the French receive nearly 20% of the total CAP funding.

By illustrating the developments on three French farms the author focuses on one of the ways to get out of this tightening trap by diversifying the farm business with new (‘non-farming’) activities. A strategy also known as multifunctional agriculture. The farmers mentioned in the article developed new activities in rural tourism and the production and selling of regional products like beer and ham. Interestingly, the article has many parallels with the conversations I had myself (in relation to our research project on (Dutch) multifunctional agriculture). Apparently, many farmers (eventually) don’t regret their step on the multifunctional pathway. On the contrary, many farmers say to enjoy the new farm dynamics, contacts with new people and some even claim to have reinvented entrepreneurship. However, we needn’t to underestimate the step of ‘just’ diversifying your farm to survive. In the article colleague rural sociologist François Purseigle argues many farmers simply refuse to find new sources of income as they see diversification as a betrayal of the agricultural profession they took on. As a parallel, I experienced many interviewed Dutch farmers – who have made the step or are still hesitating in some way – have or are still struggling with their identity of being a ‘real farmer’: “It’s not just running a business” – one farmers stressed – “it’s a way of life!”. I think the notion of multifunctional agriculture has matured but still often perceived as something for losers or nothing ‘real farmers’ should deal with. Often the environments of hesitating farmers aren’t ready for this new way of farming, yet.  

The article can be found on the Time website. The page also offers a great picture gallery about the topic.

Balancing between governing styles – participatory processes in Galicia

Posted on by

By Marlies Meijer, graduated MSc-student

In previous blogs (see e.g. my second post on Planning realities in Galicia) I have written about my journey to Galicia and the difficulties and interesting views I came across while investigating planning and rural development practices there. In June this journey came to an end, I finished my master thesis and graduated (full thesis report ‘Balancing between governing styles: participatory practices in rural Galicia‘   is available online).

When writing my thesis I spent a lot of time on untangling the complex background of problems experienced in rural Galicia. Now I have been asked to write shortly about the conclusions to introduce the thesis. It is not an easy task, but I will try. 

One of the main problems in Galicia is land abandonment. Many people own land, but most parcels are too small and dispersed to manage. Due to many reasons most owners are not willing or able to maintain or sell their land. A great deal of these parcels have been afforested, with EU-subsidies. Unfortunately also forested parcels turned out to be ill-managed and not economically viable. With the implementation of forest management units the government of Galicia (Xunta) tried to tackle these problems. Within these units parcels are managed jointly, as one area. This makes forestry more economic viable and diverse; and forest fire safety measures or road construction more feasible. The most important precodition and goal of this project is the active involvement of citizens. Though this is the first participatory project in Galicia, many have been implemented in the EU. Galicia followed this example.

The problem with citizen involvement (or participatory processes) is that it takes two to tango, and sometimes even the ability of citizens to dance on their own. In Galicia the Xunta was a step ahead. Citizens did not show an endogenous will to participate actively, they were involved on paper and felt that maintenance was the task of Xunta. The Xunta conversely was very willing to make this policy a succes. Setting good examples and attracting as many owners as possible dominated. By overtaking responsibilities of owners (like administratory tasks and costs) and with charisma this process was streamlined. Nonetheless, as many interviewees responded, a participatory approach was also “the only way” to deal with problems like land abandonment or ill-managed forests. And it is true, inactive ownership forms the root of these problems and needs to be dealt with.

By studying this project it became clear that Galicia’s government was balancing between different style of governance. On the one hand are the old, clientalistic, ways of policy making in which the governments are in charge and take care of everything. On the other hand there is the new participatory approach that the Xunta aimed for when implementing the uxfor-policy. While looking for a balance, several areas of tensions emerged:

  • The policy-makers wanted to establish success quickly. By taking care of almost all aspects of implementation, it was possible to found uxfors in an efficient and quick way. However, creating active citizenship takes usually much more time and patience.
  • It was difficult to involve the citizen actively. The Xunta wanted to create active citizenship, but citizens expected the government to take care of common affairs. Citizens felt this was out of their responsibilities.
  • Land abandonment and depopulation are deep-rooted problems at the Galician countryside. The uxfor-policy tried to deal with these developments. But how can active citizenship be stimulated if the largest part of the population is well over 65, and most landowners live in other regions?

These conclusions hold close relations with other parts of Europe. Also here the participatory approach is gaining ground and are governments and citizens struggeling (in different ways) with its implementation. Depopulation and land abandonment also prevail in other marginal rural areas.

Despite the above mentioned comments on participatory processes in Galicia I respect the Xunta highly for their ability to ‘just’ do something, to start a project and not getting diluted by all kinds of problems (like bureaucracy) that might rise in the beginning.

Who’s ‘the’ farmer?

Posted on by

Yesterday (Tuesday) 42 first year students , Paul Hebinck and I visited two Dutch farms for the course ‘Agricultural and Rural Development: Sociological Perspectives’ (RSO 20806 ).

We firstly visited the multifunctional farm ‘Eemlandhoeve’ of Jan Huigen. In an inspiring talk, Jan explained about the development of the Eemlandhoeve and the future plans. The farm has different functions, such as care farming, recreation, herb production, beef production and education for schoolchildren. After a nice walk around the farm and the calming farm yard (see picture), we walked to the neighbouring farm. 

The neighbouring farm ‘Hoeve ‘t Witte Schaap’ follows another path of development: a large scale dairy farm, with about 300 dairy cows and four milking robots. For most students, it was the first time they visited such a large dairy farm. The shed is large and high, with a lot of light and fresh air. Gerrit (the farmer) talked engaged about his farm, including the technology and animals. Two workers take care of the cows and by feeding them and looking after their health. The cows are fed with grass and maize of the farm and hardly received any concentrates (only in the milking robot). The farmer applies all the manure on his land. In fact, his way of farming is not that far from organic regulations.

After both visits we gathered, where Drees of ‘Willem & Drees’ gave an inspiring talk about regional production and sale of fruit and vegetables in five regions the Netherlands.

During the discussion, the students raised interesting questions. Firstly, one of the students asked Jan Huigen ‘How much of your income comes from food production?’ This – of course – was a limited amount and several students seemed concluded that he was not ‘a real farmer’, but more an entrepreneur in the countryside. Thereafter, the large scale farmer was asked how often he was actually among his animals, which was limited, since he had two workers to take care of the animals. The students seemed to conclude that he was neither ‘a real farmer’, because he had limited animal contact. Instead, he was more a ‘manager’.

To conclude, it was an inspiring excursion, which showed two very different development paths of contemporary farming in the Netherlands and gave students a great opportunity to think about the question what a farmer is nowadays.